Psychological Reports: Employment Psychology & Marketing

2014, 114, 2, 609-624. © Psychological Reports 2014

THE ROLE OF BRAND TRUST IN MALE CUSTOMERS'

RELATIONSHIP TO LUXURY BRANDS1

WON-MOO HUR

School of Business Administration

Pukyong National University, Busan, South Korea

MINSUNG KIM HANNA KIM

School of Business Administration Department of Clothing and Textiles

Inha University Chungnam National University
Incheon, South Korea Daejeon, South Korea

Summary.—This study examined the role of brand trust in customers' luxury

brand consumption behavior. Perceived value and brand satisfaction were pre-
sented within a framework as antecedents of brand trust, while brand loyalty and
brand risk were presented as consequences. A face-to-face survey was administered
to a sample (N = 400) of men between 25 and 54 years of age who had purchased
luxury brand and non-luxury brand suits within the previous three months. The
results showed the greater the hedonic value on brand satisfaction, the greater
the influence of brand satisfaction on brand trust, and the greater was the effect
of brand trust on brand loyalty for luxury brands as compared with non-luxury
brands. Similar patterns are identified between luxury and non-luxury brands for
the positive relationship between utilitarian value and brand satisfaction and the
negative relationship between brand trust and brand risk.

Developing a trustworthy brand is considered to be one of the most

fundamental tasks in marketing practice. In marketing academia, brand
trust is acknowledged to be an antecedent of both strong brand equity
and brand loyalty, which are crucial in building repeat purchase, word-
of-mouth advertising, and premium price (Sheth & Parvatiyar, 1995; Am-
bler, 1997; Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001; Delgado-Ballester & Munuera-
Alemán, 2005). For most well-known successful brands, the role of brand
trust is often taken for granted, the assumption being that their reputa-
tion is enough to justify their trustworthiness. This study, however, rais-
es a question about the role of brand trust for luxury brands, which are
considered successful for a significant period of time in their markets. In
terms of the existing research on luxury brands, the focus to date has not
been on how customers perceive luxury brands and how customers build
their relationship with luxury brands, but rather mainly on product ac-
quisition behavior for luxury brands: specifically, the consumption behav-
1
Address correspondence to Hanna Kim, Department of Clothing and Textiles, College of
Human Ecology, Chungnam National University, 220 Gung-dong, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon,
South Korea or e-mail (hanna@cnu.ac.kr).

DOI 10.2466/01.07.PR0.114k15w8 ISSN 0033-2941

20_PR_Hur_130099.indd 609 31/03/14 6:35 PM

 610 W-M. HUR, ET AL.

iors of affluent consumers (e.g., Hirshman, 1988; Stanley, 1988), types of

luxury brand (e.g., Andrus, Silver, & Johnson, 1986; Dubois & Duquesne,
1993), determinants of the acquisition of luxury products (e.g., Dubois &
Duquesne, 1993; Dubois & Laurent, 1993), cross-cultural comparisons of
attitudes toward the luxury concept (e.g., Dubois & Laurent, 1993; Dubois
& Paternault, 1997), and value dimensions of luxury products (e.g., Vi-
gneron & Johnson, 1999; Wiedmann, Hennigs, & Siebels, 2009).
Previous studies of luxury brands have included limited investiga-
tion of the conceptual framework of how customers build trust for lux-
ury brands and observation of the behaviors of customers who develop
trust toward luxury brands. Therefore, the main objective of this study
was to present an integrative framework modeling the antecedents (i.e.,
perceived value and brand satisfaction) and consequences (i.e., increased
brand loyalty and decreased brand risk) of brand trust. The specific re-
lationships between the constructs were carefully chosen and organized
into a framework based on the strength of the effect from the existing rel-
evant studies; e.g., in Palmatier, Dant, Grewal, and Evans's (2006) me-
ta-analysis, both paths from perceived benefits to brand satisfaction and
from trust to customer loyalty had robust coefficients of .41 and .44, re-
spectively. It should be noted that all the identified relationships were not
examined in the luxury brand context. In empirical testing of the hypothe-
sized framework, the current study compared customers' perceptions and
behaviors between luxury brands and non-luxury brands in order to es-
tablish a distinctive role of trust for luxury brands. In addition, the review
of luxury brand studies revealed that most of the existing studies have
been performed with female consumer samples. Considering that men ac-
count for approximately 35% of total luxury item purchases (Unity Mar-
keting, 2006), and that the effect of brand trust is more pronounced in the
purchase decision-making process of male consumers, it is worthwhile to
examine the role of brand trust in the relationship between luxury brand
consumption and brand loyalty among male customers.

Luxury Brands and Consumer Behavior

A luxury good is defined as an item used to show one's prestige and
status (Grossman & Shapiro, 1988), and thus one of the most important
defining characteristics of luxury brands is the price premium associated
with high quality (Keller, 2009). According to Phau and Prendergast (2001,
p. 123), luxury brands “evoke exclusivity, have a well-known brand identi-
ty, enjoy high brand awareness and perceived quality, and retain sales lev-
els and customer loyalty”; e.g., most studies on luxury brands (e.g., Okonk-
wo, 2009; Stokburger-Sauer & Teichmann, 2013) have cited luxury fashion
brands such as Giorgio Armani, Boss, or Burberry. Consumption of such

20_PR_Hur_130099.indd 610 31/03/14 6:35 PM

 BRAND TRUST 611

luxury brands is concerned with the ostentatious display of wealth moti-

vated by a desire to impress others and is considered a sign of social sta-
tus, wealth, or power (Dubois & Duquesne, 1993; Alden, Steenkamp, & Ba-
tra, 1999). Luxury fashion goods are part of a new social protocol whereby
an individual's identity and self-worth are displayed by the visible brands
worn (Melika & Muris, 2009). In this context, consumers prefer luxurious
and designer brand clothes because they are confident in evaluating the
styles these designers create (Vigneron & Johnson, 1999). Luxury products
are likely to provide subjective, intangible benefits such as sensory plea-
sure, aesthetic beauty, or excitement. In addition, luxury brands are expect-
ed to be of higher quality, and so luxury brands tend to evoke perceptions
of higher quality (Garfein, 1989). Vigneron and Johnson (1999) identified
two other factors based on personal effects of luxury branding: hedonism
and perfectionism. Simply put, hedonistic consumers enjoy having their
emotions and feelings aroused by a luxury brand, while perfectionist con-
sumers value product quality.
Perceived Value and Brand Satisfaction
Perceived value has been found to be a significant predictor of cus-
tomer satisfaction (Cronin, Brady, & Hult, 2000). Carpenter and Fairhurst
(2005) suggested that utilitarian and hedonic benefits derived from the
experience of purchasing apparel brands are positively linked to satisfac-
tion. Whereas utilitarian value is derived from the consumer's belief in
and satisfaction with the functionality or quality of the goods, similar to
Vigneron and Johnson's (1999) concept of “perfectionism,” hedonic val-
ue is derived from the aesthetic experience of and enjoyment in the pro-
cess of purchasing and wearing clothes. According to O'Cass and Frost
(2002), luxury brands affect consumers' purchasing motives in a different
way than non-luxury brands. Luxury consumption is also associated with
emotional responses such as aesthetic beauty, sensory pleasure, and grat-
ification (Vigneron & Johnson, 2004). As such, social and psychological
benefits are held to be the main factors distinguishing luxury from non-
luxury products (Arghavan & Zaichkowsky, 2000). Luxury goods rely on
symbolic (or hedonic) benefits while non-luxury goods depend mainly on
functional benefits (Vickers & Renand, 2003). Therefore, the following hy-
potheses were proposed:
Hypothesis 1. The positive influence of utilitarian value on brand
satisfaction will be stronger for non-luxury brands than in lux-
ury brands.
Hypothesis 2. The positive influence of hedonic value on brand
satisfaction will be stronger for luxury brands than non-luxu-
ry brands.

20_PR_Hur_130099.indd 611 31/03/14 6:35 PM

 612 W-M. HUR, ET AL.

Brand Satisfaction and Brand Trust

Atwal and Williams (2009) suggested strategies for experiential luxu-
ry marketing based on entertaining, educational, and aesthetic experiences;
e.g., fashion shows at designer boutiques and upscale brand stores provide
customers with entertainment, and well-made or aesthetically pleasing fash-
ion products satisfy customers' tastes. A positive experience with a person or
organization tends to support the development of trust towards that person
or organization. Thus, one of the most effective ways for a brand to generate
customers' trust in the brand is to satisfy them through positive experiences
(Walter, Mueller, & Helfer, 2000). Satisfaction with a brand is defined as the
outcome of the subjective evaluation in which the chosen brand meets or ex-
ceeds expectations (Bloemer & Kasper, 1995). These expectations are higher
with luxury goods than with non-luxury goods, because consumers expect
luxury branded products to look good and perform as promised (Wiedma-
nn, Hennigs, & Siebels, 2007). Butler (1991) suggested that promise fulfill-
ment affects trust and that consumers are therefore likely to trust a brand
when satisfied with the brand after using it. Consequently, it was hypoth-
esized that:
Hypothesis 3. The positive influence of brand satisfaction on brand
trust will be stronger for luxury brands than non-luxury brands.
Brand Trust and Brand Loyalty
Many researchers in relationship marketing (Fournier, 1998; Chaud-
huri & Holbrook, 2001) have stressed that brand trust is a key determinant
of brand loyalty. Trust, a willingness to act without calculating immediate
costs and benefits, always underlies loyalty (O'Shaughnessy, 1992), because
trust creates exchange relationships that are highly valued (Morgan & Hunt,
1994). Hiscock (2001, p. 1) claimed that “the ultimate goal of marketing is to
generate an intense bond between the consumer and the brand, and the main
ingredient of this bond is trust.” Similarly, brand credibility increases loyalty
commitment since consumers justify their reliance on the brand by trusting it
(Sweeney & Swait, 2008). The firms with higher brand equity or globally po-
sitioned brands, such as luxury brands, are likely to be more trusted than oth-
ers (Kapferer, 1992) because trust correlates with the power of brands (Young
& Wilkinson, 1989). Therefore, the following hypothesis was posited:
Hypothesis 4. The positive influence of brand trust on brand loyal-
ty will be stronger for luxury brands than non-luxury brands.
Brand Trust and Brand Risk
According to Moorman, Zaltman, and Deshpande (1992), trust is only
relevant in risky and uncertain situations. Thus, trust can be described as
a function of the extent of risk involved in a situation (Koller, 1988). Once

20_PR_Hur_130099.indd 612 31/03/14 6:35 PM

 BRAND TRUST 613

FIG. 1. Model of relations among variables

consumers trust the brand, the uncertainty in an environment in which

they feel vulnerable is reduced since consumers feel they can rely on the
trusted brand (Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001). Many researchers (Lewis &
Weigert, 1985; Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995) have shown that trust
reduces perceived (social) risk, indicating that consumers are likely to be-
lieve that a trusted brand will not raise social risk and will behave as ex-
pected. Since luxury brands are more symbolic in nature and reflect con-
sumers' social status more than non-luxury brands, consumers consider
which brand they choose as being very important. The quality and symbol-
ic benefit cues luxury brands have reduce the performance risk, psycholog-
ical risk, and social risk (Baek, Kim, & Yu, 2010). In terms of a consumer's
trust of a brand, a luxury brand is expected to reduce uncertainty, includ-
ing perceived risk associated with high-priced luxury products, more than
a non-luxury brand does. Thus, it was hypothesized that:
Hypothesis 5. The negative influence of brand trust on perceived
brand risk is stronger in luxury brands than in non-luxury brands.
METHOD
Participants
In order to prepare a sampling frame reflecting the luxury brand male
consumer market in general, in-depth interviews were performed with five
luxury fashion brand managers or marketers who have five or more years
of work experience in the luxury fashion brand field. The survey targeted
men between 25 and 54 years of age who purchased luxury brand (DAKS,
Givenchy, and PAL ZILERI) and non-luxury brand (local non-luxury brands:
Rogatis, Maestro, and Galaxy) suits within the past three months. This sam-

20_PR_Hur_130099.indd 613 31/03/14 6:35 PM

 614 W-M. HUR, ET AL.

pling frame was developed based on a series of interviews with 3 market-

ers and 12 brand managers, with careful consideration given to the market
in Korea for luxury and non-luxury men's suit brands, including their mar-
ket share. This sampling frame was also applied to the quota sample (i.e.,
age, household income, residential area), e.g., age distribution among par-
ticipants from 20–29 yr., 30–39 yr., and over 40 yr., was set at 30%, 45%, and
25%, respectively, to represent the ratios of these three age groups among
suit purchasers. The data for this study was collected in a face-to-face survey
implemented by a market research firm in South Korea. In total, 400 (luxury
brand = 200, non-luxury brand = 200) questionnaires were collected.
A preliminary analysis of the demographic profile of the 400 respon-
dents revealed that 75.5% of the participants were married and 24.5%
were single, with 23.0% of the respondents falling between the ages of
25 and 29 yr., 31.5% between 30 and 34 yr., 2.5% between 35 and 39 yr.,
7.5% between 40 and 44 yr., 9.5% between 45 and 49 yr., and 8.0% be-
ing 50 or older. Those who earned less than $30,000 per year accounted
for 13.0% of the sample, while those who earned between $30,000 and
$49,999, between $50,000 and $69,999, and $70,000 per year or more con-
stituted 69.5%, 15.0%, and 2.5% of the sample, respectively. A majority of
the participants (nearly 73.0%) had at least a college-level education, and
27.0% had a high school education. (See Table 1.)

TABLE 1
SAMPLE DEMOGRAPHICS
Purchased Purchased Non-
Demographic Luxury Brand luxury Brand
Variable
n % n %
Married 150 75 152 76
Age
25–29 30 15 30 15
30–34 42 21 38 19
35–39 36 18 26 13
40–44 32 16 30 15
45–49 34 17 38 19
≥ 50 26 13 38 19
Income
< $30,000 14 7 38 19
$30,000–$49,999 152 76 126 63
$50,000–$69,999 24 12 36 18
≥ $70,000 10 5 0 0
College educated 150 75 142 71

20_PR_Hur_130099.indd 614 31/03/14 6:35 PM

 BRAND TRUST 615

Measures
The survey was constructed based on an established measurement
of constructs from prior research, but with adaptations to be applica-
ble for the context of the proposed model (see Table 2). Perceived val-
ues (utilitarian value and hedonic value) were each measured using
two items (e.g., “I rely on this product” and “I love this product”) pub-
lished by Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001). Each item was rated on a
7-point scale with anchors of 1: Strongly disagree and 7: Strongly agree.
Brand satisfaction was measured by three items (e.g., overall satisfac-
tion) adapted from Fornell, Johnson, Anderson, Cha, and Bryant (1996).
Respondents rated brand satisfaction using an 11-point scale (anchors
0: Very dissatisfied, 11: Very satisfied). To measure brand trust, the three-
item scale employed by Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001) was used (e.g.,
“I trust this brand”). Respondents rated their perception of brand trust
from all three sources on a 7–point Likert-type scale (anchors 1: Strongly

TABLE 2
SCALES AND THEIR MEASUREMENT ITEMS
Scale Item
Utilitarian valuea I rely on this product.
This product is a necessity for me.
Hedonic valuea I love this product.
I feel good when I use this product.
Brand satisfactionc Overall satisfaction
Expectancy of disconfirmation
Performance versus the customer's ideal product category
Brand trusta I trust this brand.
I rely on this brand.
This is an honest brand.
Brand loyaltyb Would you patronize this brand in the future?
Would you repurchase this brand in the future?
Everything considered, how likely are you in the future to purchase
another product of this brand?
Would you recommend this brand to a friend or relative?
Brand riska My friends/colleagues would think negatively about my purchase of
this brand.
My friends/colleagues would think it undesirable for me to purchase
this brand.
I will lose my dignity if my friends/colleagues notice my purchase of
this brand.
Note.—Anchors for scales are: a1 : Strongly disagree and 7 : Strongly agree, b0 : Strongly dis-
agree and 10 : Strongly agree, c0 : Very dissatisfied and 10 : Very satisfied.

20_PR_Hur_130099.indd 615 31/03/14 6:35 PM

 616 W-M. HUR, ET AL.

disagree, 7: Strongly agree). Brand loyalty was assessed with four items
(e.g., “Would you patronize this brand in the future?”) utilized by Yoo
and Donthu (2001). Respondents rated their perceptions of brand loy-
alty from all four sources on an 11-point Likert-type scale (0: Strongly
disagree, 10: Strongly agree). Finally, brand risk was measured by three
items (e.g., “My friends/colleagues would think negatively about my
purchase of this brand”) used by Jarvenpaa and Todd (1997) and Corbitt,
Thanasankit, and Yi (2003). Respondents rated their perception of brand
risk from all three sources on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1: Strongly dis-
agree, 7: Strongly agree).
RESULTS
Partial Least Squares (PLS) path modeling was employed to test the
hypotheses. The PLS algorithm allows each indicator to vary in how much
it contributes to the composite score of the latent variable (Chin, Marco-
lin, & Newsted, 2003). As noted by Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, and Ta-
tham (2006), both the measures and structural components were simulta-
neously taken into account when estimating the model (Henseler, Ringle,
& Sinkovics, 2009) and the factor loadings of the measurement model and
path coefficients of the structural model had to be simultaneously esti-
mated. The latent constructs with multiple measurement items were used
to explain the customer-brand relationship. The use of PLS was preferred
over other Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) tools for several reasons.
First, as Reinartz, Haenlein, and Henseler (2009) showed, variance-based
techniques (such as PLS) offer better estimation than other techniques in
sample sizes smaller than 250. Second, PLS tends to achieve higher sta-
tistical power under equivalent conditions, as compared to traditional
covariance-based SEM (Reinartz, et al., 2009). Finally, since PLS is a non-
parametric technique, researchers do not need to guarantee the normality
of the data. The statistics program Smart PLS 2.0 (Ringle, Wande, & Will,
2005) was used to carry out the empirical analysis.
Test of Measurement Model
Partial Least Square (PLS) modeling is one type of Structural Equation
Modeling (SEM). However, PLS is distinctive as compared to covariance-
based SEM because it does not allow measurement error in the model. In
this regard, PLS resembles regression modeling. In terms of hypotheses
testing, normal SEM requires confirmatory factor analysis first to test the
measurement model, after which the hypotheses are tested through the
structural model. However, PLS only requires the path coefficients, i.e.,
the loading scores, of the measurement items to analyze the validity (con-
vergent and discriminant) of the measurement model.

20_PR_Hur_130099.indd 616 31/03/14 6:35 PM

 BRAND TRUST 617

The validity of the measurement model was examined by using a se-

ries of reliability and validity tests. First, the internal consistency reliabil-
ity of the included measurement items within each construct was investi-
gated with Cronbach's α, for which the reliability for all the constructs was
found to be satisfactory, with the coefficients ranging from .63 to .87 (Table
1). Composite Reliability (CR), factor loading, and Average Variance Ex-
tracted (AVE) were used to check the convergent validity of the measure-
ment items, as shown in Table 3. The CR and AVE values exceeded the
accepted criteria (Gefen, Straub, & Broudreau, 2000), and all the items'
factor loadings for each construct exceeded .70, with significant bootstrap
t statistics (p < .01). To check the discriminant validity of the measurement
items, the AVE of each construct was compared with the shared variance
between the constructs. As shown in Table 4, the AVE's squared root for
the individual construct exceeded its shared variance with the other con-
structs, which suggested that all the constructs in this study satisfied dis-
criminant validity.

TABLE 3
RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY ASSESSMENT OF THE THEORETICAL CONSTRUCT MEASURES
Luxury Brand Model Non-luxury Brand Model
Construct
λ α CR AVE λ α CR AVE
Utilitarian value 0.87 .69 0.87 0.76 0.93 .74 0.88 0.73
0.88 0.84
Hedonic value 0.90 .73 0.88 0.79 0.85 .63 0.84 0.79
0.87 0.87
Brand satisfaction 0.91 .86 0.92 0.78 0.83 .80 0.88 0.72
0.87 0.84
0.87 0.87
Brand trust 0.79 .79 0.87 0.70 0.74 .74 0.85 0.66
0.86 0.86
0.86 0.83
Brand loyalty 0.88 .87 0.91 0.72 0.88 .80 0.87 0.63
0.86 0.76
0.90 0.76
0.76 0.76
Brand risk 0.87 .85 0.91 0.77 0.86 .87 0.92 0.79
0.90 0.92
0.87 0.88
Note.—λ = Standardized Factor Loading, CR = Composite Reliability, AVE = Average Vari-
ance Extracted, α = Cronbach's α. All standardized factor loadings were statistically signifi-
cant at p < .01.

20_PR_Hur_130099.indd 617 31/03/14 6:35 PM

 618 W-M. HUR, ET AL.

TABLE 4
CORRELATIONS OF THE CONSTRUCTS OF THE LUXURY VS NON-LUXURY GROUPS
Correlation
Variable M SD Min. Max.
1 2 3 4 5
Luxury brand
1. Utilitarian value 5.53 0.74 3.50 7.00
2. Hedonic value 5.72 0.64 4.00 7.00 .63
3. Brand satisfaction 7.95 0.69 6.00 10.00 .53 .65
4. Brand trust 5.55 0.64 4.00 7.00 .64 .57 .54
5. Brand loyalty 7.59 1.02 4.00 9.25 .54 .53 .71 .63
6. Brand risk 2.93 1.17 1.00 6.00 −.04 −.33 −.08 −.22 −.15
Non-luxury brand
1. Utilitarian value 5.49 0.66 3.50 7.00
2. Hedonic value 5.63 0.65 3.50 7.00 .41
3. Brand satisfaction 7.71 0.87 4.67 9.33 .33 .36
4. Brand trust 5.41 0.65 3.67 7.00 .56 .48 .30
5. Brand loyalty 7.54 0.92 5.00 10.00 .46 .58 .62 .62
6. Brand risk 2.95 1.18 1.00 6.00 −.16 −.11 .02 .47 −.06

Test of Structural Model

The hypothesized relationships between the constructs (Fig. 1) were
examined after checking the validity of the measurement model. The dif-
ferent statistical parameters were calculated first (Table 5) using the boot-
strap method (5,000 subsamples; Shrout & Bolger, 2002). The model path
tests considered the sign and significance of the t values in each relation-
ship. The next step was to examine whether the differences in the results
between the two models were significant. Chin's (2000) suggestions for
multi-group analysis provided the basis for the hypothesis testing.
The results showed that utilitarian value and hedonic value had a posi-
tive effect both in luxury brands (Utilitarian b = 0.20, p < .05; Hedonic b = 0.53,
p < .01) and non-luxury brands (Utilitarian b = 0.21, p < .05; Hedonic b = 0.28,
p < .01). The difference between the structural loading linking utilitarian val-
ue to brand satisfaction in luxury brands and non-luxury brands was smaller
than the critical threshold (t = 0.78, p > .05), hence the results did not support
Hypothesis 1. On the other hand, the difference between the structural load-
ing linking hedonic value to brand satisfaction in luxury brands and non-
luxury brands was greater than the critical threshold (t = 2.03, p < .05). Thus,
it was concluded that the positive effect of hedonic value was significantly
larger in the luxury brand purchase category than in the non-luxury brand
category, which supports Hypothesis 2. It was predicted that brand satisfac-
tion would have a stronger effect on brand trust in the luxury brand cate-

20_PR_Hur_130099.indd 618 31/03/14 6:35 PM

 BRAND TRUST 619

TABLE 5
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
Path
Model Path t R2
Coefficient
Luxury brand Utilitarian Value → Brand Satisfaction 0.20 2.17*
model .44
Hedonic Value → Brand Satisfaction 0.53 5.39†
Brand Satisfaction → Brand Trust 0.54 7.07† .29
Brand Trust → Brand Loyalty 0.63 10.26† .40
Brand Trust → Brand Risk −0.22 −2.47* .05
Non-luxury Utilitarian Value → Brand Satisfaction 0.21 2.59†
brand model Hedonic Value → Brand Satisfaction .17
0.28 3.75†
Brand Satisfaction → Brand Trust 0.30 4.78† .09
Brand Trust → Brand Loyalty 0.47 8.47† .22
Brand Trust → Brand Risk −0.20 3.27† .04
*p < .05. †p < .01.

gory than in the non-luxury brand category. The results showed that brand
satisfaction had a positive effect on brand trust for luxury brands (b = 0.54,
p < .01) and non-luxury brands (b = 0.30, p < .01). The difference between the
structural loading linking brand satisfaction to brand trust in luxury and
non-luxury brands was greater than the critical threshold of 1.96 (t = 2.43,
p < .05), supporting Hypothesis 3. According to Hypothesis 4, brand trust
would more be effective in affecting brand loyalty for luxury brands than
non-luxury brands. The results showed that brand trust had a positive ef-
fect on brand loyalty for luxury brands (b = 0.63, p < .01) and non-luxury
brands (b = 0.47, p < .01). Moreover, in support of Hypothesis 4, the results
showed that the effect of brand trust was stronger for luxury brands than
non-luxury brands (critical ratio for difference in t value = 1.97, p < .05). Fi-
nally, Hypothesis 5 maintained that brand trust would have a greater ef-
fect on social brand risk for luxury brands than non-luxury brands. The re-
sults showed that brand trust had a negative effect on brand risk for luxury
brands (b = –0.22, p < .01) and non-luxury brands (b = –0.20, p < .01). Since the
critical ratio for the difference was smaller than the critical threshold of 1.96
(t = 0.19, p > .05), Hypothesis 5 was not supported (Table 6).
DISCUSSION
Studies on luxury brands to date have been limited in scope, espe-
cially when compared to other areas of brand studies in general. Against
this background, the present study analyzed the effect of a positive luxu-
ry brand experience on brand loyalty and brand risk, which is mediated
by brand trust. By investigating this comprehensive framework organized

20_PR_Hur_130099.indd 619 31/03/14 6:35 PM

 620 W-M. HUR, ET AL.

TABLE 6
TWO-GROUP ANALYSIS RESULTS (LUXURY BRAND VS NON-LUXURY BRAND)
Luxury Non-luxury Coefficient Magnitude
Path
Brand Brand (t test)
Utilitarian Value → Brand Satisfaction 0.20 0.21 0.78
Hedonic Value → Brand Satisfaction 0.53 0.28 > 2.03*
Brand Satisfaction → Brand Trust 0.54 0.30 > 2.43*
Brand Trust → Brand Loyalty 0.63 0.47 > 1.97*
Brand Trust → Brand Risk −0.22 −0.20 0.19
*p < .05.

around brand trust and comparing luxury brands with non-luxury brands,
the results of this study suggested four theoretical or practical implications
for luxury brand management, including the directions for intensifying the
luxury male customer-brand relationship.
First, prior studies have discussed the characteristics of luxury prod-
ucts or brands (Rossiter, Percy, & Donovan, 1991; Alleres, 2006), but lim-
ited research has been conducted to explore the effectiveness of methods
in fostering customers' willingness to be loyal to a luxury brand. The re-
sults obtained on the role of brand trust in the development of brand loy-
alty, specifically that the effect of brand trust on brand loyalty for luxury
brands is greater than for non-luxury brands, and the concomitant reduc-
tion of brand risk have enriched the existing branding literature through
the integration of knowledge of the brand-customer relationship with
luxury brand management. As proposed in the seminal studies on rela-
tionship marketing, such as Morgan and Hunt (1994), the findings of this
study confirm that brand trust plays a significant role in brand loyalty for
luxury brands. Specifically, the relation between brand trust and brand
loyalty (r = .63) was strong. This large effect of trust on loyalty shows the
same pattern as Palmatier, et al.'s (2006) meta-analysis of the relation be-
tween trust and loyalty (simple average r = .44, showing stronger relation
than any other paths involving loyalty). Clear identification of the role of
trust in luxury brand consumption can therefore be combined in the de-
velopment of luxury customer-brand relationship strategies to form high-
er competitive advantages (e.g., brand equity), from which sustainable
competitive advantages in the luxury fashion industry can be obtained.
Second, two types of perceived values have asymmetric effects on
brand satisfaction. Specifically, hedonic value had a greater effect than util-
itarian value on brand satisfaction for luxury brands, whereas both values
had a comparable influence on brand satisfaction for non-luxury brands.
Considering that perceived values explain consumers' purchasing moti-
vation very well, this result also accounts for male customers' motivation

20_PR_Hur_130099.indd 620 31/03/14 6:35 PM

 BRAND TRUST 621

for luxury brand purchases. Male customers' purchase or consumption of

luxury brands is related more strongly to psychological and symbolic rea-
sons than to functional or practical reasons. In other words, they purchase
luxury brand suits just as they would purchase cars, and they wear them in
their everyday lives to express their social status more effectively.
Third, the role of brand trust is identified as significant in enhancing
brand loyalty and in reducing brand risk for male luxury brand customers;
i.e., brand satisfaction – the cumulative consumption experience – increas-
es trust for a luxury brand, and this in turn leads to repurchase behavior.
Brand trust is also found to reduce brand social risk, which is expected to
increase cross-selling for related products. On the other hand, brand trust
asymmetrically affects brand loyalty and brand risk. Specifically, the effect
of brand loyalty increased by brand trust is much greater than the effect
of brand risk reduced by brand trust. On the managerial front, the find-
ings of this study contribute to a better understanding and development of
the relationships between male customers' behaviors and luxury brands.
This study suggested that luxury brands have an effective brand manage-
ment process, namely hedonic value → brand satisfaction → brand trust →
brand loyalty, which differentiates them from non-luxury brands. For lux-
ury brands, trust plays an important role in enhancing brand loyalty rather
than reducing brand risk, so luxury brands have to develop customer loy-
alty programs based on brand trust.
Finally, brand managers for luxury men's clothing, targeting the Asian
market in particular, should emphasize the role of brand trust. Asians are
extremely conspicuous consumers (Dubois & Duquesne, 1993; Tai & Tam,
1996) and the business suit is a highly self-expressive product for men.
Given the importance of both brand trust and brand prestige for high-
ly self-expressive products (Baek, et al., 2010), male customers may value
brand trust as well as brand prestige in their decision-making processes.
Therefore, marketers should successfully position a brand as being trust-
worthy when they establish a strategy for the Asian luxury market.
The findings of this research need to be viewed in light of the follow-
ing possible limitations. This study focused on the sequential relationships
among customer values, brand trust, and brand loyalty but excluded the ef-
fect of brand affect in the relationship between customer values and brand
loyalty, unlike Chaudhuri and Holbrook's (2001) study. Thus, future re-
search needs to consider the effects of both brand trust and brand affect in
the luxury brand context. Secondly, this study targeted male customers only,
which was deemed meaningful and distinct in the extant stream of research
on luxury brands in mostly female samples. However, higher external va-
lidity for the framework presented (i.e., the antecedents and consequences
of brand trust) would be achieved if both male and female consumers were

20_PR_Hur_130099.indd 621 31/03/14 6:35 PM

 622 W-M. HUR, ET AL.

recruited and compared. Lastly, the effects of value in strengthening brand

trust may depend on the brand context. As long as a brand hierarchy exists
among luxury brands, such as traditional luxury, new luxury, or masstige
(downward brand extension), future researchers are encouraged to explore
potential antecedents of brand trust in different brand contexts to afford
greater confidence in the generalizability of the results.
REFERENCES
ALDEN, D. L., STEENKAMP, J. B. E. M., & BATRA, R. (1999) Brand positioning through adver-
tising in Asia, North America, and Europe: the role of global consumer culture.
Journal of Marketing, 63, 75-87.
ALLERES, D. (2006) Marques de luxe. Paris, France: Economica.
AMBLER, T. (1997) How much of brand equity is explained by trust? Management Deci-
sion, 35, 283-292.
ANDRUS, D. M., SILVER, E., & JOHNSON, D. E. (1986) Status brand management and gift
purchase: a discriminant analysis. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 3, 5-13.
ARGHAVAN, N., & ZAICHKOWSKY, J. L. (2000) Do counterfeits devalue the ownership of
luxury brands? Journal of Product and Brand Management, 9, 485-497.
ATWAL, G., & WILLIAMS, A. (2009) Luxury brand marketing: the experience is everything!
Brand Management, 16, 338-346.
BAEK, T. H., KIM, J., & YU, J. H. (2010) The differential roles of brand credibility and
brand prestige in consumer brand choice. Psychology and Marketing, 27, 662-678.
BLOEMER, J. M. M., & KASPER, H. D. P. (1995) The complex relationship between con-
sumer satisfaction and brand loyalty. Journal of Economic Psychology, 16, 311-329.
BUTLER, J. K., JR. (1991) Toward understanding and measuring conditions of trust: evolu-
tion of a condition of trust inventory. Journal of Management, 17, 643-663.
CARPENTER, J. M., & FAIRHURST, A. (2005) Consumer shopping value, satisfaction, and
loyalty for retail apparel brands. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 9,
256-269.
CHAUDHURI, A., & HOLBROOK, M. B. (2001) The chain of effects from brand trust and
brand affect to brand performance: the role of brand loyalty. Journal of Marketing,
65, 81-93.
CHIN, W. W. (2000) Frequently asked questions: partial least squares & PLS–graph. Retrieved
from http://disc-nt.cba.uh.edu/chin/plsfaq/plsfaq.htm.
CHIN, W., MARCOLIN, B., & NEWSTED, P. (2003) A partial least squares latent variable mod-
eling approach for measuring interaction effects: results from a Monte Carlo sim-
ulation study and an electronic-mail emotion/adoption study. Information Systems
Research, 14, 189-217.
CORBITT, B. J., THANASANKIT, T., & YI, H. (2003) Trust and e-commerce: a study of con-
sumer perceptions. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 2, 203-215.
CRONIN, J. J., BRADY, M. K., & HULT, G. T. (2000) Assessing the effects of quality, value,
and customer satisfaction on consumer behavior intentions in service environ-
ments. Journal of Retailing, 76, 193-218.
DELGADO-BALLESTER, E., & MUNUERA-ALEMÁN, J. L. (2005) Does brand trust matter to
brand equity? Journal of Product and Brand Management, 14, 187-196.
DUBOIS, B., & DUQUESNE, P. (1993) The market for luxury goods: income versus culture.
European Journal of Marketing, 27, 35-45.

20_PR_Hur_130099.indd 622 31/03/14 6:35 PM

 BRAND TRUST 623

DUBOIS, B., & LAURENT, G. (1993) Is there a Euro-consumer for luxury goods? In F. Van-
Raaij & G. Bamosy (Eds.), European advances in consumer research. Vol. 1. Provo, UT:
Association for Consumer Research. Pp. 58-69.
DUBOIS, B., & PATERNAULT, C. (1997) Does luxury have a home country? An investigation
of country images in Europe. Marketing and Research Today, 25, 79-85.
FORNELL, C., JOHNSON, M. D., ANDERSON, E. W., CHA, J., & BRYANT, B. E. (1996) The Ameri-
can Customer Satisfaction Index: nature, purpose and findings. Journal of Market-
ing, 60, 7-18.
FOURNIER, S. (1998) Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in con-
sumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 343-373.
GARFEIN, R. T. (1989) Cross-cultural perspectives on the dynamics of prestige. Journal of
Services Marketing, 3, 17-24.
GEFEN, D., STRAUB, D. W., & BROUDREAU, M. C. (2000) Structural equation modeling and
regression: guidelines for research practice. Communications of the Association for
Information Systems, 4, 1-7.
GROSSMAN, G. M., & SHAPIRO, C. (1988) Foreign counterfeiting of status goods. The Quar-
terly Journal of Economics, February, 79-100.
HAIR, J. F., BLACK, W. C., BABIN, B. J., ANDERSON, R. E., & TATHAM, R. L. (2006) Multivariate
data analysis. (6th ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
HENSELER, J., RINGLE, C., & SINKOVICS, R. (2009) The use of partial least squares path mod-
eling in international marketing. In R. R. Sinkovics & P. N. Ghauri (Eds.), Advances
in international marketing. Vol. 20. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Pp. 277-320.
HIRSHMAN, E. C. (1988) Upper class WASPs as consumers: a humanistic inquiry. In E. Hirsh-
man (Ed.), Research in consumer behavior. Vol. 3. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Pp. 115-148.
HISCOCK, J. (2001) Most trusted brands. Marketing, 1, 32-33.
JARVENPAA, S., & TODD, P. A. (1997) Consumer reaction to electronic shopping on the
World Wide Web. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 1, 59-88.
KAPFERER, J. N. (1992) Strategic brand management. New York: The Free Press.
KELLER, K. L. (2009) Managing the growth tradeoff: challenges and opportunities in
luxury branding. The Journal of Brand Management, 16, 290-301.
KOLLER, M. (1988) Risk as a determinant of trust. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 9,
265-276.
LEWIS, J. D., & WEIGERT, A. (1985) Trust as a social reality. Social Forces, 63, 967-985.
MAYER, R. C., DAVIS, J. H., & SCHOORMAN, F. D. (1995) An integrative model of organiza-
tional trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709-734.
MELIKA, H., & MURIS, C. (2009) Luxury consumption factors. Journal of Fashion Marketing
and Management, 13, 231-245.
MOORMAN, C., ZALTMAN, G., & DESHPANDE, R. (1992) Relationships between providers
and users of market research: the dynamics of trust within and between organiza-
tions. Journal of Marketing Research, 29, 314-328.
MORGAN, R. M., & HUNT, S. D. (1994) The commitment-trust theory of relationship mar-
keting. Journal of Marketing, 58, 20-38.
O'CASS, A., & FROST, H. (2002) Status brands: examining the effects of non-product-
related brand associations on status and conspicuous consumption. Journal of
Product and Brand Management, 11, 67-88.
OKONKWO, U. (2009) Sustaining the luxury brand on the Internet. Journal of Brand Man-
agement, 16, 302-310.

20_PR_Hur_130099.indd 623 31/03/14 6:35 PM

 624 W-M. HUR, ET AL.

O'SHAUGHNESSY, J. (1992) Explaining buyer behavior. New York: Oxford Univer. Press.
PALMATIER, R. W., DANT, R. P., GREWAL, D., & EVANS, K. R. (2006) Factors influencing the
effectiveness of relationship marketing: a meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing, 70,
136-153.
PHAU, I., & PRENDERGAST, G. (2001) Consuming luxury brands: the relevance of the rarity
principle. Journal of Brand Management, 8, 122-138.
REINARTZ, W., HAENLEIN, M., & HENSELER, J. (2009) An empirical comparison of the effi-
cacy of covariance-based and variance-based SEM. International Journal of Research
in Marketing, 26, 332-344.
RINGLE, C., WANDE, S., & WILL, A. (2005) SmartPLS 2.0, SmartPLS, Hamburg. Retrieved
from www.smartpls.de.
ROSSITER, J. R., PERCY, L., & DONOVAN, R. J. (1991) A better advertising planning grid.
Journal of Advertising Research, 31, 11-21.
SHETH, J. N., & PARVATIYAR, A. (1995) Relationship marketing in consumer markets: ante-
cedents and consequences. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23, 255-271.
SHROUT, P. E., & BOLGER, N. (2002) Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental
studies: new procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422-445.
STANLEY, T. J. (1988) Marketing to the affluent. Homewood, IL: Business One Irwin.
STOKBURGER-SAUER, N. E., & TEICHMANN, K. (2013) Is luxury just a female thing? The role
of gender in luxury brand consumption. Journal of Business Research, 66, 889-896.
SWEENEY, J., & SWAIT, J. (2008) The effect of brand credibility on customer loyalty. Journal
of Retailing and Consumer Services, 15, 179-193.
TAI, H. M., & TAM, L. M. (1996) A comparative study of Chinese consumers in Asian
markets: a lifestyle analysis. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 9, 25-38.
UNITY MARKETING. (2006) The U. S. luxury market continues to boom: report of research and mar-
kets. Retrieved from http://www.researchandmarkets.com/reportinfo.asp?report_
id=338962.
VICKERS, J. S., & RENAND, F. (2003) The marketing of luxury goods. The Marketing Review,
3, 459-478.
VIGNERON, F., & JOHNSON, L. W. (1999) A review and a conceptual framework of prestige-
seeking consumer behavior. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 3, 1-15.
VIGNERON, F., & JOHNSON, L. W. (2004) Measuring perceptions of brand luxury. Journal of
Brand Management, 11, 484-506.
WALTER, A., MUELLER, T. A., & HELFER, G. (2000) The impact of satisfaction, trust and rela-
tionship value on commitment: theoretical considerations and empirical results.
Proceedings of the 16th IMP Conference, Bath, UK, September 7-9. Retrieved from
http://www.impgroup.org/uploads/papers/131.pdf.
WIEDMANN, K., HENNIGS, N., & SIEBELS, A. (2007) Measuring consumers' luxury value per-
ception: a cross-cultural framework. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 11, 1-21.
WIEDMANN, K., HENNIGS, N., & SIEBELS, A. (2009) Value-based segmentation of luxury
consumption behavior. Psychology and Marketing, 26, 625-651.
YOO, B., & DONTHU, N. (2001) Developing and validating a multidimensional consumer-
based brand equity scale. Journal of Business Research, 52, 1-14.
YOUNG, L., & WILKINSON, I. (1989) Characteristics of good and poor interfirm relations:
Australian experience. European Journal of Marketing, 23, 109-122.

Accepted January 15, 2014.

20_PR_Hur_130099.indd 624 31/03/14 6:35 PM

Copyright of Psychological Reports is the property of Ammons Scientific, Ltd. and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.