The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Consumer‐based brand equity: improving the measurement – empirical evidence
Abstract
Purpose: The present research aims to improve the measurement of consumer‐based brand equity. Current measurement of consumer‐based brand equity suffers from limitations, including: a lack of distinction between the dimensions brand awareness and brand associations, the use of non‐discriminant indicators in the measurement scales and of student samples. Design/methodology/approach: Based on the recommendations of extant research, the scale constructed to measure consumer‐based brand equity in this study included brand personality measures. Brand associations were measured using a different set of items. Unlike many of the previous studies that had used student samples, the present study used a sample of actual consumers from an Australian state capital city. Confirmatory factor analysis employing structural equations modelling was used to measure consumer‐based brand equity in two product categories and across six brands. Findings: Results support the hypothesised four‐dimension model of consumer‐based brand equity across two product categories and six brands. Brand awareness and brand associations were found to be two distinct dimensions of brand equity as conceptualised in the marketing literature. The present study contributes to the understanding of consumer‐based brand equity measurement by examining the dimensionality of this construct. Originality/value: The principal contribution of the present research is that it provides empirical evidence of the multidimensionality of consumer‐based brand equity, supporting Aaker's and Keller's conceptualisation of brand equity. The present research also enriched consumer‐based brand equity measurement by incorporating the brand personality measures, as recommended by previous researchers. While earlier studies were conducted using US and Korean samples, the present study also used a sample of Australian consumers.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411 · Cited by 41,941
Cited by
What makes followers loyal? The role of influencer interactivity in building influencer brand equity
Jun, S., & Yi, J. (2020) · Journal of Product & Brand Management · doi:10.1108/jpbm-02-2019-2280 · Cited by 340
The influence of customer brand identification on hotel brand evaluation and loyalty development
So, K. K. F., King, C., Sparks, B. A., & Wang, Y. (2013) · International Journal of Hospitality Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.02.002 · Cited by 328
Kao, T.-W. (., & Lin, W. T. (2016) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.12.006 · Cited by 87
The Impact of Islamic Banks’ Service Quality Perception on Jordanian Customers Loyalty
Alshurideh, D. M. T., Al-Hawary, S. I. S., Mohammad, A. M. E., Al-Hawary, A. A., & Al Kurdi, B. H. (2017) · Journal of Management Research · doi:10.5296/jmr.v9i2.10664 · Cited by 65
Building customer-based brand equity of domestic brands: Role of brand equity dimensions
Sharma, R. (2017) · Metamorphosis: A Journal of Management Research · doi:10.1177/0972622517702187 · Cited by 19
Metadata
- Authors
- Pappu, R., Quester, P. G., & Cooksey, R. W.
- Venue
- Journal of Product & Brand Management
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2005-05-01
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 143-154
- ISSN
- 1061-0421 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2017943907
- Cited by
- 1,033
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 49.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Consumer‐based brand equity: improving the measurement – empirical evidence. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1108/10610420510601012
- The paper
- Pappu, R., Quester, P. G., & Cooksey, R. W. (2005). Consumer‐based brand equity: improving the measurement – empirical evidence. Journal of Product & Brand Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/10610420510601012
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.