Quality, value, satisfaction, trust, a

Table 1. Estimation Results
____________________________________________________________________________________
Variables Model M1 Model M2 Model M3 Model M4
(Price only) (Tradeoff only) (Price & Tradeoff) (Reduced /
Price &
Tradeoff)
____________________________________________________________________________________
Brand constant (A) 0.896* -1.067** -0.716 -0.683
Brand constant (B) 1.353** -0.483 -0.145 -0.579
Brand constant (C) 0.575 -1.884*** -1.509** -2.107***
Display 1.685*** 1.597*** 1.564*** 1.557***
Feature 1.240*** 1.006*** 0.932** 0.904**
Family size (A) -0.036 -0.032 -0.030
Family size (B) 0.015 0.029 0.352
Family size (C) -0.034 -0.042 -0.038
Income (A) 0.022 0.034 0.038
Income (B) -0.151 -0.142 -0.141
Income (C) -0.132 -0.111 -0.111
Brand Loyalty 4.694*** 4.654*** 4.675*** 4.707***
Price -0.0195*** -0.0054 -0.0051
Tradeoff 31.117*** 28.52*** 28.836***
____________________________________________________________________________________
Model χ 2 (d.f.) 2330.9 (13) 2353.0 (13) 2353.6 (14) 2348.7 (8)
Model Log-likelihood -297.1 -286.07 -285.74 -288.29
Model Fit (U 2 ) 0.797 0.804 0.805 0.803
____________________________________________________________________________________
* significant at p < 0.10; ** significant at p < 0.05; *** significant at p < 0.01.
Relevant model comparisons based on likelihood ratio tests:
(a) Incorporation of Tradeoff helps to improve fit (M3 better than M1 at p < 0.01).
(b) Reduced models are not significantly worse than the full models (M4 not worse than M3 at p > 0.1).
(c) After incorporating the tradeoff term, the straight price does not improve the fit of the model
significantly (M3 not better than M2).
188