1. Consumer-Brand Relationship Development: An Integrative Model
Cid Gonçalves Filho, Fumec U
Hans Rüdiger Kaufmann, HDWM
Christiane Rocha, Fumec U

2. Introduction
Consumer-Brand Relationships - CBR is one of the topics with greatest expression in the contemporary marketing. However, there is an absence of a well-defined plan about the specification of an extensive CBR model and its empirical test (Kim et al. 2013). This study aims to contribute for explore and validate an integrative model of multiple CBR stages.

3. Conceptual Background
Sreejesh (2014) as well as Sreejesh and Roy (2015) developed studies, using a mixed approach method that explores the integration of the attitudinal, behavioral and conceptual constructions, with the objective of proposing a CBR integrated method. In the first phase of their work, a qualitative phase was carried out to understand the CBR’s dimensions, under the Grounded Theory perspective (Strauss & Corbin, 1994). The proposed model was tested and validated empirically, as shown in Figure 1:

4. CBR Integrative Model and Phases: a Proposal (2015)

5. Hyphotetical Model

7. Methodology
Survey automobile owners questionnaires collected during the period of May to August of 2015, in the city of Belo Horizonte, Brazil.

8. Scales
To operationalize constructs we use scales existent in the literature: Brand Awareness scales with 5 items (Cho, 2011; Aaker, 1996; Keller, 1993); Brand Image (Consumer Reports National Research Center, 2014), with 7 items; Brand Satisfaction with 8 items (Sahin, Zehir, & Kitapçi, 2011; Chinomona, 2013); Brand Trust with 4 items (He, Li, & Harris, 2012; Chinomona, 2013); Brand Love with 13 items (Bagozzi; Batra, & Ahuvia, 2014); Brand Attachment 10 items (Park et al., 2010); Brand Commitment with 4 items (Eisingerich, & Rubera, 2010); Brand Equity with 4 items (Yoo, & Donthu, 2001); Brand Loyalty with 7 items (Petzer, Mostert, Kruger, & Kuhn, 2014), and the Word of Mouth with 6 items (Harrison-Walker, 2001). The scales that were used for this study were of 11 points, with the objective of facilitating the treatment as continuous quantitative variables, all of Likert type, since this is the most recommended way to measure attitudes (Churchill, 1979).

9. Validity and Reliability

10. Findings
Brand Equity -> Word of Mouth
0.26

11. Findings – 1st Stage
With regard to the first stage, of relationship establishment (cognitive), there was a significant impact of the brand awareness in the brand image (β=0.669), as also of the brand image over the level of satisfaction (β=0.803).

12. Second Stage (Augmentation)
Brand awareness has a positive impact on trust (β=0.146). Trust receives an elevated impact of the brand image (β=0.678), corroborating with Sreejesh and Ray (2015). This result indicates that only the brand awareness does not generate trust, being necessary to have attitudes that materialize themselves into a positive image. Brand attachment receives a positive impact from trust (β=0.527) and from the satisfaction (β=0.13). In other words, the attachment depends of trust and, at least in the automobile industry, the results suggest that trust must come before attachment. The satisfaction, being a transitory state, seems to affect the attachment but it is not its largest determinant.

13. Third Stage
With reference to the third stage (Maintenance), relationship maintenance, it is noticed that the commitment received a more significant impact from the brand attachment (β=0.419 standardized), when compared with the impact that was received from trust (β=0.248). This finding reveals that commitment is more related to the affective part of the relationship with the brand. Brand love had a R2 of 68,4%, being the first explained by the brand attachment

14. Fourth Stage
Brand equity had a R2 of 69.8%, being impacted essentially by the commitment (β=0.55), trust (β=0.20) and brand love (β=0.14). With respect to the purchasing intention, that had 82.7% of its variations explained and received influences from the brand equity (β=0.47) and commitment (β=0.48). Brand love did not show a significant direct impact, being mediated by the brand equity. Loyalty, it obtained R2 of 76.5%, being impacted by the commitment (β=0.51), brand equity (Β=0.32) and brand love (β=0.10). Finally, the word of mouth was explained in 72%, having been impacted by commitment (β=0.43), brand equity (β=0.26) and brand love (β=0.22). These results are very interesting, for while there is equilibrium in the purchase intention between the impacts of commitment and brand equity, in the word of mouth the brand love has a greater impact, suggesting that the emotional aspects are more significant and necessary to have a positive word of mouth.

15. Final Considerations
The CBR’s stages model presents consistency in its findings based on the results that were found, for:
their hypothetical relationships in the proposed stages have their foundation on previous studies and in this field’s literature, especially that of Oliver (1997) and Sreejesh and Ray (2015);
the relationships between the constructs of each stage are significant, which suggests integration;
the level of explanation in the fourth stage (results) and the model as a whole, are relatively high, which suggests its nomological consistency (GoF de 65.88%, R2 of 72 % to 83.8%)
the relationships between the constructs of distinct stages are significant, suggesting an organization in a nomological chain of effects in sequence.

16. Further Studies

17. Final Considerations
Finally, it is believed that this study contributes for the search of a CBR integrative model, to understand the relationships between the constructs that are involved in this theoretical field, as also to generate empirical findings that describe the phenomenon and their implications.

18. Thats it. Thanks !