Next Article in Journal
Thermomechanical Analyses of Alkali-Treated Coconut Husk-Bagasse Fiber-Calcium Carbonate Hybrid Composites
Next Article in Special Issue
Corporate Social Responsibility and Brand Advocacy among Consumers: The Mediating Role of Brand Trust
Previous Article in Journal
Scenario-Based LULC Dynamics Projection Using the CA–Markov Model on Upper Awash Basin (UAB), Ethiopia
Previous Article in Special Issue
Consumer Behavior in the Service Industry: An Integrative Literature Review and Research Agenda
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 2
10.3390/su15021684
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Examining the Relationship between Brand Symbolism and Brand Evangelism through Consumer Brand Identification: Evidence from Starbucks Coffee Brand

by
Irada Osmanova
1,
Seden Ozerden
2,
Bassam Dalal
3 and
Blend Ibrahim
4,*
1
Faculty of Business and Economics, Department of Business Administration, Girne American University, North Cyprus, Via Mersin 10, Kyrenia 99320, Turkey
2
School of Tourism and Hospitality Management, Department of Tourism, Girne American University, North Cyprus, Via Mersin 10, Kyrenia 99320, Turkey
3
Faculty of Business Administration, Jinan University, Tripoli 1300, Lebanon
4
Faculty of Business, Department of Business Administration, Istanbul Ticaret University, Istanbul 34445, Turkey
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(2), 1684; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15021684
Submission received: 3 December 2022 / Revised: 9 January 2023 / Accepted: 10 January 2023 / Published: 16 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainability and Consumer Behavior in the Service Industry)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In today’s competitive environment, it is important to understand that consumers’ evangelical behavior depends on symbolic brand attachment. This study, drawing on social identity theory (SIT), investigates the direct relationship between brand symbolism and three characteristics of brand evangelism, namely purchase intention, positive brand referrals, and oppositional brand referrals, while also considering the mediating role of consumer brand identification (CBI) and the moderating role of generational cohorts. A total of 323 Starbucks coffee shop consumers were analyzed, and the structural equation modeling (SEM) approach was employed using Smart PLS 3.2. The findings revealed that brand symbolism is the strongest predictor of positive brand referrals, followed by purchase intention and oppositional brand referrals. CBI was a significant mediator between brand symbolism and the three aspects of brand evangelism. The results of the moderation effect of the generational cohort showed a significant relationship between brand symbolism and purchase intention. Interestingly, the generational cohort was not a significant moderator between brand symbolism and positive brand referrals and oppositional brand referrals. The study concludes with theoretical and managerial implications, as well as some suggestions for future studies.

1. Introduction

Recently, increased attention has been paid to understanding the nature of brand evangelism in the marketing literature [1,2]. The latest research has indicated that brand evangelism is focused on actively supporting and defending a brand [3], spreading positive feelings, and passionately convincing others to engage with it. The term “evangelism” has been used to emphasize the missionary aspect of consumer passion, which also involves preaching about the most loved features of a brand [4]. Similarly, brand evangelism is a notion in which consumers display continuous brand support by purchasing the brand, engaging in positive brand referrals, and having oppositional referrals against competitors’ brands [5]. Additionally, brand evangelists can help brands attract new customers and save costs, which is the key concept for the growth of brand evangelism. In fact, brand evangelism is more of a result of the brand’s impact, although community evangelism results from community loyalty as it involves small community members actively promoting the brand by word of mouth (WOM) [6,7]. At the same time, they are embodying the fundamental concepts of brand love and engagement [2]. Regardless of the increasing interest in consumer brand evangelism, many studies have also examined the predictors involving brand-related subjects, such as brand love, identification, trust, and engagement [8].
Previous research has shown that consumers not only purchase and evangelize brands based on their functional performance, but also for symbolic and social motives [9]. Recent research has acknowledged that brand symbolism is a strong predictor of customer extra-role behavior or citizenship behavior [10]. Previous literature has identified that the symbolic meaning of products involves two dimensions: social symbolism and self-symbolism [11]. Scholars studying mainstream marketing in the hospitality and tourism context are increasingly interested in brand symbolism [12]. In addition, as highlighted by [10], there is a scarcity of empirical studies on brand symbolism concerning customer–brand relationships. Some studies have found a positive and significant relationship between brand symbolism and the consumer–brand relationship [13] in the hospitality context, such as customer citizenship behavior (helping and policing other customers) [10], brand loyalty [14], and purchase intention [15]. In the context of coffee shops, previous literature has limitations in examining the relationship between brand symbolism and the customer–brand relationship, particularly regarding the three dimensions of brand evangelism (purchase intention, positive brand referrals, and oppositional brand referrals) as an outcome of brand symbolism [16]. Therefore, one of the crucial aims of the present study is to investigate whether the symbolic meaning of a brand (i.e., brand symbolism) can promote the evangelical behavior (i.e., brand evangelism) of consumers at a coffee shop.
The literature has identified two groups of consumers with regard to the symbolic aspects of a brand: those who identify and support the brand and those who disidentify and oppose the brand [17]. From this point of view, this study starts by considering consumer brand identification (CBI) as an antecedent factor in implementing evangelical behavior (i.e., brand evangelism). With this viewpoint, we employ social identity theory (SIT) to identify the critical areas of CBI that can be developed with the symbolic meaning of a brand (i.e., brand symbolism) and its impact on brand evangelism. Based on social identity theory (SIT), people define themselves in terms of prominent group members, where identification is the conception of oneness with or belongingness to a group, including the direct or indirect understanding of its successes and failures [18]. Based on previous theory, the consumers with higher brand identification are mostly involved in pro-brand tasks, such as supporting the brand, the brand’s aims, and defending the brand’s reputation [19]. To address this gap, this research tests the mediating role of CBI in the causal relationship between brand symbolism and all characteristics of brand evangelism (purchase intention, positive brand referrals, and oppositional brand referrals).
Drawing from SIT, this study proposes that CBI serves as a mediating factor in the relationship between brand symbolism and brand evangelism. Previous literature suggests that individuals with strong brand identification engage in pro-brand behaviors, including supporting the brand, advocating for its goals, and defending its reputation [19]. Therefore, this study aims to examine the role of CBI in the influence of brand symbolism on various aspects of brand evangelism, including purchase intention, positive brand referrals, and oppositional brand referrals.
In addition to examining the mediating effect of CBI, this study investigates whether three generational cohorts (Generation X, Gen X; Generation Y, Gen Y; and Generation Z, Gen Z) moderate the relationship between brand symbolism and all characteristics of brand evangelism. The moderation effect of generational cohorts was examined using the Generational Cohort Theory (GCT) framework, which suggests that generations with similar economic, political, and social views develop similar beliefs, opinions, and behaviors [20]. This study contributes to GCT theory by highlighting the importance of examining the consumer behavior of the three generational cohorts in the relationship between brand symbolism and all aspects of brand evangelism. While previous research has explored differences between the three generational cohorts, this study aims to investigate all three generations and understand how they moderate the relationship between brand symbolism and brand evangelism [21]. According to previous studies, Gen Y and Z, the two younger generational cohorts, share some common characteristics, such as being used to new technology and trends [22]. Recent research has shown that more than half of Gen Y and Z consumers are highly committed to a brand [23]. The majority of Gen Y and Gen Z purchase well-known and powerful brands [24]. Most importantly, [25] found that Gen Y consumers demonstrate evangelical behavior toward luxury brands and are grateful for the symbolism of those brands’ youth, exclusivity, and eccentricity. Moreover, Gen Z consumers purchase and use luxury brands as a symbolic voicing of their tastes, desires, and feelings [26].
Considering the above, this study presents many contributions to the hospitality literature. First, this study supports the concept of SIT in the hospitality context. Second, it explores the relationship between brand symbolism and brand evangelism by underlining brand symbolism as a new way to boost brand evangelism among coffee shop consumers. Third, it explores the mediating effect of CBI on the relationship between brand symbolism and brand evangelism. Lastly, we aim to define the moderating impact of three generational cohorts on the relationship between brand symbolism and all aspects of brand evangelism. Figure 1 demonstrates the relations among the study variables: brand symbolism, CBI, and brand evangelism dimensions.

2. Theoretical Background and Hypotheses Development

2.1. Brand Symbolism and Brand Evangelism

The significance of brand symbolism has led marketers and researchers to investigate its antecedents and consequences [27]. Researchers have proposed various definitions of brand symbolism. For instance, Ref. [28] stated that “we are what we have,” emphasizing the importance of symbolic consumption in our lives more than prior research on product and self-concept. According to [29], brand symbolism is a concept related to how consumers evaluate a product’s brand name in terms of its value to the brand image and its ability to express itself. Ref. [30] defined brand symbolism as an important resource for building culture, values, self-identity, and interrelationships, whereby it has two dimensions: self-symbolism and social symbolism. Ref. [31] posited that symbolic benefits are the most extrinsic advantages of service consumption or product use.
Ref. [32] revealed that marketing aims for consumer-driven referrals, whereby “You are an evangelist, you tell others which computer to purchase, which restaurant to visit, and which cell phone to buy.” According to [33], brand evangelism is a concept that highlights the sacredness of a brand, which is driven by factors such as brand love, loyalty, and emotional brand attachment. In recent years, there has been a trend towards using modern forms of word-of-mouth communication, such as social media, as a part of evangelism marketing [34]. According to [35], brand evangelism symbolizes the expansion of WOM communication. Moreover, Ref. [36] discovered that emotional attachment to a brand and the uniqueness of a brand stimulate the positive referral intentions of consumers. Early findings have highlighted that consumer satisfaction can convert to positive brand referrals, and the justice efforts of the organization can turn referrals into long-term commitments [37,38]. Early research has shown that consumer dissatisfaction can be transformed into positive brand referrals, brand loyalty, and long-term commitment when organizations are able to implement effective service recovery practices and demonstrate justice in the outcome [39]. A recent study stated that consumers with a psychological sense of brand community evangelize and advocate for brands [40]. Scholars have found that once consumers evangelize others by spreading positive referrals, the number of evangelists rapidly increases; hence, it is impossible to know how many evangelists the organization has in total [41].
SIT has been broadly used in the hospitality industry to describe the importance of self-identity and social identity [42]. Brand symbolism is derived from the emotional attributes of a brand [43], and serves self-identity and social identity [10]. Brand evangelism is connected to a brand’s psychological and emotional attractiveness [7] and is seen as an actual outcome of a customer’s self-identity and social identity [44]. Thus, brand symbolism and evangelism are related insights in that they both symbolize a brand’s emotional attributes and the sources of consumers’ self-identity and social identity. Therefore, we posit that a customer’s symbolic association with a brand will likely turn him or her into an evangelist, and we propose that brand symbolism positively affects all characteristics of brand evangelism. More specifically, in the literature on consumer behavior, the notion of symbolic purchase has documented how consumers’ purchase decisions are motivated by the symbolic meaning of the product [45]. Consumer purchase intention, which refers to a specific feeling about a product and its potential influence on consumer behavior, is influenced by the symbolic value of the brand [46]. The intention of consumers to purchase a brand is directly affected by the brand’s symbolic value [29]. Moreover, the congruity between the self-concept of consumers and the consumer’s symbolic association with brand image affects the consumer’s purchase intention [47]. Consequently, this study proposes the following hypothesis:
H1a. 
Brand symbolism has a positive effect on purchase intention.
Scholars have revealed that brands are employed to build and communicate consumers’ self-concepts since they hold symbolic meanings and associations [15]. Customers who have associations with brands engage in behavior such as providing positive WOM referrals for their favorite brands [48]. Positive brand referrals are defined as customer evangelist behaviors in which consumers are willing to speak well of and promote the brand to other consumers [49]. Products with symbolic benefits boost a greater potential for a positive brand outcome [50]. Moreover, [5] claimed that when consumers build a symbolic and emotional relationship with a brand, they boost brand evangelism and positive referrals. Consequently, this study proposes the following hypothesis:
H1b. 
Brand symbolism has a positive effect on positive brand referrals.
Consumers often use brands to enhance their self-concept and gain social approval, as brands can hold symbolic meanings and associations that align with their goals and self-expression needs [15]. When a brand is closely connected to a consumer’s identity, competitive brands that pose a threat to that brand may also be perceived as a threat to the consumer’s self-identity [51]. Since consumers use brand symbolism characteristics to improve their self-concepts and social approval [10], any threat to the brand is seen as a threat to the self [28]. Oppositional brand referrals represent a consumer’s brand-related behavior, defined as the customer’s propensity to provide harmful or negative statements toward competing brands [5]. Thus, brand symbolism may create and boost oppositional brand referrals. Consequently, this study presents the following hypothesis:
H1c. 
Brand symbolism has a positive effect on oppositional brand referrals.

2.2. Consumer Brand Identification (CBI) as a Mediating Effect

The literature has consistently highlighted the importance of CBI as a crucial psychological process that enables the development of meaningful relationships with brands [38,52]. The perception of CBI represents a comprehensive understanding of the evolution of consumer–brand relationships [19,53]. Prior research by [54] has demonstrated that CBI is a psychological condition of consumers containing components such as valuing belongingness to the brand, and perceiving and feeling the brand. Moreover, the study of [55] showed that CBI might have an essential role in converting consumer–brand community interactions into consumer–brand relationships. CBI increases the likelihood of establishing an effective and rewarding relationship between consumers and brands, as the more consumers identify with a brand, the more they benefit from it [56].
The concept of CBI has roots in the theory of SIT. SIT posits that individuals strive to boost their self-esteem and sense of self through categorization into particular social groups [57]. According to SIT, identification involves three components: cognitive, evaluative, and emotional [58]. Previous research has demonstrated that CBI has a positive impact on brand evangelism [59].
Scholars have also found that the positive features of CBI apply to various brands with symbolic and useful benefits [60]. Relatedly, a previous study by [14] proposed that consumers are involved in the symbolic consumption of brands not only for self-coherence but also for brand identification. The findings of [61] showed that when consumers identify with a brand, they increasingly engage in WOM behaviors. Hence, in line with previous studies, it is practical to propose that CBI may play a key role in improving all aspects of brand evangelism behaviors among coffee shop consumers. Consequently, this study proposes the following hypotheses:
H2a. 
CBI positively mediates the relationship between brand symbolism and purchase intention.
H2b. 
CBI positively mediates the relationship between brand symbolism and positive brand referrals.
H2c. 
CBI positively mediates the relationship between brand symbolism and oppositional brand referrals.

2.3. Generational Cohorts (Gen X, Gen Y, and Gen Z) as the Moderating Effect

Besides investigating the influence of CBI on consumers’ evangelical behavior toward a coffee shop brand, the present study also aims to examine the moderating effect of three generational cohorts (Gen X, Gen Y, and Gen Z) on the relationship between brand symbolism and all characteristics of brand evangelism. The impact of generational cohorts on the relationship between brand symbolism and brand evangelism through consumer brand identification (CBI) is of particular importance, as previous research has suggested that the generational cohort can have a significant moderating effect on factors such as brand image, product price, and product style in relation to brand loyalty [62]. As such, a recent study by [63] specified that Gen Y and Gen Z play vital roles for brand marketers worldwide. There is a significant relationship between symbolic brand awareness and Gen Y, more than Gen X [64]. Regarding brand engagement on referral intention and spreading online WOM, Gen X has less referral intention than Gen Y [65]. In this study, the ranges for the birth years of each generation are as follows: Gen X (1965–1980), Gen Y (1981–1996), and Gen Z (post-1996–2022) [66].
Gen Y and Z consumers acknowledge the perceived social media value dimensions in buying and consuming luxury brands [67]. Gen Y consumers are more emotionally attached to a brand [68], and most of the time, they are evangelical about the brands they enjoy [69]. Moreover, Gen Y tends to be loyal to a company longer when it has a strong and respectable brand image [70]. Similarly, Ref. [71] discovered that if Gen Y consumers promote a brand as prestigious, they expect to obtain a higher quality that maintains the positive social identity of the consumers. Most importantly, according to [72], there is an important connection between Gen Y consumers and the symbolic consumption of a brand, which results in a long-term relationship. However, compared to prior generational cohorts, Gen Z consumers interpret luxury brands widely and exhibit brand loyalty without expressing passionate and strong feelings [73]. Moreover, Gen Z consumers are digital natives [74], being a mostly technology-dependent, consumptive, and an up-to-date generation that habitually eats in restaurants, buys clothes, and travels [75]. A recent study discovered that although the manner concerning brand awareness was acknowledged similarly between Gen Y and Gen Z, they display different consumer behaviors [76]. Therefore, it is clear that generational cohorts may result in significant differences in the outcome in positively moderating the relationship between brand symbolism and brand evangelism. Consequently, this study proposes the following hypotheses:
H3a. 
Generational cohorts (Gen X, Gen Y, and Gen Z) positively moderate the relationship between brand symbolism and purchase intention.
H3b. 
Generational cohorts (Gen X, Gen Y, and Gen Z) positively moderate the relationship between brand symbolism and positive brand referrals.
H3c. 
Generational cohorts (Gen X, Gen Y, and Gen Z) positively moderate the relationship between brand symbolism and oppositional brand referrals.

3. Methodology

3.1. Participants and Procedures

This study was conducted using existing research [5,10,77]. Data were gathered using Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk), a program with well-established experimental effectiveness [78], which is broadly used by hospitality researchers [79,80]. The study included Gen X, Gen Y, and Gen Z generational cohort respondents ranging in age from 18 to 57 years. Respondents were selected according to IP addresses centered in the United States of America. In the direction of enhancing a promising response rate, 0.15 USD was credited to respondents using the MTurk platform. The final sample size was 323 participants. This study chose the Starbucks coffee shop brand as it is the most popular, with over 30,000 stores worldwide, and serves customers in a special way [81]. We used Starbucks customers in the United States as the research objects because Starbucks represents the largest share of the coffee market, is the mainstream brand in the United States, and has been widely used in brand symbolism-related studies [10]. Starbucks reported net revenues of over USD 23 billion, with most of these coming from the United States [82]. Starbucks has become a cultural icon and a symbol of American consumerism.
First, respondents were asked a confirmation inquiry: “Have you ever drunk Starbucks coffee?” Those who did not respond or who replied “no” were excluded, whereas those who responded “yes” were allowed to complete the questionnaire. Then, respondents were permitted to continue with a list of questions and were asked to complete the set of clauses that plotted onto the dependent (i.e., coffee shop’s brand evangelism), independent (i.e., brand symbolism), mediating (i.e., CBI), and moderating variables (i.e., generational cohorts), and some demographic characteristics such as age, gender, education, income, and profession.

3.2. Measurements

The measure was drawn on clauses used in empirically proven scales from previous research, and all clauses were marginally tailored to make the concepts appropriate to the study’s context. Afterward, a pilot study was conducted on shop consumers. Lastly, participants’ answers were measured on a seven-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). This study used well-established measures from existing studies (see Table 1). To measure coffee shop consumers’ perception of brand symbolism, the six-item measurement by [10] was used, originally adapted from [77,83]. To assess coffee shop consumers’ perception of all aspects of brand evangelism, the nine-item scale by [5] was used, adjusted from [84,85]. CBI was measured using a five-clause scale drawn from prior literature [86].

4. Results

4.1. Respondents’ Demographic Profiles

The respondents’ demographic characteristics showed that 50.2% of respondents were male, and 49.8% were female. Marital status was 42.4% single, 52.9% married, and 4.6% divorced. Regarding age, 29.4% were between the ages of 41 and 56 years, 52.9% were between the ages of 25 and 40, and 17.6% were between the ages of 18 and 24. The education level of respondents showed that 12.1% had high school degrees or equivalent, 78.9% had bachelor’s degrees, 3.7% had master’s degrees, 3.4% had a Ph.D., and 1.9% were considered “others.” Students comprised 12.7% of the respondents, 65.3% were employed, 17.3% were self-employed, 0.6% were out of work and looking for a job, and 4% were retired. Monthly income levels showed that 26.3% of respondents earned less than USD 2999, 27.6% earned USD 3000–USD 3999, 24.8% earned between USD 4000 and USD 4999, and 21.4% earned more than USD 5000.

4.2. Reliability and Validity Analysis

We selected a variance-based approach and employed structural equation modeling (SEM) using the SmartPLS 3.2 technique. We adopted a two-step approach, recommended by past studies [87], to analyze the data and test the proposed hypotheses. First, the measurement model was evaluated by conducting convergent validity, discriminant validity, and reliability analysis, followed by SEM analysis to test the study’s proposed hypotheses. As shown in Table 1, Cronbach’s alpha (α) reported acceptable values for all variables, verified the data reliability, and verified the internal consistency of the survey items [88]. Convergent validity was assessed by utilizing item loading. As shown in Table 1, item loading ranged between 0.73 and 0.96, implying an adequate convergent validity [89]. This was further investigated by composite reliability, which was reported to be above the threshold value of 0.7. Discriminant validity was assessed by comparing the square root of average variance extracted (AVE) values with the correlation coefficients between constructions, as suggested by [89]. As shown in Table 2, the square root of AVE was higher than the correlation between constructs, confirming discriminant validity.

4.3. Hypothesis Testing

The SEM approach using SmartPLS was assessed to examine the study’s proposed hypotheses. SmartPLS-SEM is used for a variety of reasons, including because (1) SmartPLS-SEM works well with complicated models, such as those with hierarchical structures and mediator or moderator effects. Moreover, (2) compared to other approaches, SmartPLS-SEM offers more flexible, accurate, and valid results and requires fewer analyses [90].
The study model could explain 54.7%, 32.7%, 68.5%, and 39.8% of the variance in the CBI, purchase intention, positive brand referrals, and oppositional brand referrals, respectively. As shown in Table 3, brand symbolism was the strongest significant predictor of positive brand referral (β = 0.36, p < 0.05), followed by purchase intention (β = 0.28, p < 0.05), and then by oppositional brand referral (β = 0.23, p < 0.05). Therefore, H1a, H1b, and H1c are supported. To examine the mediation effect of CBI, the 95% bias-corrected bootstrapped confidence interval (N = 5000) was estimated (Preacher et al., 2007). The indirect effect of brand symbolism on all aspects of brand evangelism (purchase intention, positive brand referral, and oppositional brand referral) through CBI was found to have a significant mediation effect (β purchase intention = 0.15, p < 0.05; β positive brand referral = 0.32, p < 0.05; β oppositional brand referral = 0.25, p < 0.05) (see Table 4).
Therefore, H2a, H2b, and H2c are supported. The result of the interaction effect revealed a significant moderating effect of the generational cohort on the relationship between brand symbolism and purchase intention (β = −0.09, p < 0.05); hence, H3a is supported. Interestingly, the generational cohort was not a significant moderator in the relationship between brand symbolism and positive brand referral (β = −0.006, p > 0.05) or between brand symbolism and oppositional brand referral (β = 0.007, p > 0.05). Therefore, H3b and H3c are not supported.

5. Discussion

5.1. Theoretical Implications

Consistent with expectations, the present study revealed that brand symbolism positively affected all characteristics of brand evangelism (purchase intention, positive brand referrals, and oppositional brand referrals). Importantly, brand symbolism exerted the strongest positive effect on positive brand referrals. This compelling finding suggests that brand symbolism tends to be more impactful when consumers give positive brand referrals rather than purchase intentions and oppositional brand referrals. Relatedly, this means that when consumers identify with a brand, they spread positive WOM about the brand. This study, therefore, contributes to the literature on brand symbolism and brand evangelism, in line with past scholarship which exposed that the symbolic meaning of a brand makes a brand more interesting, which converts to purchase intention and positive WOM [91]. Similarly, [92] have found that brand symbolism positively relates to consumers’ WOM. However, symbolic brand haters also spread negative WOM, and one of the examples of symbolic haters was related to Starbucks [93].
Second, this study contributes to the literature by examining the relationship between brand symbolism, CBI, and brand evangelism. The results showed that CBI positively mediates the relationship between brand symbolism and all characteristics of brand evangelism. Similarly, brand symbolism and CBI had the second greatest effect on positive brand referrals. In other words, our results indicated that, unlike purchase intentions and oppositional brand referrals, consumers’ positive brand referrals are likely to increase when consumers are strongly identified with a brand. This discovery is in line with [5], which suggests that CBI influences positive and oppositional brand referrals. Specifically, this study clarified that greater identification with a brand contributes to being closely symbolized with it and spreading positive brand referrals.
Third, the generational cohorts’ moderating effect was examined to better understand the relationship between brand symbolism and brand evangelism via CBI. Despite significant research on generational cohorts [94], there has been no previous study that examined their moderating role in the relationship between brand symbolism and all aspects of brand evangelism. Therefore, this study makes a contribution to the literature by positing a significant relationship between generational cohorts and only one aspect of brand evangelism: purchase intention. Nevertheless, the results of this research have shown an insignificant relationship between generational cohorts and positive brand referrals, along with oppositional brand referrals. This result could be due to several reasons.
The measure of positive brand referral and oppositional brand referral that we used in this study may not have been sensitive enough to detect any moderation effects by generation. It is possible that the measure used in the study did not capture the full range of positive brand referral behaviors or did not adequately capture the nuances of positive brand referral and oppositional brand referral among different generations. Another potential explanation could be that the sample size may not have been large enough to detect any moderation effects by generation. It is feasible that a larger sample size would have had greater statistical power to detect any moderation effects that may have been present.

5.2. Managerial Implications

Our research has implications for marketers and organization managers, especially in the hospitality and coffee shop sectors. First, managers need to recognize that a company’s brands or services have both symbolic and functional aspects that must be considered when formulating marketing mix strategies and market segmentation practices. For instance, managers and marketing practitioners could regularly measure the symbolic dimensions of a brand and track the levels of brand symbolism over time, since customers appreciate the symbolic value of a brand, which in turn affects their involvement in volunteer behaviors such as brand evangelism. For example, coffee shops may want to consider incorporating visual elements such as logos, colors, and fonts that are unique to their brand and help convey their values and personality. Managers can also use their brand’s symbolism to tell a story about the brand and what it stands for, creating a deeper emotional connection with customers and making them more likely to become brand evangelists.
Second, hospitality managers should seek to motivate positive brand evangelism by enhancing a customer’s self-esteem, social approval, expectations, and satisfaction and by handling customers’ complaints and comments. For example, a company can establish a customer service department to handle consumer comments and complaints, which can increase customers’ purchase intention, positive brand referrals, and oppositional brand referrals. In addition, companies can offer incentives for customers who refer friends and family to the company’s products or services. This can help to increase word-of-mouth marketing and encourage customers to become brand evangelists.
Third, managers can also focus on identifying consumer–brand relationships to reinforce brand evangelism. Honest interactions with customers and a positive connection between brand symbolism and customers may be crucial factors for companies to implement their marketing mix strategies effectively and efficiently. For instance, a company could use an integrated marketing strategy that emphasizes the symbolic aspects of the brand (e.g., symbolic attributes) through advertising, public relations, customer communication, and internet marketing. By providing opportunities for customers to engage with the company and with each other, businesses can foster a sense of community among their customers. This can be accomplished through social media, customer events, or other client-focused programs [95]. Personalizing the coffee shops’ customer experience can also help enhance brand identification. This might involve using customer data to tailor marketing efforts, offering personalized recommendations or discounts, or simply taking the time to understand customers’ needs and preferences.
Fourth, managers should handle the communication of company–customer social networks [96]. For instance, an organization should be close to consumers through its brands and services by improving strong relationships through direct relations with consumers and social media (e.g., Facebook and Twitter), where they can operate as main information sources for the organization and its consumers [97,98]. This might lead consumers to perceive the higher symbolic aspects of a brand, which in turn positively affects customers to evangelize the brand. Coffee shop managers may want to consider implementing loyalty programs or other incentives to encourage customers to stay loyal to their brand. This could include offering rewards for repeat purchases or providing exclusive access to special events or promotions.
Finally, brand symbolism acted as the main antecedent within the integrated model. Favorable brand symbolism stimulates brand evangelism not only directly but also indirectly through the improvement of CBI. The results reveal that the identification of consumer–brand relationships plays a major mediating role between brand symbolism and brand evangelism. Therefore, hospitality and coffee shop managers should enhance the emotional and sensory memories within the relationship between consumers and brands to achieve high identification levels. For example, managers could work with coffee shop customers to create emotional and sensory memories through the physical surroundings of the coffee shop’s location, such as the natural environment, colors, music, and furniture. This could be achieved through the senses of sight, taste, hearing, smell, and touch, and create a sense of belonging.

6. Limitations and Suggestions for Future Studies

The findings of this study have several limitations for both academics and practitioners. First, this study concentrated on consumers at coffee shops, so future studies can focus on different fields such as higher education, tourism, cinema, and clothing sectors. This research contributes to the literature by investigating the impact of brand symbolism on all three aspects of brand evangelism (purchase intention, positive brand referrals, and oppositional brand referrals). Consequently, future studies could focus on the relationship between brand symbolism and only one of the characteristics of brand evangelism, namely positive brand referrals, because, according to our results, brand symbolism had the highest positive impact on positive brand referrals. Future research could also examine how brand symbolism affects other responses (e.g., the similarity of values, advertising appeals, product involvement, and construal level) [99,100]. Third, the mediation effect of this study is how CBI mediates the relationship between brand symbolism and brand evangelism. Therefore, future studies could examine the mediating role of brand love and brand attachment. Additionally, this study investigated the moderating role of generational cohorts, and future studies could focus on a single generational cohort, such as Gen Z, or the differences between generational cohorts. Comparing females and males could also be a good example of a moderating effect. Fifth, this study was conducted in the USA using the MTurk data collection platform; future studies could take place in other countries. Finally, the relationship between brand symbolism and purchase intention compared to the two countries could be studied.

7. Conclusions

The present research aimed to examine the impact of brand symbolism on brand evangelism among consumers of Starbucks coffee. The literature designated brand characteristics, such as brand symbolism, brand evangelism, and the CBI of consumers. We developed a theoretical model that includes brand symbolism and brand evangelism as independent variables, generational cohorts as moderating variables, and CBI as mediating variables. The model was tested among Starbucks consumers to capture all aspects of brand evangelism, including positive brand referrals, oppositional brand referrals, and purchase intention. Our findings revealed a positive relationship between brand symbolism and all aspects of brand evangelism (i.e., purchase intention, positive brand referrals, and oppositional brand referrals). Moreover, as a mediation role, brand identification had the highest effect on brand symbolism among consumers. The moderation results suggested that the generational cohorts moderate only the relationship between brand symbolism and purchase intention; it does not moderate the relationship between brand symbolism and positive and oppositional brand referral. In light of the above, we believe that the present study has opened a window of discussion and would lead to an academic debate on the influence of brand symbolism on consumers’ brand evangelism in different sectors, such as tourism and education.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, I.O. and S.O.; methodology, B.I.; software, B.I.; validation, B.I., B.D. and I.O.; formal analysis, B.I.; investigation, I.O. and S.O.; resources, I.O.; data curation, I.O.; writing—original draft preparation, I.O. and S.O.; writing—review and editing, S.O. and B.D.; visualization, B.I. and B.D.; supervision, S.O. and I.O.; project administration, B.D. and B.I.; funding acquisition, I.O., S.O., B.D. and B.I. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Note applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Harrigan, P.; Roy, S.K.; Chen, T. Do value cocreation and engagement drive brand evangelism? Mark. Intell. Plan. 2020, 39, 345–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Pornsrimate, K.; Khamwon, A. Building Brand Evangelism Through Social Media Micro-Influencers: A Case Study of Cosmetic Industry in Thailand. Int. J. Soc. Sci. Res. 2020, 2, 84–99. [Google Scholar]
  3. Sharma, P.; Sadh, A.; Billore, A.; Motiani, M. Investigating brand community engagement and evangelistic tendencies on social media. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 2022, 31, 16–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Matzler, K.; Pichler, E.; Hemetsberger, A. Who is spreading the word? The influence of extraversion and openness on consumer passion and evangelism. In Proceedings of the American Marketing Association Winter Conference, San Diego, CA, USA, 16–19 February 2007; pp. 25–32. [Google Scholar]
  5. Becerra, E.P.; Badrinarayanan, V. The influence of brand trust and brand identification on brand evangelism. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 2013, 22, 371–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Hsu, L.C. Investigating the brand evangelism effect of community fans on social networking sites: Perspectives on value congruity. Online Inf. Rev. 2018, 43, 842–866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Scarpi, D. Does Size Matter? An Examination of Small and Large Web-Based Brand Communities. J. Interact. Mark. 2010, 24, 14–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Marticotte, F.; Arcand, M.; Baudry, D. The impact of brand evangelism on oppositional referrals towards a rival brand. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 2016, 25, 538–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Igwe, S.R.; Nwamou, C.C. Brand evangelism attributes and lecturers loyalty of automobiles in Rivers State. Covenant J. Bus. Soc. Sci. 2017, 8, 23–39. [Google Scholar]
  10. Dalal, B.; Aljarah, A. How Brand Symbolism, Perceived Service Quality, and CSR Skepticism Influence Consumers to Engage in Citizenship Behavior. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Elliott, R. Existential consumption and irrational desire. Eur. J. Mark. 1997, 34, 285–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Aljarah, A.; Dalal, B.; Ibrahim, B. Brand Symbolism and Customer Citizenship Behavior: An Investigation in a Café Setting. In Proceedings of the Conference on Managing Tourism Across Continents, Antalya, Turkey, 24–26 March 2022; Cobanoglu, C., Gunlu Kucukaltan, E., Tuna, M., Basoda, A., Dogan, S., Eds.; USF M3 Publishing, LLC: Sarasota, FL, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  13. Anisimova, T. The effects of corporate brand symbolism on consumer satisfaction and loyalty Evidence from Australia. Asia Pacific J. Mark. Logist 2016, 28, 481–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Ekinci, Y.; Sirakaya-Turk, E.; Preciado, S. Symbolic consumption of tourism destination brands. J. Bus. Res. 2013, 66, 711–718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Escalas, J.E.; Bettman, J.R. Self-construal, reference groups, and brand meaning. J. Consum. Res. 2005, 32, 378–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Aljarah, A.; Ibrahim, B.; Dalal, B. What Do We Know about Brand Symbolism? In Administrative Economic Science; Livre de Lyon: Lyon, France, 2021; ISBN 9782382362341. [Google Scholar]
  17. Wolter, J.S.; Brach, S.; Cronin, J.J.; Bonn, M. Symbolic drivers of consumer-brand identification and disidentification. J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 785–793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ashforth, B.E.; Mael, F. Social Identity Theory and the Organization. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1989, 14, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Bhattacharya, C.B.; Sen, S. Consumer-Company Identification: A Framework for Understanding Consumers’ Relationships with Companies. J. Mark. 2003, 67, 76–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Fernández-Durán, J.J. Defining generational cohorts for marketing in Mexico. J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 435–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Gilal, F.G.; Gilal, N.G.; Shahid, S.; Gilal, R.G.; Shah, S.M.M. The role of product design in shaping masstige brand passion: A masstige theory perspective. J. Bus. Res. 2022, 152, 487–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Slivar, I.; Aleric, D.; Dolenec, S. Leisure travel behavior of generation Y & Z at the destination and post-purchase. E-J. Tour. 2019, 6, 147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Awasthi, B.; Mehta, M. Anti-Branding: Positive and Negative Effects on Consumer Perception of Generation Y and Z with Special Reference to Maggi Noodles in India. J. Brand Manag. 2020, 17, 7–22. [Google Scholar]
  24. Nagy, S. The Impact of Country of Origin in Mobile Phone Choice of Generation Y and Z. J. Manag. Train. Ind. 2017, 4, 16–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Rodrigues, C.; Rodrigues, P. Brand love matters to Millennials: The relevance of mystery, sensuality and intimacy to neo-luxury brands. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 2019, 28, 830–848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Wang, Y.; Qiao, F. The symbolic meaning of luxury-lite fashion brands among younger Chinese consumers. J. Fash. Mark. Manag. 2020, 24, 83–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Bernritter, S.F.; Loermans, A.C.; Verlegh, P.W.J.; Smit, E.G. ‘We’ are more likely to endorse than ‘I’: The effects of self-construal and brand symbolism on consumers’ online brand endorsements. Int. J. Advert. 2016, 36, 107–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Belk, R.W. Possessions and the Extended Self. J. Consum. Res. 1988, 15, 139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Tsai, S.P. Utility, cultural symbolism and emotion: A comprehensive model of brand purchase value. Int. J. Res. Mark. 2005, 22, 277–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Elliott, R.; Wattanasuwan, K. Brands as symbolic resources for the construction of identity. Int. J. Advert. 1998, 17, 131–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Keller, K.L. Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity. J. Mark. 1993, 57, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. McConnell, B.; Huba, J. Creatingcustomerevangelists: How Loyal Customers Become a Volunteer Sales Force; Dearborn Trade Publishing: Chicago, IL, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  33. Wang, C.L.; Sarkar, J.G.; Sarkar, A. Hallowed be thy brand: Measuring perceived brand sacredness. Eur. J. Mark. 2019, 53, 733–757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Sajoy, P.B. Evangelist Marketing—Concepts and Emerging Trends. Int. J. Res. Anal. Rev. 2018, 5, 866y–869y. [Google Scholar]
  35. Rashid, M. The Role of Recovery Satisfaction on the Relationship between Service Recovery and Brand Evangelism: A Conceptual Framework. Int. J. Innov. Manag. Technol. 2014, 5, 401–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Kang, J.; Kwun, D.J.; Hahm, J.J. Turning Your Customers into Brand Evangelists: Evidence from Cruise Travelers. J. Qual. Assur. Hosp. Tour. 2020, 21, 617–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Ibrahim, B.; Aljarah, A. The era of Instagram expansion: Matching social media marketing activities and brand loyalty through customer relationship quality. J. Mark. Commun. 2021, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Aljarah, A.; Ibrahim, B.; Lahuerta-Otero, E.; de los Salmones, M.d.M.G. Doing good does not always lead to doing well: The corrective, compensating and cultivating goodwill CSR effects on brand defense. Curr. Issues Tour. 2022, 8, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Fierro, J.C.; Melero Polo, I.; Sesé Oliván, F.J. From dissatisfied customers to evangelists of the firm: A study of the Spanish mobile service sector. BRQ Bus. Res. Q. 2014, 17, 191–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Swimberghe, K.; Darrat, M.A.; Beal, B.D.; Astakhova, M. Examining a psychological sense of brand community in elderly consumers. J. Bus. Res. 2018, 82, 171–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Cordasco, G.; Gargano, L.; Rescigno, A.A.; Vaccaro, U. Evangelism in social networks: Algorithms and complexity. Networks 2018, 71, 346–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. So, K.K.F.; King, C.; Sparks, B.; Wang, Y. The influence of customer brand identification on hotel brand evaluation and loyalty development. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2013, 34, 31–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Allen, M. A dual-process model of the influence of human values on consumer choice. Rev. Psicol. Organ. Trab. 2006, 6, 15–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Liao, J.; Dong, X.; Luo, Z.; Guo, R. Oppositional loyalty as a brand identity-driven outcome: A conceptual framework and empirical evidence. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 2020, 30, 1134–1147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Kwak, D.H.; Kang, J.H. Symbolic purchase in sport: The roles of self-image congruence and perceived quality. Manag. Decis. 2009, 47, 85–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Fishbein, M.; Ajzen, I. Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research; Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA, USA, 1975; ISBN 0201020890. [Google Scholar]
  47. Sirgy, M.J. Using self-congruity and ideal congruity to predict purchase motivation. J. Bus. Res. 1985, 13, 195–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Pansari, A.; Kumar, V. Customer engagement: The construct, antecedents, and consequences. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2017, 45, 294–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Riorini, S.V.; Widayati, C.C. Brand Relationship and Its Effect Towards Brand Evangelism to Banking Service. Int. Res. J. Bus. Stud. 2016, 8, 33–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Chaudhuri, A.; Holbrook, M.B. The Chain of Effects from Brand Trust and Brand Affect to Brand Performance: The Role of Brand Loyalty. J. Mark. 2001, 65, 81–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Lisjak, M.; Lee, A.Y.; Gardner, W.L. When a Threat to the Brand Is a Threat to the Self: The Importance of Brand Identification and Implicit Self-Esteem in Predicting Defensiveness. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2012, 38, 1120–1132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Augusto, M.; Torres, P. Effects of brand attitude and eWOM on consumers’ willingness to pay in the banking industry: Mediating role of consumer-brand identification and brand equity. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2018, 42, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Rather, R.A.; Tehseen, S.; Parrey, S.H. Promoting customer brand engagement and brand loyalty through customer brand identification and value congruity. Spanish J. Mark.—ESIC 2018, 22, 321–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Lam, S.K.; Ahearne, M.; Mullins, R.; Hayati, B.; Schillewaert, N. Exploring the dynamics of antecedents to consumer-brand identification with a new brand. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2013, 41, 234–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Coelho, P.S.; Rita, P.; Santos, Z.R. On the relationship between consumer-brand identification, brand community, and brand loyalty. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2018, 43, 101–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Kumar, V.; Kaushik, A.K. Does experience affect engagement? Role of destination brand engagement in developing brand advocacy and revisit intentions. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2020, 37, 332–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Tajfel, H. Individuals and groups in social psychology. Br. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 1979, 18, 183–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. So, K.K.F.; King, C.; Hudson, S.; Meng, F. The missing link in building customer brand identification: The role of brand attractiveness. Tour. Manag. 2017, 59, 640–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Mamesah, S.; Tumbuan, W.J.F.A.; Tielung, M.V.J. the Influence of Brand Identification and Brand Satisfaction of Smartphone Products on Brand Evangelism Pengaruh Brand Identification Dan Brand Satisfaction Produk Smartphone Terhadap Brand Evangelism Mahasiswa Feb Unsrat. J. EMBA 2020, 8, 11–20. [Google Scholar]
  60. Popp, B.; Woratschek, H. Consumer-brand identification revisited: An integrative framework of brand identification, customer satisfaction, and price image and their role for brand loyalty and word of mouth. J. Brand Manag. 2017, 24, 250–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Tuškej, U.; Golob, U.; Podnar, K. The role of consumer-brand identification in building brand relationships. J. Bus. Res. 2013, 66, 53–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Ruixia, L.; Chein, T.S. Analysing the moderating effects of generational cohorts on brand loyalty in the Malaysian footwear industry. J. Pengur. 2019, 56, 73–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Zhang, Z.; Dai, Y. Combination classification method for customer relationship management. Asia Pacific J. Mark. Logist. 2020, 32, 1004–1022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Wu, S.-I.; Wang, W.-H. Impact of CSR Perception on Brand Image, Brand Attitude and Buying Willingness: A Study of a Global Café. Int. J. Mark. Stud. 2014, 6, 43–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Bento, M.; Martinez, L.M.; Martinez, L.F. Brand engagement and search for brands on social media: Comparing Generations X and Y in Portugal. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2018, 43, 234–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Munsch, A. Millennial and generation Z digital marketing communication and advertising effectiveness: A qualitative exploration. J. Glob. Sch. Mark. Sci. 2021, 31, 10–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Dobre, C.; Milovan, A.M.; Duțu, C.; Preda, G.; Agapie, A. The common values of social media marketing and luxury brands. The millennials and generation z perspective. J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2021, 16, 2532–2553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Saju, B.; Harikrishnan, K.; Anand, S.J.J. Modeling brand immunity: The moderating role of generational cohort membership. J. Brand Manag. 2018, 25, 133–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Giovannini, S.; Xu, Y.; Thomas, J. Luxury fashion consumption and Generation Y consumers: Self, brand consciousness, and consumption motivations. J. Fash. Mark. Manag. 2015, 19, 22–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Primanandri Auditya, R.; Fajar Hendarman, A.; Author, C. Identifying Employer Branding Factor in Bank XYZ to Increase Employee Retention for Millennials Generation. Am. Int. J. Bus. Manag. ISSN 2020, 3, 1–13. [Google Scholar]
  71. Esmaeilpour, F. The role of functional and symbolic brand associations on brand loyalty. J. Fash. Mark. Manag. 2015, 19, 467–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Tangsupwattana, W.; Liu, X. Symbolic consumption and Generation Y consumers: Evidence from Thailand. Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist. 2017, 29, 917–932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Lin, L.C.-S. Virtual gift donation on live streaming apps: The moderating effect of social presence. Commun. Res. Pract. 2021, 7, 173–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Robichaud, Z.; Yu, H. Do young consumers care about ethical consumption? Modelling Gen Z’s purchase intention towards fair trade coffee. Br. Food J. 2022, 124, 2740–2760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Wiratno, B.; Priyomarsono, N.W.; Trisno, R.; Lianto, F. Shopping Centre Evolution in Jakarta Due to Changes of Generation XYZ Consumerism Behaviour BT. In Proceedings of the Tarumanagara International Conference on the Applications of Social Sciences and Humanities (TICASH 2019), Jakarta, Indonesia, 27–28 June 2019; pp. 76–82. [Google Scholar]
  76. Thangavel, P.; Pathak, P.; Chandra, B. Millennials and Generation Z: A generational cohort analysis of Indian consumers. Benchmarking Int. J. 2021, 28, 2157–2177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Bhat, S.; Reddy, S.K. Symbolic and functional positioning of brands. J. Consum. Mark. 1998, 15, 32–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Mason, W.; Suri, S. Conducting behavioral research on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Behav. Res. Methods 2011, 44, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Aljarah, A.; Dalal, B.; Ibrahim, B.; Lahuerta-Otero, E. The attribution effects of CSR motivations on brand advocacy: Psychological distance matters! Serv. Ind. J. 2022, 42, 583–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Sawaftah, D.; Aljarah, A.; Lahuerta-Otero, E. Power Brand Defense Up, My Friend! Stimulating Brand Defense through Digital Content Marketing. Sustainability 2021, 13, 10266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Vanharanta, H.; Kantola, J.; Seikola, S. Customers’ conscious experience in a coffee shop. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics (AHFE 2015) and the Affiliated Conferences, AHFE 2015, Las Vegas, NV, USA, 26–30 July 2015; pp. 618–625. [Google Scholar]
  82. Eira, A. Number of Starbucks Worldwide 2022/2023: Facts, Statistics, and Trends—Financesonline.com. Available online: https://financesonline.com/number-of-starbucks-worldwide/ (accessed on 26 December 2022).
  83. Steg, L. Car use: Lust and must. Instrumental, symbolic and affective motives for car use. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2005, 39, 147–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Becerra, E.P.; Korgaonkar, P.K. Effects of trust beliefs on consumers’ online intentions. Eur. J. Mark. 2011, 45, 936–962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Power, J.; Whelan, S.; Davies, G. The attractiveness and connectedness of ruthless brands: The role of trust. Eur. J. Mark. 2008, 42, 586–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Stokburger-Sauer, N.; Ratneshwar, S.; Sen, S. Drivers of consumer-brand identification. Int. J. Res. Mark. 2012, 29, 406–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Anderson, J.C.; Gerbing, D.W. Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol. Bull. 1988, 103, 411–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Nunnally, J.C. Psychometirc Theory, 2nd ed.; McGraw Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
  89. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error: Algebra and Statistics. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Aburumman, O.J.; Omar, K.; Al Shbail, M.; Aldoghan, M. How to Deal with the Results of PLS-SEM? In Proceedings of the International Conference on Business and Technology, Manama, Bahrain, 23–24 March 2022; Volume 495, pp. 1196–1206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Alexandrov, A.; Leisen Pollack, B. What makes a brand interesting? Why care? J. Consum. Mark. 2020, 37, 501–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Morhart, F.; Malär, L.; Guèvremont, A.; Girardin, F.; Grohmann, B. Brand authenticity: An integrative framework and measurement scale. J. Consum. Psychol. 2013, 25, 200–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Kucuk, S.U. Negative Double Jeopardy: The role of anti-brand sites on the internet. J. Brand Manag. 2008, 15, 209–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  94. Kamenidou, I.; Stavrianea, A.; Bara, E.Z. Generational differences toward organic food behavior: Insights from five generational cohorts. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  95. Ibrahim, B. The Nexus between Social Media Marketing Activities and Brand Loyalty in Hotel Facebook Pages: A Multi-Group Analysis of Hotel Ratings. Tour. An Int. Interdiscip. J. 2021, 69, 228–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Ibrahim, B. Social Media Marketing Activities and Brand Loyalty: A Meta-Analysis Examination. J. Promot. Manag. 2021, 28, 60–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Aljarah, A.; Sawaftah, D.; Ibrahim, B.; Lahuerta-Otero, E. The differential impact of user-and firm-generated content on online brand advocacy: Customer engagement and brand familiarity matter. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Ibrahim, B.; Aljarah, A.; Hayat, D.T.; Lahuerta-Otero, E. Like, comment and share: Examining the effect of firm-created content and user-generated content on consumer engagement. Leisure/Loisir 2022, 46, 599–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Fikouie, M.; Akbari, M.; Ebrahimpour, M.; Moradipour, S. Seeing the forest through trees: Advertising appeals, product involvement, and construal level. Middle East J. Manag. 2022, 9, 372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Zidehsaraei, M.; Esmaeilpour, R.; Akbari, M. The effects of similarity of values, religious values, and empathy on bank commitment to CSR and customers’ internal and behavioral responses: Evidence from Guilan Province in Iran. J. Financ. Serv. Mark. 2022, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 01684 g001 550
Figure 1. Research conceptual model.
Figure 1. Research conceptual model.
Sustainability 15 01684 g001
Table
Table 1. Confirmatory factor analysis.
Table 1. Confirmatory factor analysis.
Items λαCRAVE
Brand Symbolism (BS) 0.8780.9080.621
BS1“Starbucks products provide status and prestige” 0.797
BS2“The brand of Starbucks is more important to me than its functional qualities”0.795
BS3“People use Starbucks products as a way of expressing their personality”0.733
BS4“Starbucks is for people who want the best things in life”0.825
BS5“Starbucks users stand out in a crowd”0.824
BS6“Using Starbucks says something about the kind of person you are”0.751
Consumer Brand Identification (CBI) 0.940.9540.807
CBI1“I feel a strong sense of belonging to Starbucks brand”0.905
CBI2“I identify strongly with Starbucks brand”0.9
CBI3“Starbucks brand embodies what I believe in”0.887
CBI4“Starbucks brand is like a part of me”0.894
CBI5“Starbucks brand has a great deal of personal meaning for me”0.906
Brand Evangelism (BE) consists of PI, PBR and OBR
Purchase Intention (PI) 0.9340.9530.834
PI1“In the near future, I would probably buy this brand”0.915
PI2“In the near future, I intend to buy products made by this brand”0.912
PI3“In the near future, I would likely buy this brand”0.926
PI4“In the near future, I would possibly buy this brand”0.9
Positive Brand Referral (PBR) 0.8890.9310.819
PBR1“I spread positive word of mouth about this brand”0.91
PBR2“I recommend this brand to my friends”0.904
PBR3“If my friends were looking for coffee, I would tell them to buy from this brand”0.901
Opposite Brand Referral (OBR) 0.9230.9630.928
OBR1“When my friends are looking for coffee, I would tell them not to buy any of the other brands”0.961
OBR2“I would likely spread negative word of mouth about the other brands”0.966
Table
Table 2. Discriminant validity.
Table 2. Discriminant validity.
BSCBIOBRPBRPI
BS0.788
CBI0.740.898
OBR0.5720.5940.964
PBR0.7610.7750.6770.905
PI0.5220.50.4520.6830.913
Table
Table 3. Hypotheses results (direct and interaction effects).
Table 3. Hypotheses results (direct and interaction effects).
HypothesesRegression PathsβSDt Valuep ValueDecision
Direct effects
H1aBS → PI0.2840.1062.6230.009Supported
H1bBS → PBR0.3650.0675.3590.000Supported
H1cBS → OBR0.2350.0852.7560.006Supported
Interaction effects
H3aGeneration * BS → PI−0.0990.0521.890.049Supported
H3bGeneration * BS → PBR−0.0060.060.2060.837Rejected
H3cGeneration * BS → OPR0.0070.0430.1290.898Rejected
R2
Consumer Brand Identification54.7%
Purchase intention32.7%
Positive brand referrals68.5%
Oppositional brand referrals39.8%
Notes: SRMR = 0.059
Note: * = refer to multiplying the moderator and independent variable.
Table
Table 4. Results of mediation analysis.
Table 4. Results of mediation analysis.
Hypotheses Regression Pathβt Valuep ValueResult
H2aBS → CBI → PI0.152.210.027Supported
H2bBS → CBI → PBR0.326.300.000Supported
H2cBS → CBI → OBR0.254.210.000Supported
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Osmanova, I.; Ozerden, S.; Dalal, B.; Ibrahim, B. Examining the Relationship between Brand Symbolism and Brand Evangelism through Consumer Brand Identification: Evidence from Starbucks Coffee Brand. Sustainability 2023, 15, 1684. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15021684

AMA Style

Osmanova I, Ozerden S, Dalal B, Ibrahim B. Examining the Relationship between Brand Symbolism and Brand Evangelism through Consumer Brand Identification: Evidence from Starbucks Coffee Brand. Sustainability. 2023; 15(2):1684. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15021684

Chicago/Turabian Style

Osmanova, Irada, Seden Ozerden, Bassam Dalal, and Blend Ibrahim. 2023. "Examining the Relationship between Brand Symbolism and Brand Evangelism through Consumer Brand Identification: Evidence from Starbucks Coffee Brand" Sustainability 15, no. 2: 1684. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15021684

APA Style

Osmanova, I., Ozerden, S., Dalal, B., & Ibrahim, B. (2023). Examining the Relationship between Brand Symbolism and Brand Evangelism through Consumer Brand Identification: Evidence from Starbucks Coffee Brand. Sustainability, 15(2), 1684. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15021684

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop