Alternative modelsNext, we examine

Alternative models

Next, we examine two alternative models by considering the effects of all possible pathways within the structural model. We know that retailer satisfaction fully mediates the effects of brand benefits on trust and partially mediates customer expectations and brand equity to performance and commitment, as well as financial benefits and manufacturer support to commitment. These pathways are therefore not included in the first alternative estimation as these pathways are already non-significant in the mediation tests. The first alternative model thus includes the three remaining possible pathways: financial benefits to performance as well as brand equity and customer expectations to commitment.

These results for the alternative model show that the financial benefits to brand performance pathway is significant (0.58) as are the customer expectations (-0.23) and brand equity to commitment pathways (0.12). The effect of manufacturer support on retailer satisfaction is now significant (0.17). While the financial benefits (0.39) and consumer expectation pathways (0.33) both influence retailer satisfaction with the brand, the brand equity pathway is now non-significant. The alternative model fit indices are: χ 2 (259)=1117, p =0.000, CFI=0.99, NNFI=0.99, RMSEA=0.064. Furthermore, when we compare this model to the initial model estimation in Table IV [Figure omitted. See Article Image.], there is an improvement in overall fit.

Many buyer seller studies conceptualise trust as influencing commitment ([48] Morgan and Hunt, 1994). Thus, a second alternative model was estimated that included a pathway from trust to commitment, replacing the satisfaction to commitment pathway. This model showed a worse fit compared to the original model: χ 2 (262)=1258, p =0.000, CFI=0.99, NNFI=0.99, RMSEA=0.068.

Thus the first alternative model fits the data better than both the initial and the second alternative models. In the alternative model brand equity has a significant effect on commitment, but not on satisfaction. Comparing the pathways' effects with the initial model firstly shows the financial benefits effects are stronger with respect to performance than to satisfaction. Secondly the manufacturer support and customer expectation pathways have a stronger impact on retailer satisfaction in the alternative model and are both significant. There is a stronger effect of satisfaction with the brand on commitment, but a reduced effect of satisfaction on performance. The stability of the alternative model was again compared using the calibration and validation datasets. A multi-group analysis indicated no statistically significant difference between the two datasets for the structural model. This comparison showed the change in the chi-square statistic was below the p

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 1:

Alternative modelsNext, we examine two alternative models by considering the effects of all possible pathways within the structural model. We know that retailer satisfaction fully mediates the effects of brand benefits on trust and partially mediates customer expectations and brand equity to performance and commitment, as well as financial benefits and manufacturer support to commitment. These pathways are therefore not included in the first alternative estimation as these pathways are already non-significant in the mediation tests. The first alternative model thus includes the three remaining possible pathways: financial benefits to performance as well as brand equity and customer expectations to commitment.These results for the alternative model show that the financial benefits to brand performance pathway is significant (0.58) as are the customer expectations (-0.23) and brand equity to commitment pathways (0.12). The effect of manufacturer support on retailer satisfaction is now significant (0.17). While the financial benefits (0.39) and consumer expectation pathways (0.33) both influence retailer satisfaction with the brand, the brand equity pathway is now non-significant. The alternative model fit indices are: χ 2 (259)=1117, p =0.000, CFI=0.99, NNFI=0.99, RMSEA=0.064. Furthermore, when we compare this model to the initial model estimation in Table IV [Figure omitted. See Article Image.], there is an improvement in overall fit.Many buyer seller studies conceptualise trust as influencing commitment ([48] Morgan and Hunt, 1994). Thus, a second alternative model was estimated that included a pathway from trust to commitment, replacing the satisfaction to commitment pathway. This model showed a worse fit compared to the original model: χ 2 (262)=1258, p =0.000, CFI=0.99, NNFI=0.99, RMSEA=0.068.Thus the first alternative model fits the data better than both the initial and the second alternative models. In the alternative model brand equity has a significant effect on commitment, but not on satisfaction. Comparing the pathways' effects with the initial model firstly shows the financial benefits effects are stronger with respect to performance than to satisfaction. Secondly the manufacturer support and customer expectation pathways have a stronger impact on retailer satisfaction in the alternative model and are both significant. There is a stronger effect of satisfaction with the brand on commitment, but a reduced effect of satisfaction on performance. The stability of the alternative model was again compared using the calibration and validation datasets. A multi-group analysis indicated no statistically significant difference between the two datasets for the structural model. This comparison showed the change in the chi-square statistic was below the p <0.05 threshold for the corresponding change in degrees of freedom.

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 2:

Model-model alternatif

Selanjutnya, kami meneliti dua model alternatif dengan mempertimbangkan dampak dari semua jalur yang mungkin dalam model struktural. Kita tahu bahwa kepuasan pengecer sepenuhnya memediasi efek manfaat merek pada kepercayaan dan sebagian menengahi harapan pelanggan dan ekuitas merek dengan kinerja dan komitmen, serta keuntungan finansial dan produsen dukungan komitmen. Jalur ini karena itu tidak termasuk dalam estimasi alternatif pertama sebagai jalur ini sudah tidak signifikan dalam tes mediasi. Model alternatif pertama sehingga mencakup tiga sisa jalur yang mungkin: keuntungan finansial dengan kinerja serta ekuitas merek dan harapan pelanggan dengan komitmen.

Hasil ini untuk model alternatif menunjukkan bahwa manfaat keuangan untuk kinerja merek jalur adalah signifikan (0.58) seperti yang harapan pelanggan (-0,23) dan ekuitas merek untuk jalur komitmen (0,12). Pengaruh produsen dukungan terhadap kepuasan pengecer sekarang signifikan (0,17). Sementara manfaat keuangan (0,39) dan jalur ekspektasi konsumen (0.33) baik pengaruh pengecer kepuasan dengan merek, jalur ekuitas merek sekarang non-signifikan. Alternatif indeks model fit adalah: χ 2 (259) = 1.117, p = 0,000, CFI = 0,99, NNFI = 0.99, RMSEA = 0,064. Selanjutnya, ketika kita membandingkan model ini dengan model estimasi awal pada Tabel IV [Gambar dihilangkan. Lihat Pasal Gambar.], Ada perbaikan secara keseluruhan fit.

Studi Banyak pembeli penjual dikonseptualisasikan kepercayaan sebagai mempengaruhi komitmen ([48] Morgan dan Hunt, 1994). Dengan demikian, model alternatif kedua diperkirakan yang termasuk jalur dari kepercayaan komitmen, menggantikan kepuasan komitmen jalur. Model ini menunjukkan fit buruk dibandingkan dengan model asli:. Χ 2 (262) = 1.258, p = 0,000, CFI = 0,99, NNFI = 0.99, RMSEA = 0,068

Dengan demikian model alternatif pertama sesuai dengan data yang lebih baik dari kedua awal dan model alternatif kedua. Dalam alternatif ekuitas merek model memiliki pengaruh yang signifikan terhadap komitmen, tetapi tidak pada kepuasan. Membandingkan efek jalur 'dengan model awal pertama menunjukkan efek keuntungan finansial lebih kuat sehubungan dengan kinerja daripada kepuasan. Kedua dukungan produsen dan harapan pelanggan jalur memiliki dampak kuat pada kepuasan pengecer di model alternatif dan keduanya signifikan. Ada efek yang lebih kuat dari kepuasan dengan merek pada komitmen, tetapi efek mengurangi kepuasan terhadap kinerja. Stabilitas model alternatif lagi dibandingkan menggunakan kalibrasi dan validasi dataset. Sebuah analisis multi-kelompok menunjukkan tidak ada perbedaan yang signifikan secara statistik antara kedua dataset untuk model struktural. Perbandingan ini menunjukkan perubahan dalam statistik chi-square adalah di bawah p <0,05 ambang batas untuk perubahan yang sesuai dalam derajat kebebasan.