Asia Pacific Business Review

ISSN: 1360-2381 (Print) 1743-792X (Online) Journal homepage: />
Brand personality appeal, brand relationship
quality and WOM transmission: a study of
consumer markets in Vietnam
Nguyen Dinh Tho, Nguyen Thi Mai Trang & Svein Ottar Olsen
To cite this article: Nguyen Dinh Tho, Nguyen Thi Mai Trang & Svein Ottar Olsen (2015): Brand
personality appeal, brand relationship quality and WOM transmission: a study of consumer
markets in Vietnam, Asia Pacific Business Review, DOI: 10.1080/13602381.2015.1076655
To link to this article: />
Published online: 20 Aug 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 59

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
/>Download by: [University of Nebraska, Lincoln]

Date: 02 December 2015, At: 16:00


Asia Pacific Business Review, 2015
/>
Brand personality appeal, brand relationship quality and
WOM transmission: a study of consumer markets in Vietnam

worth-of-mouth transmission;
Vietnam

Introduction
How to build strong brands is an issue that attracts academics and practitioners for several
decades (e.g. Erdem and Swait 1998; Keller 1993; Woodside and Walser 2007). Accordingly,
a number of approaches have been proposed by academics to characterize the strength of
a brand. Some stem from cognitive psychology, i.e. based on consumer cognitive processes,
such as brand awareness, perceived quality, brand loyalty, brand associations and recently
brand experience (e.g. Brakus, Schmitt, and Zarantonello 2009; Keller 1993). Others come
from information economics, i.e. based on the signal of the brand to the consumer such as
brand credibility, consistency and clarity (e.g. Erdem and Swait 1998). While based on different theoretical perspectives, their common focus is on what makes a brand become strong,
and establishing a high quality relationship between the brand and the consumer is among
the best strategies to build strong brands (Lin and Sung 2014; Woodside and Walser 2007).
As marketing has been moving from the traditional marketing (the marketing-mix) paradigm to the relationship-marketing paradigm (Bejou 1997), establishing quality brand-­
consumer relationships is crucial to the success of a brand. For that reason, scholars have

CONTACT  Nguyen Dinh Tho 
© 2015 Taylor & Francis

;    


Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 16:00 02 December 2015

2 

  N. D. Tho et al.

devoted their efforts in studying the relationship between the brand and the consumer (e.g.

(Viet Toan 2013).
During the last few years, several government-sponsored promotional campaigns have
been designed to encourage Vietnamese consumers to buy locally made products, such as
‘Vietnam’s High Quality Brands’ and ‘Vietnam’s Brands Week’. However, Vietnamese consumers
are still in love with foreign brands because, not only are they imported, they are also very
well established in the minds of consumers. While Vietnamese consumers are now ready to
pay for the brands that they love, Vietnamese brands have not yet built a strong position in
the minds of consumers, unlike competing well-known imported products (Duy Duy 2015).
This is because Vietnamese firms have not fully recognized the important role of brands
(Thuong hieu Viet 2015). Therefore, it is argued that building high brand personality appeal
to consumers plays an important role for the success of brands because brand personality
can serve as a tool for personal identification (Fennis and Pruyn 2007; Szmigin 2003). For that


Asia Pacific Business Review 

 3

reason, the present study contributes to the literature on brands by investigating the impact
of brand personality appeal on both brand personality appeal and word-of-mouth (WOM)
transmission in Vietnam. The study also tests the role of attitudes towards advertising and
public relations in brand personality appeal as well as brand relationship quality.

Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 16:00 02 December 2015

Theoretical background and hypotheses
Social identity and the consumer-social identity-brand model
Social identity theory suggests that individuals tend to classify themselves as belonging
to a specific group, distinguishing from other groups (Hogg 2006). This is undertaken by ‘a
process of social categorization, social comparison, and social identification as ways in which


H5
H6
H7

Brand
Personality
Appeal

H3

H2
Brand
Relationship
Quality

Word-of-Mouth
Transmission
H1


Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 16:00 02 December 2015

4 

  N. D. Tho et al.

proposes six different but related facets of brand relationship quality, i.e. love and passion,
self-connection, commitment, interdependence, intimacy, and brand partner quality. Love
and passion refer to the attachment and affection of the consumer for a specific brand

but not significant in the Taipei sample. Smit, Bronner, and Tolboom (2007) find that brand
personality has an impact on brand relationship quality. These researchers also find that
brand relationship quality has a positive link with future use, willingness to share, openness
to contact, and has a negative connection with switch likelihood.
As previously discussed, scholars studying brand personality have questioned about the
consumers’ ability to assess the concept and there is a need for transferring it into more accessible. This may help explain the reason why the link between brand personality and brand
relationship receives partial support (e.g. Chang and Chieng 2006). In addition, whereas WOM
transmission has been suggested as an outcome of brand relationship quality (MacInnis,
Park, and Priester 2009), little empirical evidence has been provided, especially in Vietnam.


Asia Pacific Business Review 

 5

For that reason, the main attempt of this study is to empirically test the relationship between
brand personality appeal, a concept that is more accessible to consumers, brand relationship
quality and WOM transmission in Vietnam.

Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 16:00 02 December 2015

WOM transmission
WOM transmission, compared to traditional marketing, is believed more credible and faster,
especially with the support of the Internet (Silverman 2001; Trusov, Bucklin, and Pauwels
2009). It refers to the ‘communication about products and services between people who are
perceived to be independent of the company providing the product or service, in a medium
perceived to be independent of the company’ (Silverman 2001, 25). WOM transmission is
generally regarded as an informal transfer of purchase-related and consumption-related
information on a brand between consumers, and it can be negative or positive (Soderlund
and Rosengren 2007). Positive WOM transmission is a valuable tool for promoting a brand


6 

  N. D. Tho et al.

Empirical research on brand-consumer relationships has shown that brand personality
enables consumers to express their self, forming and strengthening the relationship between
brands and consumers (e.g. Aaker, Fournier, and Brasel 2004). This is because when the
personality of a brand is able to appeal to consumers, they will perceive a good fit between
their personality and the brand personality and tend to regard the brand as a member of
their group as suggested by social identity theory (Reed, Cohen, and Bhattacharjee 2009).
For that reason, consumers tend to build, develop and strengthen their relationship with
the brand. In addition, as a member of the group, the brand will be introduced to other
members within the group as explained by social identity theory. Thus,

Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 16:00 02 December 2015

H2: Brand personality appeal has a positive effect on brand relationship quality.
H3: Brand personality appeal has a positive effect on WOM transmission.

Attitudes toward advertising and public relations
The attitude of consumers toward advertising refers to ‘a learned predisposition to respond
in a consistently favorable manner toward advertising in general’ (MacKenzie and Lutz 1989,
53–54). Advertising is a means to communicate a brand’s appeal to the consumer. The appeal
of a brand can be rational (e.g. quality, value, performance, etc.), emotional (e.g. love, joy,
humor etc.) and moral (e.g. right and proper) (Kotler and Armstrong 2014). Advertisers
attempt to consistently communicate brand claims reflecting some key aspects of brand personality, which helps consumers reinforce their perception of brand personality (Puzakova,
Kwak, and Taylor 2013). It is therefore well documented in the literature that advertising is
heavily employed by marketers to create and promote brand personality and brand relationships (Aaker and Biel 1993; Kim and Sung 2013; Mehta 2000; Puzakova, Kwak, and Taylor
2013). Because attitude is evaluative in nature (Fishbein and Ajzen 2010), favorable attitudes


Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 16:00 02 December 2015

Method
Procedure and sample
The research was conducted in Ho Chi Minh City, the principal business center of Vietnam.
Two phases of study, a pilot study and a main survey, were undertaken to collect data for
testing the proposed model. Respondents were users of various brands of consumer products including high-involvement products such as cars, and low-involvement products such
as detergents, local as well as international brands. Brands under study were those that
respondents had used in the last six months. When approaching a respondent for interview,
the interviewer asked the respondent to list three brands that he or she had used in the
last 6 months. The interviewer randomly chose one brand out of three and then, asked the
respondent to answer the questions on that chosen brand.
The pilot study comprised two steps: a qualitative study and a quantitative pilot survey.
Although most of the measures of constructs in the model are available in the literature, it
is important to ensure they are appropriate for the Vietnamese context, especially for the
measure of brand personality appeal. Therefore, the study first, conducted a series of in-depth
interviews with 11 part-time graduate students of the University of Economics in HCM City.
Theoretical sampling (Coyne 1997) was employed in this step and the saturated point was 11.
Next, the quantitative pilot survey was undertaken by means of face-to-face interviews with a
convenience sample of 102 consumers. The data collected from this study was used to refine
the measures by means of Cronbach’s alpha reliability and exploratory factor analysis (EFA).
The main survey was also undertaken by using face-to-face interviews with a convenience sample of 477 consumers. A team of interviewers was hired to do the interviewing
at the respondents’ home. When a respondent completed a questionnaire, the interviewer
immediately checked it for any missing values. The sample comprised 242 (50.7%) female
consumers and 235 (49.3%) male consumers. There were 303 (63.5%) consumers who were
30 years of age or younger, and 174 (36.5%) consumers who were older than 30 years of
age. Finally, the sample included 311 (65.2%) consumers had a monthly income lower than
or equal to US$ 400, and 166 (34.8%) consumers had a monthly income higher than US$
400. The data collected from this main survey was used to validate the measures by means

items adapted from File, Judd, and Prince (1992). Finally, attitudes toward adverting were
measured by two items, and two items measured attitudes toward public relations. These
measures were based on Fishbein and Ajzen’s (2010) who believe that attitudes are evaluative
in nature. However, following Mehta (2000), this study employed Likert-type scaling instead
of semantic differential scaling to measure attitudes.
All items were seven-point Likert scales, anchored by 1: strongly disagree and 7: strongly
agree (see Table 1 for the means, standard deviations, and CFA factor loadings of scale items).
We initially prepared the questionnaire in English. Then, an academic who is fluent in both
languages translated the questionnaire into Vietnamese. This procedure was undertaken
because English is not well understood by all consumers in this market. Back translation
was undertaken to ensure the equivalence of meanings. Note that the order of the items
measuring these constructs was randomly distributed in the survey questionnaire to reduce
acquiescence bias (Chang, van Witteloostuijn, and Eden 2010).

Measurement refinement
Cronbach’s alpha reliability and EFA were employed to refine the measures of constructs
based on the data collected in the quantitative pilot study (n = 102). The Cronbach alpha’s
results indicate that all Cronbach’s alphas of the scales were greater than .70, satisfying
the requirement for internal consistency. Note that one item measuring brand personality
appeal (No other brands can be compared with X) was deleted due to its low item-total
correlation (
Tr3. My experiences with X show that X never promises what it doesn’t have
WOM transmission: ρc = .82; ρvc = .61
Wo1. I recommend to others that X should be their choice as soon as possible
Wo2. I talk to others that X is the best brand of this kind
Wo3. I talk directly to others about my experience of X
Brand personality appeal: ρc = .86; ρvc = .67
Bp1. Compared to other brands, the personality of X is very attractive
Bp2. Compared to other brands, the personality of X is very distinctive
Bp3. Compared to other brand, it is very easy to recognize the personality of X
Attitudes toward advertising: ρc = .92; ρvc = .84
Ad1. The advertising programs of X are very attractive
Ad2. I like the advertising programs of X
Attitudes toward public relations: ρc = .92; ρvc = .86
Pr1. The public relations programs of X are very valuable for society
Pr2. I highly value the public relations programs of X

M

SD

λ

3.48
3.51
3.12

1.75
1.69
1.70


4.71

1.83
1.85
1.72

.70
.85
.89

4.02
4.18
4.16

1.53
1.56
1.61

.83
.78
.74

4.93
4.86
5.10

1.53
1.60
1.54



1.67
1.63

.90
.94

3.96
4.09

1.71
1.78

.96
.90

Note: M: mean, SD: standard deviation, λ: standardized CFA loading, X: researched brand.

Data analysis and results
Measurement validation
As previously presented, five constructs were examined: brand personality appeal, brand
relationship quality, WOM transmission, attitudes toward advertising, and attitudes toward
public relations. The scales measuring these constructs were refined via Cronbach’s alpha and
EFA using the data-set (n = 102) collected in the pilot study. These scales were then assessed
via CFA using the data-set (n = 477) collected in the main survey. Two steps were undertaken
in validating measures. First, a CFA model was used to assess the second-order construct
(brand relationship quality). Next, the four first-order constructs (WOM transmission, brand


10 

(p  =  .000), GFI  =  .847, IFI  =  .906, CFI  =  .906, and RMSEA  =  .076. All factor loadings were
substantial (≥.57) and significant (p 
of the structural paths indicates that, consistent with hypothesis H1, brand relationship
­quality had a positive effect on WOM transmission (β = .50, p 

Attitudes toward public rela-

Unstandardized
.83

Standard
error
.151

Standardized
.50

t-value
5.47

p-value
.000

.39

.045

.70

8.58

.000

.27


.037

.17

3.32

.000

.05

.018

.12

2.76

.006

tions → Brand relationship quality

appeal also enhances brand relationship quality. In addition, attitudes towards public relations help improve both brand personality appeal and brand relationship quality. However,
attitudes toward advertising significantly enhance brand personality appeal but not brand
relationship quality. These findings offer a number of implications for theory and practice.

Implications for theory and research
In terms of theory, firstly, the study results indicate that brand personality appeal plays a
fundamental role in building brand-consumer relationships as well as WOM transmission
because brand personality can provide emotional benefits for consumers. Prior research
suggests a transfer effect from salient brand personality traits to consumer personality (Fennis

Crosno, and Henard 2011). This current study extends the outcome of brand personality by
investigating its impact on both brand relationship quality and WOM transmission. In other
words, the study findings highlight the importance of brand personality appeal in enhancing
both brand relationship quality and WOM transmission.

Implications for managers
In practice, WOM transmission from existing consumers to potential consumers is the most
credible tool of stimulating new consumers for a brand (Gremler, Gwinner, and Brown 2001;
Silverman 2001). This study empirically demonstrates that brand personality appeal and
brand relationship quality play an important role in enhancing WOM transmission. These
findings suggest that firms in Vietnam should establish and nurture quality relationships
between their brands and consumers. In so doing, the construction of brand personality is
crucial. A brand personality that holds strong appeal for consumers will be of great advantage as indicated by the results of this study: brand personality appeal has a strong effect
on both brand relationship quality and WOM transmission. As such, this research would
help brand managers to understand the role of brand personality appeal in strengthening
brand-consumer relationships and WOM transmission. Also, brand managers should pay
close attention to the formation of brand relationship quality in order to have appropriate
measures and to keep track of their brands’ consumers.
In addition, attitudes toward public relations have positive impacts on both brand personality appeal and brand relationship quality. Attitudes toward advertising have a positive
impact on brand personality appeal but not on brand relationship quality. These findings
imply that adverting is losing its effectiveness in building strong brands compared to public
relations as Ries and Ries (2004) argue in their book entitled The fall of advertising and the rise
of PR. For that reason, brand managers need to utilize appropriate communication tools, i.e.
focusing more on public relations, to create a strong brand personality appeal for consumers
to establish high quality brand-consumer relationships. Public relations programs should
be perceived to be valuable for the community and link to the personality of the brand. In
so doing, the brand will attract more consumers through WOM transmission, enhancing the
performance of the brand (Trusov, Bucklin, and Pauwels 2009).

Conclusions

global scale. Global items are easier to administer, however, they may be less precise than
facet items (Kumar, Stern, and Anderson 1993). Future research should use facet scales to
measure the three components of brand personality appeal (i.e. favorability, originality, and
clarity; Freling, Crosno, and Henard 2011), and should compare the results with global scales.
Finally, this study focused on the tangibles. An examination of services to compare and contrast the results with those found in this study will be another direction for future research.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
This work was supported by a grant from the UEH International School of Business [grant number
UEH.ISB.13.002].

Notes on contributors
Nguyen Dinh Tho is Chair of Research and Doctoral Program, International School of Business,
University of Economics HCM City, Vietnam, and Adjunct Professor, University of Western Sydney,
Australia. His works have been published in Asia Pacific Business Review, International Business Review,
Journal of Business Research, Journal of Happiness Studies, Journal of International Marketing, Journal of
Macromarketing, among others.
Nguyen Thi Mai Trang is Associate Professor in Marketing, University of Economics and Law, Vietnam
National University, HCM City. Her works have been published in Asia Pacific Business Review, Journal
of Business Research, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Journal of Macromarketing, Management Research
Review, among others.
Svein Ottar Olsen is Professor of Marketing at the University of Tromsø, Tromsø, Norway. His works
have been published in Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Journal of Consumer Behaviour,
Journal of International Business Studies, Psychology & Marketing, among others.


Asia Pacific Business Review 


30 (11): 950–958.
Ellemers, N. E., and S. A. Haslam. 2012. “Social Identity Theory.” In Handbook of Theories of Social
Psychology, edited by P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, and E. T. Higgins, Vol. 2, 379–398. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Erdem, T., and J. Swait. 1998. “Brand Equity as a Signaling Phenomenon.” Journal of Consumer Psychology
7 (2): 131–157.
Fennis, B. M., and A. T. H. Pruyn. 2007. “You Are What You Wear: Brand Personality Influences on
Consumer Impression Formation.” Journal of Business Research 60 (6): 634–639.
File, K., B. Judd, and R. Prince. 1992. “Interactive Marketing: The Influence of Participation on Positive
Word-of-Mouth and Referrals.” Journal of Services Marketing 6 (4): 5–14.
Fishbein, M., and I. Ajzen. 2010. Predicting and Changing Behavior: The Reasoned Action Approach.
New York: Psychology Press.
Fornell, C., and D. F. Larcker. 1981. “Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables
and Measurement Error.” Journal of Marketing Research 18 (1): 39–50.
Fournier, S. 1998. “Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in Consumer Research.”
Journal of Consumer Research 24 (4): 343–373.
Freling, T. H., J. L. Crosno, and D. H. Henard. 2011. “Brand Personality Appeal: Conceptualization and
Empirical Validation.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 39 (3): 392–406.
Gremler, D. D., K. P. Gwinner, and S. W. Brown. 2001. “Generating Positive Word-of-Mouth Communication
through Customer-Employee Relationships.” International Journal of Service Industry Management
12 (1): 44–59.
Ha, H.-Y., and S. Janda. 2014. “Brand Personality and Its Outcomes in the Chinese Automobile Industry.”
Asia Pacific Business Review 20 (2): 216–230.
Hogg, M. A. 2006. “Social Identity Theory.” In Contemporary Social Psychological Theories, edited by P. J.
Burke, 111–136. Stanford, CA: Stanford Social Sciences.


Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 16:00 02 December 2015

16 

7 (1): 88–100.
Palmatier, R. W., C. B. Jarvis, J. R. Bechkoff, and F. R. Kardes. 2009. “The Role of Customer Gratitude in
Relationship Marketing.” Journal of Marketing 73 (5): 1–18.
Pentina, I., B. S. Gammoh, L. Zhang, and M. Mallin. 2013. “Drivers and Outcomes of Brand Relationship
Quality in the Context of Online Social Networks.” International Journal of Electronic Commerce
17 (3): 63–86.
Podsakoff, P. M., S. B. MacKenzie, J.-Y. Lee, and N. P. Podsakoff. 2003. “Common Method Biases in
Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies.” Journal of
Applied Psychology 88 (5): 879–903.
Puzakova, M., H. Kwak, and C. R. Taylor. 2013. “The Role of Geography of Self in ‘Filling in’ Brand
Personality Traits: Consumer Inference of Unobservable Attributes.” Journal of Advertising 42 (1):
16–29.
Reed II, A., J. B. Cohen, and A. Bhattacharjee. 2009. “When Brands Are Built from Within.” In Handbook
of Brand Relationships, edited by D. J. MacInnis, C. W. Park, and J. R. Priester, 124–150. New York: M.E.
Sharpe.
Ries, A., and L. Ries. 2004. The Fall of Advertising and the Rise of PR. New York: Harper Business.
Silverman, G. 2001. The Secrets of Word-of-Mouth Marketing: How to Trigger Exponential Sales through
Runaway Word of Mouth. New York: American Management Association.
Smit, E., F. Bronner, and M. Tolboom. 2007. “Brand Relationship Quality and Its Value for Personal
Contact.” Journal of Business Research 60 (6): 627–633.
Smith, R. D. 2005. Strategic Planning for Public Relations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Söderlund, M., and S. Rosengren. 2007. “Receiving Word-of-Mouth from the Service Customer: An
Emotion-Based Effectiveness Assessment.” Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 14 (2): 123–136.
Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., and H. C. M. van Trijp. 1991. “The Use of Lisrel in Validating Marketing Constructs.”
International Journal of Research in Marketing 8 (4): 283–299.
Szmigin, I. 2003. Understanding the Consumer. London: Sage.


Asia Pacific Business Review 


.53
.74

.070
.107

.73
.39

7.51
6.92

.62
.52
.75
1.00
.90
.68
.44

.078
.075
.099
.108
.091
.102
.072

.79
.51

Id1

3.074
.436**
.466**
.453**
.456**
.412**
.456**
.488**
.416**
.333**
.367**
.347**
.387**
.354**
.465**
.238**
.203**
.203**
.414**
.356**
.255**
.311**
.259**
.282**
.216**
.267**
.283**
.302**

Id2

 
 
2.887
.406**
.379**
.349**
.340**
.346**
.292**
.415**
.437**
.397**
.426**
.385**
.468**
.262**
.323**
.229**
.443**
.346**
.228**
.298**
.231**
.202**
.137**
.239**
.243**
.222**

.304**

Ps1

 
 
 
 
2.155
.730**
.408**
.420**
.387**
.420**
.553**
.500**
.486**
.425**
.479**
.393**
.387**
.321**
.328**
.452**
.338**
.473**
.457**
.389**
.301**
.319**

.336**
.288**
.233**

Ps3

 
 
 
 
 
 
3.525
.900**
.767**
.372**
.453**
.464**
.372**
.380**
.416**
.344**
.268**
.255**
.335**
.315**
.366**
.419**
.394**
.408**

.313**
.333**
.057
.116*

Sc2
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.252
.330**
.432**
.422**
.328**
.309**
.342**
.363**
.302**
.207**
.267**
.265**
.340**
.395**
.400**
.439**

.258**
.266**
.280**

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.952
.767**
.443**
.429**
.494**
.495**
.490**
.389**
.476**
.541**
.439**
.648**
.603**
.500**
.323**
.397**

.268**

Sc3 Cm1 Cm2 Cm3

**

*

Correlation is significant at the .05 level; numbers on the diagonal are variances; n = 477.
Correlation is significant at the .01 level.

Id1
Id2
Id3
Ps1
Ps2
Ps3
Sc1
Sc2
Sc3
Cm1
Cm2
Cm3
It1
It2
It3
Tr1
Tr2
Tr3
Wo1

.345**
.364**
.420**
.393**
.295**
.327**
.377**
.279**
.272**

It1
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.435
.553**
.404**
.402**
.352**
.373**

.390**
.380**
.337**
.337**
.398**
.224**
.293**
.232**
.190**

It3
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.329
.773**
.648**
.312**

.390**
.366**
.484**
.415**
.421**
.282**
.295**
.346**
.310**

Tr2
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.386
.295**

.625**
.509**
.436**
.370**
.337**
.275**
.321**
.305**
.281**

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.113

.457**
.438**
.358**
.350**
.342**
.232**
.184**

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.122

 
 
 
1.913
.586**
.457**
.441**
.291**
.258**

Bp2
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.794  
 
 
.844** 2.672  
 
.425** .421** 2.914