MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS HO CHI MINH CITY

LÊ QUANG BÌNH

CUSTOMER EQUITY AND CONSUMER
WELL-BEING: A CASE STUDY OF THE RETAIL
SUPERMARKET INDUSTRY IN VIETNAM
Major: BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
Code: 9340101

SUMMARY OF Ph.D THESIS

Ho Chi Minh City - 2019


The thesis was completed in University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City
Tutor: Asso. Prof. Ph.D. Nguyễn Đình Thọ
Reviewer 1: .........................................................
Reviewer 2: ...........................................................
Reviewer 3: ...........................................................
The thesis will be presented to the school-level thesis evaluation board at:………..
At .......... time .........date .............. month....................year………..
The thesis can be found at: ..........................................................


1

Chapter 1: OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH THESIS
1.1 Research problem
Managers faced daily challenges of increasing the efficiency of their products and services with the

traits in marketing is still less concerned by the authors, especially in the retail sector.
Researching on customer equity in the retail sector in generally and retail supermarkets in particularly has
been done in previous studies (eg Vogel at al, 2008; Dwivedi at al, 2012). However, the focus of this study is
to explore the relationship between customer equity drivers, including brand equity, perceived value and
relationship equity with consumer well-being, as well as testing the role of customer personality traits in the
retail supermarket industry in Vietnam. Retail supermarket is a shopping place close to consumers. It affects
the daily lives of consumers in generally, as well as affecting other aspects of their lives such as family life,
social life, work life, leisure life, etc. Customer's perception of shopping experience is very important in retail
supermarkets (Ailawadi & Keller, 2004). It not only affects the satisfaction or dissatisfaction of customers in
shopping, but also the customers' feelings of satisfaction in their life, the satisfaction that contributes to
improving their quality of life. Therefore, in the retail supermarket industry, it is necessary to enhance customer
equity, constantly invest in improving brand equity, value equity and relationship equity. It is identified as a
background for improving consumer well-being in the retail supermarket industry.


2
However, studying the relationship between customer equity and consumer well-being is still a new issue
in Vietnam. There has not been a complete study of measuring the relationship between customer equity
components and consumer well-being, as well as testing the role of customer personality on these relationships
at Vietnam market in generally and in retail supermarket industry in particularly.
1.1 Objectives of the study
- Discovering and measure the relationship between brand equity, value equity and relationship equity in
the retail supermarket industry in Vietnam;
- Discovering and measure the relationship between customer equity drivers (including brand equity,
value equity and relationship equity) and consumer well-being in retail supermarket industry in Vietnam;
- Exploring the moderator role of customer personality traits on causal relationships between research
concepts in the retail supermarket industry in Vietnam.
- Proposing management implications for marketing managers and business management in Vietnam's
retail industry in generally and Vietnam's retail supermarket sector in particularly.
1.2 Scope and research methodology

relationship equity. This research results is completely new, not yet published in previous studies. Fifthly, this
research results show that investing to improve brand equity, perceived value (value equity) and relationship
equity not only contributes to customer equity but also contributes to consumer well-being.


3
Practical contributions: Firstly, this study provides the general managers and the retail supermarket
manager to understand more about customer equity, customer equity drivers, consumer well-being and
customer personality traits. Research has shown managers what is important to customer equity, thereby
marketing investment selectively and effectively to improve customer equity drivers, contributing to enhance
the perceived quality of life of consumers. This can increase sales and profits for businesses. Secondly, this
study helps researchers and business managers, especially in the retail context, see the important role of
consumer well-being in enterprise marketing strategy. In the retail supermarket industry, the goal of the
customer is not only toward their shopping satisfaction but also towards their life satisfaction in the general
and specific life domains (for example: social life, family life, leisure life, work life, health and safety,
physical/sensual life, etc.). Thirdly, this study also helps enterprise directors and marketing managers find the
role of customer personality to make the right solutions in business. Enterprises can implement solutions such
as training their service staffs who can serve customers enthusiastically and thoughtfully, understand customers
more in the process of performing their services; Investing in various supermarket utility suitable for the
majority of customers; diversification of product types, product quality, prices suitable for each customer, etc.
to serve customers better. Fourthly, this study also helps market research companies and marketing managers
to apply this research to measure customer equity drivers, consumer well-being, and customer personality in
other industries, since offering appropriate marketing activities to improve customer equity drivers, enhance
customer equity for the enterprises and increase consumer well-being.
1.4 Structure of the thesis
This thesis is carried out in six chapters: Chapter 1: Overview of the research topic, Chapter 2: Theoretical
basis, Chapter 3: Research model, Chapter 4: Research methodology, Chapter 5: Results of research, Chapter
6: Conclusion and direction for further research.
Chapter 2: THEORETICAL BASIS
2.1 Theory of customer equity

Customer Lifetime Value
(CLV)

Customer

Customer

Relationship

Customer

Asquisition

Retention

Development

Withdrawal

Source: Gupta et al. (2006)
Figure 2.1: Modeling customer lifetime value
Rust et al. (2004) defined customer equity as “the total of the discounted lifetime values summed over all
of the firm’s current and potential customers” (p. 110). From this point of view, customer equity is considered
an important asset of an organization, because revenue is generated by customers and the investment to
generate this revenue is the company's cash flow facility (Hansotia, 2004).
As a theoretical framework, customer equity is widely applied in many different market contexts and
many industries because it directs enterprises to follow customer orientation (Rust et al, 2004). Customer
equity provides a strategic perspective for management decisions by providing facility managers with a basis
for identifying those customers or customer types they wish toseek out, retain, avoid, or even given up (Dorsch
et al, 2001). An important component of all customer equity-marketing initiatives is identifying specific

the effectiveness of relationship marketing activities on the average
revenue of each customer.
Testing the effectiveness of customer equity components in
Voorhees (2006).
predicting customer behavior.
Bayon, Gutsche and Bauer (2002).


5

Vogel, Evanschitzky and
Ramaseshan (2008)

Hyun (2009)

Ramaseshan, Rabbanee and Hui
(2013)

Razzaq at al (2016)

Cho and Jang (2017)

Researching the relationship between the drivers of customer equity
and customer loyalty and sales in the future of self-service retail
stores in Europe. The authors used three drivers of customer equity
proposed by Rust et al. (2000) to explore in the retail sector.
Establishing a model of customer equity in the restaurant industry
including brand equity, value equity and relationship equity. The
author has proposed sub-drivers of customer equity in the restaurant
industry. Researching the relationship between the three main

rate between what is received (such as products and its benefits) and what has been spent (such as the price
paid for the product) and so the benefit is higher than the cost, it will bring higher customer value. Zeithaml
(1988) recommended four customer perceived factors in value, including (1) low prices, (2) whatever I want
in a product, (3) the quality I get for the price I pay, and (4) what I get for what I give up, including time and
effort. Holbrook (1999) proposed customers’ perceived value including input/output, quality, convenience and
aesthetics. Richards and Jones (2008) presented three factors to enhance customers’ perceived value including
customer perceptions of quality, price, and convenience. Rust et al. (2000, 2004) provided three elements of
perceived value, including quality, price, and convenience. Hyun (2009) provided five elements of perceived
value, including food quality, service quality, price, convenience and environment of the restaurant.


6
In the retail market, Vogel et al. (2008) studied the customer equity of consumer goods retail stores
(computer hardware) in Europe, based on Rust et al’ research (2000), the authors gave five elements of
perceived value, namely (1) price, (2) product quality, (3) service quality, (4) convenience and (5) ) tangible
environment of retail stores. Factors of perceived value of Vogel et al. (2008) were also studied by Ramaseshan
et al. (2013) in the telecommunications service industry of the B2B market.
2.2.2 Brand equity
According to Aaker (1991) defied brand equity as “a set of assets and liabilities linked to a brand, its
name and symbol, that add to or subtract from the value provided by a product or service to a firm and/or that
firm’s customers”. And Keller (1993) defined brand equity as the different effect of brand knowledge on
customer response to brand marketing. Basically, a company will have a higher brand equity when customers
response to their marketing efforts is more positive. Ambler et al (2002) defined brand equity as all that exists
in the minds of customers, including thoughts, feelings, experiences, images, perceptions, beliefs and attitudes.
A basic principle for brand equity is that a brand’s foundations including “peoples’ intangible mental
associations about it…(and) the value placed on the brand is really the value of the strength and resilience of
those associations” (Dyson, Farr, & Hollis, 1996, p. 9).
Explaining the nature of the relationship between brand equity and customer equity, Rust et al. (2000)
determined brand equity as part of customer equity and it builds on customer awareness about the brand.
Moreover, the brand equity represents the subjective and invisible assessment of customers and it is objective


7
Relationship equity is defined as the tendency of customers to return to the brand and beyond the objective
and subjective assessment of the brand (Lemon et al., 2001). The concept of relationship involves the belief
that how is it important of brand equity and perceived value is still not enough to retain customers. In other
words, even if the customer evaluates the product objectively and subjectively, they may not buy the product
in the future for many reasons, including changes in personal situations and the impact of other companies'
marketing efforts (Oliver, 1999). Relationship equity represents the strength of the relationship between firms
and customers. This concept comes from the theory of relationship marketing. Morgan and Hunt (1994)
defined relationship marketing as referring to all marketing activities and strategies aimed at creating,
expanding, and maintaining the exchange of successful relationships. According to Bejou and Iyer (2006), the
relationship with customers is a source of intangible assets. The intangible asset mentioned by the author is an
indirect component of the customer equity defined above. Therefore, relationship marketing activities can be
viewed as a meaningful role in enhancing value based on the relationship of the organization, as well as the
financial results and customer equity of the firm.
Lemon et al. (2001) believed that there should be a "glue" between customers and the company, one of
which is to increase the level of cohesion of the relationship. In this context, relationship equity is the glue.
Many researchers have proposed different measuring factors to measure relationship equity. Hennig-Thurau
and Klee (1997) proposed three factors of relationship equity including trust, commitment, and overall quality.
De Wulf et al. (2001) provide three factors that measure relationship quality including satisfaction, trust and
commitment. Hyun (2009) studies relationship equity in the restaurant industry, giving four elements of
relationship equity including trust, emotional commitment, satisfaction and conflict. In summary, through
research, we see three factors that authors often use to measure relationship equity are trust, satisfaction and
commitment (see De Wulf et al., 2001; Hennig-Thurau et al., 2002; Vogel et al., 2008; Hyun, 2009; Dwivedi
et al., 2012).
2.3 Consumer well-being (CWB)
2.3.1 Concept of consumer well-being
Many authors have conceived the concept of consumer well-being as a result of consumers' positive
emotional response when consuming a product or service. Sirgy et al. (2008b) believed that consumer wellbeing is a positive emotional response of consumers to high quality goods and services. Lee et al. (2002), Sirgy
and Lee (2003) described consumer well-being as consumer satisfaction from using a high quality goods and


customer
equity
relationship
equity

value equity

Figure 3.1: Three drivers of customer equity
Three drivers of customer equity are brand equity, value equity and relationship equity that both operate
independently and both interact with each other. By improving these three drivers, companies can enhance the
overall customer equity (Rust, Lemon & Zeithaml, 2004; Hyun, 2009; Vogel et al., 2008; Ramaseshan et al.,
2013). According to Vogel et al. (2008), Hyun (2009), Ramaseshan et al. (2013), value equity is an
intermediary between brand equity and relationship equity in the concept of customer equity and impact on
relationship equity. Brand equity impacts on value equity and relationship equity (see Figure 3.2).
Value
equity

Brand

Relationship

equity

equity
Figure 3.2: Relationship between customer equity drivers

Chapter 2 has presented and evaluated the theoretical foundations of CWB. We see that there are many
different models of CWB, which model is not easy to use. However, according to Grzeskowiak and Sirgy
(2008), the model of the impact of perceived quality of life (Sirgy et al., 2006) recognized that the CWB that


well-being

Relationship
equity

Customer personality traits

Figure 3.3: Research theoretical framework

3.2.1.3 Hypothesis of the relationship between brand equity and relationship equity in the retail
supermarket industry in Vietnam
Hypothesis H3: The brand equity of retail supermarket positively affects the relationship equity of retail
supermarket.
3.2.2 The relationship between the drivers of customer equity and CWB in the retail supermarket
industry in Vietnam.
3.2.2.1 Hypothesis of the relationship between value equity and CWB in the retail supermarket
industry in Vietnam.
Hypothesis H4: The value equity of retail supermarkets positively affects the CWB of retail
supermarkets.
3.2.2.2 Hypothesis of the relationship between relationship equity and CWB in the retail
supermarket industry in Vietnam.
Hypothesis H5: The relationship equity of the retail supermarket positively affects the CWB of retail
supermarkets.
3.2.3 Moderator effect of customer personality traits on the causal relationship of research concepts
in the retail supermarket industry.


11
Hypothesis H6a: The level of influence of the value equity of retail supermarket on the CWB of retail

supermarket is moderated by the emotional stability of retail supermarket customers.
Hypothesis H7d: The level of influence of the relationship equity of retail supermarket on the CWB of
retail supermarket is moderated by the emotional stability of retail supermarket customers.
Hypothesis H8d: The level of influence of the brand equity of retail supermarket on the value equity of
retail supermarket is moderated by the emotional stability of retail supermarket customers.
Hypothesis H9d: The level of influence of the value equity of retail supermarket on the relationship
equity of retail supermarkets is moderated by the emotional stability of retail supermarket customers.
Hypothesis H10d: The level of influence of the brand equity of retail supermarket on the relationship
equity of retail supermarket is moderated by the emotional stability of retail supermarket customers.
Hypothesis H6e: The level of influence of the value equity of retail supermarket on the CWB of retail
supermarket is moderated by the openness to experience of retail supermarket customers.
Hypothesis H7e: The level of influence of the relationship equity of retail supermarket on the CWB of
retail supermarket is moderated by the openness to experience of retail supermarket customers.
Hypothesis H8e: The level of influence of the brand equity of retail supermarket on the value equity of
retail supermarket is moderated by the openness to experience of retail supermarket customers.
Hypothesis H9e: The level of influence of the value equity of retail supermarket on the relationship equity
of retail supermarkets is moderated by the openness to experience of retail supermarket customers.


12
Hypothesis H10e: The level of influence of the brand equity of retail supermarket on the relationship
equity of retail supermarket is moderated by the openness to experience of retail supermarket customers.
3.3 Proposed research model
3.3.1 Official research model
The formal research model consists of an independent variable of brand equity (BE); two variables both
independent and dependent are value equity (VE) and relationship equity (RE); dependent variable is consumer
well-being (CWB); moderator variables are customer personality traits (Figure 3.4).

Value equity
H4


Figure 3.4: The formal research model

3.3.2 Competitive model
In the competitive model, the research proposes a hypothesis concerning the relationship between brand
equity and CWB, see Figure 3.5.
Chapter 4: RESEARCH METHOD
4.1 Research design
4.1.1 Introduction to the research process
Research process (see Figure 4.1) and implementation schedule (see Table 4.1).
Table 4.1: Implementation schedule
The way of
Stages Research form
Method
Time
Place
performance
Focus group
1
Preliminary
Qualitative
01/2017
HCM city
discussion
2
Preliminary
Quantitative Interview
3,4/2017
HCM city
HCM city, Da Nang

H5
H8(a,b,c,d,e)

H11(a,b,c,d,e)

Customer personality:
a) Extraversion
b) Conscientiousness
c) Agreeableness
d) Emotional stability
e) Openness to experience

Relationship equity

Figure 3.5: Competitive model
Research issues
Objectives of the research

Theoretical background (customer equity,
consumer well-being, customer personality)

Qualitative research (group discussion, two
groups, n1 = 10, n2 = 10)

Draft scales 1

Draft scales 2 (first

Preliminary quantitative research
(n = 389)

have been shopping in general retail supermarkets. This research was conducted in March and April 2017 in
District 1, District 3 and District 5, Ho Chi Minh City. Formal quantitative research is conducted by direct
interview with customers. The number of reseach samples was surveyed with n = 1089 and follow the
convenient sampling method. The survey subjects are customers who have been shopping in general retail
supermarkets with the frequency of shopping at least once a month, regardless of male or female. This study
was conducted in June, July and August 2017 in Ho Chi Minh City, Da Nang and Hanoi.
4.2 Background tof building the scale
4.2.1 Scales of customer equity drivers
This research uses Vogel et al.’s (2008) scale of retail customer equity to explore, adjust and supplement
observed variables that measure three drivers of customer equity in the retail supermarket industry in Vietnam.
The measurement variables of this scales are presented in Table 4.2.
Table 4.2: Scales of three drivers of customer equity in the retail supermarket industry in Vietnam
(draft scale 1)
Concepts
Brand equity

Value equity

Relationship
equity

Measure variables
X is a strong brand.
X is an attractive brand.
X is a unique brand.
X is a likable brand.
How would you rate your overall shopping experience at X (“extremely good value/extremely poor value”) ?
The quality provided by X in relation to the price you paid for their product is very good.
The quality provided by X in relation to the price you paid for their service is very good.
For the time spent at X, would you say shopping is (“highly reasonable/highly unreasonable”) ?

Grzeskowiak & Sirgy (2008)
Grzeskowiak & Sirgy (2008)
Grzeskowiak & Sirgy (2008)


15
4
5
6
7
8
9

X plays an important role in my family well-being.
X plays an important role in enhancing the quality of my education life.
X plays an important role in ensuring my health and safety.
X plays an important role in my emotional well-being.
X plays an important role in my work well-being.
X plays an important role in my financial well-being.

Sirgy et al. (2006a)
Grzeskowiak & Sirgy (2008)
Sirgy et al. (2006a)
Sirgy et al. (2006a)
Sirgy et al. (2006a)
Sirgy et al. (2006a)

Source: Author adjusted from Grzeskowiak and Sirgy (2008)

The observed variables are measured by the five-point Likert multivariate scales, with the convention: 1

I follow a schedule
I am exacting in my work
I am interested in people
I sympathize with others’ feelings
I have a soft heart
I take time out for others
I feel others’ emotions
I make people feel at ease
I don’t easily get disturbed
My mood doesn’t change a lot
I don’t get irritated easily
I don’t get stressed out easily
I don’t get upset easily
I don’t have frequent mood swings
I don’t worry about things
I have a vivid imagination
I have excellent ideas
I am quick to understand things
I spend time reflecting on things
I am full of ideas

Source
Bove & Mitzifiris (2007)

Bove & Mitzifiris (2007)

Bove & Mitzifiris (2007)

Al-hawari (2015)


good.
VE4: For the time spent at X supermarket, you can say shopping is very reasonable.
VE5: For the effort involved in shopping at X supermarket, you can say shopping is very worthy.
VE6: The display of the X supermarket is very suitable for shopping.
4.3.2.3 Scale of relationship equity (RE)
Scale of retail supermarket relationship equity
RE1: I have a high quality relationship with X supermarket
RE2: I am familiar with the employees of X supermarket that perform the service.
RE3: I am glad to meet other customers in X supermarket.
RE4: I feel loyal towards X supermarket.
RE5: I am happy with the efforts that X supermarket is making towards customers like me
RE6: I have trust in X supermarket.
4.3.2.4 Scale of consumer well-being (CWB)
Scale of retail supermarket CWB
Does shopping at X supermarket contribute to your quality of life?
CWB1: X supermarket plays a very important role in my social well-being.
CWB2: X supermarket plays an important role in my leisure well-being.
CWB3: X supermarket plays an important role in my family well-being.
CWB4: X supermarket plays an important role in enhancing the quality of my education life.
CWB5: X supermarket plays an important role in ensuring my health and safety.
CWB6: X supermarket plays an important role in my emotional well-being.
CWB7: X supermarket plays an important role in my financial well-being.
CWB8: X supermarket satisfies my overall shopping needs.
4.3.2.5 Scales of customer personality traits
Scales of customer personality traits of retail supermarket
Extraversion
ET1: I am the life of the party


17

OT5: I am full of ideas
4.4 Preliminary assessment of the scale
The scale of research concepts will be preliminarily tested by quantitative method with n = 389. The tool
is used to preliminarily test the scales of Cronbach's Alpha reliability factor and explore factor analysis (EFA).
Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients are firstly used to remove unsuitable variables. The item-total correlation
variables less than 0.30 will be eliminated and the criteria to select the scale when it has alpha reliability of
0.60 or higher (Nguyen Dinh Tho & Nguyen Thi Mai Trang, 2008). Next, the EFA method is used, the
variables with factor loading less than 0.40 in EFA are further eliminated. The method of extracting
coefficients is PAF (principal axis factoring) with promax rotation and stopping point when extracting factors
with eigenvalue > = 1. The scale is accepted when the total variance extracted is greater than 50% (Nguyen
Dinh Tho & Nguyen Thi Mai Trang, 2008).
The results of testing the scales of research concepts have satisfactory Cronbach’s Alpha reliability factor
(> 0.80). The item-total correlation coefficients are met (> 0.30). Results with eigenvalue> 1.0. The total
variance extracted > 50% and all factor loadings are greater than 0.50. Thus, the observed variables of this
scales are used for formal research.
Chapter 5: RESEARCH RESULTS
5.1 Formal research sample


18
Samples are selected according to the convenient sampling method. The estimated sample size is n = 1000
and is done through direct interviews with retail supermarket consumers in the three cities of Hanoi, Da Nang
and Ho Chi Minh, regardless of male or female, aged 18 and over.
To get the estimated sample size n = 1000, the number of interview questionnaires distributed was 1500.
The reason for the large number of interview questionnaires (greater than 50% of the expected sample size) is
due to the respondents must be regular customers shopping at retail supermarkets, shopping frequency is at
least one times a month. Therefore, during the interview, respondents who do not meet the shopping frequency
requirements will be disqualified immediately with the clarification question at the top of each questionnaire.
The results of 207 questionnaires were disqualified during the interview process because they did not meet the
above shopping frequency. The number of questionnaires that were not collected (because the respondent did

Frequency

Ratio (%)

Accumulation rate (%)

323
393
199
103
51
18
1087

29.71
36.15
18.31
9.48
4.69
1.66
100.00

29.71
65.87
84.18
93.65
98.34
100.00

333

374
423
290
1087

34.41
34.41
38.91
73.32
26.68
100.00
100.00
Source: From the data processing results collected

5.2 Evaluating the reliability of the scale
5.2.1 Evaluating the reliability of the scale with Cronbach’s Alpha
5.2.1.1 Cronbach’s alpha evaluation of the scales of customer equity drivers and CWB.
Cronbach Alpha results of the scales of customer equity components and consumer well-being show that
all scales are reliable. The item-total correlation coefficients are high (> 0.50). Cronbach Alpha of all scales is
also high, the specific results: the scale of value equity scale is 0.893, the scale of brand equity is 0.882, the
scale of relationship equity is 0.913 and the scale of CWB is 0.925. Therefore, all observed variables of the
scales are used to analyze the EFA in the next section.
5.2.1.2 Cronbach’s alpha evaluation of the scales of customer personality traits.
Cronbach Alpha results of the scales of five customer personality traits show that scales are reliable. The
item-total correlation coefficients are high (> 0.50). Cronbach Alpha of the scales is also high, the specific
results: the extraversion scale is 0.817, the conscientiousness scale is 0.875, the agreeableness scale is 0.888,
the emotional stability scale is 0.887 and the scale of openness to experience is 0.847 (see Table 5.3).
Therefore, all observed variables of the scales are used to analyze the EFA in the next section.



5.2.3.2 The scale of brand equity
The scale of brand equity is measured by four observed variables. After the CFA test, the observed
variables have the required weights (> 0.50), the lowest is BE4 variable with 0.66 and is statistically significant
with p = 0.00. The weighted average value is 0.724. CFA results show that this model has a suitable level with
market data with Chi-square is 2,637, df is 2 and p = 0,267 (> 0,05). Other measurement criterias are also
satisfactory with GFI is 0.999, TLI is 0.999, CFI is 1.000, CMIN/df is 1.319 and RMSEA is 0.017. Thus, the
observed variables used to measure the concept of brand equity achieve convergent value. The CR is 0.816
and the AVE is 52.3%. Thus, this scale achieves reliability and extracted variance.
5.2.3.3 The scale of relationship equity
The relationship equity scale is measured by six observed variables. After the CFA test, the observed
variables all have the required weights (> 0.50), the lowest is RE2 variable with 0.729 and is statistically
significant with p = 0.00. The weighted average value is 0.78. Thus, the observed variables used to measure
the concept of relationship equity achieve convergent value. CFA results show that this model has a degree of
conformity with market data with Chi-square is 1.702, df is 4 and p is 0,79 (> 0,05). Other measurement
criterias are also satisfactory with GFI is 0.999, TLI is 1.000, CFI is 1.000, CMIN/df is 0.426 and RMSEA is
0.000. The CR is 0.90 and the AVE is 61.2%. Thus, this scale achieves reliability and extracted variance.
5.2.3.4 The scale of CWB
The scale of CWB is measured by eight observed variables. After the CFA test, the observed variables
have the required weights (> 0.50), the lowest is CWB6 variable with 0.70 and all have statistical significance


20
with p = 0.00. The weighted average value is 0.76. Thus, the observed variables used to measure the concept
of CWB achieve convergence value. CFA results show that this model has a suitable level with market data
with Chi- square is 13.62, df is 10 and p is 0.191 (> 0.05). Other measurement criterias are also satisfactory
with GFI is 0.997, TLI is 0.998, CFI is 0.999, CMIN/df is 1.36 and RMSEA is 0.018. The CR is 0.92 and the
AVE is 58.4%. Thus, this scale achieves reliability and extracted variance.
5.2.3.5 The scale of customer personality traits
CFA results of the scale model of customer personality traits have 323 degrees of freedom, Chi-square is
657.59 with p value = 0.00. However, the CFA results show that this model is consistent with market data

6
4
6
8
4
6
6
7
5

CR

AVE

0.89
0.82
0.90
0.92
0.80
0.87
0.88
0.91
0.84

0.568
0.523
0.612
0.584
0.504
0.521

Tho & Nguyen Thi Mai Trang, 2002). Moreover, other conformity assessment criterias meet the requirement
with GFI is 0.968, TLI is 0.983, CFI is 0.986 and RMSEA is 0.029 (Figure 5.1). Thus, we can evaluate this
model in accordance with data collected from the market. The results show that all relationships in the model
are statistically significant (p
VE
--->
RE
--->
RE
--->
CWB

ML
0.383
0.182

12.562

0.000

Source: From the data processing results collected

Source: From the data processing results collected
Figure 5.1: SEM results of theoretical model

5.3.2 Verification of competitive model

Source: From the data processing results collected
Figure 5.2: SEM results of competitive model

SEM results show that the model has 226 degrees of freedom with Chi-square is 435,822 and p = 0.00.
But other indicators of the model are consistent with market data with CMIN/df is 1,928 (