The Impact of Brand Authenticity on Purchasing Intention: The Mediating Role of Brand Trust

Abstract

Brand authenticity has emerged as a crucial topic in contemporary marketing thought, as brands confront an array of challenges stemming from intense competition, financial crises, and the COVID-19 pandemic. These challenges have prompted brands to prioritize the concept of authenticity, which contributes significantly to their success and longevity. Brand authenticity also plays a pivotal role in cultivating trust among consumers, thereby shaping their purchasing intentions. The current study aimed to investigate the mediating effect of Brand Trust on the relationship between brand authenticity and purchasing intention, by application on (Eva Cosmetics), an Egyptian famous cosmetics brand. The data are collected via an online questionnaire (Using Google forms), and the research sample was 100 respondents. The data were analyzed using the partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) method.

Full text

The Review of Contemporary Scientific and Academic Studies
An International Multidisciplinary Online Journal
www.thercsas.com
ISSN: 2583-1380 Vol. 4 | Issue No. 7 | July 2024 Impact Factor: 6.53
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Impact of Brand Authenticity on Purchasing Intention: The Mediating Role of Brand Trust
Amal Adel Nabih and Hajar Mohammad Alhosseiny https://doi.org/10.55454/rcsas.4.07.2024.008
1
The Impact of Brand Authenticity on Purchasing Intention: The Mediating Role of Brand
Trust
Amal Adel Nabih (amaladel100@gmail.com), : https://orcid.org/0009-0002-0888-3146
Ph. D. Researcher, Ain Shams University, Egypt
Hajar Mohammad Alhosseiny (hajar.elhosseiny@must.edu.eg), : https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5330-5236
Assistant Lecturer of Business Administration, Misr University for Science and Technology, Egypt
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors. Licensee The RCSAS (ISSN: 2583-1380). This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial 4.0 International
License. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/). Crossref/DOI: https://doi.org/10.55454/rcsas.4.07.2024.008
Abstract: Brand authenticity has emerged as a crucial topic in contemporary marketing thought, as brands confront
an array of challenges stemming from intense competition, financial crises, and the COVID-19 pandemic. These
challenges have prompted brands to prioritize the concept of authenticity, which contributes significantly to their
success and longevity. Brand authenticity also plays a pivotal role in cultivating trust among consumers, thereby
shaping their purchasing intentions. The current study aimed to investigate the mediating effect of Brand Trust on the
relationship between brand authenticity and purchasing intention, by application on (Eva Cosmetics), an Egyptian
famous cosmetics brand. The data are collected via an online questionnaire (Using Google forms), and the research
sample was 100 respondents. The data were analyzed using the partial least squares structural equation modeling
(PLS-SEM) method.
Keywords: Brand Authenticity, Brand Trust, Eva Cosmetics, Purchasing Intention
Article History:
Received:
20
Ju
ly
-
202
4
;
Acc
epted:
26
Ju
ly
-
202
4
;
Published/Available Online:
30
Ju
ly
-
202
4
1. Introduction
Personal care is an essential part of the daily lives of both men and women. Cosmetic products hold a
significant place in their lives, and the demand for cosmetic products has been increasing day by day due to
the growing awareness among individuals about the importance of cosmetic products for personal care
(Anubha, 2023). Accordingly, cosmetic brands consistently attract customers' purchase intentions by
maintaining the brand image. This is achieved through the authenticity and the trust in the brand.
Since customers rely on brands to express themselves, improve themselves, or validate themselves, brands
are significant players in the identity projects of consumers. Concurrently, customers encounter a surge in
marketing, an abundance of counterfeit goods, and a pervasiveness of pointless promotional offers.
Customers are searching more and more for companies that are authentic, unique, and relevant in order to
combat this meaninglessness (Morhart, Malär, Guèvremont, Girardin, &Grohmann, 2015).
Customers have begun to look for authentic brands and the brand experience. As a result of realizing the
value of authenticity, brand managers have responded by including signs of authenticity into their
businesses. Nonetheless, there hasn't been a lot of authenticity research done. To help marketers make crucial
choices that could have an impact on their brand's authenticity, a deeper understanding of how customers
evaluate authenticity is required (Tran &Keng, 2018).
Authentic brands enhance consumer experiences, build brand equity, and foster trust and loyalty—all of
which help them "turn a cacophony of content into a symphony of sales" (Södergren, 2021).
Brand trust functions as one of the primary determinants of business success. From the perspective of
marketers, brand trust serves as the cornerstone of strategic partnerships, prevents high-risk behavior, and
preserves the investment that businesses make in their relationships. According to customers, it is a crucial
component of the relationship between them and the firm and is the primary driver of how they behave while
dealing with them. Additionally, maintaining brand trust successfully is essential to effective service
marketing (Kabadayi& Alan, 2012).
Strategy developers and industry experts place a great deal of emphasis on purchase intention, and it is
crucial to understand the factors that influence purchase intention within a certain buyer group. It is regarded
as a key tool that marketers use to forecast future sales and influence consumer behavior through
manipulating behaviors. "The probability that the consumer will purchase the product" is one way to
conceptualize purchase intention (Ali, Abbass, &Farid, 2020).

The Review of Contemporary Scientific and Academic Studies
An International Multidisciplinary Online Journal
www.thercsas.com
ISSN: 2583-1380 Vol. 4 | Issue No. 7 | July 2024 Impact Factor: 6.53
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Impact of Brand Authenticity on Purchasing Intention: The Mediating Role of Brand Trust
Amal Adel Nabih and Hajar Mohammad Alhosseiny https://doi.org/10.55454/rcsas.4.07.2024.008
2
In this research, we examine the impact of Brand authenticity on purchasing intention and investigate the
mediating role of brand trust by application on “Eva Cosmetics” brand.
Eva Cosmetics is one of the leading Egyptian personal care manufacturers, with over 100 years of experience
under the belt of its founding entity, EVA Group. It has become the source of over 20 of the most popular
personal care brands and an essential part of the Egyptians' daily life.
Eva Cosmetics offers a wide range of hair and skin solutions carefully balancing technology and the power
of natural ingredients. With a portfolio that includes over 20 of the strongest brands across segments;
namely, skin care in which Eva Cosmetics is the market leader with 12.5% value share and 19% volume
share, hair care, depilatory, sun care, oral care and male grooming, Eva Cosmetics is the leading personal
care company in Egypt and expanding worldwide.
Brand Authenticity
The degree to which customers believe a brand is trustworthy and devoted to both itself and its customers, as
well as to encourage them to be true to themselves, is known as brand authenticity (Södergren, 2021).
The apparent genuineness of a brand is known as its authenticity (Campagnaa, Donthua, &Yoob, 2023). A
four-dimensional definition of brand authenticity (continuity, originality, reliability, and naturalness) was
one of the proposed definitions in the literature. The four dimensions are as follows: (1) continuity, which
denotes steadiness, endurance, and consistency; (2) originality, which denotes particularity, individuality,
and innovativeness; (3) reliability, which denotes credibility, trustworthiness, and keeping one's word; and
(4) naturalness, which denotes sincerity, genuineness, and non-artificiality (Bruhn, Schoenmüller, Schäfer, &
Heinrich, 2012).
Other definitions included being unique in craft, being genuine and the "real" thing, having a unique identity,
consistency, essence, and self-authentication and self-congruency (Campagnaa, Donthua, &Yoob, 2023).
Brand authenticity as a genuine brand has a differentiated manner that cares about being truthful and
transparent with customer. Being "genuine" means reflecting reality and truth rather than being false
(Campagnaa, Donthua, &Yoob, 2023).
The researchers create a framework to look into how customers judge authenticity. Specifically, they
differentiate between two kinds of authenticity: iconic and indexical. This distinction is founded on two
different frames of reference that are used when a subject or consumer makes an opinion about an object or
event and gives it the label "authentic" (Fritz, Schoenmueller, & Bruhn, 2017). The first perspective, known
as indexical authenticity, uses a real connection or verification to mark out 'the real thing' from its copies. In
contrast, the second perspective, known as iconic authenticity, evaluates authenticity based on the
consumer's perception of how the brand "ought to look" (Fritz, Schoenmueller, & Bruhn, 2017).
Dimensions of Brand Authenticity
1- Continuity: The continuity dimension illustrates a brand's historicity, timelessness, and capacity to
outlive fads. In terms of the historical component, the continuity dimension is similar to the pedigree idea. It
speaks not just of the brand's past performance and consistency across time, but also of its chance of
enduring into the future (Morhart, Malär, Guèvremont, Girardin, &Grohmann, 2015).
2- Reliability (Credibility): Customers view genuine brands as having a high degree of credibility—that is,
as being able and willing to keep their word. Participants emphasized how crucial it is for authentic brands to
fulfil their commitments. In other words, it is the brand's ability and willingness to live up to its promises, as
well as its openness and honesty with the customers (Morhart, Malär, Guèvremont, Girardin, &Grohmann,
2015).
3- Originality: Originality is a brand's ability to provide self-referential cues that indicate relationships,
roles, and principles, so it acts as a resource for identity creation. Stated differently, originality is a reflection
of the brand's featured quality, which allows customers to define who they are or who they are not (Morhart,
Malär, Guèvremont, Girardin, &Grohmann, 2015).
4- Naturalness: Naturalness refers to sincerity, genuineness, and non-artificiality (Bruhn, Schoenmüller,
Schäfer, & Heinrich, 2012).

The Review of Contemporary Scientific and Academic Studies
An International Multidisciplinary Online Journal
www.thercsas.com
ISSN: 2583-1380 Vol. 4 | Issue No. 7 | July 2024 Impact Factor: 6.53
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Impact of Brand Authenticity on Purchasing Intention: The Mediating Role of Brand Trust
Amal Adel Nabih and Hajar Mohammad Alhosseiny https://doi.org/10.55454/rcsas.4.07.2024.008
3
Brand Trust
A brand can be any name, sign, symbol, or combination of these that serves to identify a product or service
and set it apart from the competition (Shin, Amenuvor, Basilisco, &Owusu-Antwi, 2019). In recent years,
practitioners and scholars have paid more and more attention to brand trust (Alhaddad, 2015). It is defined as
"a readiness to depend on an exchange partner whom one has faith in" (Alhaddad, 2015).
According to (Kabadayi& Alan, 2012), "The average consumer's willingness to rely on the brand's ability to
perform its stated function" is the definition of brand trust. When customers assess a company's offers, brand
trust develops. Brand trust is formed when organizations develop consumer attitudes about safety, honesty,
and reliability towards their brands. One interpretation is that consumer experiences with brands directly
shape and develop brand trust (Kabadayi& Alan, 2012).
Brand trust is seen as a gradual process that may be attained by carefully considering and thinking back on
customer experiences with the store/product. Additionally, brand trust fosters highly valued relationships,
which drives brand loyalty (Kabadayi& Alan, 2012).
Brand trust is the feeling of security that accompanies dealing with a brand because one believes the brand
will continue to be dependable and accountable for meeting the needs of the customers. Other scholars have
defined brand trust as consumers' propensity to place their trust in a brand (Shin, Amenuvor, Basilisco,
&Owusu-Antwi, 2019).
Perceptions and expectations that stem from convictions that a brand possesses particular attributes that are
reliable, capable, and believable are emphasized as indicators of brand trust (Shin, Amenuvor, Basilisco,
&Owusu-Antwi, 2019).
It is believed that building good, favorable views towards a company can lead to brand commitment or
loyalty. This is where brand trust comes into play. When consumers can rely on a trustworthy brand, they
feel less exposed to risk and uncertainty is reduced (Brudvig, S., 2015).
Purchase Intention
In today's competitive cosmetics market, new competitors and emerging brands have entered the cosmetics
market, offering high-quality products that are comparable to the established brand names. This increasing
competition has presented a challenge for existing market leaders, as consumers now have more options than
ever when it comes to purchasing premium cosmetic products.
The rise of these new players has added dynamism to the industry and raised the bar in terms of product
quality and innovation. As a result, understanding consumer purchase intention is crucial for brands to
develop effective marketing strategies and stay ahead of the curve.
The study of purchase intentions is of great importance for both marketing researchers and practitioners. For
researchers, understanding purchase intentions provides valuable insights into consumer behavior and
decision-making processes (Cuong T. D., 2020).
For marketers, purchase intentions are a critical metric, as they serve as a primary indicator of future buying
behavior (Kang, 2010; Han, 2017). By monitoring and analyzing purchase intentions, marketers can
anticipate future demand and make more informed decisions about product development, pricing and
resource allocation (Cuong T. D., 2020).
Purchase intention is defined as the likelihood that a consumer or buyer will choose to make a specific
purchase in the future (Ibeabuchi, Ehido, Fawehinmi, &Aigbogun, 2024). Purchase intention is the
antecedents that contribute to motivating customers to purchase and create the intention (Saerang, Sulu, &
Massie, 2016; Crosno, Freling, & Skinner, 2009).
The more buyers tend to buy a certain product, the more the purchase intention and the higher the degree of
intensity (Macheka, Quaye, &Ligaraba, 2024). The intention to purchase a product or service is strongly
influenced by the consumer's overall attitude and preference for that brand or offering (Cuong, 2020). As
such, brands seek to establish brand authenticity and build brand trust.
Conceptual Framework

The Review of Contemporary Scientific and Academic Studies
An International Multidisciplinary Online Journal
www.thercsas.com
ISSN: 2583-1380 Vol. 4 | Issue No. 7 | July 2024 Impact Factor: 6.53
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Impact of Brand Authenticity on Purchasing Intention: The Mediating Role of Brand Trust
Amal Adel Nabih and Hajar Mohammad Alhosseiny https://doi.org/10.55454/rcsas.4.07.2024.008
4
Figure 1: Conceptual Model
Hypotheses
H1: Brand authenticity has a positive effect on brand trust.
H2: Brand authenticity has a positive effect on purchasing intention.
H3: brand trust has a positive effect on purchasing intention.
H6: Brand trust mediates the relationship between brand authenticity and purchasing intention.
Methodology
The research relied on an online questionnaire (Using Google forms) as one of the efficient and suitable
methods for data collection . A five-point Likert scale was used to measure respondents’ opinions, ranging
from one (strongly disagree) to five (strongly agree). The questionnaire consisted of 22 items. It was divided
into three parts:
 Part 1: Consists of 15 statements to measure brand authenticity.
 Part 2: Included 3 statements to assess brand trust.
 Part 3: Consists of 4 statements to measure purchase intention.
Sample Profile
The sample demographics are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1: Sample profile
Classification Category Frequency Percentage%
Gender Male
female
25
75
0.25
0.75
Age
20-30
31-40
41-60
44
41
15
0.44
0.41
0.15
Income
2000
-
5000
5000-1000
10000-20000
Above 20000
24
37
37
2
0.24
0.37
0.37
0.02
Based on the results of demographic data, as shown in Table 1, most of the respondents in the sample are
females, representing 75%, while males represent 25%. This gender imbalance is expected, as women tend to
exhibit a greater interest and engagement with beauty and personal care products compared to their male
counterparts.
The age distribution of the sample indicates a predominance of younger consumers, with the 20-30 age group
comprising the largest segment at 44% of the total. The 31-40 age group represents the second-largest
segment at 41%, and the 41-60 age group makes up the remaining 15% of the sample. This age profile aligns
with the general understanding that younger individuals are more inclined to explore and adopt new beauty
trends and products.
Regarding the income levels of the respondents, the data reveals a concentration of middle-income
consumers. The (5000-10,000) and (10,000-20,000) income groups each account for 37% of the sample. The
(2000-5000) income group represents 24% of the respondents, while the highest income level (above 20,000)
is observed in only 2% of the sample.
Assessment of the Measurement Model

The Review of Contemporary Scientific and Academic Studies
An International Multidisciplinary Online Journal
www.thercsas.com
ISSN: 2583-1380 Vol. 4 | Issue No. 7 | July 2024 Impact Factor: 6.53
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Impact of Brand Authenticity on Purchasing Intention: The Mediating Role of Brand Trust
Amal Adel Nabih and Hajar Mohammad Alhosseiny https://doi.org/10.55454/rcsas.4.07.2024.008
5
The researchers used a partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) approach to analyze the
data and test the proposed research model. The model consisted of two types of constructs (Variables): a
higher-order formative construct (Brand Authenticity) and two reflective constructs (Brand Trust and
Purchasing Intention).
The convergent validity of the measurement model was assessed using factor loadings, composite reliability
(CR), and average variance extracted (AVE) as shown in table (2).
Table 2: Construct reliability and validity
Items Loading Cronbach
’s alpha
CR AVE
Continuity
1.I think brand (EVA Cosmetics) is consistent over time.
0.769
0.907 0.935 0.784
2.I think the brand (EVA Cosmetics) stays true to itself.
0.931
3. (EVA Cosmetics) offers continuity.
0.909
4.(EVA Cosmetics) has a clear concept that it pursues.
0.922
Originality
5. EVA Cosmetics) is different from all other brands.
0.831
0.905 0.934 0.780
6. (EVA Cosmetics) clearly distinguishes itself from. other
brands.
0.904
7. The brand
(EVA Cosmetics)
stands out from other
brands.
0.909
8. I think that (EVA Cosmetics) is a unique brand.
0.887
Reliability
9. My experience with (EVA Cosmetics) had shown me.
that it keeps its promises.
0.919
0.931 0.951 0.829
10. (EVA Cosmetics) delivers what it promises.
0.904
11. (EVA Cosmetics)’s promises are credible.
0.907
12. (EVA Cosmetics) makes reliable promises.
0.912
Naturalness
13. (EVA Cosmetics) does not seem artificial.
0.924
0.927 0.954 0.873
14. The brand (EVA Cosmetics) makes a genuine
impression.
0.955
15. (EVA Cosmetics) gives the impression of bein
g
natural.
0.924
Brand Trust
16. I trust (EVA Cosmetics).
0.823
0.883 0.928 0.813
17. (EVA Cosmetics) is safe.
0.932
18. The brand's trust motivates me to continue purchasing
the same brand in the future.
0.945
Purchasing Intention
19. I typically research different cosmetic brands and
products before making a purchase.
0.897
0.947 0.962 0.864
20. I would be willing to spend a bit more on high-quality
cosmetic products.
0.933
21. Ingredients and transparency from the manufacturer
are priorities when I shop for cosmetics.
0.950
22. I would like to recommend EVA Cosmetics as a
trustworthy brand to other people.
0.936
Based on the data provided, Cronbach's alpha values for all the constructs (Continuity, Originality,
Reliability, Naturalness, Brand Trust, and Purchasing Intention) are above the recommended threshold of
0.7, indicating good internal consistency and reliability of the measurement scales (Hair et al., 2019).
The composite reliability (CR) values for all the constructs are above 0.9, which is excellent. Additionally,
the average variance extracted (AVE) values for all the constructs are above 0.7, well above the
recommended threshold of 0.5. This suggests that the items within each construct are strongly related to each
other and are effectively measuring the intended construct (Hair et al., 2019). All the item loadings are above

The Review of Contemporary Scientific and Academic Studies
An International Multidisciplinary Online Journal
www.thercsas.com
ISSN: 2583-1380 Vol. 4 | Issue No. 7 | July 2024 Impact Factor: 6.53
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Impact of Brand Authenticity on Purchasing Intention: The Mediating Role of Brand Trust
Amal Adel Nabih and Hajar Mohammad Alhosseiny https://doi.org/10.55454/rcsas.4.07.2024.008
6
0.7, this indicates that the items are strongly related to their respective constructs and are good measures of
the underlying constructs.
To assess the discriminant validity of the measurement model, the researchers employed two criteria as
suggested by (Hair et al., 2017).
 Cross-loadings: The outer loading of each item should be higher on its respective latent variable
compared to its cross-loadings on any other latent variables.
 Fornell-Larcker criterion: This criterion states that the square root of the Average Variance Extracted
(AVE) for each construct should be greater than the construct's highest correlation with any other
construct.
Table 3: Cross loading
Items Continuity Originality Reliability Naturalness Brand
Trust
Purchasin
g Intention
x1.1
0.769
0.431
0.409
0.402
0.365
0.354
x1.2
0.931
0.751
0.740
0.722
0.643
0.640
x1.3
0.909
0.710
0.618
0.649
0.597
0.579
x1.4
0.922
0.854
0.766
0.7
64
0.704
0.704
x2.5
0.801
0.831
0.624
0.573
0.558
0.554
x2.6
0.814
0.904
0.762
0.709
0.673
0.695
x2.7
0.618
0.909
0.873
0.724
0.687
0.687
x2.8
0.591
0.887
0.890
0.746
0.731
0.735
x3.10
0.629
0.805
0.919
0.796
0.748
0.782
x3.11
0.725
0.810
0.904
0.782
0.708
0.748
x3.12
0.706
0.835
0.907
0.856
0.753
0.736
x3.9
0.612
0.805
0.912
0.768
0.766
0.738
x4.13
0.659
0.686
0.799
0.924
0.716
0.712
x4.14
0.720
0.748
0.847
0.955
0.790
0.825
x4.15
0.684
0.756
0.820
0.924
0.818
0.783
y1
0.635
0.579
0.695
0.807
0
.823
0.751
y2
0.611
0.750
0.765
0.719
0.932
0.810
y3
0.569
0.698
0.745
0.722
0.945
0.868
z1
0.566
0.700
0.741
0.753
0.850
0.897
z2
0.618
0.692
0.750
0.725
0.837
0.933
z3
0.692
0.742
0.804
0.809
0.851
0.950
z4
0.580
0.682
0.769
0.792
0.802
0.936
The results presented in Table (3) reveal that outer loading of each indicator was greater on its respective
latent variable than its cross-loadings on any other latent variables.
Table 4: Discriminant Validity – Fornell and Larcker
Variable Continuity Originality Reliability Naturalness Brand Trust Purchasing
Intention
Continuity 0.885
Originality 0.798 0.883
Reliability 0.735 0.894 0.911
Naturalness 0.736 0.781 0.880 0.935
Brand Trust 0.670 0.752 0.816 0.830 0.901
Purchasing
Intention 0.662 0.758 0.825 0.829 0.899 0.929
Fornell and Larcker (1981)
As shown in Table 4, the square root of AVE of each of the latent variables was greater than its correlation
with other latent variable.
Formative Measurement Model
Brand Authenticity was conceptualized as a reflective-formative higher-order construct (HOC) composed of
four formative dimensions: Continuity, Originality, Reliability, and Naturalness. This approach is

The Review of Contemporary Scientific and Academic Studies
An International Multidisciplinary Online Journal
www.thercsas.com
ISSN: 2583-1380 Vol. 4 | Issue No. 7 | July 2024 Impact Factor: 6.53
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Impact of Brand Authenticity on Purchasing Intention: The Mediating Role of Brand Trust
Amal Adel Nabih and Hajar Mohammad Alhosseiny https://doi.org/10.55454/rcsas.4.07.2024.008
7
appropriate given the multidimensional nature of the brand authenticity construct, as it allows the researcher
to capture the unique contributions of each dimension.
The outer weights and variance inflation factor (VIF) values for the formative indicators were assessed to
evaluate collinearity. As shown in Table 5, all VIF values were below the recommended threshold of 5,
indicating that collinearity is not a concern.
Table 5: Results summary for formative constructs
Items Outer weights VIF T statistics
(|O/STDEV|) P values
Continuity
x1.1
0.203
2.126
9.571
0.000
x1.2 0.309 4.377 16.591 0.000
x1.3
0.284
3.528
19.025
0.000
x1.4 0.323 4.711 15.888 0.000
Originality
x2.5
0.263
3.056
13.647
0.000
x2.6 0.295 3.899 18.253 0.000
x2.7
0.287
3.000
22.964
0.000
x2.8 0.286 3.000 23.038 0.000
Reliability
x3.10
0.271
4.127
31.075
0.00
0
x3.11 0.278 3.265 22.196 0.000
x3.12
0.285
3.281
20.228
0.000
x3.9 0.265 3.942 26.948 0.000
Naturalness
x4.13
0.345
3.526
43.454
0.000
x4.14 0.368 4.963 37.674 0.000
x4.15
0.357
3.392
35.792
0.000
Structural Model Evaluation and Hypothesis Testing
After evaluating the measurement model, the next step in the PLS-SEM was to assess the structural model.
The structural model was evaluated by applying the PLS algorithm and bootstrapping procedures with 5,000
subsamples to produce path coefficients and associated t-values in determining whether these paths were
significant or not. Structural model analysis was then used to test the hypotheses (Hair et al., 2017).
A key part of the structural model evaluation was assessing the coefficient of determination (R2) values of
the endogenous latent variables. The R2 values provide an indication of the exploratory and predictive
capabilities of the PLS-SEM model, representing the amount of variance in the endogenous latent variables
that is explained by the exogenous latent variables connected to them in the structural model.
The results showed that the R2 value for Brand Trust was 0.689, with an adjusted R2 of 0.685. The R2 value
for Purchasing Intention was 0.832, with an adjusted R2 of 0.829. These R2 values suggest strong
explanatory and predictive power of the model.
Additionally, the results revealed that an acceptable
level of predictive relevance (Q2) for the model. The Q2
values were: Brand Authenticity = 1.000, Brand Trust =
0.684, and Purchasing Intention = 0.686. Greater than 0
indicates the exogenous variables are predictive of the
model's endogenous variables (Sarstedt et al., 2019).
Furthermore, the Standardized Root Mean Square
Residual (SRMR) for this PLS-SEM model was found
to be 0.077, which is below the 0.08 threshold indicating
a good model fit, as per the guidelines from (Hu
&Bentler, 1998).
Figure 2: Structural model

The Review of Contemporary Scientific and Academic Studies
An International Multidisciplinary Online Journal
www.thercsas.com
ISSN: 2583-1380 Vol. 4 | Issue No. 7 | July 2024 Impact Factor: 6.53
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Impact of Brand Authenticity on Purchasing Intention: The Mediating Role of Brand Trust
Amal Adel Nabih and Hajar Mohammad Alhosseiny https://doi.org/10.55454/rcsas.4.07.2024.008
8
Table 6: Hypotheses testing
Hypotheses Path Path
Coefficient (β)
T
statistics
f-
square
P
values
Test
outcome
H1 Brand Authenticity > Brand Trust 0.830
19.497 2.211 0.000 Supported
H2
Brand Authenticity > Purchasing
Intention
0.273
2.265 0.138 0.000 Supported
H3 Brand Trust > Purchasing Intention 0.673
5.924 0.841 0.000 Supported
Indirect effect
Hypotheses Path Path Coefficient
(β)
T
statistics P values Test
outcome
H4 Brand Authenticity -> Brand Trust -
> Purchasing Intention
0.559
6.000
0.000
Supported
The findings show a strong positive and statistically significant relationship between brand trust and
purchasing intention. The large path coefficient, high t-statistic, and small p-value (p<0.001) provide robust
support for this relationship. The f-square value of 0.841 indicates a large effect size, meaning brand trust
has a substantial influence on purchasing intention.
In summary, all three direct hypotheses are supported by the results, demonstrating the important roles of
brand authenticity and brand trust in driving purchasing intention.
Limitations and Future Research Directions
While this study offers valuable insights into the relationships between brand authenticity, brand trust, and
purchase intention, it is important to acknowledge several limitations that provide opportunities for future
research.
First, the cross-sectional nature of the data collection limits the ability to draw causal inferences. Future
research should consider adopting a longitudinal design to better understand the dynamic interplay between
these constructs over time.
Second, the research was confined to the cosmetics industry and the specific context of the Eva Cosmetics
Company in Egypt. While this provides a rich case study, the generalizability of the findings to other product
categories or geographical markets remains to be established. Expanding the research to different industries
and cultural settings would broaden the understanding of how brand authenticity and trust operate in diverse
consumer landscapes.
Additionally, the research model could be expanded to include other potentially relevant variables, such as
brand image, product quality, or social influences. Exploring the interplay between these factors and their
collective impact on purchase intention would contribute to a more holistic understanding of consumer
decision-making processes.
Finally, the current study focused on the mediating role of brand trust, but there may be other potential
mediating or moderating mechanisms worth investigating. For instance, future research could examine the
role of brand engagement, brand loyalty, or consumer cultural orientations in shaping the relationships
between brand authenticity and purchase intention.
References
Alhaddad, A. (2015). Perceived Quality, Brand Image and Brand Trust as Determinants of Brand Loyalty. Journal of
Research in Business and Management, 3(4), 1-8.
Ali, A. A., Abbass, A., & Farid, N. (2020). Factors Influencing Customers’ Purchase Intention in Social Commerce.
International Review of Management and Marketing, 10(5), 63-73. doi:https://doi.org/10.32479/irmm.10097
Anubha (2023), "Mediating role of attitude in halal cosmetics purchase intention: an ELM perspective", Journal of Islamic
Marketing, 14 (3), 645-679. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIMA-04-2021-0112.
Bruhn, M., Schoenmüller, V., Schäfer, D., & Heinrich, D. (2012). Brand Authenticity: Towards a Deeper Understanding of Its
Conceptualization and Measurement. Advances in Consumer Research , 40, 567-576. Retrieved from
https://www.academia.edu/120665960/Brand_Authenticity_Towards_a_Deeper_Understanding_of_its_Conceptualization_an
d_Measurement

The Review of Contemporary Scientific and Academic Studies
An International Multidisciplinary Online Journal
www.thercsas.com
ISSN: 2583-1380 Vol. 4 | Issue No. 7 | July 2024 Impact Factor: 6.53
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Impact of Brand Authenticity on Purchasing Intention: The Mediating Role of Brand Trust
Amal Adel Nabih and Hajar Mohammad Alhosseiny https://doi.org/10.55454/rcsas.4.07.2024.008
9
Campagnaa, C. L., Donthua, N., & Yoob, B. (2023). Brand authenticity: literature review, comprehensive definition, and
anamalgamated scale. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 31(2), 129-145.
doi:doi.org/10.1080/10696679.2021.2018937
Cuong, D. T. (2020). The role of brand trust as a mediator in the relationship between brand satisfaction and purchase
intention. International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation, 24(6).
Cuong, T. D. (2020). Influence of Brand Trust, Perceived Value on Brand Preference and Purchase Intention. Journal of Asian
Finance, Economics and Business, 7(10), 939–947. doi: 10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no10.939.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variablesand measurement error: Algebra
and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 382–388.
Fritz, K., Schoenmueller, V., & Bruhn, M. (2017). Authenticity in branding – exploring antecedents and consequences of
brand authenticity. European Journal of Marketing, 5(2), 324-348. doi:10.1108/EJM-10-2014-0633
Hair, J. F., Jr., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation
modeling (PLS-SEM). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
Hair, J.F., Risher, J.J., Sarstedt, M. and Ringle, C.M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM,
European Business Review, 31(1), 2-24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203.
Han, J.-S. (2017). Effects of Brand Image on Purchase Intention and Brand Loyalty:Focused on Mediating Role of the Brand
Trust. Culinary Science & Hospitality Research, 23(2), 135-145. DOI: 10.20878/cshr.2017.23.2.01
Hartwick, J., & Barki, H. (1994). Explaining the role of user participation in information system use. Management Science,
40(4), 440–465.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to under parameterized model
misspecification. Psychological methods, 3(4), 424.
Ibeabuchi, C., Ehido, A., Fawehinmi, O., & Aigbogun, O. (2024). Determinants of purchase intention towards halal certified
non-Muslims cosmetic products among. Journal of Islamic Marketing. DOI: 10.1108/JIMA-09-2022-0255
KABADAYI, E. T., & ALAN, A. K. (2012). Brand Trust and Brand Affect: Their Strategic Importance on Brand Loyalty.
Journal of Global Strategic Management, 6(1), 80-88. doi:10.20460/JGSM.2012615788
Lee, M., Kim, K., Lee, K. Y., & Hong, J. H. (2018). Hotel Employees’ Use of Smartphones and Performance: Reflective–
Formative Estimation Approach. Applying Partial Least Squares in Tourism and Hospitality Research, 85-108.
Macheka, T., Quaye, S. E., & Ligaraba, N. (2024). The effect of online customer reviews and celebrity endorsement on young
female consumers’ purchase intentions. YOUNG CONSUMERS, 25(4), 462-482. doi:DOI 10.1108/YC-05-2023-1749
Morhart, F., Malär, L., Guèvremont, A., Girardin, F., & Grohmann, B. (2015). Brand authenticity: An integrative framework
and measurement scale. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25(2), 200-218. doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2014.11.006
Saerang, D. E., Sulu, A. C., & Massie, J. D. (2016). The analysis of consumer purchase intention toward cosmetic products
based on product origin. Jurnal EMBA, 4(2 Hal. 332-342). DOI:10.35794/emba.4.2.2016.13044.
Sarstedt, M., Hair Jr, J. F., Cheah, J. H., Becker, J. M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). How to specify, estimate, and validate higher-
order constructs in PLS-SEM. Australasian marketing journal, 27(3), 197-211.
Södergren, J. (2021). Brand authenticity: 25 Years of research. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 45, 645-663.
doi:10.1111/ijcs.12651
Shin, S. K., Amenuvor, F. E., Basilisco, R., & Owusu-Antwi, K. (2019). Brand Trust and Brand Loyalty: A Moderation and
Mediation Perspective. Current Journal of Applied Science and Technology, 38(4), 1-17.
doi:10.9734/CJAST/2019/v38i430376
Tarihoran, A. D. B., Hubeis, M., Jahroh, S., & Zulbainarni, N. (2023). Market-based dynamic capabilities for MSMEs:
Evidence from Indonesia's ornamental fish industry. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 9(3),
100123.
Tehseen, S., Sajilan, S., Gadar, K., & Ramayah, T. (2017). Assessing cultural orientation as a reflective-formative second
order construct-a recent PLS-SEM approach. Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, 6(2), 38.
Tran, V.-D., & Keng, C.-J. (2018). The Brand Authenticity Scale: Development and Validation. Contemporary Management
Research, 14(4), 277-291. doi:10.7903/cmr.18581
Conflict of Interests: The authors declare that there are no conflicting interests.
Funding: There is no any external source of funding.