Journal of Product & Brand Management

Brand loyalty and the role of hedonic value

Anna Kuikka, Tommi Laukkanen,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Anna Kuikka, Tommi Laukkanen, (2012) "Brand loyalty and the role of hedonic value", Journal of Product & Brand Management,
Vol. 21 Issue: 7, pp.529-537, doi: 10.1108/10610421211276277
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10610421211276277
Downloaded on: 13 April 2017, At: 00:57 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 52 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 6933 times since 2012*
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF JORDAN At 00:57 13 April 2017 (PT)

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

(2012),"Self-congruity, brand attitude, and brand loyalty: a study on luxury brands", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46 Iss
7/8 pp. 922-937 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090561211230098
(2013),"Corporate branding, emotional attachment and brand loyalty: the case of luxury fashion branding", Journal of Fashion
Marketing and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 17 Iss 4 pp. 403-423 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JFMM-03-2013-0032

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:492215 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics
(COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 Brand loyalty and the role of hedonic value
Anna Kuikka and Tommi Laukkanen
Department of Business, University of Eastern Finland, Joensuu, Finland

Abstract
Purpose – The objective of this paper is to explore the antecedents of brand loyalty in the chocolate market.
Design/methodology/approach – A large sample of 808 effective responses was collected through an online questionnaire that was posted on the
Facebook wall of a Finnish confectionery company. A model of four antecedents (brand satisfaction, brand equity, brand value, brand trust) leading to
two aspects of brand loyalty (behavioral loyalty, attitudinal loyalty) was constructed. The moderating effect of consumers’ hedonic value in the model
was tested. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to validate the constructs and multigroup structural equation modeling was used to test the
hypotheses.
Findings – The results suggest that brand satisfaction is the most significant factor for brand loyalty within the chocolate market, followed by brand
value and brand equity. The findings suggest that brand trust is the least significant factor for brand loyalty since it was only marginally related to
attitudinal brand loyalty and no effect for behavioral brand loyalty was found. The moderator effect of hedonic value shows that the effect of brand
satisfaction on attitudinal loyalty is significantly stronger among consumers with high hedonic value compared to consumers with low hedonic value.
No other moderating effects were found.
Originality/value – The findings provide more insight into consumer brand loyalty and the role of hedonic value research among hedonic consumable
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF JORDAN At 00:57 13 April 2017 (PT)

goods.

Keywords Brand loyalty, Attitudinal loyalty, Behavioural loyalty, Hedonic consumption, Hedonic value, Chocolate, Confectionery,
Brand management, Finland, Consumer behaviour

Paper type Research paper

An executive summary for managers and executive
readers can be found at the end of this article.
1. Introduction
Successful brands are one of the most significant ways for a
company to gain competitive advantage (Pitta and Katsanis,
1995). Furthermore, one of the main components of
sustained advantage of a company is to retain its current
customers and make them loyal users of the brand (Dekimpe
et al., 1997). One of the challenges for brand managers in the
twenty-first century is to comprehend the relations between
loyalty and its antecedents (Taylor et al., 2004).
It has been stated that single brand loyalty in the food
industry is not typical (Ehrenberg et al., 1994; Rundle-Thiele
and Bennett, 2001; Yu and Dean, 2001; Sharp et al., 2002).
Instead of purchasing only one brand, consumers’ brand
loyalty on the consumable goods markets is divided among
different brands within a product category (Yu and Dean,
2001). Research on the consumable goods industry has
gained popularity in the marketing literature (e.g. Farley,
1964; Vranesevic and Stancec, 2003; Gabay et al., 2009).
However, although a part of food industry, brand loyalty
within the confectionary and other hedonic consumable
goods markets have not been studied as comprehensively as
the consumable market in general. For instance, Carroll and
Ahuvia (2006) note that more research is needed about the
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1061-0421.htm
Journal of Product & Brand Management
21/7 (2012) 529– 537
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 1061-0421]
[DOI 10.1108/10610421211276277]
effects of hedonism on brand loyalty. In addition to the effect
of product category in the brand loyalty process, utilitarian
and hedonic attributes of the product may also have an effect
in the loyalty process (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001). The
aim of this study is to understand what affects consumers’
brand loyalty in the confectionery market.
2. Brand loyalty
A battle has been fought between attitudinal and behavioral
approaches, in regards to brand loyalty studies. Rundle-Thiele
(2005) states that the concept of loyalty emerged in the
marketing literature in the 1940s and it was first considered as
one-dimensional. Over the years, two brand loyalty
dimensions have developed; attitudinal loyalty and
behavioral loyalty. The definition of behavioral brand loyalty
is often considered to be synonymous with repeat purchase
behavior (Day, 1969; Farr and Hollis, 1997; Chaudhuri and
Holbrook, 2001; Quester and Lim, 2003). Later on the role of
attitudinal loyalty was recognized. It was stated that authentic
brand loyalty goes beyond repetitive purchasing behavior and
implies a true commitment to a specific brand (Day, 1969;
Zins, 2001; Back and Parks, 2003; Quester and Lim, 2003).
In conclusion, most of the marketing literature defines brand
loyalty as a result of the interplay between the consumer’s
attitude and repeat purchase behavior (Day, 1969; Jacoby and
Kyner, 1973; Chaudhuri, 1995; Baldinger and Rubinson,
1996; Farr and Hollis, 1997; Fournier and Yao, 1997; Ogba
and Tan, 2009).
3. Hedonic consumption and value
In order to understand consumers’ consumption behavior and
brand choices, one must appreciate the reasons behind
consumer choice behavior. At first traditional product
purchasing concentrated on the utilitarian aspects (Miranda,

529
 Brand loyalty and the role of hedonic value
Anna Kuikka and Tommi Laukkanen
2009). Holbrook and Hirschman (1982) were among the first
to acknowledge the characteristics of sensory stimulation and
pleasure in the buying process and brand choosing, also
known as hedonic value. Hedonic consumption is related to
fantasies, feelings and fun (Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982).
According to Hirschman and Holbrook (1982, p. 92) hedonic
consumption is “those facets of consumer behavior that relate
to the multisensory, fantasy and emotive aspects of one’s
experience with products”. This definition includes for
example tastes, sounds, scents, visual images (Hirschman
and Holbrook, 1982), sensation seeking, emotional arousal
and fantasizing (Hopkinson and Pujari, 1999). Chocolate
consumption is an excellent example of a product that
possesses hedonic value and that is usually consumed for
hedonic motivations. Osman and Sobal’s s (2006) results
stated that people ate chocolate mainly for hedonic reasons.
4. Research model and hypotheses
Rundle-Thiele and Bennett (2001) state that the nature of the
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF JORDAN At 00:57 13 April 2017 (PT)
market defines the antecedents of loyalty. In this research the
purpose is to define the antecedents of brand loyalty within
the chocolate market and to test the moderating effect of
hedonic value. The hypotheses are based on earlier studies
concerning brands and hedonic consumption (see Figure 1).
The four antecedents were studied by Taylor et al. (2004). In
addition, the role of the chosen antecedents has been
discussed separately in several other studies (e.g. Chaudhuri
and Holbrook, 2001; Delgado-Ballester and Munuera-
Alemán, 2001; Vranesevic and Stancec, 2003).
Satisfaction is one of the key predictors of consumer
behavior (Delgado-Ballester and Munuera-Alemán, 2001).
Brand loyalty, in part, is built on consumers’ consistent
satisfaction with the functions and performance of the brand
(Reast, 2005). Brand satisfaction is one of the key elements of
Figure 1 Research model
530
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 21 · Number 7 · 2012 · 529 –537
brand loyalty (Oliver, 1999; Delgado-Ballester and Munuera-
Alemán, 2001; Back and Parks, 2003; Taylor et al., 2004).
Studies suggest that brand satisfaction is an attribute of both
behavioral and attitudinal loyalty (Taylor et al., 2004). Thus,
we hypothesize:
H1a. Brand satisfaction is positively related to behavioral
brand loyalty.
H1b. Brand satisfaction is positively related to attitudinal
brand loyalty.
Brand equity has been empirically shown to be another
significant antecedent of brand loyalty (Aaker, 1991; Keller,
2003; Taylor et al., 2004). Pitta and Katsanis (1995) state that
brand equity is a fusion of all the procedures included in
marketing the brand in addition to the added value that the
brand’s name contributes to the product. They continue that
strong brand equity enhances the probability of brand choice
and is also considered a competitive advantage. Taylor et al.
(2004) found that brand equity is one of the most influential
factors of both behavioral and attitudinal brand loyalty. On
this basis, the following hypotheses are proposed:
H2a. Brand equity is positively related to behavioral brand
loyalty.
H2b. Brand equity is positively related to attitudinal brand
loyalty.
Woodruff (1997) states that brand value is a process which is
built on consumers’ perceptions, preferences, and
evaluations. He continues that superior customer value has
been acknowledged as a competitive advantage through
markets. Oliver (1999) states that value is a unique function
of satisfaction and quality. According to Vranesevic and
Stancec (2003) brand value helps companies to achieve and
maintain customer relationships. They continue that through
brand value, companies can gain competitive advantage and
 Brand loyalty and the role of hedonic value
Anna Kuikka and Tommi Laukkanen
other head starts during competition. The impact of brand
value on brand loyalty has not been forgotten. Authors
(Blackwell et al., 1999; Vranesevic and Stancec, 2003; Taylor
et al., 2004) state that brand value affects brand loyalty.
Consequently we hypothesize:
H3a. Brand value is positively related to behavioral brand
loyalty.
H3b. Brand value is positively related to attitudinal brand
loyalty.
Delgado-Ballester and Munuera-Alemán (2001)
conceptualize brand trust as a feeling of security that the
brand will meet consumers’ expectations. Trust is one of the
most important variables in developing long customer
relationships, such as brand loyalty (Reichheld and Schefter,
2000; Delgado-Ballester and Munuera-Alemán, 2001).
Taylor et al. (2004) find the role of trust in consumers’
loyalty experience even more significant: they acknowledge
brand trust as the most influencing factor of loyalty. In
conclusion, brand trust has an effect on both attitudinal and
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF JORDAN At 00:57 13 April 2017 (PT)
behavioral loyalty (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001; Taylor
et al., 2004; Matzler et al., 2008). Hence:
H4a. Brand trust is positively related to behavioral brand
loyalty.
H4b. Brand trust is positively related to attitudinal brand
loyalty.
Several authors have recognized the emotional factors within
the brand loyalty experience (Dick and Basu, 1994; Fournier,
1998; Holbrook and Schindler, 2003). For example Fournier
(1998) noted the importance of emotions in consumers’ long-
term relationships with certain brands. According to
Holbrook and Schindler (2003), consumers’ emotional
memories endure over time, which can be considered a high
level of brand loyalty. Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001)
suggested that hedonic products have an overall effect in the
brand loyalty process. Hence, the moderating influence of
hedonic value within the brand loyalty experience leads to the
following hypotheses:
H5a. The hedonic value of chocolate moderates the
relationship between brand satisfaction and
behavioral brand loyalty.
H5b. The hedonic value of chocolate moderates the
relationship between brand satisfaction and
attitudinal brand loyalty.
H6a. The hedonic value of chocolate moderates the
relationship between brand equity and behavioral
brand loyalty.
H6b. The hedonic value of chocolate moderates the
relationship between brand equity and attitudinal
brand loyalty.
H7a. The hedonic value of chocolate moderates the
relationship between brand value and behavioral
brand loyalty.
H7b. The hedonic value of chocolate moderates the
relationship between brand value and attitudinal
brand loyalty.
H8a. The hedonic value of chocolate moderates the
relationship between brand trust and behavioral
brand loyalty.
H8b. Hedonic value of chocolate moderates the
relationship between brand trust and attitudinal
brand loyalty.
531
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 21 · Number 7 · 2012 · 529 –537
5. Data
The hedonic value of chocolate was measured with two
statements derived from Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001). In
addition a third item was added to cover the addictive nature
of hedonism (e.g. Hopkinson and Pujari, 1999; Zarantonello
and Luomala, 2011). The study of Zarantonello and Luomala
(2011) in particular notes the results of chocoholism. In
conclusion, a measure of chocolate addiction was used to
measure consumers’ hedonic value regarding chocolate.
Behavioral and attitudinal brand loyalty are measured with
two items each from Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001).
Consumers’ satisfaction with the brand was measured with
Ganesan’s (1994) four-measure items. Brand equity and
brand value were measured using items derived from the
study of Lassar et al. (1995). Finally, the four-measure items
for brand trust were taken from Chaudhuri and Holbrook
(2001). A seven-point Likert scale ranging from totally
disagree ¼ 1 to totally agree ¼ 7, was used for all measures
(see the Appendix). Overall, 927 questionnaires were
collected through an online questionnaire link posted on a
Finnish confectionary company’s Facebook wall. A high
percentage (87.2 percent) of respondents had chosen the
same confectionary brand as their favorite. In order to provide
more explicit results and conclusions, a decision was made to
limit the sample to those respondents. The effective sample
was still large being 808 effective responses.
6. Results
The analysis started with conducting a confirmatory factor
analysis. This is generally used when there is some advance
knowledge about the structure of the latent variables (Byrne,
2010). The results showed that the loadings of two observed
variables measuring brand equity fell below the general
threshold limit of 0.5 (Hair et al., 2010) and were thus
removed from further analysis. The remaining four variables
for brand equity were considered to be adequate to remain in
the analysis, as well as all the variables of the other constructs.
Next the validity of the constructs was tested. The level of
Cronbach’s alpha was measured for each factor to assess the
internal consistency of the factors. According to Hair et al.
(2010) alpha levels greater than 0.7 indicate high internal
consistency, while levels of 0.5-0.6 are considered adequate
(Nunnally, 1967). The results of the reliability analysis show
that Cronbach’s alpha levels ranged between 0.57-0.92
indicating adequate internal consistency of the constructs.
Moreover, construct reliability ranged from 0.62 to 0.92.
In order to test whether the measured constructs are truly
unrelated discriminant validity was tested. It has been
suggested that the square root of average variance extracted
(AVE) for each construct should be greater than the
correlation between every construct (Fornell and Larcker,
1981; Hair et al., 2010). The results indicate that discriminant
validity is supported in all other cases except between
behavioral and attitudinal loyalty as the square root of AVE in
BL and the correlation between BL and AL yielded an equal
value of 0.67. Since both constructs measure loyalty, it is
likely that the constructs overlap with each other. In addition,
in real life consumers may find it difficult to differentiate
between the constructs. However, the brand literature clearly
distinguishes between the two. For instance Rundle-Thiele
and Mackay (2001) state that it is vital to separate these
 Brand loyalty and the role of hedonic value
Anna Kuikka and Tommi Laukkanen
constructs and that brand loyalty studies should include both
attitudinal and behavioral measures. Therefore, behavioral
loyalty and attitudinal loyalty are treated as separate
constructs in the further analysis (Table I).
The measurement model created indicated acceptable
goodness-of-fit-measures: RMSEA ¼ 0:08; GFI ¼ 0:90;
NFI ¼ 0:90; CFI ¼ 0:92 (x2 ¼ 923:10; df ¼ 137; p , 0:001,
x2 =df ¼ 6:738). According to Hair et al. (2010) the Chi-
square test often rejects a model with a large sample size.
Indeed, the results show that NFI surpasses the 0.9 limit,
which indicates that the Chi-square test was unacceptable due
to the large sample size (Hair et al., 2010). Finally, the
squared multiple correlations (SMCs) were calculated.
Accordingly, 31.2 percent of the total variance was
explained by attitudinal brand loyalty and 26.9 percent by
behavioral brand loyalty. The results can be considered
adequate for explaining the total variance.
Brand satisfaction has the strongest effect (0.38) on
behavioral brand loyalty, supporting H1a. Furthermore,
brand satisfaction has a positive effect on attitudinal brand
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF JORDAN At 00:57 13 April 2017 (PT)
loyalty, though not as strong as on behavioral loyalty. Brand
equity strongly affects attitudinal brand loyalty supporting
H2b. However, the path between brand equity and behavioral
brand loyalty is statistically non-significant and therefore H2a
is rejected. Brand value has an effect on behavioral and
attitudinal loyalty therefore H3a and H3b are supported.
However, brand trust is not a statistically significant
antecedent of behavioral loyalty. That is, H4a is rejected.
Furthermore, brand trust has only a weak effect on attitudinal
loyalty though still supporting H4b (Figure 2).
The second main objective of this study was to examine the
moderating effect of respondents’ high and low hedonic value
on the brand loyalty process. Using the three hedonic
measurement items a summed scale of hedonic value
(Cronbach’s alpha 0.695) was created. The respondents
were classified into two groups (low and high hedonic value)
according to the summed hedonic value mean scores (Table
II).
In order to examine if the two groups differ in terms of
effects on behavioral and attitudinal loyalty, a multigroup test
of the paths’ similarity was conducted. First the model was
trimmed according to the p-values of both groups. The path
between brand satisfaction and attitudinal loyalty was cut
from the model since the path was non-significant for both
low and high hedonic value groups. Then the trimmed model
was tested simultaneously for both groups without any
constraints. Next, the model was tested with constraints. The
test evaluates the null hypothesis that assumes that the
moderator does not have an impact between the antecedents
of brand loyalty and behavioral and attitudinal loyalty.
Table I Construct reliability, correlations and square root of AVE
Construct Alpha Composite reliability
1. Behavioral loyalty 0.57 0.62
2. Attitudinal loyalty 0.66 0.67
3. Brand satisfaction 0.92 0.92
4. Brand equity 0.82 0.83
5. Brand value 0.84 0.86
6. Brand trust 0.88 0.89
Note: Square root of AVE on the diagonal in italics
532
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 21 · Number 7 · 2012 · 529 –537
According to the difference in the x2 statistics, the results
suggested that the model is different between the low and high
hedonic groups (Dx2 ¼ 12:008, Ddf ¼ 5, p ¼ 0:035), hence
the null hypothesis was rejected.
A path-by-path analysis was conducted. The analysis was
conducted by constraining one path at a time and comparing
the x2 value to 90-95-99 x2 threshold limits. The x2 value for
path brand satisfaction to attitudinal loyalty surpassed the 95
percent confidence level x2 value (x2 ¼ 9:695, df ¼ 3). Hence
the results indicate that with 95 percent confidence, hedonic
value level moderates the path between brand satisfaction and
attitudinal brand loyalty. The analysis reflects that brand
satisfaction is more important to create attitudinal brand
loyalty when consumers’ hedonic value towards chocolate is
high. However, the multigroup moderator failed to support all
the other hypotheses (see Table III).
7. Conclusions
This study examined the antecedents of brand loyalty and the
role of hedonic value within the brand loyalty experience.
This study is an attempt to bring more insight to the research
of the antecedents of brand loyalty in the chocolate industry
and the moderating effect of low and high hedonic value
groups.
The results implied that the paths leading to behavioral and
attitudinal brand loyalty are notably different. Behavioral
brand loyalty was strongly affected by brand satisfaction and
by brand value to a lesser extent. On the contrary, attitudinal
brand loyalty was affected by all the antecedents studied:
brand satisfaction, brand equity, brand value and brand trust.
The findings support Taylor et al. (2004) that suggest that the
antecedents of loyalty may differ between the two aspects of
attitudes and repurchasing behavior. Interestingly, although
brand loyalty in the consumable goods market is usually
connected with behavioral brand loyalty (e.g. Rundle-Thiele
and Bennett, 2001; Sharp et al., 2002), the antecedents
studied in this research led mostly to attitudinal loyalty.
The results show that brand satisfaction is the most
influential factor for behavioral brand loyalty. This finding
supports the results of several earlier studies (e.g. Singh and
Sirdeshmukh, 2000; Taylor et al., 2004). The strong
relationship between satisfaction and behavioral intensions
may be based on the characteristics of the chocolate industry.
Because the single pecuniary sum spent on chocolate is
usually low, it can often involve impulse purchasing and
spontaneity (Sloot et al., 2005). If a consumer is satisfied with
the brand he/she can simply continue to make repurchases
within that brand. In addition, a satisfied customer may
purchase his/her favorite brands’ products out of habit
1 2 3 4 5 6
0.67
0.67 0.71
0.62 0.48 0.86
0.47 0.60 0.59 0.72
0.44 0.50 0.48 0.48 0.83
0.43 0.50 0.56 0.65 0.55 0.82
 Brand loyalty and the role of hedonic value Journal of Product & Brand Management
Anna Kuikka and Tommi Laukkanen Volume 21 · Number 7 · 2012 · 529 –537

Figure 2 Path model and correlations

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF JORDAN At 00:57 13 April 2017 (PT)

Table II Division of the moderating groups
Hedonic Subsample Percentage of the
Group value mean size total sample
Low 1.00-3.9 94 11.6
High 4.0-7.0 714 82.4
without a profound process of thinking. In addition to the
effects on behavioral loyalty, brand satisfaction has also an
effect on attitudinal brand loyalty, although to a lesser degree
than on behavioral loyalty. This finding is also supported by
Taylor et al. (2004).
In this research setting brand equity is one of the major
factors affecting attitudinal brand loyalty, which lends support
to the findings of Taylor et al. (2004). However, brand equity
did not have an effect on behavioral loyalty in the chocolate
industry. It is noteworthy that Taylor et al. (2004) found
brand equity as one of the most significant factors of
behavioral loyalty. In addition to brand satisfaction, brand
value is the one out of two antecedents that has an effect on
both behavioral and attitudinal loyalty. The results for
behavioral loyalty are similar to those of Taylor et al. (2004).
Interestingly, the results of this research suggest that brand
trust has no statistically significant influence on behavioral
brand loyalty. Though statistically significant (90 percent
confidence level), the relationship between brand trust and
attitudinal brand loyalty was also weak. This study suggests
almost the opposite results than for instance Taylor et al.’s
(2004) study conducted in the business-to-business industrial
setting. The reasons for the results may lie in the
characteristics of the industry. Because trust usually takes
time to evolve, and the nature of chocolate consumption can
be spontaneous, the path may be this way restricted. Because
the risk is low in chocolate purchases, consumers’ trust in the
brand may not need to be strong for continuous purchases
within the same brand. If the pecuniary value of the purchase
were higher, trust might play a more important role in the
loyalty process. This is especially the case in the business-to-
business sector where mutual trust between the business
parties is often an essential prerequisite for successful business
relationships. Because of the possible financial consequences
of an expensive unsuccessful purchase, brand trust may
validate in the purchasing behavior. Furthermore, the results
of this research showed a slight effect of brand trust on
attitudinal brand loyalty. When a consumer has had a positive
experience with the brand it may transform into positive
attitudes towards the brand rather than actual immediate
repeat purchasing.
As for the moderating effect of hedonic value, one
statistically significant path (brand satisfaction to attitudinal
loyalty) was found, showing that among those consumers
experiencing high hedonic value in chocolate the relationship

Table III Results of moderator analysis

Low High
Path n t n t Chi-square
Brand satisfaction ! behavioral loyalty 0.278 5.773 * * * 0.211 10.601 * * * 6,247
Brand satisfaction ! attitudinal loyalty 20.027 2 0.371 0.162 4.354 * * * 9.695
Brand equity ! attitudinal loyalty 0.209 3.167 * * 0.189 6.920 * * * 4,659
Brand value ! behavioral loyalty 0.118 1.998 * 0.077 4.433 * * * 5,020
Brand value ! attitudinal loyalty 0.217 2.390 * 0.244 7.661 * * * 4,656
Notes: x2 threshold limits for all parameters set equal across subgroups (df=3): 0.10=7.28; 0.05=8.42; 0.01=11.21; * p , 0.05; * *p , 0.01; * * *p , 0.001

533
 Brand loyalty and the role of hedonic value
Anna Kuikka and Tommi Laukkanen
between brand satisfaction and attitudinal brand loyalty is
significantly stronger than among consumers with low
hedonic value. This finding supports Chaudhuri and
Holbrook’s (2001) results that hedonic value may have an
effect on consumers’ brand loyalty development. According to
studies (Oliver, 1999; Back and Parks, 2003) attitudinal
loyalty is formed before behavioral intentions. The latter may
create a possibility to encourage the high hedonic value group
toward actual purchasing behaviors. Nevertheless, the
moderating path of brand satisfaction to attitudinal loyalty
was non-significant for the low hedonic value group. In
conclusion, the role of hedonic value in brand loyalty was
weaker than expected, since out of eight moderating
hypotheses, only one was statistically significant.
The reasons for the rejection of the seven moderating
hypotheses may be various. First, since chocolate is a hedonic
product and is consumed mainly for hedonic reasons, the
actual differences between high and low hedonic groups may
be not as significant as expected. Second, since the
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF JORDAN At 00:57 13 April 2017 (PT)
moderating effect of hedonic value had not previously been
tested separately for the paths, the theoretical basis for the
moderating hypotheses is weak. However, studies (e.g.
Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001) have implied that hedonic
value may have an effect on the brand loyalty process.
8. Limitations and suggestions for future research
Some choices made during this research may limit the
generalizability of the findings. First, since this research
concentrated on the chocolate market, the results may not be
applicable to different industries. Because of the lack of brand
loyalty research in the chocolate market, the results found in
this study should be compared only cautiously to those of
earlier research. However, some of the results, such as the
importance of satisfaction in the loyalty process, are similar to
those of other brand loyalty studies conducted in other
industries. Second, the fact that the data were gathered on a
Facebook group for a specific chocolate brand may affect the
findings.
In addition, this research fails to extensively explain the
antecedents of brand loyalty in the confectionary market in
full extend since not all possible contributing factors were
examined. As regards the product itself, chocolate, other
product-related characteristics such as taste may have a
significant effect. Marketing efforts like promotion and
presentation may also have influence on consumers’
purchase intentions and behavioral brand loyalty. However,
these were beyond the scope of this study.
There are also some methodological limitations that have to
be taken into consideration when evaluating the results of this
study. First, the Cronbach’s alpha level for behavioral loyalty
did not exceed the threshold limit of 0.6 suggested by Murphy
and Davidshofer (1988) and Hair et al. (2010). Nevertheless,
since the alpha is close to 0.6 (0.57) and as for preliminary
research the level of 0.5-0.6 (Nunnally, 1967) or even a level
as low as 0.35 (Hung et al., 2005) is considered acceptable,
the component of behavioral loyalty is regarded as having
adequate fit. The results indicate that it is not clear whether
the two loyalty constructs are truly separate or not, thus
encouraging future research on the topic. However, due to the
strong theoretical base the behavioral loyalty and attitudinal
loyalty were treated in the study as separate constructs.
534
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 21 · Number 7 · 2012 · 529 –537
The findings of this research offer several avenues for future
research. First, it would be interesting to conduct this
research in a different setting, with a less strong hedonic
brand or on different industry altogether. Second, this study
concentrated on the direct effects of the four antecedents.
However, the mediating roles of different antecedents have
been empirically tested in several studies (e.g. Blackwell et al.,
1999). Since some of the hypotheses in this research were
rejected, it would be interesting also to measure the mediating
roles of the antecedents.
9. Managerial implications
The results of this study have several managerial implications.
First, companies producing hedonic goods and especially
chocolate, should not forget the role of hedonic value in their
branding strategies. Furthermore, a noteworthy managerial
implication is the importance of identifying relevant
antecedents of loyalty in a given market context. Brand
strategies should not be taken as given and the basis of the
strategy should be founded on the attributes of the industry,
brand and product.
Since several competitive advantages can be gained through
brand loyal customers, companies in the chocolate industry
should aspire to high brand satisfaction, brand equity, brand
value and brand trust. According to the results of this study,
companies should invest in acquiring and maintaining
satisfied customer relationships, since satisfaction is the
strongest factor contributing to brand loyalty in the chocolate
industry. As brand loyalty is a combination of several
components, none of the antecedents studied should be
ignored. Ultimately, a strong brand builds the foundation of a
successful business.
References
Aaker, D. (1991), Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the
Value of a Brand Name, Free Press, New York, NY.
Back, K.-J. and Parks, S. (2003), “A brand loyalty model
involving cognitive, affective and conative brand loyalty and
customer satisfaction”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Research, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 419-35.
Baldinger, A. and Rubinson, J. (1996), “Brand loyalty: the
link between attitude and behavior”, Journal of Advertising
Research, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 22-34.
Blackwell, S., Szeinbach, S., Barnes, J., Garner, D. and Bush,
V. (1999), “The antecedents of customer loyalty”, Journal
of Service Research, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 362-75.
Byrne, B.M. (2010), Structural Equation Modeling with
AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming,
2nd ed., Routledge, New York, NY.
Carroll, B.A. and Ahuvia, A.C. (2006), “Some antecedents
and outcomes of brand love”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 17
No. 2, pp. 79-89.
Chaudhuri, A. (1995), “Brand equity or double jeopardy?”,
Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 4 No. 1,
pp. 26-32.
Chaudhuri, A. and Holbrook, M. (2001), “The chain of
effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand
performance: the role of brand loyalty”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 65 No. 2, pp. 81-93.
 Brand loyalty and the role of hedonic value
Anna Kuikka and Tommi Laukkanen
Day, G. (1969), “A two-dimensional concept of brand
loyalty”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 9 No. 3,
pp. 29-35.
Dekimpe, M., Steenkamp, J-B., Mellens, M. and Abeele, P.
(1997), “Decline and variability in brand loyalty”,
International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 14
No. 5, pp. 405-20.
Delgado-Ballester, E. and Munuera-Alemán, J.L. (2001),
“Brand trust in the context of consumer loyalty”, European
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 Nos 11/12, pp. 1238-58.
Dick, A.S. and Basu, K. (1994), “Customer loyalty: toward
an integrated conceptual framework”, Journal of Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 99-113.
Ehrenberg, A.S.C., Hammond, K. and Goodhardt, G.J.
(1994), “The after-effects on price related consumer
promotions”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 34 No. 4,
pp. 11-21.
Farley, J. (1964), “Why does ‘brand loyalty’ vary over
products?”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 5 No. 4,
pp. 9-14.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF JORDAN At 00:57 13 April 2017 (PT)
Farr, A. and Hollis, N. (1997), “What do you want your
brand to be when it grows up: big and strong?”, Journal of
Advertising Research., Vol. 37 No. 6, pp. 23-36.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D. (1981), “Structural equation
models with unobservable variables and measurement
error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1,
pp. 39-50.
Fournier, S. (1998), “Consumers and their brands:
developing relationship theory in consumer research”,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 343-73.
Fournier, S. and Yao, J. (1997), “Reviving brand loyalty: a
reconceptualization within the framework of consumer-
brand relationships”, International Journal of Research in
Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 451-72.
Gabay, G., Moskowitz, H., Beckley, J. and Ashman, H.
(2009), “Consumer centered brand value of foods: drivers
and segmentation”, Journal of Product & Brand
Management, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 4-16.
Ganesan, S. (1994), “Determinants of long-term orientation
in buyer-seller relationship”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58
No. 2, pp. 1-19.
Hair, J.F. Jr, Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E.
(2010), Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed., Prentice Hall,
Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hirschman, E. and Holbrook, M. (1982), “Hedonic
consumption: emerging concepts, methods and
propositions”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46 No. 3,
pp. 92-101.
Holbrook, M. and Hirschman, E. (1982), “The experiential
aspects of consumption: consumer fantasies, feelings and
fun”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 132-40.
Holbrook, M. and Schindler, R. (2003), “Nostalgic bonding:
exploring the role of nostalgia in the consumption
experience”, Journal of Consumer Behavior, Vol. 3 No. 2,
pp. 107-27.
Hopkinson, G.H. and Pujari, D. (1999), “A factor analytic
study of the sources of meaning in hedonic consumption”,
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 33 Nos 3/4, pp. 273-94.
Hung, Y.-C., Huang, S.-M., Lin, Q.-P. and Tsai, M.-L.
(2005), “Critical factors in adapting a knowledge
management system for the pharmaceutical industry”,
Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 105 No. 2,
pp. 164-83.
535
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 21 · Number 7 · 2012 · 529 –537
Jacoby, J. and Kyner, D. (1973), “Brand loyalty vs repeat
purchasing behavior”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 10
No. 1, pp. 1-9.
Keller, K. (2003), Strategic Brand Management: Building
Measuring and Managing Brand Equity, Prentice Hall,
Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Lassar, W., Mittal, B. and Sharma, A. (1995), “Measuring
customer-based brand equity”, Journal of Consumer
Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 11-19.
Matzler, K., Grabner-Kräuter, S. and Bidmon, S. (2008),
“Risk aversion and brand loyalty: the mediating role of
brand trust and brand affect”, Journal of Product & Brand
Management, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 154-62.
Miranda, M. (2009), “Engaging the purchase motivations to
charm shoppers”, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 27
No. 1, pp. 127-45.
Murphy, K. and Davidshofer, C. (1988), Psychological Testing:
Principles and Applications, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
NJ.
Nunnally, J. (1967), Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed., McGraw-
Hill, New York, NY.
Ogba, I.-E. and Tan, Z. (2009), “Exploring the impact of
brand image on customer loyalty and commitment in
China”, Journal of Technology Management in China, Vol. 4
No. 2, pp. 132-44.
Oliver, R. (1999), “Whence consumer loyalty?”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 63 No. 4, pp. 33-44.
Osman, J. and Sobal, J. (2006), “Chocolate cravings in
American and Spanish individuals: biological and cultural
influences”, Appetite, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 290-301.
Pitta, D. and Katsanis, L. (1995), “Understanding brand
equity for successful brand extensions”, Journal on
Consumer Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 51-64.
Quester, P. and Lim, A. (2003), “Product involvement/brand
loyalty: is there a link?”, Journal of Product & Brand
Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 22-38.
Reast, J. (2005), “Brand trust and brand extension
acceptance: the relationship”, Journal of Product & Brand
Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 4-13.
Reichheld, F. and Schefter, P. (2000), “E-loyalty: your secret
weapon on the web”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 78
No. 4, pp. 105-14.
Rundle-Thiele, S. (2005), “Exploring loyal qualities:
assessing survey-based loyalty measures”, Journal of
Services Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 7, pp. 492-500.
Rundle-Thiele, S. and Bennett, R. (2001), “A brand for all
seasons? A discussion of brand loyalty approaches and their
applicability for different markets”, Journal of Product
& Brand Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 25-37.
Rundle-Thiele, S. and Mackay, M. (2001), “Assessing the
performance of brand loyalty measures”, Journal of Services
Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 7, pp. 529-46.
Sharp, B., Wright, M. and Goodhardt, G. (2002), “Purchase
loyalty is polarized into either repertoire or subscription
patterns”, Australasian Marketing Journal, Vol. 10 No. 3,
pp. 7-20.
Singh, J. and Sirdeshmukh, D. (2000), “Agency and trust
mechanisms in consumer satisfaction and loyalty
judgments”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 150-67.
Sloot, L., Verhoef, P. and Frances, P. (2005), “The impact of
brand equity and the hedonic level of products on
 Brand loyalty and the role of hedonic value
Anna Kuikka and Tommi Laukkanen
consumer stock-out reactions”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 81
No. 1, pp. 15-34.
Taylor, S., Celuch, K. and Goodwin, S. (2004), “The
importance of brand equity to customer loyalty”, Journal of
Product & Brand Management, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 217-27.
Vranesevic, T. and Stancec, R. (2003), “The effect of the
brand on perceived quality of food products”, British Food
Journal, Vol. 105 No. 11, pp. 811-25.
Woodruff, R. (1997), “Customer value: the next source for
competitive advantage”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 139-53.
Yu, Y.-T. and Dean, A. (2001), “The contribution of
emotional satisfaction to consumer loyalty”, International
Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 12 No. 3,
pp. 234-50.
Zarantonello, L. and Luomala, H.T. (2011), “Dear Mr
Chocolate: constructing a typology of contextualized
chocolate consumption experiences through qualitative
diary research”, Qualitative Market Research: An
International Journal, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 55-82.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF JORDAN At 00:57 13 April 2017 (PT)
Zins, A. (2001), “Relative attitudes and commitment in
customer loyalty models”, International Journal of Service
Industry Management, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 269-94.
Appendix
Behavioral loyalty (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001)
.
I will buy this brand the next time I buy chocolate.
. I intend to keep on purchasing this brand.
Attitudinal loyalty (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001)
.
I am committed to this brand.
.
I would be willing to pay a higher price for this brand over
other brands.
Brand satisfaction (Ganesan, 1994)
.
I am pleased with this chocolate brand.
.
I am happy with the chocolate brand.
.
I am contented with this chocolate brand.
.
Overall, I am satisfied with this chocolate brand.
Brand equity (Lassar et al., 1995)
.
I can expect superior performance from the chocolate
brand.
.
I can expect trouble-free performance from the chocolate
brand.
.
The chocolate brand fits my personality.
.
The chocolate brand is well regarded by friends of mine.
.
I have positive personal feelings toward the chocolate
brand.
.
After purchasing the products of the chocolate brand, I
have grown fond of it.
Brand value (Lassar et al., 1995)
.
The chocolate brand offers good value for the price I paid.
.
The chocolate brand provides customers with a good deal.
.
I consider the chocolate brand to be a bargain for the
benefits I am receiving.
Brand trust (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001)
.
I trust this brand.
.
I rely on this brand
. This is an honest brand.
.
This brand is safe.
536
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 21 · Number 7 · 2012 · 529 –537
Hedonic value (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001;
Zarantonello and Luomala, 2011)
.
I feel addicted to chocolate.
.
I love chocolate.
.
I feel good when I eat chocolate.
About the authors
Anna Kuikka works as a Researcher in the Department of
Business at the University of Eastern Finland. Previously she
worked for a large confectionery company in Finland. She
received her Master’s degree in Marketing from the University
of Eastern Finland in 2011. Her research interests are in
brand management, consumer behavior and hedonic
consumption. Anna Kuikka is the corresponding author and
can be contacted at: anna.kuikka@uef.fi
Dr Tommi Laukkanen is a Professor of Marketing in the
Department of Business at the University of Eastern Finland.
He received his PhD from Lappeenranta University of
Technology. His research interests include innovation
adoption and resistance, consumer behavior, bank
marketing, tourism marketing, brand management, and
SME marketing and management. He has published over
20 journal articles in Tourism Management, Journal of Small
Business Management, Journal of Consumer Marketing,
International Journal of Information Management, International
Journal of Bank Marketing, Marketing Intelligence & Planning,
International Journal of Mobile Communications, and others.
Executive summary and implications for
managers and executives
This summary has been provided to allow managers and executives
a rapid appreciation of the content of the article. Those with a
particular interest in the topic covered may then read the article in
toto to take advantage of the more comprehensive description of the
research undertaken and its results to get the full benefit of the
material present.
Many organizations appreciate that a competitive edge can be
achieved through their brands. Launching brands which
appeal and become successful is a proven method of securing
the loyalty of customers. Loyalty is highly valued and
understanding its antecedents is an aim that brand
managers share.
The considerable body of research that exists typically
defines brand loyalty as being either behavioral or attitudinal
in nature. The behavioral form has long been acknowledged
by the marketing fraternity but attitudinal loyalty is a more
recent phenomenon. Making repeat purchases is perceived as
an indication of behavioral loyalty. However, certain scholars
proposed that “true commitment” to a brand is indicated by
attitude as well as behavior.
Consumers in the food industry rarely exhibit loyalty to a
single brand, it is often claimed. More common is the
tendency to switch between brands within a specific product
category. Although studies in this area have increased,
products like confectionary continue to be overlooked.
Identifying what factors influence a consumer’s choice of
products and brands is a marketing Holy Grail. The
conventional assumption was that differentiation could be
achieved through functional attributes. But the sensory
experience was gradually recognized as also being a
 Brand loyalty and the role of hedonic value
Anna Kuikka and Tommi Laukkanen
significant part of the choice, purchase and consumption
phases. Numerous researchers have contributed to point out
that feelings and other emotive aspects of hedonic
consumption enrich the experience by stimulating the
consumer’s senses to ultimately give pleasure and even help
fulfill fantasies. It is widely believed that hedonic motivations
are responsible for the consumption of chocolate and other
confectionary.
According to some sources, antecedents of brand loyalty are
determined by market type. One objective of the present
study is to therefore identify brand loyalty antecedents within
the chocolate category. Kuikka and Lakkanen additionally
investigate if hedonic value has a moderating effect. Four
antecedents used on several previous occasions were
considered:
1 Satisfaction. Behavior is influenced by satisfaction and
evidence shows that satisfied consumers become loyal
consumers. Brand satisfaction has been linked to
attitudinal loyalty too.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF JORDAN At 00:57 13 April 2017 (PT)
2 Brand equity. This widely explored construct is subject to
varying definitions though is generally regarded as being
the sum of all factors used to market the brand. Of these,
brand name is considered especially powerful. Equity
impacts on choice and is a proven source of competitive
advantage that considerably influences both loyalty types.
3 Brand value. This emerges through the “perceptions,
preferences and evaluations” of the consumer. Value
enables firms to develop and sustain positive relations with
consumers and gain an edge over rivals. Links to loyalty
are also apparent.
4 Brand trust. Accepted as having a key role in creating
meaningful firm-customer associations, trust functions to
reassure that customer needs will be served by the brand.
Trust is stated by different researchers to be “the most
influencing factor of loyalty” and it impacts on both
behavioral and attitudinal forms.
In addition, there is extensive belief that emotional aspects
contribute to brand loyalty too. Emotionally attached
individuals develop lasting affective memories that indicate
strong loyalty in the opinion of some. Given their emotive
element, it is posited that hedonic products can likewise
inspire loyalty towards a particular brand.
The authors further explored these issues in a survey posted
on the Facebook page of a confectionary firm in Finland. A
final sample of 808 consisted of subjects who named the same
confectionary brand as their favorite. Analysis of their
responses indicted that:
.
brand satisfaction has a substantial effect on behavioral
loyalty;
.
attitudinal loyalty is positively influenced by brand
satisfaction;
.
the impact of brand equity on attitudinal loyalty is strong;
.
brand value significantly influences behavioral loyalty;
.
attitudinal loyalty is significantly influenced by brand
value; and
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
537
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 21 · Number 7 · 2012 · 529 –537
.
the effect of brand trust on attitudinal loyalty is positive
but weak.
An unexpected finding was the statistically insignificant effect
of equity and trust on behavioral loyalty.
Subjects were then divided into high and low hedonic value
groups and further scrutiny revealed that high hedonic value
towards chocolate increases the impact of brand satisfaction
on attitudinal loyalty. However, various other hypotheses
involving hedonic value in a moderating role were not
supported.
These results mirrored earlier studies in confirming that
behavioral and attitudinal loyalty are served by different
antecedent combinations. A notable exception was the finding
here that antecedents examined led mainly to attitudinal
loyalty. With consumable goods, a connection to behavioral
loyalty was usually confirmed.
Other scholars have observed the importance of brand
satisfaction. Comparable results here are attributed by Kuikka
and Lakkanen to the particular “characteristics of the
chocolate industry”. They point out the often impulsive
nature of purchasing and that satisfaction might persuade the
consumer to keep buying the brand. It is similarly purported
that satisfaction can lead to habitual behavior.
The weak impact of trust on both loyalty types is regarded
as interesting. One suggestion is that trust is not an issue
within a context where purchase is spontaneous and risk low.
Trust takes time to develop and will have a more influential
role for purchases of a higher monetary value. The business-
to-business sector is cited as an environment where the
importance of trust frequently positions it as an “essential
prerequisite” to mutually beneficial relations.
Certain academics claim that attitudinal loyalty helps create
behavioral intentions. That being the case, scope may exist to
encourage purchase behavior among consumers indicating
high hedonic value. Results here though indicate a less than
predicted effect of hedonic value on brand loyalty. This
contradicts suggestions in other work and merits further
investigation.
Brand managers are advised to determine which loyalty
antecedents are most relevant in their given market.
Recognizing the importance of hedonic value for chocolate
and other hedonic products is also imperative. Strategies
should therefore be developed around the characteristics of
the specific “industry, brand and product”. The authors
recommend investment to create and sustain customer
satisfaction and point out the need to consider all the
antecedents studied during strategy development.
Future work could examine additional factors such as
product attributes and marketing activities. Replicating the
study in different settings, industries or using brands that are
less hedonic is another option. This may increase the
applicability of current findings, which may be limited by
factors like the data collection method used.
(A précis of the article “Brand loyalty and the role of hedonic
value”. Supplied by Marketing Consultants for Emerald.)
 This article has been cited by:

1. Nedra Bahri-Ammari, Anil Bilgihan. 2017. The effects of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice on customer retention:
An empirical investigation in the mobile telecom industry in Tunisia. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 37, 89-100.
[CrossRef]
2. Minseong Kim, Brijesh Thapa. 2017. The influence of self-congruity, perceived value, and satisfaction on destination loyalty: a
case study of the Korean DMZ. Journal of Heritage Tourism 6, 1-13. [CrossRef]
3. Soon-Ho Kim Min-Seong Kim Dong Hun Lee The Effects of Personality Traits and Congruity on Customer Satisfaction and
Brand Loyalty: Evidence from Coffee Shop Customers 3-33. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
4. OdoomRaphael Raphael Odoom rafaelodoom@gmail.com Raphael Odoom (PhD) is a fellow at University of Copenhagen and
currently with the University of Ghana Business School. He researched into branding in small- and medium-sized enterprises
(SMEs), and his current research interests are in the areas of branding, social media marketing and small business management.
He has published in the Journal of Product and Brand Management and Services Marketing Quarterly. Department of Marketing
and Entrepreneurship, University of Ghana Business School, Accra, Ghana . 2016. Brand marketing programs and consumer
loyalty – evidence from mobile phone users in an emerging market. Journal of Product & Brand Management 25:7, 651-662.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
5. Moutusy Maity, Seema Gupta. 2016. Mediating Effect of Loyalty Program Membership on the Relationship Between Advertising
Effectiveness and Brand Loyalty. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 24:4, 462-481. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF JORDAN At 00:57 13 April 2017 (PT)

6. RodriguesPaula Paula Rodrigues MartinsFrancisco Vitorino Francisco Vitorino Martins Management Department, Lusiada
University, Porto, Portugal Faculty of Economics, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal . 2016. Perceptual and behavioural
dimensions: measuring brand equity consumer based. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal
20:4, 507-519. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
7. Eun Young Kiｍ, Hee Won Sung. 2016. A Study of Digital Signage Effects in Shopping Context for Fashion Brands. Korean
Journal of Human Ecology 25:3, 361. [CrossRef]
8. Ernest Emeka Izogo Ebonyi State University . 2016. Antecedents of attitudinal loyalty in a telecom service sector: the Nigerian
case. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 33:6, 747-768. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
9. Seyed Ali Alavi, Sajad Rezaei, Naser Valaei, Wan Khairuzzaman Wan Ismail. 2016. Examining shopping mall consumer decision-
making styles, satisfaction and purchase intention. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research 26:3,
272-303. [CrossRef]
10. Neha Srivastava Department of Marketing, Indian Institute of Management, Lucknow, India Satya Bhushan Dash Department
of Marketing, Indian Institute of Management, Lucknow, India Amit Mookerjee Department of Marketing, Indian Institute
of Management, Lucknow, India . 2016. Determinants of brand trust in high inherent risk products. Marketing Intelligence &
Planning 34:3, 394-420. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
11. Beata Šeinauskienė, Jūratė Maščinskienė, Indrė Jucaitytė. 2015. The Relationship of Happiness, Impulse Buying and Brand
Loyalty. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 213, 687-693. [CrossRef]
12. Alcina G. Ferreira School of Technology and Management, Instituto Politécnico de Leiria, Leira, Portugal Filipe J. Coelho
Faculdade de Economia/GEMF, Universidade de Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal . 2015. Product involvement, price perceptions,
and brand loyalty. Journal of Product & Brand Management 24:4, 349-364. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
13. Ernest Emeka Izogo. 2015. Determinants of attitudinal loyalty in Nigerian telecom service sector: Does commitment play a
mediating role?. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 23, 107-117. [CrossRef]
14. Mehmet Seckin Aday, Ugur Yener. 2014. Understanding the buying behaviour of young consumers regarding packaging attributes
and labels. International Journal of Consumer Studies 38:4, 385-393. [CrossRef]
15. Liezl-Marié Kruger, Stefanie W. Kühn, Daniel J. Petzer, Pierre G. Mostert. 2013. Investigating brand romance, brand attitude
and brand loyalty in the cellphone industry. Acta Commercii 13:1. . [CrossRef]