The Annals of Dunarea de Jos University of Galati

Fascicle I 2009. Economics and Applied Informatics. Years XV - ISSN 1584-0409

227

Brand Loyalty: Impact of Cognitive and Affective
Variables

Mourad TOUZANI
mourad.touzani@isg.rnu.tn
ISG, Marketing Department, University of Tunis
Institut Suprieur de Gestion de Tunis, Tunisia
Azza TEMESSEK
Institut Suprieur des Etudes Appliques en Humanits du Kef
URM, Institut Suprieur de Gestion de Tunis, Tunisia

Abstract. Studies on brand loyalty typically focus on the behavioural side of
brand loyalty or on the attitudinal side. Rare are the studies that examine
simultaneously both components of brand loyalty. The present study was
performed to describe the conjoint contribution of cognitive and affective
variables in the formation of brand loyalty. A questionnaire was administered to
400 shampoo users. A confirmatory analysis was performed to test the
conceptual model presented. The results provide a better knowledge about the
role played by each factor in brand loyalty formation and emphasises the major
role played by affective factors.

Keywords: brand loyalty, repetitive buying behaviour, true loyalty,
commitment, brand attachment

JEL Code: M00, M31

1. Introduction

Developing and maintaining long-term relationships with customers are important concerns to
marketing managers. In this context, brand loyalty helps with a better understanding of the link
between consumers and brands. Brand loyalty is a strategic objective in marketing
management especially for consumer goods. As a matter of fact, conquering a new customer
becomes more and more problematic and costly (Rosenberg and Cpzepiel, 1983), and it is
often the loyal customers that assure the growth and the survival of the brand for the years to
come. Henceforth, it is important to define and better understand brand loyalty. The beginning
of the 1950s marked the departure point of the publications on this concept, but although it is
an old idea, central to marketing practice, brand loyalty remains a poorly understood and
measured construct (Dubois and Laurent, 1999). Many studies consider only one of the
multiple facets of the construct. The first research studies about brand loyalty analysed this
phenomenon in a restrictive way, reducing it to a buying behaviour. According to this
approach, consumers can be considered as loyal when they buy a brand in a repetitive way.
Progressively, researchers became aware that the loyalty phenomenon is much more complex
and subtle than this operational definition. These limits led the researchers to consider attitude
as a proxy of brand loyalty (Dick and Basu, 1994; Baldinger and Rubinson, 1996). A second
approach focusing on the attitudinal dimension of brand loyalty emerged. Here, consumers are
loyal when they have a feeling of commitment to the brand. Then some researchers combined
both the behavioural and the attitudinal approaches. For these researchers, true brand loyalty
involves simultaneously a repetitive buying behaviour and a positive attitude towards the brand
(Dick and Basu, 1994; Bladinger and Rubinson, 1996). Much more complete, this approach
The Annals of Dunarea de Jos University of Galati
Fascicle I 2009. Economics and Applied Informatics. Years XV - ISSN 1584-0409

228
seems to contribute to a better identification of the antecedents of brand loyalty. Brand loyalty
can be the result of situational factors (store loyalty, available time for buying, reductions in
prices) as well as the result of affective predispositions towards the brand. Understanding the
mechanisms of the formation of brand loyalty helps to build strong marketing plans to make
customers more loyal. However, the marketing literature approached this problem in a partial
way often reducing loyalty to a cognitive decision process (Dick and Basu, 1994). Affective
elements were introduced by Aaker, (1991), McQueen et al., (1993) and Lacoeuilhe (2000).
These former elements deal essentially with brand attachment. In addition, rare are the authors
who integrated simultaneously several antecedents of brand loyalty. Thus, the adoption of an
approach which integrative and accounting for the two dimensions of the concept helps better
understand the respective role of each factor in the formation of brand loyalty. The objective of
this paper is to propose a conceptual model that takes into account the different sources of
brand loyalty and that combines the behavioural and the attitudinal approaches.

2. Approaches of brand loyalty

One of the first definitions of brand loyalty was given by Jacoby and Kyner, (1973): the
biased (i.e., non random) behavioural response (i.e., purchase) expressed over time by some
decision making unit with respect with one or more alternative brands out of a set of such
brands, and is a function of psychological (decision-making, evaluative) process. This
definition is one that is broadly shared across the literature (Bozzo et al., 2003). It insists that
consumers have the choice between several alternatives. It also emphasises the fact that,
beyond the behavioural aspects, the psychological dimension of brand loyalty is crucial.
Hereunder, a presentation of the three major approaches of brand loyalty is presented. Next,
the central role of brand commitment is discussed.

Three major approaches of brand loyalty exist (figure 1): the behavioural approach, the
attitudinal approach, and the composite approach. According to the behavioural approach,
brand loyalty is defined as consumers repetitive and systematic purchasing behaviour of a
given brand. The repetitive buying behaviour over a period of time then constitutes an
indication of the loyalty of the consumer (Brown, 1952). Several alternative operationalisations
are proposed in order to assess brand loyalty: purchase sequence, (Brown, 1952; McConnel,
1968; Tucker, 1964), purchase proportion assigned to a given brand within a product class
(Cunningham, 1956), purchase probability (Maffei, 1960), and, more recently, the number of
brand purchase occurrences (Uncles et al., 1994). The behavioural loyalty approach have
provided several measures and modelling techniques to assess the effective pattern of brand
loyalty and to improve brand repurchasing predictability. Nevertheless, there is a big
controversy about this vision of brand loyalty. Researchers have focused on the description and
prediction of consumer behaviour but they failed to explain such behaviour and to provide
details on the real motivations behind the observed purchase patterns (Raj, 1985; Botton et
Cegarra, 1990; Amine, 1998; Uncles et al., 2003). Besides, when different measures of brand
loyalty are taken (e.g. brand proportion vs. purchase sequence), it leads to differences in the
findings of the research studies (Filser, 1994). Finally, the affective aspects of brand loyalty are
absent from this approach. This absence led researchers to develop the attitudinal approach.

Much of the research studies on loyalty in the 1970s have taken another orientation to assess
the brand loyalty phenomenon trying to operationalise brand loyalty through consumers
attitudes (Day, 1969, Laban, 1979). The loyalty attitudinal facet refers to consumers positive
beliefs and feelings toward a brand among a set of competing brands (Dick et Basu, 1994).
Brand loyalty is considered as an attitude expressed mainly by brand preference or a
psychological predisposition towards a given brand (Day, 1969; Jacoby and Chestnut, 1978;
Mellens et al., 1996; Reichheld, 1996; Simon, 2002). The measurement of brand loyalty
through the attitudinal approach allows taking into account the intentional character of such a
The Annals of Dunarea de Jos University of Galati
Fascicle I 2009. Economics and Applied Informatics. Years XV - ISSN 1584-0409

229
phenomenon (Odin et al., 1999). The attitudinal approach was extended in the early 1990s in a
way to take into account the fact that consumers may form relationships with a given set of
brands (Fournier, 1998). Loyalty is a committed and affect-laden partnership between
consumers and brands (Fournier, 1998). The main contribution of this approach is a better
understanding of the motivations of consumer brand loyalty and a deeper insight on the
relationship between consumers and brands. However, despite its conceptual richness, this
measurement is not very reliable to predict the effective repurchasing behaviour (Dubois and
Quaghebeur, 1997; Ngoala, 2003). As a matter of fact, it seems difficult to use brand attitude
scores to apprehend the concept of brand loyalty (Fournier and Yao, 1997). This approach also
ignores all that comes under the effective buying behaviour and focuses only on the strength of
the attitude as an indicator of loyalty.

The third approach is the composite approach. A conciliation of the two aforementioned
approaches has generated the most agreed upon definition of brand loyalty among marketing
researchers. This definition was provided by Jacoby (1971) and suggests that brand loyalty is
an effective buying behaviour of a particular brand, repeated over time, and reinforced with a
strong commitment to that brand. This conceptualisation includes a behavioural and an
attitudinal component. A good illustration of this approach is the integrative model developed
by Dick and Basu (1994), which consider both relative consumer attitude and repetitive buying
behaviour. Working on this basis, several authors introduced the central construct of
commitment in order to better understand the attitudinal dimension of loyalty. A simultaneous
integration of buying behaviour and attitude in the measurement of loyalty allows obtaining
better predictors (Bladinger and Rubinson, 1996). This approach has the merit to take into
account the complex nature of loyalty concept and to enrich and integrate the conceptual and
operational body of literature consecrated to brand loyalty. In this research study, the
composite approach is adopted in order to avoid the limits of the two first approaches. Loyalty
is then defined as the degree to which a consumer committed to a given brand and exhibits a
repeat purchasing behaviour towards the same brand.

Figure 1. The three approaches of brand loyalty























Repetitivepurchaseover
time
Brandloyalty
Strongpositiveattitude
towardthebrandrelative
tocompetingbrands
Brandloyalty
Stablebuyingbehaviourof
thebrand
Positiveattitude
expressedthrough
commitment to the brand
Truebrandloyalty
Thebehaviouralapproach
Theattitudinalapproach
Thecomposite approach
The Annals of Dunarea de Jos University of Galati
Fascicle I 2009. Economics and Applied Informatics. Years XV - ISSN 1584-0409

230
3. The central role of brand commitment

The integration of commitment in the brand loyalty literature contributes to a better
understanding of this phenomenon and spreads its definition beyond its behavioural aspect
(Samuelson and Sandivik, 1997). Commitment has generally been conceptualised as an
intention and a desire of continuity in the relationship. Kiesler (1971) defines it as the link
that exists between an individual and his acts. Johnson (1973) has conceptualised
commitment as the extent to which an action is dedicated to the completion of a line of
action. Hence, committed consumers are ready to undergo several change costs and sacrifices
to maintain the relationship with the brand. Researchers in the consumer behaviour area have
adopted this concept to explain the stability of the preferences and the resistance to the
persuasive communication (Beatty et al., 1988; Ahluwalia et al., 2001). In the brand context,
commitment is defined as the consumers strong willingness to maintain a durable relationship
with the brand (Robertson, 1976; Morgan and Hunt, 1994; Dholakia, 1997; Ahuluwalia et al.,
2000). More recently, Gurviez and Korchia (2002) defined this concept as follows:
commitment from the consumer standpoint is defined as the implicit or explicit intention to
maintain a durable relationship.

In organisation theory and relationship-marketing fields, researchers underline the double
nature of commitment: they distinguish between a calculated commitment and an affective
commitment (Allen and Meyer, 1984; Kumar et al., 1994; Morgan and Hunt, 1994). Calculated
commitment expresses the extent to which consumers maintain consistent purchasing
behaviour as long as benefits attached to the brand exceed the costs of switching to another
brand (Amine, 1998). It is necessary to underline here the opportunistic character of such a
commitment. Consumers belief in the superiority of the brand (McQueen et al., 1993),
perception of differences among the brands, and notably perceived risk during the purchase
(Amine, 1998; Lacoeuilhe, 2000) are the major motivations of such a dimension.

The other form of commitment, which is prevalent in the literature, is called affective
commitment. It is based on the pleasure to maintain a relationship with a partner and on the
development of an emotional attachment. From the consumers standpoint, affective
commitment refers to their devotion and their identification to the brand without any material
consideration. Of these two views of brand commitment, affective commitment is the most
effective factor in predicting the willingness to maintain the same purchasing behaviour. At
this time, researchers have recognised the double nature of brand commitment. However,
earlier and even current literature do not provide an instrument to measure affective and
cognitive brand commitment in the field of consumer behaviour, even though it exists in
human resource or service marketing theories.

4. The conceptual model

Cognitive factors leading to brand loyalty are very important. However, the empirical studies
on this subject seem to suggest that these cognitive factors have a secondary or a mediator role.
The models which incorporate brand commitment as a central element of brand loyalty
allowed a better knowledge of the cognitive and affective factors in the formation of this
phenomenon. The antecedents of loyalty can be cognitive or affective and can also have a
direct or indirect influence on the process bringing to loyalty. The distinction between indirect
and direct antecedents emphasises the existence of factors that are prerequisites to brand
loyalty but not sufficient for the occurrence of this phenomenon (involvement and
satisfaction). Only factors which have a direct influence on brand loyalty are taken into
account in the research framework: perceived risk, brand sensitivity, perceived differences
among the brands, brand trust and brand attachment.
The Annals of Dunarea de Jos University of Galati
Fascicle I 2009. Economics and Applied Informatics. Years XV - ISSN 1584-0409

231
Research studies about brand loyalty allow making the distinction between two main sources
of loyalty (Aaker, 1991). The first source refers to the cognitive factors affecting loyalty such
as the functional benefits that the consumer can get from the purchase and the usage of the
brand. The second explanation of the existence of brand loyalty is related to the emotional and
affective link between the individual and the brand. The literature about loyalty allowed
putting emphasis on many cognitive antecedents. Only those that seem to be the object of a
consensus among researchers were kept in the present study.

Perceived risk and brand loyalty. The most quoted definition of perceived risk is Bauers
according to whom (1960) it is arising from unanticipated and uncertain consequences of an
unpleasant nature resulting from the product purchase. Loyalty seems to be one of the
strategies adopted by consumers to reduce perceived risk. The choice of a familiar brand is
considered to be a risk reducer (Ring, 1980; Derbaix, 1983; Sheth and Parvatiyar, 1995),
whether the risk element may be functional, financial, psychological or related to social
acceptance (Gounaris and Stathakopoulos, 2004; Moulins, 2004). Conversely, a consumer who
is not very sensitive to risk has a greater probability to switch brands (Derbaix, 1983).
Commitment is another strategy of risk reduction. Generally, the more consumers will perceive
risk for a specific product, the more their brand loyalty is important (Derbaix, 1983; Amine,
1998; Lacoeuilhe, 2000; Greenleaf and Lehmann, 1995).

H1: Perceived risk has a positive impact on brand commitment.

Brand sensitivity and brand loyalty. Brand sensitivity refers to a psychological, not directly
observable pattern, reflecting the importance of the brand in the decision process. In contrast
with loyalty which is based on past consumer purchases, brand sensitivity is a cognitive
process that precedes the purchasing act. A consumer is sensitive to the brands, if he is bent
on consulting the information about the brand name, and if he takes into account the brand in
his decision process (Kapferer and Laurent, 1992). Not all consumers integrate the brand in
their buying decision process. Only, those ranking high in brand sensitivity do it (Kapferer,
2004). Thus, consumers are brand sensitive, if all things being equal, their choice will change
according to the nature of the brand, and to whether the product is branded or not.
Consequently, brand sensitivity allows making the distinction between true brand loyalty and
inertia behaviour. Indeed, if a consumer chooses to always buy a given brand without being
sensitive to brands, it is rather inertia behaviour (Odin et al., 2001). At the opposite, if
consumers are brand sensitive and repurchase the same brand, it is possible to talk about true
brand loyalty. Previous research studies showed that brand sensitivity is an antecedent of brand
loyalty (Kapferer and Laurent, 1992; Dubois and Laurent, 1999; Simon, 2002; Guo, 2005).

H2: Brand sensitive has a positive impact on brand commitment.

Perceived differences among brands and loyalty. During the buying decision making process,
consumers assess how well the attributes provided by the different alternatives will satisfy their
needs. There is a situation of perceived differences between brands when one or more brands
are perceived as higher in quality or need fulfilment than others (Van Trijp et al., 1996). This
concept is the opposite to the concept of brand parity, the belief that the differences between
the major brand alternatives in a product category are small (Jensen and Hansen, 2006).
Consumers who perceive wide differences among the brands are more likely to be loyal
(Jacoby, 1971; Anderson, 1974). When they are aware and convinced that the brand
corresponds for the better to their expectations, they will refer to this brand every time they
will need a product in a given product category (Dick and Basu, 1994; Muncy, 1996). The
perception of differences among the brands on the basis of functional or symbolic attributes
drives the consumer to form a preference for brands offering unique attributes. This preference
The Annals of Dunarea de Jos University of Galati
Fascicle I 2009. Economics and Applied Informatics. Years XV - ISSN 1584-0409

232
can progressively generate brand loyalty. From another point of view, brand loyalty is
perceived as a process that reduces the ambiguity and the complexity coming from the subtle
differences among the brands (Amine, 1998; Huffman and Kahn, 1998). The perception of
differences among the brands influences positively, directly or indirectly, brand loyalty.
Indeed, the belief in the existence of differences among the brands induces the perception of a
high-risk level linked to the choice of these brands. This perceived risk has a positive impact
on brand loyalty (Emmelheinz et al., 1991; Jensen and Hansen, 2006). This finding seems to be
the same whatever the products are (Chaudhuri, 1988).

H3: Perceived differences among the brands have a positive impact on brand commitment.

H4: Perceived differences among the brands have a positive impact on brand commitment via
the perceived risk.

Brand trust. Trust is the consumer presumption that the brand, as a personified entity,
commits itself to have a predictable action, in accordance with his expectations, and to
maintain this orientation in the length. (Gurviez, 1998, 2002). Trust has been found to be a
significant predictor of commitment (Frisou, 2000; Hess and Story, 2005). Brand trust has two
components: cognitive and affective. The cognitive component of trust refers to credibility. It
can be found when consumers consider as credible the information on the brand, its
performance, and its aptitude to satisfy them. The affective component of trust is integrity. It is
the consumers evaluative judgment related to brand motivations toward them (Gurviez, 1998).
In other words, consumers wonder whether the brand, as a personified entity favour their best
interests. In summary, brand credibility results from a rational and cognitive process based on
the assessment of brand performance and reputation, whereas integrity is an affective and
social trust outcome built on consumer perception of brand orientation, and intentions toward
him. Both credibility and integrity seem to be predictors of brand loyalty. Integrity seems to
influence positively affective commitment and negatively calculated commitment (De Ruyter
et al., 1998). Besides, brand credibility is a factor which predicts significantly long-term
orientation and commitment, and consequently, brand loyalty (Ganasan, 1994).

H5: Brand trust has a positive impact on brand commitment.

Brand attachment. In contrast with the different factors contributing to the explanation of
brand loyalty formation, attachment allows accounting for the intentionality of repetitive
buying behaviour. Brand attachment can be considered as a psychological variable that refers
to a durable and inalterable (the separation is painful) affective reaction towards the brand,
and that expresses a relationship of psychological proximity with this one (Lacoeuilhe, 2000).
Brand attachment results from the role played by the brand in maintaining consumer identity.
Indeed, the brand constitutes a means of communicating about ones self-concept. Brand usage
is a way for consumers to express themselves, to meet a need of singularity and affiliation, and
to interact with others. When the brand is charged with positive emotions, consumers become
attached to it, especially when these emotions are linked to lived events or dear persons: brand
attachment reflects the desire to maintain, through the consumption experience, an emotional
link with some persons or pleasurable situations (Lacoeuilhe, 2000). This strong feeling that
unites the consumer and the brand is independent from purchasing situations as it constitutes a
barrier to brand switching, and a pledge of brand loyalty. Brand attachment influences the
behavioural dimension of loyalty through brand commitment (attitudinal dimension). This
issue shows that the affection developed by the consumer towards the brand, can be
materialised as a fixation in the choice and the purchase of this brand. Furthermore, brand
attachment appears as a factor of affective commitment towards to the brand (Aaker, 1991; Mc
Queen, 1993; Amine, 1998; Lacoeuilhe, 2000; Belad et Lacoeuilhe, 2005; Kim et al.,
The Annals of Dunarea de Jos University of Galati
Fascicle I 2009. Economics and Applied Informatics. Years XV - ISSN 1584-0409

233
2005).Consequently, it is expected from brand loyalty to be strong, when brand attachment is
important.

H6: Brand attachment has a positive impact on brand commitment..

Attitudinal and behavioural loyalty. In conformity with the composite approach adopted in this
research study, the relationship between the two components of brand loyalty was studied. As
mentioned above, the true brand loyalty comes from a strong commitment to the brand that
leads to brand repetitive buying behaviour. Commitment appears to be a sine qua none
condition of true brand loyalty (Bloemer and Kasper, 1995). Committed consumers are more
likely to show high degrees of resistance to brand switching and to exhibit a more favourable
brand attitude (Mattila, 2001). Several research studies showed that the impact of brand
commitment on repetitive buying behaviour is generally weak but significant (Fullerton, 2005;
Hennig-Thurau et al, 2002; Pagani, 2004; Pura, 2005; Simon, 2004; Wang et al, 2004).

H7: the more consumers are committed to a brand, the more they tend to have a repetitive
buying behaviour of this brand.

The different concepts of the conceptual model of this research are presented in table 1 and the
hypotheses are summarised in figure 2.

Table 1. Major concepts of the conceptual model

Concepts Definition Response type Authors
Brand loyalty A consistent and repetitive
purchasing behaviour of a
brand driven by consumers
commitment to this brand.
A psychological and
behavioural outcome.
Jacoby (1971)
Dick and Basu
(1994)
Brand
commitment
A consumers desire to
maintain a long term
relationship with a given brand
(loyalty intention).
A psychological state
that come from
cognitive and
affective sources
Robertson (1976)
Morgan and Hunt
(1994)
Perceived risk
(in brand context)
A perceived uncertainty and
unpleasant consequences
associated with a brand
buying.
A cognitive process:
an assessment of
brand choice and
purchasing
consequences
Bauer (1960)
Cunningham
(1967)
Derbaix (1983)
Brand sensitivity The importance of brand name
in consumer choice process.
A cognitive process:
an evaluation of
brand name
information.
Kapferer and
Laurent (1992)
Kapferer (2004)
Perceived
differences
between brands
Consumers perception of
functional or/and symbolical
differences between brands in
a given product category.
An evaluative
process: a
comparison of brand
attributes
Anderson (1974)
Muncy (1996)
(Van Trijp et al.,
1996)
Brand trust Consumers assumption that
the brand acts in a way that
meets their expectations.
Cognitive (brand
performance) and
affective (brand
honesty) expectations
Gurviez (1998)
Gurviez and
Korchia (2002)
Brand attachment A sustainable affective link
between the consumer and his
brand.
A long-lasting
affective reaction
Lacoeuilhe (2000)
Cristau (2001,
2006)

The Annals of Dunarea de Jos University of Galati
Fascicle I 2009. Economics and Applied Informatics. Years XV - ISSN 1584-0409

234
Figure 2. The conceptual model




5. Research design

To estimate the model presented below, data were gathered through a survey questionnaire.
The product selected for this study is hair shampoo. The selection of this product for the study
is based on some conditions driven from true brand loyalty prerequisites. The use of such a
product is personal, involving several affective considerations (Duffer and Moulin, 1989). It is
also a product for which it is possible to observe a real relationship between consumers and
brands of shampoo. Henceforth, the variance of the observed behaviours and attitudes can be
large for such a product. Its purchase frequency is quite high and makes it possible to measure
repetitive buying through remembrance recordings. It is also possible to find several brands,
which means that consumers choice is unhindered and free (Salancik, 1977). In addition, this
product was used several times in the loyalty studies (Brown, 1952; Duffer and Moulin, 1989).
Given the refusal of the firms commercializing shampoo in Tunisia to give us access to their
databases, a non probabilistic sample had to be used. A quota sample of 400 housewives living
in the area of Tunis and its surroundings has been selected. The sampling method is based
upon age and occupation quotas as supplied by the Tunisian National Institute of Statistics.
The questionnaire includes a set of questions intended to measure the different variables of the
model. The scales were selected so as to take into account reliability and validity criteria, as
well as the suitability to the Tunisian context. All the scales were developed and used in
contexts that are culturally close to the Tunisian one. Behavioural brand loyalty was measured
by two indicators. With reference to brand proportion measure of Cunningham, (1961),
respondents were asked about their four past purchases of shampoo. Then, another question
was used to assess the degree of mono-loyalty of consumers in this market. Brand commitment
items were driven from the scale developed by Cristau (2006). Perceived risk and brand
sensitivity items were selected from Laurent and Kapferers scales (1983, 1985, 1992). To
measure perceived differences among brands, the brand parity scale of Muncy (1996) was
adopted. Brand trust was assessed through the scale of Gurviez and Korchia (2002) and finally
brand attachment items are provided from Lacoeuilhes scale (2000). All items were assessed
on a five-point Likert scale, which is the most appropriate in the Tunisian context. The
respondents could refer to the items either in French or in Arabic. The French-versions of the
scales are available in the literature. The Arabic translation was based both on the English and
the French original versions. It was worked out according to the back translation method. In
order to assess the dimensionality of the scales, a step-by-step principal component analysis
was carried out on each of them. Bartletts test of sphericity showed that the data is factorable.
Brand
attachment
Brand
Brand
Perceiveddifferences
amongthebrands
Perceived

Repetitive buying
behaviour
Brand
Loyalty
H1
H7
H3
H4
H2
H5
H6
The Annals of Dunarea de Jos University of Galati
Fascicle I 2009. Economics and Applied Informatics. Years XV - ISSN 1584-0409

235
Eigenvalues equal or over 1 have been specified (Kaiser criterion). Items with low
communalities (less than 0.4) and weakly discriminating items have been removed in order to
improve the psychometric properties of the scales. Internal consistency of each factor has been
evaluated by the calculation of coefficient alpha. The concepts, the scales used to
operationalise them, their dimensionality (obtained after factor analysis), and their internal
consistency is presented in table 2.

Table 2. Operationalisation and psychometric properties of the concepts

Concept Operationalisation Dimensionality
Internal
Consistency
Behavioural
componentofbrand
loyalty
Brandbuyingproportion
(LaurentandKapferer,1983)
________ ___
Attitudinalcomponent
ofbrandloyalty
(Cristau,2001) Unidimensional =.84
Perceivedrisk Kapferer(1985) Bidimensional
importanceofnegative
consequences
subjectiveprobabilityto
makeabadchoice

=.47

=.70
Brandsensitivity KapfererandLaurent(1992) Unidimensional =.73
Perceiveddifferences
amongbrands
Muncyparityscale(1996) Unidimensional =.70
Brandtrust Gurviez(1998) Bidimensional
credibility
integrity

=.80
=.75
Brandattachment Lacoeuilhe(2000) Unidimensional =.83
Factors with a coefficient alpha lower than 0.7 have not been taken into consideration in this
analysis. So, the importance of negative consequences factor has been removed from the
analysis.

6. Analyses and results

Structural equation modelling was used to test the different relationships of the model (Lisrel
8.5). The stepwise procedure recommended by Anderson and Gerbing (1988) was used. A first
step consisted in estimating the different measurement models, without imposing structural
constraints. It allowed us to check if there is a lack of fit attributable only to the measurement.
The second step included all the structural relationships presented in figure 2. This procedure
helps to avoid the confusion in interpretation resulting from a single approach (Anderson and
Gerbing, 1988).

After an iterative procedure in which standardised residuals and modification indices were
examined, non-significant relationships were eliminated. The goodness of fit was found to be
The Annals of Dunarea de Jos University of Galati
Fascicle I 2009. Economics and Applied Informatics. Years XV - ISSN 1584-0409

236
good. RMSEA, RMR, GFI and AGFI are satisfactory and allow the conclusion that the
goodness-of-fit of the model to the data is globally good (Table 3).


Table 3. The model fit

2 DL 2 /df RMSEA RMR GFI AGFI CFI R*
280.573 112 2.51 0.061 0.044 0.924 0.896 0.938 1.02
* R = R de 1 + R de 2

A test of the hypotheses mentioned in the conceptual model (H1 to H6) was performed. Path
coefficients and significance help us to test the causal relationships of the research model
(Table 4). The estimated model does not find support for the role of consumer brand credibility
(H5.1), subjective expectations of losses (H1) and brand sensitivity in affecting brand
commitment (H3). These constructs are not significantly linked up to the intentional brand
loyalty. Nevertheless, the relationship between integrity (affective dimension of trust) and
commitment to this brand is accepted (2 =0.29; t-value = 4.52 at the level of 5%).

Table 4. Results synthesis

Hypotheses Relationships
Standardised
path coefficients
t-test
Hypothesis
testing
H1 risk2 commitment - Non significant Not supported
H2 sensitivity commitment - Non significant Not supported
H3 differences commitment -0.18 -3.21 Not supported
H4 differencesrisk2commitment - Non significant Not supported
H5.1 integrity commitment 0.29 4.52 Supported
H5.2 credibility commitment - Non significant Not supported
H6 attachment commitment 0.86 5.86 Supported
H7 commitment repetitive behaviour 0.34 4.52 Supported

Table 4 shows no significant relationship was found between perceived risk and commitment.
Although unexpected, this result is in accordance with the findings of Bozzo et al. (2003). It
appears that, in some cases, perceived risk is not a good predictor of brand commitment. To
refine the analysis, Moulins (2004) argues that a distinction should be done between an
assumed risk, at the brand level, and an inherent risk, at the product category level. It is true
that the subjective probability to make a bad choice while buying hair shampoo concerns
both risk types. Likewise, brand sensitivity does not seem to have an effect on brand
commitment. This is in contrast with previous empirical findings (Dubois and Laurent, 1999;
Simon, 2002; Guo, 2005). However, Simon (2002) seems to suggest that brand sensitivity
operates for some products, and have no impact on commitment for some others. This
variation could be explained by other variables such as perceived risk or product category
involvement. The relationship between perceived differences among the brands and brand
commitment was tested. The relationship was statistically significant but not in the appropriate
direction (positive). Indeed, perceived differences among the brands was negatively related to
commitment (3 = -0.18; t-value= -3.21 at the level of 5%). This result supposes that the more
consumers perceive differences among the brands, the less they would be committed to a
particular brand. This might be an effect of the variety seeking phenomena. In the shampoo
brands universe, choice alternatives are numerous. In this context, perception of differences
among the brands will lead to a greater variety seeking behaviour (Laurent and Kapferer,1983).
Indeed, in front of an important number of choice possibilities, consumers make their choice
among a set of brands that satisfy their need of stimulation and their novelty-seeking attitude.
The Annals of Dunarea de Jos University of Galati
Fascicle I 2009. Economics and Applied Informatics. Years XV - ISSN 1584-0409

237
This need of variety is an obstacle to maintaining a stable consumer-brand relationship and
encourages brand switching. Perceived differences among brands have neither a direct, nor an
indirect influence on brand commitment. A possible explanation for these findings has been
proposed by Iyer and Muncy (2005) according to which perceived differences among brands
rather perform a moderating role than a mediated one.

As far as trust is concerned, since this variable revealed to be bidimensional, H5 has been
divided into two hypotheses H5.1., dealing with integrity, and H5.2., in relation with
credibility. The validation of H5.1 leads to support the assumption according to which a brand
characterised by its integrity guarantees the commitment of the consumer to this brand. This
finding shows the crucial importance of the perceived brand intentions. To be committed to a
particular brand, consumers should be sure that this brand is concerned about their welfare and
their well-being. It is hardly ever seen a consumer committed to a brand which fails to keep its
promises. Furthermore, a positive significant relationship was supported by a parameter of
1 = 0.86 (t-value = 5.86 at the level of 5%). Thus, more attachment to a specific brand leads to
increased commitment of a consumer to this brand. This finding offers some support for
previous research (Frisou, 2000; Gurviez and Korchia, 2002). However, the findings show no
association between credibility and brand commitment.

Brand attachment has a strong effect on brand commitment in comparison with the other
constructs, which have relative low parameter estimates. Such a result testifies the explanatory
power of affective factors. This finding mirror previous research evidence in relation to the key
role of brand attachment as a determinant of commitment. A consumer who shows affective
predispositions with a brand becomes unconsciously fixed on the choice of this brand. In other
words, this strong and durable affective relationship with the brand drives the consumer to a
feeling of inseparability towards this brand (Cristau, 2001, 2006).

Finally, the test of the model reveals a positive significant link between repetitive buying
behaviour and brand commitment (1= 0.34; t-value = 4.52). Hence, H7 was supported: brand
commitment leads to a repetitive buying behaviour of this brand. Nevertheless, despite the
rather strong association between the two concepts, brand commitment does not contribute to
explain repetitive buying behaviour in a strong way. Brand commitment restores only 11% (R
=0.11) of the information relating to this behaviour. This result is similar to the ones of several
empirical studies on brand loyalty. For instance, in Lacoeuilhe (2000), the explanatory strength
of commitment on the repetitive buying behaviour is respectively .117 and .052 for the
washing powder category and for the deodorants category. Even if the extracted variance is
weak, only this variance can explain the true brand loyalty. In addition, the weak value of the
determination coefficient is due to repetitive buying behaviour, which often covers several
realities and can stem from other motivations than brand commitment. A high buying rate of
the same brand can also come from inertia behaviour, high price sensitivity, or store loyalty.

Brand attachment, integrity and perceived differences among the brands are significantly
linked to brand commitment. Brand attachment has the greater explanatory power of brand
commitment. The effect of integrity is less important. Finally, in contrast with H4, the
cognitive antecedent, perceived differences among the brands, has a negative effect on brand
commitment.

7. Conclusion

Three main results can be driven from this research study. In the cognitive sphere, only
perceived differences among the brands have an effect on brand loyalty. Brand attachment and
integrity to the brand strongly contribute to the explanation of brand loyalty. Brand
The Annals of Dunarea de Jos University of Galati
Fascicle I 2009. Economics and Applied Informatics. Years XV - ISSN 1584-0409

238
commitment (attitudinal facet of brand loyalty) leads to a repetitive buying behaviour of this
brand (behavioural facet of brand loyalty). The approach adopted in this research takes into
account the behavioural considerations developed in the traditional theories as well as the
attitudinal factors existing in the commitment theory. Integrating commitment is a necessary
condition to identify the different factors that can explain the intentional loyalty behaviour.
Two kinds of factors can influence consumers intention to maintain a relationship with the
brand. These are cognitive factors leading to a calculative commitment, and affective factors
leading to an affective commitment. The findings of the current research emphasise the
importance of affective states as predictors of intentional loyalty. The introduction of brand
attachment as an antecedent of brand loyalty contributes to a better understanding of this
phenomenon whose formation can be explained by affective motives. These motives namely
attachment and integrity have a higher predictive value when it comes to determining loyalty
than cognitive antecedents. The significant relationship of attachment, perceived differences
among brands, and integrity with brand commitment helps to highlight the double nature of
this phenomenon: a calculated commitment, apprehended through perceived differences
among brands, and an affective commitment, based on brand attachment and integrity.
Commitment towards the brand is a determinant factor to reach the true brand loyalty. These
conclusions confirm the necessity to integrate the affective stream in the comprehension of
brand loyalty, and to give further consideration to the commitment concept which appears as a
central factor of loyalty conceptualisation and measurement. From a strategic standpoint, these
findings can help marketing managers with a better understanding of the true brand loyalty
of their customers and, consequently, to improve their loyalty tools and politics. When
developing an effective marketing communication program to enhance customers loyalty,
firms can have recourse to cognitive or affective appeals. This research study shows firms can
focus on creating and keeping affective relationships between consumers and their brands.
Managers may reach this objective by positioning their brands as liked brands towards which
buyers have an overall favourable disposition. This can be achieved through continuous mass
media advertising (Chaudhuri, 1999). This strategy is all the more important that a normal
activity loses between 15 and 20 % of its customers every year. Besides, the research findings
suggest that a firm intending to retain its customers should, on the one hand, favour brand
attachment, and on the other hand, adopt promotion actions that communicate the good
intentions of the brand towards consumers. Thus, firms should direct their attention on
affective brand-consumers relationships by promoting a brand image that expresses values
close to the consumers ones, in order to develop brand loyalty. Building an honest brand could
also be the key of creating long-lasting relationships with customers. This strategy can be
implemented through a move away from transactional to relational intent, by implementing
direct customer communications or by increasing consumer knowledge (Hart et al., 1999).
Developing trustworthy and affective relationships will lead to a higher intention to continue
buying the same brand and thus tend to reduce the probability of switching to another brand.
However, to establish loyalty programs, managers require the use of reliable measures of
loyalty to distinguish between true and spuriously loyal consumers. Thus, managers should
rely on a composite approach to brand loyalty, which combines repetitive buying behaviour of
a brand and a commitment to this brand. Indeed, focusing solely on the behavioural
component, brand loyalty would be fragile and tends to vanish if purchase motivations are
wearing off. Using consumers declarations with regards to the last purchased brands of
shampoo to measure brand loyalty can be problematic. Consumers cannot always remember
exactly the purchased brands. Moreover, some of them can furnish spurious information in
discordance with their effective purchasing behaviour. These uncontrollable elements can
introduce bias in estimating the model and modify the link between brand commitment and
repetitive buying behaviour of this brand. It is also interesting to notice that the level of loyalty
would be high if it is measured, as in the current study, in a short period of time. In order to go
beyond these limits, it would be possible to use panel data, to measure repeated buying
The Annals of Dunarea de Jos University of Galati
Fascicle I 2009. Economics and Applied Informatics. Years XV - ISSN 1584-0409

239
behaviour, completed with questionnaires to measure the other variables. Not only will this
technique lead to a better measure of behavioural loyalty, but it would also allow testing the
evolution of the loyalty phenomenon over time, as well as the evolution of the intervention of
its affective and cognitive antecedents. The external validity of the current research study can
be limited due to the fact that all the gathered data are about a specific product: hair shampoo.
It would be interesting to duplicate this study for other categories of goods or services. Several
authors pointed out that brand loyalty depends on the product class (Dick and Basu, 1994;
Chaudhuri; 1998). Duplicating this study on a big number of other products would permit to
progressively distinguish between three categories of products: those for whom the loyalty is
cognitive, those for whom the loyalty is affective, and those for whom the loyalty is mixed.
Given the huge amounts of money spent in the advertising campaigns, drawing up such a list
would be directly relevant for marketers and advertising managers who whish to create and to
maintain consumers brand loyalty. This research should be considered as an attempt to
explain the effect of some cognitive and affective antecedents on brand loyalty pattern. The
results indicate that brand attachment, integrity to the brand and perceived differences among
the brands affects brand commitment and then reinforce the probability of buying the same
brand over a period of time. A distinction can be made between direct and indirect antecedents
of brand loyalty (Amine, 1998). The integration of indirect antecedents of brand loyalty could
enrich the findings of our research. The research model could be enriched adding variables
such as satisfaction (Chandrashekaran, 2007), brand personality (Kumar, 2006), brand
experience (Woodside, 2007) or emotions (Chaudhuri, 2006).

References

1. Aaker, D.A., Hillsdale, N.J., (Ed.), Brand Equity and Advertising, Lawrence Erlbaum.
2. Aaker, D., (1991), Managing Brand Equity, San Francisco: Free Press.
3. Ahluwalia, R., Burnkrant, R.E., Unnava, H. R., (2000), Consumer Response to Negative Publicity: the
Moderating Role of Commitment, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 37, May, pp. 203-214.
4. Ahluwalia, R., Unnava, H. R., Burnkrant, R.E., (2001), The Moderating Role of Commitment on the
Spill Over Effect of Marketing Communications, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 38, November,
pp. 458-470.
5. Allen, N.J., Meyer, J.P., (1990), The Measurement and Antecedent of Affective Continuance and
Normative Commitment to the Organization, Journal of occupational Psychology, Vol. 63, pp. 1-18.
6. Amine, A., (1998), Consumers' True Brand Loyalty: The Central Role of Commitment, Journal of
Strategic Marketing, Vol. 6, pp. 305-319.
7. Anderson E. (1974), The Measurement of Buyer Brand Preference under Changing Terms of Trade,
American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 56, No. 1, pp. 122-128.
8. Anderson, J.C., Gerbing, D.W., (1998), Structural Equation Modelling in Practice: a Review and
Recommended Two-Step Approach, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103, pp. 411-423.
9. Bauer, R. A., (1960), Consumer Behaviour as Risk Taking, in Hancock, C. (Ed.), Dynamic Marketing
for a Changing World, American Marketing Association, Chicago, pp. 389-398.
10. Beatty, S.E., Sharon, E., Lynn, R., Homer, K., Homer, P., (1998), The Involvement-Commitment Model:
Theory and Implications, Journal of Business research, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 149-167.
11. Belad S. et Lacoeuilhe J. (2005), Une Validation Interculturelle de lchelle dAttachement la
Marque, Actes du XXIme congrs de lAssociation Franaise du Marketing, Nancy, France.
12. Bladinger, A.L., Rubinson, J., (1996), Brand Loyalty: The Link Between Attitude and Behavior,
Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 36, pp. 22-34.
13. Bloemer, J. , Kasper, H., (1995), The Complex Relationship Between Consumer Satisfaction and Brand
Loyalty, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 16, pp. 311-329.
14. Botton, M., Cegarra, J.J., (1990), Le Nom de Marque, Paris, McGraw Hill.
15. Bozzo, C., Merunka, D., Moulins, (2003), Fidlit et Comportement dAchat : ne pas se Fier aux
Apparences, Dcisions Marketing, Vol. 32, pp.9-17.
16. Brown, G., (1952), Brand Loyalty Fact or Fiction, Advertising Age, Vol. 26, January, pp. 75-76.
17. Chandrashekaran, M., Rotte, K., Tax, S.S., Grewal, R., (2007), Satisfaction Strength and Customer
Loyalty, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 44, No. 1, pp. 153-162.
The Annals of Dunarea de Jos University of Galati
Fascicle I 2009. Economics and Applied Informatics. Years XV - ISSN 1584-0409

240
18. Chaudhuri, A., (1998), Product Class Effects on Brand Loyalty, Journal of Marketing Management,
Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 66-77.
19. Chaudhuri, A., (1999), The Relationship of Brand Attitudes and Brand Performance: the Role of Brand
Loyalty, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 1-9.
20. Chaudhuri, A., (2006), Emotion and Reason in Consumer Behavior, Amsterdam : Elsevier.
21. Cristau, C. (2001), Dfinition, Mesure et Modlisation de lAttachement une Marque avec Deux
Composantes : la Dpendance et lAmiti vis--vis dune Marque, Doctoral dissertation, Institut
d'Administration des Entreprises dAix-en-Provence.
22. Cristau, C., (2006), LAttachement une Marque: Conjonction de la Dpendance et de lAmiti,
Revue Franaise du Marketing, Vol. 207, April, pp. 5-25.
23. Cunningham, R. M., (1956), Brand Loyalty - What, Where, How Much?, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 34, January-February, pp. 116-128.
24. Cunningham, R.M. (1961), Customer loyalty to store and brand, Harvard Business Review,
25. Vol. 39, November-December, pp. 127-37.
26. Cunningham, S.M., (1967), Perceived Risk and Brand Loyalty, In: Donald F. Cox, ed., Risk Taking
and Information Handling in Consumer Behavior, Boston: Harvard University Press, pp. 507-523.
27. Day, G. A., (1969), Buyer Attitudes and Brand Choice Behavior, New York: The Free Press.
28. Derbaix, C., (1983), Perceived Risk and Risk Relievers: An Empirical Investigation, Journal of
Economic Psychology, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 19-38.
29. De Ruyter, K., Wetzels, M., Birgelen, M., (1998), Marketing Service Relationships: The Role of
Commitment, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 13, No. 4/5, pp. 406-423.
30. Dick, A.S., Basu, K., (1994), Customer Loyalty: Toward an Integrated Conceptual Framework,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 99-113.
31. Dholakia, U. M., (1997), An Investigation of Some Determinants of Brand Commitment, Advances in
Consumer Research, Vol. 24, pp. 381-387.
32. Dubois, B., Laurent, G., (1999), A Situational Approach to Brand Loyalty, Advances in Consumer
Research, Vol. 26, pp. 657-670.
33. Dubois, B., Quaghebeur, A., (1997), Les Consommateurs Font-ils ce quils Disent ?, Actes du XIII
Congrs de LAssociation Franaise du Marketing, Toulouse, pp. 892-919.
34. Duffer, J., Moulins, J.L., (1989), La Relation Entre la Satisfaction du Consommateur et sa Fidlit la
Marque, Recherche et Application en Marketing, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 21-33.
35. Emmelheinz, M., Stock, J., Emmelheinz, L., (1991), Consumer Response to Retail Stock-Outs, Journal
of Retailing, Vol. 67, pp. 138-146.
36. Filser, M., (1994), Le comportement du Consommateur, Paris, Prcis Dalloz.
37. Fournier, S., (1998), Consumers and their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in Consumer
Research, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 343-373.
38. Fournier, S.M. and Yao, J.L. (1997), Reviving Brand Loyalty: A Reconceptualization within the
Framework of Consumer Brand Relationships, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol.
14, pp. 451-72.
39. Frisou J., (2000), Confiance Interpersonnelle et Engagement : une Rorientation Bhavioriste,
Recherche et Applications en Marketing, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 63- 80.
40. Fullerton, G., (2005), The Impact of Brand Commitment on Loyalty to Retail Service Brands,
Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 97-110.
41. Ganasan, S., (1994), Determinants of Long-Term in Buyer-Seller Relationships, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 58, pp. 1-19.
42. Gounaris, S., Stathakopoulos, V, (2004), Antecedents and Consequences of Brand Loyalty: An
Empirical Study, Journal of Brand Management, Vol.11, No. 4, pp. 283-307.
43. Greenleaf, E., Lehmann, D. (1995), Reasons for Substantial Delay in Consumer Decision Making,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 22, September, pp. 186-199.
44. Guo, X., (2005), La Sensibilit aux Marques et lEngagement la Marque : une Application aux
Consommateurs Chinois, Doctoral dissertation, University of Nancy II.
45. Gurviez, P., (1998), Le Rle Central de la Confiance dans la Relation Consommateur-Marque, Doctoral
dissertation, Institut d'Administration des Entreprises dAix-en-Provence.
46. Gurviez, P., Korchia, M., (2002), Proposition dune chelle de Mesure Multidimensionnelle de la
Confiance dans la Marque, Recherche et Applications en Marketing, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 41-62.
47. Hart, S., Smith, A., Sparks, L., Tzokas, N., (1999), Are Loyalty Schemes a Manifestation of Relationship
Marketing, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 15, No. 6, pp. 541-562.
48. Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K.P. and Gremler, D.D. (2002), Understanding Relationship Marketing
Outcomes: An Integration of Relational Benefits and Relationship Quality, Journal of Service
Research, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 230-47.
The Annals of Dunarea de Jos University of Galati
Fascicle I 2009. Economics and Applied Informatics. Years XV - ISSN 1584-0409

241
49. Hess, J., Story, J., (2005), Trust-Based Commitment: Multidimensional Consumer-Brand
Relationships, The Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol.22, No. 6; pp. 313-323.
50. Huffman, C., Kahn, B., (1998), Variety for Sale: Mass Customization or Mass Confusion?, Journal of
Retailing, Winter98, Vol. 74, Issue 4, pp. 491-513.
51. Jacoby, J., (1971), A Model of Multibrand Loyalty, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 26, June,
pp. 25-31.
52. Jacoby, J., Chestnut, R., (1978), Brand Loyalty: Measurement and Management, Wiley, New York.
53. Jacoby, J., Kyner, B.D., (1973), Brand Loyalty vs. Repeat Purchasing Behaviour, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 10, pp. 1-9.
54. Jensen, J.M., Hansen, T., (2006), An Empirical Examination of Brand Loyalty, Journal of Product
and Brand Management, Vol. 15, No. 7, pp. 442-449.
55. Johnson M. P., (1973), Commitment: A Conceptual Structure and Empirical Application, The
Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 14, No. 3, Summer, pp. 395-406.
56. Kapferer, J.N., (2004), The New Strategic Brand Management: Creating And Sustaining Brand Equity
Long Term, Third edition, Kogan Page.
57. Kapferer J.N., Laurent G. (1985), Measuring Consumer Involvement Profiles, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp.41-53.
58. Kapferer, J.N., Laurent, G., (1992), La Sensibilit aux Marques, Les ditions dorganisation.
59. Kiesler, C.A., (1971), Commitment in Theories of Cognitive Consistency: a Sourcebook, Abelson, R.P.,
Chicago: Ran Mc Nally, pp. 448-455.
60. Kim, H.K., Lee, M., Ulgado, F.M., (2005), Brand Personality, Self-Congruity and the Consumer-Brand
Relationship, Asia Pacific Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 6, pp. 111-117.
61. Kumar, N., Hibbard, J.D., Stern, L.W., (1994), The Nature and Consequence of Marketing Channel
Intermediary Commitment, MSI Working Paper Report, No. 1994-5, pp. 94-115.
62. Kumar, N., Luthra, A., Datta, G., (2006), Linkages between Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty: A
Qualitative Study in an Emerging Market in the Indian Context, South Asian Journal of Management,
Vol.13, No. 2, pp. 11-36.
63. Laban, J., (1979), Contribution la Mesure de la Fidlit des Consommateurs, Doctoral dissertation,
Institut d'Administration des Entreprises dAix-en-Provence.
64. Lacoeuilhe, J., (2000), Le Concept dAttachement : Contribution ltude du Rle des Facteurs
Affectifs dans la Formation de la Fidlit la Marque. Doctoral dissertation, Universit de Paris 12,
Val de Marne.
65. Lacoeuilhe, J., (2000), Lattachement la Marque : Proposition dune chelle de Mesure, Recherche
et Application en Marketing, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 61-77.
66. Laurent, G., Kapferer, J.N., (1983), Comment Mesurer le Degr d'Implication des Consommateurs,
IREP, pp. 1-55.
67. Maffei, R.B., (1960), Brand Preferences and Simple Markov Processes, Operations Research, Vol. 8,
No. 2, pp. 210218.
68. Mattila, A. S., (2001), The Impact of Relationship Type on Customer Loyalty in a Context of Service
Failures, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 4, No. 2, November, pp. 91-101.
69. McConnell J. D. (1968), The Development of Brand Loyalty: An Empirical Study, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 5, pp. 13-19.
70. McQueen, J., (1993), Decomposing a Brands Consumer Franchise into Buyer Types, in
71. Mellens, M., Dekimpe, M.G., Steenkamp, J.E.M., (1996), A Review of Brand-Loyalty Measures in
Marketing, Tijdschrift voor Economie en Management, Vol. 41, No. 4, pp. 507-533.
72. Morgan, R.M., Hunt, S.D., (1994), The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship Marketing, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 58, pp. 20-38.
73. Moulins, J.L., (2004), Risque Peru et Fidlits la Marque : une Analyse Exploratoire, Revue
Franaise du Marketing, Vol. 199, No. 4/5, pp. 87-108.
74. Muncy, J.A., (1996), Measuring Perceived Brand Parity, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 23,
pp. 411-417.
75. NGoala, G., (2003), Proposition dune Conceptualisation et dune Mesure Relationnelle de la
Fidlit, Actes du XIX
me
Congrs International de lAssociation Franaise de Marketing, Tunis, pp.
510-531.
76. Odin, Y., Odin, N., Valette-Florence, P., (2001), Conceptual and Operational Aspects of Brand
Loyalty: An Empirical Investigation, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 53, No. 2, August, pp. 75-84.
77. Pagani, M. (2004), Determinants of Adoption of Third Generation Mobile Multimedia Services,
Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 46-59.
78. Pura, M., (2005), Linking Perceived Value and Loyalty in Location-Based Mobile Services, Managing
Service Quality, Vol.15, No. 6, pp. 509-539.
The Annals of Dunarea de Jos University of Galati
Fascicle I 2009. Economics and Applied Informatics. Years XV - ISSN 1584-0409

242
79. Raj, S.P., (1985), "Striking a Balance Between Brand Popularity and Brand Loyalty", Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 49, Winter, pp. 53-59.
80. Reichheld F. (1996), The Loyalty Effect, the Hidden Force behind Growth, Profits and Lasting Value,
Harvard Business School Press.
81. Ring, A., (1980), Some Effects of Perceived Risk on Consumer Information Processing, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 255-263.
82. Robertson, T.S., (1976), Low Commitment Behaviour, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 16, No.
2, pp. 19-24.
83. Rosenberg, L.J., Czepiel, J.A., (1983), A Marketing Approach to Customer Retention, Journal of
Consumer Marketing, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 45-51.
84. Salancik G. R. (1977), Commitment and the Control of Organizational Behavior and Belief, in Staw
and Salancik (Eds), New Directions in Organizational Behavior, Malabar, FL: Robert Krieger, pp. 1-54.
85. Samuelson, B.M., Sandivik, K., (1997), The Concept of Customer Loyalty, Marketing: Prospects,
Perspectives, EMAC Proceedings, Warwick Business School, Warwick, Vol. 3, pp. 1120-1140.
86. Sheth, N. J., Parvatiyar, A., (1995), Relationship Marketing in Consumer Markets: Antecedents and
Consequences, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 255-271.
87. Simon, P., (2002), Pour une Meilleure Comprhension de la Fidlit la Marque: Intgration des
Notions de Confiance, de Force de lAttitude et de Force de la Marque. Une Application aux Produits de
Consommation Courante, Doctoral dissertation, University of Paris I Panthon Sorbonne.
88. Simon, P., (2004), La Force de lAttitude : Clarification du Concept et Mise en vidence de son Rle
Modrateur sur la Relation Engagement-Comportement Effectif de Fidlit, Revue Franaise du
Marketing, Vol. 2, No. 5, pp. 79-94.
89. Tucker, W. T., (1964), The Development of Brand Loyalty, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 1, pp.
32-35.
90. Uncles, M.D., Dowling, G.R., Hammond, K., (2003), Customer Loyalty and Customer Loyalty
Programs, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 294-316.
91. Van Trijp, H.C.M., Hoyer, W.D., Inman, J.J., (1996), Why switch? Product Category-Level
Explanations for True Variety-Seeking Behavior, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 33, No. 3,
pp.281-293.
92. Wang, Y., Lo, H.P., Chi, R. and Yang, Y. (2004), An Integrated Framework for Customer Value and
Customer-Relationship-Management Performance: A Customer-Based Perspective from China,
Managing Service Quality, Vol. 14, No. 2/3, pp. 169-182.
93. Woodside, A.G., Walser, M.G., (2007), Building Strong Brands in Retailing, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 60, pp. 1-10.