| Literature DB >> 33192792 |
Mehrab Nazir1, Jian Tian1, Iftikhar Hussain2, Adeel Arshad3, Muhammad Afzal Shad4.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of online social networking site activities on brand choice for health-related businesses; the study also explored the mediating impact of brand perception on the connection of online social networking site activities and brand choice in health-related businesses. A self-administered questionnaire was used for data collection from 300 customers, randomly selected from health sector businesses in Pakistan. The findings indicate that online social networking site activities had a substantial influence on customers' brand choice in health-related businesses and that brand perception mediates the connection between online social networking site activities and customers' brand choice in health-related businesses. The research also recognized the increasing significance of online social networking sites in health-related businesses. The study offers insights for health-related companies and their managers on visualizing brand perception as well.Entities:
Keywords: brand choice; brand perception; customer perception; health; social networking site
Year: 2020 PMID: 33192792 PMCID: PMC7644970 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.546087
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
FIGURE 1Direct and indirect relationships.
Demographic analysis (percentage).
| Variables | Category | City | Overall | |
| Faisalabad | Lahore | |||
| Gender | Male | 94.7 | 74.7 | 84.7 |
| Female | 5.3 | 25.3 | 15.3 | |
| Age (years) | Younger than 25 | 29.3 | 41.3 | 35.3 |
| 25–45 | 27.3 | 41.3 | 34.3 | |
| 46 year and older | 43.3 | 17.3 | 30.3 | |
| Marital status | Single | 47.3 | 62.0 | 54.7 |
| Married | 52.7 | 38.0 | 45.3 | |
| Family size | 1–2 | 26.7 | 16.0 | 42.7 |
| 3–5 | 44.0 | 45.3 | 44.7 | |
| 6–10 | 16.7 | 28.7 | 22.7 | |
| More than 10 | 12.7 | 10.0 | 11.3 | |
| Education | Matriculation | 15.3 | 4.7 | 10.0 |
| Intermediate | 16.7 | 9.3 | 13.0 | |
| Bachelor’s | 40.7 | 51.3 | 46.0 | |
| Master’s | 22.0 | 30.0 | 26.0 | |
| Ph.D. | 5.3 | 4.7 | 5.0 | |
Results of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) model.
| Factor loading | Reliability | CR | AVE | CFI | |
| SC1 | 0.63 | 0.75 | 0.745 | 0.54 | 0.97 |
| SC2 | 0.64 | ||||
| SC3 | 0.63 | ||||
| SC4 | 0.50 | ||||
| JIT1 | 0.65 | 0.80 | 0.789 | 0.59 | 1.00 |
| JIT2 | 0.52 | ||||
| JIT3 | 0.75 | ||||
| JIT4 | 0.71 | ||||
| PR1 | 0.66 | 0.70 | 0.691 | 0.51 | 1.00 |
| PR2 | 0.69 | ||||
| PR3 | 0.65 | ||||
| PR4 | 0.59 | ||||
| TR1 | 0.65 | 0.75 | 0.744 | 0.55 | 0.90 |
| TR2 | 0.60 | ||||
| TR3 | 0.62 | ||||
| TR4 | 0.76 | ||||
| BP1 | 0.70 | 0.84 | 0.829 | 0.65 | 0.87 |
| BP2 | 0.55 | ||||
| BP3 | 0.58 | ||||
| BP4 | 0.75 | ||||
| BC1 | 0.86 | 0.91 | 0.891 | 0.71 | 0.95 |
| BC2 | 0.51 | ||||
| BC3 | 0.82 | ||||
| BC4 | 0.75 |
SEM analysis.
| Estimate | C.R. | Decision | |||||
| Brand perception | ← | Social collaboration | 0.201 | 0.056 | 3.729 | *** | Supported |
| Brand perception | ← | Information | 0.205 | 0.051 | 3.804 | *** | Supported |
| Brand perception | ← | Perceived risk | 0.187 | 0.046 | 3.458 | *** | Supported |
| Brand perception | ← | Trust | 0.223 | 0.035 | 4.227 | *** | Supported |
| Brand choice | ← | Brand perception | 0.214 | 0.043 | 3.866 | *** | Supported |
| Brand choice | ← | Trust | 0.132 | 0.043 | 2.541 | 0.011 | Not Supported |
| Brand choice | ← | Social collaboration | 0.155 | 0.043 | 2.938 | 0.003 | Supported |
| Brand choice | ← | Information | 0.126 | 0.039 | 2.376 | 0.018 | Not Supported |
| Brand choice | ← | Perceived risk | 0.110 | 0.058 | 2.041 | 0.041 | Not Supported |
Indirect effects.
| Trust | Perceived risk | Information | Social collaboration | Brand perception | |
| Brand perception | . | . | . | . | . |
| Brand choice | 0.051 | 0.003 | 0.002 | 0.001 | . |
FIGURE 2AMOS measurements.