Content uploaded by Nischay Kumar Upamannyu
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Nischay Kumar Upamannyu on Mar 01, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
International Journal of Applied Science-Research and Review (IJAS) www.ijas.org.uk
Original Article
Effect of Corporate Image on Brand Trust and Brand Affect
Nischay K. Upamannyu*1, S.S Bhakar1 and Mansi Gupta2
1
Prestige Institute of Management, Gwalior, India
2Alumni of PIMG, Gwalior, India
A R T I C L E I N F O
Received 16 Jan. 2015
Received in revised form 08 Feb. 2015
Accepted 14 Feb. 2015
Keywords:
Corporate image,
Brand trust and brand affect,
MANCOVA.
Corresponding author: Prestige
Institute of Management, Gwalior,
India.
E-mail address:
nischay.upamannyu@gmail.com
A B S T R A C T
The objective of this research article is to investigate the relationships
between corporate image, Brand Trust and Brand Affect for Indian
banks, based on their credit card holders’ perceptions. The article also
examines the effect of demographic variables such as Age, Qualification,
Income and Gender on Brand trust and Brand Affect.
MANCOVA analysis was applied using PASW-18 to evaluate the effect
of causal effect of corporate image on Brand Trust and Brand Affect and
simultaneously the effect of categorical demographic variable on the
dependent variables Brand Trust and Brand Effect. The corporate Image
was found to have significant causal effect on both the dependent
variables Brand Trust and Brand Affect. All the demographic variables
were found to have no effect on Brand Affect and only gender was found
to have significant effect on Brand Trust. Therefore, Banks must be
careful while developing corporate image as it will also determine the
level of trust customers have on the brand and will determine the brand
affect.
© 2015 International Journal of Applied Science-Research and Review.
All rights reserved
INTRODUCTION
Many Large Banks in India use
corporate names for issuing credit card to the
consumers. The corporate names are likely to
influence consumers positively as an endorser
behind many of their products. For example,
Axis Bank, Bank of Baroda, Canara Bank,
Corporation Bank, HDFC, Canara bank, ICICI
Bank, Indian Overseas Bank, Kotak Mahindra
Bank, Punjab National Bank, SBI, Syndicate
Bank, Union Bank of India and Vijya bank.
These are the banks whose issues their credit
card by using their brand names to get customer
trust for their existing consumer. Credit cards
have come to the rescue of people with hot
pockets. They, nowadays, put their trust in the
innovation of credit card brands where they need
not carry large sums of money with them;
instead simply carry a credit card which is
linked up their bank account enabling them to
make payment without batting an eye.
It is trendy now, to make payment at a
hotel, restaurant or departmental store/mall
using a credit card. Becuae of the fear of one’s
bank account details being swiped and stolen,
more and more credit cards are made secure so
that even if a credit card is stolen, the money is
one’s bank account stay safe. Credit cards now
are of various types with different fees, interest
rates and rewarding programs. Such as a
standard credit card, premium credit card,
secured credit card, Limited purpose credit card,
charge credit card, specialty credit card and
prepaid credit card.
Banks, whose are issuing credit card
expect from consumer to evaluate their product
Upamannyu et al_______________________________________________ ISSN: 2394-9988
IJAS [2][1][2015] 020-033
more favorably by showing their corporate
names together with individual product brands.
It has been reported that customer’s
associations with a company have influence on
their product evaluations. That is, consumers’
associations with a company’s corporate agility
and its corporate social responsibility influences
product evaluations (Brown and Dacin 1997)5;
(Sen and Bhattacharya 2001)31. For example,
consumers will evaluate credit card having seen
the band corporate image if they feel about the
banks that they honest, giving quick respond,
error free work, different schemes over the
cards, so customer more favorably toward the
credit cards as their corporate image Improve.
This research investigates the
relationship between company’s corporate
image, Brand Trust and Brand Affect towards
various brands of credit cards in India. Data for
this research were collected from 200 consumers
through survey method. They were asked to
provide their perceptions on various cards for
each of 10 Indian Banks.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Corporate image
All the organizations have unique image
and this image is formed on the basis of
perception of its stakeholders, whether the
organization does good jobs for them or not to
do but the image of each organization would be
“unique” in nature. To the greatest extent, this
image influence stakeholders’ reactions to
specific corporate actions, products or stores.
Corporate image are exclusively perceived as
the mental image of an organization. Which are
constituted bases on perceiving characteristics of
the organization is what we refers to as the
“Corporate image”. Corporate image is an
overall perception of the company held by
different segments of the public (Corporate
image is an overall perception of the company
held by different segments of the public
(Villanova, Zinkhan and Hyman, 1990)36.
Through this definition, there are two main key
phrases that are keenly understandable. The first
is “Overall perception” and second one is
“Different segments”. Overall perception is
developed through what the organization is
likely to do for its stakeholders in terms of
benefits, what the benefits the stakeholders seek
in the view of stockholder, board director,
employee, supplier, channel members, customer
and community. That contributes to overall
perception of these stakeholders. Second one is
the how the organization deals in the different
segment of public where the organization
encounters with the stakeholders.
Since a corporate’s image affects
stakeholders’ behavior, organization strives to
develop and manage their image for several
reasons, including just like as to excite the sales,
establishing company goodwill, creating and
developing employee identity, inspiring investor
for investing their money for seeking their
benefits, influencing financial institutions.
Whenever fund is required, the fund from a
financial institution can be arranged, maintain
positive relation with the community,
government, special interest groups and other
opinion leaders and caring position having
showed competitive advantage.
Brand trust
Brand trust is a security and feeling of
safety of the customer that is held by the
customer, wherever, customer interaction takes
place with brand characteristics and that
characteristic is based on promises and
commitment of the brand in view of the
customer in the context of reliability, sense of
responsibility and benefits toward the
community welfare.
In consonance with the literature review,
our definition of brand trust also incorporates
all-important facets of trust that researchers
include in their operationalization of the
construct such as beliefs about the viability and
intentionality. The first dimension of viability is
technical nature and concerned with the belief of
individual that brand will full fill its promises.
This is just a perception of an individual with the
respect of the brand. In our opinion, this
dimension is an integral aspect of brand trust
which indicates that brand as a promise of future
performance (Deighton 1992)10.
Second dimension is intentionality,
reflects an emotional security on the part of
individuals. An individual starts trusting on the
emotional assurance which is given by brand
that it will take care of the customer. McAllister
Upamannyu et al_______________________________________________ ISSN: 2394-9988
IJAS [2][1][2015] 020-033
(1995)23 defined as “the degree to which an
individual is confident and eager to act on the
basis of the words, actions and results of others”.
Brand affect
Brand affect and brand trust both the
elements seem to be similar but there is certainly
a huge difference between these two confusing
dimensions. Brand affect is the power of the
brand which elicit the emotional experience of
the consumer. Brand affect is the relationship
between consumer and brand. This relationship
is developed due to strong bounding based on
evaluation of attributes of the brand. This
bonding is constituted due to the experience of
the customer with brands.
In other words, it can be described as
consumers’ emotional response towards a brand
in consequence of having an experience with the
brand. Therefore, we suggest that the brand
affect occurs under favor of close relationship
with brands (Ebru Tumer Kabadayu & Alev
Kocak Alan, 2012)15, (Upamannyu, Nischay &
Garima Mathur, 2013)32. Brand affect is defined
as the potential in a brand to elicit a positive
emotional response in the average consumer as a
result of its usage (Chaudhuri & Holbrook,
2001)7; (Morgan & Hunt, 1994)23. In another
study, brand affect is defined as a brand's
potential to elicit a positive emotional response
in the average consumer as a result of its use
(Moorman, Zaltman & Deshpande, 1992)22.
Review of Literature
Corporate image
Corporate image is a perception about
the company and Corporate image can also be
defined as the impression of an organization
which is generated through communication
(Bernstein, 1986)3; (Zinknan, Ganesh, Jaju, &
Hayes, 2001)34; (Gray & Balmer, 1998)16. Gray
& Balmer (1998)16 found that corporate image is
as the mental picture of the corporation formed
in the minds of different section of society.
Grunig (2003)17 claimed that “corporate image
could be taken as concepts such as message,
reputation, perception, cognition, attitude,
credibility, belief, communication and
relationship”.
Barich and Kotler, (1991) 2found that
corporate image is the overall impression made
on people about an organization. Nguyen and
Leblanc (2001)24 stated that corporate image is
concerned with physical and behavioral attribute
of the firm. Physical attributes include business
name, architecture, variety of products and
service. Behavioral attributes include an
impression of quality communicated by each
person interacting with the firm's clients.
Kennedy (1977)19 found that corporate
image has two principal components: functional
and emotional. Functional component is
concerned with tangible characteristics, while
emotional component is associated with
psychological dimensions that are manifested by
evaluation, feeling and attitude towards a
company (Barich & Kotler 1991)2; (Cohen
1963)8; (Dowling 1986)14; (Pharoah 1982)26.
LeBlanc & Nguyen (1996)20 posited that
corporate image is the residual of an aggregate
process by which a customer compares and
contrasts various attributes of a company. It is
both dynamic and complex. Van Rekom
(1997)33 explored that it is the net result of the
interaction of a person’s beliefs, ideas, feelings
and impressions about an object and exists in the
mind of that person.
The key factor is the influence of
corporate image that the stakeholders experience
of the firm (Dowling, 1986)14. Gray and Balmer
(1998)16 explained that corporate image was
generated by corporate identity, Kennedy
(1977)19 found that corporate image is
dependent on communication through the
organization and corporate image is related to
tangible and intangible characteristics for
instance, the functional characteristics, physical
characteristics and emotional characteristics of
the firm. Martineau (1958)21 explored that it
consists of functional quality and psychological
Attributes. Corporate image in a service
organization includes attributes, functional
consequences and symbolic meaning (Padgett
and Allen, 1997)26.
Brand trust
Morgan & Hunt (1994)24, stated that it is
conceptualized as a notable factor in the firm’s
success. Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001)7
explored that brand trust is the willingness of the
Upamannyu et al_______________________________________________ ISSN: 2394-9988
IJAS [2][1][2015] 020-033
average consumer to rely on the ability of the
brand to perform its stated function and brand
trust has two dimensions borrowed from both
psychology and marketing fields, first,
perceived performance and second, consonance
with needs and wants of customers. Brand trust
come up after consumer’s evaluation of
companies’ offerings. If companies exude
beliefs of safety, honesty and reliability about
their brands to consumers, brand trust will be
generated subsequently (Doney & Cannon,
1997)13. It can be interpreted that brand trust is
developed, created and built by direct
experiences of consumers via brands.
Arjun & Morris (2001)1 narrated that the
trust can reduce the consumer's uncertainty,
because the consumer not only knows that brand
is worth trusting, but also feels that dependable,
safe and honest consumption scenario is the
important link of brand trust. Hiscock (2001)18
explored the “The ultimate goal of marketing is
to generate an intense bond between the
consumer and the brand, and the main ingredient
of this bond is trust”, but trust is an elusive
concept. Blackston (1992)4 defined that trust is
one component of consumer relationships with
brands.
Dawar and Pillutla (2000)9 viewed that
brand trust focuses on the perceived
performance of the brand. And described brand
trust in terms of reliability and dependability.
Moorman, Zaltman, and Deshpande (1992)23
incorporate the behavioral intention of
willingness into their definition. In our
conceptualization of brand trust, willingness is
absent because, according to Morgan and Hunt’s
(1994)24 arguments, the confidence that a
consumer can rely on the brand indeed implies
the behavioral intention to rely.
Upamannyu, Nischay et al. (2013)31,
found in his study that brand trust is dimension
which has a significant relationship with loyalty.
They also explored through brand trust,
customer loyalty is built. Rotter (1980)28
explored that trust is an important variable
affecting human relationships at all levels.
Deutsch (1973)12 explained that trust is also a
confidence that makes one brand preferred over
another. Urban et al (1996)32 found that brand
trust is undoubtedly one of the strongest tools of
making the relationships with the customers on
the internet. Casalo et al. (2007)6 found brand
trust a cognitive tool which induces emotional
response, namely brand affect. On the other
hand, brand trust leads brand loyalty (Delgado-
Ballester & Munuera – Aleman, 2001)11. It is
due to brand trust’s ability for creating a highly
valued relationship (Chaudhuri & Holbrook,
2001)7. It shows that brand loyalty is an outcome
of continual trust over the brand. It means when
customer continuously uses a particular brand
because he or she trust over the brand. The
outcome of this practice of consumer will be
loyalty that will start unintentionally.
Brand affect
Chaudhri & Holbrook (2001)7 suggested
that brand affect is a positive response of
consumer after its usage and narrated that
difference between brand trust and brand affect
is thus: brand trust is viewed as a long process
which can be occurred by thought and
consideration of consumer experiences. While
brand affect is consisted of impulsive feelings
which can be formed spontaneously. Moorman
et al (1992)23 stated that brand affect is defined
as a brand’s potential to elicit a positive
emotional response in the average consumer as a
result of its usage.
Upamannyu and Mathur (2013)30 found
that brand affect is having significant effect on
brand loyalty in the area of fast moving
consumer goods. Because affect emerges when
consumer use a particular brand so customer are
influenced through using the emotional
attributes of the brand.
Research problem
The research problem of the current
study was to find out facts about the corporate
image, does it work to create brand trust or
brand affect in view of the customer?
Research gaps
Research gap in the current study
existed between corporate image (independent
variable), brand trust and brand affect.
Researcher has built a proposed model for
testing. Few important questions were raised
such as:
Will a change of a company’s corporate
image influence consumer attitudes toward
Upamannyu et al_______________________________________________ ISSN: 2394-9988
IJAS [2][1][2015] 020-033
brand included in the company’s brand
portfolio?
Will a corporate image influence brand trust
and brand affect similarly?
Both marketers and marketing
researchers are interested in these question
considering that there are a number of different
product brands in many large companies than
ever before are spending money in corporate
social responsibility initiatives.
Objective of the current study
To design and re-standardize measures for
evaluating corporate image, brand trust and
brand affect.
To identify the underlying factors of
corporate image, Brand Trust and Brand
Affect.
To evaluate the effect of Corporate Image
as independent variable & Age,
Qualification, Gender, and Income as a fixed
factor on Brand Trust and Brand Affect as
the dependent variable.
Open new avenues for future research.
Hypotheses framed
H01- There is no effect of Corporate
Image of Banks as Independent variable on
Brand Trust of Credit card in India.
H02- There is no effect of Corporate
Image of Banks as Independent variable on
Brand Affect of Credit card in India.
H03- There is no effect of a demographic
variable as ‘Age’ on Brand Trust & Brand
Affect of Credit cards in India.
H04- There is no effect of a demographic
variable as ‘Qualification’ on Brand Trust &
Brand Affect of Credit Cards.
H05- There is no effect of a demographic
variable as ‘Income’ on Brand Trust & Brand
Affect of Credit Cards.
H06- There is no effect of a demographic
variable as ‘Gender’ on Brand Trust & Brand
Affect of Credit cards.
H07- There is no interaction effect of a
demographic variable as ‘Age & Qualification’
on Brand Trust & Brand Affect of Credit cards.
H08- There is no interaction effect of a
demographic variable as ‘Qualification &
Income’ on Brand Trust & Brand Affect of
Credit cards.
H09- There is no interaction effect of a
demographic variable as ‘Income & Gender’ on
Brand Trust & Brand affect of Credit cards.
H010- There is no interaction effect of a
demographic variable as ‘Age & Gender’ on
Brand Trust & Brand Affect of Credit cards.
Research Methodology
The study
The study was causal in nature and the
survey method was used for data collection. The
population of the current study was all the
customers in FMCG sector at Gwalior region for
the study.
Sample
Total Two hundred customers of
varying age group from the Gwalior City in
Madhya Pradesh participated in this study. Three
construct were used (Corporate image, Brand
Trust and Brand affect). In all, 250
questionnaires were distributed and out of them
215 were received eventually. Finally 200
questionnaires were selected as 15 were not
filled properly. The descriptive study was done
over categorical variable and the results
indicated that Age groups were isolated into four
groups e.i., 40.7% respondent in the current
study was less than 25 years old. 48.2%
respondent in the current study was between 26
to 38 years old. 10.6% respondent were in the
current study were between 39 to 48 years old
and 0.5% respondent were found to be above
from 48 years old.
The Education was second categorical
variable used in the current study and the data
was collected over this. Education was
categorized in four category i.e., 15.1%
respondent in the current study were
Intermediate, 44.7% respondents in the current
study were Graduate, 32.7% respondent in the
current study were Post Graduate and 7. %
respondent were Doctorate in the current study.
The Income was third categorical
variable used in the current study and the data
was collected over this. Income was categorized
in four different categories which were
mentioned clearly i.e., 39.7% respondent in the
Upamannyu et al_______________________________________________ ISSN: 2394-9988
IJAS [2][1][2015] 020-033
current were found to be below from Rs. 4000,
40.7% respondent in the current were found to
be between Rs 5000 – 15000, 12.6% respondent
in the current study were found to be Rs 16000 –
25000 and 7% respondent were found to be
above from Rs. 26000.
The Gender was fourth categorical
which used in the current study and the data was
collected for analyzing over this. Gender was
categorized in two different categories which
were Male and Female. The 46.2% Male was
used in the current study and the remaining were
female.
Measures
Multi scale was used to measure the 3
constructs being investigated in the current
study. The responses were collected on a Likert
type scale of 1 to 5 for all the variables. The
measures were tested for reliability and validity.
Content validity of measures was established
through a panel of judges before using the
measures for collecting data for the current
study.
Corporate image was assessed through
the five item scale of adopted from Lemmink et
al. (2003)21. The value of Croanbach’s alpha for
the scale was reported as 0.95 in the previous
research and in the current study it was reported
as 0.797 (see table 1.) The seven items were
taken. The items were: (1) This company
employs talented people (2) This company
actively support local communities (3) This
company is financially sound (4) This company
often introduces new products (5) This company
has the strong marketing capability (6) This
company is well managed and (7) This company
offer high quality products. The items were
measured in previous research using a 7-point
Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree)
to 7 (Strongly agree). But little change was made
in the current study regarding the sensitivity of
Likert scale. The sensitivity of Likert scale was
changed in the current study to see the confusion
of the respondent hence, the maximum
sensitivity on construct was reduced from 7 to 5.
Brand Trust was assessed through the
three item scale adopted from Chaudhuri and
Holbrook (2001)7. The value of Croanbach’s
alpha for the scale was reported as 0.97 in the
previous research and in the current study it was
reported as 0.823 (see table 1.) The five items
were taken. Brand Trust used Three 7 point
Likert scale items (1) Trust this brand (2) I rely
on this brand (3) This is an honest brand.
Brand affect was also assessed through
adapted from Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001)7.
The value of Croanbach’s alpha for the scale
was reported as 0.87 in the previous research
and in the current study it was reported as 0.887
(see table 1.) Three 7 point Likert scale items (1)
I feel better when I use this brand (2) This brand
makes me happy and (3) This brand gives me
pleasure.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Reliability test of corporate image, brand trust
and brand affect
Nunnally (1978)27 recommended that
instruments used in basic research have a
reliability of about 0.70 or better. The reliability
was computed by using PASW 18 software. The
Croanbach’s Alpha reliability test was applied to
compute reliability coefficients for all the items
in the questionnaire. (See table 1.)
It is considered that the reliability, value
more than 0.7 is considered good enough. The
Croanbach’s Alpha reliability value of Corporate
Image of Bank, Brand Trust and Brand Affect of
credit card were found to be 0.797, 0.888 &
0.887 which are higher than the standard value
0.7. Therefore, all the questionnaires can be
treated as reliable in the current study.
Factor analysis of corporate image
Kaiser Meyer Olkin Measure of
sampling adequately indicated KMO Value of
0.588 which indicated that the sample size was
good enough for the current study. KMO value
above 0.5 are considered to be good enough to
consider the data as normally distributed and
therefore suitable for exploratory factor analysis.
(See table 2.)
Bartlett’s test of sphericity which tested
the null hypothesis that the item to correlation
matrix based on the responses received from
responded for Corporate Image of Banks was an
Identity Matrix. The Bartlett’s test was evaluated
through the Chi - square test which are having
value of Chi-square 142.381 which is significant
at 0.000 level of significance, indicating that null
Upamannyu et al_______________________________________________ ISSN: 2394-9988
IJAS [2][1][2015] 020-033
hypothesis is rejected. Therefore, it is clear that
the item to item correlation, not an identity
matrix and the data were normally distributed
and data were suitable for factor analysis.
Principal component analysis of corporate image
Principal Component Analysis (PCA)
was applied on the corporate Image data
collected on the Banks in India. The PCA with
Kaiser Normalization and Varimax Rotation
converged on three factors after Four iterations.
(See table 3.)
Factor analysis of brand trust
Kaiser Meyer Olkin Measure of
sampling adequately indicated KMO Value of
0.734 which indicated that the sample size was
good enough for the current study. KMO value
above 0.5 are considered to be good enough to
consider the data as normally distributed and
therefore suitable for exploratory factor analysis.
(See table 4.)
Bartlett’s test of sphericity which tested
the null hypothesis that the item to correlation
matrix based on the responses received from
responded for Brand Trust was an Identity
Matrix. The Bartlett’s test was evaluated through
the Chi - square test which are having value of
Chi-square 347.010 which is significant at 0.000
level of significance, indicating that null
hypothesis is rejected. Therefore, it is clear that
the item to item correlation, not an identity
matrix and the data were normally distributed
and data were suitable for factor analysis.
Principal component analysis of brand trust
Principal Component Analysis (PCA)
was applied on the Brand Trust data collected on
the Brand by credit card. The PCA with Kaiser
Normalization and Varimax Rotation converged
no iterations. (See table 5.)
Factor analysis of brand affect
Kaiser Meyer Olkin Measure of
sampling adequately indicated KMO Value of
0.746 which indicated that the sample size was
good enough for the current study. KMO value
above 0.5 are considered to be good enough to
consider the data as normally distributed and
therefore suitable for exploratory factor analysis.
(See table 6.)
Bartlett’s test of sphericity which tested
the null hypothesis that the item to correlation
matrix based on the responses received from
responded for Brand Affect was an Identity
Matrix. The Bartlett’s test was evaluated through
the Chi - square test which are having value of
Chi-square 332.700 which is significant at 0.000
level of significance, indicating that null
hypothesis is rejected. Therefore, it is clear that
the item to item correlation, not an identity
matrix and the data were normally distributed
and data were suitable for factor analysis.
Principal component analysis of brand affect
Principal Component Analysis (PCA)
was applied on the Brand Affect data collected
on the Credit card of Indian Banks. The PCA
with Kaiser Normalization and Varimax
Rotation converged with no iterations. (See table
7.)
Multivariate analysis (MANCOVA)
Multivariate MANCOVA was applied
to evaluate the effect of Corporate Image as
independent variable and Age, Qualification,
Income and Gender as fixed factors and Brand
Trust and Brand Affect was treated as dependent
variables. (See table 8.)
Box’s test of equality of covariance
matrix indicates that the value of ‘F’ is 1.768
which is significant at the 0 % level of
significance. The null hypothesis that the
observed covariance matrices of the dependent
variables are equal across groups is therefore
rejected. (See table 9.)
To select appropriate Post Hoc test
Levene’s test of equality of error variances was
applied. The null hypothesis that the error
variance of the dependent variable (Brand Trust)
is equal across groups was tested using ‘F’ test.
The value of ‘F’ was found to be 1.468 which is
significant at the 3.5 % level of significance,
indicating that Null hypothesis is rejected at the
5 % level of significance. The null hypothesis
that the error variance of the dependent variable
(Brand Affect) is equal across groups was tested
using ‘F’ test. The value of ‘F’ was found to be
1.153 which is significant at the 24.9 % level of
significance, indicating that Null hypothesis is
not rejected at the 5 % level of significance.
Since the no. of groups for the dependent
Upamannyu et al_______________________________________________ ISSN: 2394-9988
IJAS [2][1][2015] 020-033
variable are very large (4*4*4*2*5), the error
variance of the dependent variable was in any
case likely to be unequal and post hoc tests that
are available and are suitable for equal variances
among groups were used. (See table 10.)
The Multivariate MANCOVA model fit
is indicated by Adjusted R2 separately for all the
two dependent variables under test. The adjusted
R2 value of the dependent variable Brand Trust
of credit card was found to be 0.256, value of
adjusted R2 for dependent variable Brand Affect
of Credit card was found to be 0.259 for the
current model. The model fit values for all the
two dependent variables were tested using an
ANOVA test.
Corrected model of (Brand Trust of
Credit card) has been tested for best fit using ‘F’
test having a value of 3.006 which is significant
at 0.000 level of significance that indicating the
model with Independent variable (Corporate
Image), demographics variable as fixed factors
and Brand Trust ad dependent variable has high
fit.
Corrected model of the Brand Affect of
credit card has been tested for best fit using ‘F’
test having a value of 3.038 which is significant
at the 0.000 % level of significance; indicating
that the model with the Independent,
demographics variable as fixed factor and the
Brand Affect of credit card as dependent
variable has high fit.
H01- There is no effect of Corporate Image of
Bank as Independent variable on Brand Trust of
Credit card of Banks
The effect of Independent variable
‘Corporate Image of Bank’ on Brand Trust of
credit card was tested using ANOVA; the value of
F was found to be 41.475, significant at the 0.000
% level of significance. Therefore, the null
hypothesis is rejected at the 5 % level of
significance, indicating that there is strong
significant effect of Independent variable as
‘Corporate Image’ of the Bank on Brand trust of
credit card in respect of Bank.
H02- There is no effect of Corporate Image of
banks as Independent variable on Brand Affect
of credit card
The effect of Independent variable
‘Corporate Image of Bank’ on Brand Affect of
credit card was tested using ANOVA; the value of
F was found to be 51.833, significant at the 0.000
% level of significance. Therefore, the null
hypothesis is rejected at the 5 % level of
significance, indicating that there is strong
significant effect of Corporate image as
Independent variable on Brand Affect in the
context of Corporate image of the bank.
H03- There is no effect of a demographic
variable as ‘Age’ on Brand Trust & Brand
Affect of Bank
The effect of Demographic variable ‘Age’
on Brand Trust & Brand affect of credit card was
tested using ANOVA; the value of ‘F’ was found
to be 1.277, significant at the 30.2 % level of
significance. Therefore, the null hypothesis is not
rejected at the 5 % level of significance, indicating
that there is no effect of ‘Age’ on Brand trust.
The value of was ‘F’found to be 1.341,
significant at the 26.3 % level of significance.
Therefore, the null hypothesis is not rejected at the
5 % level of significance, indicating that there is
no ‘Age’ on Brand Affect.
H04- There is no effect of a demographic
variable as ‘Qualification’ on Brand Trust &
Brand Affect of credit card
The effect of Demographic variable
‘Qualification’ on Brand Trust & Brand Affect
was tested using ANOVA; the value of ‘F’ was
found to be 0.214, significant at the 88.6 % level
of significance. Therefore, the null hypothesis is
not rejected at the 5 % level of significance,
indicating that there is no effect of ‘Qualification’
on Brand Trust.
The value of F was found to be 0.012,
significant at 99.6% level of significance.
Therefore, the null hypothesis is not rejected at the
5 % level of significance, indicating that there is
no effect of ‘Qualification’ on Brand Affect of
credit card.
H05- There is no effect of a demographic
variable as ‘Income’ on Brand Trust & Brand
Affect of Credit card
The effect of Demographic variable
‘Income’ on Brand Trust & Brand Affect of credit
card was tested using ANOVA; the value of F was
found to be.817, significant at 48.6% level of
significance. Therefore, the null hypothesis is not
Upamannyu et al_______________________________________________ ISSN: 2394-9988
IJAS [2][1][2015] 020-033
rejected at the 5% level of significance, indicating
that there is no effect of ‘Income’ on Brand Trust
of credit card in context of the Bank.
The value of F was found to be 1.617,
significant at the 18.7% level of significance.
Therefore, the null hypothesis is not rejected at the
5% level of significance, indicating that there is no
effect of ‘Income’ on Brand Affect of credit card.
H06- There is no effect of a demographic
variable as ‘Gender’ on Brand Trust & Brand
Affect of Credit card
The effect of Demographic variable
‘Gender’ on Brand Trust & Brand Affect was
tested using ANOVA; the value of F was found to
be 2.912, significant at the 03.6 % level of
significance. Therefore, the null hypothesis is
rejected at the 5 % level of significance, indicating
that there is a significant effect of ‘Gender’ on
Brand Trust. The results indicating clearly that
Male and female are having significantly varying
in terms of Brand trust of credit card.
The value of F was found to be. 307,
significant at the 82.0 % level of significance.
Therefore, the null hypothesis is not rejected at the
5 % level of significance, indicating that there is
no effect of ‘Gender’ on the Brand affect of credit
card.
H07- There is no interaction effect of a
demographic variable as ‘Age & Qualification’
on Brand Trust & Brand Affect of credit cards
issued by Banks
The interaction effect of Demographics
variable as ‘Age & Qualification’ on Brand trust
& Brand affect of credit card was tested using
ANOVA; the value of F was found to be 0.484.
Which is significant at the 78.8 % level of
significance. Therefore, the Null hypothesis is not
rejected at the 5 % level of significances,
indicating that there is no interaction effect of
Demographics variables ‘Age & Qualification’ on
Brand Trust of credit card.
The value of F was found to be 0.329.
Which is significant at the 89.5 % level of
significance. Therefore, the Null hypothesis is not
rejected at the 5 % level of significances,
indicating that there is no interaction effect of
Demographics variable as ‘Age & Qualification’
on Brand Affect of credit cards of Bank.
H08- There is no interaction effect of a
demographic variable as ‘Qualification &
Income’ on Brand Trust & Brand Affect of
credit cards of Banks
The interaction effect of Demographics
variable as ‘Qualification & Income’ on Brand
Trust & Brand affect of Credit card was tested
using ANOVA; the value of F was found to be
0.742. Which is significant at the 59.3 % level of
significance. Therefore, the Null hypothesis is not
rejected at the 5 % level of significances,
indicating that there is no interaction effect of
Demographics variable as ‘Qualification &
Income’ on Brand Trust of credit cards.
The value of F was found to be 0.379.
Which is significant at the 86.3 % level of
significance. Therefore, the Null hypothesis is not
rejected at the 5 % level of significances,
indicating that there is no interaction effect of
Demographics variable as ‘Qualification &
Income’ on Brand Affect of credit card.
H09- There is no interaction effect of a
demographic variable as ‘Income & Gender’ on
Brand Trust & Brand Affect of credit cards
The interaction effect of Demographics
variable as ‘Income & Gender’ on Brand Trust &
Brand Affect of credit card was tested using
ANOVA; the value of ‘F’ was found to be 0.759.
Which is significant at the 58 % level of
significance. Therefore, the Null hypothesis is not
rejected at the 5 % level of significances,
indicating that there is no interaction effect of
Demographics variable as ‘Income & Gender’ on
Brand trust of credit cards.
The value of F was found to be 1.429.
Which is significant at the 21.6% level of
significance. Therefore, the Null hypothesis is not
rejected at the 5% level of significances,
indicating that there is no interaction effect of
Demographics variable as ‘Income & Gender’ on
Brand Affect of credit cards.
H010- There is no interaction effect of a
demographic variable as ‘Age & Gender’ on
Brand Trust & Brand Affect of credit cards.
The interaction effect of Demographics
variable as ‘Age & Gender’ on Brand Trust &
Brand Affect of credit cards was tested using
ANOVA; the value of F was found to be 1.877.
Which is significant at the 10.1% level of
Upamannyu et al_______________________________________________ ISSN: 2394-9988
IJAS [2][1][2015] 020-033
significance. Therefore, the Null hypothesis is not
rejected at the 5% level of significances,
indicating that there is no interaction effect of
Demographics variable as ‘Income & Gender’ on
Brand Trust of credit cards.
The value of F was found to be 1.098.
Which is significant at the 36.3% level of
significance. Therefore, the Null hypothesis is not
rejected at the 5% level of significances,
indicating that there is no interaction effect of
Demographics variable as ‘Age & Gender’ on
Brand Affect of credit cards.
Implication & Suggestion
Implication
The finding of the current study can be
used as strategic tools in the area of Marketing by
Banks with respect of Credit cards. This study is
useful for brand manager to take corrective
appropriate action with respect of establishing
corporate image. The findings of the current study
indicated that there is a significant relationship
between corporate image and brand affect. So if
the strategy of brand affect has to be implemented
over the respondent. Certainly, corporate image
should be very much stronger. The other finding
of the current study can also be used by the brand
manager which indicating corporate image is one
of the most important stimulator which effect on
brand trust of customers. So, certainly, the
corporations must understand the worth of image
for itself. Image is the perceived by the customer
which is a blend of three important stimulator i.e.,
Association, Personality and Value.
Suggestion
The current study was conducted using 200
respondents so if we increase the number of
respondents the result might be varied.
To ensure the generalization of further
research, the study should be carried out using
the larger sampling plan.
The selection of a demographic variable
should be done basis Pilot study or Focus
groups intitally, so Appropriate categorical
variable might be more suitable for the further
research. The respondent might be more
appropriate.
Non probability purposive sampling
techniques was used in the current study that
because the sample size was not bigger. But,
if the sample size is kept larger in the further
research so Probality random sampling
techniques might be used to make this study
generalized.
The respondent which was used in the current
study hail from the only Gwalior region. In
making this study more generalized the
selection of respondent ought to be done from
all the city of India.
CONCLUSION
The current study is concluded with the
finding of the current study. The results of the
current study support the results of the relationship
which were established. Corporate image is
mental picture which are perceived by the
customer in the context of the organization.
Therefore, it has been considered basis of previous
research that there should be the relationship
between corporate image and Brand Trust.
The results of the current was found to be
appropriate according previous finding regarding
the relationship between corporate image and
brand trust. The results in the current study were
found to be in line that corporate image effect
significantly on Brand trust. People first see or
measure corporate image. If the corporate image
is good in view of customer certainly, customer
trust can be won by the brand easily. Now, the
question is sprung up that how a good corporate
image can be established. For those in the current
study, the measure which was used to corporate
image in the current study include all the
dimensions which enhance the image of the
corporation such as talented employee, support to
local communities, financially sound, bringing a
new version of the product for the customer, error
free product, strong marketing capabilities.
The results of the current study also show
that corporate image not only a stimulator to set
the brand trust in the perspective of the customer,
but also it is stimulator which also has a strong
affect over brand affect. As brand affect is directly
concerned with emotional aspects of the brand
which are perceived by the customer. So the
results of the current study precisely indicated that
corporate image also effect the brand affect.
Upamannyu et al_______________________________________________ ISSN: 2394-9988
IJAS [2][1][2015] 020-033
REFERENCES
1. Arjun, C., Morris, & Holbrook, B. (2001),‟The
Chain of Effects From Brand Trust and Brand
Affect to Brand Performance: The Role of Brand
Loyalty”, Journal of Marketing , Vol. 65, pp. 81-
93.
2. Barich, H. & Kotler, P. (1991), “A framework for
marketing image management”, Sloan
Management Review, 32 (2), 94-104.
3. Bernstein, D. (1986), “Corporate image &
Reality: A critique of corporate
communications”, Eastbourne: Holt, Rinehart and
winston Ltd.
4. Blackston, M. (1992), “A brand with an attitude:
a suitable case for the treatment”, Journal of the
Market Research Society, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 231-
41.
5. Brown, Tom J. and Peter A. Dacin (1997), “The
Company and the Product: Corporate
Associations and Consumer Product Responses,”
Journal of Marketing, 61 (January), 68-84.
6. Casalo, L. V; Flavian, C. and Guinaliu, M (2007),
“The influence of satisfaction, perceived
reputation and trust on a consumer’s commitment
to a website”, Journal of Marketing
Communications, 13, 1–17.
7. Chaudhuri, A., & Holbrook, M. B. (2001), “The
chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect
to brand performance: The role of brand loyalty.
Journal of Marketing, 65(2), 81-93.
8. Cohen, R. (1963), ‘The measurement of
corporate images’, in The Corporation and Its
Publics, ed J. W. Riley, John Wiley & Sons, New
York, pp. 48-63.
9. Dawar, N. & Pillutla, M.M. (2000), “Impact of
Product-Harm Crises on Brand Equity: The
Moderating Role of Consumer Expectations,
Journal of Marketing Research, 37, May, pp.
215-226.
10. Deighton, John (1992), “The Consumption of
Performance”, Journal of Consumer Research,
362-372.
11. Delgado-Ballester, E. and Munuera-Alemán, J. L.
(2001), “Brand Trust in the Context of Consumer
Loyalty”, European Journal of Marketing, 35,
1238-1258.
12. Deutsch, M. (1973), “The Resolution of Conflict:
Constructive and Destructive Processes”, New
Haven CN: Yale University Press.
13. Doney, P. and Cannon, J.P. (1997), “An
examination of the nature of trust in buyer-seller
relationships”, Journal of Marketing, Vol.61,
April, pp. 35 – 51.
14. Dowling, G.R, (1986), “Managing your corporate
images”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol.
15, pp. 109-15.
15. Ebru Tumer Kabadayi & Alev Kocak Alan
(2012), “Brand trust and Brand effect: Their
strategic importance on brand loyalty”. Journal of
Global Strategic Management, June 11, 81-88.
16. Gray E R & Balmer J M T (1998), “Managing
Corporate Image and Corporate Reputation”,
Long Range Planning, Vol. 31, No. 5, pp. 695-
702. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0024-6301(98)
00074-0.
17. Grunig, J. (2003), "Image and substance: from
symbolic to behavioural relationships", in
Balmer, J.M.T., Greyser, S.A. (Eds), Revealing
the Corporation: Perspectives on Identity, Image,
Reputation, Corporate Branding, and Corporate-
Level Marketing, Routledge, New York, NY.
18. Hiscock, J. (2001), ‘Most trusted brand’,
Marketing, March, 32-33. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1509/jmkg.65.2.81.18255.
19. Kennedy, S.H. (1977), “Nurturing corporate
image”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 11
No. 3, pp. 120-64.
20. LeBlanc, G., and Nguyen, Nha. (1996), “Cues
Used by Customers Evaluating Corporate Image
in Service Firms,” International Journal of
Service Industry Management, 7(2), 44-56.
21. Lemmink, J., Schuijf, A. and Streukens, S. (2003)
The Role of Corporate Image and Company
Employment Image in Explaining Application
Intentions. Journal of Economic Psychology, 24,
1–15.
22. Martineau, P, (1958), “Sharper focus for the
corporate image”, Harvard Business Review, Vol.
November/ December, pp. 49-58.
23. McAllister, D.J. (1995), “Affect- and cognition-
based trust as foundations for interpersonal
cooperation in organizations, Academy of
Management Journal. 38(0), p.24–59.
24. Moorman, C., Zaltman,G. and Deshpande, R.
(1992), “Relationships Between Providers and
Users of Market Research: The Dynamics of
Trust Within and Between Organizations. Journal
of Marketing Research, 29, 314-28.
25. Morgan, Robert M. and Hunt, Shelby D. (1994),
“The commitment-trust theory of relationship
marketing”, Journal of Marketing, 58 (July), 20-
38.
26. Nguyen N., Leblanc G. (2001), Corporate Image
and Corporate Reputation in Customers’
Retention Decisions in Services [J], Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, 8, 227-36.
27. Nunnally, J. C. (1978), “Psychometric theory
(2nd ed.)”, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Upamannyu et al_______________________________________________ ISSN: 2394-9988
IJAS [2][1][2015] 020-033
28. Padgett, D. and Allen, D, (1997),
“Communicating experiences: a narrative
approach to creating service brand image”,
Journal of Advertising, Vol. 26, No. 4, pp. 49- 62.
29. Pharoah, N. (1982), ‘Corporate image research in
the brewing industry or from red revolution to
country goodness in years’, Journal of Marketing
Research Society, Vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 240-56.
30. Rotter, J. B. (1980), “Interpersonal trust,
trustworthiness, and gullibility”, American
Psychologist, 35(1), 1-7.
31. Sen, Sankar and C.B. Bhattacharya (2001), “Does
Doing Good Always Lead to Doing Better?
Consumer Reactions to Corporate Social
Responsibility,” Journal of Marketing Research,
38 (May), 225-243.
32. Upamannyu, Nischay & Garima Mathur (2013), “
Effect of brand trust, brand affect and brand
image on customer brand loyalty & customer
brand extension attitude in FMCG Sector.”
Practices & Research in Marketing, Vol. 3.
33. Upamannyu, Nischay; Amitabha Maheshwari &
Pooja Bhakuni (2013), “The impact of brand trust
on customer loyalty: A study of fmcg at Gwalior
region”. Abhinav International monthly refereed
Journal of research in Management &
Technology. Special Issue, ISSN No. 2320-0073.
34. Urban, G.L., Sultan, F., & Qualls, W.J. (2000),
Placing trust at the center of your internet
strategy, Sloan Management Review, 42, 39-49
35. Van Rekom, J. (1997), ‘Deriving an operational
measure of corporate identity’, European Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 410-422.
36. Villanova, L., Zinkhan, G.M. and Hyman, M.R.
(1990) ‘On Defining and Measuring Store
Image’, in B.J. Dunlap (ed.) Proceedings of the
Thirteenth Annual Conference of the Academy of
Marketing Science, April, pp. 466–70. New
Orleans, LA: Academy of Marketing Science.
37. Zinknan, G. M., Ganesh, J., Jaju, A., & Hayes, L.
(2001), “Corporate image: A conceptual
framework for strategic planning, American
Marketing Association, pp. 152‐160.
Table 1. Croanbach’s Alpha reliability test
No. of Variable Name of Variable Croanbach’s Alpha No. of Items
Variable 1
Corporate Image
0.797
7
Variable 2
Brand Trust
0.888
3
Variable 3
Brand Affect
0.887
3
Table 2. KMO and Bartlett's test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .588
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity
Approx. Chi-Square
142.381
Df
21
Sig.
.000
Table 3. Principal component analysis
Factor Name Eigen Value Total Variance Statement Loading value
Factor one 1.195 1.627
23.246
Ci1
Ci2
.859
.840
Factor Two 1.260 1.581
22.585
CI7
CI6
CI5
.774
.748
.468
Factor Three 1.150 1.156
16.517
CI4
CI3
.736
.724
Upamannyu et al_______________________________________________ ISSN: 2394-9988
IJAS [2][1][2015] 020-033
Table 4. KMO and Bartlett's test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .734
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity
Approx. Chi-Square
347.010
Df
3
Sig.
.000
Table 5. Principal component analysis
Factor Name Eigen Value Total Variance Statement Loading value
Factor one 2.458 2.458 81.939
BT1
BT2
BT3
.924
.912
.879
Table 6. KMO and Bartlett's test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .746
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity
Approx. Chi-Square
332.700
Df
3
Sig.
.000
Table 7. Principal component analysis
Factor Name Eigen Value Total Variance Statement Loading value
Factor one 2.450 2.450 81.676
BA1
BA2
BA3
.913
.904
.894
Table 8. Box's test of equality of covariance Matricesa
Box's M 174.444
F
1.768
df1
75
df2
2951.713
Sig.
.000
Tests the null hypothesis that the observed covariance matrices of the dependent
variables are equal across groups.
a. Design: Intercept + corporate image + age + qualification + income + gender + age * qualification +
qualification * income + income * gender + age * gender
Upamannyu et al_______________________________________________ ISSN: 2394-9988
IJAS [2][1][2015] 020-033
Table 9. Levene's test of equality of error Variancesa
F df1 df2 Sig.
Brand trust
1.468
58
140
.035
Brand affect
1.153
58
140
.249
Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the dependent variable is equal
across groups.
a. Design: Intercept + corporate image + age + qualification + income + gender + age * qualification +
qualification * income + income * gender + age * gender
Table 10. Tests of between-subjects effects
Source Dependent Variable
Type III Sum of
Squares Df Mean Square
F Sig.
Corrected model dimension1 Brand trust 343.066
a
34 10.090 3.006 .000
Brand affect 317.656
b
34 9.343 3.038 .000
Intercept dimension1 Brand trust 5.016 1 5.016 1.494 .223
Brand affect 6.290 1 6.290 2.046 .155
Corporate image dimension1 Brand trust 139.203 1 139.203 41.475 .000
Brand affect 159.396 1 159.396 51.833 .000
Age dimension1 Brand trust 12.351 3 4.117 1.227 .302
Brand affect 12.369 3 4.123 1.341 .263
Qualification dimension1 Brand trust 2.159 3 .720 .214 .886
Brand affect .108 3 .036 .012 .998
Income dimension1 Brand trust 8.225 3 2.742 .817 .486
Brand affect 14.920 3 4.973 1.617 .187
Gender dimension1 Brand trust 29.319 3 9.773 2.912 .036
Brand affect 2.832 3 .944 .307 .820
Age * Qualification dimension1 Brand trust 8.114 5 1.623 .484 .788
Brand affect 5.064 5 1.013 .329 .895
Qualification * Income dimension1 Brand trust 12.454 5 2.491 .742 .593
Brand affect 5.830 5 1.166 .379 .863
Income * Gender dimension1 Brand trust 12.742 5 2.548 .759 .580
Brand affect 21.969 5 4.394 1.429 .216
Age * Gender dimension1 Brand trust 31.503 5 6.301 1.877 .101
Brand affect 16.888 5 3.378 1.098 .363
Error dimension1 Brand trust 550.442 164 3.356
Brand affect 504.334 164 3.075
Total dimension1 Brand trust 28151.000 199
Brand affect
29000.000
199
Corrected Total dimension1
Brand trust
893.508
198
Brand affect
821.990
198
a. R Squared =.384 (Adjusted R Squared =.256)
b. R Squared =.386 (Adjusted R Squared =.259)
