Paper Presented at UNISBANK International Conference “On Social Welfare-Based Investment Policy in
Anticipation of ASEAN Economic Community: a Study of Economy, Law and Information Technology”,
Semarang, 29-30 August 2013
Get Homework/Assignment Done
Homeworkping.com
Homework Help
https://www.homeworkping.com/
Research Paper help
https://www.homeworkping.com/
Online Tutoring
https://www.homeworkping.com/
click here for freelancing tutoring sites
Antecedents of Smart Phone Buying Behavior:
An Empirical Study
Cynthia Vinynda
cynthiavinynda@hotmail.com
Sabrina O. Sihombing
sabrinasihombing@gmail.com
Universitas Pelita Harapan
Abstract

Paper Presented at UNISBANK International Conference “On Social Welfare-Based Investment Policy in
Anticipation of ASEAN Economic Community: a Study of Economy, Law and Information Technology”,
Semarang, 29-30 August 2013
Mobile communication has made such an impact on the ways people interact
and conduct business. In the specific, many people use smart phones rather than
regular mobile phones to interact and conduct business. This is because smart
phones offer more advanced computing power and connectivity than a regular
mobile phone. There have been many developments from the regular mobile
phone into a smart phone. The developments of the original phone functions just
to call, and then switch to messaging, then go into entertainment trends, and has
now started to come with access to the data. All these developments confirmed
the smart phone as a mobile form of interest. One of the favorite smart phone
brands is BlackBerry. On the other hand, despite BlackBerry has been widely
used by consumers, most of them claim they want to switch to another smart
phone. The main reason why they want to switch to another smart phone is
because the BlackBerry OS platform assessed unable to compete with Apple's
IOS operating system or Android from Google. Therefore the consumer
purchasing behavior of BlackBerry is still remains as a question mark. Thus, the
object of this study is to identify antecedent factors that influence consumer
purchasing behavior on BlackBerry smart phone.
This research extended a model which was developed by Wu et al. (2008) to
examine purchase behavior on BlackBerry smart phone. Samples were chosen
based on judgmental sampling. Questionnaires were distributed to respondents
by the drop-off/pick-up method and a total of 259 completed questionnaires were
used in the analysis. The data was then analyzed using structural equation
modeling. Results show brand loyalty, product familiarity, attitude and purchase
intention are factors that affect purchase behavior. However, this research found
that consumer’s personal reciprocity did not mediate the relationship between
brand loyalty and purchase intention. This research provides discussion and
insights for future research.
Keywords: purchase behaviour, purchase intention, brand trust, brand loyalty,
product familiarity, and attitude.
INTRODUCTION
Mobile communication has made such an impact on the ways people interact and
conduct business (Das, 2012). Nowadays, smart phones becoming a must-have item
for business people since smart phones offer more advanced computing power and
connectivity than a regular mobile phone (Utomo, 2012). There have been many
developments from the regular mobile phone into a smart phone. The developments of
the original phone functions just to call, and then switch to messaging, then go into
entertainment trends, and has now started to come with access to the data (Purwanti,
2011). One of the favorite smart phone brands available in the market is BlackBerry.
BlackBerry has become one of the favorite smart phone brands because of easy-to-
use messaging service (Hitipeuw, 2011). BlackBerry was first introduced by the

Paper Presented at UNISBANK International Conference “On Social Welfare-Based Investment Policy in
Anticipation of ASEAN Economic Community: a Study of Economy, Law and Information Technology”,
Semarang, 29-30 August 2013
Canadian company, Research In Motion (RIM) in 1999. In late January 2013,
manufacturer of the smart phone BlackBerry rename its company, from Research In
Motion (RIM) to Blackberry (Panji, 2013). Blackberry is not the only one manufacturer
these days. However, there are a lot of smart phone manufacturers (e.g., Apple,
Samsung, Nokia, etc) which also competing in smart phone industry. Thus, the
competition in the smart phone market becoming intense (Wahono, 2011).
There are several factors that might attract loyal customers to switch to competitor
brands (Wu, Chan & Lau, 2008). Those factors included such as product quality,
product style and design, and product support services (Kotler & Amstrong, 2010). In
relating with BlackBerry, BlackBerry has experienced shrinking market share since 2010
to a variety of causes. However, the most difficult for RIM to maintain the market share
of BlackBerry is lack of innovation, especially in the product support services (Purwanto,
2012).
Despite BlackBerry has been widely used by consumers, most of them claim they
want to switch to another smart phone (http://tekno.kompas.com). The reason why they
want to switch to another smart phone is because the BlackBerry OS platform assessed
unable to compete with Apple's IOS operating system or Android from Google
(Purwanto, 2012). Therefore, the consumer purchasing behavior of BlackBerry is still
remaining as a question mark. In order to remain competitiveness in smart phone
industry, BlackBerry should know their consumers’ behavior in purchasing smart phone
(Yee, San & Khoon, 2011). Thus, the objective of this study is to identify antecedent
factors that influence consumer purchasing behavior of Blackberry smart phone.
This study replicate model of consumer’s future purchase intention (Wu et al.,
2008), by adding the new variables, attitude toward brand and purchase behavior.
There are three reasons why the attitude toward brand and purchase behavior included
in this study. First, attitude is viewed as one of the major determinant of the person’s
intention to perform the behavior (http://people.umass.edu). Second, purchase behavior
is influenced by intention, and this intention leads to performance or nonperformance
behavior (http://people.umass.edu). Third, attitude, intention and behavior were related
to one another. If there are changes in attitude toward brand, it can lead to changes in
intentions and that changes in intentions can produce behavioral change
(http://people.umass.edu).
The next section describes the constructs involved in the research model. The
research hypotheses are then detailed. Research methodology is discussed, followed
by results and analysis. Finally, conclusions conclusion and limitation of the research
are provided.
THEORETICAL DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH HYPOTHESES
Personal reciprocity
Personal reciprocity is defined as a consumer’s conscious tendency to engage in
reciprocal and mutually beneficial relationships with the firms (Wu et al., 2008). The

Paper Presented at UNISBANK International Conference “On Social Welfare-Based Investment Policy in
Anticipation of ASEAN Economic Community: a Study of Economy, Law and Information Technology”,
Semarang, 29-30 August 2013
simple way to understand reciprocity is when someone does you a favor; you feel that
you should return it in kind (Kardes, Cronley & Cline, 2011). Individuals decide to
cooperate or not just dependent on whether they have been helped or not, irrespective
of who has helped and who is there to be helped (Doorn & Taborsky, 2011). In other
words people who feel an obligation to repay favors can be simply called reciprocity.
There are two types of reciprocity: direct and indirect (Hall, 2001 cited by Pi, Liao,
Liu & Lee, 2011). Direct reciprocity is when two individuals associate long enough for
each to play the roles of receiver and giver of favors. On the other hand, indirect
reciprocity refers to third parties donate favors without the expectation of a return from
the receiver (Hall, 2001 cited by Pi et al., 2011). Therefore, it can be concluded
reciprocity as the dimension of a relationship (Ammi, 2013). This relationship causes
either party to provide a favor or make allowances for the other in return for similar a
favor or allowances to be received at a later date (Ammi, 2013).
Customer and the company is an example of reciprocal relationship. In this
customer-company relationship, reciprocity can make consumers feel more beneficial to
be a loyal customer to the same brand (Wu et al., 2008). Moreover, Wu et al. (2008)
pointed out that consumers want to be loyal with the brand since their favors given to
the company are rewarded with benefits such as club memberships, new product
information, and personalized services and products. Not only that, when consumers
feel the brand will not give benefits to them in return, then, there is little chance for them
to buy the products of the brand in the future.
Companies should pay attention to consumers' personal reciprocity. This is because
the personal reciprocity is developed when consumers perceive that they get something
beneficial in return (Wu et al., 2008). Furthermore, personal reciprocity also affects
consumer’s future purchase intention (Wu et al., 2008).
Brand loyalty
Brand loyalty is defined as a constructive mind set toward brand that leading to constant
purchasing of the brand over time (Aaker, 1991 cited by Severi & Ling, 2013). Brand
loyalty is a result from highly favorable attitudes toward a specific brand (O’Guinn, et al.,
2012; Pride, et al., 2012). In the specific, brand loyal consumers are more willing to pay
more for a specific brand because they perceive some unique value in the brand that
other brand cannot provide (Aniza et al., 2011).
Consumers are likely to continue buy a specific brand because of the advantages of
purchasing the brand and the product (Keller, 2008, p.8). A loyal customer or a
committed customer to a brand has an emotional attachment to the brand (Hawkins &
Mothersbaugh, 2010). According to Wu et al. (2008), customers who already committed
to the brand are willing to cooperate with the brand. These customers will be more open
to their personal information to the company of their committed brand (Wu et al., 2008).
In return, the customer expects the company will provide a reciprocal relationship, by

Paper Presented at UNISBANK International Conference “On Social Welfare-Based Investment Policy in
Anticipation of ASEAN Economic Community: a Study of Economy, Law and Information Technology”,
Semarang, 29-30 August 2013
giving them some benefits (Wu et al., 2008). Therefore, loyal customers will expect
more from the brand company than those who are not loyal. Thus, we propose the
following hypothesis:
H1. Brand loyalty is positively related to a consumer’s personal reciprocity.
Brand trust
Brand trust is one important factor that influence consumer’s personal reciprocity. Trust
is considered as one of the important variables to maintain long-term relationships
(Anwar et al., 2011). According to Kaveh (2012),many definitions of trust involve a belief
that the exchange partner will act in the best interest of the other partner. In other
words, when one partner has confidence on the other party’s reliability and honesty
then trust exists in between them (Khokhar et al., 2011).
Brand trust is defined as an average consumer’s confidence in and reliance on a
brand to perform its stated function (Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001 cited by Wu et al.
2008). Brand trust also refers to how the consumers see the brand as something that
can be dependable and keeping customer interests in mind (Keller, 2008, p.68).
Brand trust includes brand reliability and brand intention (Lin & Lee, 2012). Brand
reliability represents consumers’ belief that the brand will deliver the value it promises.
Brand intention refers to the disposition of the brand to put consumers’ interests as the
primary consideration (Lin & Lee, 2012).
Consumers who have trust in the brand are ready to engage in a reciprocal
relationship with the brand (Wu et al., 2008). According to Wu et al. (2008), consumers
will disclose their personal information because they believe the company will not
misuse their personal information. In other words, consumers that have a trust towards
a brand will expect to have a reciprocal relationship to get the benefits from the brand.
The reciprocal relationship may include the quality, the individual service, and many
more (Wu et al., 2008). Based on these arguments we propose the following
hypothesis:
H2. Brand trust is positively related to a consumer’s personal reciprocity.
Product familiarity
Product familiarity is also one of the factors alongside with brand loyalty and brand trust
that influence consumer’s personal reciprocity. Product familiarity is defined as a
consumer’s familiarity with a particular product category (Wu et al., 2008). Brand
familiarity does not only represent the level of consumer exposure to a particular
product, but also reflects the level of consumer knowledge about the brand (Kim &
Chung, 2012). The application of the idea of familiarity to empirical work is that
familiarity is based on prior knowledge (Lawry et al., 2011). If consumers recognize a

Paper Presented at UNISBANK International Conference “On Social Welfare-Based Investment Policy in
Anticipation of ASEAN Economic Community: a Study of Economy, Law and Information Technology”,
Semarang, 29-30 August 2013
brand and have some knowledge about it, then they do not have to engage in a lot of
additional though or processing information to make a product decision (Keller, 2008,
p.6). Simply says, if consumers go to the market they would prefer to get the products
that they already know, it is rare for the customers to look for other products (Tariq et
al., 2013).
Consumers with higher levels of product knowledge are more diagnostic and
informed than those who have lower levels of product knowledge (Hanzaee &
Farzaneh, 2012). In other words, consumers who are brand experts will know more
about the brand and its associations (Siğirci & Yalçin, 2010). Familiarity or prior use of
brands relates to differing effects for memory and persuasion (Shrum, 2012). For
example, familiar brands are processes quicker and evaluated better (Shrum, 2012).
Also, Alba and Hutchinson (1987) cited by Swan and Zou (2012), stated that brand
familiarity effect relates to the impact of consumer’s direct and indirect experiences with
a product on consumer decision making. From the explanation, it can be concluded that
consumers who are familiar with the product have a high chance to purchase the brand.
Familiar products will be on top of the consumers’ mind during the process of
defining future purchase (Wu et al., 2008). Therefore, it may develop a greater tendency
to be engaged in the reciprocal relationship (Wu et al., 2008). Thus, the more familiar
the consumer to the product category of the brand, the more likely they perceive having
a reciprocal and mutually beneficial relationship with the firm. This leads to our third
hypothesis:
H3. Product familiarity is positively related to a consumer’s personal reciprocity.
Attitude
Attitude is defined as learned predisposition to behave in a consistently favorable or
unfavorable way with respect to a given object (Schiffman et al., 2010, p. 246). In this
study, attitude toward behavior is used instead of attitude toward object. According to
Hawkins and Mothersbaugh (2010, p.397), the behavior component of an attitude is
one’s tendency to respond in a certain manner toward an object or activity. A decision to
purchase or not to purchase something would reflect the behavioral component
(Hawkins & Mothersbaugh, 2010, p.397). Thus, the attitude toward behavior model is
designed to capture the individual’s attitude toward behaving with respect to an object
rather than the attitude toward the object itself (Keller, 2008, p.239).
There are three major components of attitude: cognitive, affective, and conative
(Schiffman et al., 2010, p. 249). First, cognitive refers to the knowledge and perceptions
that are acquired by a combination of direct experience with the attitude object.
Furthermore, this knowledge and resulting perceptions commonly take the form of
beliefs (Schiffman et al., 2010, p. 249). Second, affective refers to consumer’s emotions
or feelings about a particular product or brand. This component is described by the

Paper Presented at UNISBANK International Conference “On Social Welfare-Based Investment Policy in
Anticipation of ASEAN Economic Community: a Study of Economy, Law and Information Technology”,
Semarang, 29-30 August 2013
individual rates the attitude object as favorable or unfavorable, good or bad (Schiffman
et al., 2010, p.250). Third, conative is concerned with the likelihood or tendency that an
individual will undertake a specific action or behave in a particular way with regard to
the attitude object. The conative component is frequently treated as an expression of
the consumer’s intention to buy (Schiffman et al., 2010, p.251).
When consumers form beliefs about the brand, they automatically acquire an
attitude toward that brand (Fisbein & Ajzen, 1975). Furthermore, if the brand proves to
be to the consumers liking, then it is likely that they will form a positive attitude
(Schiffmann et al., 2010, p.258). Consumers who have a positive attitude toward a
brand likely to seek a reciprocal relationship with the brand company from whom they
purchase products and services (Wu et al., 2008). Therefore, consumers who have a
positive attitude toward the brand will likely to have a reciprocal relationship with the
company. Thus, we propose the following hypothesis:
H4. Attitude toward brand is positively related to a consumer’s personal
reciprocity
Purchase intention
Purchase intention is widely used to analyze consumer purchasing behavior in related
studies (Sadeghi, 2011). Purchase intention refers to the possibility that a consumer will
plan to purchase a product of a brand in the future (Wu et al., 2008). Based on the
most well-known attitude theory, that is the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA), Aizen
(1980, cited by Budiman, 2012) stated that the intention to do something was influenced
by two factors: attitude towards behavior and subjective norms. Attitude is a result from
the beliefs towards behavior. In can be stated that the more positive of an individual
belief caused by an object attitude, the more positive of individual attitude towards the
object. Thus, consumers who have a good attitude toward brand will likely to have
intention to purchase the brand in the future. Based on these arguments we propose the
following hypothesis:
H5. Consumer’s personal reciprocity is positively related to future purchase
intention.
H6. Attitude toward brand is positively related to future purchase intention.
Purchase behavior
Consumer behavior is defined as the behavior that consumers display in searching for,
purchasing, using, evaluating, and disposing of products and services (Schiffman et al.,
2010, p.23). Consumers expect these behaviors will satisfy their needs (Schiffman et
al., 2010, p.23). The study of consumer behavior focuses on how individuals make their

Paper Presented at UNISBANK International Conference “On Social Welfare-Based Investment Policy in
Anticipation of ASEAN Economic Community: a Study of Economy, Law and Information Technology”,
Semarang, 29-30 August 2013
decisions to spend their available resources on consumption related items or aspects
(Tripathi & Singh, 2012). These resources on consumption related aspects such as
what they buy, when they buy, where they buy and how they buy (Tripathi and Singh,
2012). Therefore, consumer decision-making processes where the central of consumer
behavior is.
Consumer decision-making process is where consumers make decisions from two
or more than two choices when they buy a product or service (Chen et al., 2012). There
are five stages of consumer decision process, such as need recognition, information
search, and evaluation of alternatives, purchase decision and post-purchase behavior
(Kotler & Amstrong, 2010, p.177). Relating with purchasing behavior, consumers
usually have unlimited demand to meet their needs and satisfaction to get something
new or better (Osman et al., 2011). This is because each individual has their own
behavior, attitude and thought when choosing products, services and making purchase
decision (Osman et al., 2011).
Generally, the consumer’s purchase decision will be to buy the most preferred
brand. Purchase intention is one factor that can explain purchase decision (Kotler &
Amstrong, 2010). Specifically, consumers may form a purchase intention based on
factors such as expected income, price and product benefits (Kotler & Amstrong, 2010,
p.179). From the explanation, it can be concluded that intention to purchase may be
recognized as a reflection of real purchase behavior (Nasermoadeli, 2013). The greater
the purchase intention is, the greater a consumer’s desire is to buy a product
(Nasermoadeli, 2013). In short, the researchers hypothesize that:
H7. Purchase intention is positively related to purchase behavior.
According aforementioned discussion, the research model for this research is shown
in Figure 1 to explain rhe relationship among research variables.
Figure 1. The research model
H1
H6
H4
H5 H7
H2
H3
Source: an extended model based on Wu, Chan and Lau (2008)
Brand
Loyalty
Brand Trust
Product
Familiarity
Personal
Reciprocity
Purchase
Intention
Attitude toward
Buying Behavior
Purchase
Behavior

Paper Presented at UNISBANK International Conference “On Social Welfare-Based Investment Policy in
Anticipation of ASEAN Economic Community: a Study of Economy, Law and Information Technology”,
Semarang, 29-30 August 2013
METHODS
Sampling and data collection
The survey sample for this study was obtained from students in a XYZ private
university located in Tangerang, Indonesia. This research applied non-probability
judgmental sampling with two main criteria: (1) a student in XYZ private university and
(2) has a BlackBerry smart phone in the last one year. Furthermore, this study applied a
self-report questionnaire to collect data. In the specific, self-report questionnaire method
has main advantage, that is, no interviewer is involved. Therefore, the absence of an
interviewer eliminates the interviewer bias (Aaker, Kumar & Day, 2004).
Measures
Following Sekaran and Bougie (2013), where possible, the measures used in this
questionnaire were adapted from existing scales drawn from previous literature. This
research measured six constructs: brand loyalty, brand trust, product familiarity,
personal reciprocity, attitude, purchase intention, and purchase behavior. All items were
measured using a five-point Likert scale (ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 =
strongly agree). The questionnaire contains 28 items and Appendix A provides all items
used in this research.
Reliability analysis is the measure to test when the scale measures associated
variables is consistent across time and across the various items in the instrument
(Sekaran & Bougie, 2013). This research applied Cronbach α and average variance
extracted (AVE). Following Hair et al. (2006), the cut-off point 0.7 was applied as the
cut-off point for coefficient alpha and 0.5 for average variance extracted (AVE).
Reliability is a necessary condition for validity (Iacobucci & Churchill, 2010). Validity
refers to the accuracy of measure to which a score truthfully measures a concept
(Zikmund, Babin, Carr & Griffin, 2010, p.307). This research applied construct validation
that mainly consists of convergent validity and distinction validity. Convergent validity
was tested by using exploratory factor analysis. In the specific, every item loaded
significantly on its underlying latent factor providing evidence of convergent validity
(Podsakoff and Organ, 1986; Sengupta, Krapfel, & Pusateri, 2000). Furthermore,
discriminant validity was assessed through correlational analysis (Sekaran & Bougie,
2013). Specifically, discriminant validity is established when two different constructs are
not correlated with each other. In other words, the correlation between constructs
should less than 1. The discriminant validity was also tested by the value of average
variance extracted that should more than 0.5 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).
Data Analysis

Paper Presented at UNISBANK International Conference “On Social Welfare-Based Investment Policy in
Anticipation of ASEAN Economic Community: a Study of Economy, Law and Information Technology”,
Semarang, 29-30 August 2013
This research applied structural equation modeling (SEM) with maximum likelihood
estimation to test research hypotheses. This method was used because SEM has ability
to assess the relationships comprehensively (Hair et al., 2006). As suggested by
Anderson and Gerbing (1988), the structural equation analysis in this research was
conducted in two main stages: the estimation of the measuring model and the
estimation of the structural model. In the particular, the former was conducted to confirm
the suitability of the proposed scales using the criteria of reliability and validity. Then,
the latter was conducted to test the relationships between the constructs. For the overall
fit of the model, this research several indices such as GFI, AGFI, CMIN/DF, and
RMSEA as suggested by Giles (2002).
RESULTS
Response rate
A total of 300 questionnaires was distributed and collected from students in a private
university. Out of 300 questionnaires, 18 invalid questionnaires were excluded, giving
259 valid questionnaires. A total 18 questionnaires cannot be used because of two
reasons. First, the respondents did not use the study object, that is, BlackBerry smart
phone. Second, not all questionnaires filled completely by the respondents. A total 259
questionnaires can be used in this study with the total usable response rate of 86.33%.
Table 1 summarized the demographic information involved in this study. Among the
respondents, 57.9% were female and 84.6% were between the ages of 18 and 21.
Table 1. Descriptive of the Respondents Demographic
Variable Frequency Percentage
Gender
Man 109 42.1
Woman 150 57.9
Age
<18 7 2.7
18 – 21 219 84.6
≥22 33 12.7
Source: analysis of field data
Reliability and validity assessments
Issues of reliability and validity have been considered in assessing the
psychometric properties of the instrument. Reliability was first conducted since reliability
is a requirement to assess construct validity (Iacobucci & Churchill, 2010). Reliability
testing was conducted first by using the inter-item consistency measure of Cronbach’s
Alpha. Reliability of the measurement was examined by using Cronbach’s Alpha value
with 0.70 as the minimum and 0.3 for the corrected item-total correlation (Sekaran &
Bougie, 2009) as shown in Table 2.

Paper Presented at UNISBANK International Conference “On Social Welfare-Based Investment Policy in
Anticipation of ASEAN Economic Community: a Study of Economy, Law and Information Technology”,
Semarang, 29-30 August 2013
Table 2. Reliability Analysis
Variable
Construct
s
Corrected item-total
correlation
Cronbach’s
Alpha AVE
Brand Loyalty
Loyal1 .671
.871 0.763
Loyal2 .801
Loyal3 .704
Loyal4 .762
Brand Trust
Trust1 .772
.818 0.711
Trust2 .821
Trust4 .462
Product
Familiarity
Fam1 .739
.852 0.726
Fam2 .727
Fam3 .690
Fam4 .636
Personal
Reciprocity
Reci1 .634
.887 0.787
Reci2 .789
Reci3 .807
Reci4 .803
Attitude
Toward
Buying
Behavior
Att1 .783
.898 0.801
Att2 .797
Att3 .744
Att4 .770
Purchase
Intention
Int1 .766
.821 0.867
Int2 .734
Int3 .343
Int4 .792
Purchase
Behavior
Behav1 .667
.816 0.875
Behav2 .682
Behav3 .575
Behav4 .628
Source: analysis of field data
Having done the reliability tests, a factor analysis was run using Varimax rotation.
Each scale was subjected to exploratory factor analysis loading on the dominant factor
(at least 0.50) with a sum of the items in the factor explaining more that 50 per cent of
the factor’s variance (Table 3). Table 3 shows that all items significantly load on their
corresponding constructs, demonstrating adequate convergent validity.
Table 3. Exploratory Factor Analysis

Paper Presented at UNISBANK International Conference “On Social Welfare-Based Investment Policy in
Anticipation of ASEAN Economic Community: a Study of Economy, Law and Information Technology”,
Semarang, 29-30 August 2013
Rotated Component Matrixa
Component
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
loyal1 .795
loyal2 .771
loyal3 .758
loyal4 .737
trust1 .938
trust2 .953
trust4 .674
fam1 .848
fam2 .862
fam3 .772
fam4 .669
reci1 .720
reci2 .770
reci3 .825
reci4 .812
int1 .882
int2 .916
int4 .906
att1 .817
att2 .825
att3 .785
att4 .794
behav1 .922
behav2 .910
Source: Analysis of field data
In order to provide support for discriminant validity, Pearson product-moment
correlations among the study variables were computed. For this purpose, composite
scores for each dimension were calculated by averaging scores representing that
dimension. Table 4 provides the full set of correlations among the constructs of interest
in this research. The highest correlation occurred between brand loyal and product
familiarity (0.610) and reversely, the lowest correlation was found between brand trust
and product familiarity (-0.0017). The results provide support for the discriminant validity
of the scale (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988).
Table 4 shows correlation among all constructs in this study. Correlations with other
constructs less than 0.70 are accepted as evidence of discriminant validity.
Furthermore, the results also shows that the average variance extracted (AVE)
estimates (e.g., 0.763 and 0.711 for brand loyalty and brand trust, respectively) are
greater than the square of the correlation between the two construct (e.g., 0.0582
=
0.003364), discriminant validity was evidenced.

Paper Presented at UNISBANK International Conference “On Social Welfare-Based Investment Policy in
Anticipation of ASEAN Economic Community: a Study of Economy, Law and Information Technology”,
Semarang, 29-30 August 2013
Table 4. Correlation Analysis
Loyal Trust Fam Reci Att Int Behav
Loyal 0.763
Trust 0.058 0.711
Fam 0.470 -
0.017
0.726
Reci 0.610 0.077 0.470 0.787
Att 0.552 0.029 0.419 0.558 0.801
Int 0.089 0.093 0.030 0.057 0.186 0.867
Behav 0.082 0.083 0.011 0.040 0.084 0.380 0.875
Source: analysis of field data
Note: __ the result of AVE
Structural Equation Model
This research applied the two-step approach in structural equation modeling which
beginning wit a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Table 5 shows the results from CFA
that indicated excellence fit between the covariances from the data and the CFA model
(GFI = 0.908, AGFI = 0.880, CMIN/DF = 1.334, RMSEA = 0.037).
Table 5. Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Path
Standardized
Regression Coefficient
Critical
Ratio
loyal4 <--- Brand Loyalty 0.842 -
loyal3 <--- Brand Loyalty 0.765 13.726
loyal2 <--- Brand Loyalty 0.872 16.439
loyal1 <--- Brand Loyalty 0.720 12.630
trust4 <--- Brand Trust 0.430 -
trust2 <--- Brand Trust 0.835 7.059
trust1 <--- Brand Trust 0.984 6.344
fam4 <--- Product Familiarity 0.712 -
fam3 <--- Product Familiarity 0.764 10.935
fam2 <--- Product Familiarity 0.807 11.454
fam1 <--- Product Familiarity 0.811 11.500
reci4 <--- Personal Reciprocity 0.869 12.085
reci3 <--- Personal Reciprocity 0.853 11.912
reci2 <--- Personal Reciprocity 0.870 12.102
reci1 <--- Personal Reciprocity 0.676 -
att4 <--- Attitude Toward Buying
Behavior 0.825 -

Paper Presented at UNISBANK International Conference “On Social Welfare-Based Investment Policy in
Anticipation of ASEAN Economic Community: a Study of Economy, Law and Information Technology”,
Semarang, 29-30 August 2013
att3 <--- Attitude Toward Buying
Behavior 0.799 14.353
att2 <--- Attitude Toward Buying
Behavior 0.853 15.701
att1 <--- Attitude Toward Buying
Behavior 0.839 15.362
int4 <--- Purchase Intention 0.902 18.196
int2 <--- Purchase Intention 0.885 17.810
int1 <--- Purchase Intention 0.855 -
behav2 <--- Purchase Behavior 0.935 8.928
behav1 <--- Purchase Behavior 0.840 -
Source: analysis of field data
The hypothesized structural equation model was tested using AMOS 18.0. The
results are reported in Table 6. The fit of the model is acceptable because the goodness
of fit indices is satisfactory (GFI = 0.856, AGFI = 0.824, CMIN/DF = 1.931, RMSEA =
0.061) indicated the acceptable level of fit between the hypothesized model and the
data.
The first hypothesis predicted a positive relationship between brand loyalty and
personal reciprocity. The results substantiated the hypothesis (p-value less than 0.005).
The second hypothesis predicted a positive relationship between brand trust and
personal reciprocity. However, the results did not substantiated the hypothesis (p-value
= 0.402).
This research proposed that there was a positive relationship between product
familiarity and personal reciprocity (hypothesis three). The results supported the
hypothesis (p-value = 0.001). Then, the fourth hypothesis proposed a positive
relationship between attitude toward buying and personal reciprocity. The results did
support the hypothesis (p-value less than 0.005). The fifth hypothesis stated a positive
relationship between personal reciprocity and purchase intention. Contrary to
expectations, the result did not substantiated hypothesis fifth (p-value = 0.286).
The first hypothesis predicted the positive relationship between brand loyalty and
personal reciprocity. The result of the hypothesis (p-value ≤ 0.05) is supported. The
second hypothesis predicted the positive relationship between brand trust and personal
reciprocity. The result of the hypothesis (p-value = 0.402) is not supported. The third
hypothesis, predicted the positive relationship between product familiarity and personal
reciprocity. This hypothesis has supported because of the result (p-value = 0.001).
The sixth hypothesis proposed that the positive relationship between attitude toward
buying behavior and purchase intention. It is supported with the p-value less than 0.05.
Finally, the seventh hypothesis proposed the positive relationship between purchase
intention and purchase behavior. The result of the hypothesis is substantiated (p-value
less than 0.05). Table 6 summarizes the hypothesis analysis.
Table 6. Structural equation model

Paper Presented at UNISBANK International Conference “On Social Welfare-Based Investment Policy in
Anticipation of ASEAN Economic Community: a Study of Economy, Law and Information Technology”,
Semarang, 29-30 August 2013
Hypothesized
Relationship
Estimate p-value Conclusion
H1 Personal Reciprocity
<--- Brand Loyalty
0.520 *** Supported
H2 Personal Reciprocity
<--- Brand Trust
0.048 0.402 Not Supported
H3 Personal Reciprocity
<--- Product
Familiarity
0.200 0.001 Supported
H4 Personal Reciprocity
<--- Attitude Toward
Buying Behavior
0.341 *** Supported
H5 Purchase Intention
<--- Personal
Reciprocity
-0.079 0.286 Not Supported
H6 Purchase Intention
<--- Attitude Toward
Buying Behavior
0.264 *** Supported
H7 Purchase Behavior
<--- Purchase
Intention
0.430 *** Supported
*** p-value ≤ 0.005
Source: analysis of field data
DISCUSSION
The objective of this research is to identify antecedent factors that influence
consumer purchasing behavior of BlackBerry smart phone. The results show that brand
loyalty, product familiarity, and attitude toward buying have a positive impact on
personal reciprocity. This research also confirms attitude-intention-behavior hierarchy.
However, two hypotheses were not supported: the relationship between brand trust and
personal reciprocity (H2) and the relationship between personal reciprocity and
purchase intention (H5).
The relationship between brand loyalty and consumer’s personal reciprocity was
supported in this research (H1). It can be stated that consumers who are loyal in using
BlackBerry smart phones ensure that they have developed the reciprocal relationship
with the brand. In other words, consumers who are loyal are more likely to reciprocate
the benefits offered by the brand company by giving their personal information as an
input. Another reason for the significant relationship between brand loyalty and
consumer’s personal reciprocity is regarding with gender. Mittal and Kamakura (2001)
pointed out that the probability of repurchasing a specific brand is uniformly higher

Paper Presented at UNISBANK International Conference “On Social Welfare-Based Investment Policy in
Anticipation of ASEAN Economic Community: a Study of Economy, Law and Information Technology”,
Semarang, 29-30 August 2013
among women than among men, with the same level of satisfaction. Thus, because of
57.9% of this study respondents are women, the result hypothesis one is confirmed.
The hypothesized relationship between brand trust and consumer’s personal
reciprocity turned out to be non significant in this research (H2). Brand trust refers to
consumer’s confidence that the brand can perform well. Trust also refers to rational
choice (Riegelsberger et al., 2005; Johnson and Grayson, 2003, cited by Matzler,
Grabner-Krauter and Bidmon, 2006). When consumer has trust toward specific brand,
then it is likely that consumer will develop some form of positive purchase intention
towards that brand. According to Matzler et al. (2006), brand loyalty is a consequence of
brand trust because brand loyalty involves purchase intention towards the brand and
actual pattern of purchase behavior. In short, brand trust leads to brand loyalty.
Therefore, it can be stated for the insignificance relationship between brand trust and
consumer personal reciprocity as a result that brand trust is an antecedent for brand
loyalty and not for personal reciprocity.
This study found that product familiarity has positive effect on consumer’s personal
reciprocity (H3). Many Indonesian people familiar with BlackBerry brand and products
since Indonesia is the largest Blackberry market outside Canada (Rao, 2012).
Furthermore, BlackBerry is one smart phone that many Indonesian including young
people love so much (Safitri, 2011).
The positive relationship between attitude toward buying behavior and consumer’s
personal reciprocity was found significant in this research (H4). Attitude is one main
predictor of consumer behavior. In the specific, a consumer with positive attitude toward
a brand will have tendency to buy that brand. Thus, it can be stated that a consumer
with positive attitude toward buying will have tendency to have relationship with a brand
provider, including reciprocal relationship (such as consumer gives personal data and
have new product information as reciprocity).
On the other hand, the positive relationship between consumer’s personal
reciprocity and purchase intention was found not significant in this study (H5). One
possible reason for this insignificant result is regarding with culture. In the specific, the
concept of reciprocity is mainly based on Chinese culture which reflected in a Chinese
word, Renqin (Wu et al., 2008). Wu et al. further pointed out that Renqin is the heart of
Chinese people in order to maintain harmony and relationship. In other words, it is a
must for Chinese people to pay back debt of gratitude to specific person when they
have given something from that specific person. However, although reciprocity is a
universal principle (Morales, 2005 cited by Wu et al., 2008), it is not deeply rooted in
Indonesian culture.
The results also show that attitude toward buying behavior has positive effect on
purchase intention (H6). Furthermore, the results also support the relationship between
purchase intention and purchase behavior (H7). Based on the well-known attitude theory
(i.e., the Theory of Reasoned Action), one main predictor of behavioral intention is
attitude. Furthermore, intention is one main factor that leads to behavior (Ajzen and
Fishbein, 1975). Thus, consumers who have a good attitude toward brand will likely to
have intention to purchase the brand in the future. Moreover, consumers who have
intention to buy a product will have a positive behavior of purchasing the brand.

Paper Presented at UNISBANK International Conference “On Social Welfare-Based Investment Policy in
Anticipation of ASEAN Economic Community: a Study of Economy, Law and Information Technology”,
Semarang, 29-30 August 2013
CONCLUSION, LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
The purpose of this research is to investigate antecedent variables of purchase
behavior of BlackBerry smart phone. Figure 1 shows a summary of the proposed
relationship among research variables. The results indicate that brand loyalty, consumer
attitude, and product familiarity are significant predictors of consumer personal
reciprocity. The results also support the attitude-intention-behavior hierarchy. However,
the findings in this research are subject to at least three limitations. First, this study used
university students that represent non-probability sampling of judgmental sampling that
limits the generalisability of the results. However, students represent an important of
targeted customers for many business including smart phones (Burns & Bowling, 2010,
p.105). Future research should include other respondents that could represent the
whole BlackBerry users in Indonesia.
Second, these findings are limited by the use of a cross sectional design research.
In other words, the directions of causality implied in the model cannot be drawn.
Specifically, the examination of the research model by using structural equation
modeling (SEM) is also not proof of causality. However, SEM was applied to examine
all of the proposed relationships simultaneously. In other words, how research variables
work together can be assessed as a representative of the real world (Burns & Bowling,
2010, p.105). Finally, this current study has only examined one product that is
BlackBerry smart phone. Thus, future research may replicate the research model and
use other products or brands in order to enhance the generalizability of the research
model.
REFERENCES
Ammi, C. (2013). Global Consumer Behavior. California: John Wiley & Sons.
Aniza, C., Alam, S.S. and Nor, S. M. (2011). Factors affecting brand loyalty: An
empirical study in Malaysia. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences,
5(12), 777-783.
Anwar, A., Gulzar, A., Sohail, F. and Akram,S.N.. (2011). Impact of Brand Image, Trust
and Affect on Consumer Brand Extension Attitude: The Mediating Role of Brand
Loyalty. International Journal of Economics and Management Sciences. Vol. 1 No.
5, 73-79.
Baker, R. (2009). Brands need social values to win trust of teenagers. Retrieved from:
http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/brands-need-social-values-to-win-trust-of-
teenagers/3005779.article

Paper Presented at UNISBANK International Conference “On Social Welfare-Based Investment Policy in
Anticipation of ASEAN Economic Community: a Study of Economy, Law and Information Technology”,
Semarang, 29-30 August 2013
Budiman, S. (2012). Analysis of consumer attitudes to purchase intentions of
counterfeiting bag product in Indonesia. International Journal of Management,
Economics and Social Sciences, 1(1), 1-12.
Burns, G.N. and Bowling, N,A, (2010). Dispositional approach to customers satisfaction
and behavior. Journal of Business Psychology, 25, 99-107.
Chang, H.H. and Chen, S. W. (2009). Consumer perception of interface quality,
security, and loyalty in electronic commerce. Information and Management, 46,
411-417.
Chen, C., Chao, C., Lee, Y. and Tsai, P. (2012). Exploration of the differences in
Taiwanese women’s purchasing decisions towards luxury goods and general
products. African Journal of Business Management, 6(2), 548-561.
Das, D. (2012). An investigation of functional analysis of consumers’ buying behaviour
towards mobile handsets with a special reference to the usability of mobile
handsets: A study in Coastal Belt of Orissa. International Journal of Business and
Management Tomorrow, 2(3), 1-9.
Ferdousi, B. and Levy, Y. (2010). Development and validation of a model to investigate
the impact of individual factors on instructors’ intention to use e-learning systems.
Interdiciplinary Journal of E-learning and Learning Objects, 6, 1-21.
Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An
Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18,
39-50.
Furaji, F., Łatuszyńska, M. and Wawrzyniak, A. (2012). An empirical study of the factors
influencing consumer behaviour in the electric appliances market. Contemporary
Economics, 6(3), 76-86.
Ha, Hong-Youl and Park, Kang-Hee. (2012). Effects of perceived quality and
satisfaction on brand loyalty in China: The moderating effect of customer
orientation. African Journal of Business Management, 6(22), 6745-6753.
Hair, J. F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2010). Multivariate Data
Analysis: A Global Perspective, 7th
ed. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Paper Presented at UNISBANK International Conference “On Social Welfare-Based Investment Policy in
Anticipation of ASEAN Economic Community: a Study of Economy, Law and Information Technology”,
Semarang, 29-30 August 2013
Hanzaee, K. H. and Farzaneh, S. (2012). The role of product involvement, product
knowledge and image of counterfeits in explaining consumer purchase behavior.
Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research, 2(1), 821-831.
Hanzaee, K. H. and Taghipourian, M.J. (2012). The effects of brand credibility and
prestige on consumers purchase intention in low and high product involvement.
Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research, 2(2), 1281-1291.
Hawkins, D. I. and Mothersbaugh, D. L. (2010). Consumer Behavior: Building Marketing
Strategy, 11th
ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hitipeuw, J. (2011). BlackBerry: From executive to thug tool of choice. Retrieved from:
http://english.kompas.com/read/2011/08/11/11122657/BlackBerry.from.Executive.to
.Thug.Tool.of.Choice
Hoyer, W. D. and Maclnnis, D. J. (2010). Consumer Behavior, 5th
ed. United States:
South-Western Cengage Learning.
Iacobucci, D. and Churchill, G.A. (2010). Marketing Research: Methodological
Foundations. Canada: South-Western.
Javadi, Mohammad Hossein Moshref, Dloatabadi, Hossein Rezaei, Nourbakhsh,
Mojtaba, Poursaeedi, Amir and Asadollahi, Ahmad Reza. (2012). An analysis of
factors affecting on online shopping behavior of consumers. International Journal of
Marketing Studies, 4(5), 81-98.
Kardes, F. R., Cronley, M. L. and Cline, T. W. (2011). Consumer Behavior. United
States: South-Western Cengage Learning.
Kaveh, M. (2012). Role of trust in explaining repurchase intention. African Journal of
Business Management, 6(14), 5014-5025.
Keller, K.L. (2008). Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing
Brand Equity, 3rd
ed. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Khokhar, S., Husain, F. , Qureshi, T.M., Anjum, I., Samran, A. and Arshad, R. (2011).
Only customer satisfaction and customer loyalty is not enough: A study of
Pakistan’s telecom sector. African Journal of Business Management, 5(24), 10176-
10181.
Kim, S. and Chung, H. (2012). The impacts of perceived fit, brand familiarity, and status
consciousness on fashion brand extension evaluation. International Journal of
Fashion Design, Technology and Education, 5(3), 203-211.

Paper Presented at UNISBANK International Conference “On Social Welfare-Based Investment Policy in
Anticipation of ASEAN Economic Community: a Study of Economy, Law and Information Technology”,
Semarang, 29-30 August 2013
Kotler, P. and Amstrong, G. (2010). Principles of Marketing, 13th
ed. New Jersey:
Pearson Prentice Hall.
Lawry, S., Popovic, V. and Blackler, A. L. (2011). Diversity in product familiarity across
younger and older adults. In Diversity & Unity, 4th
World Conference on Design
Research, IASDR2011, Delft, The Netherlands.
Lim, Y. M., Yap, C. S. and Lee, T. H. (2011). Intention to shop online: A study of
Malaysian baby boomers. African Journal of Business Management, 5(5), 1711-
1717.
Lin, Miao-Que and Lee, Bruce C. Y. (2012). The influence of website environment on
brand loyalty: Brand trust and brand affect as mediators. International Journal of
Electronic Business Management, 10(4), 308-321.
Lin, Szu-ju, Li, Chao-Hua and You, Ching-Sing (2012). Consumer behavior and
perception of marketing strategy for amusement parks: A case study of Taiwan.
Africal Journal of Business Management, 6(14), 4795-4803.
Marsh, E. C. (2009). Revealed: The brands loved by teens online. Retrieved from:
http://www.brandrepublic.com/news/910811/habbo-survey-reveals-teens-favourite-
brands/
Matzler, K., Grabner-Krauter, S. and Bidmon, S. (2006). The value-brand trust-brand
loyalty chain: an analysis of some moderating variables. Innovative Marketing, 2(2),
76-88.
Mittal, Vikas and Wagner, Kamakura (2001). Satisfaction, repurchase intent, and
repurchase behavior: Investigating the moderating effects of customer
characteristics. Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 131-142.
Nadi, Mohammad Ali and Ghahremani, Nasrin (2011). Brand value and relationship
performance in business markets: A cross cultural glance of business services.
African Journal of Business Management, 5(22), 9322-9333.
Nasermoadeli, Amir, Ling, Kwek Choon, & Maghnati, Farshad (2013). Evaluating the
impacts of customer experience on purchase intention. International Journal of
Business and Management, 8(6), 128-138.
O’Guinn, Thomas C., Allen, Chris T. and Semenik, Richard J. (2012). Advertising and
Integrated Brand Promotion, 6th
ed. United States: South-Western Cengage
Learning.

Paper Presented at UNISBANK International Conference “On Social Welfare-Based Investment Policy in
Anticipation of ASEAN Economic Community: a Study of Economy, Law and Information Technology”,
Semarang, 29-30 August 2013
Osman, M. A., Talib, A.Z., Sanusi, Z.A., Tan, S. and Alwi, A.S. (2011). A study of the
trend of smartphone and its usage behavior in Malaysia. International Journal on
New Computer Architectures and Their Applications, 2(1), 274-285.
Osman, Syuhaily, Fah, Benjamin Chan Yin and Foon, Yeoh Sok (2011). Simulation of
sales promotions toward buying behavior among university students. International
Journal of Marketing Studies, 3(3), 78-88.
Özer, Gökhan and Yilmaz, Emine (2011). Comparison of the theory of reasoned action
and the theory of planned behavior: An application on accountants’ information
technology usage. African Journal of Business Management, 5(1), 50-58.
Panji, Aditya (2012). Mayoritas pengguna BlackBerry ingin beralih ke iPhone. Retrieved
from:
http://tekno.kompas.com/read/2012/07/04/08272678/Mayoritas.Pengguna.BlackBer
ry.Ingin.Beralih.ke.iPhone
Panji, Aditya (2013). Perjalanan sejarah RIM ke BlackBerry. Retrieved from:
http://tekno.kompas.com/read/2013/02/04/11183966/perjalanan.sejarah.rim.ke.blac
kberry
Pi, Shih-Ming, Liao, Liao, Hsiu-Li, Liu, Su-Houn and Lee, I-Shan(2011). Factors
influencing the behavior of online group-buying in Taiwan. African Journal of
Business Management, 5(16), 7120-7129.
Podsakoff, P.M. and Organ, D.W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research:
problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12 (4), 531-544.
Pride, William M., Hughes, Robert J., and Kapoor Jack R. (2012). Business, 11th
ed.
United States: South-Western Cengage Learning.
Prihtiyani, Eny (2012). Konsumen lebih suka diskon dibandingkan dengan hadiah.
Retrieved from:
http://bisniskeuangan.kompas.com/read/2012/07/26/16575799/Konsumen.Lebih.Su
ka.Diskon.Dibandingkan.dengan.Hadiah
Purwanti, Tenni (2011). “Smarphone” mengejar kemampuan PC. Retrieved from:
http://tekno.kompas.com/read/2011/06/03/15455040/Smartphone.Mengejar.Kemam
puan.PC
Purwanto, Didik (2012). Lima tantangan bos baru BlackBerry. Retrieved from:
http://tekno.kompas.com/read/2012/01/23/21134149/lima.tantangan.bos.baru.black
berry

Paper Presented at UNISBANK International Conference “On Social Welfare-Based Investment Policy in
Anticipation of ASEAN Economic Community: a Study of Economy, Law and Information Technology”,
Semarang, 29-30 August 2013
Rao, M. (2012). Mobile Southeast Asia Report 2012: Crossroads to Innovation.
Retrieved from: www.mobilemonday.net/reports/SEA_Reports_2012.pdf.
Sadeghi, Tooraj, Tabrizi, Khadijeh Ghaemmaghami and Noroozi, Asieh.(2011). The
effective factors related with feelings, brand perception and purchase decision
under a model. African Journal of Business Management, 5(30), 12025-12030.
Safitri, D. (2011). Why is Indonesia so in love with the Blackberry? Retrieved from:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/direct/indonesia/9508138.stm.
Sanlier, Nevin, Dağdeviren, Ayhan, Çelik, Bülent, Bilici, Saniye and Abubakirova,
Aktolkin (2011). Determining the knowledge of food safety and purchasing behavior
of the consumers living in Turkey and Kazakhstan. African Journal of Microbiology
Research, 5(18), 2724-2732.
Schiffman, Leon G., Kanuk, Leslie Lazar and Wisenblit, Joseph (2010). Consumer
Behavior, 10th
ed. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Schultz, D.E., Barnes, B.E. and Schultz, H.F. (2009). Building Customer-Brand
Relationships. United States of America: M.E. Sharpe.
Sekaran, Uma and Bougie, Roger (2009). Research Methods for Business A Skill
Bulding Approach, 5th ed. United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons.
Sengupta, S., Krapfel, R.E. and Pusateri, M.A. (2000). An Empirical Investigation of Key
Account Salesperson Effectiveness. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales
Management, 20 (Fall), 253-261.
Severi, E. and Ling, K.C. (2013). The Mediating Effects of Brand Association, Brand
Loyalty, Brand Image and Perceived Quality on Brand Equity. Asian Social Science,
9, 3, 125-136.
Shrum, L. J. (2012). The Psychology of Entertainment Media: Blurring the Lines
Between Entertainment and Persuasion, 2nd
ed. United States of America: Taylor &
Francis Group.
Siğirci, Özge and Yalçin, A. Müge (2010). Factors affecting consumer evaluations of
brand extentions. Boğaziçi Journal, 24(1-2), 67-90.
Swan, K. Scott and Zou, Shaoming (2012). Interdisciplinary Approaches to Product
Design, Innovation, & Branding in International Marketing. United Kingdom:
Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Paper Presented at UNISBANK International Conference “On Social Welfare-Based Investment Policy in
Anticipation of ASEAN Economic Community: a Study of Economy, Law and Information Technology”,
Semarang, 29-30 August 2013
Tariq, M. I., Nawaz, M.R., Nawaz, M.M. and But, H.A. (2013). Customer perceptions
about branding and purchase intention: A study of FMCG in an emerging market.
Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research, 3(2), 340-347.
Tripathi, Pratyush and Singh, Satish Kr. (2012). An empirical study of consumer
behavior towards the preference and usage of mobile phone services in Bhopal.
Current Trends in Technology and Sciences, 1(2), 62-70.
Tsao, Wen-Chin and Chang, Hung-Ru (2010). Exploring the impact of personality traits
on online shopping behavior. African Journal of Business and Management, 4(9), p.
1800-1812.
Utomo, Eko Priyo (2012). Tip dan Trik Seputar Android dan BlackBerry. Yogyakarta:
C.V. ANDI OFFSET.
Van Doorn, Gerrit Sander and Taborsky, Michael (2011). The evaluation of generalized
reciprocity on social interaction networks. The Society for the Study of Evaluation,
66(3), 651-664.
Wahono, Tri (2010). Penjualan smartphone melonjak 80 persen. Retrieved from:
http://tekno.kompas.com/read/2010/10/28/14173984/Penjualan.Smartphone.Melonj
ak.80.Persen.
Wen, Chao, Prybutok, Victor R. and Xu, Chenyan (2011). An integrated model for
customer online repurchase intention. Journal of Computer Information Systems,
14-23.
Wu, Wann-Yih, Lai, Meng-Kuan, Wu, Shin-Jen and Fu, Chen-Su (2012). Exploring the
influential factors to the perceived value and purchase intention of online lucky
bags. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 4(1), 515-
531.
Wu, Wei-ping, Chan, T. S. and Lau, Heng Hwa (2008). Does consumers’ personal
reciprocity affect future purchase intentions? Journal of Marketing Management,
24(3-4), 345-360.
Yakup, Durmaz, Mücahit, Celik and Reyhan, Oruc (2011). The impact of cultural factors
on the consumer buying behaviors examined through an impirical study.
International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(5), 109-114.
Yee, Choy Johnn, San, Cheng Ng and Khoon, Ch’ng Huck (2011). Consumer’s
perceived quality, perceived value and perceived risk towards purchase decision on
automobile. American Journal of Economics and Business Administration, 3(1), 47-
57.

Paper Presented at UNISBANK International Conference “On Social Welfare-Based Investment Policy in
Anticipation of ASEAN Economic Community: a Study of Economy, Law and Information Technology”,
Semarang, 29-30 August 2013
Yen, Yung-Shen (2011). How does perceived risks complement switching costs in e-
commerce?. African Journal of Business Management, 5(7), p. 2919-2929.
Zarrad, Houda and Debabi, Mohsen (2012). Online purchasing intention: Factors and
effects. International Business and Management, 4(1), p. 37-47.
Zikmund, W.G., Babin, B.J., Carr, J.C. and Griffin, M. (2010). Business Research
Methods. Canada: South-Western.
Appendix A.
Tabel Variabel dan Indikator
Variabel Indikator Sumber
Brand Loyalty 4 item:
1. Saya menyukai
smartphone BlackBerry.
2. Smartphone BlackBerry
adalah merek favorit
saya.
3. Smartphone BlackBerry
menjadi pilihan pertama
saya.
4. Saya akan
merekomendasikan
smartphone BlackBerry
ke orang lain.
Chang dan Chen (2009); Ha dan
Park (2012); Wu et al. (2008);
Yen (2011).
Brand Trust 4 item:
1. Smartphone BlackBerry
dapat dipercaya.
2. Kualitas smartphone
BlackBerry baik.
3. Perusahaan BlackBerry
tidak dapat diandalkan
dalam melakukan
tugasnya.
4. Saya merasa aman
bertransaksi dengan
perusahaan BlackBerry.
Nadi dan Ghahremani (2011);
Wen et al. (2010); Wu et al.
(2008).
Product Familiarity 4 item:
1. Saya memiliki
pengetahuan mengenai
Siğirci dan Yalçin (2010); Wu et
al. (2008).

Paper Presented at UNISBANK International Conference “On Social Welfare-Based Investment Policy in
Anticipation of ASEAN Economic Community: a Study of Economy, Law and Information Technology”,
Semarang, 29-30 August 2013
smartphone BlackBerry.
2. Saya merasa familiar
dengan smartphone
BlackBerry.
3. Saya dapat dengan
mudah mengenali
smartphone BlackBerry
dari merek smartphone
lainnya.
4. Ketika saya berpikir
tentang produk
smartphone, saya
teringat dengan merek
BlackBerry.
Personal Reciprocity 4 item:
1. Saya berharap
perusahaan BlackBerry
dapat menawarkan
beberapa layanan secara
individual.
2. Saya bersedia untuk
memberikan informasi
pribadi saya kepada
perusahaan BlackBerry.
3. Saya tertarik untuk
bergabung dalam
komunitas smartphone
BlackBerry.
4. Saya bersedia untuk
berkontribusi dengan
perusahaan BlackBerry.
Pi et al. (2011); Wu et al. (2008).
Attitude Toward Buying
Behavior
4 item:
1. Saya suka untuk
menggunakan
smartphone BlackBerry
dibandingkan
smartphone merek
lainnya.
2. Saya merasa percaya
diri pada saat
menggunakan
smartphone BlackBerry.
3. Menggunakan
smartphone BlackBerry
Ferdousi dan Levy (2010); Javadi
et al. (2012); Lim et al. (2011).

Paper Presented at UNISBANK International Conference “On Social Welfare-Based Investment Policy in
Anticipation of ASEAN Economic Community: a Study of Economy, Law and Information Technology”,
Semarang, 29-30 August 2013
membuat saya merasa
nyaman.
4. Saya memiliki sikap yang
positif terhadap
smartphone BlackBerry.
Purchase Intention 4 item:
1. Saya memiliki keinginan
untuk membeli
smartphone BlackBerry.
2. Saya akan membeli
smartphone BlackBerry
di masa yang akan
datang.
3. Saya serius untuk
mempertimbangkan
membeli smartphone
BlackBerry.
4. Smartphone BlackBerry
menjadi pertimbangan
pertama saya untuk
pembelian di masa yang
akan datang.
Hanzaee dan Taghipourian
(2012); Wu et al. (2008); Wu et
al. (2012).
Purchase Behavior 4 item:
1. Saya perlu
menghabiskan banyak
waktu untuk
memutuskan membeli
smartphone BlackBerry.
2. Saya
mempertimbangkan
berapa banyak uang
yang saya keluarkan
untuk membeli
smartphone BlackBerry.
3. Promosi yang ditawarkan
oleh smartphone
BlackBerry
mempengaruhi
keputusan pembelian
saya.
4. Begitu saya menemukan
tipe yang menarik dari
smartphone BlackBerry,
saya akan membeli
Osman et al. (2011); Sanlier et
al. (2011).

Paper Presented at UNISBANK International Conference “On Social Welfare-Based Investment Policy in
Anticipation of ASEAN Economic Community: a Study of Economy, Law and Information Technology”,
Semarang, 29-30 August 2013
smartphone tersebut.