Antecedents and Consequences of Brand Trust in the Baby Care

Toiletries Product Brands: The Moderating role of Mothers Personal

Variables.

A THESIS
SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
OF THE FELLOW PROGRAMME IN MANAGEMENT
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT
LUCKNOW
By
Neha Srivastava
FPM 8004
Date:

Thesis Advisory Committee

1. Prof. _______________________
2. Prof. ________________________
3. Prof. ________________________

Certificate of approval
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT LUCKNOW
CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL

This is to certify that the thesis entitled Antecedents and Consequences of

Brand Trust in the Baby Care Toiletries Product Brands: The Moderating
role of Mothers Personal Variables by Neha Srivastava is an original work
and has not been submitted earlier either to Indian Institute of
Management Lucknow or any other Institutions in fulfillment of the
requirements for the award of a Doctoral Degree. We do not approve any
statement made, opinion expressed and conclusion drawn therein but
approve the thesis only for the purpose for which it is submitted.

Signature of the Thesis Advisory Committee Members for the evaluation of

the Thesis
Prof._________________________
Chairperson

Prof._________________________
Co Chairperson

Prof._________________________
Member

__________________________
Signature

__________________________
Signature

__________________________
Signature

Abstract

Brand Trust which is an extension of general trust theory, has gained attention among the
marketing academia. Several conceptualizations of brand trust exist in product and
service domain and these conceptualizations have offered valuable insight into the
processes that consumers evaluate and choose brands within a given category. However,
Baby care products have been neglected in literature so far and require special attention
due to its differing nature from other product categories. In baby care product category,
the buyer and the user are different and involve high level of perceived risk. It is a
product category where parents are initially unable to judge brand performance as
consumption is undertaken by babies who cannot express about the usage experience.
Hence, this category of product brands require great deal of trust building since mothers
would hardly purchase any brands for their infants without knowing and trusting it.
Despite several works on brand trust, little conceptual or empirical research has
addressed which factors build brand trust. Most studies have focused on the explorations
of brand trust in general and not on its sources and development. Mother characteristics
in the context of baby care brand trust development process have also received little
research focus. In response to such a call, the primary motivation behind this study is to
fill the current gap in literature by investigating baby care toiletries product brand trust
development process. Specifically, our study is based in the Indian baby care toiletries
brand market and addresses following objectives: (i) to identify and test the impact of
factors that generates brand trust in baby care toiletries product brands and assess their
relative importance (ii) to identify and test the relative importance of consequences of
brand Trust in baby care toiletries product brands (iii) to examine the role of brand trust
in the relation between its antecedent factors and consequences (iv) to explore the effects
of mother characteristics (socio-demography, personality traits) on brand trust
development process.
To accomplish objectives of this study, research has been structured in two phases, viz.
exploratory and descriptive. The exploratory study covers focused literature review and
3

qualitative in-depth interviews with forty mothers of babies under age of 3 years.
Integrating past literature with focused interviews, the study has developed a model
examining antecedents and consequences of brand trust in baby care toiletries product
category. The proposed framework conceptualized two dimensions of brand trust namely
cognitive and affective brand trust. Ten antecedents of cognitive brand trust and seven of
affective brand trust have been identified and incorporated in the conceptual framework.
The study further proposes three consequences of brand trust and mother characteristics
as moderators in the study. In the descriptive study, a survey with structured instrument,
incorporating items on 27 major variables (13 independent variables, 9 moderating
variables, 2 mediating variables, 3 dependent variables) has been developed. Instrument
was pre tested with sixty mothers who have purchased baby care toiletries brands in the
last six months. Then the final administering of questionnaire was done with 680 mothers
resulting in usable data points of 507. The survey data analysis was conducted in three
stages. The first

step

involved

establishing

the

reliability

and

validity

of

measurement items measuring different variables through confirmatory factor analysis.

For testing the relative importance of antecedent factors on brand trust and effect of brand
trust on consequences, path analysis was performed using structure equation modeling. In
the third phase, the moderating effects of mother characteristics between antecedents and
brand trust were tested through hierarchical moderator regression analysis.
Path analysis findings supported hypothesized paths with exception of rejection of ten
paths. Results of identified antecedents affecting brand trust dimensions showed the
following findings- brand credibility, brand predictability, brand consumption experience,
brand innovation positively affected cognitive brand trust and brand reputation, brand
intimacy, family influence positively affected affective brand trust. Results also showed
relationship between brand trust and its consequences. Hierarchical moderator regression
analysis for moderating variables (education, income, occupation, family type and
personality) supported five hypotheses.
The study is expected to contribute significantly to the domain of baby care market and
its brand trust development process. The findings will suggest marketing strategy

implications for companies that what essential elements they must keep in mind while
promoting their brand and winning trust of mothers for baby care toiletry brands. This
study attempts to provide original insights to marketing theorists and practitioners
about the significance of antecedent factors for developing strong brand trust for baby
care toiletry brands. The study also throws light on the emerging topic of brand
trust development process. This will help marketer in judicious allocation of resources for
marketing activities to build strong brand trust in baby care market. Theoretically, the
present study is an offshoot of the ongoing research on brand trust development process
and enhances our current understanding of the area in the baby care toiletries brand
sector.
Keywords: Brand Trust, Mothers characteristics, Commitment, WOM.

Table of Contents
Chapter 1......................................................................................................................................
Introduction.................................................................................................................................
1.1 The Research Context...............................................................................................................
1.2 Research Questions, Objective, and Scope of the study...........................................................
1.3 Theoretical Framework...........................................................................................................
1.4. Expected contributions of the study.......................................................................................
1.5 Organization of Thesis Chapters.............................................................................................
Chapter 2....................................................................................................................................
The Review of Literature and Model Development..........................................
2.1 Brand Trust in the Context of Baby Care Products.................................................................
2.2 Theoretical Frameworks for Research on Brand Trust in baby care products........................
2.3 The Role of mothers demographic variables in brand trust...................................................
2.4 The Role of mothers personality variables in brand trust......................................................
Chapter 3....................................................................................................................................
Model Development and Hypotheses Generation.............................................
3.1 Brand trust and its antecedents in the context of baby care toiletries.....................................
3.2 Consequences of Cognitive & Affective brand trust in the baby care toiletries ....................
3.3 The Mediating Role of Brand Trust........................................................................................
3.4 Mothers Demographic and its moderating effects on the relationships between
brand trust and its antecedents .....................................................................................................
3.5 Mothers Big Five Personality and its moderating effects on the relationships
between brand trust and its antecedents .......................................................................................
Chapter 4.................................................................................................................................
The Research Methodology.............................................................................................
4.1 The Measurement of variables................................................................................................
4.2 Context of study and Sampling...............................................................................................
4.3 Data Analysis Techniques and Procedures..............................................................................
Chapter 5....................................................................................................................................
Results and Findings...........................................................................................................
5.1 Pre-testing of the questionnaire..............................................................................................
5.1.1 Results of Pretest..............................................................................................................
5.2 The Final Survey.....................................................................................................................
5.2.1 The sample and the data collection procedure.................................................................
5.2.2 The response rate and sample characteristics..................................................................
5.3 Data Analysis..........................................................................................................................
5.4 Summary and Discussion of Results.....................................................................................
Chapter 6..................................................................................................................................
Theoretical Contributions, Managerial Implications and Future
Directions.................................................................................................................................
6.1 Summary...............................................................................................................................
6.2 Major Findings and Theoretical Implications.......................................................................
6.3 Limitations and Directions for Future Research...................................................................
Bibliography............................................................................................................................
Appendix A...............................................................................................................................
Appendix B...............................................................................................................................

Appendix C...............................................................................................................................

Chapter 1
Introduction

1.1 The Research Context

India is a growing economy and with rising income level and changing consumer
behavior, Indian families have more money to spend. When a family has a baby under
age three, then Baby care product is one of the product categories where the major
component of familys income is spent. According to Research & Markets Report (2013),
the baby care market is in the nascent stage of development in India, but soon it is
expected to emerge as one of the worlds fastest growing baby care markets. In India,
large population is in 0-4 years and parents increasing preference to spend more on baby
products will drive the market to new horizons in near future.
Total baby care market was valued at INR 3000 crore in 2012 and is estimated to reach
INR 4200 crore by 2014 and is growing at a compound annual rate of over 20 percent
(ASSOCHAM, 2012). Baby care market consists of baby skin care, toiletries and hair
care. The ASSOCHAM report further estimated that the hair care market for babies is
valued at Rs 40 crore for 2012, and is growing at a CAGR of 5 per cent. The skin care
market is valued at Rs 400 crore for 2012 and is growing at a CAGR of 15 per cent. The
baby toiletries market is estimated at Rs 380 crore for 2012 and is growing at 20 per cent
annualy. In India, Baby care market in India is overwhelmingly dominated by the
unorganized sector (RNCOS Report, 2012). But in the organized baby personal care

market, J&J dominates with around 85 percent market share (Business Standard, 2013).
J&J has been the undisputable market leader in the baby care market with its soap, lotion
and shampoos having virtually no competitors. The reason: No Indian brand is able to get
the trust of the Mothers than it has (Marketing practice.com). Mother-child relationship is
the best thing that has happened to this brand. In the baby food segment, Nestle S.A. is
the leading company. Kimberly Clark Lever Pvt Ltd (KCL) with its brand Huggies is the
market leader in the diapers.
According to Broadbridge and Morgan (2000), baby care products are the high perceived
risk products, since the consumer in this case is the baby/ infant who cannot tell about the
liking & disliking for the product used. Hence, existence of brand trust (Ballester and
Aleman, 2001) is very much necessary for purchasing any product in this category. Baby
care product category is the one where consumers require greater assurance about quality
than price (Broadbridge and Morgan, 2000). Lack of trust and high risk are found to be
the main drivers preventing mothers to purchase new and unknown brands in this product
category. So it is imperative that trust in baby care brand is one of the most crucial factors
for success in this product category. Academic research is needed to discover important
factors that develop trust in baby care brands. Past researches such as Yee and Chin
(2007), Broadbridge and Morgan (2000), Ballester and Aleman (2001), Chen, Au and Li
(2004), Beattie (2004) have found that various factors such as brand commitment, overall
satisfaction, price tolerance, customer involvement, quality, brand familiarity, brand
awareness, external and internal information sources builds brand trust and brand choice
in case of baby products.

None of the past studies except few (Broadbridge and Morgan, 2000; Yee and Chin,
2007; Ballester and Aleman, 2001) have tried to classify the factors that develop brand
trust in case of baby care products. After doing extensive literature review, this study
classified factors leading to brand trust as Brand Characteristics factors, Customer Brand
characteristic factors, External influencer factors and interpersonal influencers factors.
Thus, this makes a comprehensive list of antecedents of brand trust for baby care
toiletries products and which has till date not studied. Similarly, three consequences of
brand trust has been proposed in the study namely, commitment, perceived risk and
WOM behavior, which are also not studied earlier with respect to their interrelationship.
Past studies show that parents demographics such as education, income (Yee and Chin,
2007; Chen et al; 2004; and Silver, 1995) have significant effect on baby care products
purchase. Thus it is highly possible that mothers personal variables such as
demographics and personality may influence the relationships involving brand trust and
its antecedents for baby care toiletries products.
Past studies have been conducted on infant food (Yee and Chin, 2007), diapers (Ballester
and Aleman, 2001) and soap (Broadbridge and Morgan, 2000) but not in the broad
toiletries product category as a whole. Study by Ballester and Aleman (2001) was only
empirical in nature whereas other studies in baby toiletries product category (Broadbridge
and Morgan, 2000; Beattie, 2004) are qualitative in nature and lacks empirical support.
Most of the studies are for other baby product categories such as food, apparel, toys but
they also lacks empirical support and are qualitative in nature. Hence, this study not only
proposes antecedents and consequences of brand trust for baby care toiletry product
category but also gives empirical validation for it.

1.2 Research Questions, Objective, and Scope of the study

The main objective of the paper is to extend the study of Brand trust in the baby care
toiletries product category and to find out the factors which develop brand trust in
mothers for baby care toiletries products. Study incorporates antecedents and
consequences of brand trust of baby care toiletries products and shows what antecedents
are preferred by which mother segment on the basis of their personal characteristics. The
following are the research objectives:
1. To identify the major antecedents of brand trust in baby care toiletries product
brands.
2. To identify the major consequences of brand Trust in baby care toiletries product
brands.
3. To examine the role of Brand Trust in the relation between its antecedent factors
and consequences
4. To find out the effect of mothers demographic variables in the relationship
between the antecedents of brand trust and the brand trust
5. To find out the effect of mothers personality variables in the relationship between
the antecedents of brand trust and the brand trust

1.3 Theoretical Framework

In order to examine the above-mentioned objectives, a framework was conceptualized
identifying and depicting (a) the causal links of key antecedent variables and the outcome
variables of brand trust in the context of baby care toiletries products and (b) the

10

influence of demographic and personality values of mothers on links between antecedents

of brand trust and brand trust.
Over the years, the construct of trust has attracted the attention of scholars from several
disciplinary perspectives- economics (Dasgupta 1988), psychology (Deutsch 1960;
Larzelere and Huston 1980), sociology (Lewis and Weigert 1985), marketing (Morgan
and Hunt 1994; Michell et al., 1998; Garbarino and Johnson., 1999) and many other
areas. In marketing literatures, trust has been widely theorised in relationship marketing
in the context of distribution channels (Andaleeb, 1992; Kumar et al., 1995) and
industrial buyer seller relationship (Dwyer et al., 1987; Ganeshan, 1994; Schurr and
Ozanne, 1985).

Numerous definitions of trust have been offered in the literatures.

Moorman, Zaltman, and Deshpande (1992) have defined trust as the willingness to rely
on an exchange partner in whom one has confidence. Morgan and Hunt (1994) have
defined trust as the perception of "confidence in the exchange partners reliability and
integrity." Trust is said to exist in an uncertain and risky environment (Bhattacharya et al.,
1998). With respect to risk, Boon and Holmes (1991) defined trust as a state involving
confident positive expectation about another motives with respect to oneself in risky
conditions. Trust is considered as a confidence in the face of risk (Lewis and Weigert,
1985; Afzal et al., 2010). Concept of trust is widely used in the industrial marketing and
new to consumer marketing, especially with respect to trust in the brand. Trust has been
defined in varied ways by different researchers. Ha (2004) has defined trust as having
trustworthiness and expertise component in the online context. Atilgan et al (2009) has
described trust in the services context as having reliability, intention and credibility
dimensions. Chaudhuri & Holbrook (2002) and Power et al (2008) in their study have

11

again taken the dimensions of trustworthiness and expertise to define trust.

Trustworhiness is one of the components which is widely used by researchers to define
trust. It refers to the confidence in the service provider, providing quality performance in
a sincere and honest manner (Sung & Kim, 2010). Another construct which is widely
used to define trust in branding is reliability which is the perceived dependability of the
brands functional performance (Wang, 2002). Trust has also been defined as benevolence
component i.e., partners good intentions, and his or her perceived willingness to pay
attention to the others needs and altruism component i.e., the degree to which the
consumer perceives the organization as being unselfishly caring about its customers as
well as society as a whole (Wang, 2002). Trust has also been defined differently by
different authors in different contexts. However, various components of brand trust by
researchers have been discussed in detail in the following paragraph.

Trust in the context of Brand

Brand is a name, term, sign, symbol, design or combination of all given by the seller to
identify their goods or services, and to differentiate them from competitors (Lau & Lee,
1999). When a consumer trusts a brand, he/ she trust a symbol than a person. Brand trust
is the extension of trust theory in the area of consumer marketing. Construct of brand
trust has attracted little theoretical and empirical research studies as brand is inanimate
object (Ballester, 2004) and applying interpersonal theory of trust is not an easy task in
this context. However, recently many researchers (Fournier, 1998; Lau and Lee, 1999;
Ballester and Aleman, 2001) have tried to study and develop brand trust relationship
theory and have opened avenue for its further development and research. Brand trust is

12

the confidence held by the customers that the brand will meet their consumption
expectations. It is a feeling held by the consumers that the brand will take care of their
interest and not take advantage of their vulnerability. Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001)
have considered brand trust as unidimensional variable stating it as consumers
willingness to believe on the ability of the brand to perform its expected function.
However, further studies have considered brand trust as multidimensional. Dimensions
such as brand reliability and brand intentions were said to build brand trust (DelgadoBallester et al, 2004). Brand trust is defined as a secured feeling held by the customers
based on his/ her interaction with the brand that it is reliable and is responsible for the
interest and welfare of the customers (Delgado-Ballester et al, 2005). Dawar and Pillutla
(2000) have described brand trust in terms of reliability and dependability. In case of high
perceived risk, customers develop trust in a brand which provides a guarantee of quality
and security (Deutsch, 1973; Ballester and Aleman, 2005; Aaker, 1991; Elliott and
Yannopoulou, 2007). It is found that at times the brand customer relationship becomes so
strong that when customers select a brand, they do not merely choose it for consumption
but to choose lives lead with it (Fournier, 1998). Customers trust in a brand develops on
the ability and willingness of the brand to keep its promises and to satisfy consumers
demand even in the cases of crisis (Ballester, 2004; Ballester and Aleman, 2005). Elliott
and Yannopoulou (2007) have researched that trust becomes more relevant in the case of
symbolic brands with high level of involvement and high perceptions of purchase risk.
Customers trusting a brand would commit to it for the long time (Gurviez and Korchia,
2003) and generally purchase the same brands for years. Brand trust leads to brand
loyalty and customers get reluctant to switch to other brands (Ballester and Aleman,

13

2005). It can be concluded that brand trust is essential not only in retaining current
customers but also in gaining new customers since it inculcates the feeling of confidence
and security among the people (Aaker, 1991; Elliott and Yannopoulou, 2007). Brand trust
is essential for the final purchases (Sichtmann, 2007; Samson, 2006) and also in
developing loyalty or commitment for the brand (Ballester & Aleman, 2005; Wang, 2002;
Ha, 2004; Ballester & Aleman, 2001). It is a pillar for developing healthy brandcustomer relationship (Blackston, 2000; Guese & Haelge, 2010).
Previous literatures have talked about various consequences of brand trust such as brand
loyalty (Lau & Lee, 1999 ; Afzal et al., 2010; Sondoh, 2009; Devrani, 2009), brand
satisfaction (Ballester and Aleman, 2001; Dywer et al., 1987; Krishnan, 1996), brand
choice (Erdem, 2004; Rani, 2009; Atilgan et al., 2009; Reast, 2005; Elliott et al., 2007) ,
purchase intension (Sichtmann, 2007; Samson, 2006; Wirtz & Chew, 2002; Thomas et
al., 2009), product extension acceptability, brand commitment (Ballester & Aleman,
2001; Wang, 2002; Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2002), WOM behaviour (Mason, 2009;
Sichtmann, 2007). Two major consequences of brand trust i.e., brand commitment and
brand loyalty are worked upon by researchers widely. Brand Commitment is the implicit
or explicit intention to maintain a durable relationship with the brand (Gurviez and
Korchia, 2002). It includes both behavioral and attitudinal component i.e., repurchase &
long term relationship (Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001). Brand loyalty implies a behavioral
dimension, whereas brand commitment characterizes an attitudinal facet (Warrington and
Shim, 2000). Loyal consumers who repeatedly purchase the brand without strong brand
preference are likely to switch to another brand, whereas brand-committed consumers are
unlikely to switch (Sung & Choi, 2010). Other consequences such as WOM behavior,

14

purchase intention, brand extension acceptability are limited researched and are explored
in the later part of the thesis.
With respect to demographic and personality variable moderators, few or little research is
done. Moderating role in particular has not been examined. Researchers such as Yee and
Chin (2007), Prendegast & Wong (2003), Broadbridge & Morgan (2001) has talked about
in limited sense of the affect of mothers demographic variable on the purchase choice
criteria of baby care products. Thus, this study through literature review and detailed
qualitative & empirical study, address the research gaps present in the literature. Based on
above studies, theoretical framework for brand trust development in the context of baby
care toiletries product has been discussed in detail in the next chapter.

1.4. Expected contributions of the study

This study focuses on various factors that generate cognitive and affective brand trust for
their brands among the mothers. The results suggest marketing strategy implications for
companies regarding essential elements they must keep in mind while promoting their
brand and winning trust of mothers. Since India, has the highest number of infants and
baby care market is expanding faster, thus the findings of the study can be beneficial for
the companies in fighting competition. The present study might also attract more
researches in the less researched context of baby care products.
The study will help the scholars and practitioners in many broad ways. First of all, it
would tell the scholars the factors that generate brand trust in the context of baby care
toiletries products. Secondly, it would show whether these factors that generate brand
trust vary across personality and demographic values or not. Summarizing past works and

15

integrating several ideas derived from these works into our model would make study in
this context interesting and useful. Empirical validation of moderating effects of
demographic and personality variables on established linkages between brand trust and
its antecedents have far reaching implication for brands operating in baby care toiletries
market. This will help companies to devise differential marketing strategies to suit the
requirement of different demographic profile of mothers.

1.5 Organization of Thesis Chapters

The rest of the chapters are organized as follows. The relevant literature related to brand
trust, baby care products, mothers personality and demographic variables is reviewed
and presented in Chapter 2. Based on this literature review, a research model is developed
in chapter 3, which addresses some of the gaps in the knowledge and some of the issues
arising from previous research. Thereafter, a conceptual framework is developed which
reflects the hypotheses that are to be tested. In chapter 4, the research methodology has
been discussed in details. The results and analysis have been presented in chapter 5. In
chapter 6, the contributions of the study, the managerial implications of the results have
been discussed. Further, drawbacks and directions of future research have been provided.

16

CHAPTER 2
Review of Related Literatures

2.1 Brand Trust in the context of baby care products.

Baby care toiletries product category is a category where the buyer and the user are
different (Prendergast and Wong, 2003) and involves high level of perceived risk. Baby
care product category involves great inherent risk (Ballester and Aleman, 2001) and
hence mothers would want to purchase the reliable and the most trust worthy brand.
Brand trust in the case of baby care products requires assurance of integrity and
benevolence that the brand would act honestly, sincerely and take customers side even in
the uncertain conditions. Consumers require greater assurance about quality than the
price (Broadbridge and Morgan, 2000). Researches have indicated that mothers do not
mind paying high to get quality products (Yee and Chin, 2007) and even willing to
sacrifice their own purchases (Broadbridge and Morgan, 2000) to buy the trusted brand
for their baby. Medical physicians advice is considered as an important factor in
determining baby food (Yee and Chin, 2007) and other care products. Previous research
(Broadbridge and Morgan, 2000) reports that the product reliability and performance are
essential elements while selecting a baby care brand. Brand distinct positioning
(Chernatony, 1989) and reputation (Afzal et al., 2010) serves as a strong binding force for
the consumers and preventing them to switch to other brands. Brand switching is usually
not seen if mothers are satisfied with the baby product (Yee and Chin, 2007). Various

17

factors are thus said to build brand trust in case of baby care products. Same are
discussed in the later sections.
Brand trust in the present study is divided in to two dimensions of cognitive and
affective brand trust. Our study is based on well-established theoretical precedent for
examining trust from the social psychology literature that conceptualizes trust as having
cognitive & affective dimensions (Lewis and Weigert, 1985). Based on above theory,
Cognitive brand trust is defined as the knowledge driven trust based for good reasons of
which brand to be chosen, under which respect i.e., features the brand is chosen & under
what circumstances i.e., it fulfills which need situation of the consumer. It is the cognitive
leap beyond the expectations that reason and experience alone would warrant (Inspired
by Lewis & Weigert, 1985). It refers to the careful methodical thought process used to
determine whether brand is trustworthy or not (Morrow et al., 2004). It emerges from the
accumulated knowledge that allows one to build confidence for other that it would meet
to his/ her obligations (Johnson and Grayson, 2005). It is the confidence developed in the
brand backed by empirical evidence and not instantaneously (Jones & George, 1998;
Morrow et al., 2004). Hence, it emerges when the brand satisfies the customers needs
through its attributes, features in consistent way.
Affective brand trust is defined as the belief generated on the basis of level of care and
concern that the brand exhibit. It reflects emotional security on the part of customers
(Ballester, 2004). It is that aspect of belief that goes beyond available evidence to make
customers assured that brand will act in a responsible way and take care of their needs. It
is a trust based on ones instinct, intuitions, feelings concerning whether other party is

18

trustworthy (Morrow et al., 2004). This trust places reliance on the brand based on
emotions, feelings.
Therefore, brand trust in this study reflects two separate components, first knowledge
based and another emotion based. Agreeing with McAllister (1995), study proposes that
cognitive brand trust generates earlier and leads to affective brand trust in baby toiletries
brands as baseline expectation of brand performance is necessary for mothers to invest
further in relationship with the brand.

2.2 Theoretical Frameworks for Research on Brand Trust in baby care products.

Customer Brand Relationship Theory

The theory of customer brand relationship is one of the theories referred in developing
the conceptual framework for the study and for identification of factors that have a direct
influence on affecting brand trust for baby care products. According to Hess and Story
(2005) marketers no longer emphasized on satisfying customers but they aims to maintain
long term relationship with them. Hiscock (2001) stated that the aim of the marketing is
to generate intense bond between the consumer and the brand, and the main ingredient of
this bond is trust. Fournier (1998) is the major contributor to this theory. She has
described brand customer relationship as a multifaceted construct. Her contribution has
been to identify brand relationship in the form of commitment, intimacy, love/ passion,
brand quality. Trust has been mentioned by various researchers (Ballester, 2004;
Blackston, 2000; Smith 2001) as an enhancer in this customer brand relationship. As the
brand customer relationship develops, trust arises and through safety, credibility, and

19

security reduces the sacrifices made by the buyer in the relationship thus increasing its
overall value (Selnes, 1998). This theory states that as the satisfaction from the
relationship increases, the likelihood to exit from the relationship reduces (Hirchman,
1970; Richins, 1983). Dyadic relationship is said to exist between brand and customers
and trust is an essential link to reduce the uncertainty and risk of relationship (Elliott and
Yannopoulou, 2007). In the context of baby products, this theory has been used by
scholars such as Hogan (2007), Ballester and Alleman (2001), Beattie (2004).
In the context of baby products, companies try to develop relationship and emotional
bonding between the mother and the baby through the brand. Johnson & Johnson, a
popular baby care product brand advertise itself that by using it, bonding between mother
and infant grows. Satisfaction resulting from brand experience, brand intimacy is the
result of brand customer relationship and it can generate or break the trust in the brand. In
the context of this study, brand experience through past and present usage of the brand
delivers both cognitive and affective satisfaction to baby and mothers. If mothers are
satisfied with the consumption of the brand and baby remains happy, then the trust for the
brand develops and also creates brand commitment for it.

Social Exchange Theory

This theory suggests that the behavior of parties in the exchange relationship cannot be
explained only through economic exchanges but also through social interaction and belief
that each party would fulfill their obligations (Blau, 1964; Thibaut and Kelley, 1959).
Hence, the main source of trust is shared value and period of relationship between the
parties. Doney, Cannon, and Mullen (1998) has suggested that people build trust in

20

others through repeated interactions and common values and goals. Blau (1964)
has stated that social exchange theory requires the individual to trust
the other party to discharge his obligations because there was no
guaranteed return for the service. According to Auh (2005) social
exchange theory is the reciprocal exchange of positive and valuable
information that enhances the trust, commitment, and satisfaction with
the relationship. In the context of baby care products, there exist a
high level of perceived risk on the mothers to choose which brand and
this perception of risk can be overcome through trust guaranteed and
developed by the brand. Social exchange theory suggests that trust
prevails even when opportunism might be rationally expected.
In the context of baby care products, factor of brand reputation is
influenced by the variables that lead to brand trust. Since, social behavior
is not only an exchange of material goods but also of non-material ones, such as the
symbols of approval or prestige and the mothers develop trust in a brand due to the
approval factor attached to it, hence the brand also comes under the obligation to perform
according to expectations. In the circumstances, when marketers are not able to fulfill the
expectation of the consumers, distrust among the consumers happen and brand losses in
the market.

Theory of Reasoned Action

The theory of reasoned action (TRA) is one of the theories referred in developing the
conceptual framework for the study and for identification of factors that have a direct

21

influence on building brand trust. Theory is based on the assumption that human beings
are rational and make systematic use of information available to them (Fishbein and
Ajzen, 1975). According to the theory, behavior is determined by the behavior intention,
which in turn is influenced by the attitudinal and the social factors. The second factor,
subjective norms, consists of persons perceptions of what important specific referent
individuals or groups think he or she should do (Vallerand et al., 1992). Importance of
both the factors varies according to the behavior, situation and individual difference of
each individual (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) also proposed that
certain external variables may also affect behavior indirectly by their effects on
behavioral and normative beliefs (Summers et al, 2006). External variables such as
traditional attitude toward objects, personality traits, and demographics could influence
the factors determining beliefs which, in turn, could provide a better understanding of the
individual behavior. Researchers also have suggested additional external variables such
as past behavior, past experiences, or involvement could be included in the model to
more accurately predict the behavior (Bagozzi et al., 2000; Bunce and Birdi, 1998).
Keeping this view, baby care products choice and brand trust are influenced by social
and referent group influence (Beattie, 2004). Brand trust of these products also varies
according to the demographic and psychographic profiles of the customers (Yee and
Chin, 2007). They have researched that parent with higher level of education has high
level of awareness towards nutrition components of infant food products. Also they have
found that educated parents when come across new baby care product brand are found to
be getting information about it from the physicians. Occupation was another variable that
was found by them to be affecting brand purchase of infant milk formulae. Working

22

mothers were dependent on milk formulae since they had no time and found it convenient
to feed their babies. Income of the parents was also found to affect the brand purchases.
High income parents go for costly baby milk formulae then the low income parents.
Thus, theory of reasoned action is also said to influence demographic variables of this
study.

Brand Trust Theory

Brand trust theory is the offshoot of trust theory. It is of recent origin and is inspired by
social psychology, sociology and management (Ballester, 2004). There have been little
consensus among the scholars on what factors constitute brand trust. Different
researchers have treated brand trust in different ways. Some researchers have taken
factors as the core component of trust itself and some have taken the same factors as
antecedents to trust. According to the theory, trust in a brand is a feeling of security held
by the consumer in his/her interaction with the brand, that it is based on the perceptions
that the brand is reliable and responsible for the interests and welfare of the consumer
(Ballester, 2004). Theory assumes that brand is benevolent and would look for the
welfare of customers, even at the cost of its advantage. Li et al (2007) has found that
brand trust exists when consumers place their confidence in a brand with respect to
specific aspects of a brand such as performance competence and benevolent intentions.
Hess and Story (2005) suggested that core component of trust such as altruism, integrity,
or a combination of the two differentiates it from future expected performance. Brands
express these motivations by doing such things as resolving problems quickly, providing
consistently good food, and greeting customers with friendly, efficient employees.

23

Gurviez & Korchia (2003) has called brand trust as a psychological variable mirroring a
set of accumulated presumptions involving the credibility, integrity and benevolence that
a consumer attributes to the brand.

Brand credibility, benevolence, reliability,

competence, experience, satisfaction, reputation and intention are the variables stated by
the different researchers as constituting antecedents of brand trust. In the present study,
Gurviez and Korchia (2003) perspective of integrity and Li et al (2007) perspective of
benevolence is taken to define brand trust. Conducive to this theory factors such as
competency, credibility, reputation, satisfaction are taken as antecedents of brand trust.

Trust Commitment Theory

The theory was proposed by Morgan and Hunt (1994). According to the theory, trust and
commitment are key variables as they leads to preserving relationship in exchange
partners. Presence of both trust and commitment leads to resistance of attractive short
term gains in the favor of long term benefits of staying in the partnership. They produce
outcomes that promote efficiency, productivity, and effectiveness.

They lead to

cooperative behaviors that are conducive to any successful relationship. Commitment to

the relationship is defined as an enduring desire to maintain a valued relationship
(Morgan and Hunt, 1994; Moorman, Zaltman, and Deshpande, 1992). Commitment is the
mutual social trust on the part of parties to maintain exchange relationship in the future
(McDonald, 1981). Trust and commitment is the outcome of strong and developing
relationships. Gundlach, Achrol, and Mentzer (1995) has suggested that commitment
has three components: an instrumental component of some form of investment, an
attitudinal component that may be described as affective commitment or psychological

24

attachment, and a temporal dimension declaring that the relationship exists over time
(Garbarino and Johnson, 1999). In the case of customer brand context, commitment is the
important contributor that leads to long term loyalty (Hess, 1995; Ballester and Alleman,
2001). In the context of baby diapers, commitment is found to be the consequences of
brand trust (Ballester and Alleman, 2001). Thus, from this theory, component of
commitment is proposed to be a consequence of brand trust in baby care toiletries product
brands.

Taxonomy of factors building brand trust in the context of

baby care toiletries products
Hess and Story (2005) had classified the factors that generate brand trust into four
major groups i.e. brand characteristics, customer characteristics, product / service
performance and firm responsiveness. In the domain of corporate brand trust, Michell et
al (1998) has formulated separate group of antecedent factors which are probity factor,
equity factor, reliability factor and satisfaction factor. In the market research relationship,
Moorman et al (1993) has identified factors such as individual user characteristics,
researcher

interpersonal

characteristics,

user

organizational

characteristics,

interdepartmental and project characteristics factors to be building trust in researcher. Lau

and Lee (1999) have conceptualized the antecedents of brand trust as a) brand
characteristics factors such as brand reputation, predictability and competence b)
company characteristics factors as trust in company, company reputation, company
integrity and c) consumer-brand characteristics factors such as self concept, peer support,
brand experience and brand satisfaction. In this study the various scholarly views on the

25

subject of trust have been reviewed and integrated. Subsequently, a more comprehensive
model on brand trust and its antecedents has been presented.

The Antecedents of Brand Trust in the context of Baby care products

After integrating the concepts of antecedents of brand trust from the work of Hess and
Story (2005) and Lau and Lee (1999), two factors are named as brand characteristics
factor and customer brand characteristic factors. Two new factors inspired by the study
of Bhattacherjee (2000) leading to brand trust in the context of baby care products are
proposed in the study i.e., external influence factors and interpersonal factors. These four
factors are proposed in the study to affect both cognitive and affective brand trust in the
baby care toiletries product brands context.

Brand Characteristics Factors

Theory of brand trust has posited that brand reputation, brand credibility, performance
competency, brand predictability (Hess and Story, 2005; Lau and Lee, 1999) is the major
elements of brand characteristics factor. Brand characteristics are the brand properties
which are important factor in shaping consumer trust for the brand (Afzal et al., 2010).
Through these characteristics, consumers judge a brand. Brand benevolence (Li et al.,
2007), brand integrity (Gurviez and Korchia, 2003; Michell et al., 1998) are also taken in
the researches to influence brand trust. Brand characteristic factors comprise the broad
framework of product quality. This factor is of utmost importance in the context of baby
care products since mothers evaluate different brands based on these characteristics.

26

Brand quality is given more importance than the price by the mothers (Broadbridge and
Morgan, 2000). Since generally mothers have no experience related to choice of baby
care brands hence they pay importance to the distinct features present in a brand.
Researches (Hess and Story, 2005; Lau and Lee, 1999; Gurviez and Korchia, 2003;
Michell et al., 1998; Afzal et al., 2010; Sichtmann, 2007) have empirically shown that
brand reputation, brand credibility, performance competency, brand predictability, brand
benevolence, brand integrity generates brand trust.
Since few or little work is done in the baby care products context, hence qualitative
interviews of mothers were conducted to find out and frame the important variables that
results in to brand trust in this context. From the basis of qualitative study conducted on
mothers, brand predictability, brand reputation, brand innovativeness, brand origin and
brand credibility identified as likely antecedents of brand trust.

Customer Brand Characteristic Factor

This factor is based on the previous interaction directly or indirectly between the
customers and brand. Lau and Lee (1999) in their study has included consumers self
concept and brand image, liking for the brand, experience with the brand, satisfaction
with the brand, peer support and influence under this factor. Overall satisfaction is found
to generate trust (Ganeshan, 1994) as the customer becomes assured that the brand would
take care of his welfare and interest (Ballester and Aleman, 2001). Prior experience with
the brand in the form of number of usage or continuous usage by other family members
also generates brand trust. In the context of baby care products, variables of consumption
experience and consumption satisfaction are proposed since interview with mothers

27

indicated that they like to purchase those baby care brands which they or their family
members have used earlier. Satisfaction emerged out to be the most important variable for
generating trust because mothers remain committed to brands with which they are
satisfied and even eager to pay high prices for them.

External Influence Factor

Understanding consumer information search behavior is very critical for any firm to
make strategic decisions for its brand. External influence factors here constitute the
impact of information outside the family sources of the customers such as from
magazines, television, radio, internet and other mass media sources. For the baby care
toiletries brand, external influence factors also constitutes professional expert opinion
such as of physicians and non professional expert opinion such as midwives, opinion of
experienced old ladies of the society. It has been found that consumers do extensive
external information search to reduce uncertainty involved with the product purchase
(Urbany et al., 1989). External influencer sources have no interpersonal contact with the
consumers. It refers to influence by mass media reports, expert opinion and other non
personal sources considered by individuals in performing a behavior (Bhattacherjee,
2000). For baby care toiletries brand, external influencers are found to play important
role as before developing trust for any brands mothers do extensive information search by
consulting physicians, taking the opinion of experienced ladies or other mothers. They
also look for the information from the various media sources present.

Interpersonal Factors

28

Interpersonal influence is the influence by friends, family members, colleagues

(Bhattacherjee, 2000). Family plays important role in affecting individuals norms,
attitude and values (Childers and Rao, 1992; Heckler et al., 1989) and also influencing
brand preference and loyalties (Childers and Rao, 1992). It is said that family influence is
greater on individuals as they identify themselves with their family members and also
interaction among them is large. This factor also includes peer or friends influence as
they play direct role in consumption behavior of an individual. In the context of baby care
toiletries products, mothers are found to be influenced largely by the friend and peer
group. They usually consult about the experience of their friends and peer group before
developing trust for any baby care toiletries brands (Broadbridge and Morgan, 2000).
This factor is influenced by the referent group theory and theory of family decision.

2.3 The Role of mothers demographic variables in brand trust

Researchers have indicated that purchasing behavior for baby care products are
influenced by the demographic profile of the mothers. Research work such as Yee and
Chin (2007), Chen, Au and Li (2004), Prendergast and Wong, (2003), Beattie (2004) has
studied the impact of mothers demographics in the purchase decision of children
products. Taking cue from the above works, in this study education, family structure and
income are considered to be influencing in the relationship between brand trust and its
antecedents.

2.4 The Role of mothers personality variables in brand trust

29

Psychographic is a broad domain that includes personality and lifestyle (Kotler, 1997).
There have been a plethora of studies including the seminal works of Tauber (1972) that
indicates the effect of psychographics on the shopping behavior and customer market can
be segmented on its basis. Personality has been used in many consumer decision making
studies (Mulyanegara et al., 2007; Kochanska, 1997b; Belsky & Barends, 2002;
Verhoeven et al., 2007). Personality as a concept represents a set of ideas quite distinct
from lifestyle (Kucukemiroglu, 1997). It is defined as the intrinsic organisation of an
individuals mental world that is stable over time and consistent over situations
(Piedmont, 1998). Whereas, costumers define their lifestyles by the consumption choices
they make in different product categories (Lin, 2002). Personality as defined above
remains stable with consumption styles whereas lifestyle keeps on changing with
consumption of different types of products and services. This study takes into account the
moderating influence of mothers personality on the brand trust and its antecedents due to
its stable nature. Researchers have indicated that the big five personality characteristics of
mothers affect their relationship with the baby (Clark et al, 2000; Kochanska et al, 2004).
These studies classified the mothers on the basis of Big Five personality traits of
Neuroticism,

Conscientiousness,

Agreeableness,

Openness,

and

Extraversion.

Mulyanegara et al (2009) in his paper has indicated the relationship between these big
five personality traits and brand preference of the customers. These big five personality
traits indicates that how mothers falling into different traits would develop brand trust for
baby care products based on importance paid to different antecedent variables. Though
there have been a vast number of works in the area, till date there have been no studies, to
the best of knowledge, which has comprehensively studied how the big five personality

30

variables would moderate the relationship between the antecedents of brand trust and
brand trust. Hence based on above work and assumption, this study takes into
consideration the moderating influence of mothers personality variables on the brand
trust and its antecedents.

CHAPTER 3
Model Development and Hypotheses Generation

3.1 Brand Trust and its antecedents in the context of baby care toiletries products

Brand Credibility
Baby care toiletries product market is characterized by low brand awareness and
uncertainty among the mothers. In such scenario, brands which can understand babys
requirements and also substantiate and transfer value proposition can only win the trust of
the mothers. Brand must deliver what it claims and promises to win customers trust. This
is expressed by brand credibility which implies customers confidence in brands claim
(Erdem & Swait, 1998). Credibility dimension of the brand is concerned with meeting the
technical expectations or needs of the customers (Gurviez and Korchia, 2003). Erdem &
Swait (2004) has defined it as the believability of the product information contained in a
brand, which require consumers perceive that the brand have the ability (i.e., expertise)
and willingness to continuously deliver what has been promised. It represents the
functional expectations of the consumers from the brand. Credibility refers to the safety

31

and quality guarantee concept (Gurviez and Korchia, 2003) that the brand will fulfil these
promises made by it before the transaction (Sichtmann, 2007). Agreeing with the
definition of Gurviez and Korchia (2003), the credibility attributed to the brand is the
assessment of the brands ability to meet the terms of the exchange in terms of expected
performance, i.e., meet consumers technical expectations. Brand credibility is found to
reduce perceived risk and brand equity (Erdem & Swait, 1998). Gurviez and Korchia
(2003) demonstrated credibility as one of the dimensions of the brand trust which has the
most important influence in creating it. Sichtmann (2007) in their study of corporate
brand empirically concluded brand credibility as an important antecedent of brand trust.
Extending the preceding research to baby care toiletries brand it is proposed that brand
credibility leads to cognitive brand trust as in India, if mothers believe that the baby care
brand is safe and provides good quality guarantee then they tends to develop trust into it.
Indian mothers are found to be very much concerned about the safety and the quality of
the product they buy for their baby and is the most important component influencing their
purchase decisions. Brand credibility conforms to the cognitive attribute evaluation
process (Johnson and Grayson, 2005).
Exemplarily during qualitative interview with mothers in two Indian cities (Mumbai and
Lucknow), respondents commented:

Baby products of this brand deliver exactly what it promises. This makes me to develop a good
sense of trust for the brand; I trust baby lotion, soap and cream of this brand as it does not
contains harsh chemicals and hence frees me from the worries what if it enters in the babys
mouth; Baby products of this brand smells good and gives a soothing comfort and freshness to
the baby, this makes me to trust this brand more than any other brand; I trust this brand

32

because its baby products are mild, soft for the babys skin and also dont cause itching to my
babys eyes.

This indicates that credibility of brand is highly essential for mothers to develop
cognitive trust for it as baby care toiletries products are high risk one and credibility of
the brand can only motivate mothers to use it for their baby. So the hypothesis emerges:

H1: Brand Credibility is an antecedent for generating cognitive brand trust in baby care
toiletries product brands.

Brand Reputation
Reputation is defined as the overall value, esteem and character of a brand as seen or
judged by people in general (Chaudhuri, 2002). It is researched that brand reputation can
be the result of good advertising and public relation (Afzal et al, 2010; Lau & Lee, 1999)
or the outcome of product quality and performance (Lau & Lee, 1999). Brand reputation
has been studied with regard to brand equity, brand sales, market share, price (Chaudhuri,
2002). Brand reputation is said to increase when the consumer is of the opinion that other
people think brand is good and then the consumer sufficiently trust the brand for
purchasing (Lau & Lee, 1999). Hogan (2007) has identified brand reputation as an
essential factor in generating trust among parents while purchasing toys. Extending this
factor to baby care products, reputation is important while selecting these products
because mothers would purchase only those brands which are popular and carry high
esteem. Broadbridge and Morgan (2000) have found that reputation greatly influenced
the purchasing behaviour of mothers for baby care products. Reputed brands are

33

considered as tried and tested products and high in quality. They generate trust for the
brand as mothers are generally found to avoid new and unknown baby care brands (News
Center) and go for only well known reputed brands. Johnson and Grayson (2005) have
found reputation as both symbol of value reciprocation and an expression of empathy for
the customers. They found reputation to affect both cognitive and affective trust.
The interview with mothers further supported the viewpoint. In this context, mothers
stated:

I have used and trusted this baby product brand because of its reputation and good name
among mothers; This baby product brand is a renowned brand from ages. My grandmother,
mother all has suggested me to use this brand, so how I cant trust it.

This shows that Indian mothers attach importance to reputed brands while purchasing
toiletries product brands for their babies. So the hypothesis emerges:

H2: Brand Reputation is an antecedent for generating both (a) cognitive and (b) affective
brand trust in baby care toiletries product brands.

Brand Origin
Brand origin is defined as the place, region or country to which the brand is perceived to
belong by its target consumers (Thakor & Kohli, 1996). Brand origin is found to have
significant effect for its liking & purchase intention (Harris et al; 1994, Thakor & Lavack,
2003). Use of favorable brand origin in their marketing strategy gives brands an
opportunity to increase trust (Shukla, 2010). It is researched that country of manufacture

34

does not effect perception of brand quality when country of brand origin information is
also provided (Thakor & Lavack, 2003). Chlivickas & Smaliukien, (2009) in their study
said that brand origin consists of both cognitive & affective components. Customer
insights also supported that Indian mothers do look for brand origin information as some
of the mothers commented:

Before trusting and buying any product for my baby, I first read about the country from which
the brand belongs; Definitely for my baby I will trust only those brands which are originated
in developed countries such as U.S.A, U.K. than local made products.

Thus, in case of baby care toiletries brands, brand origin is hypothesized to influence both
cognitive & affective brand trust.

H3: Brand Origin is an antecedent for generating both (a) cognitive and (b) affective
brand trust in baby care toiletries product brands.

Brand Predictability
Brand predictability is the ability of ones party to forecast the behavior of another party
(Doney and Cannon, 1997). It involves knowledge of past behavior and promises made
by the other party to judge their trustworthiness. Lewicki and Bunker (1995) in their
study has described that for being predictability to act as a source of trust, two elements
are essential to present viz., repeated interaction and courtship. Brand predictability is
said to dependent on product attributes and brand worth (Afzal et al., 2010). Product
predictability is found to increase trust in a brand because certainty builds positive
35

outlook (Kasperson, Golding, and Tuler, 1992; Afzal et al., 2010). In the context of baby
care toiletries brand, from qualitative interviews, it was found that mothers develop trust
for those brands whose act they can predict beforehand. They were found to have certain
knowledge of brands predictability to act in a positive manner. This was confirmed by
respondents during the interview as:
This brand is trustworthy since I can always anticipate correctly how this brand will
perform; I can trust this brand as in comparison to other baby care toiletries brands,
this brand is known to consistently deliver very high quality

Thus, it can be hypothesized that:

H4: Brand Predictability is an antecedent for generating cognitive brand trust in baby
care toiletries product brands.

Brand Innovativeness
Brand innovativeness is the extent to which consumers perceive brands as being able to
provide new and useful solutions to their needs (Schumpeter 1934). Customers develop
positive liking towards the brands which focus on providing new, relevant solutions to
customer needs (Eisingerich and Rubera, 2010). Customers develop high brand
commitment for those brands which has great ability to address consumers wants and
needs on a continuous basis (Reichheld and Sasser 1990). Brand innovation is marked by
market driving strategy where customers do not ask for the products but companies
provide unique business model, the need for which customers have not imagined of

36

(Nirmalaya Kumar, 2008). In case of baby care toiletries product brands, innovation with
changing needs of baby is prioritized by Indian mothers. They like brands which provide
new and effective solution to their babys need. Exemplarily, mothers during qualitative
interviews commented:

I trust this brand because it keeps on modifying its baby products according to the needs of
baby; This brand is trustworthy as it has introduced soap cum shampoo baby product in the
market. It provides convenience as baby can be bathed with a single product instead of using
separately soap and shampoo; This brand keeps on introducing new range of baby toiletries
products and can be confidently depended and trusted upon.

Concluding from above discussion, following hypothesis has been developed:

H5: Brand Innovativeness is an antecedent for generating cognitive brand trust in baby
care toiletries product brands.

Perceived Value for Money

It is the consumer's overall assessment of the utility of a product brand based on what is
received and what is given (Zeithaml, 1988). It is the consumer's perception of the
benefits minus the costs of maintaining an ongoing relationship with the brand
(Sirdeshmukh et al, 2002). Consumers are found to be inclined towards the exchanges
that provide maximum value at sufficient cost to them (Bolton and Drew, 1991,
Sirdeshmukh et al, 2002). Yee & Chin (2007) in their study of baby food has found that

37

parents made their purchase decision based on quality price intervention. Exemplarily,
mothers commented:

When I buy baby toiletry brand, I like to be sure that I am getting my moneys worth;
To me brand can only be trustworthy when it provides maximum quality for each rupee
I spent.

Thus, it can be hypothesized that the baby care toiletries brands which provide value for
money are considered to develop cognitive trust.

H6: Value for money positively relates to cognitive brand trust in baby care toiletries
product brands.

Brand Intimacy
Intimacy refers to the degree of closeness, connectedness, and bondedness between
relationship partners (Thorbjornsen et al; 2002). A brand that does not knows who its
customer are, will not earn their trust, regardless of its credibility and reliability
(Blackston, 2000). Brand intimacy in the context of baby care toiletries product can be
reflected by free distribution of magazines and brochure containing articles on parenting
tips such as how to make baby sleep, how to massage baby. In India, various baby care
toiletries brands distribute free of cost mother and baby care magazines. They guide the
new mothers how to take care of their new borns. Brands which develop intimate

38

relationship with customers are trusted more by Indian mothers. Exemplarily, as mothers
commented:

Baby oil of this brand is trusted by me as it contained pamphlets showing pictures and
directions how to massage baby, thus boosting my confidence to massage baby in safe manner;
I like this brand as it distributes free parenting magazines for guiding new parents how to raise
their babies; I have registered on the baby site of this baby product brand during my
pregnancy. Weekly newsletters about the pregnancy and baby growth stage were very helpful in
solving my queries and boosted my trust in its product after my babys birth; This baby product
brand runs socially responsible programs for poor children; it gives me inner happiness while
using products of this brand.

The previous discussion can thus be summarized by the following hypothesis:

H7: Brand Intimacy is an antecedent for generating affective brand trust in baby care
toiletries product brands.

Brand Consumption Experience

Brand trust develops with the experience from the past and the present usage of the brand
(Garbarino and Johnson, 1999; Ballester & Aleman, 2005). Dwyer et al (1987) in their
study related to buyer seller relationship considered consumption experience as more
relevant and significant source of brand trust as it generates beliefs and feelings that are
more certain and self relevant. The channel relationship literature offers both conceptual
and empirical evidence to suggest that as the experience between the partners increases

39

so does the understanding between them (Dwyer et al, 1987). Ballester and Aleman
(2001) in their study involving baby care product of baby diapers found that higher the
customer is satisfied with the brand from past experience, the higher the trust he has for
the brand. Study involving baby food (Yee and Chin, 2007) also mentioned that
dissatisfied customers tends to collect less or no awareness about the brand. It is also
found that parents who are satisfied with one brand of baby food, remains loyal to them
and do not easily switch to other brands.
Indian mothers for baby toiletries brands pay high importance to brand consumption
experience for developing trust and long term relationship, since the perceived risk is
very high and mothers tend to develop trust for those brands only which has exposed
them to a good experience. This was confirmed by respondents during the interview as:

My past experience with the brand is very satisfactory, which makes me to trust it; I have
used earlier this brand for my elder child and found it good and trustworthy.

This also implies that brand consumption experience assessment might involve
satisfaction from both tangible attribute as well as feelings of emotions such as joy,
experience, anger related with the brand. Thus the previous discussion can be
summarized by the following hypothesis:

H8: Brand Consumption Experience is an antecedent for generating both (a) cognitive
and (b) affective brand trust in baby care toiletries product brands.

Professional Expert Opinion

40

Baby care product literatures (Broadbridge and Morgan, 2000; Yee and Chin, 2007;
Beattie, 2004) have indicated that mothers pay importance to the medical expert opinion
while purchasing baby care brands. Mothers develop favorable brand perception for
brands which are distributed as sample for trial in the hospitals (Broadbridge and
Morgan, 2000). They tend to develop trust for these brands as they are recommended
from trusted and experts in the field. Yee and Chin (2007) have reported that if a new
brand is introduced in the market than mothers consult first the medical officers about it
then only purchase it for use.
In Indian context, importance of expert opinion in generating trust can also be inferred
from the fact that companies endorsed their products through the physicians. Some
brands even indicate a seal of approval from the medical physicians. Assessment of
professional expert opinion is driven by cognitive process and not by any emotional
relationship with them. Indian mothers adhere to them as they consider them to be expert
in the field and influenced by their knowledge. Its a cognitive process of evaluating their
knowledge. Qualitative interviews with mothers further corroborated our viewpoint.
Exemplarily, mothers commented:

This baby brand has been recommended by a child specialist, then how can I not trust it; I
trust that baby brands product which is distributed as sample in hospitals; I totally depend on
doctor for developing trust in baby care toiletries product brand.

This means that Indian mothers highly relies on physicians opinion and even considers
the brand samples distributed in the hospital and clinics as trustworthy. Mothers are found

41

to trust and purchase new baby care toiletries brand when it is suggested by the
professional experts. So, the hypothesis emerges:

H9: Expert professional opinion is an antecedent for generating cognitive brand trust in
baby care toiletries product brands.

Family & Peer Influencers

Family information source here implies the proximal extended family of the customer.
Extended family comprises patriarchal or matriarchal parents and numerous siblings with
their spouses (Childers and Rao, 1992). Peer group here implies both friends and co
workers of the customer. Family and friends are found to be the one of the top
information provider in the case of follow up baby food brand choice (Yee and Chin,
2007). Individuals usually turn to their family for advice when buying a product as they
consider it as reliable and credible (Shah and Mittal, 1997). Gil et al., (2007) in their
study have proposed that the family which repetitively consumes a brand may generate a
habit in the individual who would also choose the same brand. Information obtained
about the brand through the family is considered as reliable (Childers and Rao, 1992;
Moore et al., 2002) and might lead to the formation of brand trust for it. Friends and co
workers opinions are also considered as reliable sources for building brand trust (Lau and
Lee, 1999).
In Indian context, extended family members also play role in child related decisions.
Members of the family interact and influence each other over the life cycle of the family

42

In India, child related responsibility usually remains with the female members of the
house (Suppal et al., 1996) and they share their purchase experiences and the brands they
have purchased in the past. Beattie (2004) has found that immediately after child birth,
Indian women is unlikely to do any shopping and hence her mother or mother-in- law is
often involved in shopping products for the baby. It has been found through qualitative
interviews that trust transfers in a brand not only on the basis of own experience but also
through recommendation of people who belong to customers close social environment
such as family and friends. Exemplarily, during qualitative interviews, mothers
commented:

My mother, my aunt, my sister and everyone else in my home has used only this brand for
babies, then how I cant trust it; My baby got skin allergy so my sister recommended me to use
this baby product brand and her advice turned out to be effective; My family has been using
this baby product brand from generations; I gathered information from friends about the baby
toiletries brands before I buy it; Most of my friends use this baby care brand for their child;
hence I can have trust on it.

This indicates that in case of Indian society where social relations are strong and close
bonded, variable of family and peer information source is important for developing brand
trust in the context of baby care toiletries products. Since, this variable of social influence
is more concerned with the emotional tie up and attachment, hence anticipated to effect
affective trust. Thus, the following hypothesis emerges:

43

H10: Family influencer is an antecedent for generating affective brand trust in baby care
toiletries product brands.
H11: Peer influencer is an antecedent for generating affective brand trust in baby care
toiletries product brands.

Non Professional Expert Opinion

Non professional expert opinion in the context of baby care toiletries brands includes
opinion of old experienced ladies of the society, advice of other mothers and midwives.
From the qualitative interview it was found that Indian mothers pay importance to the
advice of experienced ladies, midwives and opinion of other mothers before trusting any
brand for their baby. Since this information source has themselves used the product at
some point of time on their baby, hence their experience consists of live example whether
to trust a baby care brand or not. Even experience of this source is found to influence
mothers to try new and unknown brands present or introduced in the market. However,
the importance of this source opinion depends on their past and present credibility.
During qualitative interview non professional expert opinion role was supported by
following mothers view:

I came to know and develop trust for this baby care toiletry brand when experienced
lady of my society who has been using this brand for years told me about it; Nurse of
the children hospital told me about the effectiveness of this brand

Thus, from the above discussion it can be hypothesized that:

44

H12: Non professional expert opinion is an antecedent for generating cognitive brand
trust in baby care toiletries product brands.

Mass Media Influencers

Mass media influencer here implies information through television, newspaper, radio and
internet advertisements. In case of baby products, mass media advertisements play
important role in creating awareness for the products. Yee and Chin (2007) found that
majority of mothers become accustomed to infant food brands through advertisement and
it served as major influencer in the purchase decision. Mass media creates a distinctive
brand positioning in the minds of the consumer (Broadbridge and Morgan, 2000; De
Chernatony and Mc William, 1989) and creates positive attitude towards the brand. Mass
media sources can generate trust only when they deliver the right information (Burmann
and Zeplin, 2005) and promises made through advertisements are consistently kept. In
case of baby care toiletries products, mass media information source can generate trust
among the mothers when the fair and enough information have been provided and
authenticity and transparency appears from the advertisements.
Since baby products are high risk products, hence before trusting any brand for final
purchase, Indian mothers seek information through various media sources. They even
read the brand review available on various social networking sites and seek opinion from
other mothers about the brand through internet media source. Beattie (2004) have found
that in India, one of the major baby care brand Johnson & Johnson advertise widely in
English and Hindi media and publish special baby issues in womens magazines. Positive

45

information through mass media sources can help build a good brand image for a baby
care product. During qualitative interview this was supported by mothers view:

Information and recommendation to use this baby product brand through television, radio and
newspaper advertisement boast my confidence to use and trust this brand; I read the positive
review of this baby product brand on the popular baby internet sites and hence trusted and used
it; This brand has the maximum media presence and is the most popular and trusted brand
among the mothers

Based on the discussion above, the following hypothesis is presented:

H13: Mass media influencer is an antecedent for generating both (a) affective and (b)
cognitive brand trust in baby care toiletries product brands.

Cognitive and Affective Brand Trust

Cognitive trust provides the path to affective trust and hence anticipated to exist before
affective trust develops (Lewis and Weigert, 1985; Johnson and Grayson, 2005). In this
study, we support Johnson and Grayson (2005) that cognitive trust leads to affective trust
and is the antecedent to it. Since, in baby care toiletries product, mothers will develop
affective trust through family & peer influencers, media influencers, brand reputation and
brand consumption experience. But these all in the initial stage must have arisen out of
knowledge driven trust. Such as what social and media source tells about a brand is based
on the attribute evaluation by the mothers in the early stage. Reputation is also built only

46

when the brand performs effectively. Hence, we can hypothesize that cognitive brand
trust is positively related to affective brand trust.

H14: Cognitive brand trust is positively related to affective brand trust in the context of
baby care toiletries products.

3.2 Consequences of Cognitive and Affective Brand Trust in Baby Care Toiletry
Products: Research Hypothesis

In case of baby care toiletries product brand, development of brand trust is essential for
brand commitment and WOM for it to emerge. As mothers due to high risk and
uncertainty involved with the product category, would hardly purchase any baby care
brand which is not trustworthy. While interviewing, mothers stated that if the perceived
brand characteristics and external influences factors do not generate trust then it would
not result in higher brand commitment and also not publicize about the brand through
word of mouth behavior. Therefore in this study it is conceptualized that brand trust
represents the generic mechanism through which the proposed focal independent
variables are able to positively influence brand commitment and WOM behavior.

Brand Commitment
Commitment has been defined as an enduring desire to maintain a valued relationship
(Moorman, Zaltman and Deshpande, 1992). Brand Commitment is the implicit or explicit

47

intention to maintain a durable relationship with the brand (Gurviez and Korchia (2002).
It is said that greater the commitment to the brand, the firmly customer fixed his choice
only to that brand in the product category (Dholakia, 1997; Traylor, 1981). Ballester and
Aleman (2001) for the baby diapers product found that the customers who generates trust
for a brand remains committed to it. Parents are found to be committed to the baby brand
products, if they built trust for them (Yee and Chin, 2007). They remain committed to it
and do not easily switch brands. Commitment has both cognitive and affective
components (Wang, 2002). Hess and Story (2005) have researched that the combination
of personal and functional connections determines the level of brand commitment.
Exemplarily, during qualitative interviews, mothers commented:

I trust this baby care toiletry brand so much that even if another baby care toiletries
brand is on sale, I would generally purchase my trusted brand than the other one; I
will continue to use my favorite brand for my baby in the future

Thus, it can be hypothesized that both cognitive and affective trust leads to brand
commitment in case of baby care toiletries products, since mothers when develops trust
for a brand stay committed to it. Also it is hypothesized that when brand commitment
develops than mothers increase communicating about it through WOM behavior and also
perceived risk for the brand decreases with increase in brand commitment.

H15 (a): Cognitive brand Trust in a baby care toiletries brand positively affects the
commitment for it.

48

H15 (b): Affective brand Trust in a baby care toiletries brand positively affects the
commitment for it.
H16: Brand commitment positively increases WOM behavior in the context of baby care
toiletries product brands
H17: Brand commitment negatively affects perceived risk in the context of baby care
toiletries product brands

Word of Mouth Behavior

WOM is what consumers tell each other after using a brand (Swan and Oliver, 2001).
WOM can be both positive and negative. It is the recommendation to use or not to use a
brand (Arndt, 1967). Sichtmann (2007) found that trust in a brand positively affects the
WOM behavior of the customers. In case of baby care toiletries product, it can be
proposed that when the customers develops brand trust either affective or cognitive, it
leads to positive word of mouth behavior. During qualitative interview this was supported
by mothers view:

I often tell other mothers about the baby care toiletry brand which I trust; If anyone
asked me which baby toiletry brand she should choose I would recommend this one.

Thus, it can be hypothesized:

H18 (a): Cognitive brand Trust in a baby care toiletries brand positively affects the WOM
for it.

49

H18 (b): Affective brand Trust in a baby care toiletries brand positively affects the WOM
for it.

Perceived Risk
Perceived risk is the potential loss due to brand failure after purchase (Laroche et al,
2004). It implies some degree of uncertainty about the outcome of an action which caries
the possibility of physical harm or some other damage. Mothers perceive the purchase of
baby care toiletries product risky because consumption is by baby (Broadbridge and
Morgan, 2000). If consumers perceive high risk and have no trust in a brand, they will be
unlikely to enter into any relationship with it (March, 2006). Thus, with increase in brand
trust, perceived risk attached with it gets reduced. Exemplarily, during qualitative
interviews, mothers commented:

I dont perceive any risk on buying the product of this baby care toiletry brand as I trust
it a lot; I trust this brand so much for my baby that I dont fear that it would have any
adverse effect on my babys skin

Thus, it can be hypothesized:

H19 (a): Higher perception of cognitive brand trust results in lower perception of
perceived risk in baby care toiletries brands
H19 (b): Higher perception of affective brand trust results in lower perception of
perceived risk in baby care toiletries brands

50

3.3 The Mediating Role of Brand Trust

Some, past studies provided empirical evidence that several factors such as brand
innovativeness (Eisingerich and Rubera, 2010), brand experience (Ballester and Aleman,
2005), quality, brand communication (Burmann and Zeplin, 2004), brand characteristics,
customer characteristics (Hess and Story, 2005) develops brand commitment directly.
However, there are few papers (Ballester and Aleman, 2001; Garbarino and Johnson,
1999; Sichtmann (2007; Johnson and Grayson, 2005; Lau and Lee, 1999) that
conceptualized and empirically verified that some of the antecedent factors generate
brand trust and brand trust in turn generates brand commitment. Baron and Kenny (1986)
in their seminal paper defined that a mediator variable is a variable that represents the
generic mechanism through which the focal independent variables are able to positively
influence the outcome variable. Further, in the context of relationship marketing, Morgan
and Hunt (1994) had suggested and empirically established that trust and commitment are
key mediating variables for establishing, developing and maintaining successful
relationship exchanges. Auh (2005) in the context of service marketing had divided the
attributes that generate loyalty as soft and hard attributes. Drawing inspiration from social
exchange theory he argued that soft attributes involve more human interactions like social
and relational attributes whereas hard attributes are related to the core of the service such
as competence, functionality, and reliability. Auh (2005) further provided empirical
evidence that trust is a mediator in the relationship between the soft attributes such as
interaction quality, characteristics similarity and loyalty.

51

However, in this study it is conceptualized that brand trust represents the generic
mechanism through which these focal independent variables are able to positively
influence brand commitment, perceived risk and WOM behavior. Both literature review
and qualitative study supported that in case of baby care toiletries product brand,
development of brand trust is essential for brand commitment and WOM for it to emerge.
As mothers due to high risk and uncertainty involved with the product category, would
hardly purchase any baby care brand which is not trustworthy. In a similar vein, the
mediating role of trust has been conceptualized in the model outlined in the previous
section. Thus the next set of hypotheses with trust as a mediator variable is framed as
follows.
H20: Cognitive Brand Trust mediates
(a) the positive effect of brand credibility on brand commitment.
(b) the positive effect of brand predictability on brand commitment.
(c ) the positive effect of brand innovativeness on brand commitment
(d) the positive effect of brand origin on brand commitment
(e) the positive effect of brand reputation on brand commitment
(f) the positive effect of brand consumption experience on brand commitment
(g) the positive effect of perceived value for money on brand commitment
(h) the positive effect of professional expert opinion on brand commitment
(i) the positive effect of non professional expert opinion on brand commitment
(j) the positive effect of mass media influencer on brand commitment

H 21: Affective Brand trust mediates

52

(a) the positive effect of brand origin on brand commitment

(b) the positive effect of brand reputation on brand commitment
(c) the positive effect of brand consumption experience on brand commitment
(d) the positive effect of brand intimacy on brand commitment
(e) the positive effect of mass media influencer on brand commitment
(f) the positive effect of family information influencers on brand commitment
(g) the positive effect of friends information influencer on brand commitment

Similarly it is hypothesized that the focal independent variables negatively influences

perceived risk through brand trust. In other words the antecedent variables are able to
reduce perceived risk by developing brand trust towards baby care toiletries products.
Therefore, the following are hypothesized

H22: Cognitive Brand Trust mediates:

(a) the negative effect of brand credibility on perceived risk.
(b) the negative effect of brand predictability on perceived risk.
(c ) the negative effect of brand innovativeness on perceived risk.
(d) the negative effect of brand origin on perceived risk.
(e) the negative effect of brand reputation on perceived risk.
(f) the negative effect of brand consumption experience on perceived risk.
(g) the negative effect of perceived value for money on perceived risk.
(h) the negative effect of professional expert opinion on perceived risk.

53

(i) the negative effect of non professional expert opinion on perceived risk.
(j) the negative effect of mass media influencer on perceived risk.

H23:Affective Brand Trust mediates:

(a) the negative effect of brand intimacy on perceived risk.
(b) the negative effect of brand origin on perceived risk.
(c) the negative effect of brand reputation on perceived risk.
(d) the negative effect of brand consumption experience on perceived risk.
(e) the negative effect of mass media influencer on perceived risk.
(f) the negative effect of family information influencer on perceived risk.
(g) the negative effect of friend information influencer on perceived risk.
In the similar way, it is hypothesized that the focal independent variables positively
influences word of mouth behavior through brand trust. Therefore, the following are
hypothesized

H24: Cognitive Brand Trust mediates:

(a) the positive effect of brand credibility on WOM behavior.
(b) the positive effect of brand predictability on WOM behavior.
(c ) the positive effect of brand innovativeness on WOM behavior
(d) the positive effect of brand origin on WOM behavior
(e) the positive effect of brand reputation on WOM behavior
(f) the positive effect of brand consumption experience on WOM behavior
(g) the positive effect of perceived value for money on WOM behavior

54

(h) the positive effect of professional expert opinion on WOM behavior

(i) the positive effect of non professional expert opinion on WOM behavior
(j) the positive effect of mass media influencer on WOM behavior

H25: Affective Brand Trust mediates:

(a) the positive effect of brand intimacy on WOM behavior
(b) the positive effect of brand origin on WOM behavior
(c) the positive effect of brand reputation on WOM behavior
(d) the positive effect of brand consumption experience on WOM behavior
(e) the positive effect of mass media influencer on WOM behavior
(f) the positive effect of family information influencers on WOM behavior
(g) the positive effect of friends information influencer on WOM behavior.

55

Figure 1 inter relates the prepositions to form the conceptual framework showing the
various antecedents and consequences of brand trust in the context of baby care toiletries
product.
Brand
Credibility

Brand
Predictability

Value for Money

Non Professional
Expert Opinion

Brand
Innovativeness

Expert
Professional
Opinion

Brand
Commitment
Cognitive Brand
Trust

Peer Influencer

Brand
Consumption
Experience

Perceived
Risk

56

Brand Origin

Affective Brand
Trust

Brand
Reputation

WOM

Media
Influencers

Family
Influencers

Brand Intimacy

Figure 1: Conceptual Framework.

3.4 The moderating effect of Mothers Demographics on antecedents of Brand

Trust: Research Hypothesis.
Researches have indicated that purchasing behavior for baby care products are influenced
by the demographic profile of the parents. Research work such as Yee and Chin (2007),
Chen, Au and Li (2004), Prendergast and Wong, (2003), Beattie (2004) has studied the
impact of parents demographics in the purchase decision of children products. Thus,
taking cue from the above works in this study education, occupation, family structure and
income are considered to be influencing in the relationship between brand trust and its
antecedents.

Brand Credibility, Education and Brand Trust

57

Highly educated customers generally have ability to collect knowledge about different
brands and to compare them on the basis of their functionalities. They trust brands only
when they are assured of their integrity, credibility, safety. Chen, Au and Li (2004) have
reported that with the increase in education levels, consumers look for more quality
products. Indian mothers with high education, during in depth interview were found to
have more knowledge of baby care toiletries brand. They were found to pay importance
to quality, chemical free, good smell aspects of the brand. Exemplarily, during qualitative
interviews, educated mothers commented:

I first read about the ingredients and chemical composition of the product before
trusting and purchasing baby care toiletries brands; I look first for manufacturing and
expiry date of the baby care toiletries product brand before purchasing it

Thus, on the basis of above argument it can be proposed that mothers with higher
education shall pay more importance to brand credibility in building trust for the baby
care brand than low educated mothers.

H26: Education positively moderates the relationship between brand credibility and
cognitive brand trust.

Brand Reputation, Perceived Value for Money, Income and Brand Trust
Children with brand name products reflect favorably on their parents financial status
(Prendergast and Wong, 2003) and parents take pride in buying them for their children.

58

Past researches have indicated that Asian consumers are conspicuous consumers (Phau
and Prendergast, 2001) and that might also reflect in case of consumption of baby
products too. Indian mothers with high income are likely to purchase known and reputed
baby care brands. They do not care much about the price but are more concerned with
reputed brand name. This is supported by the excerpts from the following high income
mothers viewpoints:

To me brand fame and popularity is important to purchase it for my baby; Price is

not the big issue while purchasing baby care brands, what I want that I purchase the best
and reputed baby care toiletry product brand for my baby; I hardly looks for the price
tag of the baby care toiletry brand

Thus, it can be hypothesized that mothers with higher income shall pay more importance
to brand reputation in building trust for the baby care brand than low income group
mothers.

H27 (a): Income positively moderates the relationship between brand reputation and
cognitive brand trust.
H27 (b): Income positively moderates the relationship between brand reputation and
affective brand trust.
H28: Income positively moderates the relationship between value for money and
cognitive brand trust.

59

Consumption Brand Experience, Family structure and Brand Trust

Brand trust generation phenomenon might get affected by the type of family structure i.e.
joint or nuclear family structure. Choice of child related products are generally taken as
joint decision (Sheth, 1975). There can be internal family influence which can attempt to
revise for buying motives. Extended family members also play role in child related
decisions (Rose et al., 2003). In India, child related responsibility usually remains with
the female members of the house (Suppal et al., 1996) and they share their purchase
experiences and which products they use. It can be proposed thus that mothers who live
in joint family might generate their trust for baby care brand which their family is using
for long time and is also satisfied. However, mothers who live in nuclear family might be
innovative and like to try new brands for their baby. They take their own independent
decision and is not influenced by past consumption experience and demonstrate their own
individualistic parenting style (Kagitcibasi, 1997; Amin and Power, 2002). Exemplarily,
during qualitative interviews, mothers who live in joint family commented:

I trusted and purchased this baby care toiletry brand because my sister-in-law is also
using it for her baby and why to purchase products of different brands for kids living in
same house; My mother- in-law bought this baby care toiletry brand for my baby and I
also found it good, since then I trust and use it.

Thus, it can be proposed:

60

H29 (a): Joint family structure positively moderates the relationship between
consumption brand experience and cognitive brand trust
H29 (b): Joint family structure positively moderates the relationship between
consumption brand experience and affective brand trust

Family Influencers, Peer Influencers, Brand Intimacy, Occupation and Brand Trust
Working mothers are found to have little family support as most of them works and
resides in places faraway from their relatives and extended families and because of high
cost of living cannot accommodate their extended families (Mensah, 2011). It can be
proposed in the Indian context, since working mothers lives far away from their extended
families, hence pay more importance on peer and friend information influencers to gain
information about different baby toiletries brands. However, mothers who are home
makers are usually close to their relatives and extended families and are proposed to pay
more importance to family influencers. Brand intimacy is also proposed to be paid more
importance by working mothers as they do not have enough time and energy and hence
trust brands which provide extra services more than just a product. Exemplarily, during
qualitative interviews, mothers who are working commented:

Since, I dont have much time to collect information from different sources, I rely more
on my peer and friends advice for trusting and purchasing baby care toiletries brand;
I trust this baby care toiletry brand as it distributes parenting magazine along with the
product, this definitely helps me in resolving various child related queries

61

Thus, it can be hypothesized that:

H30: Occupation positively moderates the relationship between peer influencers and
affective brand trust in the context of baby care toiletries product brands.
H31: Occupation negatively moderates the relationship between family information
influencers and affective brand trust in the context of baby care toiletries product brands.
H32: Occupation positively moderates the relationship between brand intimacy and
affective brand trust in the context of baby care toiletries product brands.

Media Source, Brand origin, Brand Innovativeness, Education and Brand Trust
Yee and Chin (2007) have found the advertisement as the major factor in shaping
consumer perception for baby food products. Indian mothers with high education during
qualitative interview indicated that they have higher level of knowledge regarding the
products and composition content. They even searched on internet whenever they come
across a new brand to know what the new brand is all about. Educated mothers tend to
search more about child related products and services through newspaper, advertisement
and other sources. Exemplarily, during qualitative interviews, educated mothers
commented:

I came to know about this baby care toiletry brand after reading about it in magazines,
newspapers, and internet sites; To me, the knowledge of the country to which baby
care toiletry brand actually belongs is necessary for trusting it.

62

Thus, it can be hypothesized that:

H33 (a): Education positively moderates the relationship between media influence and
affective brand trust for the baby care toiletries products
H33 (b): Education positively moderates the relationship between media influence and
cognitive brand trust for the baby care toiletries products
H34 (a): Education positively moderates the relationship between brand origin and
cognitive brand trust for the baby care products
H34 (b): Education positively moderates the relationship between brand origin and
affective brand trust for the baby care products
H35: Education positively moderates the relationship between brand innovativeness and
cognitive brand trust for the baby care products

Professional Expert opinion, Education and Brand Trust

Parents when come across new baby care product brand are found to be getting
information about it from the physicians (Yee and Chin, 2007). Since babies are far
sensitive than young children and using wrong product can cause adverse reaction on
infants, hence Indian mothers with higher education tend to consult physicians before
purchasing any baby care brand. Low educated mothers however, go more by the family
or the local chemist opinion while purchasing infant products. Exemplarily, during
qualitative interviews, one educated mother commented:

I first consult to the child specialist before purchasing any baby care toiletry brand.

63

Thus, it can be hypothesized that:

H36: Education positively moderates the relationship between professional expert

opinion and cognitive brand trust for the baby care toiletries products

Brand Predictability, Non Professional Expert Opinion, Education and Brand Trust
Education is proposed to effect the brand predictability and influence of non professional
expert opinion in generating brand trust for baby care products. Since brand predictability
depends on forecasting the behavior of another party based on past outcomes (Doney and
Cannon, 1997), high educated mothers are supposed to predict brand behavior more
accurately in comparison of low educated mothers who doesnt pay much importance to
the predictability. Low educated mothers are found to pay more importance to the advice
of midwives, expert opinion of experienced ladies of the society and other mothers while
developing trust for baby care brands in comparison to high educated mothers who pays
more importance to the advice of professional expert opinion in generating brand trust.
Exemplarily, during qualitative interviews, less educated mothers commented:

I mainly rely on those baby care toiletry brands which are recommended by the
experienced lady of my society; Aaya working in my neighborhood told me about this
baby care toiletry brand.

Thus, it can be hypothesized that:

64

H37: Education positively moderates the relationship between brand predictability and
cognitive brand trust for the baby care toiletries product brands.
H38: Education negatively moderates the relationship between non professional expert
opinion and cognitive brand trust for the baby care toiletries product brands.

The conceptual model that emerged from the aforementioned discussions is presented in
figure 2.
Brand
Credibility

Brand
Predictability

Value for Money

Non Professional
Expert Opinion

I
E

Brand
Innovativeness

E
E
Brand
Commitment

Expert
Professional
Opinion

Cognitive Brand
Trust

Peer Influencer

O
Brand
Consumption
Experience

Perceived
Risk

65

Brand Origin

E
Brand
Reputation

Affective Brand
Trust

WOM

Media
Influencers

O
Family
Influencers

Brand Intimacy

Figure 2: Conceptual research model depicting influence of Demographics variables in the

relationship between the antecedents of brand trust and brand trust
Notes,
O represents Occupation group
E represents Education
I represent Income
F represents Family Structure

3.5 The moderating effect of mothers big five personality traits on antecedents of
brand trust.
The psychographic variables are based on personality, attitude, interest and opinion of
the customers. Studies have indicated that the big five personality characteristics of
mothers affect their relationship with the baby (Clark et al, 2000; Kochanska et al, 2004).
These studies classified the mothers on the basis of Big Five personality traits of
Neuroticism,

Conscientiousness,

Agreeableness,

Openness,

and

Extraversion.

Mulyanegara et al (2009) in his paper has indicated the relationship between these big
five personality traits and brand preference of the customers. These big five personality
traits indicates that how mothers falling into different traits would develop brand trust for
66

baby care products based on importance paid to different antecedent variables. Hence
based on above work and assumption, psychographic personality moderator is taken to
segment the mothers market.

Brand Consumption Experience, Brand origin, Value for money, Conscientiousness

and Brand Trust
People reflecting this trait are Organised, reliable, hard-working, self-disciplined,
punctual, scrupulous, neat, ambitious and persevering (Mulyanegara et al., 2007). They
are found to rely on brands which reflect reliable characteristics (Mulyanegara et al,
2007) and possess functional competency. Clark et al (2000) have found that mothers
high on conscientiousness were planful, organized and strong willed and associated more
with adaptive parenting of their infants. These mothers were found to be more responsive
towards their babies (Kochanska et al., 2004). They responded sensitively and promptly
to childs signal. Indian mothers who are high on conscientiousness are themselves
planful and organized and are highly responsive to their babys need, hence they cannot
compromise with any functional defect of the baby care brand. Mothers high on this trait
are proposed to rely more on their past experience with the brand since brands which had
proved competent in the past are desired by them in the future also and hence pay
importance to predictability factor. Since these mothers are organized and planful, hence
also looks for other details in the brand such as its origin and how much it values for
money. Thus,

67

H39: Conscientiousness personality traits of mothers positively moderate the relationship

between brand consumption experience and cognitive & affective brand trust.
H40: Conscientiousness personality traits of mothers positively moderate the relationship
between brand origin and cognitive brand trust.
H41: Conscientiousness personality traits of mothers positively moderate the relationship
between value for money and cognitive brand trust.
H42: Conscientiousness personality traits of mothers positively moderate the relationship
between brand predictability and cognitive brand trust.

Brand Credibility, Expert Professional Opinion, Brand Intimacy, Non Professional

Expert Opinion, Agreeableness and Brand Trust
People dominant in agreeablness trait are soft-hearted, good-natured, trusting, helpful,
forgiving, gullible and straightforward (Mulyanegara et al., 2007). Consumers high on
this trait pay more attention to brands which are caring and safe. Mothers high on this
trait are empathic and are more concerned with the safety and care of their babies (Clark
et al, 2000; Kochanska, 1997b). These mothers possess more altruistic, sympathetic
behavior towards their infants (Clark et al., 2000). They are more towards positive and
adaptive parenting (Belsky & Barends, 2002; Kochanska et al., 2004) and hence look for
brands that are safe and provides for security guarantee. Indian mothers high on this trait
trust only those brands which are safe for their babies. They look into the chemical
components of the brand and trust only caring, simple and safe brands These mothers
since not ready to compromise with the safety of their child puts more emphasis on

68

expert opinion, opinion of experienced ladies, opinion of midwives, other mothers

advice, brand credibility and brand intimacy before trusting any brand. Thus,

H43: Agreeableness personality traits of mothers positively moderate the relationship

between brand credibility and cognitive brand trust.
H44: Agreeableness personality traits of mothers positively moderate the relationship
between expert professional opinion and cognitive brand trust.
H45: Agreeableness personality traits of mothers positively moderate the relationship
between brand intimacy and affective brand trust.
H46: Agreeableness personality traits of mothers positively moderate the relationship
between non professional expert opinion and cognitive brand trust.

Brand Reputation, Neuroticism and Brand Trust

People high on neuroticism are worrying, nervous, emotional, insecure, inadequate and
hypochondriacal (Mulyanegara et al., 2007). They prefer brands which are trusted by all.
Mothers associated with neuroticism have the general tendency to experience negative
affects (Clark et al, 2000) and hence suspicious about everything. Mothers high on this
trait use more controlling and forceful style in dealing with their babies. They are
associated to less positive, responsive, and adaptive parenting (Belsky & Barends, 2002).
Thus, it can be hypothesized that mothers high on this trait doesnt pay much attention to
features or competency of brand but just goes by the reputation of the name. Their
worrying, nervous nature prevents them from trusting any brand other than reputed brand.
Thus,

69

H47: Neuroticism personality traits of mothers positively moderate the relationship

between brand reputation and cognitive & affective brand trust.

Mass Media Influencers, Brand Innovativeness, Openneness and Brand Trust

People characterized with this trait are curious, broad interests, creative, original,
imaginative and untraditional (Mulyanegara et al., 2007). Mothers having this trait are
high on intellectual curiosity, and independence of judgment (Clark et al, 2000). They
tend to enjoy new experiences, have broad interests, and are very imaginative (Verhoeven
et al., 2007). Their parenting of infants is associated with good natured, open to new
experiences, and imaginative factors (Kochanska et al., 2004). Indian mothers through in
depth interviews are found to be aware of many baby care brands available in the market.
They even looked for information about the various brands from magazines, television
and internet sites. These mothers are found to be of innovative temperament and hence
placed importance to media influencers in generating trust for the baby care brands. Thus,

H48: Openness personality traits of mothers positively moderate the relationship between
media influencers and cognitive & affective brand trust.
H49: Openness personality traits of mothers positively moderate the relationship between
brand innovativeness and cognitive brand trust.

Family and Peer Information Influencers, Extroversion and Brand Trust

70

People with this trait are sociable, active, talkative, person-oriented, optimistic, funloving and affectionate. Extroverted consumers are very sociable and prefer brands that
are socially recommended to express their friendly personality (Mulyanegara et al.,
2007). Mothers high in trait are found to be tendency to be sociable, assertive, active, and
talkative (Clark et al, 2000). Indian mothers of this trait are found to rely more on their
social circle for trusting baby care brands. They like to discuss about the baby care brands
with family and friends and thus make decision to trust the brand accordingly. Thus,

H50: Extroversion personality traits of mothers positively moderate the relationship

between Family information influencers and affective brand trust.
H51: Extroversion personality traits of mothers positively moderate the relationship
between Peer information influencers and affective brand trust.

Figure 3 (next page) represents the conceptualization of the model depicting the
antecedents and consequence of brand trust in baby care toiletries products with the
various dimensions of mothers Personality variables acting as moderators.

71

Brand
Credibility

Brand
Predictability

Value for Money

Non Professional
Expert Opinion

Brand
Innovativeness

O
Brand
Commitment

Expert
Professional
Opinion

Cognitive Brand
Trust

Peer Influencer

C
Brand
Consumption
Experience

Perceived
Risk

72

Brand Origin

Brand
Reputation

C
N

Affective Brand
Trust

WOM

O
Media
Influencers

E
Family
Influencers

Brand Intimacy

Figure 3: Conceptual research model on influence of Personality variables in the

relations between the antecedents of brand trust and brand trust.
Notes,
E represents Extroversion
C represents Conscientiousness
A represents Agreeableness
N represents Neuroticism
O represents Openness to Experience

Chapter 4
The Research Methodology
The purpose of this chapter is to present the research methodology that has been used to
test the model and the research hypotheses presented in the previous chapter. In the first
section of this chapter, an overview of the measurements of the variables has been given.
In the subsequent sections the pre-testing of the questionnaire, the data collection and

73

sampling method have been discussed. In the last section of the chapter, the techniques
and procedures used for data analysis have been presented.

4.1 The Measurement of variables

Measurement of the constructs is the first step for the data analysis. All the scale items
used in the survey instrument have been measured with 5-point likert scales. The anchors
used were strongly disagree to strongly agree.

The Survey Instrument

A questionnaire was used as the survey instrument for this study. The questionnaire
consisted of four sections (Refer Appendix B). In the first section, questions were asked
pertaining to the respondents personal details with questions gathering demographic
information of the respondents, including no. of children, education, age, occupation,
monthly household income and family structure. Also question on respondents monthly
expenditures on baby care toiletries products with the name of brand they have purchased
in the last six months was asked. Part two of the questionnaire addressed the scale items
related to the antecedents of brand trust in the context of baby care products. The
respondents were asked about outcome of brand trust in baby care toiletries product in the
third section. In the fourth section the respondents were asked questions with respect to
their personal values. This section consisted of questions on personality variables.
The survey was distributed directly to the participants and allows the respondents to fill
it and return it on the following day. The questionnaire that was given to the respondents
was prefaced by a cover letter explaining the nature of the survey to the respondents.

74

Pre-testing of the questionnaire

The scale and its respective items have been adapted largely from previous studies related
to development of brand trust and trust in western cultural context. The final generation
of the instrument was done on the basis of literature review and in depth interviews of
mothers. Then, pre-testing was required to validate the items in the scale. Moreover, the
wordings of some of the questions, that were adapted from previous studies carried out in
the US, had to be changed to cater to the Indian respondents. Besides, it was also tested
whether any of the items of a construct were redundant with the scale items of any of the
other constructs used in the study. In other words this was done to eliminate
multicollinearity of scale items. This step was done by conducting depth interviews of
mothers residing in Lucknow city, India. Then a list of potential scale items was sent to
the mothers having baby under age of three in two Indian cities viz., Mumbai and
Lucknow. After this step, several questionnaire items were modified to suit the study. The
results also indicated absence of multicollinearity among the constructs.
The second step of pre-testing involved empirically testing the reliability and validity of
modified scale items from the previously tested scales. In order to verify whether each
item measured the intended construct and to ensure that the scale is one-dimensional and
reliable, pre-testing of the questionnaire was done. A convenience sample of 65 mothers
from Mumbai and Lucknow was used for pre-testing the questionnaire. The statistical
method used in these scales was principal component analysis. The sample size
recommended for this statistical method is at least 50 responses. The composite reliability
of pretested questionnaire was measured by measuring cronbachs alpha (Cronbach,

75

1951) which assesses internal consistency of items measuring each construct. The
guideline used was composite reliabilities of .6 or greater (Baggozzi and Yi, 1988). The
items drawn from previously tested scales that were modified for this study were
validated by factor loadings on their respective constructs that determined if they were
measuring the same construct that they were supposed to measure. The guideline used
was a factor loading of .5 or greater (Hair et al. 1995). Thereafter, finalization of research
instrument was done with randomization of research items and assurance of respondents
anonymity. This was done to test the common variance test suggested by Podsakoff et al
(2003) to avoid biasness by the respondents during filling the questionnaire. Harman one
factor test was also conducted on the pretested questionnaires to check that not a single
factor explain all the variance. After passing these tests questionnaire was finalized.
4.2 Context of study and Sampling and scale item sources
The population under study comprised of mothers having baby under age three in three
Indian cities viz., Mumbai, Lucknow and Allahabad. These three cities are chosen
specifically for the study as they represent Sec A, B and C cities. Hence, collecting
sample from these three cities would represent the population of mothers living in
different socio economic class. The sampling frame consisted of shopping malls having
baby care products retail stores. List of shopping malls of different sizes was taken from
internet. Sites such as wikipedia and www.mumbainet.com were used to find the total
number of shopping malls present in the Mumbai. U.P. tourism website was used to get
the list of shopping malls present in Lucknow and Allahabad. Out of total shopping malls
present in the three cities, malls were selected on the basis of size and presence of baby
care retail products stores in it. Total of six, three and three shopping malls were finally

76

selected for data collection in Mumbai, Lucknow and Allahabad on the basis of
convenience. Appendix C contains tables of the total list of shopping malls present in the
three Indian cities and the basis of final selection of shopping malls from which
respondents sample was taken.
Final data collection was done during the period between April 2011 to October 2011.
Questionnaire was administered randomly to 680 mothers visiting selected shopping
malls and has used baby toiletries products in the last six months. This resulted in final
507 fully filled data points. Several previous studies (Chen, Au and Li, 2004; Yee and
Chin, 2007; Ballester and Aleman, 2001; Broadbridge and Morgan, 2000) have used
mother sample and provided empirical evidence on factors developing brand trust and
purchase intention in the context of baby care products. The relevance of taking mothers
sample for baby care toiletries products can be described with the assumption that
mothers are the closest to the baby and spends maximum time with their babies so they
make the final decision that which brand they should choose for their baby for
consumption. Even the studies based on baby care products have taken mothers sample in
the past. The sample characteristic is given in the table 1 below.

Characteristics
Age group

Education

Income (Monthly)

Category
<25
25-30
31-35
36-40
>40
Less than Secondary (10th Std)
Secondary (10th Std)
Senior Secondary (12th Std)
Graduate
Post Graduate
Diploma

Number of respondents
24 (4.7%)
244 (48.12%)
170 (33.5%)
57 (11.2%)
12 (2.3%)
26 (5.1%)
22 (4.3%)
47 (9.2%)
197(38.8%)
209 (41.2%)
6 (1.1%)

<10,000
10,000-20,000

75 (14.7%)
123 (24.2%)

77

20,001-30,000
30,001-40,000
40,001-50,000
>50,000
Non Working
Working
Joint Family
Nuclear Family
Hindi
English

Occupation
Family Type
Language of Survey
Cities chosen for the sampling frame

107 (21.1%)
76 (14.9%)
47 (9.2%)
79 (15.5%)
344(67.8%)
163 (32.2%)
330 (65.1%)
177 (34.9%)
198 (39.1%)
309 (60.9%)
Mumbai, Lucknow, Allahabad

Note: Figures in parentheses show the percentages to the total number of respondents.
Table 1: Sample Characteristics

Scale items of the questionnaire were designed to measure Cognitive and Affective Brand
Trust, Brand Commitment, WOM behavior, the antecedent factors of brand trust, and the
personality variables. The scales for the constructs were borrowed (and modified) from
existing literature in the domain of brand trust. The scale for measuring cognitive brand
trust was adapted from Chaudhuri and Hoolbrook (2001) & Johnson and Grayson (2005).
The scale for affective brand trust was taken from Mayer et al (1995), Johnson &
Grayson (2005), Elena Delgado-Ballester, (2004). Brand Predictability from Afzal et al
(2010), brand credibility from Erdem and Swait (2004), brand reputation from Chaudhuri
(2002) and Ganeshan (1994), brand consumption experience from Ballester and Alleman
(2005), Brakus, Schmitt and Zarantonello (2009), Chaudhari & Holbrook (2002). The
scales for family and friend information influencers were adapted from Park & Lessig
(1977) and Lau & Lee (1999). Brand intimacy was measured by scale used by Nysveen et
al (2005). The scales for mass media influencers was chosen from Hsu & Chiu (2003)
and that of professional expert opinion from Park & Lessig (1977), Broadbridge &
Morgan (2000), Clement (2004). The scale of brand commitment was taken from Gurviez

78

and Korchia (2002), Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001), Hess & Story (2005). The scale of
WOM was adapted from Sichtmann (2007), Swan & Oliver (1989). Lichtenstein et al
(1990) scale of value for money was used. The scale of brand origin was taken from
Shukla (2010), Batra et al (2000) and that for brand innovativeness from Eisingerich &
Rubera, (2010). The scale of Perceived risk from Yeung et al (2010), Laroche et al
(2004),

Chan and Lu (2004) and that of non professional expert opinion from

Broadbridge & Morgan (2000). The scales for personality variables, extraversion,
agreeableness, Conscientiousness, emotional stability and openness to experience were
adapted from McCrae & Costa (1990). This scale was empirically tested by several past
studies related to personality and empirically verified through depth interviews. The
sources of the various scales used for measuring the different constructs used by this
study have been presented in Appendix A.

4.3 Data Analysis Techniques and Procedures

Data measurement procedures suggested by Churchill (1979) has been used in this study.
This is because of the fact that the works of these aforementioned scholars have been
used as a framework by several researchers. The key aspects of this procedure involve
item purification by using Cronbachs coefficient alpha and exploratory factor analysis.
However, recent work of Gerbing and Anderson (1988) has suggested an updated
paradigm for the assessment of measures. They posit that coefficient alpha is important in
the assessment of reliability, but it does not assess dimensionality. Their central thesis is
that these assessments for item purification are meaningful only if each of the measures is
acceptably unidimensional. Unidimensionality means the existence of a single trait or

79

construct underlying a set of measures (Anderson and Gerbing 1988). On this basis, they
suggest an updated paradigm for scale development that incorporates confirmatory factor
analysis for the assessment of unidimensionality. In this research, the updated paradigm
proposed by Anderson and Gerbing (1988) to develop better measures of constructs have
been followed. The traditional procedure suggested by Churchill (1979) has been
followed in pre-testing due to low sample size of the respondents. For conducting the
confirmatory factor analysis the minimum size of the sample should be 100. Besides, for
measuring reliability, composite Reliability measure has been used instead of
Chronbachs alpha. This is because in Chronbachs alpha all factor loadings are
constrained to be equal, and all error variances are constrained to be equal - an
assumption that can lead to low values of reliability.
Structural equation modeling (SEM) program (AMOS 4) was used to empirically test the
relationships between the constructs in this study. The reason for using SEM is as
follows. SEM allows simultaneous estimation of: 1) a measurement model that relates the
items in each scale to the constructs they represent, giving factor loadings for each item
and 2) a structural model that relates constructs to one another, providing parameter
values i.e., path coefficients (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). The advantage of SEM, as
compared with other multivariate techniques such as multiple regressions, is in the fact
that SEM allows simultaneous test of construct relationships with multiple dependencies.
Anderson and Gerbing (1988) recommend the use of a measurement model to separate
measurement issues from model structure issues. The use of confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA) ensures the unidimensionality of the scales measuring each construct in the model.
This prevents the interaction of the measurement and structural models that could affect

80

the parameters associated with the proposed relationships between the constructs in the
model. The CFA statistical procedure identifies the reliabilities of the individual scale
items for each construct, providing the statistical justification for dropping those items
that do not meet accepted guidelines.
The structural modeling of the SEM allows for the testing of multiple equations with
multiple dependent variables i.e. endogenous variables. In other words, the theoretical
model represents multiple structural equations with each endogenous variable serving as
a dependent variable for a structural equation incorporated in the model. For example
brand commitment is a dependent variable for an equation incorporating brand trust. This
statistical method provides parameter values (i.e., path coefficients) for each of the
research hypotheses and determines their respective significance. Additionally, model fit
indices of various types; verify the overall relationships proposed by the model.
The data analysis was done in five steps. This section specifies the various methods that
were used to: (1) assess reliability and validity of the constructs, (2) test the structural
model (3) test the mediating role of trust (4) test the moderating effect of mothers
personality values and (5) test the moderating effect of mothers demographic values
Step1: Determine the Reliability and Validity
The two-step procedure prescribed by the Anderson and Gerbing (1988) for testing the
theoretical model was followed for data analysis. First, the measurement model, which
provides an assessment of measurement reliability, convergent and discriminant validity,
was estimated before assessment of the structural model. Reliability is concerned about
the extent to which a measurement of a phenomenon provides stable and consistent
result. Reliability has two dimensions: repeatability and internal consistency. The

81

dimension of internal consistency is an important verification measure of ability of a

scale item to correlate with other scale items intended to measure the same variable. Two
methods have been employed in this study for testing reliability. In assessing
measurement reliability, Fornell and Larcker (1981) stressed the importance of the
reliability of each measure (individual item), and the internal consistency or composite
reliability of each construct. CFA, as mentioned previously, provides a statistical method
to evaluate both reliability of each item in the scale, as well as composite reliability. The
reliability of a measure is simply its squared loading, when the variables are standardized.
Composite reliability is calculated as the squared sum of the individual item loadings
divided by that squared sum of loadings plus the sum of the error variances for the
measures. This measure of internal consistency is similar to Croncbachs alpha
(Cronbach, 1951) except Cronbachs alpha assumes a priori that each measure of a
construct contributes equally to the construct. That is, the loadings of the measures on
their associated constructs are set to unity (Barclay 1986). This measure of internal
consistency is more general that Cronbachs alpha (Bagozzi, 1981). Bagozzi and Yi
(1988) suggested that composite reliabilities of .6 or greater are desirable and that the
individual item reliabilities will be usually lower than the composites.
Validity refers to the relationship between a construct and its indicators. A construct is
valid to the extent that it measures what it is suppose to measure (Zikmund, 1997). There
are several types of validity to be considered: face/content validity i.e., the agreement
among professionals that the scale is measuring what it suppose to be measuring,
criterion validity i.e., the degree of correspondence between a measure and a criterion
variable usually measured by their correlation and construct validity i.e., the ability of a

82

measure to confirm a network of related hypotheses generated from a theory based on the
constructs (Bollen, 1989, p.184-189). Face/content validity is largely a conceptual test
and the pre-test methods of this study detailed in the previous subsection address this
validity issue. There are two validity checks to determine criterion validity. These are
concurrent and predictive validity. Predictive validity concerns a future criterion that is
correlated with the relevant measure and concurrent validity exists when a new measure
of a construct is taken at the same time as the criterion measure.
Construct validity was addressed by analyzing both convergent validity (i.e., the items
and the construct that are supposed to be correlated with one another) and discriminant
validity (i.e., the items and constructs that are not suppose to be correlated with one
another). Anderson and Gerbing (1988) suggest that convergent validity can be assessed
from the measurement model by determining whether each indicators estimated pattern
coefficient on its proposed underlying construct factor is significant (greater than twice of
its standard error). Discriminant validity is an assessment of the extent to which a
construct differs from other constructs in a model. One criterion required to satisfy this
constraint is that the correlation between any two constructs must be significantly unity.
A stringent criterion for testing discriminant validity, specified by Anderson and Gerbing
(1988), is to fix the variance of the latent to 1 and to fix the covariance between the two
factors at 1.0. This

allows a

researcher to test the significance of each pattern

coefficient, which is of interest, rather than to forgo this and test whether the factor
variances are significantly different from zero, which typically is not of interest. After
this employ a

difference test on the values obtained for the constrained and

unconstrained models. A significant lower

value for the model in which the trait

83

covariances are not constrained to unity would indicate that the traits are not perfectly
correlated and that discriminant validity is achieved.
CFA provides a statistical tool, to evaluate reliability, convergent and discriminant
validity. The CFA model was evaluated based on goodness-of-fit indices to determine if
the model was a good representation of the relationships. There are number of goodnessof-fit indices that could be utilized, but this study concentrated on the chi-square
significance (2), the comparative fit index (CFI), incremental fit index (IFI) and root
mean square mean error (RMSEA) measures. A significant 2 (i.e., p<. 05) means the
observed and estimated models differ considerably, therefore, the desire is to have a nonsignificant 2. However, the 2 statistics is highly sensitive to sample size and is more
likely to be found to be significant, as the sample size gets larger although the model
could still be a good fit. The CFI, IFI and RMSEA measures used, however, are less
affected by sample size and have been accepted as adequate measures of goodness-of-fit
of the model (Hair et al., 1995, p.684-690; Hu and Bentler, 1995). The CFI and IFI all
represent comparisons between the estimated model and a null or independence model.
The closer the CFI and IFI values are to unity, the better is the fit. Values of .90 or greater
indicating an acceptable fit (Benter and Bonett, 1980). To identify specification or
measurement errors, the RMSEA measure was utilized. This measure is an estimate of the
goodness-of fit if the model was estimated in the entire population. The closer this
RMSEA value is to 0, the less the error, the rule of thumb being that the values of .05 or
less indicate a close fit. However, an RMSEA of .08 or less is still considered within a
reasonable error factor of a good fit (Browne and Cudeck, 1993).

84

Step 2: Test the Sample Path Model

After establishing the measurement model in step 1, the structural model based on path
analysis was estimated. In this step, the model was evaluated based on its goodness-of-fit
indices to determine if the model was a good representation of the proposed relationships.
The goodness-fit-indices are considered good fits based on the indices indicated in step 1
(i.e., 2 , CFI, IFI, and RMSEA.). This step in the data analysis using the path analysis
statistical procedure was directed at providing the first insight into the antecedent factors
in the baby care toiletries product context. The direct effects of antecedent variables on
dependent variables were then calculated. This step provides the first insight into the
factors that need different emphasis in the building brand trust in baby care toiletries
product context.
Step 3: Testing the Mediating Role of Brand Trust
To test the mediator effect of brand trust in the relationship between the antecedent
factors and its consequences, the seminal works of Baron and Kenny (1986), Morgan and
Hunt (1994) have been referred. According to MacKinnon (2008) a mediator variable
clarifies the nature of the relationship between the independent and dependent variables.
Instead of hypothesizing a direct causal relationship between the independent variable
and the dependent variable, a mediation model hypothesizes that the independent variable
affects the mediator variable, which in turn affects the dependent variable. Baron and
Kenny (1986) have proposed four steps in establishing mediation.
Step 3.1: The initial variable should be correlated with the outcome variable. If Y is the
criterion variable and X is a predictor then using a regression analysis it needs to be
shown. This step would establish that there is an effect that may be mediated.

85

Step 3.2: The initial variable should be correlated with the mediator. The proposed
mediator M should be used as the criterion variable in the regression equation and X as a
predictor. This step essentially involves treating the mediator as if it were an outcome
variable.
Step 3.3: The mediator M should affect the outcome variable Y. Y should be used as the
criterion variable in a regression equation and X and M as predictors. It is not sufficient
just to correlate the mediator with the outcome; the mediator and the outcome may be
correlated because they are both caused by the initial variable X. Thus, the initial
variable must be controlled in establishing the effect of the mediator on the outcome.
Step 3.4: To establish that M completely mediates the X-Y relationship, the direct effect
of X on Y (controlling for M) should be reduced significantly. The effects in both Steps 3
and 4 are estimated in the same equation.
If all four of these steps are met, then the data are consistent with the hypothesis that
variable M completely mediates the X-Y relationship, and if the first three steps are met
but the Step 4 is not, then partial mediation is indicated.
Step 4: Testing of the moderating effect of personality values
Baron and Kenny (1986: 174) defines moderator as a: variable that affects the direction
and/or strength of the relation between an independent or predictor variable and a
dependent or criterion variable. In the moderator model there are three different
variables that help predict the dependent variable. First there is the main effect or
predictor. Second, there is a direct effect of the moderator. Similar to the main effect of a
moderator can help predict the dependent variable in its own right. Third, and this is most
complex variable, there is an interaction effect between the predictor variable and a

86

moderator variable. This interaction effect is simply calculated by multiplying the value
of the predictor by the value of moderator. Baron and Kenny (1986) state, a basic
moderator effect can be represented as an interaction between focal independent variable
and a factor that specifies the appropriate conditions for its operation.
Thus the reason for specifying moderating variables is a belief that they not only help
explaining the dependent variable directly but also through an interaction with the main
or predictor variable. The interaction term tells us that this relationship changes
depending on the moderating variable. If a moderator is said to be positive, this means
that the interaction between the predictor and moderator is positively related to dependent
variable. This implies that the value of this relation will be higher for high values of the
moderator. For a negative interaction effect, this line of reasoning is simply echoed; high
values of the variable lower the value of the main effect. In the model with demographics
and personality as moderators (Figures 2 and 3 respectively) the moderator variables both
negatively and positively moderate the theoretical relation. Books on multivariate data
analysis that are frequently used by marketing researchers, such as Hair et al., (1995) and
Sharma, (1996) recommend hierarchical moderated regression analysis (HMRA)
technique for investigating the moderator effect. Several books on multiple regression
(e.g., Aiken and West, 1991; Cohen and Cohen 1983; Pedhazur 1997) described this
technique. In the marketing literature the principles of HMRA have been explained by
Sharma et al. (1981). Sharma et al. (1981) summarized the typology of moderator
variable and framework for identifying moderator variable in Figure 4.1.

87

Does Z interact significantly with

the predictor variable?

Is z related to
criterion variable?

Z is a quasi
moderator

Z is a pure
moderator

Figure 4.1: A framework for identifying moderator variables (where z is the

proposed moderator variable)
To investigate the presence of moderator effect on the form of relationship, the analytical
procedure recommended by above authors were followed. The analysis specifies three
different equations, as follows:

y= a +b1x

(1)

y= a + b 1 x +b2 z

(2)

y= a+ b 1 x+b2z+ b3xz

(3)

Where x is the predictor variable, z is the potential moderator, and xz is the

multiplicative interaction term. In equation (1) the proposed predictor variables are
entered simultaneously, in order to investigate main effects on the criterion variable, in
order to investigate the main effects on the criterion variable (2) The proposed moderator
88

variables are entered stepwise, in order to investigate whether or not these variables
feature main effects. In equation (3) the interaction terms are entered step wise, in order
to investigate proposed moderator effects. At each stage of the analysis the significance
of the regression coefficients are examined, along with the change in R 2 from equations
(1) to (2), and from (2) to (3).
A pure moderator effect is said to exist if equations (1) and (2) are not different from each
other, but are different from equation (3); where b2 is not significant, but where b3 is
significant, so that R2

is accounted for by the interaction term. This fulfils the

conditions for a pure moderator, which interacts with a predictor to produce a moderator
effect on the predictors relationship with the criterion variable, but does not feature a
main effect, and therefore is not also a predictor. A quasi moderator effect is identified
when equations (1), (2) and (3) are different; where b 2 is significant, indicating a main
effect from z, and where b3 is significant, indicating a moderator effect on the predictors
relationship with criterion variable. The magnitude of the main effect is given by R2
from equation (1) to equation (2), while the magnitude of the moderator effect is given by

R2 from equation (2) to equation (3). If equation (2) and (3) are not different then z is
not a moderator. For this result b 3 must not be significant, indicating that the interaction
term does not generate a moderator effect, coinciding with no change in R2. In order to
examine moderating role of both demographic and personality variables as outlined in
chapter 3, the statistical analytical procedure outlined above shall be followed.
Step 5: Testing of the moderating effect of demographic values.
For testing the moderator effects of variables like that of demographics, the dummy
variable regression analysis as suggested by Gujarati (2004) was performed. Hypothesis

89

26- 38 was tested using dummy moderator regression analysis. Demographic moderator
variables are categorical in nature. The procedure suggested by Gujarati (2004) converts
the categorical variable into dummy variables and then in the subsequent steps uses them
in the HRMA as discussed in the previous subsection. If a variable z is an education
moderator with 2 possible categorical values say z 1 (high educated) and z 2 (low
educated). The equations for three dummy regression analyses for HMRA are as follows.
y= a +b1x

(4)

y= a + b 1 x +b2 D 1
y= a+ b 1 x+b2D 1 + b3xD 1

(5)
(6)

Where,
x is independent variable such as brand credibility.
D 1 = 1, if the observation lies in the low educated group i.e. z = z 2
= 0, otherwise i.e. z = z 1
xD1= Product term to test interaction effect of the independent variable and moderator
variable.
Similarly, for a variable with N possible categories N-1 dummy variables are generated.
For testing the moderator effect of categorical moderator the same procedures as stated
above in the previous section for continuous moderator variable is followed. This method
has been used to test demographic moderator effect as outlined in chapter 3.

90

Chapter 5
Results and Findings
In this chapter the results and analysis from the study is presented. In the first phase of
the study a pilot study was conducted. After getting satisfactory results from the pilot
study, the final study was conducted during April 2011 to October 2011. In the first
section of this chapter, the pre-testing of the questionnaire has been discussed. In the
subsequent section the survey methods, sampling and respondent profiles used for the
final study has been described. In the third section of the chapter, the data analysis has
been vividly described followed by the results of hypotheses testing. In the last section of
the chapter a discussion on the data analysis has been presented.
5.1 Pre-testing of the questionnaire
Before using the questionnaire instrument for the final survey, it was necessary to
conduct a pre-testing of scale items. The purpose of the pretest was to validate the scale
items that were to be used for the final survey. In the first step of the pretest it was
necessary to determine whether all the survey items are understood by the mothers of
baby under age three. This was done through in depth interviews of mothers and based on
its outcome, the wording of some of the questions in the survey were changed so as to
make the questions comprehendible.
In the next step of the pretest, the scale items that were adapted from past studies was
empirically tested for assessing reliability and validity of scale items. A convenient
sample was used for the purpose. The questionnaire was distributed to the mothers having
baby under age three and using baby care toiletries products in two shopping malls of

91

Lucknow city. The sample size exceeded the guideline of minimum 50 responses for
principal component analysis.
5.1.1 Results of Pretest
The pre-testing of the questionnaire was required for validating the questionnaire items
before using them for the final survey. The principal component analysis was used to
determine the unidimensionality of each construct. The results of pretesting had shown
that all the constructs were unidimensional in nature. The reliability of the all the
constructs was found to exceed the recommended cutoff of .60. The items which loaded
less than the 0.50 on the construct were removed from the questionnaire so as to get high
construct validity.
5.2 The Final Survey
In this section, the data collection procedure, the sample characteristics of mothers have
been described.
5.2.1 The sample and the data collection procedure
The sample consisted of mothers with baby under age three and visiting shopping malls
having baby product retail stores & they should also have used baby toiletries products in
the last six months. The final questionnaire was distributed directly to the participants and
allows the respondents to fill it and return it on the following day. The questionnaire that
was given to the respondents was prefaced by a cover letter explaining the nature of the
survey to the respondents.
5.2.2 The response rate and sample characteristics
The survey was finally distributed to mothers of three Indian cities viz., Mumbai,
Lucknow and Allahabad. The questionnaire was administered randomly to mothers

92

visiting selected shopping malls between 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. so that sample represents both
working and non working mothers. It was necessary for mothers to have used baby care
toiletries products during the last six months. Finally 680 responses were received. After
eliminating unfilled and partially filled responses the final sample size came to 507. The
sample characteristics are shown in table 5.1. Thus the response rate was within the range
typically reported in the current survey based research literature.

Table 5.1: The Sample Characteristics

Characteristics
Age group

Education

Income (Monthly)

Occupation
Family Type
Language of Survey
Cities chosen for the sampling frame

Category
<25
25-30
31-35
36-40
>40
Less than Secondary (10th Std)
Secondary (10th Std)
Senior Secondary (12th Std)
Graduate
Post Graduate
Diploma

Number of respondents
24 (4.7%)
244 (48.12%)
170 (33.5%)
57 (11.2%)
12 (2.3%)
26 (5.1%)
22 (4.3%)
47 (9.2%)
197(38.8%)
209 (41.2%)
6 (1.1%)

<10,000
10,000-20,000
20,001-30,000
30,001-40,000
40,001-50,000
>50,000
Non Working
Working
Joint Family
Nuclear Family
Hindi
English

75 (14.7%)
123 (24.2%)
107 (21.1%)
76 (14.9%)
47 (9.2%)
79 (15.5%)
344(67.8%)
163 (32.2%)
330 (65.1%)
177 (34.9%)
198 (39.1%)
309 (60.9%)
Mumbai, Lucknow, Allahabad

Note: Figures in parentheses show the percentages to the total number of respondents.

93

5.3 Data Analysis

In this section the various data analysis techniques that have been used in the research are
discussed in details.
Step 1: Computation of Reliability and Validity of the constructs
In order to measure the reliability and validity (convergent and discriminant) of the
constructs, Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was carried out using AMOS 4.0. Four
separate CFAs were done - one for the antecedents of trust, another one for the
consequences of trust, third one for the two dimensions of brand trust and the fourth one
for the personality variables. For the 17 factor measurement model of predictor, criterion
and brand trust variables of baby care toiletries product brand trust, the goodness of fit
based on 58 measures was acceptable i.e., for predictors ( = 1358.689 (753); /df=
1.804; CFI= 0.935; IFI= 0.936; RMSEA= 0.040); consequences ( = 194.457 (24);
/df= 8.102; CFI= 0.879; IFI= 0.880; RMSEA= 0.118) and brand trust ( = 48.713 (13);
/df= 3.747; CFI= 0.976; IFI= 0.976; RMSEA= 0.074). Although the 2 values were
significant the other indices indicated a good fit. The RMSEA for the model was less than
the cutoff of .08 (Bollen, 1989). Further the IFI and CFI values of the sample were in the
cutoff criteria of .90.
Table 5.2: The Goodness of fit measures of the measurement model (with predictor
and criteria and brand trust variables)
Goodness of Fit
Measures

Predictor

Criteria

Brand Trust

Chi Square

1358.689

194.457

48.713

DOF

1.804

8.102

3.747

CFI

0.935

0.879

0.976

94

IFI

0.936

0.880

0.976

RMSEA

0.040

0.118

0.074

Two of the items, 1 each from brand reputation and family influence were dropped as
they did not have significant factor loading (>.5) on their respective constructs (Anderson
& Gerbing, 1988). All the other items had significant factor loadings ranging from .50 to .
91 for the sample as shown in table 5.3.

Table 5.3: The predictor and criteria, brand trust variables with loadings
Variable

Original Item

Retained Item

Measurement
Items

Factor
Loadings ()a

CR

Brand Credibility

Brand Reputation

0.628
0.680
0.500
0.516
0.549
0.507
0.567
0.552
0.546
0.653
0.607
(0.434)
Item dropped
0.670
0.535

.739

Brand Predictability

CR1
CR2
CR3
CR4
CR5
CR6
CR7
Pr1
Pr2
Pr3
Pr4
Rep1
Rep2
Rep3

.663

.655

95

Brand Consumption
Experience

Brand Intimacy

Value for Money

Family Influence

Friend Influence

Other Expert Opinion

Professional Expert Opinion

Brand Origin

Brand Innovativeness

Brand Commitment

WOM

Perceived Risk

Cognitive Brand Trust

Affective Brand Trust

Rep4
CE1
CE2
CE3
CE4
BI1
BI2
BI3
VM1
VM2
VM3
FI1
FI2
FI3
FI4
PI1
PI2
PI3
Other Expert 1
Other Expert 2
Other Expert 3
Expert 1
Expert 2
Expert 3
BO1
BO2
BO3

0.702
0.703
0.515
0.546
0.640
0.821
0.776
0.673
0.534
0.562
0.758
0.656
0.620
0.656
(0.474)
Item dropped
0.880
0.892
0.926
0.907
0.872
0.890
0.929
0.895
0.896
0.819
0.912
0.834

B Innov 1
B Innov 2
B Innov 3
B.commit 1
B.commit 2
B.commit 3
WOM 1
WOM 2
WOM 3
Risk 1
Risk 2
Risk 3
C B Trust 1
C B Trust 2
C B Trust 3
A B Trust 1
A B Trust 2
A B Trust 3
A B Trust 4

0.855
0.788
0.876
0.500
0.764
0.657
0.580
0.798
0.638
0.814
0.789
0.724
0.801
0.829
0.749
0.640
0.822
0.819
0.747

.703

.803
.604
.645

.927
.919
.932
.887

.876
0.659
.727
.815
.833
.836

96

The composite reliability was calculated after dropping the insignificant items. The
composite reliability values of the constructs for the sample ranged from .60 to .93. All
the composite reliability scores were more than the cutoff criteria of .60 thus reliability
criteria of the constructs were satisfied.

For the sample the correlation coefficients between any pair of constructs was
significantly below unity which indicates discriminant validity of the measures (table
5.4).

97

Table 5.4

98

However, a more stringent criterion for testing discriminant validity, specified by

Anderson and Gerbing (1988), is to fix the variance of the latent to 1 and to fix the
covariance between the two factors at 1.0. This

allows a

researcher to test the

significance of each pattern coefficient, which is of interest, rather than to forgo this
and test whether the factor variances are significantly different from zero, which
typically is not of interest. After this employ a 2 difference test on the values obtained
for the constrained and unconstrained models. A significant lower 2 value for the model
in which the trait covariances are not constrained to unity would indicate that the traits
are not perfectly correlated and that discriminant validity is achieved. For example as in
the case of with credibility and predictability constrained, an increase of 2 value with
an additional degree of freedom ranged from 1358.689 (unconstrained model) to
1479.628 (constrained model), this indicates that traits are not perfectly correlated and
that discriminant validity is achieved.

Table 5.5: Test for Discriminant Validity

Target
2(UM)

2(CM)

2D

(CR,PR)
(CR,REP)
(CR,CE)
(CR,BI)
(CR,VM)
(CR,FI)
(CR,PI)
(CR,OTHE)
(CR,PEXP)
(CR,BO)
(CR,BINNOV)
(PR,REP)
(PR,CE)
(PR,BI)

1479.628(754)
1406.141(754)
1413.025(754)
1551.157(754)
1513.221(754)
1509.937(754)
2544.487(754)
2465.760(754)
1927.762(754)
2213.337(754)
2135.884(754)
1468.718(754)
1492.547(754)
1485.693(754)

120.939
47.452
54.336
192.468
154.532
151.248
1185.798
1107.071
569.073
854.648
777.195
110.029
133.858
127.004

1358.689(753)
1358.689(753)
1358.689(753)
1358.689(753)
1358.689(753)
1358.689(753)
1358.689(753)
1358.689(753)
1358.689(753)
1358.689(753)
1358.689(753)
1358.689(753)
1358.689(753)
1358.689(753)

99

(PR,VM)
(PR,FI)
(PR,PI)
(PR,OTH)
(PR,PEXP)
(PR,BO)
(PR,BINNOV)
(REP,CE)
(REP,BI)
(REP,VM)
(REP,FI)
(REP,PI)
(REP,OTHE)
(REP,PEXP)
(REP,BO)
(REP,BINNOV)
(CE,BI)
(CE,VM)
(CE,FI)
(CE,PI)
(CE,Oth E)
(CE,P Exp)
(CE,BO)
(CE,BINNOV)
(BI,VM)
(BI,FI)
(BI,PI)
(BI,OTHE)
(BI,PEXP)
(BI,BO)
(BI,BINNOV)
(VM,FI)
(VM,PI)
(VM,OTHE)
(VM,PEXP)
(VM,BO)
(VM,BINNOV)
(FI,PI)
(FI,OTHE)
(FI,PEXP)
(FI,BO)
(FI,BINNOV)
(PI,OTHE)
(PI,PEXP)
(PI,BO)

1358.689(753)
1358.689(753)
1358.689(753)
1358.689(753)
1358.689(753)
1358.689(753)
1358.689(753)
1358.689(753)
1358.689(753)
1358.689(753)
1358.689(753)
1358.689(753)
1358.689(753)
1358.689(753)
1358.689(753)
1358.689(753)
1358.689(753)
1358.689(753)
1358.689(753)
1358.689(753)
1358.689(753)
1358.689(753)
1358.689(753)
1358.689(753)
1358.689(753)
1358.689(753)
1358.689(753)
1358.689(753)
1358.689(753)
1358.689(753)
1358.689(753)
1358.689(753)
1358.689(753)
1358.689(753)
1358.689(753)
1358.689(753)
1358.689(753)
1358.689(753)
1358.689(753)
1358.689(753)
1358.689(753)
1358.689(753)
1358.689(753)
1358.689(753)
1358.689(753)

1495.132(754)
1485.368(754)
1623.694(754)
1622.480(754)
1614.855(754)
1585.823(754)
1601.966(754)
1432.430(754)
1453.895(754)
1522.199(754)
1468.520(754)
1522.199(754)
1586.894(754)
1582.633(754)
1584.150(754)
1581.125(754)
1459.917(754)
1484.111(754)
1503.164(754)
1661.462(754)
1660.298(754)
1655.360(754)
1645.243(754)
1647.599(754)
1493.153(754)
1527.661(754)
1831.062(754)
1831.656(754)
1825.232(754)
1828.053(754)
1802.303(754)
1512.620(754)
1553.941(754)
1553.498(754)
1549.637(754)
1547.130(754)
1545.278(754)
1547.654(754)
1547.707(754)
1535.939(754)
1549.163(754)
1550.518(754)
2372.534(754)
2506.390(754)
2241.995(754)

136.443
126.679
265.005
263.791
256.166
227.134
243.277
73.741
95.205
163.51
109.831
163.51
228.205
223.944
225.461
222.436
101.228
125.422
144.475
302.773
301.609
296.671
286.554
288.91
134.464
168.972
472.373
472.967
466.543
469.364
443.614
153.931
195.252
194.809
190.948
188.441
186.589
188.965
189.018
177.25
190.474
191.829
1013.845
1147.701
883.306
100

(PI,BINNOV)
(OTHE,PEXP)
(OTHE,BO)
(OTHE,BINNOV)
(PEXP,BO)
(PEXP,BINNOV)
(BO,BINNOV)
(BCOMM, WOM)
(BCOMM,
PRISK)
(WOM,PRISK)
(CBTr, ABTr)

1358.689(753)
1358.689(753)
1358.689(753)
1358.689(753)
1358.689(753)
1358.689(753)
1358.689(753)
194.457(24)
194.457(24)

2150.261(754)
2407.853(754)
2228.666(754)
2150.383(754)
2240.964(754)
2150.271(754)
2150.684(754)
272.044(25)
393.775(25)

791.572
1049.164
869.977
791.694
882.275
791.582
791.995
77.587
199.318

194.457(24)
48.713(13)

421.246(25)
541.989(14)

226.789
493.276

Next and last CFA was performed with the personality variables. The goodness of fit
indices was 2 (40) = 129.208, p<.01; CFI = .993, IFI =.994, RMSEA =.035. The ratio
of 2 to degrees of freedom was 1.615. These are close to the recommended cutoff of
below 2.0 for the model to be a good fit. Further, the IFI and CFI values of both the
samples were greater than the cutoff criteria of .90. All the items have significant factor
loading (>.5) on their respective constructs as shown in the table 5.6 below. All the
composite reliability scores were more than the cutoff criteria of .60 thus reliability
criteria of the constructs were satisfied.

Table 5.6: Personality variables with loadings and reliability ratio

Variable

Original
Item

Retained
Item

Measurement
Items

Factor
Loadings
()a

CR

Extroversion

Ext1
Ext2
Ext3

0.884
0.952
0.939

.945

Agreeableness

Ag1
Ag2
Ag3

0.910
0.944
0.930

.948

Conscientiousness

Cons1

0.877

.933

101

Cons2
Cons3

0.917
0.930

Neuroticism

N1
N2
N3

0.938
0.943
0.931

.955

Openness to Experience

Open1
Open2
Open3

0.946
0.932
0.923

.952

For the sample the correlation coefficients between any pair of constructs was
significantly below unity which indicates discriminant validity of the measures (table5.7)

Table 5.7: Correlations between Personality variables

Personality
Variables

Extroversion

Agreeableness

Conscientiousness Neuroticism Openness to

Experience

Extroversion

1.00

Agreeableness

.212

1.00

Conscientiousness

.138

.178

1.00

Neuroticism

-.042

.060

.124

1.00

Openness to
Experience

.093

.047

.089

-.018

1.00

Step 2: Test for the sample Path model

102

After establishing the measurement model in step 1, the structural model based on path
analysis was estimated. In this step, the model was evaluated based on its goodness-of-fit
indices to determine if the model was a good representation of the proposed relationships.
The overall model with the antecedents and consequences of brand trust in the context of
baby care toiletries product (shown in figure 1) was tested for the entire sample (n = 507).
Multiple items indicating different constructs were summed and averaged into scales that
were subsequently used to measure the constructs. The results indicate that although the
2 values were significant at p<.001 level, the other fitness measures of CFI and IFI

were higher than .90 for the sample and indicated a good model fit. The CFI and the IFI
values were .910 and .915. Further, the RMSEA value of .086 was within a reasonable
error factor of a good fit (Browne and Cudeck, 1993).
The results of path analysis shown in table 5.8 indicate that consumption experience (
= .322, p<.01), brand credibility ( = 0.171, p<.01), brand predictability ( = 0.125,
p<.01) and brand innovation ( = 0.094, p<.05) are the most significant predictors of
cognitive brand trust in the context of baby care toiletries products. For the affective
brand trust, brand intimacy ( = 0.132, p<.01), brand reputation ( = 0.106, p<.05)
and family influence ( = 0.091, p<.05) are the most significant predictors. Cognitive
brand trust is also found to lead to affective brand trust ( = 0.170, p<.01) in the context
of baby care toiletries products. Cognitive brand trust resulted into positive brand
commitment ( = 0.170, p<.01), positive WOM behavior ( = 0.435, p<.01) and
reduction in perceived risk ( = -0.271, p<.01). Affective brand trust also lead to
increase in brand commitment ( = 0.278, p<.01), high WOM behavior ( = 0.167,
p<.01) and reduced perceived risk ( = -0.118, p<.01). Outcomes of brand commitment

103

are high WOM behavior ( = 0.208, p<.01) and low perceived risk ( = -0.095,
p<.05).

Table 5.8: Path analysis

Hypothesis

Path

Path Coefficienta

SEb

CRc

Decision

0.153 (0.171) **
0.098 (0.125) **
-0.014 (-0.016)
0.330 (0.322) **
0.018 (0.033)
0.011 (0.037)
-0.007(-0.015)
0.004 (0.010)
0.049 (0.094) *
-0.011 (-0.040)

0.045
0.034
0.039
0.048
0.023
0.012
0.019
0.017
0.021
0.011

3.371
2.846
-0.352
6.871
0.808
0.908
-0.358
0.261
2.386
-0.975

Supported
Supported
Supported
Supported
-

0.140 (0.106) *
-0.043 (-0.027)
0.157 (0.132) **
0.064 (0.091) *
0.019 (0.040)
0.043 (0.066)
-0.018 (-0.025)
0.264 (0.170) **

0.066
0.087
0.061
0.032
0.021
0.028
0.033
0.074

2.116
-0.495
2.574
2.005
0.894
1.534
-0.551
3.563

Supported
Supported
Supported
Supported

0.494 (0.170) **
0.043 11.430
-0.418 (-0.271) ** 0.043 2.210
0.577 (0.435) **
0.053 10.965

Supported
Supported
Supported

0.205 (0.278) **
-0.118 (-0.118) **

Supported
Supported

Antecedents of Cognitive Brand Trust

H1
H2
H3
H4
H5
H6
H7
H7
H8
H9

Credibility CBT
PredictabilityCBT
ReputationCBT
Cons ExperienceCBT
Value for MoneyCBT
Other ExpertCBT
MI CBT
Brand OriginCBT
Brand InnovationCBT
Proff ExpertCBT
Antecedents of Affective Brand Trust

H10
H11
H12
H13
H14
H15
H16
H16

ReputationABT
CEABT
BIABT
FIABT
PeerABT
B OriginABT
MI ABT
CBTABT
Consequences of Cognitive Brand Trust

H17
H18
H19

CBTB Commitment
CBTP Risk
CBTWOM
Consequences of Affective Brand Trust

H20
H21

ABTB Commitment
ABTP Risk

0.028 7.365
0.043 -2.720
104

H22

ABTWOM

0.143 (0.167) **

0.034 4.211

Supported

0.241(0.208) **
-0.128(-0.095) *

0.053 4.545
0.069 -1.859

Supported
Supported

Consequences of Brand Commitment

H23
H24

B CommitmentWOM
B CommitmentP Risk

Note: Path Coefficient a: Unstandardized (Standardized); bSE: Standard Error; cCR: Critical Ratio; **p<.01;
*p<.05; +p<0.10; ns: not significant

The path analysis mentioned above was used to test the hypotheses numbered H1-H19.
Hypothesis H1 stated that if brand credibility is higher then cognitive brand trust in the
context of baby care toiletries product shall be higher. Table 5.8 indicates that brand
credibility is a significant predictor of cognitive brand trust ( = 0.171, p<.01). Thus, H1
is supported.
In Hypothesis H2 it was proposed that higher the brand reputation higher will be the (a)
cognitive brand trust and (b) affective brand trust in the context of baby care toiletries
product. Table 5.2 indicates that brand reputation is a significant predictor of affective
brand trust ( = 0.106, p<.05) but not of cognitive brand trust ( = -0.016, p>.10). Thus,
H 2 (b) was supported but H2 (a) not supported.
Hypothesis 3 indicated that higher the perception of favorable brand origin higher will be
the cognitive brand trust and (b) the affective brand trust in the context of baby care
toiletries products. This hypothesis was rejected, as it is evident from the table 5.8, that
brand origin ( = 0.010, p>.10) was not a significant predictor of cognitive brand trust

105

neither was it a predictor of affective brand trust in the baby care toiletries product
context ( = 0.066, p>.10). Thus, both H3 (a) and H3 (b) are not supported.
Hypothesis H4 stated that higher the brand predictability higher will be the cognitive
brand trust. Table 5.8 indicates that brand predictability is a significant predictor of
cognitive brand trust in the baby care toiletries products ( = 0.125, p<.01). Thus, H4 is
supported.
In Hypothesis H5 it was proposed that higher perception of brand innovativeness shall
result in higher cognitive brand trust in the context of baby care toiletries products. Table
5.8 indicates that brand innovativeness is a significant predictor of cognitive brand trust (
= 0.094, p<.05). Thus, H5 is supported.

Hypothesis H6 stated that higher the perceived value for money higher shall be the
cognitive brand trust in the context of baby care toiletries products. Table 5.8 indicates
that perceived value for money is not a significant predictor of cognitive brand trust in
the context of baby care toiletries product ( = 0.033, p>.10). Thus, H6 was not
supported.
In Hypothesis H7 it was indicated that higher the perception for brand intimacy higher
shall be the affective brand trust in the context of baby care toiletries products. Table 5.8
indicates that brand intimacy is a significant predictor of affective brand trust ( = 0.132,
p<.01). Thus H7 was supported.
Hypothesis H8 (a) stated that more the brand consumption experience higher shall be the
cognitive brand trust. Whereas, H 8 (b) stated that more the brand consumption
experience higher shall be the affective brand trust Table 5.8 indicates that brand
consumption experience is a significant predictor of cognitive brand trust ( = 0.322,

106

p<.001) but not of affective brand trust in the context of baby care toiletries products (
= -0.027, p>.10). Thus H8 (a) was supported but H8 (b) was not supported.
Hypothesis H9 indicated that higher the believability on expert professional opinion
higher shall be the generation of cognitive brand trust. Table 5.8 indicates that expert
professional opinion is not a significant predictor of cognitive brand trust in the baby care
toiletries product context ( = -0.040, p>.10). Thus, H9 was rejected.
Hypothesis H10 proposed that higher the family information influence higher shall be the
affective brand trust in the context of baby care toiletries products. Table 5.8 indicates
that family information influencer is a significant predictor of affective brand trust ( =
0.091, p<.05). Thus H10 was supported.
It was stated in hypothesis H11 that higher the peer information influence higher shall be
the affective brand trust in the context of baby care toiletries product. Table 5.8 indicates
that peer information influence is not a significant predictor of affective brand trust ( =
0.040, p>.10). Thus, H11 was rejected.
Hypothesis H12 indicated that higher the non professional expert opinion influence
higher the cognitive brand trusts. Table 5.8 indicates that non professional expert opinion
is not a significant predictor of cognitive brand trust ( = 0.037, p>.10). Thus H12 was
not supported.
It was stated in hypothesis H13 (a) that higher the mass media influence higher shall be
the affective brand trust in the context of baby care toiletries products. Whereas, H13 (b)
states that higher the mass media influence higher shall be the cognitive brand trust. Table
5.8 indicates that mass media influence is not a significant predictor of affective brand

107

trust ( =-0.025, p<.10) and neither for cognitive brand trust ( = -0.015, p>.10). Thus,
H13 (a) and (b) are rejected.
Hypothesis H 14 stated that cognitive brand trust generates earlier and leads to affective
brand trust. Table 5.8 indicates that cognitive brand trust emerges earlier and leads to
affective brand trust ( = 0.170, p<.01). Thus, H 14 is supported.
Hypothesis H15 (a) indicated that higher the cognitive brand trust higher shall be the
brand commitment in the context of baby care toiletries product. Whereas 15 (b) states
that higher the affective brand trust higher shall be the brand commitment in the context
of baby care toiletries product Table 5.8 indicates that cognitive brand trust is a
significant predictor of brand commitment ( = 0.170, p<.01) and also brand
commitment is a significant consequences of affective brand trust ( = 0.278, p<.01).
Thus, both H15 (a) and (b) supported.
Hypothesis H16 states that higher the brand commitment higher shall be the WOM
behavior in the context of baby care toiletries product. Whereas H 17 states that higher
the brand commitment lower shall be the perceived risk in the context of baby care
toiletries product Table 5.8 indicates that brand commitment is a significant predictor of
WOM behavior ( = 0.208, p<.01) and also brand commitment lowers the perceived risk
( = -0.095, p<.05). Thus, both H16 and 17 are supported.
Hypothesis H18 (a) indicated that higher the cognitive brand trust higher shall be the
positive WOM in the context of baby care toiletries product. Whereas 15 (b) states that
higher the affective brand trust higher shall be the positive WOM in the context of baby
care toiletries product Table 5.8 indicates that cognitive brand trust is a significant

108

predictor of WOM ( = 0.435, p<.01) and also affective brand trust is a significant
predictor of positive WOM ( =0.167, p<.01). Thus, both H18 (a) and (b) are supported.
It was proposed in hypothesis H19 (a) that higher perception of cognitive brand trust shall
result in lower perceived risk and in H19 (b) that higher perception of affective brand
trust shall result in lower perceived risk. Table 5.8 indicates that cognitive brand trust is a
significant predictor of perceived risk in the context of baby care toiletries product ( =
-0.271, p<.01) and also affective brand trust reduces perceived risk ( = -0.118, p<.01).
Thus both H19 (a) and (b) are supported.

Step 3: Test for the mediating role of cognitive and affective brand trust
The mediator effect analysis, as discussed in the previous chapter, was used to test the
hypotheses numbered H20 H25. To test the mediator effect, the method prescribed by
Baron and Kenny (1986) have been used. First, to test the mediator effect, two models the
full mediator effect model (FMM) (Figure 3.1) and the direct effect model (DEM; Rival
model) (Figure 5.1) are compared.
In this approach the Direct Effect Model (D-E-M) is represented in Figure 5.1. In the DE-M all the antecedents are connected to the dependent variables directly and also via
mediator variable. In the FMM (Figure 3.1) the independent variables were connected to
cognitive and affective brand trust and cognitive and affective brand trust was
conceptualized to be connected to the dependent variables brand commitment, WOM
behavior and perceived risk. This approach is already used by Au (2005) to test the
mediating role of trust between soft and hard service attributes on loyalty in a high
contact service context.

109

Figure 5.1: The Direct Effect/Rival Model

H20 stated that cognitive brand trust would mediate the positive effect of (a)
brand credibility (b) brand predictability (c) brand innovation (d) brand origin (e) brand

110

reputation (f) brand consumption experience (g) value for money (h) expert professional
opinion (i) non professional expert opinion (j) mass media influencer and brand
commitment. For the mediator effect to exist the first condition to be satisfied is that the
independent variables had to be significant predictors of cognitive brand trust. The
hypotheses 20 (d) (e) (g) (h) (i) (j) are rejected as brand origin, brand reputation,
perceived value for money, professional expert opinion, non professional expert opinion,
mass media influencer are respectively not significant predictors of cognitive brand trust.
With the remaining antecedent variables the second condition for mediation was checked.
The second condition for mediator is that cognitive brand trust has to be a significant
predictor of brand commitment. This condition was satisfied as cognitive brand trust (
= 0.170, p<.01) was a predictor of brand commitment. Thereafter, the third condition was
checked. The third condition states that there has to be a significant direct effect of the
independent variables on the dependent variable when the path via the mediator is
constrained. The results in table 5.9 indicate that brand credibility ( = 0.328, p<.01),
brand innovativeness ( = 0.202, p<.01), brand predictability ( = 0.293, p<.01) and
brand consumption experience ( = 0.354, p<.01) have significant direct effect on brand
commitment. However, even after the path via cognitive brand trust was opened (not
constrained) the magnitude of the path coefficients of brand credibility ( = 0.202,
p<.01), brand innovativeness ( = 0.141, p<.01), brand predictability ( = 0.193, p<.01)
and brand consumption experience ( = 0.208, p<.001) reduced in magnitude but
continued to remain significant. Thus cognitive brand trust partially mediated the relation
between brand credibility, brand predictability, brand innovativeness and brand

111

consumption experience and brand commitment. Thus H20a, H20b, H20c and H20f are
partially supported.

Table 5.9: Mediator Effect of Cognitive Brand Trust with Brand Commitment as
dependent variable

Path IVDVa

Path via CBT

Path
coefficient

2 (df)

CFI

IFI

PNFI

RMSEA

Decision

BCredibilityB Commitment

Constrained

0.338 (0.328) **

0.886

0.891

0.279

0.097

Partial
Mediation

Not constrained

0.208 (0.202)**

280.560
(49)
204.840
(48)

0.922

0.926

0.284

0.080

Constrained

0.260 (0.293) **

0.876

0.882

0.276

0.100

Not constrained

0.171(0.193) **

299.334
(49)
207.443
(48)

0.921

0.925

0.284

0.081

C Experience BCommitment

Constrained
Not Constrained

0.416(0.354) **
0.245(0.208) **

267.992(49)
204.831(48)

0.892
0.923

0.897
0.926

0.281
0.284

0.094
0.080

Partial
Mediation

B Innovation BCommitment

Constrained
Not Constrained

0.121(0.202) **
0.085(0.141) **

322.435(49)
216.774(48)

0.865
0.917

0.871
0.921

0.273
0.282

0.105
0.083

Partial
Mediation

BPredictabilityBCommitmen
t

Note- *p<0.05; **p<0.01; a IV= Independent variable; DV= Dependent variable;

b
Unstandardized (Standardized) path coefficient

112

Partial
Mediation

H 21 stated that affective brand trust mediates the positive effect of (a) brand origin (b)
brand reputation (c) brand consumption experience (d) brand intimacy (e) mass media
influencer (f) family information influencer (g) friend / peer information influencer and
brand commitment. The hypothesis 21 (a) (c) (e) (f) (g) are rejected as brand origin,
brand consumption experience, mass media influencer, family information influencer and
peer information influencer are not significant predictors of affective brand trust. With the
remaining antecedent variables the second condition for mediation was checked. The
second condition for mediator is that affective brand trust has to be a significant predictor
of brand commitment. This condition was satisfied as affective brand trust ( = 0.278,
p<.01) was a predictor of brand commitment. Thereafter, the third condition was checked.
The third condition states that there has to be a significant direct effect of the independent
variables on the dependent variable when the path via mediator is constrained. The results
in table 6.0 indicate that brand reputation ( = 0.274, p<.01), brand intimacy ( =
0.315, p<.01) and family information influencer ( = 0.153, p<.01) have significant
direct effect on brand commitment. When the mediating path via affective brand trust was
opened the direct effect of brand reputation ( = 0.234, p<.01), brand intimacy ( =
0.270, p<.01) and family information influencer ( = 0.118, p<.01) reduced in
magnitude but continued to remain significant. Thus affective brand trust partially
mediated the relation between brand reputation, brand intimacy, family information
influencer and brand commitment. Thus H21b, H21d and H21f are partially supported.

113

Table 6.0: Mediator Effect of Affective Brand Trust with Brand Commitment as
dependent variable
2 (df)

CFI

IFI

PNFI

RMSEA

Decision

0.268(0.274) **
0.228(0.234) **

232.102(49)
192.305(48)

0.910
0.929

0.914
0.932

0.286
0.286

0.086
0.077

Partial
Mediation

Constrained
Not Constrained

0.272(0.315) **
0.234(0.270) **

226.982(49)
187.591(48)

0.912
0.931

0.916
0.934

0.287
0.287

0.085
0.076

Partial
Mediation

Constrained
Not Constrained

0.079(0.153) **
0.061(0.118) **

266.792(49)
220.934(48)

0.892
0.915

0.898
0.919

0.281
0.282

0.094
0.084

Partial
Mediation

Path IVDVa

Path via ABT

B Reputation BCommitment

Constrained
Not Constrained

B Intimacy BCommitment

Family
Influence
Commitment

Brand

Path coefficient

Note- *p<0.05; **p<0.01; a IV= Independent variable; DV= Dependent variable; bUnstandardized
(Standardized) path coefficient

H22 stated that cognitive brand trust mediates the negative effect of (a) brand credibility
(b) brand predictability (c) brand innovation (d) brand origin (e) brand reputation (f)
brand consumption experience (g) value for money (h) expert professional opinion (i)
non professional expert opinion (j) mass media influencer and perceived risk. For the
mediator effect to exist the first condition to be satisfied is that the independent variables
had to be significant predictors of cognitive brand trust. The hypotheses 22 (d) (e) (g) (h)
(i) (j) are rejected as brand origin, brand reputation, perceived value for money,
professional expert opinion, non professional expert opinion, mass media influencer are
respectively not significant predictors of cognitive brand trust. With the remaining
antecedent variables the second condition for mediation was checked. The second
condition for mediator is that cognitive brand trust has to be a significant predictor of
perceived risk. This condition was satisfied as cognitive brand trust ( = -0.271, p<.01)
was a predictor of perceived risk. Thereafter, the third condition was checked. The third
condition states that there has to be a significant direct effect of the independent variables
114

on the dependent variable when the path via the mediator is constrained. The results in
table 6.0 indicate that brand credibility ( = -0.154, p<.01), brand innovativeness ( =
-0.112, p<.01), brand predictability ( = -0.151, p<.01) and brand consumption
experience ( = -0.088, p<.01) have significant direct effect on brand commitment.
However, even after the path via cognitive brand trust was opened (not constrained) the
magnitude of the path coefficients of brand credibility ( = -0.108, p<.01), brand
innovativeness ( = -0.100, p<.01), brand predictability ( = -0.123, p<.01) reduced in
magnitude but continued to remain significant. Thus cognitive brand trust partially
mediated

the

relation

between

brand

credibility, brand

predictability, brand

innovativeness and brand commitment. Thus H22a, H22b, H22c are partially supported.
However, when the path via cognitive brand trust was opened the previous direct effects
of brand consumption experience ( = -0.019, p<.10) reduced in magnitude and also
became insignificant. Thus the hypotheses H22 f is fully supported.

Table 6.1: Mediator Effect of Cognitive Brand Trust with Perceived Risk as
dependent variable
Path IVDVa

Path via CBT

Path
coefficient

2 (df)

CFI

IFI

PNFI

RMSEA

Decision

BCredibilityPerceived Risk

Constrained
Not constrained

-0.213(-0.154)**
-0.150 (-0.108)*

241.509(49)
225.499(48)

0.905
0.912

0.910
0.917

0.285
0.281

0.088
0.085

Partial
Mediation

BPredictabilityPerceived
Risk

Constrained
Not constrained

-0.182(-0.151)**
-0.149(-0.123)**

242.89 (49)
223.892(48)

0.904
0.913

0.909
0.917

0.285
0.281

0.088
0.085

Partial
Mediation

C Experience Perceived Risk

Constrained
Not Constrained

-0.140(-0.088)**
-0.031(-0.019)

248.821(49)
230.555(48)

0.901
0.910

0.906
0.914

0.284
0.280

0.090
0.087

Full
Mediation

B Innovation Perceived Risk

Constrained
Not Constrained

-0.091(-0.112)**
-0.081(-0.100) *

246.116(49)
225.567(48)

0.903
0.912

0.907
0.917

0.284
0.281

0.089
0.086

Partial
Mediation

115

Note- *p<0.05; **p<0.01; a IV= Independent variable; DV= Dependent variable; bUnstandardized
(Standardized) path coefficient

H23 stated that affective brand trust mediates the negative effect of (a) brand origin (b)
brand reputation (c) brand consumption experience (d) brand intimacy (e) mass media
influencer (f) family information influencer (g) friend / peer information influencer and
perceived risk. The hypothesis 23 (a) (c) (e) (f) (g) are rejected as brand origin, brand
consumption experience, mass media influencer, family information influencer and peer
information influencer are not significant predictors of affective brand trust. With the
remaining antecedent variables the second condition for mediation was checked. The
second condition for mediator is that affective brand trust has to be a significant predictor
of brand commitment. This condition was satisfied as affective brand trust ( = -0.118,
p<.01) was a predictor of perceived risk. Thereafter, the third condition was checked. The
third condition states that there has to be a significant direct effect of the independent
variables on the dependent variable when the path via mediator is constrained. The results
in table 6.1 indicate that brand reputation ( = -0.052, p>.10), brand intimacy ( =
-0.082, p>.10) and family information influencer ( = 0.058, p>.10) have insignificant
direct effect on perceived risk. When the mediating path via affective brand trust was
opened the direct effect of brand reputation ( = -0.044, p>.10), brand intimacy ( =
-0.034, p>.10) and family information influencer ( = 0.066, p>.10) do not reduced in
magnitude and also continued to remain insignificant. Thus affective brand trust do not
mediated the relation between brand reputation, brand intimacy, family information
influencer and perceived risk. Thus H23b, H23d and H23f are not supported.

116

Table 6.2: Mediating effect of Affective Brand Trust with Perceived Risk as
dependent variable
2 (df)

CFI

IFI

PNFI

RMSEA

Decision

-0.068 (-0.052)
-0.058 (-0.044)

233.481(49)
229.790(48)

0.909
0.910

0.913
0.915

0.286
0.281

0.086
0.087

No
Mediation

Constrained
Not Constrained

-0.050(-0.042)
-0.041(-0.034)

234.027(49)
230.236(48)

0.909
0.910

0.913
0.914

0.286
0.281

0.086
0.087

No
Mediation

Constrained
Not Constrained

0.041 (0.058)
0.046 (0.066)

232.999(49)
228.441(48)

0.909
0.911

0.914
0.915

0.286
0.281

0.086
0.086

No
Mediation

Path IVDVa

Path via ABT

B Reputation Perceived Risk

Constrained
Not Constrained

B Intimacy Perceived Risk

Family Influence Perceived

Risk

Path coefficient

Note- *p<0.05; **p<0.01; a IV= Independent variable; DV= Dependent variable; bUnstandardized
(Standardized) path coefficient

H24 stated that cognitive brand trust would mediate the positive effect of (a) brand
credibility (b) brand predictability (c) brand innovation (d) brand origin (e) brand
reputation (f) brand consumption experience (g) value for money (h) expert professional
opinion (i) non professional expert opinion (j) mass media influencer and WOM
behavior. For the mediator effect to exist the first condition to be satisfied is that the
independent variables had to be significant predictors of cognitive brand trust. The
hypotheses 20 (d) (e) (g) (h) (i) (j) are rejected as brand origin, brand reputation,
perceived value for money, professional expert opinion, non professional expert opinion,
mass media influencer are respectively not significant predictors of cognitive brand trust.
With the remaining antecedent variables the second condition for mediation was checked.
The second condition for mediator is that cognitive brand trust has to be a significant
predictor of WOM behavior. This condition was satisfied as cognitive brand trust ( =
0.435, p<.01) was a predictor of WOM behavior. Thereafter, the third condition was
checked. The third condition states that there has to be a significant direct effect of the
117

independent variables on the dependent variable when the path via the mediator is
constrained. The results in table 6.3 indicate that brand credibility ( =0.164, p<.01),
brand predictability ( = .144, p<.01) and brand consumption experience ( = 0.168,
p<.01) have significant direct effect on WOM behavior. However, even after the path via
cognitive brand trust was opened (not constrained) the magnitude of the path coefficients
of brand credibility ( = 0.090, p<.01) and brand predictability ( = 0.099, p<.05)
reduced in magnitude but continued to remain significant. Thus cognitive brand trust
partially mediated the relation between brand credibility, brand predictability and WOM
behavior. Thus H24a, H24b are partially supported. However, when the path via cognitive
brand trust was opened the previous direct effect of brand consumption experience ( =
0.067, p>.10) reduced in magnitude and also became insignificant. Thus the hypothesis
H24f is fully supported. However in case of brand innovativeness both the beta
coefficient of constrained model ( = 0.063, p>.10) and unconstrained model ( =
0.044, p>.10) remained insignificant. Hence, H 24c is not supported.

Table 6.3: Mediating effect of Cognitive Brand Trust with WOM as dependent
variable
Path IVDVa

Path via CBT

Path
coefficient

2 (df)

CFI

IFI

PNFI

RMSEA

Decision

BCredibilityWOM

Constrained
Not constrained

0.194(0.164)**
0.107 (0.090)*

275.160(49)
226.224(48)

0.888
0.912

0.894
0.916

0.280
0.281

0.096
0.086

Partial
Mediation

BPredictabilityWOM

Constrained
Not constrained

0.148 (0.144) **
0.103(0.099) *

278.900(49)
225.230(48)

0.886
0.912

0.892
0.917

0.279
0.281

0.096
0.085

Partial
Mediation

C Experience WOM

Constrained
Not Constrained

0.227(0.168) **
0.091(0.067)

274.675(49)
228.373(48)

0.888
0.911

0.894
0.915

0.280
0.281

0.095
0.086

Full
Mediation

B Innovation WOM

Constrained
Not Constrained

0.044(0.063)
0.031(0.044)

287.005(49)
229.467(48)

0.882
0.910

0.888
0.915

0.278
0.281

0.098
0.086

No
Mediation

118

Note- *p<0.05; **p<0.01; a IV= Independent variable; DV= Dependent variable; bUnstandardized
(Standardized) path coefficient

H25 stated that affective brand trust mediates the positive effect of (a) brand origin (b)
brand reputation (c) brand consumption experience (d) brand intimacy (e) mass media
influencer (f) family information influencer (g) friend / peer information influencer and
perceived risk. The hypothesis 23 (a) (c) (e) (f) (g) are rejected as brand origin, brand
consumption experience, mass media influencer, family information influencer and peer
information influencer are not significant predictors of affective brand trust. With the
remaining antecedent variables the second condition for mediation was checked. The
second condition for mediator is that affective brand trust has to be a significant predictor
of WOM behavior. This condition was satisfied as affective brand trust ( = 0.167,
p<.01) was a predictor of WOM behavior. Thereafter, the third condition was checked.
The third condition states that there has to be a significant direct effect of the independent
variables on the dependent variable when the path via mediator is constrained. The results
in table 6.4 indicate that brand reputation ( = 0.057, p>.10), brand intimacy ( =
-0.027, p>.10) and family information influencer ( = 0.001, p>.10) have insignificant
direct effect on WOM behavior. When the mediating path via affective brand trust was
opened the direct effect of brand reputation ( = 0.048, p>.10), brand intimacy ( =
-0.037, p>.10) and family information influencer ( = -0.009, p>.10) do not reduced in
magnitude and also continued to remain insignificant. Thus affective brand trust do not
mediated the relation between brand reputation, brand intimacy, family information
influencer and WOM behavior. Thus H25b, H25d and H25f are not supported.

119

Table 6.4: Mediating effect of Affective Brand Trust with WOM as dependent
variable
2 (df)

CFI

IFI

PNFI

RMSEA

Decision

0.064(0.057)
0.054(0.048)

235.871(49)
229.366(48)

0.908
0.910

0.912
0.915

0.286
0.281

0.087
0.086

No
Mediation

Constrained
Not Constrained

-0.027(-0.027)
-0.037(-0.037)

237.397(49)
230.040(48)

0.907
0.910

0.911
0.914

0.285
0.281

0.087
0.087

No
Mediation

Constrained
Not Constrained

0.000(0.001)
-0.005(-0.009)

237.756(49)
230.666(48)

0.907
0.910

0.911
0.914

0.285
0.280

0.087
0.087

No
Mediation

Path IVDVa

Path via ABT

B Reputation WOM

Constrained
Not Constrained

B Intimacy WOM

Family Influence WOM

Path coefficient

Note- *p<0.05; **p<0.01; a IV= Independent variable; DV= Dependent variable; bUnstandardized
(Standardized) path coefficient

Step 4: Test for the moderating effect of customers demographic values

This moderator effect analysis for categorical moderators was carried out to test the effect
of the demographic moderators represented by hypotheses numbered H26-H38. Before
carrying out the moderator analyses of categorical moderators as prescribed by Gujarati
(1970), all the categorical moderators (i.e. education, occupation, family structure and
income) were converted to dummy variables. The dummy variable for income had two
values 0 represented lower income group whereas 1 represented higher income group.
Similarly, the dummy variable for education had two values, 0 represented low educated
mothers whereas 1 represented high educated mothers group. Dummy variable for family
structure had two values, 0 represented nuclear family and 1 represented joint family
structure. Dummy variable for occupation had two values, 0 represented working and 1
represented non working.

120

Only the significant paths identified in the path analysis are taken into consideration. Step
wise multiple regression analysis was carried out with the help of SPSS 15.0 to test the
hierarchical moderator analysis. In the first step the hypothesized dependent variable and
the significant independent variables (as identified in the path analysis) were entered. In
the next step of stepwise linear regression, the demographic dummy variables were
entered and the change in R 2 values observed. From the third step onwards the
interaction effects represented by the multiplicative form of the independent variables and
the proposed demographic dummy moderators were entered with one entry in each step.
For moderator effect to exist, after each step the change in R 2 and the coefficient of the
interaction term has to be significant.
Hypotheses H27 (a), H28, H29 (b), H30, H33 (a), H33 (b), H34 (a), H34 (b), H36, H38
could not be tested as brand reputation, media influence, brand origin, value for money,
professional expert opinion and non professional expert opinion are insignificant
predictors of cognitive brand trust. Whereas, consumption brand experience, media
influence, peer influence, brand origin are insignificant predictors of affective brand trust.
Hypothesis H26 stated that the high educated mothers shall pay more importance to
brand credibility to generate cognitive brand trust for the baby care toiletries products as
compared to the low educated mothers. This hypothesis was not supported because there
was no significant increase of the R 2 with the introduction of the interaction term of
brand credibility and education. Besides, the coefficient of the interaction term ( = .
083, p>.10) was not statistically significant.
It was predicted in hypothesis H27 (b) that the high income group mothers shall pay more
importance to brand reputation to generate affective brand trust for the baby care

121

toiletries products as compared to the low income group mothers. This hypothesis was
not supported because there was no significant increase of the R 2 with the introduction
of the interaction term of brand reputation and income. Further, the coefficient of the
interaction term ( = -0.139, p>.10) was not statistically significant.
Hypothesis H29 (a) stated that mothers who lives in joint family structure shall pay more
importance to consumption brand experience to generate cognitive brand trust for the
baby care toiletries products as compared to the mothers who lives in nuclear family. This
hypothesis was not supported because there was no significant increase of the R 2 with
the introduction of the interaction term of family structure and consumption brand
experience. Further, the coefficient of the interaction term ( = 0.263, p>.10) was not
significant.
Hypothesis H31 stated that housewives shall pay more importance to family information
influencers to generate affective brand trust for the baby care toiletries product brands.
This hypothesis was counter supported because although there was significant increase of
the R 2 with the introduction of the interaction term of family information influencers and
occupation, the coefficient of the interaction term ( = -1.182, p<.01) was significant
and negative. Thus the sign of the interaction term was opposite to the one predicted in
the hypothesis.
Hypothesis H32 stated that working mothers shall pay more importance to brand
intimacy to generate affective brand trust for the baby care toiletries product brands. This
hypothesis was counter supported because although there was significant increase of the
R 2 with the introduction of the interaction term of brand intimacy and occupation, the

122

coefficient of the interaction term ( = -0.429, p<.1) was significant and negative. Thus
the sign of the interaction term was opposite to the one predicted in the hypothesis.
In hypothesis H35 it was stated that the high educated consumer mothers shall pay more
importance to brand innovativeness to generate cognitive brand trust for the baby care
products as compared to the low educated mothers. This hypothesis was not supported
because there was no significant increase of the R 2 with the introduction of the
interaction term of brand innovation and education. Further, the coefficient of the
interaction term ( = -0.295, p>.10) was not statistically significant.
Hypothesis H37 stated that the high educated mothers shall pay more importance to
brand predictability to generate cognitive brand trust for the baby care toiletries products
as compared to the low educated mothers. This hypothesis was not supported because
there was no significant increase of the R 2 with the introduction of the interaction term
of brand predictability and education. Further, the coefficient of the interaction term ( =
-0.238, p>.10) was not statistically significant.
Table 7.0: Hierarchical Moderator Regression Analysis with Income as moderator

Predictor
Variables Entered
Stepwise
Brand Reputation

Criteria
Variable

R square

R square
change

Beta

F Change

Affective
Brand Trust

.054

0.233**

28.953**

Affective
Brand Trust
Reputation*Income Affective
Brand Trust

.054

.000

-0.007

.027

.054

.000

-0.139

.087

Income

123

Note: abeta: Standardized; +p<0.1; *p<.05; **p<.01; Low Income: 0; High Income:1

Table 7.1: Hierarchical Moderator Regression Analysis with Family type &
Occupation as moderator
Predictor Variables
Entered Stepwise
Brand Innovation,
Brand Predictability,
Brand Credibility
Consumption Experience

Criteria
Variable
Cognitive
Brand Trust

Education

Cognitive
Brand Trust
Family Type
Cognitive
Brand Trust
Brand
Cognitive
Credibility*Education
Brand Trust
Brand
Cognitive
Predictability*Education
Brand Trust
Brand
Cognitive
Innovativeness*Education Brand Trust
Consumption
Cognitive
Experience*Family Type Brand Trust

R square

Beta

F Change

.278

R square
change
-

0.101**
0.129 **
0.161**
0.326**

48.342**

.281

.003

-0.057

2.226

.284

.003

-0.051

1.830

.284

.000

0.083

0.037

.284

.000

0.238

0.378

.287

.003

-0.295

1.506

.287

.000

0.263

0.304

Note: abeta: Standardized; +p<0.1; *p<.05; **p<.01; Low Education: 0; High Education:1
Nuclear Family: 0; Joint Family:1

Table 7.2: Hierarchical Moderator Regression Analysis with Occupation as

Moderator
Predictor Variables
Entered Stepwise

Criteria
Variable

R square

R square
change

Beta

F Change

Brand Intimacy,
Family Influence

Affective
Brand
Trust

.091

0.242**
0.135 **

25.218**

Occupation

Affective
Brand
Trust

.095

.004

-0.062

2.141

124

Brand
Intimacy*Occupation

Affective
Brand
Trust
Family
Affective
Influence*Occupation Brand
Trust

.113

.018

1.182**

10.025**

.119

.006

-0.429+

3.738*

Note: abeta: Standardized; +p<0.1; *p<.05; **p<.01; Working: 0; Non working:1

Step 5: Test the moderating effect of mothers personality values

This moderator effect analysis with personality moderators was used to test the
hypotheses numbered H39-H51. Before carrying out the moderator analysis only the
significant paths identified in the path analysis were taken into consideration. Step wise
multiple regression analysis was carried out with the help pf SPSS 15.0 to test the
hierarchical moderator analysis. In the first step the hypothesized dependent variable and
the significant independent variables (as identified in the path analysis) were entered. In
the next step of stepwise linear regression, the personality variables were entered and the
change in R 2 values observed. From the third step onwards the interaction effects
represented by the multiplicative form of the independent variables and the proposed
personality moderators were entered with one entry in each step. For moderator effect to
exist, after each step the change in R 2 and the coefficient of the interaction term has to
be significant.
Hypotheses H39 (b), H40, H41, H44, H46, H47 (a), H48, H51 could not be tested as
brand reputation, media influence, brand origin, value for money, professional expert
opinion and non professional expert opinion are insignificant predictors of cognitive
brand trust. Whereas, consumption brand experience, media influence, peer influence,
brand origin are insignificant predictors of affective brand trust.

125

In hypothesis H39 (a) it is stated that conscientiousness personality traits of mothers

positively moderate the relationship between brand consumption experience and (a)
cognitive brand trust. This hypothesis was not supported because the coefficient of the
interaction term ( = 0.156, p>.10) was not statistically significant.
Hypothesis H42 predicted that conscientiousness personality traits of mothers positively
moderate the relationship between brand predictability and cognitive brand trust. This
hypothesis was supported because there was significant increase of the R 2 with the
introduction of the interaction term of brand predictability and conscientiousness trait.
Besides, the coefficient of the interaction term ( = 0.839, p<.1) was statistically
significant and its sign was in the same direction as predicted by the hypothesis.
Hypothesis H43 indicated that agreeableness personality traits of mothers positively
moderate the relationship between brand credibility and cognitive brand trust. This
hypothesis was supported because there was significant increase of the R 2 with the
introduction of the interaction term of brand credibility and agreeableness trait. Besides,
the coefficient of the interaction term ( = 0.817, p<.1) was statistically significant and
its sign was in the same direction as predicted by the hypothesis.
It was stated in hypothesis H45 that agreeableness personality traits of mothers positively
moderate the relationship between brand intimacy and affective brand trust. This
hypothesis was partially supported as the R 2 value of brand intimacy and moderator was
not equal but there was significant increase of the R 2 with the introduction of the
interaction term of brand intimacy and agreeableness trait. Besides, the coefficient of the
interaction term ( = 1.433, p<.01) was statistically significant and its sign was in the
same direction as predicted by the hypothesis. Thus, H45 is quasi supported.

126

Hypothesis H47 (b) stated that neuroticism personality traits of mothers positively
moderate the relationship between brand reputation and affective brand trust. This
hypothesis was not supported because the coefficient of the interaction term ( = -0.780,
p>.10) was not statistically significant.
Hypothesis H49 stated that openness personality traits of mothers positively moderate the
relationship between brand innovativeness and cognitive brand trust. This hypothesis was
not supported because there was no significant increase of the R 2 with the introduction
of the interaction term of trust and uncertainty avoidance. Further, the coefficient of the
interaction term ( = 0.156, p>.10) was not statistically significant.
Hypothesis H50 stated that extroversion personality traits of mothers positively moderate
the relationship between Family information influencers and affective brand trust. This
hypothesis was not supported because there was no significant increase of the R 2 with
the introduction of the interaction term of trust and uncertainty avoidance. Further, the
coefficient of the interaction term ( = 0.140, p>.10) was not statistically significant.

Table 8.0: Hierarchical Moderator Regression Analysis with Agreeableness as

moderators
Predictor Variables
Entered Stepwise
Brand Intimacy

Agreeableness

Criteria
Variable
Affective
Brand
Trust

Affective
Brand
Trust
Intimacy*Agreeableness Affective
Brand
Trust

R square

Beta

F Change

.073

R square
change
-

0.271**

40.047**

.077

.003

0.058

1.860

.102

.025

1.433**

13.782**

127

Note: abeta: Standardized; +p<0.1; *p<.05; **p<.01

Table8.01: Hierarchical Moderator Regression Analysis with Agreeableness as

moderators
Predictor Variables
Entered Stepwise

Criteria
Variable

R square

R
square
change

Brand Credibility

Cognitive
Brand
Trust

.158

0.397**

94.718**

Cognitive
Brand
Trust
Credibility*Agreeableness Cognitive
Brand
Trust

.158

.000

0.015

.140

.164

.005

0.817+

3.285+

Agreeableness

Beta

F Change

Note: abeta: Standardized; +p<0.1; *p<.05; **p<.01

Table 8.1: Hierarchical Moderator Regression Analysis with Conscientiousness as

moderators
Predictor Variables Entered
Stepwise

Criteria
Variable

R
square

R
square
change

Beta

F
Change

Brand Predictability,
Consumption Experience

Cognitive
Brand
Trust

.252

0.409** 84.695**
0.188**

128

Conscientiousness

Cognitive
Brand
Trust
Brand
Cognitive
Predictability*Conscientiousness Brand
Trust
CE*Conscientiousness
Cognitive
Brand
Trust

.252

.000

-0.023

.358

.256

.004

0.839+

2.850+

.257

.001

0.156

.165

Note: abeta: Standardized; +p<0.1; *p<.05; **p<.01

Table 8.2: Hierarchical Moderator Regression Analysis with Extroversion as

moderator
Predictor
Variables
Entered
Stepwise

Criteria
Variable

R square

R square
change

Beta

F Change

Family
Influence

Affective
Brand Trust

.035

0.187**

18.308**

Affective
Brand Trust
FI*Extroversion Affective
Brand Trust

.036

.001

0.024

.307

.036

.000

0.140

.347

Extroversion

Note: abeta: Standardized; +p<0.1; *p<.05; **p<.01

Table 8.3: Hierarchical Moderator Regression Analysis with Neuroticism as

moderator
Predictor Variables
Entered Stepwise

Criteria
Variable

R square

R square
change

Beta

F Change

Brand Reputation

Affective
Brand
Trust

.054

0.233**

28.953**

Neuroticism

Affective
Brand

.056

.002

0.047

1.188

129

Trust
Reputation*Neuroticism Affective
Brand
Trust

.061

.005

-0.780

2.684

Note: abeta: Standardized; +p<0.1; *p<.05; **p<.01

Table 8.4: Hierarchical Moderator Regression Analysis with Openness to experience

as moderator
Predictor Variables
Entered Stepwise

Criteria
Variable

R square

R square
change

Beta

F Change

B Innovativeness

Cognitive
Brand
Trust

.040

0.200**

21.075**

Openness to Experience

Cognitive
Brand
Trust

.041

.001

-0.034

.623

Innovativeness*Openness Cognitive
to experience
Brand
Trust

.042

.001

0.156

.280

Note: abeta: Standardized; +p<0.1; *p<.05; **p<.01

5.4 Summary and Discussion of Results
In this chapter the data analysis techniques used right from pre-testing of questionnaire to
the final survey have been discussed. The results from the study have shown that brand
credibility, brand predictability, brand consumption experience and brand innovation are
significant predictors of cognitive brand trust. On the other hand, brand reputation, brand

130

intimacy and family information influencer are significant predictors of affective brand
trust. Cognitive and affective brand trust was in turn was found to reduce perceived risk
and increase brand commitment and WOM behavior.
The mediator role of cognitive and affective brand trust was also tested in the study. The
results showed that the mediator model is a better model than the direct effect model.
Further, cognitive brand trust fully mediated the relation between brand consumption
experience and WOM behavior; brand consumption experience and perceived risk.
Whereas, it partially mediated the relation between brand credibility, brand predictability,
brand consumption experience, brand innovation with brand commitment. It also partially
mediated the relationship between brand credibility, brand predictability with WOM
behavior. It also partially mediated the relationship between brand credibility, brand
predictability, brand innovation with perceived risk. Similarly, affective brand trust
partially mediated the relationship between brand reputation, brand intimacy and family
information influencer with brand commitment. However, no mediation with other
variables for affective brand trust.
Further the moderator effects of mothers personality and demographics were tested. The
results from the personal moderators had shown that the effects of personality moderators
are more prominent than demographic moderators such as family structure, education and
income. This has an important implication for researchers in baby care toiletries product
context.

131

Chapter 6
Theoretical Contributions, Managerial Implications
and Future `Research Directions
In this thesis the antecedent factors that develop brand trust in the context of baby care
toiletries product were examined and classified as brand characteristic factor, customer
brand characteristic factor, external influence factor and interpersonal influence factor.
The major consequences of brand trust were also identified. Further, the moderator
effects of the mother personality values and demographic values on the relationships
between the antecedent factors and brand trust were also tested. A brief summary of the
results and managerial implications from the results have been presented in this chapter.
The limitations of the study and directions for future research work have also been
discussed at the end of the chapter.
6.1 Summary
Despite the importance of brand trust in the context of baby care toiletries product, few or
little work have been done with respect to the purchase decision and classification of
factors leading to brand trust in this context. Furthermore, very limited studies provided
empirical evidence of moderating role of mothers personal variables between brand trust
and its antecedents. This study identified and verified the antecedents and consequences
of cognitive and affective brand trust separately in the baby care toiletries product context
and tested the mediator role of brand trust. Further, comprehensively the moderator
effects of mothers personality and demographics variables were verified in this study.
From the review of literature and through in-depth interviews several antecedents of
cognitive and affective brand trust were identified. They were brand credibility, brand

132

predictability, brand innovativeness, value for money, expert professional opinion, non
professional expert opinion, brand origin for cognitive brand trust. Brand intimacy,
family information influencer, and peer information influencer for affective brand trust.
Brand reputation, brand consumption experience and mass media influence for both
cognitive and affective brand trust. Perceived risk, brand commitment and WOM
behavior were identified as consequences of both cognitive and affective brand trust.
After assessing the reliability and validity of the constructs, path analysis was performed
to test proposed hypotheses. From the results from path analysis, brand credibility, brand
predictability, brand consumption experience and brand innovation were found to be the
most significant antecedents of cognitive brand trust, whereas, brand reputation, brand
intimacy and family information influencer were significant predictors of affective brand
trust. Both cognitive and affective brand trust in turn had a significant effect in reducing
perceived risk and increasing brand commitment and WOM behavior. Cognitive brand
trust fully mediated the relation between brand consumption experience and WOM
behavior; brand consumption experience and perceived risk. Whereas, it partially
mediated the relation between brand credibility, brand predictability, brand consumption
experience, brand innovation with brand commitment. It also partially mediated the
relationship between brand credibility, brand predictability with WOM behavior. It also
partially mediated the relationship between brand credibility, brand predictability, brand
innovation with perceived risk. Similarly, affective brand trust partially mediated the
relationship between brand reputation, brand intimacy and family information influencer
with brand commitment. However, no mediation with other variables for affective brand
trust.

133

To test the moderator role of mothers personality and demographic variables,

hierarchical moderator regression analysis was carried out. The relationship between
brand intimacy and affective brand trust was found to be quasi moderated by occupation
and that between affective brand trust and family information influencer was quasi
moderated and counter supported by occupation. Among the personality moderators it
was found that Conscientiousness fully moderated the relation between brand
predictability and cognitive brand trust. Agreeableness fully moderated the relation
between brand credibility and cognitive brand trust. The relation between affective brand
trust and brand intimacy was quasi moderated by agreeableness.

6.2 Major Findings and Theoretical & Managerial Implications

The baby care market is in the nascent stage of development in India, but soon it will
emerge as one of the worlds fastest growing baby care markets. Moreover, large
population base is in 0-4 years and parents increasing preference to spend more on baby
products will drive the market to new horizons in near future. Thus, the research is
helpful for marketers to formulate strategy accordingly. There was no exhaustive study on
brand trust in the context of baby care toiletries products and hence this study provides
detailed descriptions of concepts that future researchers may use in attempting to
empirically test the study hypothesis.
We have summarized past works and integrated several ideas derived from these works
into our model which were interesting and useful. Empirical validation of moderating
effects of demographic and personality variables on established linkages between brand
trust and its antecedents have far reaching implication for brands operating in baby care

134

market. This will help companies to devise differential marketing strategies to suit the
requirement of different personal profile of mothers. In this study the factors that generate
cognitive and affective brand trust have been identified and empirically shown how these
drivers of brand trust eventually contribute to brand commitment and positive WOM
behavior. Baby retail store managers should use effective implementation of antecedent
factors as a marketing tool by which brand trust towards their baby care toiletries brand
can be created and subsequently brand commitment can be enhanced. Besides, it was
believed that the emphasis attached to each antecedent factor would vary depending on
the personality and demographic profile of mothers.
The results as summarized in the subsequent paragraphs highlight the usefulness of the
framework developed in this study. Following are the theoretical and managerial
implications:

1. First of all, brand trust is segregated into two dimensions of cognitive and
affective brand trust and is found that both the dimensions are empirically
distinguishable and have unique and different antecedents. The two dimensions of
brand trust is an important nding and contribution, since although these two
dimensions are mentioned by some authors in different settings, such as social
context (Lewis and Weigert, 1985), business-to-business relationship (Dimitriadis
et al., 2008) and company employee relationships (Morrow et al., 2004), but are
not identified in the case of any product category. This would help managers to
focus on generating these two different types of brand trust in different ways and
they would know how to generate each one of them without affecting the other

135

one. Suppose, any baby care toiletry brand has high cognitive brand trust but low
affective brand trust then managers can work on the antecedents that leads to
affective brand trust without affecting antecedents of cognitive brand trust.
2. Second, it was observed that cognitive brand trust arises first and leads to
affective brand trust. Levels of cognition-based brand trust were higher than
levels of affect-based brand trust, a finding consistent with the understanding that
some level of cognition-based brand trust is necessary for affect-based brand trust
to develop. Thus, this leads to conclusion that cognitive brand trust generates
earlier and leads to affective brand trust in baby toiletries brands as baseline
expectation of brand performance are necessary for mothers to invest further in
relationship with the brand. This would help managers to understand that presence
of basic essential feature in a brands product is necessary before to go for strong
customer brand relationship. This indicates that no matter baby care toiletry brand
provides additional benefits to mother such as parenting tips without providing
them with the essential features such as quality than it would lead into no brand
trust. There should be the aim by the managers of providing maximum customer
value proposition than to focusing on the core benefits.
3. Result showed brand credibility, brand predictability, brand consumption
experience and brand innovation affected cognitive brand trust. Whereas, brand
reputation, brand intimacy and family information influencer affected affective
brand trust in the baby care toiletries product context. This indicates that both the
dimensions of brand trust have different antecedents and even not a single
predictor is common between them. This finding is partially similar to the study

136

by Johnson & Grayson (2005) in the services context where product performance
and satisfaction with previous interaction came out to be significant predictor of
cognitive trust and firm reputation was significant predictor of affective trust.
Other antecedents of cognitive and affective brand trust in the study are new
findings. The findings suggest that knowledge based and emotion based brand
trust are different and have different factors generating them in the baby care
toiletry brand context. This indicates that to generate these two different types of
brand trust; managers need to look for unique and different antecedent factors.
4. Value for money doesnt affect either of the brand trust dimensions. This indicates
that for developing brand trust for baby care toiletries product, price of the
product is not important. Mothers do not compare every single amount spends on
the product with the benefit attached to it. If the product brand is of high quality
and safe, then mothers do not hesitate to pay high amount for it. This indicates
that unlike other products (Thomas et al., 2009, Sirdeshmukh et al., 2002), for
baby care toiletries product, price is not the main concern. Hence, instead of
working on increasing or decreasing product price, managers should aim at
providing quality products.
5. Peer influence, media influence, professional expert opinion and other expert
opinion do not lead to brand trust in the context of baby care toiletries products.
Only family information influencer in external and interpersonal factors was the
antecedent factor that leads to affective brand trust. This means family plays
important role in building emotional trust and bond with baby care toiletries
brand. It has been found that mothers usually purchase those baby care toiletries

137

brands which has been used and purchased in their family from generations.
Mothers usually consult and trust family members opinion for choosing and
developing trust for baby care toiletries brand regarding which they have less
restricted knowledge. Finding shows that other sources are not of much
importance for developing brand trust in this product category. Even the media
influence is also not worthwhile for developing brand trust. This supports Gil et al
(2007) viewpoint that the family which repetitively consumes a brand may
generate a habit in the individual who would also choose the same brand. It also
confers to the Transference Process of Doney

and Cannon (1997), which

suggested that trust can be transferred from one trusted `proof source' to
another person or group where the trustor has had little or no direct
experience. Keeping this in mind the brand managers should formulate strategy to
get more penetration of their baby care toiletry brands in the family and try to
build generational brand commitment for their brand.
6. Brand innovation emerged as an antecedent of cognitive brand trust. This is a new
variable explored as an antecedent of brand trust. It reflects that mothers like
those baby care toiletries brand that keep on providing new and relevant solutions
to their baby needs. Brands which keep on changing according to the customers
demand and time are usually trusted by them. This variable is not talked about
much in brand trust literatures and emerged as an important antecedent of
cognitive brand trust in this study. It suggests that marketers should aim at
continuously innovating with their brands and provide customers with useful
solutions.

138

7. Brand intimacy is another new variable that leads to affective brand trust in the
context of baby care toiletries products. It is the most important predictor of
affective brand trust. Baby care toiletries brands recently, in addition to products
delivery have started bonding with mothers by providing them parenting tips such
as the various stages of child development and how to feed, massage babies.
Companies have started distributing free parenting magazines along with their
products. Most of them send free newsletter from the period of pregnancy to post
pregnancy on internet. Thus, it suggests that brand intimacy can emerge as an
effective tool to win the trust of mothers and brand can have strong bonding with
both mother and child.
8. Brand consumption experience is the most important predictor for developing
cognitive brand trust and not of affective brand trust. This suggests that
consumption experience in the baby care toiletries product brands is mainly based
on core aspects of product delivery. The baby care toiletries brands which have
been able to deliver good experience to mother and baby are considered
trustworthy. Mothers even consider the consumption experience of other family
members also important in developing trust for the brand. Managers should aim at
providing tangible good consumption experience for developing cognitive brand
trust in the baby care toiletry product context.
9. Study introduces less research variables such as brand innovation, brand origin,
brand intimacy, media influencers, professional expert opinion, family and peer
information influencers as important in influencing brand trust for baby care
products. So far, there was no exhaustive study on brand trust in the context of

139

baby care toiletries products and hence this study provides detailed descriptions of
various factors that lead to generation of both affective and cognitive brand trust.
It also helps manager to focus on these less talked about factors while promoting
their brands.
10. All the three consequences emerged significant for both cognitive and affective
brand trust. In theory, WOM and perceived risk as significant consequences of
brand trust has not been much talked about. In this study, WOM emerged as
strongest consequence of Cognitive brand trust and Brand commitment for
affective brand trust. Marketing planners should consider the relative importance
of both cognitive & affective brand trust in the brand commitment & the WOM
development process. They should learn that if both cognitive and affective brand
trust develops than perceived risk for their brand gets reduced and mothers would
not hesitate in using their products repetitively and developing positive brand
commitment and WOM spread for their brands.
11. It was found from the study that occupation emerged as the only demographic
moderator that affected the relationship between antecedent and affective brand
trust. All other demographic profile such as education, income and family
structure does not affect mothers trust in different way. Only working and non
working mothers pay importance to different antecedent for generating affective
brand trust. This indicates that except occupation, no other demographic variable
moderates the brand trust building behavior of mothers for baby care toiletries
product. This is an important finding as marketers should focus on the occupation
of target mothers while promoting their baby care toiletry brand.

140

12. It was found from the study that non working mothers pay more importance to
brand intimacy and working mothers pay more importance to family influencers
for generating affective brand trust. Brand intimacy is considered more important
by homemakers as they themselves apply the product on baby & feel its impact
which is not the case for working mothers who depend on others and family
members for the care of their babies. Managers should focus on occupation aspect
of mothers while working on brand intimacy factor of their brand.
13. With regard to personality moderators, conscientiousness and agreeableness
emerged as significant moderators. Conscientiousness positively moderates brand
predictability on cognitive brand trust. Agreeableness positively moderates brand
credibility on cognitive brand trust and also positively moderates brand intimacy
on affective brand trust. This reflects that soft hearted, good natured mothers pay
more importance to safety, quality guarantee and brand intimacy aspects of brand
and mothers high on organized trait pay more importance to predictability aspect
of baby care toiletries brand. This study thus, aid brand manager in judicious
allocation of marketing resources among mothers having different personality
characteristics and helps in understanding how mothers of different personality
profile develops brand trust for baby care toiletries products.
14. Study suggested mediating effect of cognitive brand trust with antecedents and
brand commitment, WOM and perceived risk. Cognitive brand trust mediated the
relationship between its antecedents and consequences except between brand
innovation and WOM behavior. It fully mediated the relationship between brand
consumption experience and WOM behavior and also with perceived risk. This

141

shows that except cognitive brand trust there is no other factor that can create
relationship between brand consumption experience and WOM behavior and
perceived risk.
15. Study showed that affective brand trust mediates the relationship between its
antecedents and brand commitment only. It does not mediate the relationship with
either perceived risk or WOM behavior. This reflects that apart from affective
brand trust, there can be other factors also that can lead to all three consequences.
16. Study shows that by providing safe, high quality and good performing baby care
toiletries product brands along with good consumption brand experience and
innovative behavior of brand, cognitive brand trust can be developed in mothers
for baby care toiletries brand. Once cognitive brand trust develops on the basis of
careful examination and satisfaction through antecedent variables, mothers would
think of maintaining emotional bonding with the brand. Emotional trust can be
build by having good brand intimate relationship, empathetic reputation of the
brand and family influencing behavior. These two types of brand trust will
ultimately create high brand commitment for the baby care toiletries brand. Thus
through process brand managers can frame policies of brand development for
their baby care toiletries brand.
17. Last, but not the least it was observed that though brand commitment, positive
WOM behavior and reduced perceived risk are consequences of both cognitive
and affective brand trust independently, development of both type of brand trust is
necessary in the context of baby care toiletries product brands as affective brand
trust is found to have high beta coefficient for both brand commitment and WOM

142

behavior. This indicates that marketers apart from fulfilling the basic product
needs of the mothers should also aim at providing them with extra emotional
benefits so as to have long term brand committed relationship with them. Also
when brand commitment develops than mothers through positive word of mouth
tell other mothers of benefits of the brand, thus reducing perceived risk for the
brand among new mothers.
In conclusion it can be said that the framework and results from the study can be used by
the baby care toiletries product companies to have a deeper understanding on the factors
that generate both cognitive and affective brand trust. The study of the mediator effect of
brand trust would also help them garner knowledge about the process by which brand
commitment is generated. Further, the model also tested the influence of the mothers
personality and demographic characteristics on brand trust and its antecedents; this can be
used for framing brand policies targeting different type of mothers.

6.3 Limitations and directions for future research

Although this study has been exhaustive and its implications towards management
practice have been quite interesting, it is not without its limitations. In this study the scale
items were carefully examined and tested for validity and reliability. More meaningful
conclusions from the empirical results could be achieved by further theorizing,
replication, empirical validation and extension of the work. The following are some of the
limitations of the study.
Firstly, more antecedent factors such as packaging, country of origin can be included to
see their effect on developing both cognitive and affective brand trust. Similarly, more

143

additional consequences factors such as brand extension acceptability can also be

included. Apart from researched factors in the study, more additional variables can helps
the managers in understanding a broader framework of brand trust development.
Secondly, when investigating the moderating role of mothers demographic variables on
the relationship between brand trust and its antecedents, only a limited number of
demographic variables had been considered. A possible extension of the work would be
to use more demographic variables such as number of children; city of residence can be
studied. Also other moderating variables apart from personality and demographics such
as level of involvement can be studied.
Thirdly, this study did not include any dyadic perspective. This study focused only on the
perspective of the mothers. However, to make the study more exhaustive the perception
of both brand managers and the mothers should be incorporated.
Lastly, this study was restricted to the context of baby care toiletries product. The model
could be further validated with other baby care product categories such as food, apparel,
toys. A possible extension could be used to compare and contrast the results of this study
with the results of this study.
In conclusion it can be said that this study constitutes an initial effort at exploring
antecedent and consequences of baby care toiletries product brand trust in an emerging
market context. All of the issues discussed in the study are relevant but it raises more
questions that future studies on baby care brand may have to address. As the baby care
market become more bulbous, it behooves managers and researchers to grapple with the
complex interplay of developing trust towards baby care brand. The challenge is apparent
brand trust is a factor both researchers and managers must become cognizant of in

144

trying to understand baby care business over the long term. Further theorizing, empirical
testing, replication and extensions of this work are encouraged so that greater confidence
can be placed in its implications.

Bibliography

Aaker D.A.(1991), "Managing Brand Equity: capitalizing on the value of a

brand name The Free Press, New York

Afzal H., Khan. M.A., Rehman. K., Ali. I. and Wajahat. S. (2010), Consumers
Trust in the Brand: Can it be Built through Brand Reputation, Brand Competence
and Brand Predictability, International Business Research, Vol 3 No. 1, pp 4351.

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting
interactions. Newbury Park: Sage.

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social
behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice - Hall.

Amin, N., & Power, T. (2002), Modernity and childrearing in families of

Gujarati Indian adolescents, International Journal of Psychology, Vol. 37, No. 4,
pp. 239-245.

Andaleeb, S. S., (1992), "The Trust Concept: Research Issues for Channel
Distribution", Research in Marketing, Vol 11 No.1, pp. 1-34.

Anderson, J. C. and D. W. Gerbing (1988) "Structural Equation Modeling in

Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach, Psychological
Bulletin, Vol. 103, No. 3, fall, pp. 411- 423.

Arndt, J. (1967), Role of product-related conversations in the diffusion of a new

product, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol 4, pp. 2915.

Auh, S. (2005), The effects of soft and hard service attributes on loyalty: the
mediating role of trust, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol.19 No.2, pp.81-92.

145

Bagozzi, Richard P. and Youjae Yi (1988). On the Evaluation of Structural

Equation Models, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol.16 (Spring),
pp.74-94.

Ballester, E.D. (2004), Applicability of a brand trust scale across product

categories: A multigroup invariance analysis, European Journal of Marketing;
Vol 38 No. 5/6, pp.573-592.

Ballester, E.D. and Aleman, J.L.M. (2001), Brand trust in the context of
consumer loyalty, European Journal of Marketing, Vol 35 No.11, pp.1238-1258.

Ballester, E.D. and Aleman, J.L.M. (2005), Does brand trust matter to brand
equity, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol 14 No.3, pp.187-196.

Barclay, C.R. (1986), Schematization of Autobiographical Memory. In D.C.

Rubin (Ed.), Autobiographical Memory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
pp. 82-99.

Bagozzi, R.P. (1981), Attitudes, intentions, and behavior: A test of some key
hypotheses, Journal of personality and social psychology, Vol. 41, pp 607-627.

Bagozzi, Richard P. and Youjae Yi (1988). On the Evaluation of Structural

Equation Models, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol.16 (spring),
pp. 74-94.

Bagozzi, R., et al., (2000), Cultural and Situational Contingencies and the
Theory of Reasoned Action: Application to Fast Food Restaurant Consumption,
Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 92, No. 2, pp. 97-106.

Baron, R.M and Kenny, D.A. (1986), The Moderator-Mediator Variable

Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and
Statistical Considerations, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.
51. No.6, pp.1173-1182.

Batra, R., Ramaswamy, V., Alden, D. L., Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., &
Ramachander, S. (2000), Effects of brand local / non local origin on consumer
attitudes in developing countries, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 9, No.2,
pp. 8395.

Beattie. A.G. (2004), How do your babies grow? Infant massage, media, market,
and medicine in north India, Thesis Dissertation

Belsky, J., & Barends, N. (2002). Personality and parenting. In M. H. Bornstein

(Ed.), Handbook of parenting, pp.415-438. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates Inc
146

Benter, P.M. and Bonett, D.G. (1980), Significance tests and goodness-of-fit in
the analysis of covariance structures, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 88, pp 588600.

Bhattacharya, Rajeev, Timothy M. D and Madan M. P. (1998), A Formal Model

of Trust Based on Outcomes, Academy of Management Review, Vol 23 No.1, pp.
45962.

Bhattacherjee, A. (2000), Acceptance of e-commerce services: the case of

electronic Brokerages, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part
A, Systems and Humans, Vol. 30, No.4, pp. 411 420.

Blackston, M. (2000), Observations: Building Brand Equity by Managing the

Brands Relationships, Journal of Advertising Research, Nov-Dec, pp. 101-105.

Blau, Peter. (1964), Exchange and Power. New York: John Wiley and Sons

Bloch P, Sherrell and D, Ridway N. (1986), Consumer search: an extended

framework, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.13 (June), pp. 119-126.

Boon, S.D., and Holmes, J.G., (1991), The dynamics of interpersonal trust:
Resolving Uncertainty in face of risk in Cooperation and Prosocial Behavior,
R.A. Hinde and J. Groebel (Eds.), pp.190-211. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge
University Press.

Bollen, K. and R. Lennox. (1991), Conventional Wisdom on Measurement: A

Structural Equation Perspective, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 110, No. 2, pp.30511.

Bolton, R. N. and J. H. Drew (1991). A Multistage Model of Customers

Assesment of Service Quality and Value. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.
54(April), pp. 69-82.

Brakus, J.J., Schmitt, B.H., and Zarantonello, L., (2009),Brand Experience: What
Is It? How Is It Measured? Does It Affect Loyalty?, Journal of Marketing, Vol.
73, pp. 5268

Broadbridge. A. & Morgan. H.P. (2001), Retail brand baby products: what do
consumers think? Journal of Brand Management, Vol 8 No.3, pp.196-210.

Browne, M.W. and Cudeck, R. (1993), Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit.
In K.A. Bollen & J.S. Long (Eds), Testing Structure Equation Models, pp. 136162, Newbury Park, C.A: Sage.

147

Bunce, D. and Birdi, K. (1998), The Theory of Reasoned Action and the Theory
of Planned Behavior as a Function of Job Control, British Journal of Health
Psychology, Vol. 3, pp. 265-275.

Burmann, C. and Zeplin. S. (2005), Building Brand Commitment: A Behavioural

Approach to Internal Brand Management, Journal of Brand Management, Vol 12
No.4, pp. 279-300.

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis

for the behavioral sciences (2nd Ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Chan, S., Cheung & Lu, T., Ming. (2004), Understanding Internet Banking
Adoption and Use behaviour: A Hong Kong perspective, Journal of Global
Information Management, Vol.12, No. 3, pp.12-43.

Chaudhuri, A., and Holbrook, M. B., (2001), "The Chain of Effects form
Brand Trust and brand Effect to Brand Performance: The Role of Brand
Loyalty", Journal of Marketing, Vol 65 No.2, pp.81-93.

Chaudhuri, A. (2002), How Brand Reputation Affects the Advertising-Brand

Equity Link, Journal of Advertising Research, pp. 33-43.

Childers, T. and Rao, A. (1992), The inuence of familial and peer-based

reference groups on consumer decisions, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol 19
No.2, pp.198-211.

Chen. X., Au. W.M. and Li. K. (2004), Consumption of childrens wear in a big
city in Central China: Zhengzhou, Journal of Fashion Marketing and
Management, Vol 8 No.2, pp.154-165.

Chernatony, L.D., and Mc William, G. (1989), The Strategic Implications of

Clarifying How Marketers Interpret Brands, Journal of Marketing
Management, Vol 5 No.2, pp 153-171.

Chlivickas, E. and Smaliukiene, R. (2009), International Region as a Brand

Origin: Conceptualization and Review, Journal of Business Economics and
Management, Vol 10 No.2, pp 141-148.

Churchill, G.A. (1979), A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of

Marketing Constructs, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 16, February, pp. 6473.

Clark, L. A., Kochanska, G., & Ready, R. (2000), Mothers personality and its
interaction with child temperament as predictors of parenting behavior, Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.7, pp. 274285
148

Cronbach, L.J. (1951). Coefficient Alpha and the internal structure tests.
Psychometrica, Vol. 16, pp 297-334.

Crosby, Lawrence A. and James R. Taylor (1981), Effects of Consumer

Information and Education on Cognition and Choice," Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol 8 No.1, pp.43-56.

Dasgupta, P. (1988), "Trust as a Commodity," in Diego Gambetta, Trust: Making

and Breaking Cooperative Relations, Ed. New York: Basil Blackwell, Inc.

Dawar, Niraj and Madan M. Pillutla (2000), Impact of Product Harm Crisis on
Brand Equity: The Moderating Role of Consumer Expectations, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 215-226.

Deutsch, Morton (1960), "The Effect of Motivational Orientation upon Trust and
Suspicion," Human Relations, pp.123-39.

Deutsch, M., (1973), "The Resolution of Conflict: Constructive and

Destructive Processes", New Haven, Yale University Press.

Dholakia, U. (1997), An Investigation of Some Determinants of Brand

Commitment, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol 24 No.1, pp.381-387.

Doney, P. and Cannon, J.P. (1997), An Examination of the Nature of Trust in

Buyer-Seller Relationships, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 61, No.2, pp.35-51.

Doney P, Cannon, J. and Mullen, M. (1998), Understanding the influence of

national culture on the development of trust, Academy of Management Review.
Vol. 23, No. 3, pp 601-620.

Dwyer. F, Schurr. PH and Oh. S, (1987), "Developing Buyer-Seller

Relationships", Journal of Marketing, Vol 51 No.4, pp.11-27.

Eisingerich, A.B. and Rubera, G. (2010), Drivers of Brand Commitment: A

Cross National Investigation, Journal of International Marketing, Vol 18 No.2,
pp 64-79.

Elliott. R. and Yannopoulou. N (2007), The nature of trust in brands: a

psychosocial model, European Journal of Marketing, Vol 41 No. 9, pp.988-998.

Erdem. T. and Swait. J. (1998), Brand Equity as a Signaling Phenomenon,

Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol 7 No. 2, pp. 131-157.

149

Erdem. T. and Swait. J. (2004), Brand Credibility, Brand Consideration and

Choice, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol 31, pp. 191-198.

Fishbein. M. and Ajzen, I. (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior.

Reading, MA: Addison-Wessley

Fornell C. and Larcker D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models and

unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research.
Vol. 18(February), pp 39-50

Fournier. S. (1998), Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship

Theory in Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol 24 No.4, pp.
343-373.

Ganesan S (1994), "Determinants of Long-Term Orientation in Buyer-Seller

Relationships", Journal of Marketing, Vol 58 No. 4, pp. 1-19.

Garbarino. E. and Johnson. M.S. (1999), The Different Roles of Satisfaction,

Trust, and Commitment in Customer Relationships, Journal of Marketing, Vol
63 No. 2, pp.70-87.

Gerbing, D.W., Anderson, J.C., (1988), An updated paradigm for scale

development incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 25, No.2, pp.186-192.

Gil, R.B., Andres, E.F. and Salinas, E. (2007), Family as a Source of Consumer
based Brand Equity, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol 16 No.3,
pp. 188-199.

Gujarati D. (2004). Basic Econometrics. Tata McGraw Hill Companies 4 th

edition, pp 316-319.

Gundlach, Gregory, T.; Ravi S. Achrol and John T. Mentzer (1995), The
Structure of Commitment in Exchange, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 59(January),
pp. 78-90.

Gurviez. P and Korchia. M. (2003), Proposal for a Multidimensional Brand Trust

Scale, 32nd EMAC Conference, Glasgow.

Hair J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L. and Black W. C. (1995). Multivariate

Data Analysis with Readings (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall,
Inc.

150

Harris, R.J., Garner, E.B., Sprick, S.J.and Carroll, C. (1994), Effects of Foreign
Product Names and Country of Origin Attributions on Advertisement
Evaluations, Psychology and Marketing, Vol 11 No.2, pp. 129-144.

Hess. J. and Story. J (2005), Trust-based commitment: multidimensional

consumer-brand relationships, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol 22 No.6, pp.
313322.

Hirschman, A.O. (1970), Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms,
Organizations, and States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

Hiscock, J. (2001), Most trusted brands, Marketing, March, pp. 32-33

Hogan, S.P. (2007), Creating parental trust in the childrens toy market, Young
Consumers, Vol 8 No. 3, pp.163-171.

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. (1995), Evaluating model fit. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.),
Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp.76 99).
London: Sage.

Johnson, D. and Grayson. K (2005), Cognitive and affective trust in service

relationships, Journal of Business Research, Vol 58 No.1, pp.500 507

Jones. G.A. and George, J.M. (1998), The Experience and Evolution of Trust:
Implications for Cooperation and Teamwork, Academy of Management Review,
Vol 23, pp. 531-546.

Kagitcibasi, C. (1997). Handbook of cross-cultural psychology, Allyn & Bacon,

Boston.

Kasperson, R. E., Golding, D., & Tuler, S. (1992), Social distrust as a factor in
siting hazardous facilities and communicating risks, Journal of Social Issues,
Vol. 48, pp.161187.

Kochanska, G., Friesenborg. A.E., Lange, L.A. and Martel, M.M. (2004),
Parents Personality and Infants Temperament as Contributors to Their
Emerging Relationship, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 86,
No. 5, 744759.

Kotler. P, (1997), Marketing Management Analysis, Planning, Implementation

and Control, 9th ed., Prentice- Hall International, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp 25760.

151

Kucukemiroglu. O. (1997), Market segmentation by using consumer lifestyle

dimensions and ethnocentrism: An empirical study, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 33 No. 5/6, 1999, pp. 470-487.

Kumar, Nirmalaya., Scheer, Lisa., and Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict., (1995). "The

Effects of Supplier Fairness on Vulnerable Resellers, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol 32 No.2, pp.54-65.

Laroche. M., Mc Dougall. G.H.G., Bergeron. J., Yang. Z (2004), Exploring How
Intangibility Affects Perceived Risk, Journal of Service Research, Volume 6, No.
4, pp. 373-389

Larzelere, Robert E. and Ted L. Huston (1980), "The Dyadic Trust Scale:
Toward Understanding Interpersonal Trust in Close Relationships," Journal of
Marriage and the Family, Vol 42 No. 3, pp.595-604.

Lau. G.T. and Lee. S.H. (1999), Consumers' Trust in a Brand and the Link to
Brand Loyalty, Journal of Market - Focused Management, Vol 4 No.4, pp. 341370.

Lewis JD, Weigert A. (1985), Trust as a social reality, Social Forces, Vol 63 No.
4, pp. 967 985.

Lewicki, R. J., & Bunker, B. (1995). Trust in relationships: A model of trust

development and decline. In B. Bunker & J. Rubin (Eds.), Conflict, Cooperation
and Justice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Li. F., Zhou. N., Kashyap. R. and Yang. Z (2007), Brand trust as a second order
factor, International Journal of Market Research, Vol 50 No.6, pp. 817-839.

Lichtenstein, D.R., Netemeyer, R.G., and Burton, S. (1990), Distinguishing

Coupon Proneness from Value Consciousness: An Acquisition-Transaction Utility
Theory Perspective, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, July, pp. 54-67.

Lin. C.F. (2002), Segmenting Customer Brand Preference: Demographic or

Psychographic, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 11, No.4, pp.
249-268.

MacKinnon, D. P. (2008). Introduction to Statistical Mediation Analysis.

Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum

Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995), An integrative model of

organizational trust, Academy of Management Review, Vol.20, pp.709 734.

152

Mc Allister, D.J. (1995), Affect and Cognition Based Trust as Foundations for
Interpersonal Cooperation in Organizations, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol 38 No.1, pp. 24-59.

McCrae. R. R., & Costa, P. T.. Jr. (1990). Personality' in adulthood. New York:
Guilford.

McDonald, G. W. (1981), Structural Exchange and Marital Interaction,

Journal of Marriage and the Family, pp. 825-839

Mensah, A.O. (2011), Is There Really Support for Breastfeeding Mothers? A

Case Study of Ghanaian Breastfeeding Working Mothers, International Business
Research, Vol.4, No.3, pp.93-102.

Michell P, Reast J, & Lynch J (1998), "Exploring the Foundations of

Trust", Journal of Marketing Management, Vol 14 No.1, pp.159-172.

Moore, E.S., Wilkie, W.L. and Lutz, R.J. (2002), Passing the torch:
intergenerational inuences as a source of brand equity, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 66, April, pp. 17-37.

Moorman, C., Deshpande, R., and Zaltman, G. (1993), Factor Affecting Trust in
Market research Relationships", Journal of Marketing, Vol 57 No.1, pp 81-101.

Morgan. R.M. and Hunt. S.D. (1994), The Commitment-Trust Theory of

Relationship Marketing, Journal of Marketing, Vol 58 No.3, pp.20-38.

Morrow. J.L., Hansen, M.H., and Pearson, A.W. (2004), The cognitive and
Affective Antecedents of General Trust within Cooperative Organizations,
Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol 16 No.1, pp. 48-64.

Mulyanegara, R.C., Tsarenko, Y., and Anderson, A. (2009), The Big Five and
brand personality: Investigating the impact of consumer personality on
preferences towards particular brand personality, Journal of Brand Management,
Vol. 16,No. 4, pp, 234247

Nirmalaya Kumar (2008), 3 Vs New Mantra for B2B Companies, available at

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/2723039.cms (accessed 10
October, 2011)

Nysveen, H., Pedersen, P. E., Thorbjrnsen, H., & Berthon, P. (2005), Mobilizing
the brand: The effects of mobile services on brand relationships and main channel
use, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 7, No.3, pp.253276.

153

Park, W., and Lessig, V. P. (1977), Students and housewives: Differences in

susceptibility to reference group influence, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.
4, pp. 102-110.

Pedhazur, E. J. (1997). Multiple regressions in behavioral research (3 rdEd.). Fort

Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.

Petty RE, Cacioppo JT. (1986), Elaboration likelihood model of persuasion, In:
Berkowitz L, editor. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 19. New
York: Academic Press.

Phau I, Prendergast G. (2001), Offensive advertising: a view from Singapore,

Journal of Promotion Management, Vol. 7(1/2), pp. 7190.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003),

Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature
and recommended remedies, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88, pp. 879903

Prendergast. G and Wong. C. (2003), Parental influence on the purchase of

luxury brands of infant apparel: an exploratory study in Hong Kong, Journal of
Consumer Marketing, Vol 20 No. 2, pp.157-169.

Reichheld, F.F. and Sasser, W.J. (1990), Zero Defections: Quality Comes to
Services, Harvard Business Review, Vol 68 No 5, pp. 105-111.

Richins. M.L. (1983), "Word-of-Mouth as an Expression of Product

Dissatisfaction," in International Fare in Consumer Satisfaction and Complaining
Behavior, eds. R. L. Day and H. K. Hunt, pp.100-104.

Rose. G.M., Dalakas, V. and Kropp. F. (2003), Consumer Socialization and

Parental Style across Cultures: Findings from Australia, Greece, and India,
Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol 13 No.4, pp.366-376.

Russo, J. Edward and Larry D. Rosen (1975), An eye-fixation analyses of multi

alternative choice, Memory and Cognition, Vol 3 No.3, pp.267-276.

Selnes F. (1998), Antecedents and consequences of trust and satisfaction in

buyer-seller relationships, European Journal of Marketing, Vol.32, pp.305-322.

Schumpeter, Joseph A. (1934), The Theory of Economic Development.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

154

Schurr, P. H. and Ozanne, J.L., (1985), "Influence on exchange Processes:

Buyers' Preconceptions of a sellers' Trustworthiness
and
Bargaining
Toughness", Journal of Consumer research, Vol 11 No.4, pp. 939-53.

Shah, R.H. and Mittal, B. (1997), Toward a Theory of Intergenerational

Influence in Consumer Behavior: An Exploratory Essay, in M. Brucks and D.
MacInnis (Ed), Advances in Consumer Research, 24, Provo, UT: Association for
Consumer Research, pp. 55-60.

Sharma S., Durand R.M. and Gur-Arie O (1981). Identification and Analysis of
Moderator Variables. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.18, No. 3, pp 291-300.

Sharma, Subhash, 1996. Management in New Age: Western Windows Eastern

Doors, New Age International Publishers, New Delhi.

Sheth. J.N. (1975), A Theory of Family Buying Decision.

Shukla, P. (2010), Impact of interpersonal inuences, brand origin and brand

image on luxury purchase intentions: Measuring interfunctional interactions and a
cross-national comparison, Journal of World Business, WORBUS -489, pp.1-11.

Sichtmann, C. (2007), An analysis of antecedents and consequences of trust in a

corporate brand, European Journal of Marketing, Vol 41 No.9, pp. 999-1015.

Silver, M. (1995), Scales of Measurement and Cluster Analysis: An Application

Concerning Market Segments in the Babyfood Market, Journal of the Royal
Statistical Society, Vol. 44, No. 1, pp. 101-112.

Sirdeshmukh, D., Singh, J., and Sabol., B., (2002), "Consumer Trust, Value,
and Loyalty in Relational Exchanges, Journal of Marketing, Vol 66 No.1, pp.
15-37.

Smith, C. (2001), "Trust and confidence: possibilities for social work in 'high
modernity'", British Journal of Social work, Vol. 31, pp. 287-305.

Suppal, P., Roopnarine, J., Buesig, T., & Bennett, A. (1996), Ideological Beliefs
about Family Practices: Contemporary Perspectives among North Indian
Families, International Journal of Psychology, Vol 31 No.1, pp.29-37.

Swan. J. and Oliver. R. (1989), Postpurchase communication by consumers,

Journal of Retailing, Vol 65 No.4, pp. 516-533.

Tauber E. M. (1972). Why do people shop? Journal of Marketing. Vol. 36, pp

46-59.

155

Thakor, M.V. and Chiranjeev, S.K. (1996), Brand Origin: Conceptualization and
Review, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol 13 No.3, pp. 27-42.

Thakor, M.V. and Lavack, A.M. (2003), Effect of perceived brand origin
associations on consumer perceptions of quality, Journal of Product and Brand
Management, Vol 12 No.6, pp. 394-407.

Thibaut. W. and Kelley. H (1059), The Social Psychology of Groups, John Wiley
& Sons, New York.

Thorelli. H.B. (1971), Concentration of Information Power among Consumers,

Journal of Marketing Research, Vol 8 No.1, pp.427-32.

Thorbjrnsen, H., Supphellen, M., Nysveen, H., & Pedersen, P. E. (2002),

Building brand relationships online: A comparison of two interactive
applications, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol 16 No.3, pp.1733.

Traylor, M. B. (1981), "Product Involvement and Brand Commitment," Journal of

Advertising Research, Vol 21 (December), pp. 27-33.

Urbany, J.E., Dickson, P.R. and Wilkie, W.L. (1989), Buyer uncertainty and
information search, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 16, September, pp. 20815.

Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., Blais, M. R., Briere, N. M., Senecal, C., &
Vallieres, E. F. (1992), The Academic Motivation Scale: A measure of intrinsic,
extrinsic and amotivation in education, Educational and Psychological
Measurement, Vol. 52, pp.10031017

Wang. G. (2002), Attitudinal Correlates of Brand Commitment: An Empirical

Study, Journal of Relationship Marketing, Vol 1 No. 2, pp.57-75.

Yee.C.F. and Chin.R. (2007), Parental perception and attitudes on infant feeding
practices and baby milk formula in East Malaysia, International Journal of
Consumer Studies, Vol 31 No.1, pp.363370.

Yeung. R., Yee. W., and Morris. J. (2010), The effects of risk-reducing Strategies
on consumer perceived risk and on purchase likelihood. A modelling approach,
British Food Journal, Vol. 112, No.3, pp. 306-322.

Zeithaml VA (1988), Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A

means-end model and synthesis of evidence, Journal of Marketing, Vol.
52(July), pp.2-22.
156

Zikmund, W.R. (1997) Business Research Methods (5th Ed.), The Dryden Press,
Fort Worth, Texas

Appendix A
The following are the various constructs used in the study along with the definitions,
scales and sources.
1. Cognitive Brand Trust
Definition

Questionnaire Item
Code and question no.
the CBT1 41

It
is
knowledge
driven
trust
based on good CBT2 45
reasons
of
which brand to
be
chosen,
under which CBT3 48
respect
&
under
what
circumstances.

Scale

Source

I can confidently depend Chaudhuri &

on this brand
Holbrook
(2002),
Given by this brands past Johnson &
record, I have no disliking Grayson (2005)
about using it.
Given by this brands past
record, I have strong
reason to doubt its
effectiveness. (reversed)

157

It
is
the
cognitive leap
beyond
the
expectations
that reason and
experience
alone
would
warrant

2. Affective Brand Trust

Definition
Questionnaire Item
Code and question
no.

Scale

Source

ABT1 42
It is the trust
based on the
emotional bond
between
brand
and customers
ABT2 46
ABT3 49

ABT4 51

3. Brand Predictability
Definition
Questionnaire Item
Code and question
no.
It relies on ones Pr1 19

I feel brand is not fair in Mayer et al.,

dealing
with
its (1995),
customers.
Johnson
&
Grayson
(2005), Elena
Brand displays a warm DelgadoBallester,
and caring attitude
(2004)
I would not feel good if I
could no longer use this
brand
I feel Brand would
compensate me in some
way for the problem with
the product.

Scale

Source

I can always anticipate Afzal et al

158

party ability to
forecast another
partys behavior.
It depends on Pr2 61
repeated
interaction
and
courtship with the Pr3 63
brand
Pr4 65

correctly how this brand (2010)

will perform
This brand
consistently

performs

I can reliably predict how

this brand will perform.
In comparison to other
baby
care
toiletries
brands, this brand is
known to consistently
deliver very high quality

4. Brand Credibility
Definition

Questionnaire Item
Scale
Source
Code and question no.
It is the ability Cr1 1
This brands products are Erdem & Swait
and willingness
safe
(2004)
of the brand to
continuously
Cr2 2
This brand does not
deliver what it
contain any chemicals.
has
promised
i.e. expertise & Cr3 4
This brand is best in baby
trustworthiness
smell than any other
brands.
Cr4 6

This brand delivers what it

promises.

Cr5 8

This brand is suitable to

baby's skin for all the
seasons
(winters,
summers, monsoon)

Cr5 10

This brand is best one in

providing softness to
baby's skin for this
category of products.
159

Cr6 11

This brand
causes rashes

does

not

5. Brand Reputation
Definition

Questionnaire Item
Code and question
no.
Reputation
is Rep1 3
defined as the
overall
value,
esteem
and
character of a Rep2 5
brand as seen or
judged by people
in general
Rep3 7

Rep4 9

Scale

Source

I pay very much attention Chaudhuri,

to brand names of baby (2002),
toiletries brands
Ganeshan
(1994)
This is a well- known
brand
This brand is known for
good name since many
generations
This is a popular brand

6. Brand Consumption Experience

Definition

Questionnaire Item
Code and question
no.
It deals with the Cons Exp1 12
direct experience
with the brand
which generates

Scale

Source

Considering my babys
consumption experience
with the brand, I am very
satisfied that I have

Ballester and
Alleman
(2005), Brakus,
Schmitt
and

160

association
&
feelings that are
more self relevant Cons Exp2
& held with more
certainty

purchased this brand

15

Zarantonello
(2009),
Considering my baby's Chaudhari &
consumption experience Holbrook
with this brand, I feel I (2002)
have made a wrong
decision to purchase this
brand.

Cons Exp3 17

Had my baby not used

this brand he / she would
not
be
that
much
comfortable.

Cons Exp4

Using this brand makes

my baby happy

21

7. Brand Intimacy
Definition

Questionnaire Item
Code and question no.
It is the degree BI1 13
of closeness,
connectedness,
and
BI2 18
bondedness
between brand
and customers
BI3 59

Scale

Source

The brand knows a lot Nysveen et al

about baby care
(2001)
The brand knows many
things about baby that
other brands dont know.
The
brand
really
understands babys need.

8. Family & Peer Information Influencers

Definition

Questionnaire Item
Scale
Code and question no.
FI1

It
is
the
influence
by
friends, family

Source

22
My family recommended Park & Lessig
that I buy this brand.
(1977), Lau &
Lee (1999)
161

members,
colleagues
in FI2
the formation of
trust for brand.

25

My family has been using

this
brand
from
generations.

FI3

27

To make sure I buy the

right baby care brand , I
often observe what baby
care toiletry brand my
family is buying or using

FI4

29

I received this brand as a

gift from my family on
birthday of my child

PI1

33

I received this brand as a

gift from my friends on
birthday of my child

PI2

52

I gathered information
from friends about the
baby toiletries brands
before I buy it.

PI3

36

I often buy those baby

toiletries brands which my
friends have bought &
used.

9. Mass Media Influencers

162

Definition

Questionnaire Item
Code and question
no.
It is the influence MI1 23
created through
television,
newspaper, radio
and
internet
advertisements.

Scale

Source

I purchased the brand by Hsu & Chiu

seeing advertisements on (2003)
popular mass media such
as T.V. / Magazines /
Newspapers

MI2 26

I purchased the brand

because the mass media
such as T.V. / Magazines /
Newspapers
have
presented good picture of
the brand.

MI3 30

I purchased this brand

because it is endorsed by
credible celebrity in mass
media advertisements

MI4

34

I have purchased the

brand
by
seeing
information about it on
internet sites.

MI5

37

I purchased this brand

after listening about it on
radio.

10. Professional Expert Opinion

Definition

Questionnaire Item
Code and question no.

Scale

Source

163

It is the trust
P Exp O1 24
created
through the
advice of
physicians
P Exp O2 28
regarding
which toiletries
product brand
to be
P Exp O3 32
purchased for
the baby.

I have purchased the brand Park & Lessig

because doctor told me (1977),
about it.
Broadbridge &
Morgan (2000),
I
purchases the brand Clement (2004)
which has the seal of
medically tested on it
I received the trial product
of this brand from the
hospital / doctor's clinic

11. Brand Commitment

Definition

Questionnaire Item
Code and question no.
Comm1

It is defined as
the implicit or
explicit
intention to
maintain a
durable
relationship
with the brand

Scale

Source

39
If another baby toiletries
brand is on sale, I will
generally purchase it rather
than my usual brand

Comm2

43

Comm3

50

Gurviez and
Korchia
(2002),
Chaudhuri and
Holbrook
(2001), Hess &
I will continue to use this Story (2005)
brand for my baby in the
future.
This is my favorite brand
for my baby

12. WOM Behavior

Definition

Questionnaire Item
Code and question no.
WOM is what WOM1 40
consumers tell
each
other
after using a WOM2 44

Scale

Source

Talking to my friends I Sichtmann

talk positively about brand (2007), Swan
& Oliver
If anyone asked me which (1989)
164

brand. It can
be
both
positive
and
negative.

brand he should choose I

would recommend this
one.
WOM3

47

I tell my friends mostly

negative things about the
brand

13. Value for Money

Definition

Questionnaire Item
Code and question no.

Scale

Source

VM1 14
The
consumer's
overall
assessment of
the utility of a
product brand
based on what
is received and
what is given

While purchasing toiletries Lichtenstein et

product for my baby, I al (1990)
compare the prices of
different brands to be
sure I get the best value
for the money
VM2

16

When purchasing a baby

toiletries brand, I always
try to get the maximum
quality for each rupee
spent.

VM3

20

When I buy baby toiletry

brand, I like to be sure that
I am getting my money's
worth.

14. Brand Origin

Definition
It is the
country a
brand is
associated with

Questionnaire Item
Code and question no.
BO1 60

Scale

Source

The country that this baby Shukla (2010),

care brand is originating Batra et al
from is important for me in (2000)
making the final choice

165

by its target
consumers
regardless of
where it is
manufactured

BO2 62

If the baby care brand is

originating from a country
of which I have a
favorable image I will be
more inclined to buy that
brand

BO3

I prefer baby toiletries

brand to be an Indian
brand.

64

15. Brand Innovativeness

Definition
It is the extent
to which
consumers
perceive
brands as
being able to
provide new
and useful
solutions to
their needs

Questionnaire Item
Code and question no.
BInnov1 54

Scale

BInnov2

56

This brand always sells the

same product offerings
regardless of current baby
needs

BInnov3

58

This brand is able to

provide new solutions to
baby needs with changing
time

Source

This
brand
provides Eisingerich &
effective solutions to baby Rubera , (2010)
needs

16. Perceived Risk

Definition
Is the potential
loss due to
brand failure
after purchase

Questionnaire Item
Code and question no.
PRisk1 53

Scale

Source

I fear that buying this Yeung et al

brand will have adverse (2010),
effect on baby
Laroche et al
(2004), Chan

166

Prisk2 55

As I consider the purchase and Lu (2004)

of product of this brand, I
worry about whether it
will really perform as
well as it is supposed to

PRisk3 57

I dont perceive any risk

on buying the product of
this baby care toiletry
brand.

17. Other Expert Opinion

Definition

Questionnaire Item
Code and question no.
Is the opinion Oth Exp O1 31
taken from the
non
professional
but
experienced
sources such as Oth Exp O2 35
old
ladies,
midwives,
other mothers
Oth Exp O3 38

Scale

Source

This brand is purchased Broadbridge &

after taking opinion from Morgan (2000)
the experienced ladies of
the society who knows
about baby care a lot.
This brand is purchased on
the advice of midwives
(aaya).
This brand is purchased
after paying attention what
other mothers have to say
about it.

167

Appendix B

Dear Maam,
I am a doctoral student in Marketing Area at Indian Institute of Management Lucknow.
You are requested to participate in this survey on Baby Care Toiletries Brands. This
survey is part of my doctoral thesis work. It will take approximately 20-25 minutes to
complete the questionnaire.
Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. It is very important for me to
learn your opinions regarding Baby Care Brands. While answering the questions
outlined below, please refer the Brand Name of Toiletries products which you are
mostly using for last six months for your baby.
Your survey responses will be strictly confidential and data from this research will be
reported only in the aggregate. Your information will be used for academic purpose only.

168

If you have questions about the survey or the procedures, you may contact me by
emailing at nehasrivast18@yahoo.co.in
Thank you very much for your time and support.

Neha Srivastava
FPM (Doctoral) Student
Indian Institute of Management, Lucknow

169

Questionnaire
1.Personal details
1.1 Your Name ________________________________________
1.2 Your Age ________
1.3 Education __________
(1-Less than 10th Std., 2-Higher Secondary (10thStd), 3-Senior Secondary (12th Std.), 4Graduate, 5-Post Graduate, 6-Diploma)
1.4 What is your total monthly household income (from all the sources)? (Tick )
1. <Rs. 10,000
2. Rs. 10000 Rs. 20,000
3. Rs. 20001 Rs. 30,000
4. Rs. 30,001 Rs.40,000
5. Rs. 40,001Rs 50,000
6. >Rs 50,000
1.5 If working, Specify _____________________________
1.6 You Live in Joint Family / Nuclear Family
1.7 No. of. Children ________________________________________
1.8 Kindly Specify the Brands which you are using of below mentioned Products for your
baby since last 6 months
Product

Approximate

Approximate

Monthly

Monthly

Expenditure

Consumption

Brand

Baby Soap
Baby Skin Lotion
Baby Oil
Baby Shampoo
Baby Cream

1. Please indicate your views for the BABY TOILETRIES CARE BRAND
which you are MOSTLY purchasing for your baby during last six months.

170

1Strongly Disagree
2Disagree
3Neutral
4Agree
5Strongly Agree

Q
Please indicate your degree of agreement to following
No. statements by checking the most appropriate number.
The meaning of the numbers is specified in the
columns above the number.
1= Strongly Disagree. 5=Strongly Agree

This brand is best one in providing softness to baby's skin for

this category of products.
This brands products are safe.

I pay very much attention to brand names of baby toiletries

brands

This brand does not contain any chemicals.

This is a well- known brand

This brand does not causes rashes

This brand is known for good name since many generations

1
1

2
2

3
3

4
4

5
5

This brand delivers what it promises.

This is a popular brand

10

This brand is best in baby smell than any other brands.

11

This brand is suitable to baby's skin for all the seasons

(winters, summers, monsoon)
Considering my babys consumption experience with the
brand, I am very satisfied that I have purchased this brand.
This brand knows a lot about baby care

1
1
1
1

2
2
2
2

3
3
3
3

4
4
4
4

5
5
5
5

1
1

2
2

3
3

4
4

5
5

1
2

12
13

18

While purchasing toiletries product for my baby, I compare the

prices of different brands to be sure I get the best value for
the money
Considering my baby's consumption experience with this
brand, I feel I have made a wrong decision to purchase this
brand.
When purchasing a baby toiletries brand, I always try to get
the maximum quality for each rupee spent.
Had my baby not used this brand he / she would not be that
much comfortable.
This brand really understands my babys need.

19

I can always anticipate correctly how this brand will perform.

20

21

When I buy baby toiletry brand, I like to be sure that I am

getting my moneys worth.
Using this brand makes my baby happy

22

My family recommended that I buy this brand.

14
15
16
17

171

24

I have purchased this brand after going through the written

description about it in the magazines.
I have purchased the brand because doctor told me about it.

25

My family has been using this brand from generations.

26

I have purchased this brand after going through the written

description about it in the newspapers.

27

To make sure I buy the right baby care brand , I often observe
what baby care toiletry brand my family is buying or using

28

I purchases the brand which has the seal of medically tested

on it
I received this brand as a gift from my family on birthday of my
child.
I have purchased this brand by seeing advertisement in T.V.

31

This brand is purchased after taking opinion from the

experienced ladies of the society who knows about baby care
a lot.

32

I received the trial product of this brand from the hospital /

doctor's clinic
I gathered information from friends about the baby toiletries
brands before I buy it.
I have purchased the brand by seeing advertisement about it
on
internet sites.
This brand is purchased on the advice of midwives (aaya).

I received this brand as a gift from my friends on birthday of

my child.
I purchased this brand after listening about it on radio.

This brand is purchased after paying attention what other

mothers have to say about it.

23

29
30

33
34
35
36
37
38

2. Please indicate your views for the BABY TOILETRIES CARE BRAND
which you are MOSTLY purchasing for your baby during last six months.

172

40
41
42

If another baby toiletries brand is on sale, I will generally

purchase it rather than my usual brand
If anybody speaks negative about this brand, I defend it.
Looking at the performance of this brand, I can confidently
depend on this brand
I feel this brand is fair in dealing with its customers.

1
1

2
2

3
3

4
4

5
5

1
Strongly Disagree

39

Q
Please indicate your degree of agreement to following
No. statements by checking the most appropriate number.
The meaning of the numbers is specified in the columns
above the number.
1= Strongly Disagree. 5=Strongly Agree

2
Disagree
3
Neutral
4
Agree
5
Strongly Agree

1= Strongly Disagree. 5=Strongly Agree

2Disagree
3Neutral
4Agree
5Strongly Agree

1Strongly Disagree

Q
Please indicate your degree of agreement to following
No. statements by checking the most appropriate number.
The meaning of the numbers is specified in the
columns above the number.

43

I will continue to use this brand for my baby in the future.

44

46

If any one asked me which baby toiletry brand he should

choose I would recommend this one.
Given by this brands past performance, I have no disliking
about using it.
This Brand displays a warm and caring attitude

47

I tell my friends mostly negative things about the brand

48

49

Given by this brands past performance, I have strong reason

to doubt its effectiveness
I would not feel good if I could no longer use this brand.

50

This is my favorite brand for my baby

51

This brand would do its best to help me if I have a baby

product related problem
I often buy those baby toiletries brands which my friends have
bought & used.
I fear that buying this brand will have adverse effect on baby
This brand provides effective solutions to baby needs
As I consider the purchase of product of this brand, I worry
about whether it will really perform as well as it is supposed
to.
This brand always sells the same product offerings
regardless of current baby needs
I dont perceive any risk on buying the product of this baby

1
1
1

2
2
2

3
3
3

4
4
4

5
5
5

45

52
53
54
55
56
57

173

The country that this baby care brand is originating from is

important for me in making the nal choice
This brand performs consistently

62

This baby care toiletry brand has origin from a country of

which I have a favorable image

63

I can reliably predict how this brand will perform.

64

This baby care toiletry brand has origin from the country that I
dont like.

65

In comparison to other baby care toiletries brands, this brand

is known to consistently deliver very high quality

66

In selecting from many types of Baby care Toiletries Brands

available in the market; I would care a great deal as to which
one I buy.
It is very important for me to make a right choice of baby care
toiletries product brand.

59
60
61

67

1Strongly Disagree
2Disagree
3Neutral
4Agree
5Strongly Agree

58

care toiletry brand.

This brand is able to provide new solutions to baby needs
with changing time.
This brand provides baby and mother related awareness
information

Q
Please indicate your degree of agreement to following
No. statements which is close to your PERSONALITY by
checking the most appropriate number. The meaning
of the numbers is specified in the columns above the
number.
1= Strongly Disagree. 5=Strongly Agree

68

I am very talkative

69

I have a forgiving nature

70

I am very disorganized

71
72
73

I remain calm during tense situation

I am imaginative
I am sociable person

1
1
1

2
2
2

3
3
3

4
4
4

5
5
5

74

I likes to cooperate with others

75

I gets nervous easily

174

76

I am curious about many different things

77
78

I do not rely on others easily.

I do things efficiently.

1
1

2
2

3
3

4
4

5
5

79

I believe in status quo.

80

I makes plans and follows through with them

81

I am helpful to everybody even to those I dont know.

82

I like to try new things.

----Thank you very much for taking out time to participate in the survey ----

Appendix C
Malls Listing
Mumbai

Name

Location

Year

Size

Atlantic Mall

Dadar

2010

150,000 sq ft (14,000 m2)

Atria Millenium Mall

Worli

2006

550,000 sq ft (51,000 m2)

Bayside Mall

Haji Ali

2009

21,000 sq ft (2,000 m2)

Bhoomi Mall

Navi Mumbai

2010

80,000 sq ft (7,400 m2)

175

Name

Location

Year

Size

Big Thane Shopping Centre

Thane

2009

237,000 sq ft (22,000 m2)

City Mall, Andheri

Andheri

2009

130,000 sq ft (12,000 m2)

Crossroad Mall

Mumbai

1999

150,000 sq ft (14,000 m2)

Crossroads Mall

South Mumbai

1999

D-Victorian Mall

Borivili

2010

Evershine Mall

Malad

2008

Fountain Square

Kharghar

2008

Fun Republic

Andheri

2002

130,000 sq ft (12,000 m2)

G7 Mall

Andheri

2010

130,000 sq ft (12,000 m2)

Growel 101 Mall

Kandivli

2007

375,000 sq ft (34,800 m2)

HBS Centrix mall

Bhandup

2010

High Street Phoenix

Mumbai

2008

140,000 sq ft (13,000 m2)

3,300,000 sq ft (310,000 m2)

176

Name

Location

Year

Size

Infocity Mall

Nerul, Navi Mumbai

2010

Inorbit Mall

Vashi, Navi Mumbai

2008

550,000 sq ft (51,000 m2)

Kohinoor City Mall

Kurla

2009

300,000 sq ft (28,000 m2)

Korum Mall

Thane

2009

500,000 sq ft (46,000 m2)

Lake City Mall

Thane

2008

600,000 sq ft (56,000 m2)

Link Square Mall

Bandra

2009

Littleworld

Kharghar

2009

200,000 sq ft (19,000 m2)

Maxus Mall

Bhayander

2007

700,000 sq ft (65,000 m2)

Maxus Mall

Kurla

2009

250,000 sq ft (23,000 m2)

Maxus Meghraj Mall

Vashi

2009

120,000 sq ft (11,000 m2)

Metro Junction Mall

Kalyan

2007

1,500,000 sq ft (140,000 m2)

Metro Mall

Bhandup

2010

177

Name

Location

Year

Size

Moksha Mall

Mumbai

2010

Neptune Magnet Mall

Bhandup, Mumbai

2011

1,056,000 sq ft (98,100 m2)

Nirmal Lifestyles

Mulund

2004

1,000,000 sq ft (93,000 m2)

Oberoi Mall

Goregaon

2008

700,000 sq ft (65,000 m2)

Orchid Ozone Mall

Vashi

2008

2,500,000 sq ft (230,000 m2)

Palladium Mall

Lower Parel

2009

300,000 sq ft (28,000 m2)

Palm Beach Galleria

Vashi

2008

250,000 sq ft (23,000 m2)

Prime Mall

Vile Parle

2010

R City

Ghatkopar

2009

1,200,000 sq ft (110,000 m2)

R City Mall

Ghatkopar

2010

650,000 sq ft (60,000 m2)

R-Mall

Mulund

2003

250,000 sq ft (23,000 m2)

R-Mall-2

Thane

2010

300,000 sq ft (28,000 m2)

Raghuleela Mall

Vashi

2007

375,000 sq ft (34,800 m2)

178

Name

Location

Year

Size

Raguleela Mall

Kandivili

2007

150,000 sq ft (14,000 m2)

Rassaz Mall

Vashi

2008

150,000 sq ft (14,000 m2)

RNA NG Mall

Mumbai

2010

600,000 sq ft (56,000 m2)

Royal Palms shopping mall

Goregaon

2009

150,000 sq ft (14,000 m2)

Shagun Mall

Goregaon

2005

90,000 sq ft (8,400 m2)

Sunrays Shopping Center

Kandivali

2008

120,000 sq ft (11,000 m2)

Thakur Mall

Dahisar

2008

1,700,000 sq ft (160,000 m2)

Thakur Mall

Mira Road

2008

120,000 sq ft (11,000 m2)

V Mall

Kandivali

2008

120,000 sq ft (11,000 m2)

Viva City Mall

Thane

2010

1,000,000 sq ft (93,000 m2)

179

Source:http://www.mumbainet.com/template1.php?CID=23&SCID=13

Lucknow

Name

Location

Year

Size

Phoenix United Mall

Proximity to Lucknow's Amausi International

Airport

2010

600,000 sq ft (56,000
m2)

Fun Republic

Gomti Nagar

2007

970,000 sq ft (90,000
m2)

Westend Mall

Gomti Nagar

2004

314,500 sq ft (29,220
m2)

Riverside mall (INOX)

Gomti Nagar

2008

300,000 sq ft (28,000
m2)

Sahara Ganj Mall

Hazratganj

2005

900,000 sq ft (84,000
m2)

2012

500,000 sq ft (46,000
m2)

2011

700,000 sq ft (65,000
m2)

Rae Bareli-Allahabad Highway

Gardens galleria Mall

Omaxe City Centre Mall

Hazratganj

180

Name

Location

Year

Shopping Square

Sushant Golf City

2012

Essar Mall

Rajajipuram

2011

Size

Source: U.P. Tourism website

http://www.uptourism.com/destination/lucknow/shopping.htm

Allahabad

Name

Location

Year

Size

Vinayak City Center Mall and Multiplex

Civil Lines

2011

550,000 sq ft (51,000 m2)

Lilliput

Civil Lines

2010

80,000 sq ft (7,400 m2)

Big Bazar Shopping Mall

Civil Lines

2007

120,000 sq ft (11,000 m2)

Sampling of Shopping Malls

Total No. of Shopping malls
No of shopping malls selected
for sampling

Mumbai
51
10

Lucknow
9
5

Allahabad
3
3

181

Shopping malls from where

data collected

6
[Inorbit, Malad
Raghuleela, Kandivili;
Oberoi, Goregaon;
Growel 101, Kandivili;
Infinity, Malad; Palladium,

3
[Fun Republic, Sahara
Ganj, West end Mall]

3
[Vinayak city centre, Big
Bazaar city mall, Lilliput]

Lower Parel]

City Classification
City
Size of Mall
Big (>5L sq ft)
Medium (5L-2Lsq
ft)
Small (<2L sq ft)
Total

Tier-1
Mumbai

Tier 2
Lucknow

Tier 3
Allahabad

4
1

2
1

1
0

182

183