Chapter 5 Research Methodology and Analytical Results
5.7 Results of Research Model
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
those of CMV model (△χ2 = 495.65 is greater than the critical value(χ2(d.f.=60,α
=0.05)=79.08); GFI=0.84> GFI=0.83; NFI=0.97> NFI=0.94). As reported in Table 5-5, the compared results reveal that the problem of common method variance is solved.
Table 5-5 Fitness indices of Different Models
Model χ2/df CFI NFI RMSR RMSEA GFI
One-factor
Model 7.58 0.95 0.94 0.071 0.14 0.65
Six-factor
Model 2.72 0.98 0.97 0.046 0.07 0.84
Seven-factor
Model 2.35 0.98 0.95 0.051 0.068 0.83
5.7 Results
5.7.1 Procedures of HLM
In order to conduct multilevel analyses, this research first conducts correlation analyses to understand multilevel relationships among corporate branding, brand psychological ownership, brand citizenship behavior, and brand equity. Then, this research conducts analyses of HLM. Based on Hofmann (1997), procedures of HLM have to examine four different models which include null model, random coefficients regression model, intercepts-as-outcomes model, and slopes-as-outcomes model.
Among these models, slopes-as-outcomes model is not conducted by this research because this research doesn’t investigate moderating effects of organizational variables on individual variables. That is, random coefficients regression models are
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
conducted in individual level analyses and intercepts-as-outcomes models are conducted in multilevel analyses.
5.7.2 Correlations
As reported in Table 5-6, brand psychological ownership is significantly related to brand citizenship behavior (r=0.795***, P<0.01). Corporate branding is significantly associated with brand psychological ownership (r=0.545***, P<0.01), and related to brand citizenship behavior with a marginal significance (r=0.305*, P<0.1). Brand citizenship behavior is significantly related to brand equity (r=0.447***, P<0.01). These correlation results were consistent with the hypotheses proposed by this study. This study further investigated the relationships between factors of corporate branding, brand psychological ownership, and brand organizational citizenship behaviors.
Table 5-6 Means, Standard Deviation, and Correlations of Research Constructs
Variables Mean S.D. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Individual Level
(1) Brand psychological ownership 3.6316 0.71294 1
(2) Brand citizenship behavior 3.991 0.72539 0.795*** 1
(3)Gender 1.5856 0.49346 0.070 0.74 1
(4)Age 1.5685 0.87271 0.067 0.16 0.022 1
(5)Education 2.6301 0.67364 -0.044 -0.117 0.034 -0.12 1
Organizational Level
(1) Corporate branding 4.0012 0.53659 1
(2) Brand psychological ownership 3.5970 0.38610 0.545*** 1
(3) Brand citizenship behavior 4.0041 0.45728 0.305* 0.725*** 1
(4) Brand equity 3.7853 0.33018 0.269 0.526*** 0.447*** 1
(5) Type 0.8710 0.34078 0.111 0.159 0.166 -0.54 1
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
5.7.3 Null Model Analyses
This research utilizes null models to prove two phenomena. First, employees’
cognitions and behaviors are different from different franchisee organizations. Second, employees’cognitions and behaviors may be affected by individual level variables and contextual variables (i.e. corporate branding). It is more appropriate to investigate multilevel relationships if values of τ00reach significant level (Hofmann, 1997). Null models in which no predictors are evaluated on either the individual level or organizational level were evaluated by this study. According to the results in Table
5-7, the residual variances of the intercepts of brand psychological ownership (τ00=0.101, p<.001), including brand self-efficacy (τ00=0.085, p<.001), brand
accountability (τ00=0.043, p<.001), and identification and belongingness of brand (τ00=0.148, p<.001), are all significant. The residual variances of the intercepts of
brand citizenship behavior (τ00=0.124, p<.001), including helping behaviors of brand (τ00=0.069, p<.001), consideration and enhancement of brand (τ00=0.074, p<.001),
and sportsmanship and endorsement of brand (τ00=0.091, p<.001), are all significant.
That is, there exists heterogeneity of relationships explored in the proposed model among different organizations. Therefore, it is more appropriate to investigate the relationships among corporate branding, brand psychological ownership, and brand citizenship behavior through multilevel analyses.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
5.7.3.1 Null Models
Level-1
Yij=β0j+εij Level-2 β0j= γ00+u0j
Note: i =individuals, j =organizations; Y ij refers to brand psychological ownership, brand self-efficacy, brand accountability, identification and belongingness of brand, brand citizenship behavior, helping behavior of brand, consideration and enhancement of brand, and sportsmanship and endorsement of brand.
Table 5-7 Null Model
***P< 0.01, ** P<0.05, ** P<0.1
5.7.4 Individual Level Analysis- Random Coefficients Regression Model
In the individual level analysis, hypothesis 1 is proposed to investigate the
Fixed Effect Random Effect
Dependent Variables
Intercept γ00
S. E. P τ00 2 P
Brand psychological ownership 3.587*** 0.068 0.000 0.101*** 0.41 0.000
Brand self-efficacy 3.712*** 0.067 0.000 0.085 *** 0.368 0.000
Brand accountability 3.912*** 0.058 0.000 0.043*** 0.418 0.000
Identification and belongingness of brand 3.818*** 0.082 0.000 0.148*** 0.41 0.000
Brand citizenship behavior 3.969*** 0.075 0.000 0.124*** 0.420 0.000
Helping behavior of brand 4.063*** 0.067 0.000 0.069*** 0.494 0.000
Consideration and enhancement of brand 4.011*** 0.065 0.000 0.074*** 0.387 0.000
Sportsmanship and endorsement of brand 3.741*** 0.069 0.000 0.091*** 0.401 0.000
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
As reported in Table 5-8, brand psychological ownership positively affects brand citizenship behavior (β10=0.73, p<0.01), indicating that hypothesis 1 is supported.
The individual level model is showed as follows.
5.7.4.1 Random Coefficients Regression Model
Level-1
BCBij=β0j+β1j*(BPOij)+ β2j*(genderij) +β3j*(ageij)+ β4j*(educationij)+εij Level-2
β0j= γ00+ u0j β1j= γ10+ u1j β2j= γ20+ u2j β3j= γ30+ u3j β4j= γ40+ u4j
Note: i =individuals, j =organizations
5.7.5 Multilevel Analyses- Intercepts-as-outcomes Model
In cross-level analyses, hypothesis 2 is proposed to investigate the relationship between corporate branding and brand psychological ownership. Hypothesis 3 is proposed to investigate the relationship between corporate branding and brand citizenship behavior. Hypothesis 4 is proposed to investigate the relationship between brand citizenship behavior and brand equity. As reported in Table 5-8, corporate
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
branding positively affects brand psychological ownership (β01=0.374, p<0.01) and brand citizenship behavior (β01=0.287, p<0.05), revealing that hypotheses 2 and 3 are supported. Aggregated brand CB positively affects equity (γ01=0.279, p<0.01), which indicating that hypothesis 4 is supported. Multilevel models are represented as follows.
5.7.5.1 Intercepts-as-outcomes Model
Multilevel Model-1
Level-1
BPOij=β0j+ β1j*(genderij) +β2j*(ageij)+ β3j*(educationij)+εij Level-2
β0j= γ00+γ01(CBj) +γ02(typej) +u0j β1j= γ10+ u1j
β2j= γ20+ u2j β3j= γ30+ u3j
Multilevel Model-2
Level-1
BCBij=β0j+ β1j*(genderij) +β2j*(ageij)+ β3j*(educationij)+εij Level-2
β0j= γ00+γ01(CBj) +γ02(typej) +u0j
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
β1j= γ10+ u1j β2j= γ20+ u2j β3j= γ30+ u3j
Multilevel Model-3
Level-1
BCBij=β0j+β1j*(BPOij) +β2j*(genderij) +β3j*(ageij)+ β4j*(educationij)+εij Level-2
β0j= γ00+γ01(CBj) +γ02(typej) +u0j β1j= γ10+ u1j
β2j= γ20+ u2j β3j= γ30+ u3j β4j= γ40+ u4j
Multilevel Model-4
Level-1
Brand equityij=β0j+ εij Level-2
β0j= γ00+γ01(BCBj) +γ02(typej) +u0j
Note: i =individuals, j =organizations
Type: 1=food-drink organizations, 0=retailer organizations
‧
Table 5-8 Hierarchical Linear Modeling Results of the Proposed Model
aDeviance is a measure of model fit. Deviance =-2* log-likelihood of the full maximum-likelihood estimate.
***P< 0.01, ** P<0.05, *<0.1
Organizations n=31; Supervisors n=250; Employees n=283; Customers n=577 5.7.6 Cross-level Mediating Effect
To explore the importance of brand psychological ownership, this study further investigated the cross-level mediating effect of brand psychological ownership between corporate branding and brand CB through the four analytical steps of Baron and Kenny (1986). The first step is to confirm the effect of brand psychological ownership on brand citizenship behavior. The second step is to confirm the effect of corporate branding on brand citizenship behavior. The third step is to examine the
Models Model-1 Model-2 Model-3 Model-4
Dependent variable
Intercept 3.609*** 3.76*** 3.79*** 3.78***
Brand psychological ownership 0.73***
Gender 0.085 0.047 -0.019
Age 0.066 0.018 -0.043
Education -0.126* -0.166** -0.08
Organizational level
Corporate branding 0.374*** 0.287** 0.017
Brand citizenship behavior 0.279***
Type 0.123 0.146 0.054 -0.106
R2 0.11 0.06 0.63 0.03
Deviancea 540.71 532.97 320.57 821.097
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
effect of corporate branding on brand psychological ownership. The fourth step is to examine whether the effect of corporate branding on brand CB became nonsignifcant or reduced when both corporate branding and brand psychological ownership are jointly utilized as predictors of brand CB. If that is true, the cross-level mediating effect of brand psychological ownership is confirmed. This research conducted these three-step analyses. As reported in Table 5-8, the results of Model-1 revealed that corporate branding significantly affected brand psychological ownership (BPO) and the deviance was 540.71. Second, the results of Model-2 showed that corporate branding significantly affected brand CB and the deviance was 532.97. Third, the results of Model-3 showed that brand PO significantly affected brand CB, and the deviance was 320.57. However, corporate branding didn’t affect brand CB significantly in Model-3. From the variation of deviance in three models, the value of deviance change is 212.4 (decreased from 532.97 to 320.57) after a mediating variable (i.e., brand psychological ownership) was added. The level of change reaches significant level of 0.005 (212.4＞X2(1) 0.005=7.879). Furthermore, the effect of corporate branding (γ01) on brand CB reduced from 0.287 to 0.017. Based on the aforementioned results, brand psychological ownership fully mediates the relationship between corporate branding and brand CB, revealing that brand psychological ownership is a cross-level mediator in the multilevel relation between corporate
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
branding and brand citizenship behavior. Hypothesis 5 is supported.
5.8 Detailed Analyses of the Research Model
This study conducts the detailed analyses of the relationships to reveal the differential effects of the influencing factors (e.g., corporate branding) on the different aspects of the consequences (i.e., brand psychological ownership, and brand citizenship behavior). This study utilized the factor scores to conduct detailed analyses of the research model. Consequently, this research may shed more light of managerial implications via conducting detailed analysis.
5.8.1 Detailed Effects of Brand PO on Brand CB
After factor analyses, this study investigated the relationships between factors of brand psychological ownership and brand citizenship behavior. This study examined an individual-level model including these factors, with no predictors specified for the organizational-level variables. As for factors of two constructs reported in Table 5-9, helping behavior of brand is positively affected by brand accountability (β20=0.46, p<0.01), and identification and belongingness of brand ( β 30=0.145, p<0.05).
Consideration and enhancement of brand is positively affected by brand self-efficacy (β10=0.311, p<0.01), brand accountability (β20=0.273, p<0.01), and identification and belongingness of brand (β30=0.260, p<0.01). Sportsmanship and endorsement of brand is positively affected by brand self-efficacy (β10=0.365, p<0.01), brand
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
accountability (β20=0.156, p<0.05), and identification and belongingness of brand (β30=0.467, p<0.01). The results of detailed analyses in the individual level reveal that most factors of brand psychological ownership significantly affect factors of brand citizenship behavior. Individual-level models of detailed analyses are shown as follows.
5.8.2 Random Coefficients Regression Model (detailed analyses)
Level-1
BCBij=β0j+β1j*(BPOij)+ β2j*(genderij) +β3j*(ageij)+ β4j*(educationij)+εij Level-2
β0j= γ00+ u0j β1j= γ10+ u1j β2j= γ20+ u2j β3j= γ30+ u3j β4j= γ40+ u4j
Note: BPOijrefers to brand self-efficacy, brand accountability, and identification and belongingness of brand.
BCB ijrefers to helping behavior of brand, consideration and enhancement of brand, and sportsmanship and endorsement of brand.
i =individuals, j =organizations
‧
Table 5-9 Hierarchical Linear Modeling Results: Brand PO on Band CB (Detailed Analyses)
***P< 0.01, ** P<0.05, *P<0.1
5.8.3 Effects of Corporate Branding on Brand PO and Brand CB
As for cross-level analyses, this study investigated the effects that corporate branding at the organizational level had on variables at the individual level. Results reported in Table 5-10. As for detailed effects of corporate branding on brand psychological ownership, leadership and interaction with stakeholders of corporate branding (γ02=0.275, p<0.01), training and selection of corporate branding (γ04=0.174, p<0.01) and communication and evaluation of corporate branding (γ05=0.206, p<0.05) positively affect brand self-efficacy. Leadership and interaction
Models Model-1 Model-2 Model-3
Dependent variable
Intercept 0.041 0.005 0.004
Brand self-efficacy 0.057 0.311*** 0.365***
Brand accountability 0.46*** 0.273*** 0.156**
Identification and belongingness of brand
0.145** 0.260*** 0.467***
Control Variables
Gender -0.145 0.282** -0.098
Age 0.149 -0.186 0.035
Education 0.012 -0.041 0.029
R2 0.36 0.26 0.39
Deviance 727.74 745.63 706.59
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
coordination of corporate branding (γ03=0.127, p<0.05), and training and selection of corporate branding (γ04=0.19, p<0.01) positively affect brand accountability. Vision and culture of corporate branding (γ01=0.31, p<0.05) and communication and evaluation of corporate branding (γ04=0.228, p<0.05) positively affect identification and belongingness of brand. As for detailed effects of corporate branding on brand citizenship behavior, leadership and interaction with stakeholders of corporate branding (γ02=0.271, p<0.05), training and selection of corporate branding (γ04=0.196, p<0.05), and communication and evaluation of corporate branding (γ05=0.189, p<0.05) positive affect consideration and enhancement of brand.
Leadership and interaction with stakeholders of corporate branding (γ02=0.199, p<0.05) and training and selection of corporate branding (γ04=0.1, p<0.1) have positive effects on sportsmanship and endorsement of brand. Multilevel models of corporate branding affects BPO and BCB are represented as follows.
5.8.4 Intercepts-as-outcomes Model (Detailed Analyses)
Multilevel Model-1~3
Level-1
BPOij=β0j+ β1j*(genderij) +β2j*(ageij)+ β3j*(educationij)+εij Level-2
β0j= γ00+γ01(CBj) +γ02(typej) +u0j
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
β1j= γ10+ u1j β2j= γ20+ u2j β3j= γ30+ u3j
Multilevel Model-4~6
Level-1
BCBij=β0j+ β1j*(genderij) +β2j*(ageij)+ β3j*(educationij)+εij Level-2
β0j= γ00+γ01(CBj) +γ02(typej) +u0j β1j= γ10+ u1j
β2j= γ20+ u2j β3j= γ30+ u3j
Note: CB j refers to vision and culture of corporate branding, leadership and interaction with stakeholders of corporate branding, departmental coordination of corporate branding, training and selection of corporate branding, communication and evaluation of corporate branding.
BPO ij refers to brand self-efficacy, brand accountability, and identification and belongingness of brand.
BCBijrefers to helping behaviors of brand, consideration and enhancement of brand, and sportsmanship and endorsement of brand.
‧
i =individuals, j =organizations; type: 1=food-drink organizations, 0=retailer organizations
Table 5-10 Hierarchical Linear Modeling Results of the Proposed Model (Detailed Analyses)
Models Model-1 Model-2 Model-3 Model-4 Model-5 Model-6 Model-7
Dependent
Intercept -0.017 0.103 -0.053 0.073 0.018 -0.046 3.769***
Gender 0.107 0.026 0.158 -0.127 0.236** 0.039
Age -0.407** 0.062 -0.098 0.142 0.0113 -0.206
Education -0.143 0.049 0.113 0.061 -0.223** 0.041
Organizational level
Vision and culture of corporate branding
-0.048 -0.026 0.310** -0.062 0.0139 0.063
Leadership and interaction with stakeholders of corporate branding
0.275*** 0.133** -0.034 0.074 0.271** 0.199**
Departmental coordination of corporate branding
-0.115 0.127** 0.056 0.108 -0.05 -0.024
Training and selection of corporate branding
0.174*** 0.19*** 0.059 0.062 0.196** 0.1*
Communication and evaluation of corporate branding
0.206** -0.033 0.228** 0.023 0.189** 0.075
Aggregated brand CB
Helping behaviors of brand 0.042
Consideration and enhancement of brand
0.108**
‧
Table 5-10 Hierarchical Linear Modeling Results of the Proposed Model (Detailed Analyses) (Continued)
aDeviance is a measure of model fit. Deviance =-2* log-likelihood of the full maximum-likelihood estimate.
***P< 0.01, ** P<0.05, *<0.1, one-tailed examination
5.8.5 Effects of Organization-level Brand CB on Brand Equity
This study further examined analyzed the effect of organization-level brand CB on the brand equity. Since the data of customers’perception is nested with each store, researchers have to investigate the relationship between organization-level brand CB and brand equity. Employees’brand citizenship behavior is aggregated to their corresponding organizations in order to investigate conduct the effect of organization-level brand CB on the brand equity. The results of hierarchical linear modeling present in model-7 of Table 5-10. Two factors of organization-level brand CB, consideration and enhancement of brand and sportsmanship and endorsement of brand, significantly affect the brand equity. That is, consideration and enhancement of
Models Model-1 Model-2 Model-3 Model-4 Model-5 Model-6 Model-7
Dependent
Types -0.268 0.382** 0.036 0.56*** 0.015 0.174** -0.103
R2 0.115 0.07 0.04 0.05 0.08 0.05 0.003
Deviance 804.63 801.34 795.78 810.2 807.02 813.17 826.91
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
brand and sportsmanship (γ02=0.108, p<0.05), and sportsmanship and endorsement of brand (γ03=0.149, p<0.05) have positive effects on the brand equity. The other factor, helping behaviors of brand, positively affects brand equity although the factor don’t affect significantly. Consequently, two factors of organization-level brand CB positively affect the brand equity, representing that brand CB contributes to the brand equity.
5.8.6 Intercepts-as-outcomes Model (Effects of BCB on Brand Equity)
Multilevel Model-7
Level-1
Brand equityij=β0j+ εij Level-2
β0j= γ00+γ01(BCBj) +γ02(typej) +u0j
Note: BCBjrefers to aggregated factors of BCB which include helping behaviors of brand, consideration and enhancement of brand, and sportsmanship and endorsement of brand; i =individuals, j =organizations
type: 1=food-drink organizations, 0=retailer organizations
In conclusion, analytical results in multilevel relationships are discussed as follows. As for individual level analyses, brand psychological ownership positively affects brand citizenship behavior. In the multilevel analyses, results demonstrate that
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
corporate branding has positive effects on brand psychological ownership and brand citizenship behavior. Organizational-level brand citizenship behavior positively affects the brand equity. It is also found that brand psychological ownership fully mediates the relationship between corporate branding and brand citizenship behavior.
Therefore, hypotheses 1-5 proposed by this research are all supported. Detailed analyses in the individual level show most factors of brand psychological ownership have positive effects on factors of brand citizenship behavior. As for multilevel results, detailed analyses show that many factors of corporate branding have positive effects on different dimensions of brand psychological ownership and brand citizenship behavior. Two factors of organization-level brand citizenship behavior have positive effects on the brand equity.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Chapter 6 Conclusion and Suggestion
6.1 Discussions of Hypotheses
Prior research on employees’brand cognitions and brand behaviors has mostly focused on individual-level analysis via regression analysis. However, the practices of corporate branding implemented by an organization often involve interactions with multiple stakeholders (Leitch et al., 2001; Knox et al., 2003), and the research data are hierarchical in nature, in that the individuals are nested within organizations.
Multilevel analyses can solve the problems (Raudenbush et al., 2002). Therefore, this study proposed a multilevel framework to investigate individual-level and organization-level antecedents of employees’brand cognitions and behaviors.
Consequently, the relation between employee brand behavior and brand equity was also investigated.
Based on analytical results, hypotheses 1-5 are all supported, thus showing that employees’brand behaviors which contribute to the brand equity are influenced by individual-level and organization-level antecedents. First, brand psychological ownership positively affects brand citizenship behavior, revealing that employees with brand psychological ownership can produce altruistic brand spirit and then display extra-role brand behavior (i.e. brand CB) that may strengthen the brand equity. The results are consistent with the arguments of Pierce et al. (2001) and social exchange
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
theory (Eisenberger et al., 1986) that high committing and self efficacy mental state contribute to altruistic spirit and extra-role behavior. Second, corporate branding practices regarded as implements to foster brand value through employees, positively affect brand psychological ownership and brand citizenship behavior. The results show that an organization can strongly help employees identify themselves to the brand and trigger altruistic spirit and extra-role brand behavior via corporate branding, which is supportive and high-commitment by its nature, since employees have to be treated that way to live the brand. The result is consistent with the arguments of scholars (Whitener, 2001; Allen et al., 2003; Burmann et al., 2005), who assert that supportive practices can make employees perceive organizational support and trigger their altruistic spirit and brand citizenship behavior. Third, this study finds that employee’s brand citizenship behavior contributes to the brand equity, which is regarded as an important market performance metric of the brand. Thus, our finding is consistent with the arguments of Sun et al. (2007), who argue that employees with service-oriented organizational citizenship behavior might serve customers beyond formal role requirements. Furthermore, this research also finds that brand psychological ownership is a cross-level mediator, indicating that employees with brand psychological ownership are more willing to express brand citizenship behavior fostering the brand equity when an organization adopts practices of corporate
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
branding to strengthen brand value via the interactive processes. This result is consistent with Harris et al. (2001) who argue that an organization may transmit brand values toward employees via interactive process and make their perceptions transformed.
6.1.1 Detailed Discussion of Individual-Level Analyses
As for individual level analyses, this study further investigated the relationships among the factors of brand psychological ownership, and brand organizational citizenship behavior. First, brand self-efficacy positively affects two factors of brand citizenship behavior, including consideration and enhancement of brand, and sportsmanship and endorsement of brand, which is consistent with perspectives of Pierce et al. (2001). Pierce et al. contend that “ownerships and the rights that come with it allow individuals to explore and alter their environment, thus satisfying their innate need to be efficacious”. It reveals that employees with brand psychological ownership may feel they are effective in brand-related activities, produce brand-related altruistic spirit (i.e., brand sportsmanship), follow brand guidelines before actions, and then foster brand-related knowledge aggressively. Second, brand accountability positively affects three factors of brand citizenship behavior, including helping behavior of brand, consideration and enhancement of brand, and sportsmanship and endorsement of brand, which is consistent with the arguments of
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Van Dyne et al. (2004). Van et al. contend that feeling of ownership and control toward an object may trigger a sense of responsibility, that is, employees with brand psychological ownership may produce helping behaviors toward multiple stakeholders, have brand-oriented altruistic spirit (Burmann et al. 2005), follow brand-related guideline before actions, and then actively enhance brand-related skills.
Third, identification and belongingness of brand also positively affects three factors of brand citizenship behavior, which is consistent with arguments of Avey et al. (2009).
Avey et al. assert that individuals define themselves by the specific targets which are classified as the extension of the self and feel they belong to the target (i.e., corporate brand). The results show that employees with brand psychological ownership may identify the brand, and feel that they belong to the corporate brand, thus producing brand citizenship behavior, such as helping behavior, brand-related altruistic spirit, and following brand guidelines before actions.
6.1.2 Detailed Discussion of Multilevel Analyses
In the multilevel analyses, this study examines the effects of factors of corporate branding on factors of employee’s brand psychological ownership and brand citizenship behavior. Several detailed effects of corporate branding on brand psychological ownership are discussed as follows. First, the factor, vision and culture of corporate branding, positively affects identification and belongingness of brand,