An Analysis of Impact of Brand Credibility and Perceived Quality on Consumers' Evaluations of Brand Alliance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to analyse the effects of brand credibility and perceived quality on consumers' evaluation of brand alliance. This goal has been followed by examining the impact of constituent brands credibility on co-brand overall credibility, effect of perceived quality of the constituent brands on co-branded product perceived quality and constituent brands credibility and perceived quality on perceived price and purchase intention of cobranded product as the hypotheses of the study. This study can be considered as an applied research from purpose perspective and descriptive-survey with regards to the nature and method (type of correlation). Respondents to the questionnaire were shoppers at one of branches of Refah chain stores in Isfahan city which randomly selected. The study indentified that credibility of constituent brands (i.e., brand A and brand B the allied brands) positively affect co-brand credibility, cobranded product perceived price and purchase intention. Results also show that perceived quality of constituent brands affect cobranded product perceived quality and perceived price. Furthermore, only perceived quality of one of constituent brands (brand B) has positive influence on cobranded product purchase intention whereas the perceived quality of the other brand (brand B) has no effect.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".