Enhancing brand equity in branded apps: A hedonic and utilitarian motivation´s perspective

Figures & data

Figure 1. Conceptual model.

Table 1. Factor loading and validity.

Scale Items	Alpha	CR	AVE	AVE > Corr^2	Loadings	Mean	SD	t-value
Utilitarian motivations (Stocchi et al. 2018)
Security	0.796	0.907	0.83	0.830 > 0.276
My private information is managed securely when using this app.					0.922	0.922	0.009	97.285
I am sure that payment information will be protected when using this app.					0.900	0.900	0.015	61.888
Usefulness	0.935	0.959	0.885	0.885 > 0.230
Using this app improves my performance in my daily life.					0.917	0.917	0.013	68.090
Using this app increases my productivity in my daily life.					0.956	0.956	0.006	154.355
Using this app enhances my effectiveness in my daily life.					0.949	0.949	0.008	121.095
Ease of use	0.809	0.887	0.724	0.724 > 0.289
Learning to operate this app is easy for me.					0.864	0.864	0.019	44.525
I would find it easy to get this app to do what I want it to do.					0.857	0.856	0.024	35.528
It would be easy for me to become skillful at using this app.					0.831	0.832	0.024	34.609
Hedonic motivations (Stocchi et al. 2018)
Interpersonal utility	0.896	0.927	0.761	0.761 > 0.195
I use this app to participate in discussions.					0.835	0.834	0.025	33.350
I use this app to show others encouragement.					0.907	0.907	0.013	71.900
I use this app to belong to a group.					0.881	0.881	0.016	53.536
I use this app to express myself freely.					0.864	0.864	0.016	55.634
Entertainment	0.883	0.927	0.81	0.810 > 0.257
I use this app because it is entertaining.					0.905	0.906	0.009	103.723
I use this app because I like it.					0.840	0.839	0.031	26.786
I use this app because it is enjoyable.					0.950	0.950	0.007	127.747
Brand equity (Yoo, Donthu, and Lee 2000)
Perceived quality	0.925	0.943	0.769	0.769 > 0.430
This brand is of high quality.					0.877	0.877	0.017	50.666
The likely quality of this brand is extremely high.					0.891	0.890	0.015	60.536
The likelihood that this brand would be functional is very high.					0.874	0.874	0.019	46.584
The likelihood that this brand is reliable is very high.					0.854	0.854	0.020	42.089
This brand must be of very good quality.					0.888	0.888	0.015	59.402
Brand loyalty	0.837	0.902	0.754	0.754 > 0.390
I consider myself to be loyal to this brand.					0.890	0.889	0.013	66.588
This brand would be my first choice.					0.898	0.897	0.015	61.091
I will not buy other brands if this brand is available.					0.815	0.813	0.026	31.569
Brand associations with brand awareness	0.896	0.924	0.708	0.708 > 0.316
I know what this brand looks like.					0.868	0.868	0.027	31.881
I can recognize this brand among other competing brands.					0.900	0.901	0.014	62.524
I am aware of this brand.					0.830	0.831	0.036	22.751
Some characteristics of this brand come to my mind quickly.					0.778	0.778	0.030	25.882
I can quickly recall the symbol or logo of this brand.					0.826	0.825	0.023	35.612
Consumer brand engagement (Hollebeek, Glynn, and Brodie 2014)
Cognitive processing	0.865	0.918	0.788	0.788 > 0.245
Using this app gets me to think about the brand.					0.879	0.878	0.016	55.674
I think about the brand a lot when I’m using this app.					0.923	0.923	0.011	80.841
Using this app stimulates my interest to learn more about the brand.					0.860	0.860	0.020	42.477
Affection factor	0.896	0.928	0.765	0.765 > 0.323
I feel very positive when I use this app.					0.836	0.835	0.032	26.073
Using this app makes me happy.					0.912	0.912	0.011	80.717
I feel good when I use this app.					0.928	0.928	0.010	89.460
I’m proud to use this app.					0.818	0.818	0.024	34.119
Activation factor	0.728	0.853	0.665	0.665 > 0.269
I spend a lot of time using this app, compared to other apps.					0.615	0.614	0.046	13.447
Whenever I’m finding something with mobile apps, I usually use this app.					0.905	0.905	0.014	66.603
This app is one of the apps I usually use when I use to find something with mobile apps.					0.892	0.892	0.016	54.478
Task-service fit (Lin and Huang 2008)	0.941	0.954	0.775	0.775 > 0.440
In helping me perform my shopping task(s), …
Use of the branded app service is adequate					0.820	0.820	0.026	30.999
Use of the branded app service is appropriate					0.863	0.863	0.025	34.790
Use of the branded app service is compatible with my task					0.886	0.886	0.019	46.491
Use of the branded app service is helpful					0.910	0.910	0.011	82.473
Use of the branded app service is sufficient					0.927	0.927	0.008	114.314
In general, the service of the branded app best fits the task					0.870	0.870	0.019	44.777

Table 2. Testing discriminant validity using HTMT.

	ACT	AFF	BAA	BE	CBE	COG	EAS	END	HED	LOY	QUA	SEC	TSF	USE	UTI	UTM
ACT
AFF	0.649
BAA	0.326	0.358
BE	0.364	0.536	0.916
CBE	0.965	0.978	0.374	0.544
COG	0.548	0.563	0.244	0.423	0.892
EAS	0.228	0.370	0.631	0.671	0.335	0.203
END	0.605	0.585	0.281	0.290	0.571	0.228	0.210
HED	0.562	0.461	0.199	0.236	0.496	0.230	0.193	0.878
LOY	0.402	0.649	0.522	0.873	0.645	0.508	0.421	0.321	0.252
QUA	0.246	0.444	0.615	0.961	0.448	0.389	0.604	0.174	0.177	0.704
SEC	0.111	0.278	0.376	0.553	0.296	0.322	0.485	0.192	0.246	0.422	0.591
TSF	0.180	0.428	0.537	0.693	0.394	0.323	0.578	0.154	0.170	0.475	0.710	0.602
USE	0.071	0.153	0.118	0.336	0.217	0.313	0.231	0.255	0.270	0.366	0.402	0.552	0.405
UTI	0.353	0.189	0.063	0.073	0.246	0.107	0.076	0.457	1.006	0.067	0.059	0.172	0.087	0.094
UTM	0.182	0.349	0.483	0.681	0.374	0.374	0.864	0.303	0.321	0.538	0.700	0.947	0.693	0.883	0.144

Note: TSF – task service fit, CBE – consumer brand engagement (including ACT – activation factor, AFF – affection factor, COG – cognitive processing), UTM – utilitarian motivation (including SEC – Security, USE – Usefulness, EAS – East of Use), HED – hedonic motivation (including UTI – interpersonal utility, DEV – device attachment, ENT – entertainment), BE – brand equity (including QUA – perceived quality, LOY – brand loyalty, BAA – brand association/awareness.

Table 3. Hypotheses testing of main effects.

Path	Coefficient	Sample mean	SD	t value	p value	Hypotheses
HED -> TSF	0.000	0.000	0.047	0.009	0.993	H1: Not Supported
UTM -> TSF	0.609	0.611	0.035	17.308	0.000	H2: Supported
TSF -> BE	0.543	0.543	0.040	13.614	0.000	H3: Supported
TSF -> CBE	0.370	0.370	0.054	6.851	0.000	H4: Supported
CBE -> BE	0.296	0.296	0.041	7.157	0.000	H5: Supported

Note: HED – hedonic motivation, UTM – utilitarian motivation, TSF – task service fit, CBE – consumer brand engagement, BE – brand equity.

Table 4. Mediation test.

	Direct effect	95% CI	t value	Significant (p < 0.05)?	Indirect effect	95% CI	t Value	Significant (p < 0.05)?	Conclusion
TSF -> BE	0.543	[0.461; 0.616]	13.614	Yes	0.109	[0.072; 0.156]	5.131	Yes	Complimentary (partial) mediation

Table

Apps	Count	%
Amazon	61	21%
Canvas Student	34	12%
TikTok	29	10%
Instagram	26	9%
Snapchat	26	9%
Facebook	22	8%
Wells Fargo	14	5%
Google Map	9	3%
Netflix	9	3%
Ebay	8	3%
The Weather Channel	8	3%
Bank of America	7	2%
Twitter	7	2%
Youtube	6	2%
Discord	5	2%
Candy Crush	4	1%
ESPN Fantasy Sports	3	1%
Geico Mobile	2	1%
Skype	2	1%
Tinder	2	1%
Clash of Clans	1	0%
Dominos	1	0%
Google Translate	1	0%
Michaels App	1	0%
PNC	1	0%
Robinhood	1	0%
State Employees Credit Union	1	0%
Weather Channel	1	0%

Stocchi, L., N. Michaelidou, N. Pourazad, and M. Micevski 2018. “The Rules of Engagement: How to Motivate Consumers to Engage with Branded Mobile Apps.” Journal of Marketing Management 34 (13–14): 1196–1226. doi:10.1080/0267257X.2018.1544167.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Yoo, B., N. Donthu, and S. Lee 2000. “An Examination of Selected Marketing Mix Elements and Brand Equity.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 28 (2): 195–211. doi:10.1177/0092070300282002.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hollebeek, L. D., M. S. Glynn, and R. J. Brodie 2014. “Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development and Validation.” Journal of Interactive Marketing 28 (2): 149–165. doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2013.12.002.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lin, T.-C., and C.-C. Huang 2008. “Understanding Knowledge Management System Usage Antecedents: An Integration of Social Cognitive Theory and Task Technology Fit.” Information & Management 45 (6): 410–417. doi:10.1016/j.im.2008.06.004.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, Trang P. Tran, upon reasonable request.