The effect of halal brand awareness on purchase intention in indonesia: the mediating role of attitude

Figures & data

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework.

Figure 2. Analyze the Role of Mediator Variable.

Source: Zhao et al. (2010)

Table 1. Measurement variables

Variables	Code	Items/Indicators
Halal-Brand awareness (Adopted from Afendi et al., 2014)	IBA1	I am able to remember taglines (short sentences used to associate with certain brands) that are halal-based brands for a long time.
	IBA2	I remember various variants of halal product packaging.
Intention to use/purchase Halal Products/brands (Adopted from Jalilvand & Samiei, 2012)	IPI1	I will buy halal products/brands rather than non-halal brands.
	IPI2	I am willing to recommend others to buy halal products/brands.
	IPI3	I intend to repeat the purchase of halal products/brands in the future.
Attitude toward Halal products/brands (Adopted from Amin et al., 2011)	AIP1	I am well aware of halal products and services.
	AIP2	I believe that using halal products and services is an Islamic religious obligation.
	AIP3	In my opinion, costs still determine the attitude towards halal products and services.
	AIP4	Support for Islamic business is very much needed.
	AIP5	Attitudes towards halal products and services are largely determined by their reputation.

Table 2. Sample profiles

	Characteristic	N	%
Religion	Islam	162	100
	Cristian	0	0
	Catholic	0	0
	Hinds	0	0
	Budhism	0	0
	Others	0	0
Age	15–24 years	37	23
	25–34 years	28	17
	35–44 years	40	25
	45–54 years	51	31
	55–64 years	6	4
	65–80 years	0	0
Sex	Male	82	51
	Female	80	49
Highest Study	Senior High School	26	16
	Diploma	8	5
	Bachelor	44	27
	Master	73	45
	Doctor	11	7

Table 3. Reliability test (Before Fix)

Latent Variable	Indicators	Loadings	Composite Reliability	AVE
Brand	IBA1	0.911	0.904	0.825
	IBA2	0.906
Attitude	AIP1	0.732	0.791	0.44
	AIP2	0.792
	AIP3	0.437
	AIP4	0.794
	AIP5	0.484
Intention	IPI1	0.863	0.935	0.827
	IPI2	0.918
	IPI3	0.944

Table 4. Reliability test (Fix)

Latent Variable	Indicators	Loadings	Composite Reliability	AVE
Brand	IBA1	0.910	0.904	0.825
	IBA2	0.907
Attitude	AIP1	0.809	0.839	0.635
	AIP2	0.805
	AIP4	0.777
Intention	IPI1	0.863	0.935	0.827
	IPI2	0.918
	IPI3	0.944

Table 5. Discriminant Analysis Based on Fornell-Larcker Criterion

	Attitude	Brand	Intention
Attitude	0.797
Brand	0.489	0.908
Intention	0.715	0.469	0.909

Note: The outcomes of discriminant analysis using the Fornell-Larcker criterion. Diagonals indicate the square root of AVE, while the off-diagonals represent the correlations

Table 6. The HTMT criterion

	Attitude	Brand	Intention
Attitude
Brand	0.637
Intention	0.887	0.558

Table 7. Discriminant Validity

	Attitude	Brand	Intention
AIP1	0.809	0.523	0.550
AIP2	0.805	0.370	0.589
AIP4	0.777	0.252	0.575
IBA1	0.445	0.910	0.432
IBA2	0.442	0.907	0.420
IPI1	0.533	0.409	0.861
IPI2	0.696	0.440	0.920
IPI3	0.702	0.431	0.944

Table 8. Testing collinearity issue

Model	Unstandardized Coefficients		Standardized Coefficient Beta	t	Sig.	Collinearity Statistics
	B	Std. Error				Tolerance	VIF
(Constant)	.694	.654		1.061	.290
Attitude	.781	.091	.570	8.624	.000	.766	1.306
Brand	.152	.052	.193	2.920	.004	.766	1.306

Dependent Variable: Intention

Note: To check collinearity issues, SPSS software is used. The results suggest the tolerance values are higher than 0.2 and the VIF value lower than 5.

Figure 3. Validated Model.

Table 9. Hypothesis and the result of SEM

Hypo-thesis	Path	Relationship	Std Beta	Std. Deviation	t-value	Decision
H1	Direct (p1)	Brand→Attitude	0.489	0.069	7.103***	Supported
H2	Direct (p2)	Brand→Intention	0.157	0.073	2.151**	Supported
H3	Direct (p3)	Attitude→Intention	0.638	0.064	10.012***	Supported
H4	Indirect (p1 x p2)	Brand x Attitude →Intention	0.312	0.058	5.368***	Supported

Note: Results of the structural model using partial least square (PLS) version 3. R² value is 0.53. The sign *, **, and ** denote significance at 10, 5, and 1%.

Figure 4. Respondents’ experiences in using halal products or services.

Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 197–206. https://doi.org/10.1086/651257

 Google Scholar

Afendi, N. A., Azizan, F. L., & Darami, A. I. (2014). Determinants of halal purchase intention: Case in Perlis. International Journal of Business and Social Research, 4(5), 118–123. https://doi.org/10.18533/ijbsr.v4i5.495

 Google Scholar

Jalilvand, M. R., & Samiei, N. (2012). The effect of electronic word of mouth on brand image and purchase intention: An empirical study in the automobile industry in Iran. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 30(4), 460–476. https://doi.org/10.1108/02634501211231946

 Google Scholar

Amin, H., Rahman, A. R. A., Sondoh, S. L., & Hwa, A. M. C. (2011). Determinants of customers’ intention to use Islamic personal financing: The case of Malaysian Islamic banks. Journal of Islamic Accounting and Business Research, 2(1), 22–42. https://doi.org/10.1108/17590811111129490

 Google Scholar