an empirical examination of brand loyalty

An empirical examination of brand loyaltyJan Møller Jensen

Department of Marketing, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark, and

Torben HansenDepartment of Marketing, Copenhagen Business School, Frederiksberg, Denmark

AbstractPurpose – This article aims to measure relative attitude as a latent two-dimensional second-order factor and to investigate the relationship betweenrelative attitude and repeat purchasing.Design/methodology/approach – A conceptual model of attitude-behaviour consistency and brand loyalty is proposed and empirically tested in thecontext of frequently purchased consumer goods. Structural equation modelling was used on survey data from 395 households to test the model andcorresponding hypotheses.Findings – The results support the conceptualization of relative attitude as a composite of purchase involvement and perceived brand differences andalso support the hypotheses proposed in our research model. Theoretical and managerial implications are discussed at the end of the article.Originality/value – Survey data from 395 households was used to test the model and corresponding hypotheses.

Keywords Brand loyalty, Consumer goods

Paper type Research paper

An executive summary for managers and executivereaders can be found at the end of this article.

Introduction

Representing one of the most important factors believed toexplain consumer brand choices, it is no surprise that theconcept of brand loyalty has aroused an enormous interestamong academics as well as practitioners within the field ofmarketing and consumer behaviour. Firms with large groupsof loyal customers have been shown to have large marketshares, and market share, in turn, has been shown to beassociated with higher rates of return on investment (Buzzellet al., 1975; Raj, 1985; Reichheld and Sasser, 1990). Dickand Basu (1994) suggest that brand loyalty favours positiveworth of mouth and greater resistance among loyal customersto competitive strategies. Obviously such findings encouragemarketers to build and maintain brand loyalty amongcustomers. When striving for such goals, information onfactors determining the creation of brand loyalty amongcustomers becomes an important matter.This article investigates the importance of the relative

attitude to the determination of brand loyalty. Our empiricalinvestigation focuses on the market of frequently purchasedconsumer goods. In relation to this, we agree with the dictumput forward by Rundle-Thiele and Bennet (2001) that“variation between the characteristics of each marketindicates that the measures used to capture brand loyaltyshould be very different, as will the antecedent variables”(p. 28). Furthermore, by examining the relative attitude as anantecedent of repeat purchasing we assume a determinist

approach to brand loyalty rather than the more behaviouraloriented stochastic approach (Odin et al., 2001). From a purely

stochastic approach, brand loyalty is considered tantamount torepeat purchasing and grounded on no manifest factors

determining the behaviour. It is impossible to detect anyantecedents of repeat purchases, and therefore companies gain

no understanding of how to build brand loyalty. From adeterminist approach brand loyalty is conceptualised more likean attitude or intention to purchase and it is believed that the

researcher can investigate the factors producing brand loyalty.Marketers investigating these factors may therefore gain

valuable insights into the creation and retaining of brandloyalty among customers.Although the stochastic approach seems very useful for

explaining consumer purchase behaviour of fast-movingconsumer goods (e.g. powder, detergent, toothpaste etc.),

we do believe that even for frequently purchased consumergoods the purchase decisions are rarely made on a purelyarbitrary basis. Therefore, we lean to the composite definition

of brand loyalty which was originally suggested by Day (1969)and later supported by other researchers (e.g. Jacoby, 1971;

Dick and Basu, 1994; Assael, 1998). Jacoby (1971) definesbrand loyalty as repeat purchase but clearly points out that

this behaviour is a function of psychological processes. Inother words, repeat purchase is not just an arbitrary responsebut the result of some proceeding factors (for example

psychological, emotional or situational factors). LikewiseDick and Basu (1994) point out that even a relatively

important repeat purchase may not reflect true loyalty to aproduct but may merely result from situational conditions

such as brands stocked by the retailer. In their framework,attitude is a requirement for true loyalty to occur.Consequently, they define repeat purchasing without a

favourable attitude as spurious loyalty. Similar thoughts arefound in Assael (1998) who conceptualizes brand loyalty as

repeat purchase under high involvement and defines repeatpurchase under low involvement as inertia. The relationship

between attitude and behaviour is well accepted amongconsumer researchers although this relationship appears to be

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1061-0421.htm

Journal of Product & Brand Management

15/7 (2006) 442–449

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 1061-0421]

[DOI 10.1108/10610420610712829]

442

most likely when applied to high involvement situations(Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980). Assuming that, even with regardto frequently purchased consumer goods, some consumerswill exert more involvement to the purchase decision thanothers, this article investigates the relationship betweenrelative attitude and repeat purchasing. Understanding therole of relative attitude to brand loyalty is important for brandmanagers in order to enhance and maintain consumers’repeat purchasing of their brand. Only if an increase inrelative attitude results in an increase in repeat purchase it ismeaningful for marketers seeking to influence repeatpurchasing through attitude building marketing strategies.

Model development and research hypotheses

Figure 1 presents our conceptual model of loyalty formationfocusing on the relationship between relative attitude andrepeat purchasing.We adopt the composite perspective of brand loyalty first

suggested by Day (1969) and later supported by otherresearchers (e.g. Jacoby, 1971; Dick and Basu, 1994). Thecomposite approach to loyalty claims that to be truly loyal theconsumer must hold a favourable attitude toward the brand inaddition to repeat purchasing it. Accordingly, we suggest thatrelative attitude positively influence repeat purchasing.However, in our research model we do not expect a directinfluence from relative attitude on repeat purchases but ratherhypothesise relative attitude to have an indirect influence onrepeat purchase through variety-seeking and enhancingresistance to situational factors. More precisely we expecthigher relative attitude to have a negative effect on theconsumer’s tendency towards variety-seeking and a positiveeffect on the consumers resistance to situational factorstriggering brand switching (e.g. “out-of stock” situations).The concept of relative attitude as well as the hypothesisedrelationships is further discussed in the following sections.

Relative attitude as a two-dimensional constructAs explained in the Methods section, we conceptualiserelative attitude as a latent second order factor composed oftwo dimensions; purchase involvement and perceived brand

differences. The rationale for the inclusion of these twodimensions as components of relative attitude is found inDick and Basu (1994).According to Dick and Basu (1994) attitudinal differentiation

is a prerequisite for a high relative attitude. If the consumer isunable to differentiate among alternatives and/or sees no or veryfew differences among alternatives, relative attitude will be lowwith absence of true loyalty as a consequence. This view issupported by Muncy (1996) who emphasizes that in theabsence of perceived differences between brand alternatives itwill be difficult to build brand loyalty.Dick and Basu (1994) further argue that relative attitude is at

its highest on condition of high attitudinal strength. In ourmodel we suggest attitudinal strength to be represented by theconcept of purchase involvement. The role of involvement asan important factor in loyalty formation has been investigatedand to some degree supported by consumer researchers(Quester and Lim, 2003). An experimental study focusing onthe relationship between product involvement and brandloyalty (LeClerc and Little, 1997) concludes that repeatpurchasing of high involvement products reflects true loyalty,whereas repeat purchasing of low involvement products issimple habitual purchase behaviour. Yet, other researchers (e.g.Traylor, 1983) have questioned the definition of high and lowinvolvement products suggesting that it is up to the consumerand not to the product to decide the involvement degree of apurchase decision. For example, a person with great interestand experience in wine may be highly involved in the productcategory wine without necessarily feeling highly involved whenpurchasing a bottle of wine. Conversely, an individualpurchasing a detergent to be used for washing an expensiveblouse may experience high risk and feel highly involved inchoosing the right brand of detergent. Thus, in order toinvestigate the influence of involvement on brand loyalty apurchasing-related conceptualization of consumer involvementseems more appropriate. Additionally, as argued by Questerand Lim (2003), involvement should not be investigated in adichotomous form (e.g. high or low involvement) but rather asa continuum. Thus, in our model we view involvement as apurchase-related concept representing a consumer’s subjectiveperception of how important (involving) the outcome of a

Figure 1 Conceptual model and research hypotheses

An empirical examination of brand loyalty

Jan Møller Jensen and Torben Hansen


Volume 15 · Number 7 · 2006 · 442–449

443

purchase within a particular product category is to theconsumer. Purchase involvement is believed to range within ascale continuum and to be one of two dimensions comprisingthe concept of relative attitude.

Relative attitude and variety-seekingWhen studying consumers’ variety-seeking behaviour, it isimportant to distinguish “true” variety- seeking behaviourfrom extrinsically motivated brand switching (Van Trijp et al.,1996). Van Trijp et al. (1996) argue that brand switchingbehaviour should only be attributed to true variety-seekingwhen variation is aimed at for its own intrinsic value and forthe stimulation it brings to the situation. Consumers’ need forsomething to reduce boredom or a need for sensorystimulation by exploring new product variants (e.g. adifferently flavoured coffee) are examples of true variety-seeking. Van Trijp et al. (1996) provide empirical evidence forvariety-seeking to be more likely when involvement is lower,when smaller brand differences are perceived among choicealternatives and when consumers brand preferences are lower.On the basis of these considerations, we hypothesizeH1. Relative attitude influences variety-seeking negatively.

Relative attitude and resistance to situational factorsIn addition to the above mentioned intrinsical motivation forbrand switching Van Trijp et al. (1996) call attention to theextrinsically motivated or derived brand switching behaviourcaused by situational factors (e.g. friends recommendingalternative brand, usual brand sold out or not stored by theretailer, competitors’ brand on sale). The authors furtherhypothesise that brand switches caused by external factors aremore likely to happen in circumstances of low involvementpurchasing and in situations where perceived differences amongbrands are small. Emmelheinz et al. (1991) found that perceivedrisk of purchasing another brand than the preferred one (e.g.high relative attitude) reduced the likelihood of switching brand.In a similar way, Dick and Basu (1994) propose that a consumerwith a strong relative attitude will be more likely to overcomecountervailing social norms and/or situational influences.Therefore we expect a consumer with high relative attitude tobe less alert to competitors’ price offers and more likely topostpone purchases or to patronise another store if the usualbrand is sold out. We therefore propose the following hypothesis:H2. Relative attitude influences resistance to situational

factors positively.

Variety-seeking and resistance to situational factorsIntuitive consumers intrinsically motivated for brandswitching will more actively be in search for alternativebrands and therefore pay more attention to offers from thecompetition. Further they will be more likely to give up theirusual brand in case of out of stock situations. Van Trijp et al.(1996) find that variety-seeking tendency seems to influenceconsumers’ response to out of stock situations. We thereforepropose consumers with a higher level of true variety-seekingwill be less resistant to situational factors and we forward thefollowing hypothesis:H3. Variety-seeking influences resistance to situational

factors negatively.

Variety-seeking and repeat purchasingAs mentioned above brand switches may result fromconsumers’ need to reduce boredom or a need for sensory

stimulation by exploring new product variants. Thus, suggestthe following hyphothesis:H4. Variety-seeking influence repeat purchasing negatively.

Resistance to situational factors and repeat purchasingIn today’s market environment, particularly on the frequentlypurchased consumer goods market, many marketers areswitching promotional spending from advertising to salespromotion, including in-store displays, shelf-space and pricereductions. The axiom behind this is that although advertisingcreates brand loyalty, sales promotion creates brand switching.This axiom stems from a common belief that when consumersexperience fewer differences between alternatives, they becomemore price sensitive and thus more vulnerable to competitivebrands on sale. Yet, in our conceptual model we suggest thatenhancing consumers’ resistance to situational factors (throughbuilding higher relative attitudes) is a possible and perhapsmore sustainable way to increasing or maintaining repeatpurchasing. Hence, we propose this hypothesis:H5. Resistance to situational factors influence repeat

purchasing positively.

Data collection

The data used in this paper were obtained as part of a largesurvey of brand loyalty. Data were collected in Odense, thethird largest city in Denmark, situated on the island of Funen.Random sampling using the Odense telephone directory drew600 phone numbers. Households were first contacted byphone in order to get their acceptance of participation and toset up an appointment for distribution of questionnaires.Questionnaires were distributed to the respondents by use ofthe “drop-off-call-back” method (e.g. Hair et al., 1998). Thefollowing six non-durables were investigated: shampoo, toiletpaper, coffee, chocolate, tooth pasta and washing powder. Inorder to improve response rate it was decided to split theproduct sample into two identical questionnaires includingonly three non-durables each. For each product category therespondents were asked various questions concerning theirattitudes to and actual purchase of the products. Additionallythere were a number of questions concerning householddemographics and general purchase patterns. 348questionnaires were returned leaving us with a potential of1,046 product cases to be analysed. However, for each of theinvestigated products we decided only to include answersfrom persons indicating that they had at least sharinginfluence on brand decision and that they usually boughtthis product for the household. Furthermore, cases with“don’t know” responses to any items to be included in themeasurement model were excluded. The application of theseprocedures resulted in a total of 395 cases, distributed acrossproduct types in a satisfactory way (all products wererepresented by 46 to 78 cases).

Measurements

Repeat purchasing is measured by a single item. In this studywe asked respondents for each product category, to indicatehow many times of the last five purchases they bought the samebrand. Although we recognize that this is a measure of pastbehaviour, we believe that such a measure is a reasonableindicator for future repeat purchasing. An alternative way tomeasure behavioural loyalty could be the perceived probability




Volume 15 · Number 7 · 2006 · 442–449

444

of purchasing the same brand in the future (Jacoby andChestnut, 1978). Considering the weak relationship betweenattitude and behaviour often found in studies of lowinvolvement situations, such an indicator would neither be avery reliable measure of future repeat purchasing, particularlynot with regard to frequently purchased goods markets.Except for repeat purchasing, all constructs in our

conceptual model are latent unobservable variables. In orderto obtain reasonable accurate measures of such constructs it isrecommended to developed multi-item scales including two ormore items. In our study we created scales with two or threeitems, mostly adapted from previous research. Each constructand its corresponding items is displayed in the Appendix. Allitems were measured on a seven-point Likert-like scale rangingfrom 1 ¼ “completely disagree” to 7 ¼ “completely agree”.Dick and Basu (1994) conceptualize relative attitude as a

composite of attitudinal strength and attitudinaldifferentiation. In their GRID-model the two dimensionsare treated as independent constructs. Dick and Basu (1994)do not question the assumption of independency, nor do theysuggest how to measure the two constructs. In this study wesuggest attitudinal strength and attitudinal differentiation tobe represented by purchase involvement and perceived branddifferentiation respectively and propose relative attitude to bea latent variable (or function) comprised of these twosubdimensions. To accomplish this measurement we willspecify a second-order factor model, which suggests that thesecond-order factor “relative attitude” is a composite (orfunction) of the first-order factors “purchase involvement”and “perceived brand differentiation”.Purchase involvement was assessed by Ratchford’s (1987)

three-item involvement scale. The three items are shown asINV1 to INV3 in the Appendix.Considering perceived brand differences as the opposite to

the concept of brand parity we adapted three items fromMuncy’s (1996) five-item scale of perceived brand parity. Thethree items are named PBD1 to PBD3 in the Appendix.In order to measure consumers’ resistance to situational

factors we use two items from Munchy (1996). The two itemsare named RSF1 and RSF2 in the Appendix.Variety-seeking is measured with two items framed with

reference to Van Trijp et al. (1996) and is referred to as VS1and VS2 in the Appendix.

Results

The model in Figure 1 was translated into a LISREL modelconsisting of a measurement part (confirmatory factor analysis)and a structural equation part (simultaneous linear regression).The relationship between variables was estimated by maximumlikelihood estimation. A two-stage approach (see Anderson andGerbing, 1988; Gerbing and Anderson, 1992) tested theproposed model. First, conducting confirmatory factor analysison the applied multi-item scales developed the measurementmodel. Next, the measurement model and the structuralequation paths were estimated simultaneously to test theproposed model (overall model). By applying this two-stagemethod we want to ensure that the measures of the constructsare reliable and valid before attempting to draw conclusionsabout relations between constructs.

Measurement modelAn initial confirmatory factor analysis revealed an offendingestimate as the loading of “purchase involvement” on “relative

attitude” was greater than 1.0 (producing a correspondingnegative variance to the construct). Since such an estimate isnot theoretically appropriate, it was necessary to solve thisproblem before the results from the conducted confirmatoryfactor analysis could be examined. To solve the problem wedecided to fix the variance of the concept “involvement” to asmall positive figure (here 0.1), as recommended by severalresearchers (e.g. Hair et al., 1998).Table I shows the results of the confirmatory factor analysis

(CFA). The aim of CFA is to verify the factor structure asproposed. Prior to examining results from elaborating on thefigures in Table I we call attention to the fact that x2

(df ¼ 37) ¼ 122.82 is highly significant ( p , 0.001)indicating that the model fails to fit in an absolute sense.However, since the x2-test is very powerful for large samplesizes, even a good measurement model could be rejected.Thus, several writers (e.g. Hair et al., 1998) recommend thatfor sample sizes greater than 200 the x2-measure should becomplemented with other goodness-of-fit measures as forexample GFI and RMSEA.The GFI value (0,955) is well above the recommended 0.90

threshold level. RMSEA, which is less dependent on samplesize, constitutes a measure of fit between the proposed modeland the population covariance matrix. Brown and Cudeck(1993) suggest that RMSEA less than or equal to 0.05indicates a good fit, RMSEA between 0.05 and 0.08 a fair fit,and values in the range of 0.08 and 0.10 indicate mediocre fit.RMSEA for our measurement model is 0.074, which is belowthe 0.08 threshold level and thus indicates an acceptable fit(Brown and Cudeck 1993; Hair et al. 1998). To conclude, theresults indicate an acceptable overall fit between the model andthe observed data. All other fit measures, including AGFI,CFI, NFI and TLI, also show acceptable (. 0.90) results.All factor loadings were highly significant (t-value . 2.64;

p , 0.01), which demonstrate that the chosen generic questionsfor each latent variable reflect a single underlying construct. Thereliabilities and variance extracted for each variable indicate thatthe model was reliable and valid. All composite reliabilitiesexceed 0.70 and all variance-extracted estimates were above0.50, indicating an acceptable level of unidimensionality. Thereliabilities and the estimates of extracted variance werecomputed, using indicator standardized loadings andmeasurement errors (Hair et al. 1998; Shim et al. 2001).These model considerations indicate that the constructs do existand that they are tapped by the measures used.Discriminant validity of the applied constructs was tested

applying the approach proposed by Fornell and Larcker(1981). In Table II, the diagonals represent for each constructthe variance extracted as reported in Table I. The otherentries represent the squares of correlations among constructs(i.e. the shared variance among constructs).An examination of the matrix displayed in Table II shows an

acceptable level of discriminant validity of constructs.Extracted variance of each construct (displayed as diagonalentries) is higher or equal to the shared variance betweenconstructs (displayed as non-diagonals) except for resistanceto situational factors sharing a relative high amount ofvariance with relative attitude and variety-seeking as well(variance_resistance to situational factors ¼ 0.65 , squaredcorrelation_ relative attitude – resistance to situationalfactors ¼ 0.73; variance_variety-seeking ¼ 0.56 ,

squared correlation_variety-seeking – resistance tosituational factors ¼ 0.58). Yet, these correlations arebelow the suggested threshold of 0.85 (see Frambach et al.,




Volume 15 · Number 7 · 2006 · 442–449

445

1998). Also, considering the hypothesized paths from bothrelative attitude and variety-seeking towards resistance tosituational factors (see H2 and H3), these relatively highcorrelations are not surprising.

Overall model fitTables III and IV display the results of testing the proposedtheoretical model. The results of the structural equation

modelling reveal that the x2 for the estimated model was

122.82 (df 39; p , 0.001). This result indicates that the model

fails to fit in an absolute sense. However, as mentioned above,

the x2-measure should be complemented with other goodness-

of-fit measures. The results of the full model (structural and

measurement models) indicate a good fit (GFI: 0.95; AGFI:

Table I Confirmatory factor analyses results (n ¼ 395)

Construct/indicator Standardized factor loadinga Standard error t-value Construct reliabilityb Extracted variancec

j1 Relative attitude 0.921 0.855

h1 Involvement 0.883 –

h2 Perceived brand differences 0.964 0.138 10.427

h1 Involvement 0.777 0.543

I1 0.572 –

I2 0.825 0.131 11.567

I3 0.789 0.118 11.345

h2 Perceived brand differences 0.761 0.522

PBD1 0.873 –

PBD2 0.673 0.062 13.707

PBD3 0.593 0.053 11.848

h3 Variety-seeking 0.706 0.559

VS1 0.900 –

VS2 0.555 0.057 9.416

h4 Resistance to situational factors 0.789 0.651

RSF1 0.792 –

RSF2 0.822 0.064 16.264

x2 5 122.82; p < 0.001 x2/DF ¼ 3.149

RMSEA 5 0.074

GFI 5 0.947; AGFI 5 0.911; CFI 5 0.955; NFI 5 0.936; TLI 5 0.936

Notes: aThe first item for each construct was set to 1; bCalculated as S(Std. Loadings)2/S(Std. Loadings)2 + Sjj; cCalculated as SStd. Loadings2/SStd. Loadings2

+ Sjj

Table II Discriminant validity of constructs

Construct 1 2 3

1. Relative attitude 0.86

2. Variety-seeking 0.56 0.56

3. Resistance to situational factors 0.73 0.58 0.65

Note: Diagonals represent average amount of extracted variance for eachconstruct; non-diagonals represent the shared variance between constructs(calculated as the squares of correlations between constructs)

Table III Results of the structural equation model (n ¼ 395) (Part 1)

Hypotheses Construct relationships

Estimates of structural

equation coefficients Standard error t-value Test-results

H1 Relative attitude ! Variety-seeking 20.743 0.135 29.57 * Accept

H2 Relative attitude ! Resistance to situational factors 0.621 0.164 6.12 * Accept

H3 Variety-seeking ! Resistance to situational factors 20.303 0.084 23.34 * Accept

H4 Variety-seeking ! Repeat purchasing 20.104 0.075 21.05 Reject

H5 Resistance to situational factors ! Repeat purchasing 0.370 0.081 3.72 * Accept

Notes: x2 (38) ¼ 117,21, p ¼ 0.000; x2/DF ¼ 3,08; CFI ¼ 0.957; NFI ¼ 0.939; GFI ¼ 0.948; TLI ¼ 0.938; RMSEA ¼ 0.073; HOELTER(0.05) ¼ 180;HOELTER(0.01) ¼ 206; *Significant at the 0.01 level

Table IV Results of the structural equation model (n ¼ 395) (Part 2)

Explained proportion of construct variance

Squared multiple

correlations (R2)

Resistance to situational factors 0.76

Variety-seeking 0.55

Repeat purchasing 0.21

Notes: x2 (38) ¼ 117,21, p ¼ 0.000; x2/DF ¼ 3,08; CFI ¼ 0.957; NFI¼ 0.939; GFI ¼ 0.948; TLI ¼ 0.938; RMSEA ¼ 0.073; HOELTER(0.05)¼ 180; HOELTER(0.01) ¼ 206




Volume 15 · Number 7 · 2006 · 442–449

446

0.91; NFI ¼ 0.94; CFI ¼ 0.96 and RMSEA 0.07) providingacceptable support for the model as proposed.

Hypotheses testingThe structural equation results reveal that 21 per cent of thevariance in repeat purchasing can be explained by theproposed model (refer to the R2 figure in Tables III and IV).Most of the explained variance in repeat purchasing isproduced by consumers’ resistance to situational factors (H5:standardized coefficient ¼ 0.370; t ¼ 3.72; p , 0.01).Surprisingly, the path from variety-seeking to repeatpurchasing is not significant. In other words we find nosupport for our hypothesis with respect to this association(H4: standardized coefficient ¼ 2 0.104; t ¼ 21.05;p . 0.05). However, variety-seeking has a significant negativeeffect on consumers’ resistance to situational factors (H1:standardized coefficient ¼ 20.303; t ¼ 2 3.34; p , 0.01).As hypothesised, relative attitude has a significant negativeeffect on variety-seeking (H1: standardized coefficient ¼

20.743; t ¼ 2 9.57; p , 0.01) and a significant positiveeffect on resistance to situational factors (H2: standardizedcoefficient ¼ 0.621; t ¼ 6.12; p , 0.01). 55 per cent of thevariance in variety-seeking is explained by relative attitude and76 per cent of the variance in resistance to situational factorsis explained by relative attitude and variety-seeking (refer tofigures on R2 in the lower part of Table II). These results showthat relative attitude plays an important role in explainingconsumers’ need for variety-seeking and in enhancingconsumers’ resistance to situational factors as well.

Summary and implications

The results of our study confirm to a large extend theproposed hypotheses and suggest a number of importantmanagerial implications for consumer researchers and brandmanagers. First, to the best of our knowledge, this is the firststudy that attempts to measure relative attitude as a secondfactor composite of perceived brand differences and purchaseinvolvement. Considering the high reliability (alpha ¼ 0.92)and predictive validity (see the acceptance of H1 and H2)found in our conceptualisation and measurement of relativeattitude, the results lend some support to Dick and Basu’s(1994) two dimensional conceptualisation of relative attitude.Second, as hypothesised relative attitude has a significantinfluence on variety-seeking as well as resistance to situationalfactors, providing support for some of the propositionsforwarded by Dick and Basu (1994). Third, althoughresistance to situational factors turns out to be the mostimportant factor in predicting repeat purchasing, separatingintrinsically motivated variety-seeking from extrinsicallyimposed brand switching, reveals that consumers’ variety-seeking tendencies may play a mediating role inhibitingresistance to situational factors.The results have implications for brand managers,

especially with respect to marketing frequently purchasedconsumer goods. The results show that consumers with a highrelative attitude are less prone of variety-seeking, moreresistant to out of stock situations and competitors offers, andconsequently more likely to keep loyal to their usual brand.Thus, it is still possible for marketers to create loyalconsumers by building positive attitudes towards theirproducts. Our conceptualisation and measurement ofrelative attitude as a composite of purchase involvement andperceived brand differences suggest two ways for marketers to

enhance relative attitudes towards their brand. First,marketers should try to increase consumers’ purchaseinvolvement, for example trying to relate the consumptionsituation to consumers’ value system. Second, marketersshould clearly differentiate their own brand from competingalternatives by telling the consumer why and how their brandis better than alternative brands. Within certain productcategories (e.g. food products) consumers are more likely toseeking variations in their purchases. Since consumers’tendencies to variety-seeking make them more alert to offersfrom competing brands, it is important for marketerscompeting on such markets to expand their product lines(e.g. tee products with many different flavours) making itpossible for the consumer to vary their purchase experienceswithout having to switch brands.

Limitations and future research directions

Our study is focusing on the frequently purchased consumergoods market, and the results may therefore not necessarily begeneralised to other market types. Other studies should testour model on other market types. Also, our results are limitedby the nature of measuring repeat purchases. In this study weasked respondents for each product category to indicate howmany times of the last five purchases they bought the samebrand. Although we recognize that this is a measure of pastbehaviour we believe that such a measure is a reasonableindicator of future repeat purchasing. An alternativeoperationalisation of behavioural loyalty could be theperceived probability of purchasing the same brand in thefuture (Jacoby and Chestnut, 1978). Considering the weakrelationship between attitude and behaviour often found instudies of low involvement situations, such an indicator wouldneither be a very reliable measure of future repeat purchasing,particularly not with regard to frequently purchased goodsmarkets. Further research may wish to investigate brandloyalty through longitudinal studies.

References

Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1980), Understanding Attitudes andPredicting Social Behavior, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Stuctural

equation modeling in practice: a review and

recommended two-step appraoch”, Psychological Bulletin,Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-23.

Assael, H. (1998), Consumer Behavior and Marketing Actions,6th ed., South-Western College Publishing, Mason, OH.

Brown, M.W. and Cudeck, R. (1993), “Alternative ways of

assessing model fit”, in Bollen, K.A. and Long, J.S. (Eds),

Testing Structural Equation Models, Sage, Thousand Oaks,

CA, pp. 136-62.Buzzell, R.D., Gale, B.T. and Sultan, R.G.M. (1975),

“Market share – a key to profitability”, Harvard BusinessReview, Vol. 53, pp. 97-106.

Day, G.S. (1969), “A two-dimensional concept of brand

loyalty”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 9, pp. 29-35.Dick, A.S. and Basu, K. (1994), “Customer loyalty: toward

an integrated conceptual framework”, Journal of theAcademy of Marketing Science, Vol. 22, pp. 99-113.

Emmelheinz, M., Stock, J. and Emmelheinz, L. (1991),

“Consumer response to retail stock-outs”, Journal ofRetailing, Vol. 67, pp. 138-46.




Volume 15 · Number 7 · 2006 · 442–449

447

Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural

equation models with unobservable variables and

measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research,

Vol. 18, pp. 77-90.Frambach, R.T., Barkema, H.G., Nooteboom, B. and

Wedel, M. (1998), “Adoption of a service innovation in

the business market: an empirical test of supply-side

variables”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 41, pp. 161-74.Gerbing, D.W. and Anderson, J.C. (1992), “Monte Carlo

evaluation of goodness fit indices for structural equation

models”, Sociological Methods and Research, Vol. 21,

pp. 132-60.Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.l. and Black, W.C.

(1998), Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th ed., Prentice-Hall

International, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Jacoby, J. (1971), “A model of multi brand loyalty”, Journal of

Advertising Research, Vol. 11, pp. 25-31.Jacoby, J. and Chestnut, R. (1978), Brand Loyalty:

Measurement and Management, John Wiley & Sons,

New York, NY.LeClerc, F. and Little, J.D.C. (1997), “Can advertising make

FSI coupons more effective?”, Journal of Marketing

Research, Vol. 34, pp. 473-84.Muncy, J.A. (1996), “Measuring perceived brand parity”,

Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 23, pp. 411-7.Odin, Y., Odin, N. and Valette-Florence, P. (2001),

“Conceptual and operational aspects of brand loyalty:

an empirical investigation”, Journal of Business Research,

Vol. 53, pp. 75-84.Quester, P. and Lim, A.I. (2003), “Product involvement/

brand loyalty: is there a link?”, Journal of Product & Brand

Management, Vol. 12, pp. 22-38.Raj, S.P. (1985), “Striking a balance between brand

‘popularity’ and brand ‘loyalty’”, Journal of Marketing,

Vol. 49, pp. 53-9.Ratchford, B.T. (1987), “New insights about the FCB

GRID”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 27, pp. 24-38.Reichheld, F. and Sasser, W.E. (1990), “Zero defections”,

Harward Business Review, Vol. 68, pp. 105-11.Rundle-Thiele, S. and Bennet, R. (2001), “A brand for all

seasons? A discussion of brand loyalty approaches and their

applicability for different markets”, Journal of Product and

Brand Management, Vol. 10, pp. 25-37.Shim, S., Eastlick, M.A., Lotz, S.L. and Warrington, P.

(2001), “An online prepurchase intentions model: the role

of intention to search”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 77,

pp. 397-416.Traylor, M.B. (1983), “Ego involvement and brand

commitment: not necessarily the same”, Journal of

Consumer Marketing, Vol. 1, pp. 75-9.Van Trijp, H.C.M., Hoyer, W.D. and Inman, J.J. (1996),

“Why switch? Product category-level explanations for true

variety-seeking behavior”, Journal of Marketing Research,

Vol. 33, pp. 281-92.

Further reading

Baldinger, A.L. and Rubinson, J. (1996), “Brand loyalty: the

link between attitude and behaviour”, Journal of Advertising

Research, Vol. 36, pp. 22-34.Cunningham, R.M. (1956), “Brand loyalty – what, where,

how much?”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 34, pp. 116-28.

East, R., Sinclair, J. and Gendal, P. (2000), “Loyalty:definition and explanation”, paper presented at ANZMAC2000, Visionary Marketing for the 21st Century: Facing theChallenge, Gold Coast, pp. 286-290.

Oliver, R.I. (1980), “A Cognitive model of the Antecedentsand consequences of satisfaction decisions”, Journal ofMarketing Research, Vol. 17, pp. 460-9.

Rundle-Thiele, S. and Mackay, M.M. (2001), “Assessing theperformance of brand loyalty measures”, Journal of ServicesManagement, Vol. 7, pp. 529-46.

Uncles, M. and Laurent, G. (1997), “Editorial”, InternationalJournal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 14, pp. 399-404.

Appendix. Scale items used in the study

INV1 Our choice of ________ is a very important decisionINV2 Buying ________ requires a lot of thoughtsINV3 It’s not a big deal if a wrong brand of ______ is chosena

PBD1 I can’t think of many differences between the majorbrands of _______a

PBD2 To me, there are big differences between the variousbrands of _______

PBD3 _____ is _____, most brands are basically the samea

RSF1 If a brand of ______ other than the one I usuallypurchase was on sale, I would probably buy ita

RSF2 I the store were out of my favourite brand of ______,I would rather postpone my purchase than tryinganother brand

VS1 Buying ______, I would rather stick with a brandI usually buy than try something elsea

VS2 I enjoy buying another brand of _______ just to getsome variation in my purchases

Notes: All items were measured on a five-point Likert scalefrom 1 ¼ totally disagree to 5 ¼ totally agree; aReversed score

About the authors

Jan Møller Jensen is an Associate Professor at the Departmentof Marketing, University of Southern Denmark, Odense. Hereceived his PhD at the University of Southern Denmark,Odense, in 1990. Jan Møller Jensen has taught “Theory ofConsumer Behaviour” and “Quantitative Market Analysis”for several years and his research up to now also reflects hisinterest in those two disciplines. His research focuses on awide range of topics in consumer behaviour, including familydecision making, consumer purchasing on the Internet, brandloyalty, and consumer behaviour in Tourism. He has workedas a consultant for Ad agencies and Marketing Researchfirms. Jan Møller Jensen is the corresponding author and canbe contacted at: [email protected] Hansen is a Professor at the Department of

Marketing, Copenhagen Business School. His main fields ofresearch are consumer behaviour and marketing researchmethods. He has published a number of books within theseareas and his papers have appeared in various academicjournals, including Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Journal ofInternational Consumer Marketing, Journal of Euromarketing,International Journal of Information Management, InternationalJournal of Retail & Distribution Management, British FoodJournal, The International Review of Retail Distribution andConsumer Research, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,Journal of Food Products Marketing, The Marketing Review, andthe European Management Journal. In 1998 Torben Hansen




Volume 15 · Number 7 · 2006 · 442–449

448

received the Copenhagen Business School Gold Medal.Torben Hansen has worked as a consultant for variousorganisations dealing with consumer behaviour and/or withmarketing research methods.

Executive summary

This executive summary has been provided to allow managers andexecutives a rapid appreciation of the content of this article. Thosewith a particular interest in the topic covered may then read thearticle in toto to take advantage of the more comprehensivedescription of the research undertaken and its results to get the fullbenefit of the material present.

A missing ingredient deep within your mixNot all of your customers are the same. Intuitively this is not adifficult point to understand. It probably feels like a statementof the blindingly obvious. As marketers generations ofthinking about market segmentation has surely defined andredefined over many years how we have come to view andrelate to our customers.Brand loyalty is essential for businesses to grow over the

medium to long term. This is also not the most controversialstatement ever, although some might still dispute it. Firmswith large groups of loyal customers have been seen to growinto having large market share and been able to provide goodreturns to their investors. Again, it has been a rich source ofinquiry for academics and practitioners alike. Loyal customersare likely to be resistant to the machinations of competitors.They are likely to tell family, friends and colleagues of thewonders the products perform. When they need what is onoffer they are very likely to come back and buy it again.Combining the need to understand our customers, with the

need to understand what makes them loyal customers is nottoo much of a stretch. After all, at its most basic marketing isabout understanding customer needs and supplying themwith goods and services that fill the void. Yet there has beensomething missing. Decisions to make purchases are notarbitrary ones that people make, even when, as in the case oftoothpaste, they are making the same decision time after time.A Danish study focusing on frequently purchased consumer

goods by Jensen and Hansen of the University of SouthernDenmark and Copenhagen Business School respectivelypoints to a key, under-researched ingredient at work, that ofconsumers’ relative attitude towards a given brand.

Increasing consumers’ repeat purchasing patternsResearchers have long considered the correlation betweenattitude and behaviour, most frequently explored in highinvolvement situations. Buying frequently purchasedconsumer goods is not exactly a classic high involvementscenario. For many consumers a trip to the supermarket canbe a case of putting the mind into neutral while filling thetrolley with all of the usual products. Not everyone wants torethink thirty or forty different purchasing decisions.Yet some will exert more involvement in the purchasing

decision than others, so repeat purchases don’t just happen. Acustomer who knows a lot about wine may take time andtrouble over that purchase because it is seen as an importantone. A customer who knows nothing about detergent may

take similar time and trouble. This time it is in order not tomake a gaffe. This is where relative attitude to brand loyaltybecomes the issue to consider. Increasing customers’ relativeattitude towards your brand increases their repeat purchasingbehaviour. Marketers can influence this by focusing onattitude building marketing strategies.For relative attitude to be high, customers must be able to

differentiate among alternative products and brands. Wheresuch differences are not distinguishable it is hard to buildbrand loyalty. For Jensen and Hansen, the issue is not just oneof understanding, but of relating this to consumer purchasingdecisions. This they were able to do by exploring fivedimensions.1 Relative attitude and variety-seeking – which falls into two

major areas, brand switching behaviour and customersseeking more product variety to alleviate boredom withthe status quo (more likely when involvement is lower).

2 Relative attitude to situational factors – such as friendsrecommending an alternative or the usual brand beingsold out and an alternative being all that is available.Consumers with high relative attitude are likely to be lessalert to price offers from competitors and more likely toput off a purchase if their preferred brand is sold out.

3 Variety-seeking and resistance to situational factors –customers who have a high propensity towards varietyseeking are more likely to buy alternative products duringstock-out situations and be more alert to offers from othersuppliers.

4 Variety-seeking and repeat purchasing – which can resultfrom customers needing to reduce boredom with currentproducts or in some way be stimulated.

5 Resistance to situational factors and repeat purchasing –marketers spend on advertising (which tends to buildbrand loyalty) but also on store promotions (which tend toencourage switching behaviour). Reducing customer’sresistance to situational factors that cause switching maybe a more sustainable way to grow.

The survey reveals that it is indeed possible for marketers tobuild success by creating positive attitudes to their brandsamong target consumer groups. In predicting success,situational factors are the most important ones indetermining repeat purchasing behaviour. However, inexamining these, the effects of the competition should bedifferentiated from consumers’ own desires to have a change.While companies can craft strategies that encouragecustomers not to be tempted by the offers being made bythe competition, the need for variety that consumers exhibit isa mitigating factor to consider.That said, customers with a high relative attitude are much

more likely to stick with your brand, even when it is notavailable. So working on building high relative attitude amongthe largest number of customers is an area for brand managersto focus on, and from that base see improvements in repeatpurchases and customer loyalty. If customers want variety,make it possible for them to have it by providing it, and not byswitching brands.

(A precis of the article “An empirical examination of brandloyalty”. Supplied by Marketing Consultants for Emerald.)




Volume 15 · Number 7 · 2006 · 442–449

449

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

an empirical examination of brand loyalty

Documents