See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/278689747

Experimental Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)

Chapter · January 2014

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-00539-3_7

CITATIONS READS

0 502

3 authors:

Sreejesh S Sanjay Mohapatra

Indian Institute of Management, Kozhikode Xavier Institute of Management, Bhubaneswar (XIMB)
69 PUBLICATIONS   432 CITATIONS    240 PUBLICATIONS   591 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Dr Anusree M.R
Rajagiri College of Social Science
42 PUBLICATIONS   156 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Examining the intra-personal and interpersonal mechanisms linking work related conflicts and employee well-being. View project

Testing Activity Reduces Conflict Associated Strain (ARCAS) Model: A Test of Moderated Mediation Model of Relationship Conflict and Employee Well-being" View
project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sanjay Mohapatra on 09 November 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Mixed Method Research Design

[email protected]
S. Sreejesh • Sanjay Mohapatra

Mixed Method Research

Design
An Application in Consumer-Brand
Relationships (CBR)

1  3
[email protected]
S. Sreejesh Sanjay Mohapatra
IBS Hyderabad Xavier Institute of Management
IFHE University Bhubaneswar
Hyderabad India
India

Supplementary material for this volume is available at www.springer.com. Search for this
title by print ISBN: 978-3-319-02686-2.

ISBN 978-3-319-02686-2    ISBN 978-3-319-02687-9 (eBook)

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-02687-9
Springer Cham Heidelberg New York Dordrecht London

Library of Congress Control Number: 2013952767

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part
of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission
or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or
dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. Exempted from this legal reservation are
brief excerpts in connection with reviews or scholarly analysis or material supplied specifically for the
purpose of being entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of
the work. Duplication of this publication or parts thereof is permitted only under the provisions of the
Copyright Law of the Publisher’s location, in its current version, and permission for use must always
be obtained from Springer. Permissions for use may be obtained through RightsLink at the Copyright
Clearance Center. Violations are liable to prosecution under the respective Copyright Law.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt
from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
While the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of
publication, neither the authors nor the editors nor the publisher can accept any legal responsibility for
any errors or omissions that may be made. The publisher makes no warranty, express or implied, with
respect to the material contained herein.

Printed on acid-free paper

Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com)

[email protected]
Dedicated to

My Father, Surendran Pillai (Late),

My Mother, Radhamani Amma,
My Wife, Anusree. M. R,
My Brother and Sister, Suresh S and Sreeja Sudharman.
Sreejesh

Dr. Sushila Moshra (Late)

Bharati, Sanjana and Shrestha
Sanjay

[email protected]
Preface

“Mixed Method Research Design: An Application In Consumer-Brand Relation-

ships (CBR)” is a comprehensive guide to design and conduct the research in
management-related field, such as marketing management and human resources
management. This book provides an overview of the real research conducted by the
authors in their career as researchers and thereby explains one of the important and
growing research designs used in management research—mixed method research
design. It starts with the introduction which shows the background of the study.
This is followed by a detailed literature review in the areas of consumer-brand re-
lationships, which helps the authors to show how research questions and research
objectives can be formulated for the mixed method study. This is further followed
by a detailed explanation of the methodology, which establishes the ground rule for
the study. Finally, it ends with the analysis and results of mixed method research
study. In addition, the book also examines the procedures of mixing of qualitative
and quantitative paradigms in research both in terms of hypothesis development
and testing. It also helps the reader to understand how to design their research stud-
ies using mixed method design. The book concludes with managerial implications,
which helps the reader to understand how mixed research design could be used to
infer contribution to the theory and practice.

S. Sreejesh
Sanjay Mohopatra

vii

[email protected]
Contents

1 Introduction����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    1

2  Literature Review������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   7

3  Theoretical Development and Hypotheses���������������������������������������������    27

4  Research Methodology����������������������������������������������������������������������������    47

5  Analysis and Results��������������������������������������������������������������������������������    69

6  Discussion, Implications, and Conclusions��������������������������������������������   109

Appendix���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   117

References�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   165

Index����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   173

ix

[email protected]
List of Figures

Fig. 2.1 BRQ Model�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    16

Fig. 2.2 RI Model�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    18
Fig. 2.3 AA Relationships Model�����������������������������������������������������������������    20
Fig. 3.1 Consumer–brand relationship model (CBRM)�������������������������������    45
Fig. 4.1 Fully mixed sequential dominant status design������������������������������    49
Fig. 4.2 Grounded theory procedure������������������������������������������������������������    53
Fig. 4.3 Sequential steps in LISREL modeling��������������������������������������������    63
Fig. 4.4 Full path diagram portrayal with LISREL notations�����������������������    64
Fig. 5.1 Theoretical model of consumer–brand relationships����������������������    73
Fig. 5.2 Measurement model������������������������������������������������������������������������    87
Fig. 5.3 Results of consumer brand relationships (calibration model)���������    94
Fig. 5.4 Results of consumer brand relationships (Validation sample)��������   100
Fig. 5.5 Results of consumer brand relationships (Revised model)�������������   101
Fig. 5.6 Results of consumer brand relationships (Most
unconstrained model Mu2)�������������������������������������������������������������   104
Fig. 5.7 Results of consumer brand relationships (Most
unconstrained model Mu1)�������������������������������������������������������������   105
Fig. 5.8 Results of consumer brand relationships (Most
constrained model Mc2)������������������������������������������������������������������   106
Fig. 5.9 Results of consumer brand relationships (Most
constrained model Mc1)������������������������������������������������������������������   107

xi

[email protected]
List of Tables

Table 4.1 Profile of respondents������������������������������������������������������������������   54

Table 4.2 Reliability and validity confirmation of qualitative
research����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   58
Table 4.3 Structural model equations for path diagram������������������������������  66
Table 4.4 Measurement model equations for path diagram������������������������  67
Table 5.1 List of codes and categories��������������������������������������������������������   71
Table 5.2 Provisional hypotheses����������������������������������������������������������������   72
Table 5.3 Respondent’s demographic profile����������������������������������������������   80
Table 5.4 Respondent’s relationship profile������������������������������������������������   81
Table 5.5 Multivariate normality testing�����������������������������������������������������   83
Table 5.6 KMO and Bartlett’s test for consumer–brand
relationship dimensions���������������������������������������������������������������   84
Table 5.7 Underlying dimensions of consumer–brand
relationships���������������������������������������������������������������������������������   85
Table 5.8 Standardized loadings, reliability, squared multiple
correlation, and AVE��������������������������������������������������������������������   89
Table 5.9 Discriminant validity checks�������������������������������������������������������   90
Table 5.10 Correlation and average variance extracted (AVE)���������������������   91
Table 5.11 Summary of fit indices of measurement model���������������������������   92
Table 5.12 Structural model assessment: calibration sample,
proposed model���������������������������������������������������������������������������   93
Table 5.13 Summary of fit indices for structural model:
calibration sample������������������������������������������������������������������������  96
Table 5.14 Summary of fit Indices of structural model: validation sample���� 97
Table 5.15 Structural model assessment: validation sample,
proposed model���������������������������������������������������������������������������   98
Table 5.16 Structural model assessment: revised model�������������������������������  99
Table 5.17 Summary of fit indices of structural model: revised model��������  99
Table 5.18 Competing models and GFI���������������������������������������������������������   103

xiii

[email protected]
Chapter 1
Introduction

Practitioners acknowledged thamt effective advertising, which

helps build powerful, lasting brand relationships, is a balance
of ‘head and heart.’ Little investment in research and theory
development, however, has been dedicated to measuring the
heart response.
Plummer (2006) Journal of Advertising Research

Building close relationship with brand users is key to the future,

ad agencies for the package-goods giants had better be ready.
Charles Strauss, President and CEO, Unilever

Introduction

Creation of brand-based differentiation is the most influential approach for the

development and maintenance of competitive advantage, particularly customer-
focused competitive advantage. For customers, these differentiating aspects would
act as a signal of achieving expectation, which will provide more confidence and
believability that the brand will meet their expectations (Kim et al. 2008). The ex-
tant literature on consumer–brand management examined these differentiating as-
pects based on which consumers perceive and evaluate brands, for example, brand
equity (Aaker 1991; Biel 1993; Keller 1997), brand personality (Plaummer 1985;
Batra et al. 1993; Aaker 1997), and brand extensions (Nakamoto et al. 1993; Aaker
and Keller 1993). Recently, a new stream of literature stated that consumers of-
ten do not differentiate brands based on how they perceive, rather they distinguish
based on their relationship with it (e.g., Fournier 1998). This mainly arises because
of the change in ideology from transactional relationships to fostering long-term
relationships (Tsai 2011). This change in ideology from transactional relationships
to long-term relationships induced the marketers’ efforts to promote consumers to
think their brand as a living entity through employing personification, reciprocal
exchanges, anthropomorphization, as well as relating brand with human characters

S. Sreejesh, S. Mohapatra, Mixed Method Research Design, 1

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-02687-9_1, © Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

[email protected]
2 1  Introduction

(Aggarwal and McGill 2007; Moon 2000; Fournier 1998), thereby making the rela-
tionship-building approach as a comprehensively investigated topic in international
brand management studies (Breivik and Thorbjørnsen 2008).
The consideration of brand as a living entity led to the contemplation of brand
as an active and an interdependent partner in the relationship dyad, because rela-
tionships exist between active and interdependent partners (Fournier 1998). The
brand as a living entity would also attach personalities, which would grow and
develop over time, therefore, it would be possible to have relationships with the
brands (Patterson and O’ Malley 2006). Another important condition, which is nec-
essary for consumer–brand relationships to exist, is the occurrence of reciprocal
exchange between consumer and brand (Hinde 1995). This reciprocal relationship
between brands and consumers would be developed for a purpose; it is a multiplex
and process phenomena and the relationship form changes over time to time (Hinde
1995; Fournier 1998). The concept of anthropomorphization in branding involves
the attribution of humanlike characteristics, motivations, intentions, and emotions
to brand. It assumes that the brands share feelings, goals, will, and power to act
according to the prompting of these feelings and determination of will (Fournier
2012). All these ideologies, particularly personification, anthropomorphization,
interdependency, and reciprocity are developed and integrated into a new area of
thinking on branding, called as consumer–brand relationships (e.g., McAlexander
et al. 2002; Parvatiyar and Sheth 2001; Fournier 1998; Webster 1992). The propo-
nents of consumer–brand relationships argued that consumers form relationships
with brands in the similar way in which they form relationships with other people
in other social/interpersonal contexts. The increased richness and understanding of
consumer–brand relationships from interpersonal literature provides researchers
with increased opportunities to investigate and conceptualize the relationship be-
tween consumers and brands (Breivik and Thorbjornsen 2008).
Fournier (1998) in her seminal work backed by metaphoric transfer and several
interpersonal theories introduced the conceptual model of consumer–brand rela-
tionships and conceptualized the consumer–brand relationships as “the brand per-
son relationship is voluntary or imposed interdependence between a person and a
brand characterized by a unique history of transactions and an anticipation of future
occurrences, that is intended to facilitate social, emotional or instrumental goals
of the participants, and that involves some type of consolidating bond” (Fournier
1998). Fournier’s (1998) seminal anthropomorphic view of consumer–brand rela-
tionships followed a plethora of research (e.g., Ahuvia 2005; Thomson et al. 2005;
Park et al. 2010, 2013; Batra et al. 2012), which were all aimed to advance Fourni-
er’s (1998) conceptual model of consumer–brand relationships. All these studies
on brand relationships used the metaphoric transfer as a fertile tool, which helps to
compare the two domains (interpersonal and branding) and to develop prototypical
elements such as relationship commitment, attachment, interdependency, passion,
and love. All these prototypes were developed based on the assumption that there
will be reciprocity between brand and consumer in the relationship dyad, which is
the case with interpersonal relationship to exist.

[email protected]
Research Motivations  3

However, all these studies having something common in terms of dependence

of metaphoric transfer and the assumption of reciprocity principle, the operation-
alization showed obvious diversities (Tsai 2011). This apparently led to the emer-
gence of four theoretical paradigms in consumer–brand relationships, such as brand
relationship quality (e.g., Fournier 1998), brand commitment (Morgan and Hunt
1994), brand attachment (Thomson et al. 2005; Park et al. 2012, 2013), and brand
love (Batra et al. 2012). This diversity in conceptualization and operationalization
of the consumer–brand relationship paradigm reflect vigorousness of theoretical
construction, which needs to be identified (Tsai 2011).

Research Motivations

The detailed knowledge about the consumer–brand relationship enhances the un-
derstanding of brand loyalty and facilitates in-depth knowledge about consumer
demands, thus in turn assisting firms in developing better products and helps to
augment marketing activities (Monga 2002). A comprehensive and integrated un-
derstanding of the brand relationship paradigm also helps the academic and market-
ing community to identify the roles of brands in consumers’ lives by serving as an
important medium to communicate and share with others through self-presentation
(Breivik and Thorbjornsen 2008). The comprehensiveness in consumer–brand re-
lationship literature also helps the academic community to conceptualize the link
between consumer and brands.
The significance of studying customer–brand relationship has been widely ac-
knowledged by researches in marketing. Day and Wensley (1988) and Webster
(1992) in their respective studies found that the establishment of consumer–brand
relationships would provide a major competitive advantage for the firm, particular-
ly customer-focused. Building strong brand relationships is also a tool that prompts
the managers to seek mutually beneficial relationships with consumers (Mitchell
and Orwig 2002). The magnitude of customer retention has been a major source and
highly correlated with the relative productivity of the firm (Reichheld 1996). For
companies, retaining the existing customer is considered to be one of the economi-
cally profitable and viable options than constantly seeking new customers (Sheth
and Parvatiyar 1995). For the firm, the benefits are mainly derived through less
customer acquisition and its related costs, and also the retained customers would act
as brand ambassadors for the company. For the consumers, the relationship build-
ing would act as a risk reduction strategy through assuming that the brand with
which they have relationships would act as a trustworthy partner and also generate
consistent performance. The highly loyal customers are the major motivation or
source behind new product ideas, product rejuvenation, and modification of exist-
ing products. Therefore, it has become essential to understand the process by which
consumers form long-term deep-rooted relationship with certain brands and not the
same with other brands.

[email protected]
4 1  Introduction

The importance of consumer–brand relationship has also been acknowledged

by practitioners, such as brand managers and advertisers (Marketing News 1992;
Langer 1997; Marketing 2000; Sweeney and Chew 2002). Brand relationship plays a
significant role in maintaining the relevance of the brand, a good customer base, and
augmenting competitive and fast-moving marketplace (Marketing 2000; Sweeney
and Chew 2002). It has also been recognized that the consumers’ strong and deep-
rooted relationship with the brand would generate strong market share and profits
providing a competitive edge, facilitating better marketing decisions in terms of
product positioning, advertising, reinforcement of attitudes, and finally higher vol-
ume of purchase and repeated behavior (Marketing News 1992; Blackston 1992;
deChernatony and Dall’Olmo Riley 1998; Sweeney and Chew 2002). Therefore, it
is essential to study the role of brands in consumers’ life and vice-versa.
It had been acknowledged that during the economic downturn, companies started
looking at the viability of keeping existing customers and attracting new custom-
ers that would become the secondary focus. Development of postpurchase custom-
er engagement would play an important role in company’s strategic imperatives
(Bartlett 2009). However, the existing models of consumer–brand relationship,
which probably would solve this problem of building strong customer relationships
have shown lots of diversity and cause managerial uncertainty about how to take ap-
propriate strategic actions (Tsai 2011). Thus, a comprehensive study is required that
is in line with the aim to solve this theoretical incongruity and uncertainty through
identifying and integrating the consumer–brand relationship paradigms.
The existing model building efforts in consumer–brand relationship paradigm
are typically limited to attitudinal aspects or on the behavioral side. There are sparse
studies that examined the impact of attitudinal component on behavioral constructs
in brand–consumer relationships (Touzani and Azza 2009). It stated that the con-
sumer–brand relationship composed of attitudinal aspects, which consist of cogni-
tive as well as affective elements, therefore the fundamental aspect of relationship
building from the customers’ point of view is the formation of attitudes (Moliner
et al. 2007). Therefore, it is motivating to examine the role of attitudinal aspects of
relationships on behavior in consumer–brand relationship model building.
Business Insight (2009) conducted a study among top 45 business executives
around the world to understand the role of consumer–brand relationships with food
and beverage industry. The results of the study emphasized on some new insights
about the issues and the future of brand loyalty in food and beverage industry. The
survey reports stated that the current level of brand loyalty is set to fall in the near
future and the economic downturn decreased the level of brand loyalty, and the
premium brands were less affected by this downturn. This unsusceptibility emerged
out of their consciousness of the role of consumer–brand relationships in brand
building efforts. In this context, it is quintessential to understand how and why these
premium brands were successful in creating strong and deep-rooted relationships
while others are not.

[email protected]
Organization of the Research  5

Organization of the Research

This chapter presents the introduction of the research, which includes motivation
of the research. Chapter  2 is primarily devoted to the review of literature in the
consumer–brand relationships and its related arena followed by the identification of
research gaps from extant literature, and concludes with the research questions and
objectives of the research. Chapter 3 provides theoretical support for the identified
constructs and the hypotheses that are to be tested. Chapter 4 discusses the research
methodology, divided into two parts: Part I details the qualitative methodology used
to explore the consumer–brand relationship dimensions; and Part II describes the
quantitative research methodology that was followed to test the hypotheses, which
includes research design, questionnaire design, operationalization of the constructs,
sampling, data collection, and techniques for data analysis. In Chap. 5, the study
presents the data analysis result in two sections: Sect. 5.1 presents the results of qual-
itative data analysis, in which the study builds the conceptual foundations through
conducting an exploratory study and following a grounded theory approach, which
helps to identify the theoretical constructs, development of provisional hypotheses,
and to build the pathway to theory building; Sect. 5.2 details the results of statistical
analysis of theoretical model testing. The final chapter of this study, Chap. 6, pres-
ents the discussion of the results presented in the previous chapter, the limitations
associated with this study, and potential research avenues for future research.

[email protected]
Chapter 2
Literature Review

The purpose of this chapter is to provide a detailed review of the relevant literature
and to introduce the literature gaps and research questions. Primarily, the literature
is structured around four sections. In the first section, a thorough review of the
conceptual understanding of the consumer–brand relationships is presented. Spe-
cifically, a cross-disciplinary framework of the conceptualization of the relation-
ship construct is presented. In the second section, the examination of some recent
development in the area of consumer–brand relationships, including the models of
consumer–brand relationships are reviewed. In the third major section, the concep-
tualization and operationalization issues of the construct are discussed. It serves
as the basis for conceptualizing consumer relationship’s exclusively branding, the
central construct of this study, and provides the major rationale for conceptualizing
consumer–brand relationships in branding paradigm. The final section of this chap-
ter briefly reviews the research gaps and possible research questions, which guide
research objectives of the study.

Conceptualization of Consumer–Brand Relationships

Over the past two and a half decades, there have been a number of studies in brand-
ing literature for the conceptualization of the construct of consumer–brand relation-
ships. This interest in this stream of literature initiated because of the fact that the
term relationship as such is interesting and infiltrating (Patterson and O’ Malley
2006). Patternson and O’ Malley (2006) in their critical review of the brand relation-
ship literature stated five major reasons that contribute to the consideration of the
concept of consumer–brand relationships. First, for human beings, the concept of
relationship is more intuitive and appealing. Second, the concept of brand relation-
ships emerged out of the supposed failure of brand image research to predict con-
sumer behavior. Third, excessive importance given by the researchers to branding
loyalty construct since the last 40 years and the subsequent attempt to capture the
exact nature of brand loyalty. Fourth, brand managers’ overwhelming consciousness
to protect their assets during the turbulent and competitive environment. Finally, the

S. Sreejesh, S. Mohapatra, Mixed Method Research Design, 7

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-02687-9_2, © Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

[email protected]
8 2  Literature Review

crucial factor that contributes the emergences of consumer–brand relationships is

the introduction of the brand personality concept and its subsequent anthropomor-
phization of brands.
In brand management literature, considerable studies have been conducted to
concepulize consumer–brand relationships through establishing the anthropo-
morphous characteristics of brands, such as personality (Aaker 1997; Batra et al.
1993; Durgee 1988) and Charisma (Smothers 1993). This attempt of personifica-
tion of brands has now reached its new height with the introduction of strong and
deep-rooted interpersonal characteristics, such as love (Batra et al. 2012), attach-
ment (Thomson et al. 2005; Park et al. 2012), and the integration of negative and
positive aspects of emotional and nonemotional interpersonal characteristics (Park
et al. 2013). In short, the majority of these extant literatures in consumer branding
conceptualized the concept of consumer–brand relationship as analogous as inter-
personal relationships by assuming anthropomorphous characteristics, which adds
brands a character and allows to see the brand as a person who can engage in a
mutual and reciprocal exchange relationship.
Blackston (1992) has the credit for the original development of consumer–brand
relationship concept (Aaker 1994). In his conceptual paper, the author argued that
brand relationships are the logical extension of brand personality, which is more
or less similar to the relationship between people (Blackston 1992). In an observa-
tional note, Blackston (1992) conceptualized brand relationships as:
The concept of a relationship with a brand is neither novel nor outrageous. It is readily
understandable as an analogue between brand and consumer-of that complex of cognitive,
affective, and behavioral processes which constitute a relationship between two people
(p. 80).

The majority of the conceptualizations of consumer–brand relationships in brand-

ing presented with the use of relationship metaphors.1 The use of these relation-
ship metaphors from interpersonal domain (particularly from high-involving hu-
man relationship, e.g., marriage) to branding domain facilitated to the enhancement
and reinforcement of the relationship between consumer and brands. The human
relationship metaphor of marriage functioned as a source category and established
the ground rule and content for understanding relationship metaphor in a brand-
consumer context. The use of these relationship metaphors helped the researchers
to map three common characteristics across two disciplines, these are: interdepen-
dency, temporality and perceived commitment (De Wulf et al. 2001; Hendrick and
Hendrick 2000; Hinde 1997; Oliver 1999). Interdependency explains that relation-
ship involves a reciprocal exchange between active and interdependent relationship
partners. In branding, context interdependency is between two active partners such
as brand and consumer. Temporality means that relationship would not happen in
an isolated manner, it is generated through a series of repeated actions. In branding

Metaphors refer to “a literally false, declarative assertion of existential equivalence that com-
1 

pares two concepts or things, where one concept called the primary concept is claimed to be
another, the secondary concept” (Hunt and Menon 1995).

[email protected]
Conceptualization of Consumer–Brand Relationships  9

context, temporality explains that relationships between brand and consumer hap-
pens only through a series of repeated interactions. Perceived commitment explains
that relationship ranges across several dimensions and takes many forms, but they
all provide possible benefits for their participants and therefore willing to continue
a relationship. In branding context, perceived commitment explains that the rela-
tionship between brand and consumer may take several forms and types and this
will ultimately lead to intention to stay with the brand. This mapping of common
characteristics across disciplines using metaphors helped the researchers in brand-
ing to develop specific relationship constructs such as, brand commitment (BC),
brand love, passion interdependency, and brand attachment (BA). To an extent, the
use of metaphoric transfer also helped the marketing community to implement the
brand relationship elements in brand building. Monga (2002) stated that the use of
relationship metaphors in consumer–brand context facilitated the understanding of
brand loyalty, in-depth information about consumer needs and wants, and thereby
assisted companies to improve better products and marketing activities.
Followed by the above-mentioned qualities of interdependency, temporality, and
perceived commitment, there were a series of conceptual and empirical works on
the topic of consumer–brand relationships published in different contexts. Fournier
(1998) in her conceptual paper used human relationship metaphors to explain con-
sumer–brand relationships and stated that there exist relationship qualities between
consumer and brands. Fournier (1998) extended these three qualities further into
four conditions to exist to satisfy consumer–brand relationships. First, consumer–
brand relationships exist when there exist reciprocal exchanges between brand and
consumer. Second, the interactions between brand and consumers are purposive.
Third, the relationships between brand and consumers take different forms and
types. Finally, the relationships between brand and consumers are a process phe-
nomenon; these relationships change according to contexts.
Backed by the above-mentioned four conditions, Fournier (1998) defines brand
relationships as:
The brand person relationship is voluntary or imposed interdependence between a person
and a brand, characterized by a unique history of interactions and an anticipation of future
occurrences, that is intended to facilitate socio-emotional and instrumental goals of the
participants, and that involves some types consolidating bond.

While extending the conceptualization, Nebel and Blattberg (2000) defined con-
sumer-brand relationships as:
An integrated approach to establish, maintain, and enhance relationships between a brand
and its customers, and to continually strengthen these relationships through interactive,
individualized and value added contacts, and a mutual exchange and fulfillment of prom-
ises over a long period of time(p. 3).

Aggarwal (2004) stated that:

People sometimes form a very intimate bond with brands and, in some extreme cases, a pas-
sion that is often associated only with a close circle of friends and family(p. 87).

[email protected]
10 2  Literature Review

This advancement in understanding of the consumer–brand relationship, which

is mainly from interpersonal literature, provides the researchers to conceptualize
and investigate the ties between consumers and brands (Breivik and Thorbjornsen
2008).

Operationalization of Consumer-Brand Relationships

The studies in consumer–brand relationship literature used different approaches for

the operationalization of the construct. Aaker et  al. (2004), Kaltcheva and Weitz
(1999), Monga (2002), and Park and Kim (2001) followed a completely quanti-
tative approach. At the same time, Fournier (1998), Ji (2002), Kates (2000), and
Olson (1999) used in-depth interviews and text analysis as their data collection and
analysis method. The focus of these studies varies from operationlizing the previous
conceptualization through further exploration, scale development, identifying spe-
cific relationship constructs, examination of the identified relationship constructs
in different contexts, and assessment of gender differences in consumer–brand re-
lationship formation.
The first attempt to extend the work of Fournier (1998)2 was from Goh (2002).
In a follow-up study, Goh (2002) made an attempt to verify Fournier’s (1998) brand
relationship typology through following the mix of both qualitative and quantita-
tive techniques and proposed an extended typology of consumer–brand relation-
ships (named as “referents”). According to the author, the typology referents imply
the relationship that is precipitated because of the reference groups influence or it
emerged out of an actual or imaginary individual, conceived of having significant
importance upon an individual’s or behavior.
Studies were carried out to operationlize the construct through the development
of scales to measure the construct. Kim et  al. (2005) conducted a study, which
aimed to develop a scale to measure brand relationship quality (BRQ), followed
by Churchill’s (1979) procedure. Followed by Fournier’s (1998) conceptual frame-
work, the authors used a series of in-depth interviews to confirm the dimensions of
BRQ model. Items for measuring these dimensions were generated through past
studies and later refined through a pilot study. A convenient sample of 361 respon-
dents was used for final measurements. Using exploratory and confirmatory factor
analysis, the study confirmed the reliability and validity of the measures. The results
of the study confirmed five dimensions of BRQ. The identified dimensions are: self-
connective attachment, satisfaction, commitment, trust, and emotional intimacy.
In consumer–brand relationship, literature studies were conducted to identify and
examine the alternative constructs to describe the strength of consumer–brand rela-
tionships. Kaltcheva and Weitz (1999) examined the role played by the dimensions

2 
Although Fournier’s (1998) work is considered to be the base study for operationalization of
consumer–brand relationship, the details of the study are not mentioned in this section of opera-
tionalization; instead it has been presented in models of consumer–brand relationships.

[email protected]
Operationalization of Consumer-Brand Relationships  11

of consumer–brand relationships, such as mediation and reciprocity on the attribu-

tions for intention and selfishness that the consumers make during pleasant and un-
pleasant experiences with the brand. The authors defined mediation as the extent to
which the relationship partner derives the benefit from the relationship itself rather
than the product/brand. Reciprocity means the norm of reciprocity, which explains
the extent to which relationship partner feel that the norm of reciprocity (equity or
equality) is being present in their relationship. The authors followed a simulation
study using 225 undergraduate students. The result of the study demonstrated that
these two dimensions of relationship have an impact on the attributions for intention
and selfishness.
Thomson and Johnson (2002) studied the role of a relationship orientation vari-
able called attachment and examined the predictive and explanatory power BA on
the satisfaction in consumers’ brand relationships. The authors used two dimen-
sions of attachment such as avoidance and anxiety from psychological literature and
modeled it as predictors of satisfaction. The results of regression analysis supported
that anxiety and avoidance were good and significant predictors of satisfaction.
Hess and Story (2005) came up with another relationship variable, called rela-
tionship commitment and proposed a model called trust-based relationship commit-
ment model, in which relationship commitment was the major construct defined by
personal and functional connections, which are in turn caused by trust and satisfac-
tion. In their study, the authors modeled satisfaction as an antecedent to trust. The
data were collected through an online survey using 4,000 customers. A structural
equation modeling was used to validate the model. In this study, the authors found
that satisfaction was a major antecedent to trust, but primarily contributes to func-
tional connections. The results also supported that consumers’ personal connection
with the brand stems from brand trust.
Continuing with the same line of thinking, Swaminathan et al. (2007) synthe-
sized two brand-related concepts such as self-concept connection and country-of-
origin connection and stated that the consumer–brand relationship can be formed
on the basis of individual (self-concept connection) or group-level connections
(country-of-origin connection); it influences brand equity. When the consumer is
high with self-concept connection, he/she will counterargue negative information,
but this situation is greater when there is a presence of independent self-construal
conditions. The country-of-origin will promote tolerance in the face of negative
information under conditions of interdependent self-construal conditions.
Veloutsou and Moutinho (2009) examined the role of brand reputation and trib-
alism on the strength of consumer–brand relationships. Data were collected through
a self-administered survey using 912 consumers. A regression analysis was applied
to test the proposed model. The results supported that the brand tribalism is the most
influencing predictor compared to brand reputation for building strong and deep-
rooted consumer–brand relationships.
While studying the alternative constructs of relationships, there were attempts to
see how the negative aspects of brand-related factors would influence the relation-
ships with consumers. Huber et al. (2010) studied the role of brand misconduct on
consumer–brand relationships. The authors defined brand misconduct as the behavior

[email protected]
12 2  Literature Review

of the brand that disappoints the consumers’ expectations. Backed by congruence

theory, the authors developed a model of consumer–brand relationships, in which
the factors such as, functional congruence, actual and ideal self-congruence, partner
quality, and BRQ were modeled as the antecedents to consumers’ purchase inten-
tion. Data were collected through self-administered surveys using 219 respondents
in Germany. The authors used a partial least square (PLS) technique to analyze the
data. The results of the study support the fact that the brand misconduct is not an
influencing factor in BRQ and purchase intention.
Since brand is considered to be an identification factor, Papista and Dimitri-
adis (2012) made an attempt to examine the concept of relationship quality and
examined the link between relationship quality and consumer-brand identification
through following a qualitative study. The results of the study showed support for
the concepts such as satisfaction, trust, commitment, intimacy, and love in describ-
ing consumer BRQ. Consumer–brand relationship identification emerges as a dis-
tinct construct of cognitive nature.
There were studies in consumer–brand relationships, which examined the con-
nection between the brand personality and brand relationships. The underlying pos-
tulation behind these studies were based on the assumption that if brand possesses
the personality characteristics, which is more or less similar to human personality
characteristics, then there exist consumer–brand relationships, which are more or
less similar to interpersonal relationships. Smit et  al. (2006) studied the role of
brand personality in consumer–brand relationships and stated that there exist rela-
tionships between brands and its consumers. The study used a computer-assisted
self-interviewing technique as the suitable method for data collection. The results
of the study supported that in relationship building partner quality plays a crucial
role and in some bands it is the relationship quality that keeps the relationship in the
long run. Brands with exciting and unique personality qualify more likely for the
relationship partner (Smit et al. 2006).
Hayes et al. (2006) added a new conceptualization in between brand personality
and brand relationships. According to Hayes et al. (2006), “the brand personality-
partner quality connection depends to a degree on the brand’s perceived attractive-
ness. Furthermore, the specific role attractiveness plays in the relationship appear
to vary across individual personality dimensions.” The authors modeled attractive-
ness as a moderator between the brand personality dimension and evaluations of
the brand as a relationship partner. The study collected responses from the survey
of 142 graduate and undergraduate students. The regression analysis revealed that
brand personality dimension has a positive and significant impact on partner quality
perceptions. It also found that the attractiveness of the brand varies across different
personality dimensions. The relationship between personality and partner quality
perceptions is influenced by brand attractiveness.
There were studies in consumer-brand relationship literature, which showed the
importance of other interpersonal relationship constructs, such as BA and relation-
ship norms for consumer–brand relationship formation. Zhou et al. (2012) in their
study examined the intermediate mechanism that translates brand communities into
the formation of consumer–brand relationships in the Chinese context. The study

[email protected]
Operationalization of Consumer-Brand Relationships  13

collected responses through an online survey from 437 respondents. Using PLS, the
results were analyzed. The results of the study support the fact that BA works as a
full mediating variable between brand community commitment and BC and partial
mediation between brand identification and BC.
Valta (2013) examined the role of relationship norms or “principles of right ac-
tion binding upon the members of a group and serving to guide, control, or regulate
proper and acceptable behavior” (Macneil 1980) on BRQ. The author considered
only limited relationship norms with relevant consumer branding literature such as
solidarity, reciprocity, flexibility, and information exchange. The authors used 510
university students as the study sample and applied a structural equation modeling
technique to test the model. The results supported that the relationship norms do
affect consumer-brand relationships.
The application consumer–brand relationship construct not only limited to con-
sumer/product branding, but it extended to other areas, such as services branding.
Sweeney and Chew (2002) studied the role of relationship metaphors in consumer
services. Through following a detailed literature review and text-based analysis of
case study data, the study supported the applicability of Fournier’s (1998) brand
relationship model in service branding context. The study also found support for
two additional dimensions in the consumer–brand relationships, such as dominance
versus subordination and friendly versus hostile. The authors also proposed the ty-
pology of consumer–brand relationships based on the identified dimensions.
Carlson et al. (2009) studied the role of consumer-brand relationships in sports
branding context. The study examined the role of personality dimensions such as,
wholesome, charming, successful, imaginative, and tough, on a relationship vari-
able called cognitive identification. The study also examined the mediating roles
of prestige and distinctiveness. They conducted a survey using 162 university stu-
dents. The data were analyzed using structural equation modeling technique. The
results of the study supported that the personality dimensions would influence cog-
nitive identification, but mediated through prestige and distinctiveness.
Nyadzayo et al. (2011) examined how the brand relationship can be used to le-
verage brand citizenship behavior and to improve brand equity in franchising. Ap-
parently, the authors developed a new concept called franchise-based brand equity.
The authors followed a qualitative research design, followed by a series of semis-
tructured interviews. Data analysis was carried out qualitatively, which generated
theoretical categories. The analysis helped the authors to show the significance of
brand relationship management in franchising context and also show the relation-
ship between brand relationship management to build franchise-based brand equity.
Recently, Xie and Heug (2012) examined the role of Fournier’s (1998) BRQ
framework and its impact on hotel consumer’s behavioral intentions. The results
showed that BRQ is applicable in the hotel industry and is also an influencing factor
for consumer’s behavioral intention. These are all studies in branding, which sup-
ported the fact that the concept of consumer–brand relationship is also applicable
in services branding.
There were context-specific studies in consumer–brand relationship literature
aimed at the applicability of consumer-brand relationships, in which particular

[email protected]
14 2  Literature Review

country or different culture is the study context. J and Lu (2009), using interpersonal
literature and relationship metaphors, developed a theoretical model of consumer–
brand relationships in the Chinese context. The authors proposed a framework
for consumer–brand relationships that consist of four basic types of relationships,
namely “family member,” “good friend,” “cooperation partner,” and “acquain-
tance.” The study supported the role of relationship metaphors in consumer–brand
relationship model building and using the same confirmed the validity of the con-
sumer–brand relationship types.
Yet another attempt has been from Chang and Chang (2006), who made an at-
tempt to build a framework of consumer–brand relationships by integrating an ex-
periential view through conducting a cross-cultural comparative study in both Chi-
na and Taiwan. Different from other studies, the study integrated not only emotional
experience constructs but also the sense, think, act, and relate experiences. The
study contributes to the consumer–brand relationship literature in three ways. First,
the study contributes to the literature by specifying brand-associative network vari-
ables through the consideration of individual and shared experiences. Second, the
study modeled four relevant variables, such as brand association, brand personality,
brand attitude, and brand image, as mediating variables between brand experience
and consumer–brand relationships. Third, different from previous studies, which
focuses more on the effect, this study gave more emphasis to the establishment of
consumer–brand relationships. The results supported the fact that all the moderating
variables modeled in the study help to shape the establishment of consumer–brand
relationships.
Saunders and Rod (2012) made an attempt to augment traditional investigations
of consumer–brand relationships and suggested an alternative way to consider the
same. The authors considered associative networks for uncovering consumer–brand
relationship dimensions in New Zealand and supported the use of associative net-
works in brand relationships.
In consumer–brand relationship literature, there were attempts to identify the
perspectives of how some particular individuals or groups develop relationships
with brands. For example, Olson (1999) using a qualitative exploration identified
the brand relationships of five women in the American context. The results support-
ed by Fournier’s (1998) work identified the distinction in terms of consumer–brand
relationships among married and unmarried women. Keats (2000) using a series
of in-depth interviews examined the dynamics related to the brand relationships
of 44 self-identified gay men within the North American social context. Ji (2002)
using relationship metaphors in a qualitative data analysis setting, examined rela-
tionship forms and how relationships developed between the children and brands
in the family setting. The detailed probing and analysis of stories about children’s
relationships with brand showed that their (children) relationships with brands
embedded in the social environments where children live and grow. Jevons et al.
(2005) came up with a new way to understand relationship dimensions. The authors
studied consumer-brand relationships in managers’ perspective and suggested dif-
ferent management strategies for different types of brand relationships. Zayer and
Neier (2011) using a series of in-depth interviews examined the applicability of

[email protected]
Models in Consumer–Brand Relationships  15

consumer–brand relationship typology proposed by Fournier (1998) to a segment

of heterosexual male shoppers of fashion and grooming products. The results of the
study confirmed the majority of the consumer–brand relationship typology and sup-
ported the role of contexts in defining consumer–brand relationships. Hwang and
Kandampully (2012) in their study examined the role of three relationship building
factors, such as self-concept connection, BA, and brand love in context of younger
consumer-luxury brand relationships, and supported the role of these three con-
structs in building younger consumer-luxury brand relationships. Recently, Sahay
et al. (2012) examined the gender difference in consumer-brand relationships with
respect to affect and cognition. The authors used a field experiment approach; the
results supported the fact that both men and women form relationship with brands
and men’s relationships with brands are more oriented toward the cognitive ap-
proach and at the same time women are more affected-based.
There were studies in consumer–brand relationship literature to integrate the
relevant consumer–brand relationship paradigms. Tsai (2011) integrated three re-
lationship paradigms, such as BRQ, BA, and BC. Consequently, he developed a
new model called Relationship Building for Strategic-Brand Management Model
(RB-SBM). As part of validating the model, the authors administered a survey of
519 consumers of three international product brands. A structural equation model-
ing was carried out to validate the model. The results supported that the data fit well
to the model and also the model having good predictive validity.

Models in Consumer–Brand Relationships

BRQ Model

Fournier (1998), based on a qualitative research using several interpersonal theo-

ries, introduced a model in consumer–brand relationship setting, called BRQ model.
This BRQ model aimed to measure the strength and depth of consumer relationship
with brands. Figure 2.1 shows the structure of the BRQ model.
For identifying the underlying dimensions of consumer–brand relationships, the
author used a series of in-depth interviews with three women participants. The data
analysis was carried out through detailed textual analysis of the transcripts and its
coding. The results of detailed text analysis helped the authors to come up with the
six dimensions of consumer–brand relationships. These six dimensions or facets are:
partner quality, intimacy, behavioral interdependence, personal commitment, self-
concept connection, and love/passion. These dimensions identified by the author ex-
plain the forms of relationships that exist between consumers and brands. During the
analysis, the theoretical origin of behavioral interdependence traced back to Kelley
and Thibaut’s (1978) interdependence theory, and the self-concept construct origi-
nated from self-expansion model. Love/passion and personal commitments origi-
nated from the theories of attraction and RI Model (Rusbult 1980). It is considered

[email protected]
16 2  Literature Review

Fig. 2.1   BRQ Model. (Source: Fournier 1998)

that BRQ is theoretically richer and more informative, because it integrated several
interpersonal theories (e.g., Breivik and Thorbjornsen 2008). The brand relationship
dimensions introduced by Fournier (1998) are given below in detail:
Love and passion  This dimension is considered to be the core of all relationships;
it is based on affective grounding supported brand relationship endurance. The pres-
ence of this dimensionality was evident from respondent statements that “some-
thing was missing,” when they (consumers) were not interacted with the brand for
a while.
Self-Connection  This dimension explains the extent to which brand delivers on
important identity concerns, tasks, or themes, thereby expressing an important
aspect of self.
Interdependence  This dimension emerged out of three ways: (a) frequent brand
interactions, (b) increased scope and diversity of brand-related activities, and (c)
heightened intensity of individual interaction events.
Commitment  Commitment has been defined as the intention of the consumer to
behave in a manner that supports relationship longevity.
Intimacy  When consumers bonded toward a brand, he/she develops strong elab-
orative knowledge structures around it supported by richer layers meaning that
reflects intimacy.

[email protected]
Models in Consumer–Brand Relationships  17

Brand partner quality  There were five central components of brand partner qual-
ity: (a) positive orientation of the brand toward the consumer; (b) judgments of the
brand’s overall dependability, reliability, and predictability in executing its partner-
ship role; (c) judgments of the brand’s adherence to the various ‘‘rules’’ composing
the implicit relationship contract; (d) trust or faith that the brand will deliver what
is desired versus what is feared; and (e) comfort in the brand’s accountability for
its actions.
Fournier (1998) further extended the study and proposed 15 different typologies
of consumer–brand relationships, which pertain to the bond between brand and con-
sumers. Each typology proposed is based on the dimensions identified in the study.
The typologies of consumer–brand relationships are: (1) arranged marriages; (2)
casual friends/buddies; (3) marriages of convenience; (4) committed partnerships;
(5) best friendships; (6) compartmentalized friendships; (7) kinships; (8) rebounds/
avoidance-driven relationships; (9) childhood friendships; (10) courtships; (11) de-
pendencies; (12) flings; (13) enmities; (14) secret affairs; and (15) enslavements.
Fournier’s (1998) research was conducted with the spirit and intent of exploring
one of the underconceptualized phenomenon, named as consumer–brand relation-
ships. This work added an integrative framework of consumer–brand relationships
and considered to be one of the preliminary models in branding provided opportuni-
ties for further extension and exploration.

Relationship Investment Model (RI Model)

Rusbult (1980) proposed a model in interpersonal romantic associations, called

as Investment Model (RI Model). This model is an extension of interdependency
model introduced by Kelley and Thaibaut (1978). According to this model, commit-
ment to the relationship is a function of three factors: satisfaction with the relation-
ship, quality of available alternatives, and the extent of individual investment in the
relationship. Satisfaction with a relationship partner refers to the sum of positive
and negative affect toward that relationship partner. Quality of available alterna-
tive explains evaluation of the quality of the partner versus the quality of the best
alternative partner. Relationship investment explains the magnitude and importance
of resources the consumer attached to the relationship. In this study, the authors
hypothesized that satisfaction with the relationship directly influences the level of
commitment. An increase in the quality of available alternatives will reduce the
likelihood of commitment to the existing relationships. Increase in intrinsic and
extrinsic investment increases the cost involved in the relationship, therefore, it
increases the magnitude of commitment. Following two experiments, the study col-
lected relevant information. The experiment 1 was mainly carried out to test the
causal relationship between the study variables and commitment. It was conducted
through a role play using a sample of 82 males and 89 females. The ANOVA results
showed that commitment increased with relationship investment, deceased with the
quality of available alternatives, and increased with the increase in satisfaction. In

[email protected]
18 2  Literature Review

Fig. 2.2   RI Model. (Source: Rusbult 1980)

experiment 2, the study conducted a survey research to support the study 1 in real
and ongoing associations. The data were collected using using a survey question-
naire. A total of 58 males and 53 females participated in this survey. The results of
multiple regression analysis showed that all the three dimensions significantly in-
fluenced relationship commitment. Figure 2.2 shows the structure of the RI model.
After the introduction of the RI Model, there were studies to replicate the model
in different contexts. The studies aimed to analyze the commitment of college stu-
dents (e.g., Hatcher et  al. 1992), in buyer-seller relationship context (e.g., Moon
and Bonney 2007) and recently in consumer-brand relationships (e.g., Geyer et al.
1991; Nysveen et  al. 2005; Sung and Campbell 2007; Breivik and Thorbjornsen
2008). The first major attempt to study the role of RI model in the consumer–brand
relationship context was by Sung and Campbell (2007). Sung and Campbell (2007)
extended the RI Model to predict the level of relationship commitment in branding.
Using the RI Model as theoretical paradigm, the study hypothesized four hypothe-
ses, which are more or less analogous to Rusbult (1980). Hypothesis 1 proposes that
BC would positively associate with the level of satisfaction. Hypothesis 2 states that
BC would negatively associate with the availability of high-quality alternatives.
Hypothesis 3 proposes that the commitment level would positively associate with
the size of investment. The hypothesis 4 proposes that satisfaction with the brand,
the extent of brand alternatives, and the extent of relationship investment will inde-
pendently predict the variability in BC. The authors used three different brands as
study stimuli: a self-generated brand, Coca-Cola, and Bell South. The studies were
carried out to test the proposed set of hypotheses. The study 1 was carried out using
a self-administered questionnaire with 131 student samples. The study adapted the
RI Model scale from Rusbult (1980) to develop the survey questions. To test the
hypotheses (hypotheses 1–3), the authors used bivariate correlation. The significant
results of bivariate correlation supported the hypotheses across three brands (Own
Brand, Coca-Cola, and Bell South). Hypothesis 4 was examined using multiple
regression analysis, using commitment as the dependent variable and satisfaction,
alternatives, and investment as independent variables. The result supported that

[email protected]
Models in Consumer–Brand Relationships  19

these three variables significantly and independently predict the dependent variable
as specified by the hypotheses. The study 2 was aimed to test the causal relation-
ship between the RI Model variables. The ANOVA results supported that there is a
significant interaction between satisfaction and investment. The study also analyzed
the effect of these three brands separately using three different ANOVA. In short,
the study 2 provides further support for the study 1 through confirming the causal
nature of these variables on commitment.

Attachment–Aversion (AA) Model

Park et al. (2013) proposed and empirically tested a new model of consumer–brand
relationships, called AA model of consumer–brand relationships while building on
the previous work of BRQ (Fournier 1998), BA (Park et al. (2010), and brand love
(Batra et al. 2012). According to this model, the consumer will be attached and feel
close to a brand when the brand is perceived as a means for self-expansion, called
BA. At the same time, when the consumer perceived the brand as a threat of self-
contraction, he/she will try to averse the brand, feel distant from it, called aversion.
These two terms (attachment and aversion) represent opposite ends of the relation-
ship spectrum. The study initially reviewed self-based brand relationship literature
in which the authors conceptualized the concept of self as the major determinant
of AA relationship components such as brand self-distance and brand prominence;
these two play a crucial role in the creation of consumer–brand relationships. Brand
self-distance is the perceived distance between a brand and the self and brand prom-
inence is the perceived memory accessibility of a brand to an individual (Park et al.
2013). The study also hypothesized that the motivational strength constructs as the
mediator between AA relationships and behavioral intention/actual behavior hier-
archy. The study also proposed that the entire nomological model is moderated by
the age differences among consumers. The study tested the model using structural
equation modeling. Figure 2.3 shows the AA relationships model.
Fournier et al. (2013) provided an extensive commentary on the negative aspects
of consumer–brand relationships developed by AA model. The authors demanded
for the extensive importance of differentiating the positive and negative dimen-
sions of consumer–brand relationships and extending opportunities for identifying
what makes brand relationships “bad.” The study offered two important theoreti-
cal extensions over the AA model. First proposed some additional dimensions of
consumer–brand relationships, such as pathology, power, and self- versus brand-
focused emotionality. Second made distinctions between neutrality and variations
of emotional ambivalence “in the middle” of the AA spectrum.

[email protected]
20 2  Literature Review

Fig. 2.3   AA Relationships Model. (Source: Park et al. 2013)

Critique of Consumer–Brand Relationships

Even though the concept of consumer–brand relationship has gained unprecedented

growth and momentum, the concept as such is not free from criticisms. There were
a number of calls from researchers that the uncritical acceptance and the exceptional
growth of relationship construct within marketing thought is dangerous and needs
an urgent remedy (Hibbard and Iacobucci 1999; O’Malley and Tynan 1999). The
following are some of the criticisms raised by extant literature with regard to the
suitability and use of consumer–brand relationship construct.
Papista and Dimitriadis (2012) in their study stated that although the conceptual
model proposed by Fournier (1998) could be considered as seminal and most in-
clusive, it lacks further empirical support and therefore questions the consistency
in defining the consumer–brand relationship construct. The conceptualization of
Fournier (1998) has also been criticized on the ground that it failed to include or
conceptualize the role most of the important constructs in consumer–branding con-
text, such as brand satisfaction and BA, gained support in subsequent research in
branding context (e.g., Aaker et al. 2004; Wang 2002, Thomson et al. 2005; Park
et al. 2010).

[email protected]
Critique of Consumer–Brand Relationships  21

The studies in consumer–brand relationships have also been critiqued that, even
though researchers in marketing relationships seem to have reached an agreement
regarding the dimensions of relationship quality, this practice is not to be the case in
branding context. Fournier (1998) initiated the process of identifying a comprehen-
sive model, which captures the strength of consumer–brand relationships, followed
by other researches focusing on sole dimensions of relationships such as brand trust,
commitment (e.g., Delgado-Ballester 2004; Chaudhuri and Holbrook 2001), and
BA (Thomson et al. 2004; Park et al. 2010). The subsequent researches following
Fournier (1998) failed to give a consensus on the exact dimensions of consumer–
brand relationships as these studies tend to partly apply or failed to fully integrate
Fournier’s (1998) conceptualization (Aaker et al. 2004; Chang and Chieng 2006;
Kressmann et al. 2006; Smit et al. 2007).
Bengtsson (2003) examined the problems associated with relationship metaphor
and interpersonal relationship theory in the context of consumer and brands. The
author raised some serious issues with regard to the concept of consumer–brand
relationships using relationship metaphors and interpersonal theories. While con-
tenting the anthropomorphous characteristics of the brand, Bengtsson (2003) stated
that “although consumers attribute anthropomorphous characteristics to brands, this
does not necessarily imply that social-psychological theories of interpersonal rela-
tionships are adequate to represent the consumers’ relationship to their brands.” The
author questioned the model proposed by Fournier (1998) and stated that in most of
the cases, the dimensions proposed by Fournier (1998) is directly analogous to the
interpersonal literature, however, in actual scenario, the vocabulary used to repre-
sent the relationship quality should not be compatible with the vocabulary used to
represent human relationship quality. Therefore, there is a need to supplement the
vocabulary, so that the constructs would account for consumers’ relationship with
brands.
Patterson and O’ Malley (2006) raised some serious questions with regard to the
adequacy and acceptance of interpersonal relationship metaphors from person-to-
person relationships to brand relationships. When the brand attaches some meaning
to the consumers’ life, it is questionable to compare brand relationships with inter-
personal relationship: “when brands come to possess such meaning for consumers
it is easy to see how we might describe the connection between consumers and
brands as relationships. And relationships are what they are. But, are they the same
as interpersonal relationships?”
Breivik and Thorbjørnsen (2008), while studying the suitability of the two alter-
native models of consumer–brand relationships, BRQ and BI, showed three impor-
tant problems associated with the existing models of consumer–brand relationships.
First, the existing models in consumer–brand relationship failed to provide clear
guidelines for empirical testing in terms of model specification. Second, all the
models proposed in extant literature are based on social and psychological theo-
ries, therefore, it is very difficult for all the models to capture less involving rela-
tionships, particularly between consumer and brand. Third, following Bengtsson
(2003), the authors questioned the adoption of relationship metaphors from inter-
personal relationships. According to Breivik and Thorbjørnsen (2008), “the transfer

[email protected]
22 2  Literature Review

of interpersonal relationship concepts of marketing might be problematic if the con-

tent and meaning of these concepts in the source domain deviate too much from the
target context.”
The development of AA model followed a wide range of criticisms and com-
mentaries by leading researchers in the area of consumer–brand relationships like
Schmitt (2013), Founier and Alvarex (2013), and Alba and Lutz (2013). Schmitt
(2013) criticized the AA model of Park et al. (2013) and raised three major issues
related to the model conceptualization and operationalization. First, following the
extant literature, the model assumed anthropomorphization of brands, while devel-
oping a theory in branding, the authors failed to conceptualize how the model is
different from interpersonal relationships. According to Schmitt (2013), “to be sure,
brand perceptions share similarities with person perceptions, and, no doubt, the
self is involved in both. However, I feel we also need to pay close attention to the
very nature of brands-how they differ from people-to develop an appropriate and
relevant consumer psychology theory of customer-brand relationships.” Second,
the model failed to specify marketing determinants of the specified relationships.
Third, while developing a model of consumer–brand relationships, it should address
the broad space of brand psychology and brand management, which the AA model
failed to do.
Fournier and Alvarez (2013) raised some serious criticisms against the concep-
tualization of AA model. First, distant brand-self-relationships (which explain per-
ceived brand distance being far) should not necessarily be always corresponding to
a negative consumer–brand relationship. Second, even though the AA model dif-
ferentiated from other models in terms of its conceptualization of negative aspects
of brand relationships, it is more suitable to explain positive aspects of brand rela-
tionships rather than negative aspects. Third, the AA model fully failed to capture
the negative aspect’s impact on customer behavior. Fourth, in order to fully capture
the negative aspect of consumer-brand relationship, there is a need to capture other
relevant dimensions. Fifth, further exploration of the negative aspects of brand re-
lationship requires the clarification of the middle ground relationship with a brand.
Alba and Lutz (2013), in their commentary to the AA model of consumer–brand
relationships, raise the question that how the conceptualization put forward by the
model (AA Model) provides insight above and beyond those theories of brand that
did not include the notion of relationship. The authors also commented on the di-
mensionality of AA model that it should be desirable to explain how to extend the
model to capture the multidimensional nature of AA relationships.

Research Gaps

In spite of the numerous researches using different approaches to understand the

phenomenon of consumer-brand relationships over the past two and a half decades,
the current understanding in this paradigm is unique in its inability to produce exter-
nal validity to the results. This basically emerges owing to the inability of previous

[email protected]
Research Gaps  23

research to contribute a clear conceptual understanding of the consumer–brand

relationship phenomenon. The current understanding of the consumer–brand re-
lationship paradigm also lacks a clear agreement over the operationalization of the
construct of consumer–brand relationships (Tsai 2011).
Generally, there are two schools of thoughts when it comes to conceptualization
and operationalization of consumer–brand relationships, such as relationship qual-
ity and investment relationship. Majority of researchers (e.g., Fournier 1998; Nebel
and Blattberg 2000; Aggarwal 2004) defined consumer-brand relationship strictly
in behavioral perspective. There are sparse studies giving importance to attitudi-
nal aspects of consumer–brand relationships during their conceptualization (e.g.,
Blackston 1992). A common theme across both these streams of school of thought
has been the identification, development, and integration of surrogate attitudinal
and behavioral measures, which is required to conceptualize and operationlize con-
sumer–brand relationships (Tsai 2011; Park et al. 2012). Blackston (1992) was pre-
cise in his concpeutlization in suggesting both attitudinal aspects and behaviors to
define consumer–brand relationships. By viewing consumer–brand relationships as
an attitude-behavior-related in their framework, the authors were able to investi-
gate the concept from a causal perspective, which permits the identification of the
antecedents of consumer–brand relationships. Their research, however, offers only
the conceptual framework of theory and does not provide any empirical validation.
Conceptually, the brand relationship literature is much richer with studies of
motivational or intentional component of attitudes, particularly the role of BC as
the surrogate variable for explaining the consumer relationships with the brand.
The studies in brand relationship literature also explained the role of emotional and
motivational ties to explain consumers’ deep-rooted relationship with brand, includ-
ing several affective and sociomotivational components (e.g., love/passion, self-
connection, and nostalgia), behavioral ties (e.g., interdependence and commitment),
and supportive cognitive ties (e.g., and brand partner quality; e.g., Fletcher, Simp-
son, and Thomas 2000; Fournier 1994, 1998). However, no studies till date made an
attempt to integrate all these three attitudinal elements, such as cognitive, affective,
and conative components in consumer–brand relationship paradigm. It has been
stated that combing these three components in consumer–brand relationships would
yield strong and deep-rooted relationship with brands (Kim et al. 2013).
The metaphoric transfer of relationship for the understanding of consumer–brand
relationships in branding literature is typically derived from interpersonal theories,
particularly from the relationship metaphor of marriage (e.g., Fournier 1998). All
these studies generated constructs from either interpersonal or organizational litera-
ture and then created scale items to measure these constructs and later they simply
applied this theory to marketing literature, particularly in branding (e.g., Monga 2002;
Park and Kim 2001). This adaptation of constructs from the high-involving (recipro-
cal) interpersonal relationship could be very difficult to apply in those less involving
(nonreciprocal) consumer–brand relationship contexts (Tynan 1997). Therefore, an
empirical study on consumer branding should be designed in such a way that it should
address less involving nonreciprocal relationships (Brevik and Thorbjornsen 2006;
Bengtsson 2003). This process of adaptation would create problems if the concepts of

[email protected]
24 2  Literature Review

brand relationships are not directly analogous to the theory of interpersonal relation-
ships. According to Hunt and Menon (1995), the success of adoption of metaphoric
transfer from one literature (here, from interpersonal to branding context) requires
necessary translation from one literature to the adapting discipline. Furthermore, the
majority of the concepts adapted from interpersonal literature does not appear to be
relevant in the consumer–brand context (Bengtsson 2003).
Even though the establishment of the models in consumer–brand relationships
would trace back into strong interpersonal theories, they failed to provide an appar-
ent plan for model specification and subsequent empirical testing. The extant litera-
ture has not yet addressed the process of building customer-brand relationship in a
comprehensive manner (Park and Kim 2001) and failed to provide a clear plan for
empirical testing and model specification (Brevik and Thorbjornsen 2006). For ex-
ample, Fournier (1998) proposed a conceptual model called the BRQ model using
several in-depth interviews and included several relationships among constructs.
Moreover, this model did not specify the direction among the paths. Even though
Fournier (1998) enriched the concept of consumer–brand relationships in market-
ing literature, there is a need for further research that can qualify the relational
discourse in the context of consumer decision making (Bengtsson 2003). Therefore,
the studies in this area failed fully to operationalize the process of consumer rela-
tionships in branding context.

Conceptual Definition: Consumer-Brand Relationships

Based upon the literature review and considering the operational point of view, this
research provided a strict definition for consumer–brand relationships as:
An integrated approach to establish, augment and maintain relationships between the brand
and its customers and to continually strengthen these relationships through the attitudinal
and behavioral components aimed to generate relationship outcomes which extended over
a long period of time.

The above-mentioned definition is composed of three parts:

1. Consumer–brand relationships is an integrated approach: The consumer–brand
relationship is an integrated approach, wherein the parties involved in the rela-
tionship building process aim to establish, augment, and finally maintain it
forever.
2. It is getting strengthened through the attitudinal and behavioral components: The
establishment, augmentation, and maintenance of consumer–brand relationship
are achieved through the integration of attitudinal and behavioral components,
which basically results in relationship outcomes.
3. Extended over a long period of time: Consumer–brand relationship creation is
a long-term process, wherein the parties involved in the relationship creation
process achieve this objective of brand relationship building through their con-
tinuous and long-term relationship building efforts.

[email protected]
Chapter Summary  25

Research Questions

In light of the earlier discussion, the following research questions have been gener-
ated:
1. Is the exploration and integration of attitudinal and behavioral components for the
conceptualization of the consumer–brand relationships being really meaningful?
2. What are the underlying attitudinal and behavioral dimensions of consumer–
brand relationships? Is behavioral relationship really influenced by attitudinal
relationship?
3. By operationalizing consumer–brand relationships through integrating the attitu-
dinal and behavioral aspects, does the empirical testing of new consumer–brand
relationship model truly advance the understanding of consumers’ deep-rooted
bond with brands?

Research Objectives

The research is based on two key premises, which are derived from the literature
gaps reviewed and research questions presented in the previous sections of this
chapter. First, the research aimed to identify different attitudinal and behavioral
relationship dimensions in branding, followed by the development of a conceptual
model. Second, the research aims to achieve the triangulation though empirically
tests and validates the conceptual model proposed during the first stage. The overall
aims and objectives of the research are:
1. To propose a conceptually clear and operationally meaningful model of con-
sumer–brand relationships through the exploration and integration of attitudinal
and behavioral aspects of consumer–brand relationships.
2. To test the proposed conceptual model empirically and to understand how atti-
tudinal and behavioral dimensions of consumer–brand relationships work as an
integrative mechanism to build consumer–brand relationships.
3. To examine the predictive validity and generalizability of the developed con-
sumer–brand relationship model for measuring consumer–brand relationships.

Chapter Summary

This chapter begins with the review of existing literature in the consumer–brand re-
lationships, particularly the conceptualization and operationalization of the concept
of consumer–brand relationships. The chapter also examined the models of con-
sumer–brand relationships. Finally, identified the key theoretical issues and chal-
lenges with the existing theoretical paradigms of consumer–brand relationships.

[email protected]
26 2  Literature Review

The review helped the research to identify the potential research gaps, which led to
generate research questions and subsequent framing of research objectives of this
study.
Chapter 3 will provide a broader discussion, wherein the study further discusses
the theoretical constructs of consumer–brand relationships in detail and the devel-
opment of hypotheses based on extant literature in branding paradigm.

[email protected]
Chapter 3
Theoretical Development and Hypotheses

Based upon the conceptualization outlined in Chap. 2 and qualitative results, this
chapter integrates the attitudinal and behavioral dimensions of consumer–brand re-
lationships (CBR) and develops a theoretical framework of CBR. To this end, it first
comprehensively conceptualizes the CBR framework. Next, the underlying attitudi-
nal and behavioral dimensions of CBR are presented in detail. Following this, a set
of empirically testable hypotheses was developed and an integrative model of CBR
generated that is presented in Fig. 3.1.

Conceptual Framework

The study used a modified conceptualization of CBR that is based on the works of
Blackston (1992), Fournier (1998), and Nebel and Blattberg (2000). This conceptu-
alization is also supported during the qualitative phase of this study and subsequent
generation of a conceptual model of CBR (Fig. 3.1). In line with previous litera-
ture and the conceptual model, CBR includes both attitudinal and behavioral/action
phases. The attitudinal phase of CBR has three key stages, such as cognitive, affec-
tive, and conative (Evanschitzky and Wunderlich 2006; Oliver 1997, 1999). The
CBR level increases through these attitudinal and behavioral stages sequentially.
Cognitive relationship is the first relationship phase. Relationship at this stage
derives from or represented by strong positive brand attitudes, i.e., strength of
brand attitude. Consumers at this stage develop attitude strength through com-
paring the brand and its alternatives based on past and/or vicarious knowledge
related to the offering, brand attributes, performance of the brand, or current ex-
perience-based information about the brand (Back and Parks 2003; Evanschitzky
and Wunderlich 2006; Oliver 1997, 1999). Such attitudes may become strong
when they are based on thoughtful processing. Strong attitude development is
the starting point of brand relationships (Fullerton 1995). When the performance
of the brand meets customers’ expectation, the strong positive cognitive evalu-
ations will result in brand satisfaction. Brand satisfaction is the outcome of the
subjective evaluation that the chosen alternative (the brand) meets or exceeds the

S. Sreejesh, S. Mohapatra, Mixed Method Research Design, 27

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-02687-9_3, © Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

[email protected]
28 3  Theoretical Development and Hypotheses

expectations (Engel et al. 1990). Busacca and Castaldo (2003) in their conceptual
framework stated that the beginning of a CBR is also determined in terms of
brand satisfaction.
The second phase of CBR is referred to as affective relationship, which is provid-
ing a deeper sense of relationships. At this stage, the CBR derives from the strong
favorable attitude toward the brand and their overall evaluation of it (Oliver 1997). It
helps the customer to augment the brand relationships that are not easily abandoned
as compared with the cognitive phase of CBR. This phase will occur when the brand
offers resources in the service of self-expansion, which developed through brand
trust or consistency in the performance of the brand. Customers may subsequently
develop strong connections between the brand and the self as well as mental models
of the brand and the self (Park et al. 2010). In this stage, the brand-related thoughts
and feelings are easily and frequently accessed. At this second stage, strong brand
attitudes develop into brand attachments. This affective relationship phase is very
essential in the attitudinal CBR formation (Bandyopadhyay and Martell 2007; Han
2009; Han et al. 2009; Oliver 1997, 1999).
Nonetheless, CBR is not maintained at the affective stage. During the relation-
ship, augmentation stage CBR is subjected to various deteriorations, particularly
owing to the attractiveness of competitive brands (Evanschitzky and Wunderlich
2006). Therefore, it is essential to push the customers into the conative phase of
CBR. In this stage, the brand’s prominence and its linkage to the self may incline
consumers to invest resources of their own in the service of maintaining a brand re-
lationship; such resources are revealed by brand commitment or intention to main-
tain a relationship. In this stage, customers possess a deeper level of CBR than in
the affective stage.
However, it is essential to move beyond these three CBR stages, namely cog-
nitive, affective, and conative. The real CBR would be accomplished at the be-
havioral/action phase. In other words, customers first form cognitive CBR through
attitude strength and brand satisfaction, then form affective CBR through trusted
and attached relationships, third, they form conative CBR with deeply held brand
commitment, and finally behavioral/action relationship.

Attitudinal and Behavioral Constructs of CBR Brand Attitude

Strength (BAT)

Eagly and Chaiken (1993) defined attitude as “the psychological tendency to evalu-
ate a particular entity with some degree of favor or disfavor.” Strong attitude toward
an entity or object/brand might lead to purchasing behavior (Copeland 1923). The
extent by which attitude predicts behavior toward the brand or any other entity
depends on the strength of the attitude toward that brand or that entity (Tenbult
et  al. 2008). They also commented that attitudes toward some entities or brands
are more influential and consequential (strong) and others are less influential and

[email protected]
Conceptual Framework  29

consequential (weak; Krosnick 1993). The strength of the attitude is the major force
that differentiates weak attitudes from strong ones, which is more influential or
consequential. Strength of existing attitude emerges from strong resistance to atti-
tude change (Eagly and Chaiken 1993). Krosnick and Petty (1995) defined attitude
strength as the extent to which the attitude possesses duel qualities of durability and
impact, which explains the magnitude at which attitudes are persistent, resistant
to change, impacts on information processing, and guides a particular behavior. In
short, the strength-related aspect of an attitude has been viewed as falling into four
categories, such as the aspects of attitude itself, aspects of cognitive structure as-
sociated with the attitude, the attitude object in memory, subjective beliefs about the
attitude and attitude object, and cognitive processes by which an attitude is formed
(Krosnick and Petty 1995).
Some of the generally identified dimensions of attitude strength are attitude ac-
cessibility, knowledge, commitment, ambivalence, personal relevance, involvement,
importance, and certainty (Abelson 1995; Fazio 1995; Gross et al. 1995; Krosnsick
and Petty 1995). Krosnick and Abelson (1992) conceptualized that attitude strength
is composed of five dimensions, such as extremity, intensity, certainty, importance,
and knowledge. Extremity explains the favorability and unfavorability with which
a consumer evaluates an object/brand. Intensity dimension explains the strength
of an individual’s feelings about an attitude object. Certainty explains the degree
at which an individual is certain or confident about the attitude object. Importance
explains the extent, which an individual considers the attitude object is important
to him. Finally, knowledge dimension explains the breadth of an individual’s belief
about an attitude object.
This unidimensional or multidimensional nature of the attitude strength con-
struct has also been extensively analyzed by some extant literature (e.g., Bizer and
Krosnick 2001; Erber et al. 1995; Kronsick et al. 1993; Krosnick and Petty 1995).
Studies found support for a common underlying construct for measuring attitude
strength (Abelson 1988). There are studies that disagreed with the common un-
derlying construct. Kronsick et al. (1993) analyzed the latent structure of attitude
strength and found no support for a single underlying latent construct of attitude
strength.
Studies in marketing also centered on understanding the consequences and out-
comes of attitude strength. Eagly and Chaiken (1993) stated that strong attitudes are
resistant to change and have bias information processing, are persistent over time,
and guide the behavior of an individual. The authors also argued that resistance to
change is the major outcome of attitude strength. Strong attitude would generate
greater counterargumentation of counterattitudinal information in order to assist in
the attitude change (Chaiken et al. 1989; Gross et al. 1995).
It is obvious from extant literature that strong attitude has the characteristics and
outcomes of persistence and resistance to change, biased information processing,
and greater counterargumentation. Finally, strong attitudes possess the characteris-
tics of intentions to stay with the attitude object.

[email protected]
30 3  Theoretical Development and Hypotheses

Brand Satisfaction

Oliver (1997) in marketing context defined customer satisfaction as “a judgment

that a product or service feature, or the product or service itself, provides a pleasur-
able level of consumption-related fulfillment, including levels of under- or over
fulfillment.” Engel et al. (1990) defined brand satisfaction “as the outcome of sub-
jective evaluation that the chosen alternative (the brand) meets or exceeds the ex-
pectations.”
In branding context, it has been stated that, if the brand provides the consumer
with hedonic or utilitarian values, the likelihood of psychological attachment would
be stronger (Beatty et al. 1988). In CBR context, it is necessary for the consumer
to perceive or expect the relationship as satisfactory; this satisfactory relationship
paves the pathway to continue with the existing relationship. If a consumer has
strong relationships with a brand, he/she will always search for satisfied partner-
ship. This satisfied partnership will generate through when the brand offers strong
and superior customer benefits consistently or that brand satisfies the consumer in
that relationship. The satisfied relationship ultimately keeps the consumer in that
relationship for a long term. In short, a consumer satisfied with a brand will commit
himself or herself with that brand.

Brand Trust

The extant literature established the role of trust in CBR building (e.g., Moorman
et al. 1993; Morgan and Hunt 1994). McDonald (1981) in social exchange paradigm
stated that the absence of trust or presence of mistrust reduces commitment and
leaves the exchange or transaction in short-term nature, and trust plays a crucial role
in the creation and maintenance of long-term relationship with the entity.
Moorman et  al. (1993) while building on previous literature, integrated tradi-
tional definition (psychological) of trust with sociological theories and suggested
that trust is a crucial factor for the facilitation of exchange relationships. The au-
thors defined trust as “the willingness of a person (sociological) to rely on another
person whom one has confidence (psychological).” Moorman et al. (1993) focused
on building a comprehensive theory of trust in marketing relationships and studied
the factors that influence user’s trust in their research. The important factors identi-
fied in this study are: individual, interpersonal, organizational, interorganizational/
interdepartmental, and project factors. In the interpersonal factor domain, perceived
researcher integrity, willingness to reduce research uncertainly, confidentiality, ex-
pertise, tactfulness, sincerity, congeniality, and timeliness are the most strongly as-
sociated components with trust. The study also found that, the other factors such as,
the formalization of the user’s organization, the culture of the researcher’s depart-
ment or organization, the research organization’s or department’s power, and the
extent to which the research is customized also have an impact on trust.

[email protected]
Conceptual Framework  31

Morgan and Hunt (1994) studied the role of trust and confidence for the restora-
tion of commitment or intention to stay with the brand or person. The major objec-
tive of this study was to conceptualize the relationship marketing and its forms,
and prove a theory that the successful relationship marketing demands relationship
commitment and trust. The study also aimed to establish the mediating role of trust
and commitment in relationship building and to compare the competing models,
one with the role of commitment and trust and other without commitment and trust,
and establish the superiority of the former one. The authors conducted a study with
the sample of 204 tire retailers in the USA and using structural equation modeling
(SEM), the study found that trust and commitment have different antecedents. The
statistical results showed that these two (trust and commitment) are distinct con-
structs and also showed the significant relationship between trust and commitment.
The study also tested the mediating role of trust and commitment in relationship
marketing.
Delgado et al. (2000) investigated the conceptual connection of trust with sat-
isfaction and loyalty in a brand–consumer relationship. The authors developed six
hypotheses to explain the role of trust with other two concepts like satisfaction
and commitment. In hypotheses 1 and 2, it is postulated that higher satisfaction
would lead to higher trust and this relationship would be moderated by customer
involvement. In hypotheses 3 and 4, it is hypothesized that higher trust would lead
to higher commitment and this relationship would be moderated by customer in-
volvement. In hypothesis 5, it is postulated that in high-involvement conditions,
the effect of trust on commitment would be higher compared with the influence of
overall satisfaction. Hypothesis 6 stated that high commitment would lead to high
price tolerance. The study selected a product category related to childcare such as
disposable nappies. The selected sample of 200 consisting completely of women
who have children ages from 0 to 4. The data collection was based on two brands in
the selected product category. First brand is about regular choice and the second one
is bought in any other situation. The study tested the hypotheses through comparing
two different multiple regressions. The results suggest that trust plays a major role
in establishing consumer commitment and commitment is the major factor that af-
fects consumer’s price tolerance.
Delgado et  al. (2005) examined the role trust for the development of brand
equity. The authors considered brand equity as a relationship construct, because
the equity of the brand arises from the relationships, that brand, and the consumer.
The study postulated three hypotheses, which explain the relationship between
trust and brand equity. Hypothesis 1 proposes that consumer’s overall satisfaction
with the brand has a positive impact on brand trust. Hypothesis 2 proposes that
brand trust has a positive impact on brand loyalty. The study considered dispo-
sitional commitment and loyalty as synonyms. Hypothesis 3 stated that disposi-
tional commitment or loyalty has a positive impact on brand equity. The data were
collected using computer-aided telephone interviewing (CATI) using 271 samples
from Spain. The study selected two brands (134 for shampoo and 137 for beer).
Using SEM, the study tested the hypotheses. The results showed that brand trust

[email protected]
32 3  Theoretical Development and Hypotheses

would lead to brand loyalty or dispositional commitment, which in turn influences

brand equity.

Brand Attachment

The concept of attachment originated from the interpersonal attachment theory

of Bowlby (1979) and was later extended by many other researchers in different
interpersonal contexts (e.g., romantic mates, infants, mothers—see Simpson et al.
2007; Gillath et  al. 2008). The extant literature also shows evidence of attach-
ment that stretches beyond person-to-person relationship environment. Mick and
Demoss (1990) studied consumers’ attachment toward gifts; Slater (2001) studied
people’s attachment toward collectables; and Hill and Stamey (1990) found evi-
dence of people’s attachment toward residence. Research in marketing stated the
need for attachment development toward market place entities including products,
brands, celebrities, and possessions (Park et al. 2010; Fournier 1998; Keller 2003;
Schouten and McAlexander 1995; Thomson 2006; Ball and Tasaki 1992).
There were different researchers in marketing who have conducted studies, par-
ticularly in brand attachment domain. The seminal work in this area is by Whang
et  al. (2004) who found that passionate love is the major factor that determines
brand attachment. Roberts (2004) introduced a new term for brand attachment
called “love-marks.” Love-marks brands are those brands that generate high impact
on both the dimensions of respect (which is a combination of reputation, perfor-
mance, trust, and commitment) and love (which is a combination of sensuality,
intimacy, passion, and mystery). Thomson et al. (2005) stated that attachment is a
multidimensional construct composed of three dimensions: affection (affectionate,
loved, peaceful, and friendly), connection (attached, bonded, and connected), and
passion (passionate, delighted, and captivated).
Park et  al. (2010) define the concept of brand attachment as “the strength of
the bond connecting the brand with the self, this bond is exemplified by a rich and
accessible memory network (or mental representation) that involves thoughts and
feelings about the brand and the brand’s relationship to the self.” The study found
that there are two dimensions of brand attachment: (a) brand self-connection—ex-
plains the cognitive and emotional connection between the brand and the self and
(b) brand prominence—positive memories and feelings about the brand that cus-
tomers perceive in their top of mind (Park et al. 2010).
In summary, many attempts have been made to measure the construct as such,
but none of the literature has made an attempt to understand how (the process)
this paradigm (brand attachment) leads to relationship building and its conceptual
properties of brand attachment still remain mysterious (Park et al. 2010; Park et al.
2006, 2009). This construct has yet to mature in different areas, particularly the
operational aspect of this paradigm is still vague and therefore more efforts will
require to fill this vagueness (Tsai 2011).

[email protected]
Conceptual Framework  33

Brand Commitment

The concept of commitment has its origin in organizational literature and has re-
ceived significant attention among scholars since the introduction of Allen and
Meyer’s (1990) organizational commitment. Allen and Meyer (1990) defined com-
mitment as a multidimensional construct consisting of three dimensions in an or-
ganizational context. These three dimensions of organizational commitment are the
affective (affective attachment to the organization), continuance (perceived costs
associated with leaving the organization), and normative (feelings of obligation to
the organization) dimensions. In organizational literature, Meyer and Herscovitch
(2001) stated that maintaining the relationship with a target or organization is the
focal outcome associated with commitment and supported that affective, continu-
ance, and normative commitments are the three dimensions of commitment. Major-
ity of the definitions in organizational context defined commitment as the existence
of a psychological bond between the individual and the organization. Such bond
includes relationship concepts such as the readiness to expend energy, loyalty, and
work toward the organization’s goals, the unwillingness to leave, a sense of oneness
to the organization, a positive valuation of the organization, or acceptance of and
identification with the organization’s values and goals (Chusmir 1988).
The concept of customer commitment has generated interest in marketing lit-
erature since the introduction of the customer commitment theory of relationship
marketed by Morgan and Hunt in 1994 (Jones et al. 2007). After the introduction
of this theory, several researches showed interest in studying customer commitment
for the prediction of various matrices related to customer retention, repurchase in-
tentions, and switching/staying intentions (e.g., Bansal et al. 2004; Fullerton 2003;
Venetis and Ghauri 2004). The construct of customer commitment is considered to
be very important for the maintenance and development of marketing relationships
as it works as a key psychological force that links the customer to the selling orga-
nization (Bansal et al. 2004; Morgan and Hunt 1994).
The concept of commitment has been defined as an attitude that exposes the
desire to maintain a relationship with an entity or an object (Moorman et al. 1992).
The most widely accepted definition of commitment in marketing literature comes
from the works of Moorman et al. (1992) and Morgan and Hunt (1994). According
to Moorman et al. (1992, p. 316), commitment is defined “as an enduring desire to
maintain a valued relationship.” Morgan and Hunt (1994, p. 23) stated that “com-
mitment is an exchange partner believing that an ongoing relationship with another
partner is so important as to warrant maximum efforts at maintaining it.”
In the marketing literature, Bansal et  al. (2004) extended Meyer and Allen’s
(1997) three-component model of organizational commitment. The authors defined
commitment as a force that binds an individual to continue to purchase services
(i.e., Not to switch; Bansal et  al. 2004). Customers with a strong affective bond
stay with the service provider because they want to. Those with strong continu-
ance commitment intended to remain with the service provider because they feel
they have to. Normatively committed customers stay because they feel they ought

[email protected]
34 3  Theoretical Development and Hypotheses

to. Affective commitment develops when the customers become involved with the
brand or entity recognizes the value relevance of it, and/or derives his/her identity
from it, or an association concerned with the entity or brand. Normative commit-
ment develops when customers internalize the brand’s or entity’s norms through
socialization and receive benefits that induce them to feel the need to reciprocate
and/or to accept the terms of a psychological contract (Rousseau 1995). Continu-
ance committee develops when the customers perceive that there is no alternative
other than to remain with the current service provider or brand. As a construct, it
describes an attitude that reflects the desire to maintain a valued relationship (Moor-
man et al. 1992; Bansal et al. 2004). Levinger (1979) stated that “commitment as a
decision or pledge to maintain a long-term relationship with a brand into the future.”
The majority of the marketing researchers in marketing conceptualized and op-
erationalized the construct of customer commitment in terms of intention to remain
loyal to the brand in the near future (e.g., Moorman et al. 1992; Ahluwalia et al.
2000). Miller (1997) stated that brand commitment is an outcome of attachment
toward the brand and is revealed by a set of commitment-related behaviors that help
to promote some of the relationship maintenance acts.
Ahluwalia et al. (2000) examined the role of brand commitment on information
processing behaviors of customers toward the brand. The study conducted three
experimental surveys using student sample and identified the role of brand commit-
ment on information processing about the brand. The findings of the study showed
that customers’ commitment is an important moderator toward consumer response
toward negative information. In short, highly committed customers counterargue
negative information about the brand and that ultimately reduces the likelihood of
attitude degradation. The results also showed that highly committed customers may
help the effectiveness of information that is likely to reduce switching behavior.
In a study, Fullerton (2005) examined the extent that the two dimensions of com-
mitment such as affective component and continuance component serve as a media-
tor of attitude toward the brand relationships, such as brand satisfaction and loyalty
intention for retail brands. An affective component of commitment is important
because it is rooted in attachment, shared values, and identity. Affectively com-
mitted consumers trust the partner (here, retail brand) and enjoy doing partnership
with the relationship partner. The continuance component of commitment makes
the consumers bound to have a relationship, because it is hard to get out of the
relationship with the partner. In this study, the authors modeled and hypothesized
that the two dimensions of commitment such as affective and continuance are the
mediator of brand satisfaction and repurchase intention and advocacy intentions.
The model proposed by Fullerton (2005) was examined using two retail brands and
responses were collected from 418 samples of undergraduate students. The hypoth-
eses were examined using regression suggested by Baron and Kenney (1986). The
results showed that the affective component of commitment is a stronger driver of
advocacy intentions and repurchase intentions. The results also proved the fact that
brand commitment is the complete mediator of brand attitude and loyalty-related
outcomes.

[email protected]
Conceptual Framework  35

Jones et  al. (2010) in their paper assesses the role of three-component model
of commitment (such as norms, affective, and continuance) on different loyalty-
related behaviors. The normative component of commitment explains the psycho-
logical bond with a customer to the organization because of the sense of obligation.
An affective component of commitment arises from the extent, which the consumer
feels favorable about the organization. Continuance commitment emerges because
of the perceived costs associated with the termination of the relationship with the
partner. The study collected sample of 213 employees of a large national insurance
company. The survey questionnaire contained multiple-item questions. The analy-
ses of the study were conducted with Partial Least Square SEM. The results of the
study found that these three components of commitment are distinct constructs and
all these three have the predictive power with respect to different customer loyalty
behaviors.
From all the earlier commitment literature, the common link that connects the
construct across subjects is that commitment is a psychological state of mind that is
independent of behaviors and can influence behaviors including loyalty. Therefore,
the proposed study considered the construct multidimensional in nature and defined
brand commitment as “an attitudinal state of mind of the consumer towards the
brand, in which the consumer intended to maintain a relationship with the brand or
relationship longevity which influence behaviors, including brand loyalty.”

Brand Equity

There is literature in marketing, which considers brand equity as relationship con-

structs (e.g., Hunt 1997; Srivastava et al. 1998, 2001). Brand equity is considered
to be a relational construct, because a brand derives much of its value from its
relationship with others, particularly from its customers or its relationship partners.
This relational nature of brand value contributes as an asset to the concerned brand.
In other words, a brand derives its value from the set of brand associations and im-
ages that the brand generated in the mind of its customers during the relationship.
Keller (1993) defined brand equity as “the differential effect of brand knowledge on
consumer response to the marketing of a brand.” When the construct of brand eq-
uity comes as a relationship construct, this is the effect a brand has beyond its other
value propositions (Johnson et al. 2006). That value proposition is mainly generated
from its relationship with its customers.

Brand Loyalty

The majority of extant literature in brand loyalty was primarily defined and opera-
tionalized the construct of brand loyalty as behavioral aspect (e.g., repeated pur-
chase). For example, Cunningham (1956, 1967) stated that brand loyalty as the
purchase proportion of the same brand on a same sequence of purchase. The author

[email protected]
36 3  Theoretical Development and Hypotheses

made an arbitrary cut off of 50 % as the limit of brand loyalty: the customer is loyal
if he/she buys 50 % above his/her purchase of the same brand. Followed by Tucker
(1964) and McConnel (1968) introduced “3 in the sequence criterion”: a customer
is a brand-loyal customer if his/her purchase sequence comprises three identical
brands. However, starting from Day (1969), brand loyalty has been studied in a
different stream altogether and the efforts being witnessed to provide a significant
conceptual contribution that differentiates true brand loyalty from spurious loyalty
(e.g., Bloemer and Kasper (1995) included commitment (Odin et al. 2001 and Kim
et al. 2008); included brand sensitivity (Morgan and Hunt 1994); and included com-
mitment and trust. Day (1969) studied loyalty in terms of both attitudinal and be-
havioral aspects. Day (1969) in his paper studied the two-dimensional nature of
brand loyalty: the attitudinal and behavioral component. According to Day (1969),
the loyalty measures, which are solely based on repeated purchase, called as spuri-
ous loyalty is different from true loyalty or intentional loyalty. According to him,
“The key point is that these spuriously loyal buyers lack any attachment to brand
attributes, and they can be immediately captured by another brand that offers a bet-
ter deal, a coupon, or enhanced point-of-purchase visibility through displays and
other devices.” Therefore, the author suggested that loyalty should be studied in
both attitudinal and behavioral ways, because once the attitudinal aspect is includ-
ed in loyalty measure, it becomes a brand-specific phenomenon and not a generic
phenomenon. Day (1969) proposed a composite index of loyalty, which has been
widely used by researchers in marketing. The authors defined loyalty (L) as

P ( B)
L=
A

where L is loyalty, P(B) is proportion of brand purchase, and A is loyal attitude.

The empirical test of the model was conducted using 955 household panels.
The stimuli used in this study were two major brands in the convenience food cat-
egory. The study defined true brand-loyal customers are those people who had a
high favorable attitude toward the brand and buying the brand in majority of the
occasions. The study found a relatively high model fit for true loyal customers.
The findings of the study showed that: (1) true brand loyalty is the outcome of
rational decision, which is derived from comprehensive evaluation of competing
brands in the product category, this evaluation determines the commitment toward
the brand; (2) such an evaluative decision is not necessary for each and every pur-
chase; and (3) strong affective orientation toward the brand reduces the perceptual
judgment, this in turn reduces the customer’s attention toward competitor’s promo-
tional activity and switching decision.
Bloemer and Kasper (1995) investigated the relationship between customer sat-
isfaction and true brand loyalty. The authors made a distinction between repeated
purchase behavior and brand loyalty and true loyalty with spurious loyalty. The
authors differentiated true loyalty from spurious loyalty using the definition given
by Jacoby and Chestnut (1976). A true brand loyalty means; “(i) the biased (i.e.,
nonrandom), (ii) behavioral response (i.e., purchase), (iii) expressed over time, (iv)

[email protected]
Conceptual Framework  37

by some decision making unit, (v) with respect to one or more alternative brand out
of a set of such brands, which (vi) is a function of psychological (decision making,
evaluative) processes resulting in brand commitment.” The spurious loyalty means
“(i) the biased (i.e., nonrandom), (ii) behavioral response (i.e., purchase), (iii) ex-
pressed over time, (iv) by any decision making unit, (v) with respect to one or more
alternative brand out of a set of such brands, (vi) which is a function of inertia.”
According to the authors, the most differentiating factor behind this true versus
spurious loyalty component is commitment. When the brand is positively evaluated
in consumer’s mind, he/she will carry out an extensive evaluation process, which
ultimately helps to create a pledge or commitment toward the brand. In this study,
the authors collected responses using a self-administered survey of 830 respondents
(Dutch sample). The products used in this study are blank audio cassettes and sham-
poo. The study operationalized the constructs of true brand loyalty via a multipli-
cation of commitment construct with loyalty. The study found that there is a good
correlation between brand commitment and true brand loyalty, true brand loyalty
and satisfaction, and true brand loyalty and purchase behavior for both the products.
Odin et al. (2001) proposed a new conceptualization in brand loyalty literature.
The objective of this paper was to stress the absence of reliable and valid scale in
brand loyalty and solve the problem via the operationalization of a new true brand
loyalty construct. According to the authors, repeated purchase behavior under con-
ditions of strong brand sensitivity is the differentiating factor, which discriminates
between true brand loyalty and loyalty based on inertia or spurious loyalty. In short,
a customer who repurchases the brand and attaches strong importance (sensitivity)
will be considered as a truly loyal and a customer who repurchases the brand with
weak sensitivity will be considered as spurious loyal or purchase of inertia. The
study developed two hypotheses in line with the argument of Roselius (1971) that
brand loyalty is one of the most important risk reduction strategies. The proposed
hypotheses are: (1) perceived risk dimension positively influence brand loyalty and
(2) perceived risk dimension will not influence purchase inertia. The study followed
the procedure suggested by Churchill (1979) and collected responses from 108 un-
dergraduate students. The results supported that there exists a significant relation-
ship between risk dimensions and loyalty or true loyalty and no support was found
for the significant relationship between risk dimensions and inertia.
Kim et al. (2008) presented a conceptual model for building strong CBR. The
study integrated six latent constructs and explained that true brand loyalty is the
antecedent of brand credibility, affective brand conviction, cognitive brand con-
viction, attitude strength, and brand commitment. Based on the extant literature,
Kim et al. (2008) developed 10 major hypotheses and 4 subhypotheses to analyze
the moderating role of involvement and product category. The authors argued that
brand sensitivity is the major factor that moderates true loyalty from inertia (i.e.,
spurious loyalty). The authors conducted a Web-based survey, which consists of a
sample of 952 undergraduate college students. The authors used SEM to examine
the relationship between constructs. The results of the study showed that brand
credibility is the major factor behind the cognitive and affective conviction and cog-
nitive conviction influences affective conviction. Both these convictions influence

[email protected]
38 3  Theoretical Development and Hypotheses

attitude strength and this attitude strength helps to develop brand commitment. This
brand commitment finally leads to true brand loyalty or behavioral loyalty.

Hypotheses Development

Brand Attitude Strength and Brand Satisfaction

This study followed a conceptual definition of satisfaction by Engel et al. (1990)

that “brand satisfaction is the outcome of subjective evaluation that the chosen al-
ternative (the brand) meets or exceeds the expectations.” This definition is in line
with many other definitions of satisfaction, which followed Oliver’s (1980) expec-
tation–disconfirmation paradigm (E–D; Bloemer and Kasper 1995). The E–D para-
digm stated that the degree of satisfaction for a product is derived from confirma-
tion or disconfirmation of previous expectations, which is the outcome of difference
in expected and perceived performance of a product. When the consumer accepts
the performance of a brand, the cognitive evaluations of the brand’s utility result
in satisfaction. Bloomer and Kasper (1995) used Elaboration Likelihood Model of
Petty et al. (1993) and integrated with Oliver’s (1980) E–D paradigm to explain the
development of brand satisfaction. According to Bloomer and Kasper (1995), brand
satisfaction is the result of strong subjective evaluation. A consumer is expected
to elaborate upon the evaluation of the brand. This elaboration happens when the
consumer is having the motivation and capacity to evaluate the brand in terms of its
reference point or alternatives. The central route of elaboration will lead to perma-
nent attitude change and peripheral route of elaboration will lead to temporary atti-
tude change. The extent of elaboration (direct or indirect) would help the consumer
to have an explicit or implicit comparison between expectation and performance.
The result would be the confirmation or disconfirmation of previous expectations.
Mona and Oliver (1993) argued that the favorable utilitarian evaluation will result
in the experience of pleasure that leads to develop product satisfaction. Consumer
satisfaction with the brand is derived from his/ her strong positive evaluations. This
strong evaluation would act as a driving force behind the purchase of the brand and
subsequent satisfaction with the brand. Therefore, the study hypothesized that:
Hypothesis 1 (H1)  Brand attitude strength will have a positive and significant
effect on brand satisfaction.

Mediating Role of Trust Between Brand Attitude Strength and

Brand Attachment

The extent to which customer develops attachment to a brand depends not only on
the brand’s ability to provide the resources but also the ability of the brand to do so

[email protected]
Hypotheses Development  39

consistently, and hence develop a sense that the brand can be trusted to act in the
consumer’s best interests (Park et  al. 2006). Analogously, the consumers’ strong
brand attitude would develop into an attachment when they believe that the brand
can be relied upon, it would consistently deliver its resources for the self-expansion
of brand holder. The major motivation for such attachment may include the need
for comfort, support, security, and consistency (Patwardhan and Balasubramanian
2011), called as brand trust.
Wieselquist et al. (1999) defined the term trust in branding as “the expectation
that the brand can be relied upon to behave in benevolent manner and to be respon-
sive to one’s needs.” Rempel et al. (1985) stated that the expectations of benevo-
lence and responsiveness would impart a sense of confidence to the customer with
the brand. This created confidence helps the customers to believe that the brand will
satisfy their desired goals and motives even in the face of future relationship un-
certainties. When the customers are convinced that the brand puts their interest and
welfare ahead of all other interests, the customers will become more self-connected
and emotionally attached to it.
Park et al. (2006) stated a number of reasons behind the role of trust in attach-
ment development: (a) Trust is a relationship variable, and evolves and develops
over time from consumer interactions with the entity. Attachment could not be
created without trust, because the lack of trust leaves the individual at risk about
the uncertain outcome; (b) Trust creates a type of intimacy goal in which the indi-
vidual develops an individual secure base and helps to create greater intimacy by
considering future risks associated with the entity will be less; and (c) Trust helps
to create an in-depth understanding of the entity as part of the self, in which con-
sidering the entity as “us” or “we” as opposed “me” or “I.” Therefore, the study
hypotheses that:
Hypothesis 2 (H2)  Consumer—brand trust mediates the relationship between
brand attitude strength and brand attachment.

Mediating Role of Brand Trust Between Brand Satisfaction and

Brand Commitment

Busacca and Castaldo (2003) stated that brand satisfaction is the starting point of
CBR. This satisfaction is the result of customers’ strong subjective evaluation of the
brand (Engel et al. 1990). The resultant satisfaction having the ability to affect brand
commitment and repurchase intentions (Fullerton 2005). Subsequently, when the
CBR is prolonged, the brand satisfaction is replaced by brand trust (Garbarino and
Johnson 1999). The core value that a strong brand is able to provide to its customers
is brand trust, this will enable the customers to know the offering and perceived risk
associated with purchasing and consuming the product (Berry 2000). A customer
who has a strong trustworthiness toward the brand is intended to be with the brand,
willing to pay premium price for it, intended to buy any new product under it in

[email protected]
40 3  Theoretical Development and Hypotheses

the existing and new category and finally, ready to share information about testes,
preferences and behavior (Chaudhuri and Holbrook 2001; Busacca and Castaldo
2003). Highly committed consumers trust and emotionally connect with the brand
compared with noncommitted customers (Evanschitzky et al. 2006). Brigita et al.
(2010) stated the role of satisfaction for the development and maintenance of strong
brand relationships. According to him, “If customers believe that the brand satisfies
their needs, then a bond between the brand and the customer will be formed based
on trust and satisfaction.” Therefore, it is hypothesized that:
Hypothesis 3 (H3)  Consumer—brand trust mediates the relationship between
brand satisfaction and brand commitment.

Mediating Role of Brand Attachment Between Brand Attitude

Strength and Brand Commitment

Literature in attitude supports that brand attitude is an important starting point in

building a conceptual model of CBR (Fullerton 2005). Park et  al. (2010) argued
that relationship establishment starts with brand purchase and at this stage the cus-
tomer develops positive brand attitudes and this developed attitudes might become
strong when they are based on thoughtful processing. When a brand starts offering
resources in the service of self-expansion, the consumer will attach to the brand,
which is shown through two ways; self-connection—strong connections between
the brand and the self and brand prominence—the development of mental models
of the brand and the self, which is shown through brand-related thoughts and feel-
ings, which easily appear in consumers’ mind (Park et al. 2010). Lacoeuilhe (2000)
argued that the relationship between brand attachment and commitment is crucial
to the extent that brand attachment helps in understanding how a consumer can be
loyal to the brand whereas the consideration only functional characteristics of the
brand will create problems for differentiating it from its competitors. The relation-
ship between brand attachment and commitment is also supported by Lacoeuilhe
and Belaid (2007), who stressed that brand attachment feeds the attitudinal inten-
tion, i.e., commitment. These links between brand attachment and commitment
were empirically shown by researchers, such as Lacoeuilhe (2000), Lacoeuilhe and
Belaid (2007), and Gouteron (2008).
This study argues that the relationship establishment starts with the development
of strong positive brand attitudes. This strong positive attitude helps to create brand
self-connection and prominence, which ultimately leads to intention to behave in
a manner that supports relationship longevity. Brand commitment is derived from
strong attachment toward that brand (Park et al. 2006). As a result, the study pro-
poses the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 4 (H4)  Brand attachment will mediate the relationship between brand
attitude strength and brand commitment.

[email protected]
Hypotheses Development  41

Mediating Role of Brand Attachment Between Brand Satisfaction

and Brand Commitment

The investment model (Rusbult 1983) of interpersonal relationship identified the

role of satisfaction in building relationships. The investment model states that com-
mitment is a core relationship-specific motive. Strong commitment makes the in-
dividual most likely to remain with the brand, and also promote a variety of rela-
tionship maintenance behaviors. Satisfaction is considered to be one of the core
components of commitment development. According to Berry et al. (1988), con-
sumers’ psychological attachment would be higher if a brand provides them the
values (symbolic or hedonic), they explain that a brand provides ultimate superior
benefit to the consumer, which in turn helps to develop satisfactorily. The developed
satisfaction would lead to commitment or intention to stay with the brand. The com-
mitment or intention with the brand is not the direct outcome, instead it develops
though the feelings and thoughts, which are derived from satisfaction. Tsai (2009b)
studied the role of satisfaction in CBR with service branding context, and operation-
alized the construct in two dimensions such as satisfaction of utilitarian attributes
and satisfaction of affective attributes. In that study, the author found that these two
satisfaction dimensions will have a positive impact on service brand commitment.
In Oliver’s (1981) confirmation and disconfirmation model, it stated that satisfac-
tion is derived from confirmation or disconfirmation of previous expectations. If
any brand consistently performs previous expectations or satisfies the consumer,
this would lead to developing a kind of commitment or intention to stay with the
brand. But this intention would happen only through the creation of positive feel-
ings and thoughts about the brand. Intent to persist and feeling of psychological
attachment will have a positive impact on relationship building and maintenance
(Rusbult 1983). Therefore, the study hypothesizes that:
Hypothesis 5 (H5)  Brand attachment will mediate the relationship between brand
satisfaction and brand commitment.

Mediating Role of Brand Trust Between Brand Attitude Strength

and Brand Equity

Garbarino and Johnson (1999) stated that consumer–brand trust evolved and de-
veloped from past experience and prior interaction with the brand. Most often, the
development of brand trust of an individual has been portrayed through the expe-
riential process of learning over time and reflects the consumers’ knowledge and
experiences with the brand. Brand trust as an experiential attribute is influenced
by the consumer’s strong evaluation of any direct (e.g., trial, usage) and indirect
contact (e.g., advertising and word of mouth) with the brand in hand or use (Keller
1993; Krishnan 1996). Among all these experiences and contacts, the most impor-

[email protected]
42 3  Theoretical Development and Hypotheses

tant attribute, which directs trust, is the consumption experience with the brand.
Dwyer et al. (1987) and Krishnan (1996) argued that consumption experience is the
major driving force behind associations, thoughts, and inferences that are more self-
relevant and held with more certainty. Moorman et al. (1993) defined brand trust
as “willingness of a person relay on another (person/brand) in which one has confi-
dence.” This definition shows the importance of confidence in building trust toward
the object or person. This certainty and confidence are the two major dimensions
of attitude strength (Krosnick and Petty 1995). In this context, it can be postulated
that the attitude strength or strong positive evaluation of the brand developed from
consumption or nonconsumption experience with the brand, generates brand trust
(Ganesan 1994; Selnes 1998).
There are literatures in marketing who have considered the construct brand eq-
uity as the relational market-based construct (e.g., Falkenberg 1996; Hooley et al.
2005; Srivastava et  al. 1998, 2001). The primary reason for this consideration is
that, for a brand most of its value for its equity development is derived from the
brand’s relationship with external members of the value chain (e.g., the distribu-
tion system and the final users; Delgado et al. 2005). Ambler (1997) stated that the
relational market-based nature of brand equity may be best expressed as a function
of brand—consumer relationship. In such a relationship context, brand trust is the
major determinant of building brand equity (Delgado et al. 2005). Trustworthiness
toward the brand is the major determinant to building brand equity because people
will place high value in the brands they trust. Lassar et al. (1995) supported this
argument with an example; consumer’s trust toward Nordstrom had created high
equity for Nordstrom. Distrust will negatively affect the brand equity of the brand
(Lassar et al. 1995). The extant literature in marketing considered a very similar
concept, brand credibility in relationship context and considered as the antecedent
of brand equity. Erdem and Swait (1998) stated trustworthiness as the dimension of
brand credibility and this credibility is the major driving force behind brand equity.
Therefore, the study made a hypothesis that:
Hypothesis 6 (H6)  Consumer—brand trust mediates the relationship between
brand attitude strength and brand equity.

Mediating Role of Attachment Between Brand Trust and Brand

Loyalty

While explaining the role of trust in relationship building, Morgan and Hunt (1994)
stated that trust is a major determinant of relationship. If a person possesses trust to-
ward another party, it is more likely that he/she would develop some kind of behav-
ioral intention toward that trusted party (Lau and Lee 1999). Literatures in branding
have shown exhaustive evidence that brand loyalty is a consequence of brand trust.
But all these literatures conceptualized the concept of brand loyalty either in terms
of behavioral intention or repeated purchase behavior. Based on commitment–trust

[email protected]
Hypotheses Development  43

theory of relationship marketing (Morgan and Hunt 1994) and brand commitment
(Grundlach et al. 1995), Chaudhuri and Halbrook stated that brand trust and brand
affect impacts repurchase loyalty. According to Morgan and Hunt (1994), consum-
er’s trust toward brand will lead to higher levels of loyalty because the trust com-
ponent creates the relationship as a highly valued one. This trust component creates
affection toward the trusted object/ brand or positive mood and affect, because the
trusted object/brand consistently performs according to expectations. Brand loyalty
should be higher when the positive mood and affect of a consumer is higher (Dick
and Basu 1994). Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001) stated that those brands that make
consumers happier, joyful, or affectionate will elicit more purchase. Hence, based
on these arguments, it has been hypothesized that:
Hypothesis 7 (H7)  Consumer—brand attachment mediates the relationship be­tween
brand trust and brand loyalty.

Brand Commitment and Brand Equity

Lassar et  al. (1995) studied the perceptual nature of brand equity and analyzed
the impact of feeling component of commitment on it. The author distinguished
commitment into two dimensions; feeling component and action component.
The feeling component is just similar to attitudinal loyalty combined with at-
tachment and action component is just similar to behavior loyalty as proposed
by Oliver (1997). The commitment directed by feeling judged behavior to be the
force behind brand equity rather than brand equity itself (Lassar et al. 1995). The
feeling part of relationship intention comes from the development of attachment
with that relationship object. For supporting this argument, Lassar et  al. (1995)
gave an example: The severe protests against Coco-Cola for the brief removal of
“old” Coco-Cola brought forth by its loyal fans exemplified by the consumers’ at-
tachment toward that brand and that feeling’s power in augmenting brand equity.
The consumer feels an attachment toward some brands and form relationship with
them (Fournier 1998), which result in equity of that brand (Keller 1993). Ahluwa-
lia et al. (2000) studied the role commitment with attachment influences consumer
information processing. Emotional attachment plays a vital role in determining re-
sistance to counterattitudinal information. Commitment combined with attachment
is considered to be the crucial determinant behind the prevention of negative in-
formation. High-committed consumers with attachment counterargue negative in-
formation about that brand (Ahluwalia et al. 2000). This counterargument against
negative information creates a differential effect for that brand and that will lead to
brand equity and also this defensive mechanism of commitment with attachment
will reduce the likelihood of negative brand equity toward that brand. Therefore,
the study hypothesizes that:
Hypothesis 8 (H8)  Consumer–brand commitment has a positive effect on brand
equity.

[email protected]
44 3  Theoretical Development and Hypotheses

Brand Commitment and Brand Loyalty

Oliver (1997) defined the concept of brand loyalty as “a deeply held commitment
to rebuy or repatronize a preferred product or service consistently in the future,
despite situational influences and marketing efforts having the potential to cause
switching behavior.” Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) stated behavioral intention as one
of the most predictable behaviors and it works as a direct antecedent to behavioral
loyalty. There were studies in marketing, which considered brand commitment as
the necessary and sufficient antecedent to the formation of behavioral loyalty (Cun-
ningham 1967; Knox and Walker 2001; Back and Parks 2003; Bandyopadhyay and
Martell 2007; Evanschitzky and Wunderlich 2006). Kim et al. (2008) differentiated
true loyalty from spurious loyalty through integrating the attitudinal and behavioral
aspects loyalty. The authors empirically demonstrated that the attitudinal loyalty,
such as brand commitment, is the direct antecedent of behavioral loyalty. Therefore,
it has been hypotheses that:
Hypothesis 9 (H9)  Consumer—brand commitment has a positive effect on behav-
ioral loyalty.

Brand Equity and Brand Loyalty

In brand management literature, the concept of brand equity has been defined “as
the added value endowed to a product as a result of past investments in the mar-
keting of the brand” (Keller 1998). This added value in the consumer’s mind is
created because of the perceived performance of the brand that generated through
the experience of interaction with the brand in the past. This differential value is
a major determinant of repeated purchase. Brand equity can be considered as the
major determinant of brand loyalty (Aaker 1991; Keller 1993, 1998) and loyalty
has been considered to be the important outcome of brand equity (Van Riel et al.
2005). Erdem and Swait (1998) used Spence’s (1974) signaling and information
economics framework, stated that brand loyalty is the consequence of brand eq-
uity. According to Erdem and Swait (1998), the clarity and credibility of brands
act as signals of product positions that in turn increase perceived quality, reduction
in consumer perceived risk, and information costs, and hence increase consumer
expected utility, this expected utility motivates the consumers to repeatedly buy
the same brands. Recently, the same argument has also been supported by Menic-
tas et al. (2012) in an attempt to validate Erdem and Swait’s (1998) brand equity
framework. The major characteristics that differentiate a brand with a high level of
equity and high brand equity consumers are always loyal to that brand (Delgado-
Ballester et al. 2005). Keller (2003) argued that brand equity is a multifaceted con-
struct composed of brand image and brand awareness. Strong behavioral loyalty
is the consequence of strong customer-based brand equity and change in brand
equity will lead to change in brand loyalty (Kaynak et al. 2008; Leone et al. 2006).

[email protected]
 75 75 75 75
   

$77

+ +
$77 
 
$WWLWXGH 7UXVWȘ (TXLW\Ș
$77 6WUHQJWKȟ  


+
Hypotheses Development 

$77 +
   &20

+ &20
 
&RPPLWPHQW
Ș &20
 

+ &20
+ + +
  /2<
   
6$7
/2<
$WWDFKPHQW 
6$7 6DWLVIDFWLRQ Ș /R\DOW\Ș
 Ș  
/2<
 + 
6$7 

:KHUH /2<

[email protected]

$77WR$77DUHWKHPHDVXUHVRI%UDQG$WWLWXGH6WUHQJWK
6$7WR6$7DUHWKHPHDVXUHVRI%UDQG6DWLVIDFWLRQ
75WR75DUHWKHPHDVXUHVRI%UDQG7UXVW $7+ $7+ $7+ $7+
   
$7+WR$7+DUHWKHPHDVXUHVRI%UDQG$WWDFKPHQW
&20WR&20DUHWKHPHDVXUHVRI%UDQG&RPPLWPHQW (4
(4WR(4DUHWKHPHDVXUHVRI%UDQG(TXLW\ 
/2<WR/2<DUHWKHPHDVXUHVRI%UDQG/R\DOW\
(4


(4


(4

45

Fig. 3.1   Consumer–brand relationship model (CBRM)

46 3  Theoretical Development and Hypotheses

Therefore, the study made a hypothesis for analyzing the relationship between
brand equity and brand loyalty:
Hypothesis (H10)  The consumer–brand equity has a positive effect on brand
loyalty.

Figure 3.1 displays the conceptual model used in this study. It shows the integration
of all attitudinal and behavioral dimensions of CBR.

Chapter Summary

This chapter reviewed the theoretical and empirical works in seven areas of the
CBR dimensions, which were identified and conceptualized in Chap. 5. Later on,
the study made and attempt to integrate and hypothesize the same. Therefore, the
chapter made an attempt to show more detailed evidence for the finding of qualita-
tive exploration carried out during the first phase of this study (see Chap. 5, Sect. 1).
These seven relationship building paradigms represent different stages of CBR, in-
clude cognitive, affective, conative, and behavioral aspects of brand relationships.
Through proposing ten hypotheses, the study integrated all these four stages of CBR.

[email protected]
Chapter 4
Research Methodology

The central premise of this study was that the attitudinal and behavioral dimen-
sions of consumer–brand relationships play a crucial role in creating, augmenting,
and maintaining the brand relationships with customers, an idea that has support
in the literature but requires further empirical validation. Therefore, the study was
organized into two phases. Phase I was a qualitative study that looked at the explo-
ration and integration of attitudinal and behavioral dimensions of consumer–brand
relationships and subsequent conceptual model development. Following this, phase
II looked at empirical model validation, using quantitative structural equation mod-
eling (SEM) to better understand how the attitudinal and behavioral components
work as an integrative mechanism to build consumer–brand relationships.

Research Methodology: Mixed Methodology

This research positioned its study paradigm in the middle of the possible spectrum
of methodological choices. This positioning of the study’s operating paradigm sug-
gests a research methodology that combined both the perspectives such as quantita-
tive and qualitative, known as Mixed Methodology. There are three primary reasons
for choosing a mixed methodical design over traditional research designs:
1. The research purpose and research questions mentioned in Chap.  2 require a
combination of qualitative and quantitative methods.
2. Research questions formulated in this study require the exploration and integra-
tion of attitudinal and behavioral dimensions (qualitative) and their empirical
validation (quantitative). It is clear that the individual understanding does not
address the primary purpose of the study.
3. There is insufficient information available in the literature regarding the role of
attitudinal and behavioral dimensions in consumer–brand relationship building.
The detailed understanding of this requires the mixing of qualitative and quanti-
tative methods.

S. Sreejesh, S. Mohapatra, Mixed Method Research Design, 47

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-02687-9_4, © Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

[email protected]
48 4  Research Methodology

This mixed method research design helps the researcher to go for inductive and
deductive reasoning techniques in order to more accurately answer the study’s re-
search questions that cannot be completely answered through qualitative or quanti-
tative research alone (Denzin and Lincoln 2000). Denzin and Lincoln (2000) stated
that mixed research design exphasis on the explanation and application factors in
which process of the research is benefited, which ultimately lead to the interpreta-
tion of the subject matter, its applications and implications for the field of the study.
Rocco et al. (2003) suggested the advantages of mixed methodology in which the
authors justified that the legitimacy of qualitative methods is enhanced through the
incorporation of quantitative methods, known as triangulation.
As the study follows the mix of qualitative and quantitative methods, and these
two approaches were applied in sequence (qualitative first and quantitative later),
in which quantitative research design dominates over the qualitative approach. Fol-
lowing Leech and Onwuegbuzie’s (2009) typology of fully mixed method research
design, the design proposed in this study could be classified as fully mixed se-
quential dominant status design. This typology of mixed method design involves
combining or mixing both qualitative and quantitative research approaches within
one or more of or across the stages of the research process. In this study, the quali-
tative and quantitative research approaches were mixed within all the four areas
like research objective, data collection, type of analysis, and type of inference, and
these phases occurred sequentially and more weight would be given to quantitative
approach.
In this study, the quantitative findings were presented as either helping to elabo-
rate on or extend the qualitative findings (Creswell 2003). This approach of mix-
ing is more valid and robust, because rather than inferring and conceptualizing the
attitudinal and behavioral dimensions of consumer–brand relationships from the
qualitative data alone (in-depth interviews), rich empirical data provided a context
for quantitative interpretation and support. It is also supported that mixed method
design research allows the researcher for the objective examination of two separate
data sources as a means of ensuring accurate interpretation through triangulation1
(Creswell 2003). Figure 4.1 shows the outline of sequential dominant status mixed
research design.

Research Framework

Figure 4.1 displayed the research framework of this study. During the first phase
of qualitative or exploratory investigation, the study conducted a series of in-depth
interviews to explore the attitudinal and behavioral dimensions of consumer–brand
relationships. In which the study adopted a grounded theory approach (Strauss and
Corbin 1994) for data collection, analysis, and inferences, aimed to develop a con-

1 
Brayman and Bell (2011) defined “triangulation as the use of more than one approach to the
investigation of a research question in order to enhance confidence in the ensuing findings”

[email protected]
Research Methodology: Mixed Methodology  49

Research Problem

Qualitative Phase Quantitative Phase Quantitative Phase

Development of a Empirical Model Empirical Model Validation

Conceptual Model through a Development and Testing Using SEM

Qualitative Study Using SEM

Step 1: Development of Step 1: Development of Step 1: Sample Selection

sampling strategy: Theoretical Hypotheses
Sampling

Step 2: Instrument Step2: Data Collection for

Development Model Validation (225 Res)
Theory/Literature

Step 2: Development of
Interview Guide

Step 3: Sample Selection

Step 3: Data Analysis:
Structural Model Validation
Step 3: Data collection: Depth
Interviews
Step 4: Pretest (small scale
survey, 30 Res) Step 4: Model Validation

Step 4: Data Analysis: Making

Sense of the Findings Step 5: Data Collection for
ODA MINER Model Calibration (250 Res)

Step 5: Exploration of the Step 6: Measurement Model

Dimensions or Categories Validation (Validity Checks):
LISREL 8.72

Step 6: Development of a
Step 7: Structural Model:
Conceptual Model through
(Alternative models)
Following Grounded Theory

Step 8: Formulation of New

Model/Theory

Fig.  4.1   Fully mixed sequential dominant status design

ceptual model of consumer–brand relationships. During the second phase, the study
followed a quantitative design, which mainly dealt with the identified attitudinal
and behavioral dimensions of consumer–brand relationships during the previous
stage. During this stage, the study developed the hypotheses to link the attitudinal
and behavioral dimensions backed by previous literature. Followed by the mea-
surement process, the items for these constructs are assumed to be measured in a
self-reporting manner. For measuring self-reported beliefs and behaviors, a self-
administered questionnaire survey is considered to be an appropriate and widely
used approach in a relationship context (Rundle-Thiele 2005). A pretest was carried
out to test the suitability of the measurement instrument. After the confirmation of

[email protected]
50 4  Research Methodology

the suitability of the measurement instrument, validity and reliability of the con-
structs were tested using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Finally, a series of
structural equation modeling (SEM) was carried out to empirically test the model
of consumer–brand relationships. During the third phase, followed by quantitative
method using SEM, the model validation was carried out to examine the predictive
ability of the empirical model.
The research design presented in this chapter is divided into two parts. Part  I
explains the methodology used for exploration and integration of attitudinal and
behavioral dimensions of consumer–brand relationships using a qualitative study.
Part II explains quantitative methodology used for empirical model development,
testing, and its validation. Each section of the study presents the population and
sample, instrumentation measurement, methods of data collection, and analytical
tools used to analyze the study data.

Part I: Exploration and Integration of Attitudinal and

Behavioral Dimensions: Qualitative Research

The purpose of this section is to describe the methodology used for the exploration
and integration of attitudinal and behavioral aspects of consumer–brand relation-
ships. It has been stated that qualitative research2 is most appropriate in those situa-
tions, which demand the understanding of the meaning and perspectives attached by
the participants regarding the object/case (Hoshmand 1989). In addition, it has been
accepted that naturalistic research paradigm offers the researcher to understand con-
sumers’ deep structural processes.
It is considered that the selection of a particular qualitative methodology is often
misleading and conflicting (Caelli et al. 2003). Therefore, the research made care-
ful consideration before selecting a particular method. Caelli et al. (2003) argued
that rigor is the basic factor that determines the central component of evaluating
a methodology. For confirming the rigor, the researcher should examine the two
aspects before selecting a particular qualitative method: (1) the researcher should
articulate in his/her study that how the tradition chosen will contribute to enhance
the methodological rigor and (2) the researcher should identify and show how the
chosen method is philosophically and methodologically congruent with his/her in-
quiry (Caelli et al. 2003).

2 
Creswell (2009) stated “qualitative research is a means for exploring and understanding the
meaning individuals or groups ascribe to a social or human problem. The process of research
involves emerging questions and procedures, data typically collected in the participant’s setting,
data analysis inductively building from particulars to general themes, and the researcher making
interpretations of the meaning of the data. The final written report has a flexible structure. Those
who engage in this form of inquiry support a way of looking at research that honors an inductive
style, a focus on individual meaning, and the importance of rendering the complexity of a situa-
tion” (p. 22).

[email protected]
Part I: Exploration and Integration of Attitudinal and Behavioral Dimensions … 51

Choosing Among the Five Research Traditions

This study considered five research traditions proposed by Creswell (1998) before
selecting a particular qualitative research tradition as the appropriate one. These are:
• Ethnography: Research problem associated with ethnographic studies involves
study of a specific cultural group over an extended period of time (Creswell
1998). Identification and examination of consumer–brand relationship dimen-
sions are not associated with the cultural aspects over an extended period. As a
result, ethnography was rejected as a research approach to this study.
• Narrative Research: The tradition of narrative research involves understanding
of individual life experiences in story form (Creswell 1998). As this research was
focused on identifying consumers’ experiences specific to brand, the narrative
research did not meet the needs of the study.
• Case Study: The case study tradition involves the consideration of a single his-
torical situation, which is constrained by time and context. In this study, the
consideration of these kind of traditions will give little value to the research.
Therefore, the case study approach could not be considered as the research ap-
proach.
• Phenomenology: This research tradition generally uses to explore the exact na-
ture-specific human experience. Creswell (2005) stated that phenomenological
research provides insight into a person‘s subjective interpretations, beliefs, per-
ceptions, and frames of reference of the specific human experience under study.
In short, this research tradition is best suited in those situations in which problem
in hand involves understanding human relations. As this study does not involve
exclusive understanding of human relations, rather it aims to understand con-
sumer–brand relations, it is considered that phenomenology is not a best suited
approach.
• Grounded Theory: Loke (2001) argued that grounded theory is best suited in
those situations, such as: (1) Capturing complexity; (2) Linking with practice;
(3) Facilitating theoretical work in substantive areas that have not been well
researched by others; (4) Putting life into established fields or to provide alterna-
tive conceptualization for the existing work. By considering the last situation,
grounded theory can provide the basis for an alternative view of well-established
fields, through its open-ended approach to data collection followed by a system-
atic approach to theoretical development. As this study’s requirement matches
with the objective of the grounded theory approach, it has been decided to use
grounded theory as the qualitative approach to this study.

Grounded Theory Research Methodology

Qualitative research techniques are suitable when the research objective is to un-
cover the meaning of some phenomenon that involves respondents’ experiences
(Hoshmand 1989). Chosen to clarify consumer understanding of bond with brands,

[email protected]
52 4  Research Methodology

the method used here (grounded theory) involves: (1) development of codes, cate-
gories, and themes through using an inductive process of data reduction, rather than
applying predetermined classification of the data (Glaser 1979) (2) development
of working hypothesis and assertions, and (3) analyzing the consumer’s experi-
ences with the brand, particularly, relationship establishment, augmentation, main-
tenance, and outcome.
To conduct grounded theory phase of this study, the multistage process was fol-
lowed from the work of Strauss and Corbin (1990). The detailed procedure fol-
lowed for the grounded theory approach is shown in Fig. 4.2.

Data Collection Procedure

The study participants were recruited from five different shopping malls, which are
located in a metropolitan city (Hyderabad, India) by the researcher themselves. Of
the 25 approached research participants, 20 become actual research participants,
who informed their willingness to participate in this study. In total, the study in-
volved 26 interviews across 20 consumers/respondents. Five of them declined to
participate in this study owing to personal reasons. All the selected participants
were the consumers of major brands, with an age ranging from 22 to 45, who had
been buying this brand since the last 1 year. Among the 20 participants, 11 of them
were males and the rest of them were females. The selected participants belong
to different regions of the country, which mainly aimed to avoid culture bias in
consumer‘s brand purchase and their relationships. The participant’s educational
level ranged from completion of the graduation equivalent degree to having a Ph.D.
The selected respondent’s purchase frequency with the brand varied from regular
purchaser (more than four times in a month) to once in a month. All the consumers
who were involved in this study were having an experience with the brand ranging
from 1  to more than 10 years. When the prospective research participants called
up and informed about their willingness to participate in this study, the researcher
explained the purpose and scope of the study and also made an appointment for the
initial interview. In addition, the participants were contacted before the interview
and asked to select their interview place and time. At the beginning of the interview,
the participants were informed that their participation was completely voluntary.
This was mainly carried out to avoid discomfort from the side of the respondents.
During the interview, the interviewer assured that none of these participants faced
any kind of distress or discomfort, before, during, or after the process. Respondent
profiles are given in Table 4.1.

Sampling Procedure: Theoretical Sampling

As the primary objective of this study is to direct all data gathering efforts toward
gathering information about the attitudes and behavioral dimensions of consumer–

[email protected]
Part I: Exploration and Integration of Attitudinal and Behavioral Dimensions … 53

Input Results
Stages
Understand the actual experience of consumers
with brands and build a theorecal model of
consumer-brand relaonships Research Gap/Objecves

Grounded Theory: Problem under study

involves to provide the basis for an alternave Selecon of Qualitave Method
view of well-established fields (consumer-brand
relaonships)(Bryman & Bell, 2011)

Semi-structured in-depth interviews Selecon of Data Collecon

Method

Theorecal Sampling
Selecon of Sampling

Data Collecon
Generaon of 68 concepts and
Open coding seven major categories of
consumer-brand relaonships
Idenficaon of Concepts

Asking Quesons/Constant
Comparison

Saturate Categories

• Relang sub-categories to a category

Explore Relaonship between • Verificaon of the hypothesis
Categories and Sub-categories • Search for properes of categories
and sub categories and dimensional
Axial coding locaon
Sampling (Theorecal) • Exploraon of variaon in
phenomenon

Data Collecon

Development of Core Development of theorecal model

Selecve coding Categories and substanve theory

Model Development and

Tesng of Hypothesis

Fig. 4.2   Grounded theory procedure

brand relationship that will best support development of the theoretical framework,
therefore, the study followed a theoretical sampling procedure. In this research, the
researcher during the qualitative data collection enters with the supposition that it
will be an open-ended and flexible process that will likely be modified over the
course of the study as the study progresses, and works to clarify, develop, and re-
fine the underlying conceptual categories and conceptual scheme. In this type of

[email protected]
54 4  Research Methodology

Table 4.1   Profile of respondents

Name Age Gender Experience with Brand Study stages
brand (years)
Rajeesh 28 Male 1 Samsung 1
Divya 25 Female 1.2 Tommy 1 and 2
Mittal Parik 32 Male 2 Tupperware 3
Swati Sharma 23 Female 1.2 BagIt 2
Sourabh 28 Male 7 Goldflake 1 and 2
Bhattercherjee
Kartikeya Vats 23 Male 10 Nike 3
Shubhangi Bose 31 Male 4 Revlon 1 and 2
Gurveen Kaur 24 Female 1.8 Allen Solly 1
Shipra 32 Male 9 Bausch and 3
Lomb
Charu Atiri 26 Female 5 Subway 1
Jayraj 36 Male 1.1 US Polo 1 and 2
Deep 33 Male 3 Budweiser 3
Naveen 31 Male 3.2 Arrow 1
Sidharth Negi 39 Male 6 Casio 3
Noel D’Souza 31 Male 1.1 Apple 1
Akshay Babbar 45 Male 2.5 Kennth Cole 1 and 3
Eureka Singh 25 Female 1.2 Zara 1
Shoaib Ahmed Khan 33 Male 1.5 HP 1
Kiran 41 Male 1.8 Puma 1
Meghna 29 Female 2.5 Esprit 1 and 2
Study stages show the stages at which the respondents were interviewed

sampling, the need for data collection is decided by the emerging theory, whereby
the researcher jointly collects information and code, analyzes the information, and
then progressively determines which sample and information to collect next in or-
der to develop a theory as it emerges and the process stops at a stage where it is
clear that additional interviews would yield theoretical saturation. In this research,
the data collection began by interviewing a respondent from a shopping mall who
had made the relationship with a mobile brand during the last 1.1 years. This ini-
tial interview helped the researcher to understand the starting point of relationship
building. The researcher then interviewed another respondent to understand his at-
titudinal characteristics during the relationship establishment. In this fashion, the
researcher gradually interviewed 20 different individuals from five different shop-
ping centers, some of them repeatedly, to understand the real process of brand re-
lationships. The sampling process stopped when the researcher was convinced by
the fact that there was no additional information from the next respondent (called
as theoretical saturation). This sampling process helped the researcher to explore
and integrate the attitudinal and behavioral dimensions of consumer–brand relation-
ships and to establish the theoretical framework.

[email protected]
Part I: Exploration and Integration of Attitudinal and Behavioral Dimensions … 55

Role of Researcher in Grounded Theory Study

Different from other qualitative research approaches, the role of researcher in

grounded theory studies are different. The grounded theory studies require him or
her (researcher) to be deeply engaged in the process and extract meaning from the
research (Creswell 1998). In this study, in all phases of the research process, the
researcher was actively involved, such as in-depth interview questionnaire protocol
preparation and its modification, interviewing, and analysis of interview informa-
tion. The researcher also played an active role in all the other related activities, such
as confirmation of interviewee participation, audio taping, transcribing, and prepa-
ration of the field notes and the report.
The initial questionnaire protocol developed by the researcher was a mere start-
ing point of generating information. Through engaging the participant during the
interview process, the researcher developed more questions and modified the initial
version. This process of gradual modification helped the researcher to understand
diversified approaches to consumer–brand relationships. As a result, this study was
designed in such a way that the participants work as coresearchers to explore the
central research questions. This made the research process as a circular process that
is interactive and conversational. It is also essential for the grounded theorists to
work as an active by a neutral listener to the given information during the interview
process. Graham (2006) believed that it is essential for the researcher to play the
role of an “An active by neutral listener, who listens deeply and carefully to the per-
spectives offered by the participants… and look for themes as they emerge” (p. 74).
The researcher in this study played the role of an active by neutral listener through
writing down the field notes, participant’s emotional and nonemotional changes
during their interview, and probed during it only if required desperately. This helped
the researcher to be free from researcher bias and get free and true interview par-
ticipation.

Data Collection Procedures in the Grounded Theory Study

In total, the study conducted 26 open-ended semistructured in-depth interviews us-

ing 20 research participants. The durations of these interviews were ranging from
60 to 90 min. These semistructured in-depth interviews aimed at the exploration and
understanding about the attitudinal and behavioral dimensions of consumer–brand
relationships, as well as the integration of these dimensions and thereby form a
theoretical model of consumer–brand relationships. The tentative initial in-depth
interview protocol was composed of several sections. These are questions based
on relationship establishment, augmentation, and maintenance. Specifically, the
questionnaire protocol composed of the questions related to the starting point of
relationship building, evaluative aspect before and after relationship identification,
affective aspect, intentional aspect, and outcome of consumer–brand relationships.
In addition, the researcher collected the information about the type of respondent’s

[email protected]
56 4  Research Methodology

relationship with brands, the reason behind this relationship, and the specialty of the
relationship partner (brand).
The in-depth interviews start with some informal questions (warm-up ques-
tions). As the study followed theoretical sampling, data collection and analysis were
carried out simultaneously. This simultaneous data collection and analysis helped
the researcher to generate the questions instantaneously and the modification of the
protocol. This process of protocol modification helped the researcher to get more
insights about the problem. The analysis process involves utilizing particular cod-
ing procedures, such as open, axial, and selective coding, it normally begins with
open coding.
During data collection, the respondents were asked to talk about their experi-
ence with the brand. These questions were intended to uncover attitude formation,
attempting to explore how and what was the starting point of relationship establish-
ment. The respondents were also probed about the kind of evaluation they had about
the brand during their starting point of relationship formation. Participants were
also probed to talk about their affective and emotional feeling with the particular
brand and also the respective thoughts and feelings about the specified brand. Dur-
ing the interview, once the interviewer found support for some of the dimensions of
cognitive, affective, and behavioral components, then the questions were directed
toward these dimensions to understand more about these dimensions. The questions
were also asked aiming to identify their intentional aspect of the relationship. Dur-
ing the interview, attempts were also made to provide the respondents with a dis-
tinct voice, which mainly enable him/her to explain feelings and affections in detail
about the brand. All the interviews were conducted in a naturalistic setting and this
approach helped the researcher to understand the process of relationship building
in a context-specific (brand) setting. To illustrate the views in good clarity, the re-
spondents were motivated to draw on their personal experiences and those of their
friends. In all the interviews, the information was recorded and later transcribed
for further analysis. The data collection processes for in-depth interviews lasted
around 5 months. The detailed questionnaire protocol for semistructured in-depth
interviews are provided in Appendix 1.

Data Coding and Analysis in Grounded Theory

After the completion of each interview, the collected information was transcribed
and analyzed to facilitate theoretical sampling, which is in line with grounded the-
ory procedure proposed by Strauss and Corbin (1990). Two independent coders
analyzed the transcripts on a sentence-by-sentence basis and coded the transcripts
using three different types of coding procedure proposed by Strauss and Corbin
(1990), open, axial, and selective coding.
During the first phase of coding process, the study applied an open coding tech-
nique, which simultaneously happened to data collection. In this stage, these two

[email protected]
Section Summary 57

coders independently broke down all the information in the transcripts into differ-
ent categories of related incidents, ideas, events, and acts and then assigned a label/
name/code into it. This process associated with early stage of concept development.
In addition to this initial coding process, the study also incorporated the memos,
which help to reorientate the researcher at a later date. After the completion of
this open coding, the coders met to compare the codes. To analyze the intercoder
agreement, the study used qualitative data analysis software named QDA Miner 4.1.
Using this software program, the study analyzed the intercoder reliability or inter-
coder agreement of coding process. The areas in which discrepancies occurred were
modified or reassigned after reading the theoretical memos. This helped the coding
process not only to assure consistency, but also confirmed the coding as unbiased
and emerged from logical thought process. In the second stage of coding process,
the study conducted an axial coding procedure. At this stage, a detailed content
analysis was carried out around the categories (one at a time) of open coding. The
sole objective of axial coding is to get the resembling information that was fractured
during the first phase of coding. During the axial coding stage, the contents that
related to each other were combined in order to form dense, more abstract, and well-
developed categories. In the third stage of coding, the study applied a selective cod-
ing procedure. In this stage, the categories were refined, modified, and integrated to
from new or core-level categories. This stage was carried out to generate the core
categories of interest and theoretical model of consumer–brand relationships, which
is very essential for further research.

Reliability and Validity

The study followed the criteria proposed by Flint et al. (2002) for the assessment
of trustworthiness of qualitative phase. Table 4.2 gives a detailed picture about the
assessment of reliability and validity confirmation.

Section Summary

This section of the chapter presented a detailed overview of the research methodol-
ogy that was used to refine, verify, and develop the conceptual model of consum-
er–brand relationships. This included the choice of using the qualitative research
paradigm as the appropriate research approach for conceptualization of theoretical
constructs. Moreover, this chapter emphasized the use of grounded theory approach
as the most suitable and appropriate qualitative approach for the concept explora-
tion, integration, and the theoretical model building. It also provided context to the
choice and process of grounded theory approach. Each of the sections presented
in this chapter justifies the details of the participants, procedure, sampling, data

[email protected]
58 4  Research Methodology

Table 4.2   Reliability and validity confirmation of qualitative research

Reliability and validity criteria dimensions Mode of reliability and validity confirmation
Credibility: The rate at which the results Five months for conducting in-depth inter-
generated seems to be a better representation views. Detailed summary of initial interpre-
of data tation was given to participants for feedback
Transferability: Extent to which findings Use of theoretical sampling
would be applied in other contexts
Dependability: The extent to which findings Found stability in participants opinion about
are stable and consistent the phenomenon regardless of changes
occurred
Confirmability: The extent to which the inter- Two persons were actively involved as auditors
pretations generated from the phenomenon
are from participants and free from
researcher biases
Fit: Extent to which finding matches with the Satisfied through credibility, dependability,
study under investigation confirmability, and concepts were more
deeply described
Understanding: The rate at which the respon- Results generated were submitted to the par-
dents believe the results generated are their ticipants and confirmed that it would reflect
real-world representations their opinions
Generality: Extent to which findings capture Interviews were lengthy to capture multiple
multiple aspect of a phenomenon aspects of the phenomenon
Integrity: Extent to which interpretations are All the interviews were conducted in profes-
influenced by participants’ unwillingness sional and nonthreatening way
and misinformation

collection, data coding and analysis, and confirmation of reliability and validity.
The next section (Sect. 2) presents a detailed overview of the quantitative methodol-
ogy, which is mainly used for empirical model testing and model validation.

Part II: Model Validation and Testing through

Quantitative Study

This section is a continuation of research methodology discussed in the previous

section (Part I), wherein the study discussed about the qualitative methodology for
model conceptualization using grounded theory approach. This section (Part  II)
continues with rigor and sequence through following a quantitative approach, which
aimed to validate and test the proposed conceptual model statistics. As the study fol-
lows the mix of qualitative and quantitative methodology paradigm and these two
approaches are applied in sequence (qualitative first and quantitative later) in which
quantitative research design dominates over the qualitative approach, and then the
design used is named as fully mixed sequential dominant status research design.

[email protected]
Part II: Model Validation and Testing through Quantitative Study  59

Constructs

During the study, the qualitative stage identified seven different attitudinal and
behavioral dimensions of consumer–brand relationships. After the exploration of
these dimensions, the study developed propositions through linking the dimensions.
For operationlizing these dimensions, the study adopted the measures from past
literature. In the brand attitude strength paradigm, the proposed study considers the
works of Abelson (1995), Fazio (1995), Gross et al. (1995), and Krosnsick and Petty
(1995) and models as an exogenous variable to four different constructs like brand
satisfaction, trust, attachment, and commitment. In the brand satisfaction paradigm,
the study considered the works of Sung and Sejung (2010) and models it as an en-
dogenous variable to brand attitude strength and exogenous variable to brand trust
and attachment. In the brand attachment paradigm, the proposed study considers
the work of Park et al. (2010), models as mediating variable between brand attitude
strength and brand commitment; brand satisfaction and brand loyalty; and brand
attitude strength and brand loyalty. In the proposition development phase, the pro-
posed study takes the construct brand trust from the works of Moorman et al. (1993)
and Morgan and Hunt (1994), and models it as a mediating variable between brand
attitude strength and brand attachment; brand satisfaction and attachment; brand
attitude strength and brand equity; and brand attitude strength and brand commit-
ment. The brand commitment paradigm, which is mainly from Bansal et al. (2004)
and Morgan and Hunt (1994), models it as an endogenous variable to brand trust
and brand attachment. Brand equity paradigm, which is mainly from Yoo and Don-
thu (2001), models the proposition as an exogenous variable to brand loyalty and
endogenous variable to brand trust and brand commitment. Finally, brand loyalty,
which is the higher-order endogenous variable, is from Tsai (2011) and considers as
the major outcome of brand equity.

Instrument Development

The survey questions for the proposed study were developed based on the extant
literature and extensive personal communications with leading researchers in the
field of brand management. The study used the instrument, which includes items to
measure all the constructs used in the theoretical model developed, during the quali-
tative phase. All the items used in this study were measured in 7-point Likert-type
scales, as in line with previous literature, anchored by strongly agree and strongly
disagree and other bipolar adjectives.
The items for brand attitude strength adapted from Kim et al. (2008), range from
1 = very positive to 7 = very negative; 1 = not very certain to 7 = very certain; 1 = not
very important to very important; 1 = not very knowledgeable to 7 = very knowl-
edgeable. The brand satisfaction scale taken from Anderson et al. (1994), ranges
from 1 = totally disagree to 7 = totally agree. Building on brand attachment litera-
ture, brand attachment measurement has been taken from Park et al. (2010) with an-

[email protected]
60 4  Research Methodology

chors of 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree. Four items scale for brand trust
is adapted from Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001), rating of 1 = totally disagree to
7 = totally agree. The brand commitment has been taken from Tsai (2011), anchored
on a scale of 1 = totally disagree and 7 = totally agree. Four items on the brand equity
scale are taken from Yoo and Donthu (2001), anchored from 1 = totally disagree and
7 = totally agree. Brand loyalty measurement is taken from Bloemer and Kaspers
(1995), anchored from 1 = totally disagree to 7 = totally agree. See Appendix 2 for
detailed understanding of measurement items.

Product Category

To select the appropriate product category, the proposed study carried out a pretest
using 30 actual consumers from a shopping mall. Participants were instructed that
there would be two major tasks that needed to be completed. First, they were in-
structed to list the top five product categories they preferred and were familiar with,
which aimed to understand consumers’ familiarity with the product category. This
was done in order to select the specific product category to be employed during
actual data collection, which was having high familiarity among respondents. Once
the respondent selected five major product categories according to their preference,
in the second stage, the selected product categories were then given a score and as-
signed a ranking (from highest to the lowest) based on their familiarity. According
to the pretest results, the most familiar product categories were apparels, laptops,
and automobiles. The quantitative phase of this study designed the final version of
the questionnaire based on these three product categories as the study stimuli.

Data Collection

The ultimate goal of this phase of research is to understand how attitudinal and
behavioral dimensions of consumer–brand relationships work as an integrative
mechanism to build consumer–brand relationships in Indian context. Therefore, the
target population of this phase of the study consists of all consumers/customers who
visit the shopping malls in one of the metropolitan cities (Hyderabad, India) during
the 3-month survey period. The city has been well recognized for its financial, com-
mercial, and industrial activities. The city has a population of 7,749,334 making it
the fourth most populous city in India3.
The empirical testing and validation of this study was conducted based on the
data collected from five large shopping centers located in Hyderabad City through
mall-intercept interviews. These shopping centers were chosen as survey sites be-
cause these are the places considered to be five best shopping centers in Hyderabad.4

3 
Government of India 2011 census.
4 
http://www.hyderabad-ap.blogspot.in/2009/07/top-5-best-malls-of-hyderabad_15.html

[email protected]
Part II: Model Validation and Testing through Quantitative Study  61

The study applied a random selection procedure whereby interviewers walked from
an exit door to exit door consecutively, aimed to approach the next shopper as and
when he or she exited the mall (Sudman 1980). The survey was conducted from
9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. over a 3-week period, including two weekends (covering
both the busy days and the slower ones). In total, the study collected responses from
501 respondents. These respondents answered the questions once they chose their
most favorite brand from any of the three selected product categories. The condition
was that they were the regular users of that particular brand for at least last 1 year.
During the data collection, it was found that only 475 responses were useful and
others were omitted from the study owing to the incompleteness of information.

Data Analysis

The data analysis of the descriptive phase of the study is divided into two stages.
First, the study carried out a pretesting of the measures followed by model calibra-
tion analysis using 250 randomly selected respondents. In the second stage, a model
validation analysis was carried out using remaining 225 samples. These two stages
of the study were conducted in sequential order. Such a framework helps to explore
and verify the model feasibility and its generalizability.
After the finalization of the measures for measuring the proposed constructs,
the study conducted an initial exploration, which was aimed at finalizing the ques-
tionnaire. The study conducted this questionnaire finalization procedure through a
small-scale pretest. In this preliminary pretest, the study invited 30 management
students who specialized in the field of marketing and asked to review and pretest
the instrument. The respondents were presented with the questionnaire and asked
to analyze the questionnaire, which included the measures of all the seven dimen-
sions, and later the one-to-one interview with the respondents helped to understand
the problems associated with the form, content, layout and wording of the question-
naire. After the pretest, based on the respondents’ feedback regarding the items that
seemed repetitive and words they did not understand, the measures were modified
or edited for clarity, wording, and layout. The revised items were incorporated into
the final instrument, which would include the measures designed to capture brand
attitude strength, brand satisfaction, brand attachment, brand commitment, brand
trust, brand equity, and brand loyalty.
Following the pretest, the study conducted the model testing and validation. In
this stage, the total sample is divided into two parts; calibration sample and valida-
tion sample. The model calibration was aimed to establish the reliability and valid-
ity of the scale and to confirm the causal path pattern of the proposed model. The
validation sample was used to test the validity of the derived model. During the
model calibration, the study also conducted cross-validation through conceptualiz-
ing different alternative models based on theory. This process helped the researcher
to undertake a cross-validation analysis. Such an analysis is necessary if the re-
searcher wants to select the best model among a set of alternative models. Since

[email protected]
62 4  Research Methodology

the model that fits best in a given sample is not necessarily the model with the best
cross-validity, especially when the sample size is not large (McCallum et al. 1994).
In the model validation phase, the study examined the extent to which the pro-
posed model replicates in samples other than the one on which it was derived using
another set of samples (225 samples) called validation sample. The data collection
procedure was same as calibration phase.

Reliability and Validity

The reliability of the measurement scale was examined using Cronbach’s (1951)
coefficient alpha using IBM SPSS 20.0. The study first confirmed the reliability
of the scale as per the suggestion given by Nunnally (1967). Validity checks of
the measured constructs were carried out through the confirmation of discriminant
and convergent validity using LISREL 8.72. The discriminant validity of the mea-
sured constructs was performed using an approach suggested by Joreskog (1971).
For each pair of constructs, the discriminant validity is achieved in two stages. In
the first stage, the correlation between the two constructs is constrained (fixed as
one). In the second stage, these two constructs are allowed to correlate freely (un-
constrained). After the completion of these two stages, the X2 difference of these
two models (constrained and unconstrained) is obtained. The significant difference
between the constrained and unconstrained model proved that the constructs are not
perfectly correlated and that discriminant validity is achieved. Convergent validity of
the constructs was confirmed through the suggestion given by Hair et al. (2010). For
assessing convergent validity, the proposed study checked the values of standardized
factor loadings, average variance extracted (AVE), and construct reliability (CR).

SEM: Steps in LISREL Modeling

The study followed the steps proposed by Diamantopoulos and Siguaw (2000) for
the assessment of LISREL Modeling. The steps are given in Fig. 4.3.

Model Conceptualization

Stage 1 focuses on model conceptualization, which is concerned with the develop-

ment of theory-based hypotheses to serve as the guide for linking the latent vari-
ables to each other and to their corresponding indicators. Hair et al. (1998) stated
that the strength and conviction with which the researcher can assume the relation-
ship, particularly the causation between two constructs depends, does not lie in the
analytical methods chosen but with the theoretical justification to support the analy-
sis. This stage of model conceptualization reflects the researchers’ educated percep-
tion of the way in which the latent variables are related together based upon the
theory and the literature. In this study, Chap. 3 presents in detail about the genera-

[email protected]
Part II: Model Validation and Testing through Quantitative Study  63

Fig. 4.3   Sequential steps in

LISREL modeling MODEL CONCEPUTALIZATION

PATH DIAGRAM CONSTRUCTION

MODEL SPECIFICATION

MODEL IDENTIFICATION

PARAMETER ESTIMATION

ASSESSMENT OF MODEL FIT

MODEL MODIFICATION

MODEL CROSS-VALIDATION

tion of constructs and their interrelationships and testing through a qualitative study.
In Chap. 3, the study further went beyond the exploration of the dimensions and
looked at the existing literature in those areas wherein these constructs were widely
used, identified the interrelationships, and formulated the hypotheses accordingly.

Path Diagram Construction

Step 2 allows the researcher to visually represent the substantive (theoretical) hy-
potheses and measurement scheme. In this stage, all the predictions and associative
relationships among latent variables and observed variables are presented with ar-
rows. In SEM, all the constructs belong to two general categories: exogenous and
endogenous. Exogenous constructs are called KSI’s (denoted by the Greek letter
ξ), are independent variables, and not caused or predicted by any other variables in
the model. Endogenous latent variables are known as ETA’s (denoted by the Greek
letter η), are dependent variables, are predicted by other constructs in the theoretical
model. In this study, Fig. 4.4 presented the Full Path Diagram Portrayal with LIS-
REL Notations, in which one variable (brand attitude strength) as exogenous and
others as endogenous ones.

[email protected]
 64

Y4 Y5 Y6 Y7

X1 Y16

X2 Y17

ξ1 η2 η5
X3 Y18

X4 Y19

Y12

Y13

η4 Y14

Y15
Y20
Y1
Y21

[email protected]
Y2 η1 η6
η3
Y22
Y3
Y23

Y8 Y9 Y10 Y11

Fig. 4.4   Full path diagram portrayal with LISREL notations

4  Research Methodology
Part II: Model Validation and Testing through Quantitative Study  65

The generally used representations in LISREL Modeling are listed below:

ξ: Exogenous latent variable (attitude strength) and X1…..X4: Observed mea-
sure associated with attitude strength.
λx1,1…..λx4,1: Represents a parameter associated with the relationship between
an exogenous latent variable (ξ) and a corresponding observed variable (X), often
referred to as a factor loading.
δ1,1…. δ4,4: Represents a parameter associated with the residual variance of an
observed measure (X) or the covariance of the residual variances of two observed
measures on the exogenous side.
η1: Endogenous latent variable (brand satisfaction)
η2: Endogenous latent variable (brand trust)
η3: Endogenous latent variable (brand attachment)
η4: Endogenous latent variable (brand commitment)
η5: Endogenous latent variable (brand equity)
η6: Endogenous latent variable (brand loyalty)
Y1…..Y23: Observed measure associated with endogenous latent variables
λy1,1…….. λy23,6: Represents a parameter associated with the relationship
between an endogenous latent variable ( η) and a corresponding observed variable
(Y)—often referred to as a factor loading.
ε1,1…….. ε23,23: Represents a parameter associated with the residual variance
of an observed measure (Y) or the covariance of the residual variances of two ob-
served measures on the endogenous side.
γ: Represents a parameter associated with the relationship between an exogenous
variable (ξ) and an endogenous variables ( η). β: Represents a parameter associated
with the relationship between two endogenous variables ( η).

Model Specification

In this stage, the relationship depicted in the path diagrams is now translated into
a system of linear equations that link the constructs and define the measurement
model. This step of specification of model is necessary for identification and esti-
mation purposes that confirm the instructions are entered into the input file of the
LISREL program. At a basic level, the formation representation of the model can
be represented in two ways: structural equations and measurement equations. In the
structural equation, each endogenous variable ( η) could be predicted by exogenous
variable(s) ( ξ), or by other endogenous variable(s). For each hypothesized effect,
a structural coefficient ( γ or β) was estimated. Also, an error term ( ζ) was included
for each equation, representing the sum of the effects owing to specification error
and random measurement error. Table 4.3 shows the details of structural equations.
Measurement model represents the operationalization of latent constructs
through the observed or manifest variables. It is considered that the foundation of
measurement modeling is quite analogous to factor analysis. In this modeling, the
factors are named as latent variables and the individual items as observed variables
or indicators. In this study, the exogenous construct, attitude strength was measured
using four observed variables. The five other endogenous constructs altogether

[email protected]
66 4  Research Methodology

Table 4.3   Structural model equations for path diagram

Endogenous Exogenous Endogenous Error
Attitude strength ξ η1 η2 η3 η4 η5
η1 Brand satisfaction = ζ1
η2 Brand trust = β4,2 η2 + β4,3 η3 ζ2
η3 Brand attachment = ζ3
η4 Brand committment = β5,2 η2 + β5,4 η4 ζ4
η1 Brand equity = ζ5
η1 Brand loyalty = β6,3 η3 + β6,4 η4 + β6,5 η5 ζ6

were measured by 23 indicators or observed variables. The LISREL representation

for measurement modeling is shown in Table 4.3.

Model Identification

In the stage of model identification, the researcher examines whether the informa-
tion provided by the data is sufficient enough to estimate parameter. If the model
is not properly identified, then it is not possible to estimate the parameters. A pre-
condition for identification is that the number of knowns should be greater than the
number of unknowns (Maruyama 1998).
There are two basic rules or conditions that have been widely discussed in the
SEM literature in association with a model identification problem: rank and order
condition. The rank condition is considered to be necessary as well as a sufficient
for model identification. In this condition, the researcher should algebraically ex-
amine whether the parameter is uniquely estimated or not. Two widely accepted
heuristics are available to verify this condition. First, three indicator rule: each con-
struct in the model should have at least three or more indicators, then that model
will be an identified one. Second, the recursive model rule: recursive model with
identified constructs (three or more manifest variables) will always be identified.
It is considered that order condition is necessary but not sufficient for identifi-
cation. The order condition specifies that the model’s degrees of freedom must be
equal (just identified) or greater than zero (overidentified). A model is just identified
when a single unique solution is obtained for the parameter estimates (in such cases,
the model degree of freedom is equal to zero). A model is overidentified when more
than one estimate of each parameter can be obtained (in such cases, the model de-
gree of freedom is positive). A good SEM looks at an overidentified model. In the
consecutive chapters, the study will analyze the identification of the model.

Parameter Estimation

Once the model is properly identified, then one can go ahead with parameter esti-
mation. At this stage, one should decide about the type of input matrix used and the

[email protected]
Part II: Model Validation and Testing through Quantitative Study  67

Table 4.4   Measurement model equations for path diagram

Exogenous Indicators(X) Exogenous Construct Error
X1 = λX1,1ξ1 + δ1,1
X2 = λX2,1ξ1 + δ2,2
X3 = λX3,1ξ1 + δ3,3
X4 = λX4,1ξ1 + δ4,4
Endogenous Indicators(Y) Endogenous Construct Error
Y1 = λY1,1η1 + ε1,1
Y2 = λY2,1η1 + ε2,2
Y3 = λY3,1η1 + ε3,3
Y4 = λY4,2η2 + ε4,4
Y5 = λY5,2η2 + ε5,5
Y6 = λY6,2η2 + ε6,6
Y7 = λY7,2η2 + ε7,7
Y8 = λY8,3η3 + ε8,8
Y9 = λY9,3η3 + ε9,9
Y10 = λY10,3η3 + ε10,10
Y11 = λY11,3η3 + ε11,11
Y12 = λY12,4η4 + ε12,12
Y13 = λY13,4η4 + ε13,13
Y14 = λY14,4η4 + ε14,14
Y15 = λY15,4η4 + ε15,15
Y16 = λY16,5η5 + ε16,16
Y17 = λY17,5η5 + ε17,17
Y18 = λY18,5η5 + ε18,18
Y19 = λY19,5η5 + ε19,19
Y20 = λY20,6η6 + ε20,20
Y21 = λY21,6η6 + ε21,21
Y22 = λY22,6η6 + ε22,22
Y23 = λY23,6η6 + ε23,23

selection of the estimation procedure. The covariance matrix is considered to be

appropriate compared with correlation matrix when the problem in hand is model
testing. As the study objective is more of model testing, it has been decided to use
a covariance matrix as the input matrix. There are several options available in LIS-
REL for the estimation procedure, among them Maximum Likelihood Estimation
(MLE) is the most generally accepted procedures. This study used MLE to estimate
the parameter estimates. The details of which are presented in the next chapter.

Assessment of Model Fit

In this stage of model fit assessment, researchers examine different fit indices that
generates while running LISREL, which confirms the extent to which the implied
covariance matrix is equivalent to the observed covariance matrix. These fit indi-
ces allow the researcher to confirm the quality and soundness of the measurement
and structural parts of the model in terms of supporting the operationlization and

[email protected]
68 4  Research Methodology

theory-based hypotheses. In Chap. 5, the study will present the details of this model
fit indices.

Model Modification

In the light of the results obtained in the previous stage, the study should modify
or make alternations to the base based upon theory. In this stage, the basic thing to
remember is that these model modifications are made to the model based upon the
theory and guard against the temptation of making data-driven modifications just
to get a model that fits the data better. In Chap. 5, the study analyzed the alternative
models, which were driven by theory and compared these alternative models with
the hypothesized model.

Model Cross-Validation

Model cross-validation is the final stage of LISREL modeling. This stage involves
fitting the model to a fresh data set (called the validation sample). This sample can
also be obtained through using a split-sampling approach, in which the total sample
is divided into two parts, first part can be used for model development and its modi-
fication (calibration sample) and the second part can be used for validation purpose
or model testing (validation sample). Under no circumstances, the same sample data
set is used for both model development and testing. Chapter 5 presented in detail
these model calibration and model validation process.

Section Summary

The section of this chapter describes the quantitative methodology, which elabo-
rates the construct and instrument used to measure the construct, data collection,
sampling, and plan for data analysis, which includes the use of SEM as the ap-
propriate technique. Next chapter, Chap.  5, presents the analysis and results, fo-
cusing specifically on the identification of consumer–brand relationship concepts,
its refinement, verification, the development of a theoretical model, and finally its
empirical testing and validation.

[email protected]
Chapter 5
Analysis and Results

This study used a sequential dominant status mixed method design to explore, build,
and test an exclusive model of consumer–brand relationships. As part assessing the
study objectives, this chapter explains the data analysis and its results. The analy-
sis and results of the study are divided into two major sections. The first section
examines the results of the grounded theory approach used in this study, wherein
presented a conceptual model of consumer–brand relationships. The second section
presents the results of structural equation modeling (SEM) in which the conceptual
model has been tested and validated statistically. This research is guided by the fol-
lowing three research questions, therefore the analyses have been carried out viz-a-
viz with these research questions:
1 Is the exploration and integration of attitudinal and behavioral components for the
conceptualization of the consumer–brand relationships being really meaningful?
2 What are the underlying attitudinal and behavioral dimensions of consumer–
brand relationships? Is behavioral relationship really influenced by attitudinal
relationship?
3 By operationlizing consumer–brand relationships through integrating the attitu-
dinal and behavioral aspects, does the empirical testing of new consumer–brand
relationship model truly advance the understanding of consumers’ deep-rooted
bond with brands?

Section I: Conceptual Model Development:

Qualitative Exploration

In this section, the data analysis is divided into three major parts. First, the study
presents the results of open coding, wherein the researcher followed a computer-
aided data analysis using QDA Miner 4.20 software to help the process of quali-
tative data analysis, through coding, generation of categories, exploration of the
frequencies of codes, and its visual representation. Second, the study introduces the
axial coding process, in which data are put back together in new ways after open

S. Sreejesh, S. Mohapatra, Mixed Method Research Design, 69

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-02687-9_5, © Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

[email protected]
70 5  Analysis and Results

coding, by making connection between categories. During the third phase, a selec-
tive coding was applied, in which the relating of categories to the core category was
done and the theoretical model introduced. These stages are explained in detail in
the following sections.

Stage 1: Discovering Concepts and Categories

During this phase, 14 semistructured interviews were undertaken using 14 con-

sumers of the study sample. From this conceptualization, 68 unique concepts or
codes were generated. During the second part of categorization, the 68 concepts
were grouped through constant comparison of concepts, like with like, to reduce the
number of concepts. This led to the formation of seven major categories. Finally,
the researchers found that the categories were saturated since no new codes were
emerging. The result of this phase led to the generation of four core categories,
seven categories, and 68 subcategories. The complete list of core categories, catego-
ries, and subcategories identified by the study are shown in Table 5.1.

Stage 2: Provisional Hypotheses Formulation

An axial coding procedure was undertaken at this stage. Four analytical steps were
applied simultaneously as follows: (1) relating subcategories to a category using
statements, which denote the relationships between themselves and the phenom-
enon; (2) the verification of these hypotheses against actual data; (3) identification
of properties of categories and its subcategories; and (4) linking categories at the
dimensional level. During the analysis, it was found that at dimensional level there
were four major categories. In all these four stages, there emerged seven forms of
CBR, which were interrelated to each other.
The ongoing and simultaneous data collection and analysis (stages 1 and 2) al-
lowed categories and subcategories to emerge out of data and facilitated the estab-
lishment of a number of provisional hypotheses. It has been stated that the devel-
opment of these kinds of provisional hypotheses is the main output of a grounded
theory study (Seaman and Basili 1997). Table 5.2 explains the provisional hypoth-
eses, which explains how categories and subcategories were linked during the cod-
ing process.

Stage 3: Hypotheses Testing and Theoretical Model Development

In short, the previous stage of axial coding proposed the sequential stages of
consumer–brand relationships and specified the linkages between the constructs
explored during the analysis. The network of relationships identified during axial
coding is considered to be loose and tangled (Strauss and Corbin 1994). This was

[email protected]
Section I: Conceptual Model Development: Qualitative Exploration  71

Table 5.1   List of codes and categories

Core category Category Subcategory
Relationship Attitude Brand knowledgeability, confidence about the performance
establishment strength in the future, comfortable and easily available, impor-
tance of the brand, positive quality evaluation, started
accidently and was appealing
Brand The brand offers more than the expectation, happiness, pur-
satisfaction chase satisfaction, immense satisfaction, satisfaction with
quality and price, satisfaction with the usage of the brand
Relationship Brand Associating with brand, best friend, best companion, brand
augmentation attachment is a kind of identity, brand is a part of the family, cor-
relate with the brand and person, emotional attachment,
feel close to the brand, feeling possessiveness, love
toward the brand, make sense to buy it again, matching
personality, memories about the brand, passionate about
the brand, personal connection with brand, positive feel-
ings, serious and intimate, something special, some-
thing that suits, reflection of personality, remembrance,
emotional quotient, like a mate, brand shows personality,
something special, want to hug it, bonding
Brand trust Confidence about the brand, high faith, nothing gone bad
till date, reliable and global, brand credibility, secure,
trustworthiness, consistency in performance, keeping the
promises
Relationship Brand Brand as a future option, intention to purchase different
maintenance commitment varieties of the brand, intention to buy, decides to stick
with the brand, like to stick to the brand
Relationship Brand loyalty Brand recommendation, long-lasting relationship, ever-
outcome lasting, loyal and consistent, purchase of every product
variety of the brand, repeated buying
Brand equity A differential effect, which others can’t provide, always
prefer brand irrespective of competitor brand is the first
preferred one, brand matters most, gives a punch, which
other brands don’t, knowledge of everything about the
brand, substitutes can’t compensate the brand, brand is a
synonym for the product, brand is more important

tackled and sorted out during the selective coding stage. This stage of selective
coding phase involved six semistructured in-depth interviews using six consum-
ers. During this stage, the interview questions were primarily developed from the
previous stage (stage 2) and its provisional hypotheses. In this stage, the patterns
were identified and the data were grouped to achieve theoretical specificity. This
process helped the researchers to understand the conditions leading to the formation
of CBR. This phase also helped to test the provisional hypotheses and develop a
preliminary model of consumer–brand relationships. The core category, categories,
subcategories, and their various relationships were then combined to form a theo-
retical framework shown in Fig. 5.1.
In the selective coding phase, the concepts identified in stages 1 and 2 were com-
bined to create the phenomenon of consumer–brand relationships as a set of four

[email protected]
72 5  Analysis and Results

Table 5.2   Provisional

Number Hypotheses
hypotheses
H1 A consumer–brand relationship starts with brand
attitude strength and brand satisfaction, in which
consumers use cognitive resources for informa-
tion processing
H2 A consumer–brand relationship will be augmented
through brand trust and brand attachment, in
which consumers would use affective resources
for information processing
H3 A consumer–brand relationship will be maintained
through brand commitment, in which consumers
would use conative resources for information
processing
H4 A consumer–brand relationship outcome will be
generated through brand equity and brand loyalty,
in which consumers would perform the action or
behavioral part of relationships

stages. These were: (1) the relationship establishment stage in the cognitive context;
(2) the relationship augmentation stage in the affective context; (3) the relationship
maintenance stage in the conative context; and (4) the relationship outcomes stage
in the action context.
The data analysis showed that during the relationship establishment stage, cogni-
tive aspect of CBR would play a major role. Consumer’s brand relationships dur-
ing this stage were derived from current or previous knowledge, interaction with
the brand, and information about the brand from other sources. The majority of
the respondents stated that their relationship during this stage (establishment stage)
would develop though their evaluation and comparison between their preferred
brands with its alternatives based on their earlier interaction or reference. It was
also evident from the analysis that CBR during the cognitive context mainly con-
sisted of: (a) attitude strength, (composed of the valence and strength of the attitude
toward the brand) and (b) satisfaction from the brand, in which consumer assesses
the performance of the brand in terms of their expectations. It was also evident dur-
ing the analysis that the consumer relationship during this context was weak and
shallow.
The second core dimension of consumer–brand relationshipswas the relationship
augmentation stage. This was a deeper sense of CBR in the affective context. At this
phase, CBR is related to trustworthiness, self-connection and prominence about the
brand. In this regard, analysis showed that the second phase of relationship augmen-
tation involved brand trustand brand attachment.
Nonetheless, consumer–brand relationshipswere not sufficiently stable in the af-
fective stage. It could be influenced by various deteriorations, mainly caused by the
attractiveness of competitive offerings.
Thus, the CBR maintenance would happen in conative context, in which con-
sumers showed their intention or commitment to achieve a goal related to the brand
in a particular manner. It was also found that consumers build a deeper level of
relationships with brands compared to the former stages.

[email protected]
 ZĞůĂƟŽŶƐŚŝƉƐƚĂďůŝƐŚŵĞŶƚ^ƚĂŐĞ ZĞůĂƟŽŶƐŚŝƉƵŐŵĞŶƚĂƟŽŶ^ƚĂŐĞ ZĞůĂƟŽŶƐŚŝƉDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞ^ƚĂŐĞ ZĞůĂƟŽŶƐŚŝƉKƵƚĐŽŵĞ^ƚĂŐĞ

dƌƵƐƚĞĚZĞůĂƟŽŶƐŚŝƉƐ ƌĂŶĚƋƵŝƚLJ

ZĞůŝĂďůĞĂŶĚŐůŽďĂů 'ŝǀĞƐĂĚŝīĞƌĞŶƟĂůƉƵŶĐŚ
dƌƵƐƚǁŽƌƚŚŝŶĞƐƐ ƌĂŶĚŝƐŵŽƌĞŝŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚ
ƫƚƵĚŝŶĂůZĞůĂƟŽŶƐŚŝƉƐ
ŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶĐLJĂŶĐƌĞĚŝďŝůŝƚLJ ƚŚĂŶƉƌŝĐĞ
^ƚƌŽŶŐĞǀĂůƵĂƟŽŶ EŽƚŚŝŶŐŐŽŶĞďĂĚ ƌĂŶĚŝƐƚŚĞĮƌƐƚ
ĞƌƚĂŝŶƚLJ ^ĞĐƵƌĞ͕,ŝŐŚĨĂŝƚŚ ƉƌĞĨĞƌƌĞĚŽƉƟŽŶ
<ŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞ <ĞĞƉŝŶŐƚŚĞƉƌŽŵŝƐĞƐ ŝīĞƌĞŶƟĂůĞīĞĐƚ
/ŵƉŽƌƚĂŶĐĞ
ŽŵŵŝƩĞĚZĞůĂƟŽŶƐŚŝƉƐ




ƐĂĨƵƚƵƌĞŽƉƟŽŶ
ĞĐŝƐŝŽŶƚŽƐƟĐŬǁŝƚŚƚŚĞ
ďƌĂŶĚ

ŽŐŶŝƟǀĞ^ƚĂŐĞ
īĞĐƟǀĞ^ƚĂŐĞ
/ŶƚĞŶƟŽŶƚŽƉƵƌĐŚĂƐĞ
 ŽŶĂƟǀĞ^ƚĂŐĞ

^ĂƟƐĮĞĚZĞůĂƟŽŶƐŚŝƉƐ
ĐƟŽŶŽƌĞŚĂǀŝŽƌĂů^ƚĂŐĞ

^ĂƟƐĨĂĐƟŽŶǁŝƚŚƵƐĞ
WƵƌĐŚĂƐĞƐĂƟƐĨĂĐƟŽŶ
KīĞƌƐŵŽƌĞƚŚĂŶ ƩĂĐŚĞĚZĞůĂƟŽŶƐŚŝƉƐ ƌĂŶĚ>ŽLJĂůƚLJ

[email protected]
ĞdžƉĞĐƚĂƟŽŶ
Section I: Conceptual Model Development: Qualitative Exploration 

^ƚƌŽŶŐ͕ƐŽŵĞƚŚŝŶŐƐƉĞĐŝĂů WƵƌĐŚĂƐĞŽĨĞǀĞƌLJƉƌŽĚƵĐƚ
^ĂƟƐĨĂĐƟŽŶǁŝƚŚƋƵĂůŝƚLJ
ĂŶĚƉƌŝĐĞ ŽŶĚŝŶŐ͕ĞŵŽƟŽŶĂů ǀĂƌŝĞƚLJ
ƋƵŽƟĞŶƚ
ƌĂŶĚƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƟŽŶ
ZĞŵĞŵďƌĂŶĐĞƐ
ǀĞƌůĂƐƟŶŐĂŶĚůŽLJĂů
WĞƌƐŽŶĂůĐŽŶŶĞĐƟŽŶ
DĞŵŽƌŝĞƐ ZĞƉĞĂƚĞĚƵLJŝŶŐ

Fig. 5.1   Theoretical model of consumer–brand relationships

73
74 5  Analysis and Results

To complete the CBR sequence, the analysis went beyond the assessment of
these three contexts, namely cognitive, affective, and conative. The results support
the fact that the outcome phase of relationship happens only in action context. In
other words, the consumers first develop cognitive brand relationships with brand
attitude strength and brand satisfaction, then affective relationships, with brand
trustand brand attachment, then conative brand relationships with deeply held com-
mitment and intention to buy, and finally action part of relationships overcoming
obstacles to achieve the action with brand equity and loyalty. The following subsec-
tions will present these findings in detail.

Relationship Establishment Stage: Brand Attitude Strength and

Brand Satisfaction

Two types of relationships emerged from the data: (1) attitudinal relationship and
(2) satisfied relationshipwhen consumers elaborated on relationship establishment.
Attitudinal relationships could be further subdivided into two parts. First was a pos-
itive evaluation toward the brand. This was evident from a respondent, who opined,
Initially when I bought this brand I didn’t know about its performance because it was still
in the testing period, I came to know about the performance of the brand from my friends.
The first watch that I got of this company (brand) is still with me and I have got it repaired
just once in 10 years. So the quality aspect is very good and it has this pick up service as
any no other brand could provide. Design, Ease of carry, how well as you can relate to
your personality and other add on features it can give are the differentiating aspects of this
brand. Even a Rs. 500 watch can give you time, or satisfy your needs, but if the company
can surprise you with a brand which you can never imagine with a watch, it would act as a
major hold on for me.

The second was the strength of the evaluation. This aspect of attitude related to
seeking more information about the brand and develop more confidence. Several
respondents reported the strength dimensions: such as certainty, knowledge, and
importance. For example,
My friend suggested this brand, it helped me to develop a positive attitude and confidence
that since I am travelling and live in a hostel, it’s a quick snack and better than brands like
McDonalds because its oil free, good for health, and known for customization.

The role of strength dimension was also clear in their knowledge, in which the
amount of information about the brand that accompanies one’s attitude toward it
was always recalled and assessed by knowledge parameters. It was also evident
from the conversation that the importance consumers personally attached to a brand
also played a crucial role in relationship establishment and the strength-related as-
pects of attitude are antecedents to brand satisfactionand brand trust.
The majority of the participants frequently mentioned their relationship to be
satisfied when the interviewer asked to describe the type of relationship. However,
detailed probing on the same brought out the exact nature of the relationship. Par-
ticipants stated that satisfaction comes when performance of the brand meets their
expectations and this satisfaction is a motivating factor behind brand attachment.

[email protected]
Section I: Conceptual Model Development: Qualitative Exploration  75

First of all satisfaction comes when you do what you really want to do. This is because
everything is just so simple from making calls to surfing the net. Even if any mes-
sage comes you don’t have to unlock your phone, the message just gets flashed on your
screen. It’s simple, easy and its operations are too smooth hence I attached using iPhone
or iPod.

From the answers, it was evident that satisfaction was a prerequisite for relationship
augmentation and maintenance.

Relationship Augmentation Stage: Brand Trust and Brand Attachment

Respondents opined that trustworthiness of a brand was very important in building

CBR. Trustworthiness as per the respondents was the confidence that the brand
(product) works according to the consumer expectations or it is reliable. It was clear
from the conversation of two respondents:
It has been trustworthy and as the length of a cigarette is 69 mm, so the time it takes to burn
according to my level is 5 to 6 min. If I am working, and feeling sleepy during my work, a
smoke I can go on with my work for an hour more.

Or
It’s a relationship of trust, I feel the brand to be my partner because whenever I bought this
watch I was sure enough that this is never going to be bad.

It was also clear from their conversation that the brand was honest in its promises
and claims and was respectful of its customers. Most of the respondents were in
support that the trusted brand would not cheat them:
It has till date not deceived me and I am sure it will not do so in future as well…I have
complete trust on it to deliver what it stands for.

It was clear that trust developed from strong positive attitudes, whenever the brand
kept the promises of the customers, it develops into trust that keeps the customer
with the brand for a long term.
The respondents’ brand stories suggest that detailed brand knowledge structures
developed around deeply held attachment with brands, such as deeper associations,
feelings, and strong bonds. The expressed associations were a kind of kinship,
such as:
I consider this brand like a close associate, a friend and certainly is in a good relationship
with it because it’s been my favorite brand for past 3 years and yes I would like to have a
long term relationship with it.

It was also evident from the expressions of some of the respondents that they felt the
brand to be a part of the self:
The brand is absolutely a part of me because whenever I want to have something, drink
something…I go and grab it (brand).

It was also clear from the analysis that these deeply held attachments were the out-
comes of consumer trust and satisfaction with that brand:

[email protected]
76 5  Analysis and Results

Since it’s like my partner and so will go on and high on emotional attachment, it’s basically
coming from my trustworthiness with it and the satisfactory performance.

Relationship Maintenance Stage: Brand Commitment

The findings showed that high level of commitment toward the brand or the inten-
tion to maintain relationship longevity was common across strong brand relation-
ships. During the interviews, respondents openly expressed their intention to stay
with the brand through brand pledges such as:
Yes this brand is still and will always be in option in future because there is a sense of loy-
alty associated with it,” or “If tomorrow I need to buy a phone again it has to be Apple. Till
now they have always come up with better versions from 2g to 3g to 4s. Every product of
this brand has outperformed others.

It was also evident that commitment toward brand became stronger with time:
Whenever I go to purchase a watch, it (my favorite brand) has a distinct design ready for
me which is totally different from what I had owned. So my relationship is going deeper
and deeper because without going to other brands I know that probably this has the watch
I am looking for.

It was also evident that a long-term orientation was the basic factor that prompted
the consumer to repeat purchase the brand. Commitment also fostered stability by
showing a differential effect that other brands could not provide; it encouraged der-
ogation of alternatives in the environment.
Yes it is here to stay in my life… I don’t think for some time to come I will move away from
this brand, this brand adds something different, that others can’t provide.

Relationship Outcome Stage: Brand Equity and Brand Loyalty

The core outcome of strong brand relationships for relationship maintenance was
a rich differentiating effect or brand equity that the consumers expressed while ex-
plaining their relationships. Although consumers expressed their intentions to stay
with the brand, they also showed their endowed value toward the brand:
For me, price is not an issue when selecting my brand. And even if there are offers, I still
would buy it at whatever price it is available.

It was also evident that this differential effect came from brand trustand its associ-
ated credibility:
I will go for Apple iPhone because I have been using this brand from quite some time and
I have trust on Apple. One will always go for something that one trusts even though the
others might be good. Until and unless I get some good and strong reason, I won’t think of
buying another brand.

This differentiating value protects the relationship through a full range of relation-
ship biases and repeated buying:

[email protected]
Discussion of the Results 77

I feel it is an aura because once you start using an Apple product you can’t really go to
another product. I had Apple products before and I wanted to buy a phone, so I bought the
next version, which is Apple 4s. Even though I had options to buy other phones too but I
am still sticking to phone.

Respondents’ brand stories suggested that relationship strength was implied in the
notion of behavioral loyalty. The action-related behaviors or behavioral loyalty were
also revealed on the outcome stage of consumer–brand relationships. Encouraging
intentions to continue with the brand through structural barriers to exit the relation-
ship developed into behavioral phase or true brand loyalty. Respondents also ex-
pressed behavioral loyalty, but their stories showed the fact that their loyalty came
from the brand’s trustworthiness, differential effect, and their feelings and emotions
or affective componentthat the brand provided. It was also evident that loyal con-
sumers would be biased toward the brand and would recommend the brand to others.
Although branding literature is rich with the descriptions of specific forms or
typology of consumer–brand relationships, this study is systematic and unique in
its examination of the process of consumer–brand relationship formation. This is
because it followed the procedures of theory building using grounded theory argu-
ments and also it was an exclusive application in branding from the perspective of
real consumers rather than having undue dependence on psychological theories.
A theoretical model of the consumer–brand relationship process of 20 real con-
sumers was constructed through qualitative data analysis, which included involving
consumers during data analysis in order to ensure that the model reflected their
relationships with brands. The model developed in this study was from a multitude
of experience, examples, and anecdotes. The result has been a coherent construct-
oriented framework for understanding the often difficult and confusing constella-
tion of different behavioral patterns of consumers’ brand relationships.
Consumers’ strong attitudes are the starting point of relationship with brands. As
Wegener et al. (1995) emphasized “brand relationships are likely to begin with posi-
tive attitudes toward the brand, and these relationships are likely to be maintained, at
least in part, as a result of these positive attitudes being strong” (p. 297). Therefore,
it is important for the researchers and practitioners to examine the starting point
of a relationship. An examination and understanding of this starting point would
shift the focus from other generic constructs of relationship and lead to the creation
of strong consumer-brand bonds. Researchers have suggested that the amount of
processing roles and self-validation have the greatest potential for creating lasting
brand relationships (e.g., Wegener et al. 1995).

Discussion of the Results

This analysis supports the view that strong and positive attitudes are embedded in
the cognitive structure of the personal self (Holland 2003). Consumers’ importance,
confidence, and accessibility in attitudes would enable decision making without
much deliberation. When the attitude components are low, the evaluation would

[email protected]
78 5  Analysis and Results

be affected by context-specific components, thereby reducing the likelihood of re-

lationship maintenance. The two components of attitude valence and strength were
in consonance with Krosnick and Petty’s (1995) attitude strength dimension. If the
strength component of attitude is present, context-specific components would not
influence the relationship creation, maintenance, and augmentation.
Satisfied relationships with a brand would be mainly attributed to the strength
of its evaluation. It is evident in the analysis that the strength of brand evaluation
would result in satisfaction when the performance of the brand met with customer
expectations. It is also apparent in the analysis that satisfaction plays a vital role in
building relationship maintenance behavior. These satisfactory relationships would
pave the way to continue with the existing relationship. Related literature (e.g.,
Kelley and Thibaut 1978; Rusbult 1983) supported the finding that people would
generally stay in satisfying relationships.
The study generated two categories in relationship augmentation stage, namely,
brand attachmentand brand trust. Brand attachment is similar to Thomson et  al.
(2005) and Park et al.’s (2010) concept of brand attachment. Park et al. (2010) stated
that attachment is a multidimensional construct composed of three dimensions: af-
fection, connection, and passion. Thomson et al. (2005) define the concept of brand
attachment as “the strength of the bond connecting the brand with the self, ………
that involves thoughts and feelings about the brand and the brand’s relationship to
the self.” This analysis yielded support for both the conceptualizations. The study
also identified the affect category brand trust, which is similar to Moorman et al.
(1993) and Morgan and Hunt’s (1994) conceptualization of brand trust. The results
showed that the category of brand trust is derived from strong consumer attitudes.
Therefore, it can be postulated that the attitude strength or strong positive evalu-
ation of the brand developed from consumption or nonconsumption experience
would ultimately generate brand trust (Ganesan 1994; Selnes 1998).
From the analysis of the conative aspect, brand commitment was found to play a
vital role in relationship maintenance. The concept of commitment derived during
data analysis is similar to that suggested by Moorman et al. (1993). The study also
found support for Morgan and Hunt’s (1994) concept of commitment as an ongoing
relationship between exchange partners believing in one another.
Two major outcomes for CBR behavior were identified as brand equity and brand
loyalty. Brand equityas a relational construct found support with the extant literature
(e.g., Hunt 1997; Srivastava et al. 1998, 2001). The analysis shows that consum-
ers with strong commitment would impart a different value to the product, which
supports with Keller’s (1993) definition of brand equity. The results also supported
Jacoby’s (1978) concept of brand loyalty. The analysis also found support that the
category of brand loyalty is derived from brand equity. Strong behavioral loyalty is
the consequence of strong customer-based brand equity and change in brand equity
will lead to change in brand loyalty (Kaynak et al. 2008; Leon et al. 2006).
The establishment of the theoretical model would add value to the existing lit-
erature in the consumer–brand relationships in several ways. First, it provides more
comprehensive, detailed, and integrated understanding of how consumers actually
form relationships with brands than the previous study of individual constructs.
Second, the theoretical model of CBR demonstrates how relationship formation

[email protected]
Section II: Model Testing and Validation: Quantitative Analysis  79

changes with changes in relationships and helps to identify the most useful pathway
through which consumers might develop relationships with the brand.

Section Summary

The grounded theory approach used in this chapter identified a range of significant
themes and seven major categories of consumer–brand relationships. The approach
used in this section also helped the research to explore, refine, verify, and develop
the conceptual framework that would be further verified and tested empirically. The
conclusions derived from this grounded theory approach contributed to the concep-
tualization of consumer–brand relationship dimensions.

Section II: Model Testing and Validation:

Quantitative Analysis

Respondent’s Demographic Profile

The study used a mall intercept survey, in which a total of 500 samples were pre-
sented the questionnaire. A total of 475 useful questionnaires were returned, which
constituted a 98.75 % of the targeted sample size. In Table 5.3, the demographic pro-
file of the respondents is presented, in which 60 % of the respondents are females.
Among the collected response, the majority of them were aged between 22 and 35
(46.73 %), having graduation (41.68 %). Approximately 39.57 % of the respondents
were doing professional and related occupation, while 18 % of the respondents were
students, with another 11 % each involved in administering and government jobs.
The 32.63 % of household’s income ranged from Rs.  30,000–40,000. At the
same time, nearly 19 % each belonged to an income group of 20,000–30,000 and
40,000–50,000, respectively. The average purchase frequency of the selected brand
is 2.21 in each month. Among this purchase frequency is higher for the age group
of 22–35. The respondents were from five different regions of the country: South
(34 %), East (20 %), North (26), West (16 %), and North East (4 %).
Table 5.2 indicates that 63.37 % of the respondents visiting the store two–three
times in a month that particular shopping mall from which they have responded.
At the same time, 36.63 % of the people visit the store more than three times in a
month. The majority of the respondents (22.52 %) indicated that they usually pur-
chase the selected brand from specialty stores.
Other than specialty stores, respondents prefer supermarkets (18.31 %), Kirana
stores (18.80 %), and departmental stores (18.31 %) for the purchase of their se-
lected brand. Among the respondents, the majority of them (52.21 %) purchased
this brand two to three times before they have responded to this questionnaire. The
41.68 % of respondents purchased this brand more than three times. The majority

[email protected]
80 5  Analysis and Results

Table 5.3   Respondent’s Variables Frequency Valid (%) Cumulative (%)

demographic profile
Gender
Male 300 63.15 63.15
Female 175 36.84 100
Age
≤ 21 years old 98 20.63 20.63
22–35 222 46.73 67.36
36–50 75 15.78 83.14
51–65 42 8.88 92.02
> 65 years old 38 8 100
Education
High School 52 10.94 10.94
+ 2 48 10.10 21.04
Graduation 198 41.68 62.72
Postgraduation 102 21.47 84.19
Doctorate degree 12 2.52 86.71
Others 63 13.26 100
Occupation
Professional and 188 39.57 39.57
related
Retired/not in the 30 6.31 45.88
workforce
Government 56 11.78 57.66
Self-employed 35 7.36 65.02
Administrative support 55 11.57 76.59
Student 88 18.52 95.11
Others 23 4.85 100
Annual household income
> 20,000 56 11.78 11.78
20,000–30,000 88 18.52 30.3
30,000–40,000 155 32.63 62.93
40,000–50,000 90 18.94 81.87
50,000–60,000 46 9.68 91.55
< 60,000 40 8.42 100

of the respondents indicated that they usually get information about the brand from
previous purchase (46.73 %). It was also indicated that 17.89 % people generate
information about the brand from advertisements.
The key question answered by these respondents is the amount of money (an
average amount) they have spent for the purchase of their selected brand. Results
indicated that 32.63 % of the respondents spend on an average Rs. 1,000 to 2,000 for
the purchase of the selected brand. The 26.31 % of respondents opinioned that on an
average they were spending Rs. 3,000 to 4,000 for the selected brand.

Data Analysis

The data analysis (Sect. 2) of this study has been divided into two major parts: mod-
el calibration analysis and model validation analysis, in which the study intended
to use the advantage of relatively large sample size: For achieving this objective,

[email protected]
Section II: Model Testing and Validation: Quantitative Analysis  81

Table 5.4   Respondent’s Variables Frequency Valid (%) Cumulative (%)

relationship profile
Frequency of visits
1 time 76 16 16
2–3 times 225 47.36 63.37
More than 3 times 174 36.63 100
Primary destination of purchase
Super markets 87 18.31 18.31
Specialty store 107 22.52 40.83
Hyper markets 67 14.10 54.93
Kirana stores 89 18.80 73.73
Departmental stores 87 18.31 92.0
Others 38 8 100
Frequency of purchase
1 time 29 6.1 6.1
2–3 times 248 52.21 58.31
More than 3 times 198 41.68 100
Information sources about the brand
Previous purchase 222 46.73 46.73
Word-of-mouth 68 14.31 61.04
Internet 45 9.47 70.51
Advertisements 85 17.89 88.5
Friends and relatives 55 11.57 100
Average spending for the brand
> 1,000 89 18.73 18.73
1,000–2,000 155 32.63 51.36
3,000–4,000 125 26.31 77.67
4,000–5,000 43 9.05 86. 72
5,000–6,000 38 8.0 94.73
< 6,000 25 5.26 100

the total sample collected (475) is divided into two random halves, the first half
consisting of 250 respondents, considered for calibration analysis and the second
half consisting of 225 respondents taken in validation analysis. During the model
calibration analysis, the study followed Anderson and Gerbing’s (1988) two-step
approach. During the process of model calibration, first, the assessment of mea-
surement model was conducted using both exploratory factor analysis (EFA)and
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). In the first phase of model calibration, EFA has
been used as a procedure to aid item purification and unidimensionality assessment,
from a traditional and nonconfirmatory perspective using IBM SPSS 20.0 software
program, which has been later confirmed using CFA with LISREL 8.72 software
program. Subsequently, in the second phase of structural model assessment, the
testing of the proposed model has been carried out to test the proposed hypotheses,
also with SEM served as a confirmatory assessment of nomological validity. In the
structural model assessment phase, the study carried out a series of cross-validation
analysis such as model stability analysis using the validation sample to check the
feasibility of the proposed model in other samples and model selection analysis, for
analysis of alternative/rival models using the calibration sample.
The study considered some of the preliminary issues, which deemed pertinent
attention before doing structural equation modeling (SEM) using LISREL 8.72,

[email protected]
82 5  Analysis and Results

these are: (a) decision regarding the type of input matrix; (b) decision regarding
estimation technique; (c) handling missing values; and (d) testing the assumption of
normality. These issues are discussed in the following sections.

Data Screening Prior to Model Estimation and Testing

Prior to the estimation and testing of the proposed model, the study confirmed
the absence of data coding errors. Wherever the data coding errors were detected,
the study used the original questionnaire to detect and correct the coding errors
(Churchill 1999). Also, the study recoded some of the variables using SPSS 20.0,
where it is required, particularly for reverse-coded items. Moreover, the study car-
ried out a visual inspection of a covariance matrix with the aim of identifying ex-
treme values that might cause some serious problems during estimation, no such
values were found during the inspection. In addition to these, the study carried out
a detailed check with the objective of diagnosing missing values. During missing
value inspection process, it was found that around 5 % of cases were containing
missing values. The study followed a list wise deletion approach to handle missing
values. This is considered to be a better method when the number of missing values
is not too high (Hair et al. 1998) and also an analytical tool requires high sample
size, as this is the case in this study.

Testing of Multivariate Normality

Before testing the proposed model, the study tested the most important assumption
behind SEM, i.e., normality assumption. It has been stated that in SEM it is neces-
sary to consider the issue of normality assumption, because the violation of this
assumption can cause to create inflated chi-square statistics, biased critical values,
and influences in standard errors (Hair et al. 1998). Table 5.5 gives the result of mul-
tivariate normality check. The results show that all the observed variables revealed
significant skewness; this might indicate that potential problem or deviation from
normality.
However, Hair et al. (1998) stated that large sample size, which is the case in this
study, tends to mitigate the violations of normality. In addition, it has been already
mentioned that the adoption of estimation technique, such as maximum likelihood
(ML) is robust against the violation of normality assumption. Vieria (2011) stated
that the low value of relative multivariate kurtosis also supports the assumption of
multivariate normality. The value is 1.416, which shows that, in spite of the items
that do not show multivariate normality, collectively the multivariate distribution is
reasonably normal (Benson and Bandalos 1992).

Decision Regarding Type of Input Matrix for SEM

Generally, there are two different input matrices, which are very predominant in
SEM: correlation matrix and covariance matrix. This study used covariance matrix

[email protected]
Section II: Model Testing and Validation: Quantitative Analysis  83

Table 5.5   Multivariate Skewness Kurtosis Skewness and

normality testing kurtosis
Variable Z-score P-value Z-score P-value Chi-square P-value
ATT1 − 3.523 0.000 0.428 0.668 12.597 0.002
ATT2 − 3.233 0.001 1.040 0.299 11.534 0.003
ATT3 − 3.236 0.001 − 0.378 0.706 10.614 0.005
ATT4 − 3.408 0.001 0.304 0.761 11.707 0.003
TR1 − 5.535 0.000 2.129 0.033 35.167 0.000
TR2 − 6.051 0.000 3.030 0.002 45.799 0.000
TR3 − 5.703 0.000 2.485 0.013 38.700 0.000
TR4 − 6.022 0.000 3.059 0.002 45.618 0.000
SAT1 − 4.023 0.000 1.767 0.077 19.303 0.000
SAT2 − 5.399 0.000 2.538 0.011 35.594 0.000
SAT3 − 5.014 0.000 2.694 0.007 32.397 0.000
ATTH1 − 3.947 0.000 1.165 0.244 16.934 0.000
ATTH2 − 5.539 0.000 3.020 0.003 39.801 0.000
ATTH3 − 5.341 0.000 2.726 0.006 35.954 0.000
ATTH4 − 5.462 0.000 2.602 0.009 36.606 0.000
EQ1 − 4.237 0.000 1.482 0.138 20.146 0.000
EQ2 − 4.556 0.000 1.252 0.211 22.324 0.000
EQ3 − 4.687 0.000 1.249 0.212 23.527 0.000
EQ4 − 4.441 0.000 1.661 0.097 22.479 0.000
COM1 − 5.927 0.000 2.298 0.022 40.412 0.000
COM2 − 5.371 0.000 1.121 0.262 30.105 0.000
COM3 − 4.696 0.000 1.034 0.301 23.122 0.000
COM4 − 4.822 0.000 0.514 0.607 23.512 0.000
LOY1 − 5.700 0.000 2.174 0.030 37.220 0.000
LOY2 − 5.569 0.000 1.660 0.097 33.762 0.000
LOY3 − 4.233 0.000 0.813 0.416 18.576 0.000
LOY4 − 4.517 0.000 0.896 0.370 21.211 0.000
Relative multivariate kurtosis = 1.416

as the input matrix for doing SEM. The literature suggested several reasons for this
ardent use of the covariance matrix. When one wants to test the theoretical model,
the covariance matrix is considered to be one of the best options (Hair et al. 1998),
as is the case of this study. It has also been suggested that most of the statistical the-
ories behind SEM have been developed based on the assumption that the analysis
applies to a covariance matrix (Bentler et al. 2001). Technically, covariance-based
SEM is superior because in an SEM model, based on the covariance input matrix,
it is also possible to get standardized solutions or a correlation matrix (Bentler et al.
2001). Finally, the covariance matrix is recommended over correlation matrix be-
cause deriving correct chi-square statistic and its standard errors are difficult in
those models using correlation matrix (Bentler et  al. 2001). See Appendix  4 for
covariance matrix.

Identifying Underlying Dimensions of Consumer–Brand

Relationships Using EFA

In order to identify the underlying dimensions of consumer–brand relationships, the

study applied EFA with principal component analysis using varimax rotation. This

[email protected]
84 5  Analysis and Results

Table 5.6   KMO and KMO and Bartlett’s test

Bartlett’s test for con-
sumer–brand relationship KMO measure of sampling adequacy 0.948
dimensions Bartlett’s test of sphericity Approx. chi-square 6,519.117
df 351
Sig. 0.000

technique helps to obtain the relatively smaller number of dimensions that explains
most of the variation among consumer–brand relationship attributes.
To determine the suitability of factor analysis, data were examined to ensure the
assumptions were met. First, the correlation matrix was examined to ensure that the
data in hand are suitable enough to run factor analysis. It is considered that if the
magnitude of correlation among the variables is less (less than 0.30), then factor
analysis is inappropriate. Given the magnitude of correlation between variables, it
is clear that the hypothesized factor model appears to be appropriate. Looking at
the correlation table for larger number of variable is a tiresome job, therefore, we
have some other measures to check the adequacy of correlation or interrelationship
between the factored items, and these measures are:
1. The determinant
This is the determinant of the matrix (27 × 27), the value is located under the corre-
lation matrix. In this study, we got a determinant value of 0.007; it is neither exactly
zero nor one, which is greater than the cut-off value of 0.00001. Therefore, we can
conclude that the correlation matrix is neither an identity matrix nor a singular ma-
trix. This value confirms the assumption that there are sufficient interrelationships
among our study items.
2. Bartlett test of spherecity and the Kaiser-Meyer Olkin Test (KMO).
Table 5.6 gives the results of KMO and Bartlett Test (Bartlett 1950). Bartlett Test of
Spherecity tests the null hypothesis that the correlation matrix is an identity matrix
(there is no relationship between items), and follows a chi-square distribution. The
larger value of Bartlett testindicates greater likelihood that the correlation matrix is
not an identity matrix and null hypothesis will be rejected. In this study, the Bartlett
test value (6,519.117) is significant (i.e., a significance value of less than 0.05). This
indicates that we may reject the null hypothesis that our correlation matrix is an
identity matrix and will conclude that the variables are correlated highly enough to
provide a reasonable basis for factor analysis. The KMO is a measure of sampling
adequacy. The KMO measure should be greater than 0.70, and is inadequate if less
than 0.60. All these three measures (determinant, Bartlett test, and KMO) show the
evidence that there are good interrelationships between study items or measures.
Therefore, we can go about extracting factors using these items.
Table 5.7 presents the commonality of each item or measure to the common fac-
tor (i.e., the proportion of variance in each variable accounted for by the common
factors). When using principal component analysis for factor extraction, we could
get as many factors as variables. When all factors are included in the solution, all
of the variance of each variable is accounted for by the common factors. Thus, the
proportion of variance accounted for by the common factors, or the commonality of
a variable is 1 for all the variables.

[email protected]
Section II: Model Testing and Validation: Quantitative Analysis  85

Table 5.7   Underlying Eigen- Variance Factor Commu-

dimensions of consumer– value explained loading nalities
brand relationships
F1: Brand attitude 3.24 12
strength
ATT1 0.784 0.733
ATT2 0.733 0.752
ATT3 0.686 0.703
ATT4 0.659 0.797
F2: Brand satisfaction 4.11 15.2
SAT1 0.764 0.803
SAT2 0.430 0.764
SAT3 0.441 0.756
F3: Brand trust 3.26 12.07
BT1 0.645 0.775
BT2 0.644 0.759
BT3 0.784 0.853
BT4 0.782 0.807
F4: Brand attachment 2.53 9.37
ATTH1 0.510 0.686
ATTH2 0.500 0.736
ATTH3 0.550 0.727
ATTH4 0.506 0.755
F5: Brand commitment 4.20 15.5
COM1 0.889 0.931
COM2 0.884 0.923
COM3 0.888 0.928
COM4 0.855 0.922
F6: Brand equity 1 3.70
BE1 0.734 0.779
BE2 0.630 0.760
BE3 0.729 0.806
BE4 0.778 0.849
F7: Brand loyalty 3.44 12.75
LOY1 0.803 0.892
LOY2 0.796 0.891
LOY3 0.730 0.834
LOY4 0.782 0.901

In Table 5.7, the total variance is divided into seven possible factors because of
the use of principal component analysis. In our factor extraction option in SPSS,
we have selected factor extraction option as “Based on eigenvalue and eigenvalue
greater than one” criteria, which means that the factor should explain more informa-
tion than a single item would have explained. Based on eigenvalue criteria, we have
retained only seven-factor solution. These seven factors account for 12 %, 15.2 %,
12.07, 9.37 %, 15.5 %, 3.70 %, and 12.75 % of the total variance, respectively. That
is, almost 72.29 % of the total variance is attributable to these seven factors.
The factor loadings for the 27 variables ranged from 0.44 to 0.89, above the sug-
gested threshold value of 0.40 for practical and statistical significance. The loadings
also presented a clean and highly interpretable solution: the 27 variables loaded sig-
nificantly on seven factors as the researcher conceptualized brand attitude strength,

[email protected]
86 5  Analysis and Results

brand satisfaction, brand trust, brand attachment, brand commitment, brand equity,
and brand loyalty; no variables loaded significantly on more than one factor.

Measurement Model Assessment Using CFA

The study carried out a measurement model analysis during the second stage. The
focus is on the analysis of the relationship between the latent variables and their
manifest variables or observed variables. The objective of this stage is to assess the
validity and reliability of the measures used to represent the hypothesized constructs.
The validity of the measures shows the extent to which the scale used measures what
it is supposed to measure. The reliability of the scale measures the extent to which the
scale is consistent, i.e., the extent to which the measures are free from random error.
Apparently, unless the study confirms the validity and reliability of the scale, then any
assessment of the hypothesized relationship between constructs will be misleading.
Therefore, the assessment and confirmation of measurement model validity should
precede the detailed analysis of structural analysis of the proposed model.
The study conducted measurement model testing through CFA using LISREL
8.72. In the hypothesized model, the study considered seven latent factors: brand
attitude strength, brand attachment, brand trust, brand satisfaction, brand commit-
ment, brand equity, and brand loyalty. All these latent constructs were measured
using a total of 27 manifest or observed variables. In a measurement model analy-
sis, all these manifest variables are assumed to be affected by a unique unobserved
error. Each error is uncorrelated with other errors, and also these errors are uncor-
related with the latent variables. Since the study expected correlation between the
hypothesized factors, in CFA all these factors are allowed to correlate each other
(see Fig. 5.2). The study used covariance matrix as the input matrix to estimate the
measurement model, which is given in the Appendix 4.

Examination of Offending Estimates

In measurement model analysis, the study first examined the offending estimates.
Offending estimates are coefficients that exceed the minimum acceptable limit (Hair
et al. 1998). The common forms of offending estimates that appear in measurement
model are: negative error variance; standardized loading of the manifest variables
exceed one; and high standard errors for the estimated coefficients (Reisinger and
Turner 1999). These offending estimates must be examined carefully before evalu-
ating the model results. From the results, it was found that there were no offending
estimates of any kind. Therefore, it was recommended to proceed with the analysis
of measurement model.

Examination of Unidimensionality

After examining the offending estimates in the measurement model, the study ex-
amined the unidimensionalityof the latent constructs. Anderson and Gerbing (1988)

[email protected]
Section II: Model Testing and Validation: Quantitative Analysis  87

Fig. 5.2   Measurement model

[email protected]
88 5  Analysis and Results

identified the role of one-dimensional measure and stated its importance in the fol-
lowing words:
Achieving unidimensional measurement (….) is a crucial undertaking in theory testing
and development. A necessary condition for assigning meaning to estimated constructs is
that the measures are posted as alternative indicators of each construct must be acceptably
unidimensional. That is, each set of alternate indicators has only one underlying trait or
construct in common (…).

It is generally acknowledged that EFA is insufficient to prove unidimensionality

(Hunter and Gerbing 1982). Therefore, it is advisable to further investigate and
confirm this property of the construct using CFA. A possible evidence of potential
threats to unidimensionality using CFA is to check the matrix of standardized re-
siduals. An absolute value of standardized residual above 2.58 shows lack of uni-
diemnsionality or the model is not satisfactory estimate of the relationship between
a given pair of variables (Gerbing and Anderson1988; Joreskog and Sorbom 2001).
Modification indices above five may also be another sign of potential threats to uni-
dimensionlity (Anderson and Gerbing 1988). The examination of both standardized
residuals and modification indices shows no potentially problematic cases. There-
fore, the study confirmed that there are no potential threats to unidimensionality.

Examination of Convergent Validity

In the next stage of measurement model assessment, the study examined the va-
lidity, particularly the convergent validityof the indicators. Diamantopoulos and
Siguaw (2000) stated that:
Focusing initially on the validity of the indicators, this can be readily assessed by examin-
ing the magnitude of the paths between each latent variable and its indicators. If say, x is
supposed to be a valid measure of, say ξ, then clearly the direct relation between x and ξ
should be substantially (significantly different from zero).

This can be evaluated by assessing the magnitude and significance of the indicators
or observed variables. The study results showed that all nonstandardized indicator
loadings are statistically significant ( p < 0.01). This supports the validity of the fac-
tors that indicators used to measure the constructs actually measures that construct.
Having said that, the results also support the measurement model through the sig-
nificance of error variance. All the error variance is statistically significant, and this
supports that there are less chances of specification error. It is also recommended
to use standardized factor loadings to confirm validity indicators. Table 5.8 shows
the standardized loading. The results showed that all the loadings range in between
0.71–0.95 and exceed the minimum cut-off of 0.50 (Hair et al. 2008). This supports
and shows substantial evidence for convergent validity. A benchmark of 0.70 has
also been suggested for parameter estimate indicating convergent validity to be con-
sidered as exhibiting substantial magnitude (Garver and Mentzer 1999). This is true
for all parameter estimates in this study. Steenkamp and Van Trijp (1991) stated that
a good overall fit of the model also gives enough evidence of convergent validity,
as this is the case in this study (see Table 5.11).

[email protected]
Section II: Model Testing and Validation: Quantitative Analysis  89

Table 5.8   Standardized loadings, reliability, squared multiple correlation, and AVE
Constructs Lamda-x Theta-delta CR (Cronbach’s alpha) LamdaSQ AVE
Attitude strength 0.83(0.83) 0.56
ATT1 0.71 0.49 0.50
ATT2 0.8 0.36 0.64
ATT3 0.76 0.42 0.57
ATT4 0.72 0.48 0.51
Trust 0.90(0.89) 0.69
TR1 0.79 0.37 0.62
TR2 0.83 0.31 0.68
TR3 0.91 0.18 0.82
TR4 0.81 0.34 0.65
Satisfaction 0.85(0.85) 0.65
SAT1 0.73 0.47 0.53
SAT2 0.89 0.21 0.79
SAT3 0.81 0.35 0.65
Attachment 0.87(0.87) 0.63
ATTH1 0.81 0.35 0.65
ATTH2 0.71 0.49 0.50
ATTH3 0.80 0.36 0.64
ATTH4 0.86 0.26 0.73
Equity 0.90(0.90) 0.71
EQ1 0.8 0.37 0.64
EQ2 0.84 0.29 0.70
EQ3 0.87 0.24 0.75
EQ4 0.87 0.24 0.75
Commitment 0.97(0.97) 0.90
COM1 0.95 0.10 0.90
COM2 0.95 0.10 0.90
COM3 0.95 0.10 0.90
COM4 0.95 0.10 0.90
Loyalty 0.95(0.95) 0.83
LOY1 0.92 0.16 0.84
LOY2 0.93 0.14 0.86
LOY3 0.88 0.23 0.77
LOY4 0.93 0.13 0.86
Lamda-X standardized loadings, Theta-delta  error varience, CR composite reliability, LamdaSQ
Squared multiple correlation, AVE average varience extracted

Examination of Reliability

After confirming the unidimensionality and convergent validity, reliability of the

scale has been examined, arguing that a construct can exhibit good reliability even
if it does not satisfy convergent validity criteria (Steenkamp and van Trijp 1991).
Cronbach’s (1954) coefficient is considered to be a good measure of reliability. It
has been argued that this coefficient of reliability check should be assessed only
after confirming unidimensionlity (Gerbing and Anderson 1988). Hunter and Gerb-
ing (1982) stated that:
Coefficient alpha provides an unbiased estimate of the reliability of the cluster score only
if the scale is unidimensional.

[email protected]
90 5  Analysis and Results

Table 5.9   Discriminant validity checks

Attitude Satisfaction Trust Attachment Commitment Equity Loyalty
Attitude 0.56
Satisfaction 0.65 0.65
Trust 0.77 0.76 0.69
Attachment 0.73 0.92 0.8 0.63
Commitment 0.42 0.52 0.46 0.54 0.90
Equity 0.69 0.85 0.75 0.9 0.58 0.71
Loyalty 0.53 0.66 0.56 0.67 0.73 0.7 0.83

It has also been stated by Hulin et al.(2001) that:

It is possible for a number of items to be interrelated (i.e., show internal consistency) and
still not homogeneous (i.e., not be unidimensional).

As it can be evident from Table  5.8, the Cronbach’s alphas for the hypothesized
constructs are above Nunnally’s(1970) 0.70 threshold, suggesting adequate reliabil-
ity. In addition to the assessment of reliability using Cronbach’s Coefficient Alpha,
the study also analyzed composite reliability (also known as construct reliability)
value for each latent variable. Table 5.8 shows composite reliability values for each
of the components, which exceed Bagozzi and Yi’s (1988) 0.60 threshold. Thus, it
provides further support for the constructs’ reliability. This is (convergent validity)
also confirmed by looking at the squared multiple correlations (R2) of the indica-
tors. The R2 shows the proportion of variance in the indicators that is explained by
its underlying latent variables, and the rest is owing to the measurement error. High
R2 value shows high reliability of the indicator under consideration. In this study,
it was found that all the R2 values are high and range between 0.50 to 0.90, which
provides additional support for the constructs’ acceptable reliability.

Examination of Discriminant Validity

The discriminant validityof the measured constructs was performed using an ap-
proach suggested by Joreskog (1971). For each pair of constructs, the discriminant
validity is achieved in two stages. In the first stage, the correlation between the
two constructs is constrained (fixed as one). In second stage, these two constructs
are allowed to correlate freely (unconstrained). After the completion of these two
stages, the χ2 difference of these two models (constrained and unconstrained) is ob-
tained. The significant difference between the constrained and unconstrained model
proved that the constructs are not perfectly correlated and that discriminant validity
is achieved. Table 5.9 gives the results of discriminant validity checks.
The chi-square difference test for discriminant validity, which was measured
through performing CFAs using one pair of constructs at a time, indicates that all
pairs have significant discriminant validity. Kline (2005) suggested that when two
factors have a correlation over 0.85, they may not be accommodated in one struc-
tural equation model, as the two factors demonstrate the poor discriminant valid-
ity. From the analysis (see Table  5.7), it was found that no correlation between

[email protected]
Examination of Discriminant Validity 91

Table 5.10   Correlation and average variance extracted (AVE)

Constructs Unconstrained χ2 Constrained χ2 Δ χ2(Δ df) P-values
(df, p values) (df, p values) (2−1)
(1) (2)
Attitude strength with other constructs
Brand satisfaction 19.33(13, p = 0.000) 225.75(14, p = 0.000) 206.42(1) 0.000
Brand attachment 47.95(19, p = 0.000) 209.14(20, p = 0.000) 161.19(1) 0.000
Brand trust 67.14(19, p = 0.000) 206.77(20, p = 0.000) 139.63(1) 0.000
Brand commitment 49.60(19, p = 0 .000) 430.90(20, p = 0.000) 381.3(1) 0.000
Brand equity 71.04(19, p = 0.000) 292.27(20, p = 0.000) 221.23(1) 0.000
Brand loyalty 19.04(19, p = 0.000) 363.96(20, p = 0.000) 344.92(1) 0.000
Satisfaction with other constructs
Brand attachment 11.64(13, p = 0.000) 37.41(14, p = 0 .000) 25.77(1) 0.000
Brand trust 36.84(13, p = 0.000) 181.68(14, p = 0.000) 144.84(1) 0.000
Brand commitment 27.27(13, p = 0.000) 281.07(14, p = 0.000) 351.8(1) 0.000
Brand equity 72.41(13, p = 0.000) 144.62(14, p = 0.000) 72.21(1) 0.000
Brand loyalty 20.62(13, p = 0.000) 231.62(14, p = 0.000) 211(1) 0.000
Brand attachment with other constructs
Brand trust 53.21(19, p = 0.000) 222.63(20, p = 0.000) 169.42(1) 0.000
Brand commitment 31.36(19, p = 0.036) 487.02(20, p = 0.000) 455.66(1) 0.000
Brand equity 54.54(19, p = 0 .000) 101.78(20, p = 0.000) 47.24(1) 0.000
Brand loyalty 28.76(19, p = 0.000) 293.56(20, p = 0.000) 264.8(1) 0.000
Brand trust with other constructs
Brand commitment 72.35(19, p = 0.000) 2830.31(20, p = 0.000) 2757.96(1) 0.000
Brand equity 62.88(19, p = 0.000) 382.99(20, p = 0.000) 320.11(1) 0.000
Brand loyalty 29.75(19, p = 0.000) 582.34(20, p = 0.000) 552.59(1) 0.000
Brand commitment with other constructs
Brand equity 69.82(19, p = 0.000) 634.98(20, p = 0.000) 565.16(1) 0.000
Brand loyalty 45.69(19, p = 0.000) 838.13(20, p = 0 .000) 792.44(1) 0.000
Brand equity with loyalty
Brand loyalty 52.38(19, p = 0.000) 507.66(20, p = 0.000) 455.28(1) 0.000
Diagonal elements show AVE

factors exceeds 0.80 threshold, again it supported the discriminant validity of the
constructs.
Another measure to analyze the discriminant validity is to compare the average
variance extracted for any two constructs with the square of correlation estimate
between these two constructs (Hair et al. 2008). The analysis results showed that all
the AVEs exceed the square of correlation estimate (see Table  5.10). This further
supports that the constructs that measure two different concepts differ empirically.
The analysis of goodness-of-fit indices (GFI) for the measurement model showed
that all of them are within the generally accepted thresholds and support a good fit
with the data. Table 5.11 shows the GFI for the measurement model.
In fact, even though the chi-square test of the measurement model is significant
(χ2 = 606.38, p = 0.000), the ratio of chi-square to degrees of freedom is in the ac-
ceptable level (DF = 303, χ2/DF = 2.01), this is considered to be an acceptable fit
(Cote et al. 2001). In addition, other GFI, such as GFI (0.85), adjusted GFI (0.81),
normed fit index (NFI; 0.97), and comparative fit index (CFI; 0.99), as well as the
root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA; 0.06), are within acceptable
limits indicating a good fit (Diamantopolous and Siguaw 2000).

[email protected]
92 5  Analysis and Results

Table 5.11   Summary of fit indices of measurement model

Indices Shorthand General rule of thumb Model indices
Absolute/predictive fit indices
Chi-square χ2 Lower value shows good model fit 606.38, 301 ( p = 0.0)
Ratio of chi-square to DF χ2/df Ratio of χ2 to DF ≤ 2 or 3 2.01
Akaike information AIC Smaller the better; good for model 756.38
criterion comparison
Expected cross-valida- ECVI Smaller the better; good for model 3.04
tion index comparison
Comparative fit indices: comparison to a baseline (independence) or other model
Normed fit index NFI > 0.95 for acceptance 0.97
Incremental fit index IFI > 0.95 for acceptance 0.99
Comparative fit index CFI > 0.95 for acceptance 0.99
Parsimonious fit indices
Parsimony-adjusted NFI PNFI Very sensitive to model size 0.84
Parsimony-adjusted GFI PGFI The closer to 1 the better, though 0.68
typically lower than other indi-
ces and sensitive to model size
Other
Goodness-of-fit index GFI  ≥ 0.95 Not generally recommended 0.85
Adjusted GFI AGFI  ≥ 0.95 Performance poor in simu- 0.81
lation studies
Root mean square RMR Smaller, the better; 0 indicates 0.09
residual perfect fit
Standardized RMR SRMR  ≤ 0.08 0.04
Root mean square error RMSEA < 0.06 to 0.08 with confidence 0.063
of approximation interval

Structural Model Assessment

Continuing on the results of the assessment and confirmation of the measurement

model validity carried out in the previous section, and to follow the two-step ap-
proach for SEM suggested by Anderson and Gerbing (1988), this section analyzes
the structural model validity. That is, the proposed set of relationship among the
latent variables and test the hypotheses of interest, and also aimed to analyze the
nomological validity (Steenkamp and van Trijip 1991). Three issues are relevant
during the assessment of structural model validity. First, to assess the direction of
the relationship between the constructs: whether the direction of the relationships is
as hypothesized (positive or negative). Second, to assess the strength or magnitude
of the relationship between the constructs: whether the estimated parameters are
significant or it provides important information on the strength of the hypothesized
relationships, i.e., their respective t-values should be greater than |1.96|. Third, to
assess the amount of variance in the endogenous variables accounted by the respec-
tive determinants: whether R2 for the structural equations shows the good explana-
tory power of the hypothesized antecedents.
This section of the chapter assesses the structural modelfollowed by a step-by-
step approach, which involves a three-stage process. In the first part of structural

[email protected]
Examination of Discriminant Validity 93

Table 5.12   Structural model assessment: calibration sample, proposed model

Parameter Estimate Std error t-value R2 Hyp. Result
ATT => SAT 0.68 0.09 7.80 H1 Sig
0.42
ATT => TR => ATTH 0.73 0.11 6.66 H2 Sig
0.89
SAT => TR => COM 0.012 0.001 0.13 H3 NS
ATT => ATTH => COM 0.59 0.09 6.57 H4 Sig
SAT=> ATTH => COM 0.59 0.09 6.57 H5 Sig
0.30
ATT => TR => EQ 0.76 0.09 8.78 H6 Sig
COM => EQ 0.21 0.04 5.04 H8 Sig
0.70
TR => ATTH => LOY 0.34 0.12 2.93 H7 Sig
COM => LOY 0.55 0.06 8.51 H9 Sig
EQ => LOY 0.33 0.11 3.09 H10 Sig
0.64
ATT brand attitude strength, SAT brand satisfaction, TR brand trust, ATTH brand attachment, COM
brand commitment, EQ brand equity, LOY brand loyalty, NS nonsignificant, Sig significant

model assessment, the study examined the extent to which the model replicates in
samples other than the one on which it was derived; this was done through a cross-
validation. Under this cross-validation, the study first conducted a model stability
test, in which the total sample is randomly divided into two parts: calibration sam-
ple and validation sample and carried out the analysis separately for each sample
assesses the validity of the sample. The calibration sample is used to develop the
model (and undertake any modifications deemed necessary) and the validation sam-
ple is used to test the derived model. In the second part, the study conducted another
form of cross-validation called model selection, in which the study compared differ-
ent competing models from theory with the hypothesized model. In the third part,
the study carried out an assessment of statistical power of the final model.

Part I: Assessment of Structural Model Based on Calibration Sample

As shown in Table 5.12 and Fig. 5.3, the results of the test of SEM using calibration
sample and the signs of the coefficients representing the hypotheses incorporated in
the model are as expected. In other words, all signs of the relationship between con-
structs in the model under analysis are in accordance with the hypotheses specified
and also in accordance with the qualitative exploration. The most obvious examina-
tion of the structural modelinvolves the significance tests for proposed hypotheses,
which provide the basis for accepting or rejecting the proposed relationships be-
tween latent constructs. The LISREL results (Table 5.12) showed that all the paths

[email protected]
 94

Ϭ͘ϴϴ Ϭ͘ϳϮ Ϭ͘ϰϴ Ϭ͘ϵϴ

;ϵ͘ϲϵͿ ;ϵ͘ϯϰͿ ;ϴ͘ϭϮͿ ;ϵ͘ϲϰͿ

dZϭ dZϮ dZϯ dZϰ

ZϮс Ϭ͘ϲϯ ZϮс Ϭ͘ϲϴ ZϮс Ϭ͘ϳϴ ZϮсϬ͘ϲϰ
Ϭ͘ϴϴ ϭ͘Ϭϲ;ϭϲ͘ϬϯͿ Ϭ͘ϳϴ
;ϵ͘ϰϮͿ ddϭ  ϭ͘ϬϬ ϭ͘ϬϬ;ϭϰ͘ϲϯͿ Yϭ ;ϵ͘ϳϲͿ
ϭ͘Ϭϳ;ϭϰ͘ϬϲͿ 
ZϮс͘ϱϭ ZϮс͘ϲϭ
Ϭ͘ϳϱ ,Ϯ͗ ϭ Ϭ͘ϲϱ
;ϴ͘ϭϲͿ ϭ͘ϬϬ ,ϲ͗
;ϵ͘ϬϲͿ
ddϮ  Ϭ͘ϳϯ Ϭ͘ϳϲ YϮ
ZϮс͘ϲϰ ƫƚƵĚĞ ;ϲ͘ϲϲͿ ZϮс͘ϳϬ 
Ϭ͘ϴϱ ϭ͘Ϯϭ;ϭϭ͘ϰϱͿ  dƌƵƐƚ;ɻϮͿ ;ϴ͘ϳϴͿ ƋƵŝƚLJ;ɻϱͿ ϭ͘ϭϭ;ϭϰ͘ϱϴͿ Ϭ͘ϱϵ
^ƚƌĞŶŐƚŚ;ʇͿ

;ϴ͘ϴϰͿ ddϯ 
 ZϮсϬ͘ϳϴ ZϮсϬ͘ϳϬ ϭ͘Ϯϵ;ϭϱ͘ϱϯͿ Yϯ ;ϴ͘ϬϲͿ
ZϮс͘ϱϴ ϭ͘ϭϯ;ϭϬ͘ϵϳͿ ZϮс͘ϳϴ 
ϭ͘ϬϮ ϭ͘ϮϮ;ϭϱ͘ϰϲͿ Ϭ͘ϱϱ
;ϵ͘ϯϲͿ ϭ͘ϭϬ;ϭϬ͘ϰϮͿ ,ϯ͗ ,ϴ͗ ;ϴ͘ϭϰͿ
ddϰ Yϰ
ZϮс͘ϱϮ Ϭ͘Ϭϭ Ϭ͘Ϯϭ Ϭ͘Ϯϭ ZϮс͘ϳϳ 
;Ϭ͘ϭϯͿ ;ϱ͘ϬϰͿ KDϭ ;ϴ͘ϯϱͿ
ZϮ с͘ϵϬ
ϭ  Ϭ͘ϮϬ
,ϭ͗ 
KDϮ ;ϴ͘ϯϱͿ
Ϭ͘ϲϴ Ϭ͘ϵϲ;ϯϮ͘ϱϮͿ ZϮ с͘ϵϬ
;ϳ͘ϴϬͿ ŽŵŵŝƚŵĞŶƚ  Ϭ͘Ϯϭ
;ɻϰͿ Ϭ͘ϵϵ;ϯϮ͘ϲϲͿ  KDϯ ;ϴ͘ϯϬͿ
 Ϯ
Z сϬ͘ϯϬ ZϮ с͘ϵϬ 
Ϭ͘ϵϴ;ϯϮ͘ϰϱͿ Ϭ͘Ϯϭ
,ϵ͗ ;ϴ͘ϯϴͿ Ϭ͘ϱϬ
,ϰ͗ ,ϳ͗ ,ϭϬ͗ KDϰ
Ϭ͘ϴϱ Ϭ͘ϱϱ Ϭ͘ϯϯ ZϮ с͘ϵϬ  >Kzϭ ;ϴ͘ϰϴͿ
Ϭ͘ϱϵ Ϭ͘ϯϰ
;ϵ͘ϴϲͿ  ^dϭ ;ϲ͘ϱϳͿ ;ϴ͘ϱϭͿ ZϮс͘ϴϰ 
 ;Ϯ͘ϵϯͿ ;ϯ͘ϬϵͿ 
ϭ Ϭ͘ϱϭ
ZϮс͘ϱϰ  ;ϴ͘ϭϮͿ
Ϭ͘ϱϬ   >KzϮ
ϭ  ƩĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ
;ϲ͘ϳϰͿ  ϭ͘Ϭϴ;Ϯϱ͘ϮϱͿ ZϮс͘ϴϲ 
^d ^ĂƟƐĨĂĐƟŽŶ ;ɻϯͿ >ŽLJĂůƚLJ;ɻϲͿ Ϭ͘ϲϴ
ZϮс͘ϳϵ ϭ͘ϯϴ ;ɻϭͿ ZϮсϬ͘ϴϵ ZϮсϬ͘ϲϰ Ϭ͘ϵϯ;Ϯϭ͘ϰϵͿ ;ϵ͘ϱϬͿ
Ϭ͘ϳϴ ,ϱ͗ >Kzϯ

[email protected]
ZϮсϬ͘ϰϮ ZϮс͘ϳϳ 
;ϵ͘ϭϬͿ  ^d Ϭ͘ϱϵ
ϭ͘ϮϬ;ϭϮ͘ Ϭ͘ϵϲ;Ϯϱ͘ϴϬͿ Ϭ͘ϯϳ
ZϮс͘ϲϱ ;ϲ͘ϱϳͿ ;ϳ͘ϳϵͿ
>Kzϰ
ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϴϰ;ϭϮ͘ϭϳͿ Ϭ͘ϵϰ;ϭϰͿ tŚĞƌĞ
 ZϮс͘ϴϳ
ϭ͘Ϭϲ;ϭϱ͘ϴϮͿ

ͻ ddϭƚŽddϰĂƌĞƚŚĞŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐŽĨƌĂŶĚƫƚƵĚĞ^ƚƌĞŶŐƚŚ 
d,ϭ d,Ϯ d,ϯ d,ϰ ͻ ^dϭƚŽ^dϯĂƌĞƚŚĞŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐŽĨƌĂŶĚ^ĂƟƐĨĂĐƟŽŶ
ZϮсϬ͘ϲϰ ZϮсϬ͘ϱϭ ZϮсϬ͘ϲϯ ZϮсϬ͘ϳϱ ͻ dZϭƚŽdZϰĂƌĞƚŚĞŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐŽĨƌĂŶĚdƌƵƐƚ
Ϭ͘ϳϴ Ϭ͘ϵϴ Ϭ͘ϳϱ Ϭ͘ϱϯ ͻ d,ϭƚŽd,ϰĂƌĞƚŚĞŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐŽĨƌĂŶĚƩĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ
;ϵ͘ϱϯͿ ;ϭϬ͘ϮϲͿ ;ϵ͘ϲϱͿ ;ϴ͘ϰϬͿ ͻ KDϭƚŽKDϰĂƌĞƚŚĞŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐŽĨƌĂŶĚŽŵŵŝƚŵĞŶƚ
ͻ YϭƚŽYϰĂƌĞƚŚĞŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐŽĨƌĂŶĚƋƵŝƚLJ
ͻ >KzϭƚŽ>KzϰĂƌĞƚŚĞŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐŽĨƌĂŶĚ>ŽLJĂůƚLJ
ͻ sĂůƵĞƐŝŶƉĂƌĞŶƚŚĞƐŝƐĂƌĞƚͲƐƚĂƟƐƟĐƐ;ƚĐƌŝƟĐĂůǀĂůƵĞĂƚϬ͘ϬϱůĞǀĞůсϭ͘ϵϲͿ͘

Fig. 5.3   Results of consumer brand relationships (calibration model)

5  Analysis and Results
Examination of Discriminant Validity 95

proposed in the “Consumer–Brand Relationships Model” are statistically signifi-

cant ( p < 0.05), except the one corresponding to the relationship between satisfac-
tion and commitment wherein trust moderates the relationship between these two
(H3 rejected, 0.01 t = 0.13). The other hypotheses were supported: (1) brand attitude
strength has a positive influence on brand satisfaction (H1 could not be rejected,
0.68; t = 7.80); (2) brand attitude strength positively influences brand attachment
wherein brand trust moderates the relationship between these two (H2 could not
be rejected, 0.73; t = 6.63); (3) brand attitude strength and brand commitment rela-
tionship is moderated by brand attachment is statistically significant (H4 could not
be rejected, 0.59, t = 6.67); (4) brand satisfaction will lead to brand commitment
but this relationship is moderated by brand attachment is statistically significant
(H5 could not be rejected,0.59, t = 5.57); (5) brand trust is mediating the relation-
ship between brand attitude strength and brand equity is statistically significant (H6
could not be rejected, 0.76, t = 8.78); (6) brand trust will have an indirect effect on
brand loyalty through brand attachment is statistically significant (H6 could not be
rejected, 0.34, t = 2.93); (7) brand commitment will have a direct effect on brand eq-
uity and brand loyalty is significant (H8 and H9 could not be rejected, 0.21, t = 5.04
and 0.55, t = 8.51); and finally, (8) brand equity having a positive influence on brand
loyalty is statistically significant (H10 could not be rejected, t = 3.09).
In addition to the direction of the relationship between the constructs, the results
also support the fact that all the six R2 values for the endogenous variables in the
model are in acceptable range; for SAT (Brand Satisfaction), R2 = 0.42; ATTH (Brand
Attachment), R2 = 0.89; TR (Brand Trust), R2 = 0.78; COM (Brand Commitment),
R2 = 0.30; EQ (Brand Equity), R2 = 0.70, and for LOY (Brand Loyalty), R2 = 0.64.
In addition to the assessment of the magnitude and direction of the relationship
between the constructs, the study assessed GFI measure, which shows the correspon-
dence of the actual or observed covariance matrix to the covariance matrix predicted
from the proposed model. In SEM, the absolute fit measures provide information on
the extent to which the model as a whole provides an acceptable fit to the data. The
most commonly used absolute fit measures are; the likelihood ratio of chi-square, the
GFI, the root mean square residual (RMR), and the RMSEA. The chi-square statistic
determines if the restrictive hypothesis tested can be rejected. A model is considered
to have an acceptable fit if the difference between the variance–covariance matrices
generated by the original data and by the hypothesized solution is small, yielding a
nonsignificant chi-square. However, the chi-square statistic is dependent on sample
size and often results in a statistically significant difference when large samples, like
those in this study, are used, even when fit appears good using other indices. Despite
this limitation, the chi-square was included because it is one of the most frequently
used fit indices in SEM analysis. In this study, the chi-square value (χ2) of 701.29
with 311 degrees of freedom was significant at the 0.000 level. The Goodness-of-Fit
Measure is a measure ranging from 0 (worst fit) to 1.0 (best fit). Here, the GFI value
of 0.83 is at a marginal acceptance level. It has been suggested that owing to the
sensitivity of these two measures (χ2 and GFI) to sample size and model complexity,
other measures also found to be complement these two measures (Hair et al. 1998).
The RMSEA provides another measure of fit that adjusts for parsimony by assessing

[email protected]
96 5  Analysis and Results

Table 5.13   Summary of fit indices for structural model: calibration sample
Indices Shorthand General rule of thumb Model indices
Absolute/predictive fit indices
Chi-square χ2 Lower value shows good model fit 703.29, 311
( p = 0.0)
Ratio of chi-square to DF χ2/DF Ratio of χ2 to DF ≤ 2 or 3 2.25
Akaike information criterion AIC Smaller the better; good for model 837.74
comparison
Expected cross-validation ECVI Smaller the better; good for model 3.36
index comparison
Comparative fit indices: comparison to a baseline (independence) or other model
Normed fit index NFI > 0.95 for acceptance 0.97
Incremental fit index IFI > 0.95 for acceptance 0.98
Comparative fit index CFI > 0.95 for acceptance 0.98
Parsimonious fit Indices
Parsimony-adjusted NFI PNFI Very sensitive to model size 0.86
Parsimony-adjusted GFI PGFI The closer to 1 the better, though 0.68
typically lower than other indices
and sensitive to model size
Other
Goodness-of-fit index GFI  ≥ 0.95 Not generally recommended 0.83
Adjusted GFI AGFI  ≥ 0.95 Performance poor in simula- 0.79
tion studies
Root mean square residual RMR Smaller the better; 0 indicates 0.12
perfect fit
Standardized RMR SRMR  ≤ 0.08 0.05
Root mean square error of RMSEA < 0.06–0.08 with confidence interval 0.07
approximation

the discrepancy per degree of freedom in the model. In this study, the RMSEA value
is 0.07. An RMSEA value less than 0.08 is considered to be a good fit (Hair et al.
1998). Another absolute fit measure is Root Mean Square Residual (RMSR), which
represents an average of the absolute discrepancies between the observed correlation
matrix and the hypothesized correlation matrix, and the closer to zero, the better the
fit. The RMSR value of 0.12 is considered to be acceptable. Other than the abso-
lute fit indices, the incremental and parsimonious fit indices are needed to ensure
acceptability of the model from other perspectives (Reisinger and Turner 1999).
The incremental fit indices differ from absolute fit indices in that they assess how
well a specified model fits relative to some alternative baseline model or null model
(the simplest model that can be theoretically justified). The major fit indices in this
category are: Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), non-NFI (NNFI), NFI, and CFI. All the
incremental fit indices exceeded the cut-off of 0.90; is considered to be good (Hair
et al. 1998). This supported the acceptance of the proposed model. Third stream of
fit indices called Parsimonious Fit Measures, which relate goodness-of-fit of the
model to the number of degrees of freedom or considering the model complexity. In
this study, the Parsimonious NFI (PNFI) value is 0.86, which is considered margin-
ally acceptable. Table 5.13 shows the fit indices in detail.
In summary, the results presented earlier showed a scenario where all the rela-
tionships are significant, except one. In principle, these results have shown substan-

[email protected]
Examination of Discriminant Validity 97

Table 5.14   Summary of fit Indices of structural model: validation sample

Indices Shorthand General rule of thumb Model indices
Absolute/predictive fit indices
Chi-square χ2 Lower value shows good 633.08, 311 ( p = 0.0)
model fit
Ratio of chi-square to DF χ2/DF Ratio of χ2 to DF ≤ 2 or 3 2.02
Akaike information AIC Smaller the better; good for 767.08
criterion model comparison
Expected cross-validation ECVI Smaller the better; good for 3.42
index model comparison
Comparative fit indices: comparison to a baseline (independence) or other model
Normed fit index NFI > 0.95 for acceptance 0.97
Incremental fit index IFI > 0.95 for acceptance 0.98
Comparative fit index CFI > 0.95 for acceptance 0.98
Parsimonious fit indices
Parsimony-adjusted NFI PNFI Very sensitive to model size 0.86
Parsimony-adjusted GFI PGFI The closer to 1 the better, 0.68
though typically lower than
other indices and sensitive to
model size
Other
Goodness-of-fit index GFI  ≥ 0.95 Not generally 0.83
recommended
Adjusted GFI AGFI  ≥ 0.95 Performance poor in 0.79
simulation studies
Root mean square RMR The smaller the better; 0 indi- 0.12
residual cates perfect fit
Standardized RMR SRMR  ≤ 0.08 0.05
Root mean square error RMSEA < 0.06 to.08 with confidence 0.068
of approximation interval

tive evidence that the proposed conceptual framework is supported by the collected
data. It is also evident in the model fit indices. In short, these results also substan-
tially support the nomological validity of the constructs in the theoretical model.

Part II: Assessment of Structural Model Based on Validation Sample

The procedure followed in this section to build the model that corresponds to the es-
timation of the structural modelusing validation sample is similar to those discussed
in the previous section. In this section, the study carried out the estimation process
using 225 samples, that is, the validation sample. The objective of this section is to
check how the model fitswith samples other than the one it actually developed and
modified. The result of the analysis showed that the structural model of the valida-
tion sample seems to corroborate those based on the calibration sample. In outcome,
when the study tested the model based on validation sample, the model fit indi-
ces also found to be satisfactory: χ2 = 633.08 ( p = 0.000), DF = 311, χ2/DF = 2.02,
RMSEA = 064, GFI = 0.83, AGFI = 0.79, NFI = 0.97, and CFI = 0.98. Table  5.14
shows model fit indices of structural model using a validation sample.

[email protected]
98 5  Analysis and Results

Table 5.15   Structural model assessment: validation sample, proposed model

Parameter Estimate Std error t-value R2 Hyp. Result
ATT => SAT 0.68 0.09 7.40 H1 Sig
0.42
ATT => TR => ATTH 0.73 0.12 6.32 H2 Sig
0.89
SAT => TR=> COM 0.01 0.001 0.13 H3 NS
ATT => ATTH=> COM 0.59 0.09 6.42 H4 Sig
SAT ATTH COM 0.50 0.15 3.42 H5 Sig
0.30
ATT => TR=> EQ 0.76 0.09 8.33 H6 Sig
COM => EQ 0.21 0.04 4.78 H8 Sig
0.70
TR=> ATTH=> LOY 0.34 0.12 2.78 H7 Sig
COM =>LOY 0.55 0.07 8.07 H9 Sig
EQ=> LOY 0.33 0.11 2.93 H10 Sig
0.64
ATT brand attitude strength, SAT brand satisfaction, TR brand trust, ATTH brand attachment, COM
brand commitment, EQ brand equity, LOY brand loyalty, NS nonsignificant, Sig significant

In the validation sample, in addition to the model fit indices, all the signs of the
relationship between the constructs are also in agreement with the hypothesized
relationship. Similar to calibration sample, estimated coefficients of the validation
sample support all the hypotheses, except one (H3), wherein brand trust moderates
the relation between brand satisfaction and brand commitment. Indeed, it is evident
from Table 5.15 in which all the parameter estimates are also more or less similar
to calibration sample.
The validation sample results also corroborate the calibration sample in terms
of both the magnitude and the strength of the relationship between the constructsor
interest. The validation sample results also support the fact that the amount of vari-
ance explained is analogous across all endogenous constructs.
As far as the insignificant link is concerned, which corresponds to the relation-
ship in which it is hypothesized that brand trust mediates the relationship between
brand satisfaction and brand commitment (H3), the estimated value is very low and
worryingly close to zero, raising doubts on whether or not to include it in the hy-
pothesized model. If a parameter estimate is not different from zero, then it would
mean that we cannot reject the null hypothesis that it is zero, and recommended to
fix this nonsignificant link as zero (Diamantopoulos and Siguaw 2000). In this sce-
nario, one can test the model without allowing the nonsignificant path. Table 5.16
shows the revised model test results without allowing the nonsignificant path
The estimation result of the revised model showed the fact that the model would
not fit well to the data in comparison with the initial model. The GFI showed rela-
tively low fit for the revised model in comparison with the initial model: χ2 = 749.99
( p = 0.000), DF = 313, χ2/DF = 2.36, RMSEA  = 074, GFI = 0.82, AGFI = 0.78, NFI
= 0.97, and CFI = 0.98. Indeed, the results of this modified version of the model show
bad fit with the data compared with the initial model, which can be seen in Table 5.17.

[email protected]
Examination of Discriminant Validity 99

Table 5.16   Structural model assessment: revised model

Parameter Estimate Std error t-value R2 Hyp. Result
ATT => SAT 0.81 0.09 8.58 H1 Sig
0.56
ATT => TR => ATTH 0.96 0.12 5.77 H2 Sig
0.89
ATT => ATTH => COM 0.67 0.09 7.22 H4 Sig
SAT => ATTH => COM 0.51 0.08 6.31 H5 Sig
0.30
ATT => TR => EQ 0.83 0.09 8.91 H6 Sig
COM => EQ 0.23 0.04 5.60 H8 Sig
0.67
TR => ATTH => LOY 0.38 0.08 4.61 H7 Sig
COM => LOY 0.55 0.06 8.47 H9 Sig
EQ=> LOY 0.32 0.10 3.32 H10 Sig
0.64
ATT brand attitude strength, SAT brand satisfaction, TR brand trust, ATTH brand attachment, COM
brand commitment, EQ brand equity, LOY brand loyalty, NS nonsignificant, Sig significant

Table 5.17   Summary of fit indices of structural model: revised model

Indices Shorthand General rule of thumb Model indices
Absolute/predictive fit indices
Chi-square χ2 Lower value shows good model fit 740.08, 313 ( p = 0.0)
Ratio of chi-square to χ2/DF Ratio of χ2 to DF  2 or 3 2.36
DF
Akaike information AIC Smaller the better; good for model 870.08
criterion comparison
Expected cross-valida- ECVI Smaller the better; good for model 3.49
tion index comparison
Comparative fit indices: comparison to a baseline (independence) or other model
Normed fit index NFI > 0.95 for acceptance 0.97
Incremental fit index IFI > 0.95 for acceptance 0.98
Comparative fit index CFI > 0.95 for acceptance 0.98
Parsimonious fit indices
Parsimony-adjusted NFI PNFI Very sensitive to model size 0.86
Parsimony-adjusted GFI PGFI The closer to 1 the better, though 0.68
typically lower than other indices
and sensitive to model size
Other
Goodness-of-fit index GFI  ≥ 0.95 Not generally recommended 0.82
Adjusted GFI AGFI  ≥ 0.95 Performance poor in simula- 0.78
tion studies
Root mean square RMR The smaller the better; 0 indicates 0.16
residual perfect fit
Standardized RMR SRMR  ≤ 0.08 0.07
Root mean square error RMSEA < 0.06 to 0.08 with confidence 0.074
of approximation interval

[email protected]
 Ϭ͘ϴϴ Ϭ͘ϳϮ Ϭ͘ϰϴ Ϭ͘ϵϴ
100

;ϵ͘ϲϵͿ ;ϵ͘ϯϰͿ ;ϴ͘ϭϮͿ ;ϵ͘ϲϰͿ

dZϭ dZϮ dZϯ dZϰ

ZϮс Ϭ͘ϲϯ ZϮс Ϭ͘ϲϴ ZϮс Ϭ͘ϳϴ ZϮсϬ͘ϲϰ
Ϭ͘ϴϴ ϭ͘Ϭϲ;ϭϲ͘ϬϯͿ Ϭ͘ϳϴ
;ϵ͘ϰϮͿ ddϭ  ϭ͘ϬϬ ϭ͘ϬϬ;ϭϰ͘ϲϯͿ Yϭ ;ϵ͘ϳϲͿ
ϭ͘Ϭϳ;ϭϰ͘ϬϲͿ 
ZϮс͘ϱϭ ZϮс͘ϲϭ
Ϭ͘ϳϱ ,Ϯ͗ ϭ Ϭ͘ϲϱ
;ϴ͘ϭϲͿ ϭ͘ϬϬ ,ϲ͗
;ϵ͘ϬϲͿ
ddϮ  Ϭ͘ϳϯ Ϭ͘ϳϲ YϮ
ZϮс͘ϲϰ ƫƚƵĚĞ ;ϲ͘ϯϮͿ ZϮс͘ϳϬ 
Ϭ͘ϴϱ ϭ͘Ϯϭ;ϭϭ͘ϰϱͿ  dƌƵƐƚ;ɻϮͿ ;ϴ͘ϯϯͿ ƋƵŝƚLJ;ɻϱͿ ϭϭ͘ϭϭ;ϭϰ͘ϱϴͿ Ϭ͘ϱϵ
^ƚƌĞŶŐƚŚ;ʇͿ

;ϴ͘ϴϰͿ ddϯ 
 ZϮсϬ͘ϳϴ ZϮсϬ͘ϳϬ ϭ͘Ϯϵ;ϭϱ͘ϱϯͿ Yϯ ;ϴ͘ϬϲͿ
ZϮс͘ϱϴ ϭ͘ϭϯ;ϭϬ͘ϵϳͿ ZϮс͘ϳϴ 
ϭ͘ϬϮ ϭ͘ϮϮ;ϭϱ͘ϰϲͿ Ϭ͘ϱϱ
;ϵ͘ϯϲͿ ϭ͘ϭϬ;ϭϬ͘ϰϮͿ ,ϯ͗ ,ϴ͗ ;ϴ͘ϭϰͿ
ddϰ Yϰ
ZϮс͘ϱϮ Ϭ͘Ϭϭ Ϭ͘Ϯϭ Ϭ͘Ϯϭ ZϮс͘ϳϳ 
;Ϭ͘ϭϯͿ ;ϰ͘ϳϴͿ KDϭ ;ϴ͘ϯϱͿ
ZϮ с͘ϵϬ
ϭ  Ϭ͘ϮϬ
,ϭ͗ 
KDϮ ;ϴ͘ϯϱͿ
Ϭ͘ϲϴ Ϭ͘ϵϲ;ϯϮ͘ϱϮͿ ZϮ с͘ϵϬ
;ϳ͘ϰϬͿ ŽŵŵŝƚŵĞŶƚ  Ϭ͘Ϯϭ
;ɻϰͿ Ϭ͘ϵϵ;ϯϮ͘ϲϲͿ  KDϯ ;ϴ͘ϯϬͿ

ZϮсϬ͘ϯϬ ZϮ с͘ϵϬ 
Ϭ͘ϵϴ;ϯϮ͘ϰϱͿ Ϭ͘Ϯϭ
,ϵ͗ ;ϴ͘ϯϴͿ Ϭ͘ϱϬ
,ϰ͗ ,ϳ͗ ,ϭϬ͗ KDϰ
Ϭ͘ϴϱ Ϭ͘ϱϱ Ϭ͘ϯϯ ZϮ с͘ϵϬ  >Kzϭ ;ϴ͘ϰϴͿ
Ϭ͘ϱϵ Ϭ͘ϯϰ
;ϵ͘ϴϲͿ  ^dϭ ;ϲ͘ϰϮͿ ;ϴ͘ϬϳͿ ZϮс͘ϴϰ 
 ;Ϯ͘ϳϴͿ ;Ϯ͘ϵϯͿ 
ϭ Ϭ͘ϱϭ
ZϮс͘ϱϰ  ;ϴ͘ϭϮͿ
Ϭ͘ϱϬ   >KzϮ
ϭ  ƩĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ
;ϲ͘ϳϰͿ  ϭ͘Ϭϴ;Ϯϱ͘ϮϱͿ ZϮс͘ϴϲ 
^d ^ĂƟƐĨĂĐƟŽŶ ;ɻϯͿ >ŽLJĂůƚLJ;ɻϲͿ Ϭ͘ϲϴ
ZϮс͘ϳϵ ϭ͘ϯϴ ;ɻϭͿ ZϮсϬ͘ϴϵ ZϮсϬ͘ϲϰ Ϭ͘ϵϯ;Ϯϭ͘ϰϵͿ ;ϵ͘ϱϬͿ
Ϭ͘ϳϴ ,ϱ͗ >Kzϯ

[email protected]
ZϮ сϬ͘ϰϮ ZϮс͘ϳϳ 
;ϵ͘ϭϬͿ  ^d Ϭ͘ϱϬ
ϭ͘ϮϬ;ϭϮ͘ Ϭ͘ϵϲ;Ϯϱ͘ϴϬͿ Ϭ͘ϯϳ
ZϮс͘ϲϱ ;ϯ͘ϰϮͿ ;ϳ͘ϳϵͿ
>Kzϰ
ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϴϰ;ϭϮ͘ϭϳͿ Ϭ͘ϵϰ;ϭϰͿ tŚĞƌĞ
 ZϮс͘ϴϳ
ϭ͘Ϭϲ;ϭϱ͘ϴϮͿ

ͻ ddϭƚŽddϰĂƌĞƚŚĞŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐŽĨƌĂŶĚƫƚƵĚĞ^ƚƌĞŶŐƚŚ 
d,ϭ d,Ϯ d,ϯ d,ϰ ͻ ^dϭƚŽ^dϯĂƌĞƚŚĞŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐŽĨƌĂŶĚ^ĂƟƐĨĂĐƟŽŶ 
Ϯ Ϯ Ϯ Ϯ
Z с Ϭ͘ϲϰ Z с Ϭ͘ϱϭ Z с Ϭ͘ϲϯ Z с Ϭ͘ϳϱ ͻ dZϭƚŽdZϰĂƌĞƚŚĞŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐŽĨƌĂŶĚdƌƵƐƚ
Ϭ͘ϳϴ Ϭ͘ϵϴ Ϭ͘ϳϱ Ϭ͘ϱϯ ͻ d,ϭƚŽd,ϰĂƌĞƚŚĞŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐŽĨƌĂŶĚƩĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ
;ϵ͘ϱϯͿ ;ϭϬ͘ϮϲͿ ;ϵ͘ϲϱͿ ;ϴ͘ϰϬͿ ͻ KDϭƚŽKDϰĂƌĞƚŚĞŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐŽĨƌĂŶĚŽŵŵŝƚŵĞŶƚ
ͻ YϭƚŽYϰĂƌĞƚŚĞŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐŽĨƌĂŶĚƋƵŝƚLJ
ͻ >KzϭƚŽ>KzϰĂƌĞƚŚĞŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐŽĨƌĂŶĚ>ŽLJĂůƚLJ
ͻ sĂůƵĞƐŝŶƉĂƌĞŶƚŚĞƐŝƐĂƌĞƚͲƐƚĂƟƐƟĐƐ;ƚĐƌŝƟĐĂůǀĂůƵĞĂƚϬ͘ϬϱůĞǀĞůс
 ϭ͘ϵϲͿ
5  Analysis and Results

Fig. 5.4   Results of consumer brand relationships (Validation sample)

 Ϭ͘ϴϴ Ϭ͘ϳϮ Ϭ͘ϰϴ Ϭ͘ϵϴ
;ϵ͘ϲϵͿ ;ϵ͘ϯϰͿ ;ϴ͘ϭϮͿ ;ϵ͘ϲϰͿ

dZϭ dZϮ dZϯ dZϰ

ZϮс Ϭ͘ϲϯ ZϮс Ϭ͘ϲϴ ZϮс Ϭ͘ϳϴ ZϮсϬ͘ϲϰ
Ϭ͘ϴϴ ϭ͘Ϭϲ;ϭϲ͘ϬϯͿ Ϭ͘ϳϴ
;ϵ͘ϰϮͿ ddϭ  ϭ͘ϬϬ ϭ͘ϬϬ;ϭϰ͘ϲϯͿ Yϭ ;ϵ͘ϳϲͿ
ϭ͘Ϭϳ;ϭϰ͘ϬϲͿ 
ZϮс͘ϱϭ ZϮс͘ϲϭ
Ϭ͘ϳϱ ,Ϯ͗ ϭ Ϭ͘ϲϱ
;ϴ͘ϭϲͿ ϭ͘ϬϬ ,ϲ͗
;ϵ͘ϬϲͿ
ddϮ  Ϭ͘ϵϲ Ϭ͘ϴϯ YϮ
ZϮс͘ϲϰ ƫƚƵĚĞ ;ϱ͘ϳϳͿ ZϮс͘ϳϬ 
Ϭ͘ϴϱ ϭ͘Ϯϭ;ϭϭ͘ϰϱͿ  dƌƵƐƚ;ɻϮͿ ;ϴ͘ϵϭͿ ƋƵŝƚLJ;ɻϱͿ ϭϭ͘ϭϭ;ϭϰ͘ϱϴͿ Ϭ͘ϱϵ
^ƚƌĞŶŐƚŚ;ʇͿ

;ϴ͘ϴϰͿ ddϯ 
 ZϮсϬ͘ϳϴ ZϮсϬ͘ϳϬ ϭ͘Ϯϵ;ϭϱ͘ϱϯͿ Yϯ ;ϴ͘ϬϲͿ
ZϮс͘ϱϴ ϭ͘ϭϯ;ϭϬ͘ϵϳͿ ZϮс͘ϳϴ 
ϭ͘ϬϮ ϭ͘ϮϮ;ϭϱ͘ϰϲͿ Ϭ͘ϱϱ
;ϵ͘ϯϲͿ ϭ͘ϭϬ;ϭϬ͘ϰϮͿ ,ϴ͗ ;ϴ͘ϭϰͿ
ddϰ Yϰ
ZϮс͘ϱϮ Ϭ͘Ϯϯ Ϭ͘Ϯϭ ZϮс͘ϳϳ 
;ϱ͘ϲϬͿ KDϭ ;ϴ͘ϯϱͿ
ZϮ с͘ϵϬ

Examination of Discriminant Validity

,ϭ͗  ϭ Ϭ͘ϮϬ
KDϮ ;ϴ͘ϯϱͿ
Ϭ͘ϲϴ Ϭ͘ϵϲ;ϯϮ͘ϱϮͿ ZϮ с͘ϵϬ
;ϴ͘ϱϴͿ ŽŵŵŝƚŵĞŶƚ  Ϭ͘Ϯϭ
;ɻϰͿ Ϭ͘ϵϵ;ϯϮ͘ϲϲͿ  KDϯ ;ϴ͘ϯϬͿ

ZϮ с Ϭ͘ϯϬ ZϮ с͘ϵϬ 
Ϭ͘ϵϴ;ϯϮ͘ϰϱͿ Ϭ͘Ϯϭ
,ϵ͗ ;ϴ͘ϯϴͿ Ϭ͘ϱϬ
,ϰ͗ ,ϳ͗ ,ϭϬ͗ KDϰ
Ϭ͘ϴϱ Ϭ͘ϱϱ Ϭ͘ϯϮ ZϮ с͘ϵϬ  >Kzϭ ;ϴ͘ϰϴͿ
Ϭ͘ϲϳ Ϭ͘ϯϴ
;ϵ͘ϴϲͿ  ^dϭ ;ϳ͘ϮϮͿ ;ϴ͘ϰϳͿ ZϮс͘ϴϰ 
 ;ϰ͘ϲϭͿ ;ϯ͘ϯϮͿ 
ϭ Ϭ͘ϱϭ
ZϮс͘ϱϰ  ;ϴ͘ϭϮͿ
Ϭ͘ϱϬ   >KzϮ
ϭ  ƩĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ
;ϲ͘ϳϰͿ  ϭ͘Ϭϴ;Ϯϱ͘ϮϱͿ ZϮс͘ϴϲ 
^d ^ĂƟƐĨĂĐƟŽŶ ;ɻϯͿ >ŽLJĂůƚLJ;ɻϲͿ Ϭ͘ϲϴ
ZϮс͘ϳϵ ϭ͘ϯϴ ;ɻϭͿ ZϮсϬ͘ϴϵ ZϮсϬ͘ϲϰ Ϭ͘ϵϯ;Ϯϭ͘ϰϵͿ ;ϵ͘ϱϬͿ
Ϭ͘ϳϴ ,ϱ͗ >Kzϯ

[email protected]
ZϮ сϬ͘ϱϲ ZϮс͘ϳϳ 
;ϵ͘ϭϬͿ  ^d Ϭ͘ϱϭ
ϭ͘ϮϬ;ϭϮ͘ Ϭ͘ϵϲ;Ϯϱ͘ϴϬͿ Ϭ͘ϯϳ
ZϮс͘ϲϱ ;ϲ͘ϯϭͿ ;ϳ͘ϳϵͿ
>Kzϰ
ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϴϰ;ϭϮ͘ϭϳͿ Ϭ͘ϵϰ;ϭϰͿ tŚĞƌĞ
 ZϮс͘ϴϳ
ϭ͘Ϭϲ;ϭϱ͘ϴϮͿ

ͻ ddϭƚŽddϰĂƌĞƚŚĞŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐŽĨƌĂŶĚƫƚƵĚĞ^ƚƌĞŶŐƚŚ 
d,ϭ d,Ϯ d,ϯ d,ϰ ͻ ^dϭƚŽ^dϯĂƌĞƚŚĞŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐŽĨƌĂŶĚ^ĂƟƐĨĂĐƟŽŶ 
Ϯ Ϯ Ϯ Ϯ
Z сϬ͘ϲϰ Z сϬ͘ϱϭ Z сϬ͘ϲϯ Z сϬ͘ϳϱ ͻ dZϭƚŽdZϰĂƌĞƚŚĞŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐŽĨƌĂŶĚdƌƵƐƚ
Ϭ͘ϳϴ Ϭ͘ϵϴ Ϭ͘ϳϱ Ϭ͘ϱϯ ͻ d,ϭƚŽd,ϰĂƌĞƚŚĞŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐŽĨƌĂŶĚƩĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ
;ϵ͘ϱϯͿ ;ϭϬ͘ϮϲͿ ;ϵ͘ϲϱͿ ;ϴ͘ϰϬͿ ͻ KDϭƚŽKDϰĂƌĞƚŚĞŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐŽĨƌĂŶĚŽŵŵŝƚŵĞŶƚ
ͻ YϭƚŽYϰĂƌĞƚŚĞŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐŽĨƌĂŶĚƋƵŝƚLJ
ͻ >KzϭƚŽ>KzϰĂƌĞƚŚĞŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐŽĨƌĂŶĚ>ŽLJĂůƚLJ
ͻ sĂůƵĞƐŝŶƉĂƌĞŶƚŚĞƐŝƐĂƌĞƚͲƐƚĂƟƐƟĐƐ;ƚĐƌŝƟĐĂůǀĂůƵĞĂƚϬ͘ϬϱůĞǀĞůс
 ϭ͘ϵϲͿ͘
101

Fig. 5.5   Results of consumer brand relationships (Revised model)

102 5  Analysis and Results

In this context, the revision of the model found to be inadequate to improve the
model in terms of both model fitas well as parsimony. Diamantopolous and Siguaw
(2000) stated that the acceptance of model modification is possible and appropriate
only if the modified model is substantially interpretable and fits well or at least at
par fit with the initial model, which is not the case for the revised version of the
model. Therefore, it has been decided to go with the initial model and reject the
modified (revised) model.

Part III: Cross Validation and Model Comparison

In the previous part of this chapter (Part II), the study looked at cross-validation-
from the perspective of seeing how the model fitwith the data to a different sample
other than the one it developed and modified. Even if this cross-validation supports
the proposed model and shows good fit to the data, there may be many alternative
models, containing different relationship among constructs, which could show the
same level of goodness-of-fit. In this context, it is essential to compare the pro-
posed model with alternative models, it is considered to be a fundamental practice
(Bagozzi and Yi 1988; Diamantopolous and Siguaw 2000). In this section, the study
carried out another type of cross-validation procedure in which the study considered
four alternative models based on theory and compared these models with the most
theoretical model (Mt). In the alternative models, the study considered two uncon-
strained (Mu) and two constrained models (Mc). The structural submodels to be
compared in this study are nested in a sequence such that Mc < Mt < Mu.
In this study, the proposed model has been named as Mt because this model is
considered to be more theoretically sound and unconstrained model both in terms
of parsimony and theoretical soundness, than our Mu2 and Mu1. The Mu1 is an un-
constrained model with the relationship between brand trust and brand attachment
excluded, and Mu2 is the most unconstrained model that includes every theoreti-
cally justifiable path or relationship between the constructs. But these two models
(Mu1 and Mu2) compromise the model parsimony.
Table 5.18 shows the GFI of competing models with the Mt. The GFI has shown
evidence that Mt model provides good model fit (despite the significance of χ2) while
comparing the other competing models. The most unconstrained model (Mu2) is
very comparable to Mt except two additional paths from attitude strength and satis-
faction to commitment (Attitude Strength Commitment; Satisfaction Commitment).
This is evident in ratio to chi-square (χ2/DF); the value for Mt is 2.26 and 2.29 for
Mu2. Following Anderson and Gerbing (1988) decision tree framework of SCDT’s,
it is clear that Mt is the better model compared with Mu2, because Mt is more
parsimonious than Mu2. To compare Mu1 and Mt, which are non-nested, the study
followed Akaike’s Information Criterion (AIC), which is considered to be good
when we consider the comparison of one model with its rival models—lower value
of AIC shows good fit (Alden et al. 2006; William and Holahan 1994). Expected
Cross-Validation Index (ECVI) is considered to be an indicator of a model’s overall
fit—the lowest ECVI shows high replication/generalization of the model. The PNFI

[email protected]
 Table 5.18   Competing models and GFI
Model Paths excluded from the full model Competing models χ2/df GFI ECVI NFI CFI RMSEA SRMR AIC NNFI
Mu2 None 2.29 0.83 3.38 0.97 0.98 0.072 0.054 841.51 0.98

Mu1 Brand trust => brand attachment 2.25 0.83 3.35 0.97 0.98 0.071 0.055 840.69 0.98
Examination of Discriminant Validity

Mt 1. Brand attitude strength=> brand commitment 2.26 0.83 3.36 0.97 0.98 0.071 0,054 837.14 0.98
2. Brand satisfaction=> brand attachment

Mc1 1. Brand attitude strength =>brand commitment 2.37 0.82 3.50 0.97 0.98 0.074 0.071 872.15 0.98
2. Brand satisfaction=> brand attachment

[email protected]
3. 1. Brand attitude strength=> brand attachment
4. brand satisfaction => brand trust
Mc2 1. Brand attitude strength=> brand commitment 2.46 0.82 3.51 0.97 0.98 0.074 0.075 874.97 0.98
2. Brand satisfaction => brand attachment
3. 1. Brand attitude strength=> brand attachment
4. Brand satisfaction => brand trust
5. Brand trust => brand attachment
Dotted line shows the omitted relationships
103
 Ϭ͘ϴϴ Ϭ͘ϳϮ Ϭ͘ϰϴ Ϭ͘ϵϴ
104

;ϵ͘ϲϵͿ ;ϵ͘ϯϰͿ ;ϴ͘ϭϮͿ ;ϵ͘ϲϰͿ

dZϭ dZϮ dZϯ dZϰ

ZϮс Ϭ͘ϲϯ ZϮс Ϭ͘ϲϴ ZϮс Ϭ͘ϳϴ ZϮсϬ͘ϲϰ
Ϭ͘ϴϴ ϭ͘Ϭϲ;ϭϲ͘ϬϯͿ Ϭ͘ϳϴ
;ϵ͘ϰϮͿ ddϭ  ϭ͘ϬϬ ϭ͘ϬϬ;ϭϰ͘ϲϯͿ Yϭ ;ϵ͘ϳϲͿ
ϭ͘Ϭϳ;ϭϰ͘ϬϲͿ 
ZϮс͘ϱϭ ZϮс͘ϲϭ
Ϭ͘ϳϱ ,Ϯ͗ ϭ Ϭ͘ϲϱ
;ϴ͘ϭϲͿ ϭ͘ϬϬ ,ϲ͗
;ϵ͘ϬϲͿ
ddϮ  Ϭ͘ϳϯ Ϭ͘ϳϲ YϮ
ZϮс͘ϲϰ ƫƚƵĚĞ ;ϲ͘ϲϲͿ ZϮс͘ϳϬ 
Ϭ͘ϴϱ ϭ͘Ϯϭ;ϭϭ͘ϰϱͿ  dƌƵƐƚ;ɻϮͿ ;ϴ͘ϳϴͿ ƋƵŝƚLJ;ɻϱͿ ϭϭ͘ϭϭ;ϭϰ͘ϱϴͿ Ϭ͘ϱϵ
^ƚƌĞŶŐƚŚ;ʇͿ

;ϴ͘ϴϰͿ ddϯ 
 ZϮсϬ͘ϳϴ ZϮсϬ͘ϳϬ ϭ͘Ϯϵ;ϭϱ͘ϱϯͿ Yϯ ;ϴ͘ϬϲͿ
ZϮс͘ϱϴ ϭ͘ϭϯ;ϭϬ͘ϵϳͿ ZϮс͘ϳϴ 
ϭ͘ϬϮ ϭ͘ϮϮ;ϭϱ͘ϰϲͿ Ϭ͘ϱϱ
;ϵ͘ϯϲͿ ϭ͘ϭϬ;ϭϬ͘ϰϮͿ ,ϯ͗ ,ϴ͗ ;ϴ͘ϭϰͿ
ddϰ Yϰ
ZϮс͘ϱϮ Ϭ͘Ϭϭ Ϭ͘Ϯϭ Ϭ͘Ϯϭ ZϮс͘ϳϳ 
;Ϭ͘ϭϯͿ ;ϱ͘ϬϰͿ KDϭ ;ϴ͘ϯϱͿ
ZϮ с͘ϵϬ
ϭ  Ϭ͘ϮϬ
,ϭ͗ 
KDϮ ;ϴ͘ϯϱͿ
Ϭ͘ϲϴ Ϭ͘ϵϲ;ϯϮ͘ϱϮͿ ZϮ с͘ϵϬ
;ϳ͘ϴϬͿ ŽŵŵŝƚŵĞŶƚ  Ϭ͘Ϯϭ
;ɻϰͿ Ϭ͘ϵϵ;ϯϮ͘ϲϲͿ  KDϯ ;ϴ͘ϯϬͿ

ZϮс Ϭ͘ϯϬ ZϮ с͘ϵϬ 
Ϭ͘ϵϴ;ϯϮ͘ϰϱͿ Ϭ͘Ϯϭ
,ϵ͗ ;ϴ͘ϯϴͿ Ϭ͘ϱϬ
,ϰ͗ ,ϳ͗ ,ϭϬ͗ KDϰ
Ϭ͘ϴϱ Ϭ͘ϱϱ Ϭ͘ϯϯ ZϮ с͘ϵϬ  >Kzϭ ;ϴ͘ϰϴͿ
Ϭ͘ϱϵ Ϭ͘ϯϰ
;ϵ͘ϴϲͿ  ^dϭ ;ϲ͘ϲϳͿ ;ϴ͘ϱϭͿ ;ϯ͘ϬϵͿ ZϮс͘ϴϰ 
 ;Ϯ͘ϵϯͿ ϭ Ϭ͘ϱϭ
ZϮс͘ϱϰ  ;ϴ͘ϭϮͿ
Ϭ͘ϱϬ   >KzϮ
ϭ  ƩĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ
;ϲ͘ϳϰͿ  ϭ͘Ϭϴ;Ϯϱ͘ϮϱͿ ZϮс͘ϴϲ 
^d ^ĂƟƐĨĂĐƟŽŶ ;ɻϯͿ >ŽLJĂůƚLJ;ɻϲͿ Ϭ͘ϲϴ
ZϮс͘ϳϵ ϭ͘ϯϴ ;ɻϭͿ ZϮсϬ͘ϴϵ ZϮсϬ͘ϲϰ Ϭ͘ϵϯ;Ϯϭ͘ϰϵͿ ;ϵ͘ϱϬͿ
Ϭ͘ϳϴ Ϯ >Kzϯ

[email protected]
Z сϬ͘ϰϮ ,ϱ͗
;ϵ͘ϭϬͿ  ZϮс͘ϳϳ 
^d ϭ͘ϮϬ;ϭϮ͘ Ϭ͘ϱϬ Ϭ͘ϯϳ
ZϮс͘ϲϱ Ϭ͘ϵϲ;Ϯϱ͘ϴϬͿ
;ϯ͘ϰϮͿ >Kzϰ ;ϳ͘ϳϵͿ
ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϴϰ;ϭϮ͘ϭϳͿ Ϭ͘ϵϰ;ϭϰͿ tŚĞƌĞ
 ZϮс͘ϴϳ
ϭ͘Ϭϲ;ϭϱ͘ϴϮͿ

ͻ ddϭƚŽddϰĂƌĞƚŚĞŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐŽĨƌĂŶĚƫƚƵĚĞ^ƚƌĞŶŐƚŚ 
d,ϭ d,Ϯ d,ϯ d,ϰ ͻ ^dϭƚŽ^dϯĂƌĞƚŚĞŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐŽĨƌĂŶĚ^ĂƟƐĨĂĐƟŽŶ
ZϮсϬ͘ϲϰ ZϮсϬ͘ϱϭ ZϮсϬ͘ϲϯ ZϮсϬ͘ϳϱ ͻ dZϭƚŽdZϰĂƌĞƚŚĞŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐŽĨƌĂŶĚdƌƵƐƚ
Ϭ͘ϳϴ Ϭ͘ϵϴ Ϭ͘ϳϱ Ϭ͘ϱϯ ͻ d,ϭƚŽd,ϰĂƌĞƚŚĞŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐŽĨƌĂŶĚƩĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ
;ϵ͘ϱϯͿ ;ϭϬ͘ϮϲͿ ;ϵ͘ϲϱͿ ;ϴ͘ϰϬͿ ͻ KDϭƚŽKDϰĂƌĞƚŚĞŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐŽĨƌĂŶĚŽŵŵŝƚŵĞŶƚ
ͻ YϭƚŽYϰĂƌĞƚŚĞŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐŽĨƌĂŶĚƋƵŝƚLJ
ͻ >KzϭƚŽ>KzϰĂƌĞƚŚĞŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐŽĨƌĂŶĚ>ŽLJĂůƚLJ
ͻ sĂůƵĞƐŝŶƉĂƌĞŶƚŚĞƐŝƐĂƌĞƚͲƐƚĂƟƐƟĐƐ;ƚĐƌŝƟĐĂůǀĂůƵĞĂƚϬ͘ϬϱůĞǀĞůс
 ϭ͘ϵϲͿ͘
5  Analysis and Results

Fig. 5.6   Results of consumer brand relationships (Most unconstrained model Mu2)
 Ϭ͘ϴϴ Ϭ͘ϳϮ Ϭ͘ϰϴ Ϭ͘ϵϴ
;ϵ͘ϲϵͿ ;ϵ͘ϯϰͿ ;ϴ͘ϭϮͿ ;ϵ͘ϲϰͿ

dZϭ dZϮ dZϯ dZϰ

ZϮс Ϭ͘ϲϯ ZϮс Ϭ͘ϲϴ ZϮс Ϭ͘ϳϴ ZϮсϬ͘ϲϰ
Ϭ͘ϴϴ ϭ͘Ϭϲ;ϭϲ͘ϬϯͿ Ϭ͘ϳϴ
;ϵ͘ϰϮͿ ddϭ  ϭ͘ϬϬ ϭ͘ϬϬ;ϭϰ͘ϲϯͿ Yϭ ;ϵ͘ϳϲͿ
ϭ͘Ϭϳ;ϭϰ͘ϬϲͿ 
ZϮс͘ϱϭ ZϮс͘ϲϭ
Ϭ͘ϳϱ ,Ϯ͗ ϭ Ϭ͘ϲϱ
;ϴ͘ϭϲͿ ϭ͘ϬϬ ,ϲ͗
;ϵ͘ϬϲͿ
ddϮ  Ϭ͘ϳϯ Ϭ͘ϳϲ YϮ
ZϮс͘ϲϰ ƫƚƵĚĞ ;ϲ͘ϲϲͿ ZϮс͘ϳϬ 
Ϭ͘ϴϱ ϭ͘Ϯϭ;ϭϭ͘ϰϱͿ  dƌƵƐƚ;ɻϮͿ ;ϴ͘ϳϴͿ ƋƵŝƚLJ;ɻϱͿ ϭϭ͘ϭϭ;ϭϰ͘ϱϴͿ Ϭ͘ϱϵ
^ƚƌĞŶŐƚŚ;ʇͿ

;ϴ͘ϴϰͿ ddϯ 
 ZϮсϬ͘ϳϴ ZϮсϬ͘ϳϬ ϭ͘Ϯϵ;ϭϱ͘ϱϯͿ Yϯ ;ϴ͘ϬϲͿ
ZϮс͘ϱϴ ϭ͘ϭϯ;ϭϬ͘ϵϳͿ ZϮс͘ϳϴ 
ϭ͘ϬϮ ϭ͘ϮϮ;ϭϱ͘ϰϲͿ Ϭ͘ϱϱ
;ϵ͘ϯϲͿ ϭ͘ϭϬ;ϭϬ͘ϰϮͿ ,ϯ͗ ,ϴ͗ ;ϴ͘ϭϰͿ
ddϰ Yϰ
ZϮс͘ϱϮ Ϭ͘Ϭϭ Ϭ͘Ϯϭ Ϭ͘Ϯϭ ZϮс͘ϳϳ 
;Ϭ͘ϭϯͿ ;ϱ͘ϬϰͿ KDϭ ;ϴ͘ϯϱͿ
ZϮ с͘ϵϬ
Examination of Discriminant Validity

ϭ  Ϭ͘ϮϬ
,ϭ͗ 
KDϮ ;ϴ͘ϯϱͿ
Ϭ͘ϲϴ Ϭ͘ϵϲ;ϯϮ͘ϱϮͿ ZϮ с͘ϵϬ
;ϳ͘ϴϬͿ ŽŵŵŝƚŵĞŶƚ  Ϭ͘Ϯϭ
;ɻϰͿ Ϭ͘ϵϵ;ϯϮ͘ϲϲͿ  KDϯ ;ϴ͘ϯϬͿ

ZϮсϬ͘ϯϬ ZϮ с͘ϵϬ 
Ϭ͘ϵϴ;ϯϮ͘ϰϱͿ Ϭ͘Ϯϭ
,ϵ͗ ;ϴ͘ϯϴͿ Ϭ͘ϱϬ
,ϰ͗ ,ϳ͗ ,ϭϬ͗ KDϰ
Ϭ͘ϴϱ Ϭ͘ϱϱ Ϭ͘ϯϯ ZϮ с͘ϵϬ  >Kzϭ ;ϴ͘ϰϴͿ
Ϭ͘ϱϵ Ϭ͘ϯϰ
;ϵ͘ϴϲͿ  ^dϭ ;ϲ͘ϲϳͿ ;ϴ͘ϱϭͿ ;ϯ͘ϬϵͿ ZϮс͘ϴϰ 
 ;Ϯ͘ϵϯͿ ϭ Ϭ͘ϱϭ
ZϮс͘ϱϰ  ;ϴ͘ϭϮͿ
Ϭ͘ϱϬ   >KzϮ
ϭ  ƩĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ
;ϲ͘ϳϰͿ  ϭ͘Ϭϴ;Ϯϱ͘ϮϱͿ ZϮс͘ϴϲ 
^d ^ĂƟƐĨĂĐƟŽŶ ;ɻϯͿ >ŽLJĂůƚLJ;ɻϲͿ Ϭ͘ϲϴ
ZϮс͘ϳϵ ϭ͘ϯϴ ;ɻϭͿ ZϮсϬ͘ϴϵ ZϮсϬ͘ϲϰ Ϭ͘ϵϯ;Ϯϭ͘ϰϵͿ ;ϵ͘ϱϬͿ
Ϭ͘ϳϴ Ϯ >Kzϯ

[email protected]
Z сϬ͘ϰϮ ,ϱ͗
;ϵ͘ϭϬͿ  ZϮс͘ϳϳ 
^d ϭ͘ϮϬ;ϭϮ͘ Ϭ͘ϱϬ Ϭ͘ϯϳ
ZϮс͘ϲϱ Ϭ͘ϵϲ;Ϯϱ͘ϴϬͿ
;ϯ͘ϰϮͿ >Kzϰ ;ϳ͘ϳϵͿ
ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϴϰ;ϭϮ͘ϭϳͿ Ϭ͘ϵϰ;ϭϰͿ tŚĞƌĞ
 ZϮс͘ϴϳ
ϭ͘Ϭϲ;ϭϱ͘ϴϮͿ

ͻ ddϭƚŽddϰĂƌĞƚŚĞŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐŽĨƌĂŶĚƫƚƵĚĞ^ƚƌĞŶŐƚŚ 
d,ϭ d,Ϯ d,ϯ d,ϰ ͻ ^dϭƚŽ^dϯĂƌĞƚŚĞŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐŽĨƌĂŶĚ^ĂƟƐĨĂĐƟŽŶ
ZϮсϬ͘ϲϰ ZϮсϬ͘ϱϭ ZϮсϬ͘ϲϯ ZϮсϬ͘ϳϱ ͻ dZϭƚŽdZϰĂƌĞƚŚĞŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐŽĨƌĂŶĚdƌƵƐƚ
Ϭ͘ϳϴ Ϭ͘ϵϴ Ϭ͘ϳϱ Ϭ͘ϱϯ ͻ d,ϭƚŽd,ϰĂƌĞƚŚĞŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐŽĨƌĂŶĚƩĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ
;ϵ͘ϱϯͿ ;ϭϬ͘ϮϲͿ ;ϵ͘ϲϱͿ ;ϴ͘ϰϬͿ ͻ KDϭƚŽKDϰĂƌĞƚŚĞŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐŽĨƌĂŶĚŽŵŵŝƚŵĞŶƚ
ͻ YϭƚŽYϰĂƌĞƚŚĞŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐŽĨƌĂŶĚƋƵŝƚLJ
ͻ >KzϭƚŽ>KzϰĂƌĞƚŚĞŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐŽĨƌĂŶĚ>ŽLJĂůƚLJ
ͻ sĂůƵĞƐŝŶƉĂƌĞŶƚŚĞƐŝƐĂƌĞƚͲƐƚĂƟƐƟĐƐ;ƚĐƌŝƟĐĂůǀĂůƵĞĂƚϬ͘ϬϱůĞǀĞůс
 ϭ͘ϵϲͿ͘
105

Fig. 5.7   Results of consumer brand relationships (Most unconstrained model Mu1)
 Ϭ͘ϴϴ Ϭ͘ϳϮ Ϭ͘ϰϴ Ϭ͘ϵϴ
106

;ϵ͘ϲϵͿ ;ϵ͘ϯϰͿ ;ϴ͘ϭϮͿ ;ϵ͘ϲϰͿ

dZϭ dZϮ dZϯ dZϰ

ZϮс Ϭ͘ϲϯ ZϮс Ϭ͘ϲϴ ZϮс Ϭ͘ϳϴ ZϮсϬ͘ϲϰ
Ϭ͘ϴϴ ϭ͘Ϭϲ;ϭϲ͘ϬϯͿ Ϭ͘ϳϴ
;ϵ͘ϰϮͿ ddϭ  ϭ͘ϬϬ ϭ͘ϬϬ;ϭϰ͘ϲϯͿ Yϭ ;ϵ͘ϳϲͿ
ϭ͘Ϭϳ;ϭϰ͘ϬϲͿ 
ZϮс͘ϱϭ ZϮс͘ϲϭ
Ϭ͘ϳϱ ,Ϯ͗ ϭ Ϭ͘ϲϱ
;ϴ͘ϭϲͿ ϭ͘ϬϬ ,ϲ͗
;ϵ͘ϬϲͿ
ddϮ  Ϭ͘ϳϯ Ϭ͘ϳϲ YϮ
ZϮс͘ϲϰ ƫƚƵĚĞ ;ϲ͘ϲϲͿ ZϮс͘ϳϬ 
Ϭ͘ϴϱ ϭ͘Ϯϭ;ϭϭ͘ϰϱͿ  dƌƵƐƚ;ɻϮͿ ;ϴ͘ϳϴͿ ƋƵŝƚLJ;ɻϱͿ ϭϭ͘ϭϭ;ϭϰ͘ϱϴͿ Ϭ͘ϱϵ
^ƚƌĞŶŐƚŚ;ʇͿ

;ϴ͘ϴϰͿ ddϯ 
 ZϮсϬ͘ϳϴ ZϮсϬ͘ϳϬ ϭ͘Ϯϵ;ϭϱ͘ϱϯͿ Yϯ ;ϴ͘ϬϲͿ
ZϮс͘ϱϴ ϭ͘ϭϯ;ϭϬ͘ϵϳͿ ZϮс͘ϳϴ 
ϭ͘ϬϮ ϭ͘ϮϮ;ϭϱ͘ϰϲͿ Ϭ͘ϱϱ
;ϵ͘ϯϲͿ ϭ͘ϭϬ;ϭϬ͘ϰϮͿ ,ϯ͗ ,ϴ͗ ;ϴ͘ϭϰͿ
ddϰ Yϰ
ZϮс͘ϱϮ Ϭ͘Ϭϭ Ϭ͘Ϯϭ Ϭ͘Ϯϭ ZϮс͘ϳϳ 
;Ϭ͘ϭϯͿ ;ϱ͘ϬϰͿ KDϭ ;ϴ͘ϯϱͿ
ZϮ с͘ϵϬ
ϭ  Ϭ͘ϮϬ
,ϭ͗ 
KDϮ ;ϴ͘ϯϱͿ
Ϭ͘ϲϴ Ϭ͘ϵϲ;ϯϮ͘ϱϮͿ ZϮ с͘ϵϬ
;ϳ͘ϴϬͿ ŽŵŵŝƚŵĞŶƚ  Ϭ͘Ϯϭ
;ɻϰͿ Ϭ͘ϵϵ;ϯϮ͘ϲϲͿ  KDϯ ;ϴ͘ϯϬͿ

ZϮ сϬ͘ϯϬ ZϮ с͘ϵϬ 
Ϭ͘ϵϴ;ϯϮ͘ϰϱͿ Ϭ͘Ϯϭ
,ϵ͗ ;ϴ͘ϯϴͿ Ϭ͘ϱϬ
,ϰ͗ ,ϳ͗ ,ϭϬ͗ KDϰ
Ϭ͘ϴϱ Ϭ͘ϱϱ Ϭ͘ϯϯ ZϮ с͘ϵϬ  >Kzϭ ;ϴ͘ϰϴͿ
Ϭ͘ϱϵ Ϭ͘ϯϰ
;ϵ͘ϴϲͿ  ^dϭ ;ϲ͘ϲϳͿ ;ϴ͘ϱϭͿ ;ϯ͘ϬϵͿ ZϮс͘ϴϰ 
 ;Ϯ͘ϵϯͿ ϭ Ϭ͘ϱϭ
ZϮс͘ϱϰ  ;ϴ͘ϭϮͿ
Ϭ͘ϱϬ   >KzϮ
ϭ  ƩĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ
;ϲ͘ϳϰͿ  ϭ͘Ϭϴ;Ϯϱ͘ϮϱͿ ZϮс͘ϴϲ 
^d ^ĂƟƐĨĂĐƟŽŶ ;ɻϯͿ >ŽLJĂůƚLJ;ɻϲͿ Ϭ͘ϲϴ
ZϮс͘ϳϵ ϭ͘ϯϴ ;ɻϭͿ ZϮсϬ͘ϴϵ ZϮсϬ͘ϲϰ Ϭ͘ϵϯ;Ϯϭ͘ϰϵͿ ;ϵ͘ϱϬͿ
Ϭ͘ϳϴ Ϯ >Kzϯ

[email protected]
Z сϬ͘ϰϮ ,ϱ͗
;ϵ͘ϭϬͿ  ZϮс͘ϳϳ 
^d ϭ͘ϮϬ;ϭϮ͘ Ϭ͘ϱϬ Ϭ͘ϯϳ
ZϮс͘ϲϱ Ϭ͘ϵϲ;Ϯϱ͘ϴϬͿ
;ϯ͘ϰϮͿ >Kzϰ ;ϳ͘ϳϵͿ
ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϴϰ;ϭϮ͘ϭϳͿ Ϭ͘ϵϰ;ϭϰͿ tŚĞƌĞ
 ZϮс͘ϴϳ
ϭ͘Ϭϲ;ϭϱ͘ϴϮͿ

ͻ ddϭƚŽddϰĂƌĞƚŚĞŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐŽĨƌĂŶĚƫƚƵĚĞ^ƚƌĞŶŐƚŚ 
d,ϭ d,Ϯ d,ϯ d,ϰ ͻ ^dϭƚŽ^dϯĂƌĞƚŚĞŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐŽĨƌĂŶĚ^ĂƟƐĨĂĐƟŽŶ
ZϮсϬ͘ϲϰ ZϮсϬ͘ϱϭ ZϮсϬ͘ϲϯ ZϮсϬ͘ϳϱ ͻ dZϭƚŽdZϰĂƌĞƚŚĞŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐŽĨƌĂŶĚdƌƵƐƚ
Ϭ͘ϳϴ Ϭ͘ϵϴ Ϭ͘ϳϱ Ϭ͘ϱϯ ͻ d,ϭƚŽd,ϰĂƌĞƚŚĞŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐŽĨƌĂŶĚƩĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ
;ϵ͘ϱϯͿ ;ϭϬ͘ϮϲͿ ;ϵ͘ϲϱͿ ;ϴ͘ϰϬͿ ͻ KDϭƚŽKDϰĂƌĞƚŚĞŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐŽĨƌĂŶĚŽŵŵŝƚŵĞŶƚ
ͻ YϭƚŽYϰĂƌĞƚŚĞŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐŽĨƌĂŶĚƋƵŝƚLJ
ͻ >KzϭƚŽ>KzϰĂƌĞƚŚĞŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐŽĨƌĂŶĚ>ŽLJĂůƚLJ
ͻ sĂůƵĞƐŝŶƉĂƌĞŶƚŚĞƐŝƐĂƌĞƚͲƐƚĂƟƐƟĐƐ;ƚĐƌŝƟĐĂůǀĂůƵĞĂƚϬ͘ϬϱůĞǀĞůс
 ϭ͘ϵϲͿ͘
5  Analysis and Results

Fig. 5.8   Results of consumer brand relationships (Most constrained model Mc2)
 Ϭ͘ϴϴ Ϭ͘ϳϮ Ϭ͘ϰϴ Ϭ͘ϵϴ
;ϵ͘ϲϵͿ ;ϵ͘ϯϰͿ ;ϴ͘ϭϮͿ ;ϵ͘ϲϰͿ

dZϭ dZϮ dZϯ dZϰ

ZϮсϬ͘ϲϯ ZϮсϬ͘ϲϴ ZϮсϬ͘ϳϴ ZϮсϬ͘ϲϰ
Ϭ͘ϴϴ ϭ͘Ϭϲ;ϭϲ͘ϬϯͿ Ϭ͘ϳϴ
;ϵ͘ϰϮͿ ddϭ  ϭ͘ϬϬ ϭ͘ϬϬ;ϭϰ͘ϲϯͿ Yϭ ;ϵ͘ϳϲͿ
ϭ͘Ϭϳ;ϭϰ͘ϬϲͿ 
ZϮс͘ϱϭ ZϮс͘ϲϭ
Ϭ͘ϳϱ ,Ϯ͗ ϭ Ϭ͘ϲϱ
;ϴ͘ϭϲͿ ϭ͘ϬϬ ,ϲ͗
;ϵ͘ϬϲͿ
ddϮ  Ϭ͘ϳϯ Ϭ͘ϳϲ YϮ
ZϮс͘ϲϰ ƫƚƵĚĞ ;ϲ͘ϲϲͿ ZϮс͘ϳϬ 
Ϭ͘ϴϱ ϭ͘Ϯϭ;ϭϭ͘ϰϱͿ  dƌƵƐƚ;ɻϮͿ ;ϴ͘ϳϴͿ ƋƵŝƚLJ;ɻϱͿ ϭϭ͘ϭϭ;ϭϰ͘ϱϴͿ Ϭ͘ϱϵ
^ƚƌĞŶŐƚŚ;ʇͿ

;ϴ͘ϴϰͿ ddϯ 
 ZϮсϬ͘ϳϴ ZϮсϬ͘ϳϬ ϭ͘Ϯϵ;ϭϱ͘ϱϯͿ Yϯ ;ϴ͘ϬϲͿ
ZϮс͘ϱϴ ϭ͘ϭϯ;ϭϬ͘ϵϳͿ ZϮс͘ϳϴ 
ϭ͘ϬϮ ϭ͘ϮϮ;ϭϱ͘ϰϲͿ Ϭ͘ϱϱ
;ϵ͘ϯϲͿ ϭ͘ϭϬ;ϭϬ͘ϰϮͿ ,ϯ͗ ,ϴ͗ ;ϴ͘ϭϰͿ
ddϰ Yϰ
ZϮс͘ϱϮ Ϭ͘Ϭϭ Ϭ͘Ϯϭ Ϭ͘Ϯϭ ZϮс͘ϳϳ 
;Ϭ͘ϭϯͿ ;ϱ͘ϬϰͿ KDϭ ;ϴ͘ϯϱͿ
ZϮ с͘ϵϬ
Examination of Discriminant Validity

ϭ  Ϭ͘ϮϬ
,ϭ͗ 
KDϮ ;ϴ͘ϯϱͿ
Ϭ͘ϲϴ Ϭ͘ϵϲ;ϯϮ͘ϱϮͿ ZϮ с͘ϵϬ
;ϳ͘ϴϬͿ ŽŵŵŝƚŵĞŶƚ  Ϭ͘Ϯϭ
;ɻϰͿ Ϭ͘ϵϵ;ϯϮ͘ϲϲͿ  KDϯ ;ϴ͘ϯϬͿ

ZϮс Ϭ͘ϯϬ ZϮ с͘ϵϬ 
Ϭ͘ϵϴ;ϯϮ͘ϰϱͿ Ϭ͘Ϯϭ
,ϵ͗ ;ϴ͘ϯϴͿ Ϭ͘ϱϬ
,ϰ͗ ,ϳ͗ ,ϭϬ͗ KDϰ
Ϭ͘ϴϱ Ϭ͘ϱϱ Ϭ͘ϯϯ ZϮ с͘ϵϬ  >Kzϭ ;ϴ͘ϰϴͿ
Ϭ͘ϱϵ Ϭ͘ϯϰ
;ϵ͘ϴϲͿ  ^dϭ ;ϲ͘ϲϳͿ ;ϴ͘ϱϭͿ ;ϯ͘ϬϵͿ ZϮс͘ϴϰ 
 ;Ϯ͘ϵϯͿ ϭ Ϭ͘ϱϭ
ZϮс͘ϱϰ  ;ϴ͘ϭϮͿ
Ϭ͘ϱϬ   >KzϮ
ϭ  ƩĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ
;ϲ͘ϳϰͿ  ϭ͘Ϭϴ;Ϯϱ͘ϮϱͿ ZϮс͘ϴϲ 
^d ^ĂƟƐĨĂĐƟŽŶ ;ɻϯͿ >ŽLJĂůƚLJ;ɻϲͿ Ϭ͘ϲϴ
ZϮс͘ϳϵ ϭ͘ϯϴ ;ɻϭͿ ZϮсϬ͘ϴϵ ZϮсϬ͘ϲϰ Ϭ͘ϵϯ;Ϯϭ͘ϰϵͿ ;ϵ͘ϱϬͿ
Ϭ͘ϳϴ Ϯ >Kzϯ

[email protected]
Z сϬ͘ϰϮ ,ϱ͗
;ϵ͘ϭϬͿ  ZϮс͘ϳϳ 
^d ϭ͘ϮϬ;ϭϮ͘ Ϭ͘ϱϬ Ϭ͘ϯϳ
ZϮс͘ϲϱ Ϭ͘ϵϲ;Ϯϱ͘ϴϬͿ
;ϯ͘ϰϮͿ >Kzϰ ;ϳ͘ϳϵͿ
ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϴϰ;ϭϮ͘ϭϳͿ Ϭ͘ϵϰ;ϭϰͿ tŚĞƌĞ
 ZϮс͘ϴϳ
ϭ͘Ϭϲ;ϭϱ͘ϴϮͿ

ͻ ddϭƚŽddϰĂƌĞƚŚĞŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐŽĨƌĂŶĚƫƚƵĚĞ^ƚƌĞŶŐƚŚ 
d,ϭ d,Ϯ d,ϯ d,ϰ ͻ ^dϭƚŽ^dϯĂƌĞƚŚĞŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐŽĨƌĂŶĚ^ĂƟƐĨĂĐƟŽŶ
ZϮсϬ͘ϲϰ ZϮсϬ͘ϱϭ ZϮсϬ͘ϲϯ ZϮсϬ͘ϳϱ ͻ dZϭƚŽdZϰĂƌĞƚŚĞŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐŽĨƌĂŶĚdƌƵƐƚ
Ϭ͘ϳϴ Ϭ͘ϵϴ Ϭ͘ϳϱ Ϭ͘ϱϯ ͻ d,ϭƚŽd,ϰĂƌĞƚŚĞŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐŽĨƌĂŶĚƩĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ
;ϵ͘ϱϯͿ ;ϭϬ͘ϮϲͿ ;ϵ͘ϲϱͿ ;ϴ͘ϰϬͿ ͻ KDϭƚŽKDϰĂƌĞƚŚĞŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐŽĨƌĂŶĚŽŵŵŝƚŵĞŶƚ
ͻ YϭƚŽYϰĂƌĞƚŚĞŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐŽĨƌĂŶĚƋƵŝƚLJ
ͻ >KzϭƚŽ>KzϰĂƌĞƚŚĞŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐŽĨƌĂŶĚ>ŽLJĂůƚLJ
ͻ sĂůƵĞƐŝŶƉĂƌĞŶƚŚĞƐŝƐĂƌĞƚͲƐƚĂƟƐƟĐƐ;ƚĐƌŝƟĐĂůǀĂůƵĞĂƚϬ͘ϬϱůĞǀĞůс
 ϭ͘ϵϲͿ͘
107

Fig. 5.9   Results of consumer brand relationships (Most constrained model Mc1)
108 5  Analysis and Results

measures model parsimony, the lower the value, the better the model’s performance
(Diamantopolous and Siguaw 2000). These fit indices are generally used when the
alternative model comparisoninvolves the comparison of non-nested models, i.e.,
models under consideration differ in terms of number of constructs or indicators.
In this situation, researcher should not generally rely completely on fit indices, but
also parsimony as well (Hair et al. 1998). The indices of all these three (AIC, ECVI,
and PNFI) suggest that Mt is more parsimonious than Mu2 and Mu1. The AIC for
Mu1 is 840 and for Mt the value is 837. The ECVI indices are 3.35 for Mu1 and
3.36 for Mt, which is very near. The PNFI indices are 0.86 for both the model (Mu1
and Mt). These three indices show enough evidence that Mt is a better model, once
parsimony is taken into account.
The study also analyzed model’s (Mt) suitability or fit with other two constrained
models (Mc1 and Mc2). In Mc1, the study constrained four path coefficients from
the full model, these paths are: (1) Brand Attitude Strength to Brand Commit-
ment; (2) Brand Satisfaction to Brand Attachment; (3) Brand Attitude Strength to
Brand Attachment; and (4) Brand Satisfaction to Brand Trust. In Mc2—the most
constrained models, in which the study constrained the paths, which are already
constrained in Mc1 and an additional path (Brand Trust to Brand Attachment). The
fit indices such as AIC, EVCI, and PNFI are used for the comparison of Mc1 and
Mc2 with Mt. The AIC for Mc1 is 872 and for Mc2 the value is 874, higher than the
Mt’s AIC value of 837. The EVCI indices for Mc1, Mc2, and Mt are 3.50, 3.51, and
3.36, respectively. The PNFI value for both Mc1 and Mt is 0.86 and 0.87 for Mc2.
The comparison of all the indices has shown substantial evidence that Mt is a better
model in comparison with other two constrained models (Mc1 and Mc2). Although
other fit indices have shown almost comparable results across other competitive
models, the χ2 statistic, AIC, EVCI, and PNFI measures suggest that Mt is one that
best models that explains the consumer–brand relationship formation process. The
path diagram and its respective path coefficients for these competing models are
presented in Figs. 5.6–5.9.

Chapter Summary

This chapter provided the detailed overview of the results of model conceptualiza-
tion, testing, and validation phases. It included an overview of the process used to
conceptualize the constructs of consumer–brand relationships and the results of the
grounded theory approach used to conceptualize the model. It then detailed the char-
acteristics of the sample included and the results of the model testing and validation
phase of this study. The first part of study results generated seven dimensionalities of
consumer–brand relationship model. During the second part, first an EFA was carried
out to verify the dimensionality of the conceptualized constructs. Later on using CFA,
the validity and reliability of these constructs were confirmed. Finally, using SEM,
the model testing and validity confirmation was done, which was supportive of the
conceptual model proposed in the first section. In Chap. 6, the study will discuss the
findings as they relate to the three research questions central to this study.

[email protected]
Chapter 6
Discussion, Implications, and Conclusions

This chapter is presented in five sections. The first section provides an overview of
the entire study. The second section summarizes the findings of the study based on
the three research questions. The third section considers the theoretical and mana-
gerial implications of the study, including implications in strategic management
perspective. Following this, Sect. 4 includes the limitations of this research. Finally,
Sect. 5 concludes with the recommendations for further research.

Overview

In branding, in its pursuit to identify the factors that promote consumer bond with
brands, the studies in brand relationship literature recently afforded the develop-
ment of models/theories of consumer–brand relationships using undue dependence
on interpersonal literature. However, the enthusiasm shown by these theorists to
demonstrate these constructs’ ability to impact on consumer behavior has misguided
consumer’s long-term or deep-rooted relationship with brands, apparently assuming
“that peoples some of the time form relationships with brands in the same way in
which they form relationships with each other in other social contexts.” In reality,
this process of adaptation will create problems if the concept of brand relationships
is not directly analogous to the theory of interpersonal relationship (Brevik and
Thorbjornsen 2006). According to Hunt and Menon (1995), the success of the adop-
tion of metaphoric transfer from one literature (here, from interpersonal to branding
context) requires necessary translation from that literature to adapting discipline.
Hence, rather than continuing on undue dependence of interpersonal literature
for the development of theories (e.g., Aaker et al. 2004; Monga 2002; Ji 2002; Park
and Kim 2001; Kaltcheva and Weitz 1999; Olson 1999; Fournier 1998), a more
fruitful approach would be to explore and understand the actual experience of con-
sumers who have strong and deep-rooted relationship with brands and to generate a
theoretical model of the antecedents and consequences of consumer–brand relation-
ships exclusively in branding paradigm. To this end, this study initiated by pointing
out the fact that although both practitioners and academicians have identified the

S. Sreejesh, S. Mohapatra, Mixed Method Research Design, 109

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-02687-9_6, © Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

[email protected]
110 6  Discussion, Implications, and Conclusions

role of brand relationships as an important concept, the theoretical contribution in

his area has been hindered by: (1) extensive adaptation and use of interpersonal
relationship theory from high-involving relationships contexts to low-involving
consumer–brand relationship context using either exploratory or descriptive stud-
ies, (2) lacks clear guidelines for model specification, and (3) the failure to inte-
grate or identify interlinkages between the attitudinal and behavioral components
of consumer–brand relationship constructs in proper way. Therefore, the proposed
study using a fully mixed research design followed by a grounded theory approach,
conducted a qualitative exploration using a series of in-depth interviews backed by
theoretical sampling that uncovered seven consumer-experienced brand relation-
ship prototypes. Then, we specified and interlinked these relationship prototypes
using existing literature in the consumer–brand relationships and framed a most
theoretical model. Thus, this study builds on previous research by considering con-
structs that have been studied independently and using interpersonal theories and
showing that brand relationships can function as an integrated framework exclu-
sively in consumer branding context.

Interpretation of the Findings

Research Question 1

Research question 1 asked, Is the exploration and integration of attitudinal and

behavioral components for the conceptualization of the consumer–brand relation-
ships being really meaningful? It was proposed that the consumer–brand relation-
ship is an integration of attitudinal and behavioral components that is an aggre-
gation of four dimensions: (1) cognitive component, (2) affective component, (3)
conative component, and (4) action or behavioral component. These four compo-
nents were supported during the qualitative phase of this study. The empirical inter-
dependency among these components was confirmed during the grounded theory
phase and SEM. Brand loyalty was emerging as a highly abstract construct during
the grounded theory, as several respondents used it to describe this as the behavioral
component. The grounded theory phase of the study suggested that the emergence
of these four attitudinal components happens in different stages of consumer–brand
relationships. It found that during relationship establishment the relationship is
more dependent upon cognitive aspects, relationship augmentation happens during
affective phase, maintenance happens during conative phase, and finally, relation-
ship outcome happens during behavioral or action phase. Thus, the results of the
grounded theory led the researcher to question the findings of previous literature
that consumer–brand relationship happens cognitive or affective or conative com-
ponents alone. Different from this, this study found that the relationship between
brand and consumer is sequential in which relationship starts through the establish-
ment of cognitive aspects, augmented through affective aspects, maintained through

[email protected]
Interpretation of the Findings  111

conative, and finally, it would create an outcome during behavioral phase. This
conclusion is highly contentious in consumer–brand relationship literature and is a
topic for further study.
In addition, the interdependency of the four attitudinal and behavioral compo-
nents was proposed to represent consumer–brand relationships become apparent
during the quantitative phase of this study. In fact, this interdependency created
significant path coefficients, which are in turn evident from overall goodness-of-fit
indices of the model. In this way, the study found support for the conceputalization
of consumer–brand relationships, which were apprently evident in study findings.
The more evidences are given in subsequent interpretation of research findings (Re-
search Questions 2 and 3).

Research Question 2

Research question 2 asked, What are the underlying attitudinal and behavioral di-
mensions of consumer–brand relationships? Is behavioral relationship really influ-
enced by attitudinal relationship?
During the grounded theory phase of the study, it was found that there were
seven dimensions of consumer–brand relationships such as brand attitude strength,
brand satisfaction, brand trust, brand attachment, brand commitment, brand equity,
and brand loyalty. The results also supported the fact that these dimensions belong
to four different attitudinal phases and relationship stages. Consumer brand atti-
tude strength and brand satisfaction were the two major cognitive aspects, which
would emerge during the relationship establishment stage. Brand trust and attach-
ment were the major source of affective dimensionality, which would augment con-
sumer–brand relationships. Brand commitment was the sole source of relationship
maintenance, which is considered to be the conative aspect of the relationship. Fi-
nally, the study found support for two major outcomes of the consumer–brand re-
lationship, brand equity and brand loyalty. These two outcomes are finding support
as the behavioral aspect of the consumer–brand relationships. The empirical testing
and validation of the model supported the fact that the behavioral dimensions are
really influenced by attitudinal dimensions.

Research Question 3

Research Question 3 asked, By operationlizing consumer–brand relationships

through integrating the attitudinal and behavioral aspects, does the empirical test-
ing of new consumer–brand relationship model truly advance the understanding of
consumers’ deep-rooted bond with brands? The findings of the study truly advance
the knowledge to the existing body of brand management literature, particularly the
brand relationship to literature. This study highlights the role of the strong relation-
ship between all the four attitudinal and behavioral components of consumer–brand

[email protected]
112 6  Discussion, Implications, and Conclusions

relationships. In fact, the consumer–brand relationship is an integration of attitudi-

nal and behavioral components, in which the relationship starts with the develop-
ment of attitude strength and brand satisfaction, getting augmented through brand
trust and attachment, and maintained through brand commitment. This brand com-
mitment would lead to two behavioral components such as brand equity and brand
loyalty. Hence, this study advances in the knowledge through its finding that the
consumer–brand relationship is an integration of attitudinal and behavioral compo-
nents and consist of cognitive, affective, and conative components, which will lead
to behavioral outcomes.

Contribution to the Body of Knowledge

In this study, the exploratory investigation shows that research on consumer–brand

relationships that is originated from theories of interpersonal relationships tends to
overlook and redefine the critical issues of how strong and intense consumer–brand
relationship-generated brands become part of identity and provide intrinsic benefits
for consumers and profit centers for marketers.
The study followed a mixed approach that started with a qualitative grounded
theory approach and continued to the descriptive phase, wherein we used a structur-
al equation modeling analysis. In this stage, we tested the most theoretical models
with other two constrained and unconstrained models from a theoretical perspec-
tive. The most theoretical model (as proposed by this study) showed that it better
fits with data compared with other alternative models. Thus, through a series of sys-
tematic set of studies, the research showed that in terms of good explanations and
theoretical power, the process of consumer–brand relationships should be modeled
with much more theoretical rigor and support. The study results also augmented the
theoretical richness and diagnostic insights while conceptualizing consumer–brand
relationships through the generation and integration of the attitudinal and behav-
ioral components, such as: (1) brand attitude strength; (2) brand satisfaction; (3)
brand trust; (4) brand attachment; (5) brand commitment; (6) brand equity,; and (7)
brand loyalty.
The empirical validation of the theoretical model would add value over the ex-
isting literature of consumer–brand relationships in several ways. First, it provides
more comprehensive, detailed, and integrated understanding of how consumers
actually form relationships with brands than the previous study of individual con-
structs, as stand-alone theoretical constructs, would suggest. Second, by showing
the theoretical model, and its comparison with most constrained and unconstrained
models from a theoretical perspective demonstrates how relationship formation
changes with changes in relationships and helps to identify the most useful pathway
through which consumer might develop a relationship with the brand. Third, look-
ing at the path coefficients, it would be easier to judge which components or sub-
components might have the strongest impact on the brand relationship formation.

[email protected]
Managerial Implications  113

Managerial Implications

This study helps the marketing practitioners for greater understanding and execu-
tion about when, where, and how to invest in the establishment of customer bond
and the process through which the development of bond with a brand could be
executed. The identification of relationship establishment constructs would also
more directly answer the call from the marketing practitioner community for more
precision in terms of relationship establishment and assist in management decision
making. The exploration of relationship dimensions, particularly the relationship
establishment drivers exclusively from branding helps to know where to begin the
process of strong and deep-rooted bond creation with brands. This will also enable
marketing practitioners to demonstrate good knowledge for the investment of mar-
keting resources.
The core managerial question, which all managers would like to answer for ev-
ery brand, is how they can turn the first-time users of a brand into loyal one and
maintain relationships over time. The model proposed in this study has implica-
tions and will assist managers for investing monetary and nonmonetary resources
for relationship maintenance, resolving managerial uncertainty, product and service
design, and marketing communications.
We have in this research suggested seven consumer–brand relationship dimen-
sions, these dimensions will help to conceptualize and measure the relationship
building process from diversified perspectives. These identified dimensions and
their integration are in line with previous literature. This integration of this diversi-
fied relationship paradigm helps the managers to resolve managerial uncertainty
about how to take necessary actions, (e.g., promotion and marketing communica-
tion) at every stage and to put the notion of relationship building to best use of
promoting deep customer-brand relationship.
However, the discussion of developing customer bond with the brand goes be-
yond customer loyalty and making the customer part of the brand. Managers believe
that in addition to developing a loyal consumer base and positive word of mouth,
customers with high level of attitudinal motivation may also be in a position to help
companies to design the next-generation product or services (Jones 2006). Some-
times, the companies with a strong loyal customer base and customers with positive
word of mouth often struggle to develop innovative product or services. It might be
owing to the fact that the customer is repeatedly showing behavioral relationship
with the brand or showing behavioral loyalty because of the absence of other alter-
natives. In this case, the attitudinal component of the relationship with the customer
toward the brand is missing. In this context, this research investigated the feasibility
and usefulness of the model empirically with the integration of all the attitudinal
and behavioral dimensions such as the cognitive, affective, conative, and action
dimensions in order to provide academicians and marketing practitioners with suf-
ficient information to make decisions and to avoid managerial uncertainty.

[email protected]
114 6  Discussion, Implications, and Conclusions

Implications for Strategic Management

From the consumer–brand relationship model developed in this study, the consumer
brand marketers may clearly see the strategic management of consumer–brand re-
lationships starts with establishing the cognitive components of the relationship:
brand attitude strength and brand satisfaction. The next step focuses more on the
pursuit of augmenting consumer–brand relationships through constructs such as:
brand trust and brand attachment, which function as the key mediators in the whole
process of consumer–brand relationships. Once the augmentation has achieved,
marketers should concentrate on how to maintain consumer–brand relationships.
It could be achieved through a conative component, such as brand commitment,
which functions as a key component of relationship maintenance.
Noticeably, brand trust and brand attachment in affective stage as explicated by
the model are proven to be resulted in brand commitment, which directly influences
brand equity and brand loyalty. This exhibits the importance of affective and cona-
tive components in the context of consumer branding. Extant research also supports
this finding that these two components (trust and attachment) are very essential for
behaviors, such as loyalty and equity (Bandyopadhyay and Martell 2007; Bowen
and Chen 2001; Evanschitzky and Wunderlich 2006; Kandampully and Suhartanto
2000; Lee-Kelley et al. 2003; Oliver 1997). Therefore, managers should pay special
attention to these two components for building strong and deep-rooted consumer–
brand relationships.
Overall, the specific indicators for each latent construct as well as its relationship
established by the model may help the consumer–brand marketer to establish an
evaluation mechanism, which would monitor and keep consumer–brand relation-
ships building efforts. Here, in this research, the researcher would like to show
the power that the concept of consumer–brand relationship plays in the context of
consumer branding. Strategic management of such relationship dimensions estab-
lished in this study characterizes as an interrelated sequential process starting from
establishing relationships through cognitive aspects, to augmenting using affective
aspects, maintaining through conative aspects, and generating its outcomes. There-
fore, the consumer brand marketers are advised to keep updating on each stage and
develop strategies accordingly to have real benefit from their relationship building
efforts.

Limitations of the Research

The consumer–brand relationship model introduced in this study is based on seven

different constructs, which were derived using a nonmetaphorical approach, which
form the basis of this study. The final consumer–brand relationship model intro-
duced by this study is generalizable across different product categories and con-
sumer segments, but it must be acknowledged that the scope of the SEM phase was

[email protected]
Recommendations for Further Study  115

limited to three product categories and a single population group. This study does
not purport that the results, particularly the relationship among variables, possess
any level of external validity. Therefore, any attempt to replicate the study in other
product categories and population group must be done with caution.
The extant literature in branding identified the role of consumer–brand relation-
ships in management perspective. The issues are tied to the inability of the study
to measure this aspect of the consumer–brand relationship. Moreover, it recognizes
the failure to consider all the external variables, particularly other than the one from
the consumers’ point of view, which may have influenced the results. This study
identifies this as an inherent limitation of this study.
One of the recognizable limitations of this study is that the research was not
designed as a longitudinal study. The study was designed to test and validate the
conceptual model at a single point in time using cross-sectional data. To have more
confidence and understanding, the model should be tested using longitudinal data.
It will help the researcher to understand significant statistical change in a single
population over an extended period.

Recommendations for Further Study

This study provides another step in confronting the complex challenge associated
with the process of consumer–brand relationships. Specifically, the study offers a
framework to better understand the relationship between consumer and brands. In
this regard, the study added more questions than answers. The following are some
of the questions that are yet to be answered:
1. Is the relationship identified in this study between consumer and brand
context-dependent?
2. Is it possible to isolate and measure the moderating influence of product involve-
ment and brand involvement in the formation of consumer–brand relationships?
3. Are there any other constructs, other than from the consumer side, particularly
from manager’s perspective that influence the relationship between consumer
and brands.
4. Are there any inherent heterogeneity or consumer segments based on the con-
structs identified at each stage of relationships in the model?
5. Do other moderating variables such as culture, gender, and age of the consumers
have an influence on consumer–brand relationships?
6. Is the consumer–brand relationship model adaptable to other industries and other
consumer groups? A future research must simultaneously examine multiple
industries and multiple consumer groups within a single framework. This will
provide more understanding about industry-specific changes and dynamics of
consumer–brand relationships.

[email protected]
116 6  Discussion, Implications, and Conclusions

Chapter Summary

Today, marketers are challenged by allocating financial and nonfinancial resourc-

es with the goal of strengthening the relationship between consumers and brands.
However, the investment made by these companies ranging from corporate social
responsibility activities to advertising are often misguided, and it happens mainly
because of the lack of proper metrics to measure and evaluate the outcomes of these
relationship building efforts. Consequently, the objective of this study was to devel-
op and test an empirical model that could measure consumer–brand relationships.
Following a holistic approach through using a diverse methodological approach,
the study developed the model of consumer–brand relationships. This model was
developed and tested for reliability and validity following sequential mixed method
design, incorporating the qualitative tradition of grounded theory followed by a
quantitative method of structural equation modeling. The study provided a compre-
hensive approach for analyzing the dynamic relationship between consumers and
brands. In conclusion, the finding of this study offers a wide range of theoretical and
managerial contributions.

[email protected]
Appendix

Appendix 1: In-Depth Interview Protocol

Introduction

I want to thank you for taking your precious time to meet with me today. My name
is Sreejesh S, conducting a study on consumer–brand relationships, and I would
like to talk to you about your experiences with the brand to which you are loyal.
This information is mainly for assessing consumer–brand relationships, particularly
identifying the major themes and process of consumer–brand relationships.
This interview will take around 1  h. The conversation would be recorded for
study purpose, because I do not want to miss any of your valuable comments. In
addition to that, I will be taking some notes during our discussion. As we are us-
ing mobile phones to record your conversation, please make sure to speak loudly
so that we do not miss any of your comments. Your valuable comments would be
kept confidential. I will assure you that the information collected from you will be
included in my research work as it does not identify your identity. Finally, you can
finish your interview at any point, and you do not have to talk about anything if you
do not want to talk.
Are there any clarifications about what I have just explained?
Can I go ahead with the interview?

Warm-Up Questions (10 min)

1. Tell me about a brand with which you have a relatively strong relationship?
2. What kind of relationship you have with that brand?
3. What specialty that brand possesses?
4. Tell me about the magnitude of relationship, is it augmenting?

S. Sreejesh, S. Mohapatra, Mixed Method Research Design, 117

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-02687-9, © Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

[email protected]
118 Appendix

Section 1: Questions (15 min)

Specific questions about relationship establishment with the particular brand and
identification of starting point in this relationship establishment and maintenance,
with emphasis on the specified brand.
1. When (time)
2. How (from ad, or reference or from other sources)
3. Who referred this brand
4. From where
5. What you felt
6. Did you buy that brand at that time
7. What kind of evaluation you had at that time (strong or weak) why?
8. About importance (positive or negative) why?
9. About the confidence (High or Low) why?
10. About the certainty of its performance (positive or negative) why?
11. How knowledgeable do you feel you are about your favourite brand at that
point of time (Good or brand) why?

Section 2: Questions (15 min)

Specific questions about affective component in relationship maintenance with the

particular brand and identification of specific thoughts and feeling consumer felt
about the brand.
1. Do you feel that the brand is part of you and who you are, how?
2. Do you feel emotionally bonded to (brand name), explain?
3. Does (brand name) say something to other people about who you are, how?
4. How often are your thoughts and feelings toward (brand name) often auto-
matic, coming to mind seemingly on their own?
5. How often you have many thoughts about (brand name)?
6. How often do you feel the brand is credible, why how?
7. Did you feel the brand is trustworthy as a relationship partner, how?
8. Elaborate on the satisfaction aspect related with your brand

Section 3: Questions (10 min)

Specific questions about conative or intentional component in relationship estab-

lishment with the particular brand and identification of specific intentional aspects
consumer felt about the brand.
1. Did you plan this brand as your future option for catering your future product
needs, if yes, then when did you decided or intentioned to stay with the brand for
your future purposes. Why?
2. Why did you decided that it makes sense to continue using the brand
3. Why did you decided that staying with the brand is a very reasonable choice
4. Is it comes from your emotional connection and trustworthiness?

[email protected]
Appendix 2: Final Instrument 119

Section 4: Questions (20 min)

Questions related to outcome component in relationship maintenance with the par-

ticular brand and identification of this outcome component.

1. Situation 1
There is Brand B which is equal on all parameters to your preferred brand and even
on price. Which will you go for, your Brand or Brand B?
If the answer is the respondent’s favorite Brand then:
• Is this intention to stay with the brand and the trustworthiness makes sense to buy
the brand instead of any other brand, even if they are the same, how, why?
If the answer is Brand B then:
• How would you now justify your loyalty towards your favorite Brand?

2. Situation 2
There is Brand B which is equal on all aspects but is little less costlier than your
favorite Brand. Now will you still buy your brand?
If the answer is the respondent’s favorite Brand then:
• Is this intention to stay with the brand and the trustworthiness makes sense to buy
the brand instead of any other brand, even if they are the same but differ in price
how, why?
If the answer is Brand B then:
• How you would now justify your loyalty towards your favorite brand is price so
important?

Appendix 2: Final Instrument

Do you think you have made a strong and deep rooted relationship with any brands
in the past 12 months or before?
IF YES, to which of the following product category does that brand belongs:
• Apparels
• Laptops
• Automobiles
If you have not made a relationship with any of brands under the product categories
listed above in the past 12 months or before, please disregard this survey. Thank you
for your willingness to help!
This study is being conducted by the Department of Marketing, IBS Hyderabad,
IFHE University, Hyderabad, AP, India. Your input in the following questionnaire
will help us understand consumers’ relationship with brands. Careful responses to
questions about your brand relationships will be greatly appreciated by us, the re-
searchers, as well as the thousands of people who have strong and deep rooted rela-
tionships with brands. You will have up to 15 min to complete this survey.

[email protected]
120 Appendix

ϭ͘ ƉƉƌŽdžŝŵĂƚĞůLJǁŚĞŶ;ǁŚŝĐŚLJĞĂƌͿǁĂƐLJŽƵƌĮƌƐƚфďƌĂŶĚŶĂŵĞхƉƵƌĐŚĂƐĞ͍
;WůĞĂƐĞĮůůŝŶϰͲĚŝŐŝƚLJĞĂƌͿ

ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺzĞĂƌ

Ϯ͘ ƵƌŝŶŐƚŚĞůĂƐƚϭϮŵŽŶƚŚƐŽƌďĞĨŽƌĞŚŽǁŵĂŶLJƉƵƌĐŚĂƐĞƐŚĂǀĞLJŽƵƚĂŬĞŶ
ĨƌŽŵƚŚĞƐĞůĞĐƚĞĚƉƌŽĚƵĐƚĐĂƚĞŐŽƌLJ͍

ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ

ϯ͘ ƵƌŝŶŐƚŚĞůĂƐƚϭϮŵŽŶƚŚƐŽƌďĞĨŽƌĞ͕ŚŽǁŵĂŶLJƟŵĞƐĚŝĚLJŽƵƉƵƌĐŚĂƐĞĚ
фďƌĂŶĚŶĂŵĞх͍

ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺdŝŵĞƐ

ϰ͘ ƵƌŝŶŐƚŚĞůĂƐƚϭϮŵŽŶƚŚƐŽƌďĞĨŽƌĞ͕ŚŽǁŵĂŶLJƟŵĞƐĚŝĚLJŽƵƉƵƌĐŚĂƐĞĚĂŶLJ
ŽƚŚĞƌƉƌŽĚƵĐƚƐĨƌŽŵƚŚĞƐĂŵĞďƌĂŶĚфďƌĂŶĚŶĂŵĞх͍

ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺdŝŵĞƐ

ϱ͘ tŚĂƚŬŝŶĚŽĨƌĞůĂƟŽŶƐŚŝƉĚŽLJŽƵƚŚŝŶŬLJŽƵŚĂǀĞǁŝƚŚŝƚфďƌĂŶĚŶĂŵĞх͍

ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ

ϲ͘ ƐĂĐŽŶƐƵŵĞƌͬĐƵƐƚŽŵĞƌŚŽǁǁŽƵůĚLJŽƵƌĂƚĞLJŽƵƌĂƫƚƵĚĞƐƚƌĞŶŐƚŚƚŽǁĂƌĚƐ
фďƌĂŶĚŶĂŵĞхĂƐŽƉƉŽƐĞĚƚŽŽƚŚĞƌďƌĂŶĚƐWůĞĂƐĞĐŚŽŽƐĞƚŚĞŶƵŵďĞƌƚŚĂƚ
ďĞƐƚƌĞƉƌĞƐĞŶƚƐŚŽǁŵƵĐŚLJŽƵĂŐƌĞĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐƐƚĂƚĞŵĞŶƚƐ͘
DLJĂƫƚƵĚĞƚŽŵLJĨĂǀŽƵƌŝƚĞďƌĂŶĚŝƐ
sĞƌLJEĞŐĂƟǀĞ ϭ Ϯ ϯ ϰ ϱ ϲ ϳ sĞƌLJƉŽƐŝƟǀĞ

,ŽǁĐĞƌƚĂŝŶĚŽLJŽƵĨĞĞůĂďŽƵƚLJŽƵƌĂƫƚƵĚĞƚŽǁĂƌĚLJŽƵƌĨĂǀŽƵƌŝƚĞďƌĂŶĚŝŶ
ƚŚŝƐƉƌŽĚƵĐƚĐĂƚĞŐŽƌLJ͍
EŽƚǀĞƌLJĐĞƌƚĂŝŶ ϭ Ϯ ϯ ϰ ϱ ϲ ϳ sĞƌLJĐĞƌƚĂŝŶ

,ŽǁŝŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚǁŽƵůĚLJŽƵƐĂLJLJŽƵƌĨĂǀŽƵƌŝƚĞďƌĂŶĚŝƐƚŽLJŽƵƉĞƌƐŽŶĂůůLJ͍
EŽƚǀĞƌLJ ϭ Ϯ ϯ ϰ ϱ ϲ ϳ sĞƌLJ
/ŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚ /ŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚ

,ŽǁŬŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞĂďůĞĚŽLJŽƵĨĞĞůLJŽƵĂƌĞĂďŽƵƚLJŽƵƌĨĂǀŽƵƌŝƚĞďƌĂŶĚ͍
EŽƚǀĞƌLJ ϭ Ϯ ϯ ϰ ϱ ϲ ϳ sĞƌLJ
<ŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞĂďůĞ <ŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞĂďůĞ

[email protected]
Appendix 2: Final Instrument 121

ϳ͘ dŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐƐƚĂƚĞŵĞŶƚƐĂƌĞƌĞůĂƚĞĚƚŽƚŚĞƐĂƟƐĨĂĐƟŽŶфďƌĂŶĚŶĂŵĞх͘
WůĞĂƐĞƌĂƚĞĞĂĐŚŝƚĞŵŽŶĂƐĐĂůĞŽĨϭƚŽϳ͘

ŽŶƐŝĚĞƌŝŶŐĂůůŵLJĐŽŶƐƵŵƉƟŽŶĞdžƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞǁŝƚŚ΀ďƌĂŶĚŶĂŵĞ΁/Ăŵ͙
EŽƚ^ĂƟƐĮĞĚ ϭ Ϯ ϯ ϰ ϱ ϲ ϳ sĞƌLJ^ĂƟƐĮĞĚ
EŽƚWůĞĂƐĞĚ ϭ Ϯ ϯ ϰ ϱ ϲ ϳ sĞƌLJWůĞĂƐĞĚ
ŝƐĂƉƉŽŝŶƚĞĚ ϭ Ϯ ϯ ϰ ϱ ϲ ϳ EŽƚ
ŝƐĂƉƉŽŝŶƚĞĚ

ϴ͘ WůĞĂƐĞŝŶĚŝĐĂƚĞƚŚĞĚĞŐƌĞĞƚŽǁŚŝĐŚLJŽƵĂŐƌĞĞŽƌĚŝƐĂŐƌĞĞǁŝƚŚĞĂĐŚŽĨƚŚĞ
ĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐƐƚĂƚĞŵĞŶƚƐƌĞŐĂƌĚŝŶŐƚƌƵƐƚǁŽƌƚŚŝŶĞƐƐǁŝƚŚďƌĂŶĚ͕ĨƌŽŵϭ͞ƐƚƌŽŶŐůLJ
ĚŝƐĂŐƌĞĞ͕͟ƚŽϳ͞ƐƚƌŽŶŐůLJĂŐƌĞĞ͘͟

ĚŝƐĂŐƌĞĞ

^ƚƌŽŶŐůLJ
EĞƵƚƌĂů
^ƚƌŽŶŐůLJ

ŐƌĞĞ



/dƌƵƐƚƚŚŝƐďƌĂŶĚ ϭ Ϯ ϯ ϰ ϱ ϲ ϳ
/ƌĞůĂLJŽŶƚŚŝƐďƌĂŶĚ ϭ Ϯ ϯ ϰ ϱ ϲ ϳ
dŚŝƐŝƐĂŚŽŶĞƐƚďƌĂŶĚ ϭ Ϯ ϯ ϰ ϱ ϲ ϳ
dŚŝƐďƌĂŶĚŝƐƐĂĨĞ ϭ Ϯ ϯ ϰ ϱ ϲ ϳ

ϵ͘ dŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐƐƚĂƚĞŵĞŶƚƐƌĞŐĂƌĚŝŶŐLJŽƵƌƌĞůĂƟŽŶƐŚŝƉǁŝƚŚфďƌĂŶĚŶĂŵĞх͘
WůĞĂƐĞĐŚŽŽƐĞƚŚĞŶƵŵďĞƌƚŚĂƚďĞƐƚƌĞŇĞĐƚƐLJŽƵƌĨĞĞůŝŶŐ͘WůĞĂƐĞŝŶĚŝĐĂƚĞƚŚĞ
ĚĞŐƌĞĞƚŽǁŚŝĐŚLJŽƵƌƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞƌĂŶŐĞƐĨŽƌƚŚĞďŝͲƉŽůĂƌĂĚũĞĐƟǀĞƐ

dŽǁŚĂƚĞdžƚĞŶƚŝƐ;ďƌĂŶĚŶĂŵĞͿƉĂƌƚŽĨLJŽƵĂŶĚǁŚŽLJŽƵĂƌĞ͍
>Žǁ ϭ Ϯ ϯ ϰ ϱ ϲ ϳ ,ŝŐŚ

dŽǁŚĂƚĞdžƚĞŶƚĚŽLJŽƵĨĞĞůƉĞƌƐŽŶĂůůLJĐŽŶŶĞĐƚĞĚƚŽ;ďƌĂŶĚŶĂŵĞͿ͍
EŽƚĂƚĂůů ϭ Ϯ ϯ ϰ ϱ ϲ ϳ ,ŝŐŚůLJ
ĐŽŶŶĞĐƚĞĚ

dŽǁŚĂƚĞdžƚĞŶƚĚŽLJŽƵĨĞĞůĞŵŽƟŽŶĂůůLJďŽŶĚĞĚƚŽ;ďƌĂŶĚŶĂŵĞͿ͍
EŽƚǀĞƌLJ ϭ Ϯ ϯ ϰ ϱ ϲ ϳ sĞƌLJ
/ŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚ /ŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚ

dŽǁŚĂƚĞdžƚĞŶƚĂƌĞLJŽƵƌƚŚŽƵŐŚƚƐĂŶĚĨĞĞůŝŶŐƐƚŽǁĂƌĚ;ďƌĂŶĚŶĂŵĞͿŽŌĞŶ
ĂƵƚŽŵĂƟĐ͕ĐŽŵŝŶŐƚŽŵŝŶĚƐĞĞŵŝŶŐůLJŽŶƚŚĞŝƌŽǁŶ͍
EŽƚǀĞƌLJ ϭ Ϯ ϯ ϰ ϱ ϲ ϳ sĞƌLJ
/ŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚ /ŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚ

[email protected]
122 Appendix

ϭϬ͘ >ŝƐƚĞĚďĞůŽǁĂƌĞƐĞǀĞƌĂůƐƚĂƚĞŵĞŶƚƐƌĞŐĂƌĚŝŶŐLJŽƵƌƌĞůĂƟŽŶƐŚŝƉǁŝƚŚфďƌĂŶĚ
ŶĂŵĞх͘WůĞĂƐĞĐŚŽŽƐĞƚŚĞŶƵŵďĞƌƚŚĂƚďĞƐƚƌĞŇĞĐƚƐLJŽƵƌŝŶƚĞŶƟŽŶĂůĂƐƉĞĐƚ
ŽĨďƌĂŶĚƌĞůĂƟŽŶƐŚŝƉƐ͕ĨƌŽŵϭ͞ƐƚƌŽŶŐůLJĚŝƐĂŐƌĞĞ͕͟ƚŽϳ͞ƐƚƌŽŶŐůLJĂŐƌĞĞ͘͟

ĚŝƐĂŐƌĞĞ

^ƚƌŽŶŐůLJ
EĞƵƚƌĂů
^ƚƌŽŶŐůLJ

ŐƌĞĞ



/ƚŵĂŬĞƐƐĞŶƐĞƚŽĐŽŶƟŶƵĞƵƐŝŶŐƚŚĞďƌĂŶĚ ϭ Ϯ ϯ ϰ ϱ ϲ ϳ
/ĂŵĐŽŵŵŝƩĞĚƚŽƚŚĞďƌĂŶĚ ϭ Ϯ ϯ ϰ ϱ ϲ ϳ
^ƚĂLJŝŶŐǁŝƚŚƚŚĞďƌĂŶĚŐŝǀĞƐŵĞĞŵŽƟŽŶĂů ϭ Ϯ ϯ ϰ ϱ ϲ ϳ
ŐƌĂƟĮĐĂƟŽŶ
^ƚĂLJŝŶŐǁŝƚŚƚŚĞďƌĂŶĚŝƐĂǀĞƌLJƌĞĂƐŽŶĂďůĞĐŚŽŝĐĞ ϭ Ϯ ϯ ϰ ϱ ϲ ϳ

ϭϭ͘ ĞůŽǁĂƌĞƐĞǀĞƌĂůƐƚĂƚĞŵĞŶƚƐƚŚĂƚĚĞƐĐƌŝďĞĚŝīĞƌĞŶƚďĞŚĂǀŝŽƵƌƐƚŚĂƚLJŽƵ
ŵŝŐŚƚĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂƐĂĐƵƐƚŽŵĞƌŽĨфďƌĂŶĚŶĂŵĞх͘WůĞĂƐĞŝŶĚŝĐĂƚĞŚŽǁƐƚƌŽŶŐůLJ
LJŽƵĂŐƌĞĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐƐƚĂƚĞŵĞŶƚƐ͕ĨƌŽŵϭ͞ƐƚƌŽŶŐůLJĚŝƐĂŐƌĞĞ͕͟ƚŽϳ
ƐƚƌŽŶŐůLJĂŐƌĞĞ͘͟

ĚŝƐĂŐƌĞĞ

^ƚƌŽŶŐůLJ
EĞƵƚƌĂů
^ƚƌŽŶŐůLJ

ŐƌĞĞ


/ĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌŵLJƐĞůĨƚŽďĞůŽLJĂůƚŽ΀ďƌĂŶĚŶĂŵĞ΁ ϭ Ϯ ϯ ϰ ϱ ϲ ϳ
KŶůLJƵŶĚĞƌĞdžƚƌĞŵĞĐŝƌĐƵŵƐƚĂŶĐĞƐǁŽƵůĚ/ĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌ ϭ Ϯ ϯ ϰ ϱ ϲ ϳ
ƉƵƌĐŚĂƐŝŶŐĂďƌĂŶĚŽĨƚŚŝƐƉƌŽĚƵĐƚĚŝīĞƌĞŶƚĨƌŽŵ
΀ďƌĂŶĚŶĂŵĞͿ
/ĨƚŚĞƐƚŽƌĞǁĂƐŽƵƚŽĨ΀ďƌĂŶĚŶĂŵĞ΁͕/ǁŽƵůĚŐŽ ϭ Ϯ ϯ ϰ ϱ ϲ ϳ
ƐŽŵĞǁŚĞƌĞĞůƐĞƚŽďƵLJƐŽŵĞ
ǀĞŶǁŚĞŶĂŶŽƚŚĞƌďƌĂŶĚŝƐŽŶƐĂůĞ͕/ǁŽƵůĚƉƌĞĨĞƌ ϭ Ϯ ϯ ϰ ϱ ϲ ϳ
ƚŚĞďƌĂŶĚ΀ďƌĂŶĚŶĂŵĞ΁

ϭϮ͘ tĞĂƌĞŝŶƚĞƌĞƐƚĞĚŝŶƵŶĚĞƌƐƚĂŶĚŝŶŐƚŚĞĚŝīĞƌĞŶƟĂƟŶŐĂƐƉĞĐƚŽƌǀĂůƵĞƚŚĂƚ
LJŽƵŚĂǀĞŝŵƉĂƌƚĞĚƚŽǁĂƌĚƐƚŚĞďƌĂŶĚ͘WůĞĂƐĞĐŚŽŽƐĞƚŚĞŶƵŵďĞƌƚŚĂƚďĞƐƚ
ƌĞƉƌĞƐĞŶƚƐŚŽǁŵƵĐŚLJŽƵĂŐƌĞĞŽƌĚŝƐĂŐƌĞĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐƐƚĂƚĞŵĞŶƚƐ
ĨƌŽŵϭ͞ƐƚƌŽŶŐůLJĚŝƐĂŐƌĞĞ͕͟ƚŽϳ͞ƐƚƌŽŶŐůLJĂŐƌĞĞ͘͟
ĚŝƐĂŐƌĞĞ

^ƚƌŽŶŐůLJ
EĞƵƚƌĂů
^ƚƌŽŶŐůLJ

ŐƌĞĞ


/ƚŵĂŬĞƐƐĞŶƐĞƚŽďƵLJ΀ďƌĂŶĚŶĂŵĞ΁ŝŶƐƚĞĂĚŽĨĂŶLJ ϭ Ϯ ϯ ϰ ϱ ϲ ϳ
ŽƚŚĞƌďƌĂŶĚ͕ĞǀĞŶŝĨƚŚĞLJĂƌĞƚŚĞƐĂŵĞ
ǀĞŶŝĨĂŶŽƚŚĞƌďƌĂŶĚŚĂƐƚŚĞƐĂŵĞĨĞĂƚƵƌĞƐĂƐ΀ďƌĂŶĚ ϭ Ϯ ϯ ϰ ϱ ϲ ϳ
ŶĂŵĞ΁͕/ǁŽƵůĚƉƌĞĨĞƌƚŽďƵLJ΀ďƌĂŶĚŶĂŵĞ΁
/ĨƚŚĞƌĞŝƐĂŶŽƚŚĞƌďƌĂŶĚĂƐŐŽŽĚĂƐ΀ďƌĂŶĚŶĂŵĞ΁͕/ ϭ Ϯ ϯ ϰ ϱ ϲ ϳ
ƉƌĞĨĞƌƚŽďƵLJ΀ďƌĂŶĚŶĂŵĞ΁
/ĨĂŶŽƚŚĞƌďƌĂŶĚŝƐŶŽƚĚŝīĞƌĞŶƚĨƌŽŵ΀ ďƌĂŶĚŶĂŵĞ΁ŝŶ ϭ Ϯ ϯ ϰ ϱ ϲ ϳ
ĂŶLJǁĂLJ͕ŝƚƐĞĞŵƐƐŵĂƌƚĞƌƚŽƉƵƌĐŚĂƐĞ΀ďƌĂŶĚŶĂŵĞ΁

[email protected]
Appendix 2: Final Instrument 123

ϭϯ͘ ƌĞLJŽƵ͍ Male Female

ϭϰ͘ tŚŝĐŚLJĞĂƌǁĞƌĞLJŽƵďŽƌŶ͍;WůĞĂƐĞĮůůŝŶϰͲĚŝŐŝƚLJĞĂƌͿͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺzĞĂƌ

ϭϱ͘ tŚŝĐŚŽĨƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐďĞƐƚĚĞƐĐƌŝďĞƐLJŽƵƌĞĚƵĐĂƟŽŶůĞǀĞů͍
>ĞƐƐƚŚĂŶ,ŝŐŚ^ĐŚŽŽů
'ƌĂĚƵĂƟŽŶ
WŽƐƚ'ƌĂĚƵĂƟŽŶ
KƚŚĞƌƐ

ϭϲ͘ tŚĂƚŝƐLJŽƵƌĞƚŚŶŝĐďĂĐŬŐƌŽƵŶĚ͍
^ŽƵƚŚ
EŽƌƚŚĂƐƚ
tĞƐƚ
EŽƌƚŚ
KƚŚĞƌƐ

ϭϳ͘ tŚĂƚǁĂƐLJŽƵƌĂƉƉƌŽdžŝŵĂƚĞƚŽƚĂůŚŽƵƐĞŚŽůĚŝŶĐŽŵĞůĂƐƚLJĞĂƌ͍

>ĞƐƐƚŚĂŶϮϬϬϬϬ
ZƵƉĞĞƐϮϬϬϬϬͲϯϬϬϬϬ
ZƵƉĞĞƐϯϬϬϬϬͲϰϬϬϬϬ
ZƵƉĞĞƐϰϬϬϬϬͲϱϬϬϬϬ
DŽƌĞƚŚĂŶϱϬϬϬϬ

ϭϴ͘ tŚĂƚŝƐLJŽƵƌŵĂƌŝƚĂůƐƚĂƚƵƐ͍


DĂƌƌŝĞĚ
^ŝŶŐůĞ
ŝǀŽƌĐĞĚͬ^ĞƉĂƌĂƚĞĚ
tŝĚŽǁĞĚ

[email protected]
124 Appendix

Information Sheet

Development and Validation of a Comprehensive Model of

Consumer–Brand Relationships

Thank you for participating in the study of “Development and Validation of a Com-
prehensive Model of Consumer-brand Relationships.” The purpose of this study
is to develop and validate a conceptual model of consumer–brand relationships in
Indian context. This study will involve consumers/customers who have purchased
any brand at least once in the past 12 months or more, who are over 18 years old
and volunteer to complete this survey. This study is confidential in that no identi-
fiers linking you to the study will be included in any sort of report that might be
published. If you agree to be in this study, you will be asked to fill out the question-
naire, which will take approximately 15 min. All your responses will be used only
for the purpose of the study. You understand that your participation in this study is
very important.
Your decision whether or not to participate will not affect your current or future
relations with IBS Hyderabad. If you decide to participate, you are free to refuse to
answer any of the questions that may make you uncomfortable. You can withdraw
at any time without your relations with the university, job, benefits, etc., being af-
fected. This research study has been reviewed by the PhD office, IBS Hyderabad,
IFHE University. For research-related problems or questions regarding subjects’
rights, you can contact the Director, IBS Hyderabad through Dr. Venu Gopal Rao,
Associate Dean Research. By responding to this survey, you acknowledge that you
understand the following: Your participation is voluntary; you can elect to with-
draw at any time; there are no positive or negative benefits from responding to this
survey; and the researcher has your consent to publish materials obtained from this
research.
If you have further questions, you can contact Dr. Subhadip Roy, Associate Pro-
fessor, Department of Marketing & Strategy, IBS Hyderabad at (+91) 9553319133.
By signing on the button below you confirm that you have read and understood the
information provided above and that you agree to participate in this survey.

[email protected]
Appendix 3: Covariance Matrix 125

Appendix 3: Covariance Matrix

TR1 TR2 TR3 TR4 SAT1 SAT2 SAT3 ATTH1 ATTH2 ATTH3 ATTH4 EQ1
TR1 2.4
TR2 1.42 2.24
TR3 1.62 1.71 2.18
TR4 1.66 1.56 1.87 2.71
SAT1 0.86 1.13 1.1 1.06 1.83
SAT2 1.42 1.4 1.38 1.34 1.37 2.39
SAT3 0.97 1.15 1.09 1.02 1.2 1.62 2.2
ATTH1 1.23 1.3 1.23 1.26 1.1 1.47 1.39 2.2
ATTH2 1.27 1.19 1.14 1.1 0.83 1.23 1.01 1.18 1.97
ATTH3 1.03 1.13 1.01 0.96 0.95 1.45 1.23 1.35 1.11 2.01
ATTH4 1.28 1.31 1.33 1.36 1.14 1.58 1.45 1.47 1.2 1.5 2.11
EQ1 1.06 1 1.04 0.94 0.88 1.21 1.36 1.38 1.05 1.24 1.25 2.01
EQ2 1.36 1.23 1.29 1.27 1.05 1.52 1.24 1.33 1.15 1.29 1.38 1.49
EQ3 1.35 1.39 1.32 1.37 1.14 1.75 1.41 1.44 1.28 1.46 1.51 1.5
EQ4 1.28 1.32 1.32 1.41 1 1.51 1.38 1.49 1.21 1.33 1.56 1.5
COM1 0.82 0.97 0.77 0.69 0.64 0.96 0.97 0.87 0.65 0.88 0.94 0.87
COM2 0.73 0.9 0.77 0.71 0.64 0.9 0.9 0.85 0.61 0.83 0.86 0.83
COM3 0.84 0.97 0.78 0.75 0.62 0.94 0.93 0.88 0.69 0.93 0.94 0.93
COM4 0.81 0.87 0.8 0.86 0.67 0.96 0.98 0.86 0.67 0.93 0.93 0.95
LOY1 1.26 1.27 1.18 1.23 0.97 1.47 1.26 1.18 1.13 1.11 1.29 1.21
LOY2 1.17 1.23 1.18 1.2 1.01 1.47 1.35 1.39 1.24 1.33 1.4 1.39
LOY3 1.03 1.16 1.08 1.07 0.99 1.4 1.41 1.33 1.01 1.3 1.31 1.25
LOY4 1.05 1.21 1.13 1.24 0.96 1.43 1.32 1.24 1.13 1.19 1.3 1.27
ATT1 1.05 0.86 0.84 0.9 0.59 0.83 0.72 0.83 0.95 0.74 0.78 0.74
ATT2 1.42 1.03 1.12 1.25 0.66 0.99 0.81 0.98 1.06 0.75 0.92 0.96
ATT3 1.16 1.17 1 1.07 0.79 1.07 1.03 1.16 1.03 0.95 1.08 1.08
ATT4 1.11 1 1.11 1.26 0.77 0.84 0.7 0.89 0.86 0.7 0.84 0.75

EQ2 EQ3 EQ4 COM1 COM2 COM3 COM4 LOY1 LOY2 LOY3 LOY4 ATT1 ATT2 ATT3 ATT4
EQ2 2.18
EQ3 1.72 2.62
EQ4 1.58 2.05 2.39
COM1 1.07 1.1 0.99 2.13
COM2 0.97 1.04 0.96 1.88 1.96
COM3 0.98 1.15 1.05 1.89 1.8 2.08
COM4 1.04 1.17 1.08 1.85 1.78 1.88 2.04
LOY1 1.49 1.55 1.32 1.57 1.5 1.5 1.63 3.11
LOY2 1.6 1.67 1.46 1.73 1.66 1.67 1.78 2.86 3.53
LOY3 1.45 1.46 1.34 1.57 1.48 1.51 1.63 2.39 2.61 2.92
LOY4 1.52 1.62 1.39 1.51 1.53 1.51 1.61 2.53 2.7 2.34 2.8
ATT1 0.9 0.81 0.73 0.47 0.4 0.39 0.37 0.79 0.72 0.7 0.67 1.79
ATT2 1.19 0.96 1 0.76 0.68 0.73 0.79 1.1 1.1 0.94 1.01 1.17 2.08
ATT3 1.09 1.04 1.03 0.8 0.66 0.72 0.75 1.06 1.03 0.98 0.89 0.99 1.22 2.02
ATT4 1 0.9 0.93 0.49 0.44 0.54 0.54 0.86 0.87 0.67 0.81 1.02 1.18 1.14 2.11

[email protected]
126 Appendix

Appendix 4: Interview Participant Response Summary

Respondent 1

Interview Date 2nd Sept 2012

Name Eureka Singh
Gender Female
Age 25
Brand with whom respondent has strong relationship Zara (Apparel brand)

Moderator Respondent
Tell me about a brand The brand I associate with is Zara
with which you have
relatively strong
relationship?
Define the relationship I feel Zara is the only brand that justifies my taste in clothes. It
with your Brand makes me feel special and different at the same time
What specialty your The specialty of Zara is that it keeps itself updated with the latest
brand possesses? trends in the fashion, so I hardly catch hold of anything that is
outdated
Tell me about the mag- The magnitude is huge to an extent that when I see a Zara outlet,
nitude of relationship, other stores automatically vanishes. Yes it is augmenting
is it augmenting? because whenever I visit the store it offers new designs all the
time
With every purchase Yes as I mentioned earlier that it follows the trend so one would
are you getting more always find some new design, so I always look forward to visit-
from what you got ing the store since I know that Zara can surprise me!
in your previous
purchase

Section 1

Specific questions about relationship establishment with the particular brand and
identification of starting point in this relationship establishment and maintenance,
with emphasis on the specified brand.

The first time you heard I got to know about this brand through my dad
about your brand
How (from ad, or refer- He attended the conference in London, at that time India was not
ence or from other familiar with the brand Zara and neither was I. he bought a top
sources)? and I fell in love with it from the first look
What did you feel at When I tried the top, it made me feel like princess since it has
that time? classiness associated with it and also the fit was amazing
How knowledgeable Since Zara was not introduced in India at that point, so I never had
do you feel you are a prior knowledge about this brand until my dad got it
about your favourite
brand at that point of
time?

[email protected]
Appendix 4: Interview Participant Response Summary 127

Section 2

Specific questions about affective component in relationship maintenance with the

particular brand and identification of specific thoughts and feeling consumer felt
about the brand.

Do you felt that the Yes it is part of me since it depicts my personality to the core
brand is part of you in terms of uniqueness and sophistication
and who you are,
how?
Let’s just suppose your Zara as a person would catch every one’s attention as soon as
brand is a human he/she walks in. the person will look royal, classy, sophisti-
being describe that cated and at the same time trendy and in sync with the latest
person in terms fashion. The person will be a head turner
of appearance,
attributes, features,
attitude
Does (brand name) say Yes definitely, when I wear Zara I get poured with comple-
something to other ments all the time…so yeah! In that matter it never ditches
people about who me, but yes since I am always inspired by royal look and
you are, how? classiness so yes people automatically use these adjectives
whenever I wear Zara
How often do you feel The brand is credible in terms of quality and yes every penny
the brand is credible, is worth spent when you enter a Zara store
why how?
Do you feel Zara as As of now it has never deceived me and I am sure it will never
a brand will ever do it in future because Zara is one brand that never com-
deceive you on any promises on style and quality and has remained the same
aspect? Do you have throughout its existence so I completely trust this brand
that trust on your
brand?
Did you plan this Yes this brand is still and will always be in option in future
brand as your future because there is a sense of loyalty associated with it
option for catering
your future product
needs?
Do you think it makes Yes absolutely! I say it out of emotion because it’s my favorite
sense to continue nut also in terms of logic because it has always happened
using the brand? Do with me that I look out for other store just to try out the new
you say this out of stuff but I end up buying from Zara because its styling is
some emotion or out of this world
logic because if we
see there are some
better versions avail-
able in the market so
how do you justify
that?

[email protected]
128 Appendix

Section 3

Situation 1

There is Brand B which is equal on all Any day Zara because I am saying it from my
parameters to you preferred brand & personal experience. I will not even give a
even on price. Which will you go for? second thought to it.
Even Brand equity is same I am not sure but I can at least give it a try
So you mean If someone gives you a refer-
ence you can go for it

Situation 2

Both Brands are equal on all terms but Brand No I never compromise on quality, even
B is cheaper than your brand. Now will if it’s cheaper I will still buy from Zara
you still buy your brand because there is credibility and affection
associated with it

Respondent 2

Interview Date 7th Sept 2012

Name Noel D’Souza
Gender Male
Age 28
Brand with whom respondent has strong relationship Apple

Moderator Respondent
Tell me about a brand My favorite brand is Apple. When the first Apple had come I really
with which you have wanted to buy it but that I didn’t have the money but then I
relatively strong finally got it when I was working that was in 2009.
relationship? Since 2009 I have never changed my brand
Define the relationship Giving it a one word, I feel it is an aura because once you start
with your Brand using an Apple product you can’t really go to another product. I
had a 3GS before & I wanted to buy a phone & I bought the next
version that is Apple 4s even though I had options to buy another
phones too but I am still struck to iPhone.
I feel it’s an aura because it still attracts you
What specialty your The Touch & the feel because no other touch screen phones have
brand possesses? same feeling on touch panel plus the status, when you use an
iPhone & you compare with other brands like Samsung it just
has different feeling altogether & different brand value
Tell me about the Definitely because if I had to buy another phone I would have got it
magnitude of but then what made me buy iPhone 4s was the features because
relationship, is it when I used the 3GS that time I had totally different feeling for
augmenting? Apple & when 4s came which was far better than 3GS, it made
me stuck to an Apple rather than going to another brand no natu-
rally I am building up my relationship with Apple

[email protected]
Appendix 4: Interview Participant Response Summary 129

With every purchase Yes I am getting more from my previous purchase from Apple in
are you getting more terms of the features because 4s now has more features than
from what you got 3GS, Apple has improved the operating systems. The applica-
in your previous tions have improved to large extent, hence justifying my every
purchase purchase
Is it because of features No, not really because same features you can get in another phones
you are with Apple too but the feel you get while operating same application in
iphone & other phone is totally different

Section 1

Specific questions about relationship establishment with the particular brand and
identification of starting point in this relationship establishment and maintenance,
with emphasis on the specified brand.

The first time you heard about The first time I heard about Apple was when I was in
Apple school when you use to get that colorful desktop’s &
all from Apple which were pink green & those lighted
desktops. That was the time when I saw an Apple prod-
uct. From that point I fantasized having one
How (from ad, or reference or I came to know from my school only since our computer
from other sources)? labs used to have them from that point I came to know
Apple as a brand exited
What did you feel at that time? In school like we all use fight for the seat which had
newest Apple desktop there & no one allowed to sit on
someone else’s desktop.
The feeling at that time was the thing which I fantasized
about was not in my reach because I was just a kid at
that time & I didn’t know how to use a desktop at that
time
What was the importance you Even though I didn’t own that desktop but working on it
associated with that seat itself made me feel better because I could compare it
which had Apple desktop with my desktop at home & the difference was huge so
I use to feel better because of its appearance at that time
because my desktop was bulky one & Apple being sleek.
Specially the shape & the color which Apple provided
was not available
How knowledgeable do you At that age I didn’t really pay heed to the configurations
feel you are about your & all but during my 11 when I got into gadgets I leant
favourite brand at that point more about them, the features & what all other products
of time? Apple cater too

Section 2

Specific questions about affective component in relationship maintenance with the

particular brand and identification of specific thoughts and feeling consumer felt
about the brand.

[email protected]
130 Appendix

Do you felt that the brand is part Yes definitely. See I have two phones a Sony Ericson too
of you and who you are, how? but if I leave my Apple iPhone some where it makes
me feel incomplete & this doesn’t happen with Sony
Ericson, it feels I am missing something
Let’s just suppose your brand is Someone who’s my best friend because what I share with
a human being describe that my friends I do not share with everyone so he will be
person in terms of appear- someone whom i am too close with
ance, attributes, features, Someone I can be with anytime
attitude Someone I can depend upon as when I need him I would
know he will be there with me
Personality: Outgoing, maybe helpful, not an introvert
Looks: If it’s a girl then she has to be beautiful & if he is a
guy then he has to be handsome. Attractive looks
Does (brand name) say some- What I feel is when I carry I phone that the message it
thing to other people about gives to other is that I am different from other people, m
who you are, how? not similar to anyone else
How often do you feel the brand See for example I search something on internet on iPhone
is credible, why how? the data it will give me is instant & I know I can rely on
iPhone because it will never hang so it is life when you
trust your friend you know it will never backstab you,
it’s just same thing with Apple
Do you feel Apple as a brand See with every new phone Apple has come up the sales
will ever deceive you on any have actually increased. With every new phone Apple
aspect? Do you have that trust has actually increased its image & it has never decreased
on your brand? so they have made people to think that Apple will never
deceive them
Did you plan this brand as your Yes definitely
future option for catering your If tomorrow I need to buy a phone again it has to be Apple
future product needs? & yes provide Apple comes up with better version &
until now they have always come up with better version
from 2G to 3G to 4s. Every product has outperformed
other
Do you think it makes sense to For me it makes sense because as when you stick to some-
continue using the brand? thing you really can’t change & as of for me until I get
Do you say this out of some good reference I don’t try out things
emotion or logic because if it is difficult for me to change my brand until some out-
we see there are some better standing product is launched by anyone
versions available in the You can say that because with time (almost 5 years) I share
market so how do you justify a bond with apple which will always remain & that is
that? enough for me to not to think to go another brand

Situation 1

There is Brand B which is I will still go for Apple iPhone because I have been using this
equal on all parameters brand from quite some time n I have trust on Apple so one
to you preferred brand will always go for something that one trusts even though
& even on price. Which the other one might be good and until and unless I get good
will you go for? reference I won’t think of buying that Brand
Even Brand equity is same I might because if the source is credible enough which says that
So you mean If someone Brand B is better than iPhone then I can think of
gives you a reference By credible source I mean someone who is close to me & has
you can go for it actually used both iPhone & Brand B & then has landed up
to this conclusion

[email protected]
Appendix 4: Interview Participant Response Summary 131

Situation 2

Both Brands are equal on all terms but Yes I will still prefer because money is not the
Brand B is cheaper than your brand. Now criteria it’s about Apple, it’s about what the
will you still buy your brand product has it for you

Respondent 3

Interview Date 7th Sept 2012

Name Akshay Babbar
Gender Male
Age 25
Brand with whom respondent has strong relationship Kennth Cole, a watch brand

Moderator Respondent
Tell me about a brand I would say that would be Kennth Cole, it’s a watch brand & I
with which you have have been buying this brand for quite some time now & I feel
relatively strong close to this brand. First thing I do whenever I go to buy a
relationship? watch is probably look out for this brand before I see the others
Define the relationship It’s a relationship of trust what I feel like because whenever I
with your Brand bought this watch I was sure enough that this is never gonna
go bad
How do you perceive This brand is pretty different from the other ones because most
your brand on the the brands do not pertain to youth & even if you do they
terms of satisfaction? seems to be too childish but this brand has mix of youth &
As you said this watch is sophistication.
worn by celebrities so They also come up with very innovative stuff as in these watches
does that makes you are worn by those who are at very high post, sportsmen of be
go for this brand? it a businessmen & in that case they cater to combined set of
style & elegance
That definitely comes to my mind because as the concept of
Brand equity says & because I know this brand is worn by
people who has that sense of style & sophistication so when
you wear it you feel comfortable with it but apart from that it
has additional features which others don’t provide as in they
were the first one to come with touch dials which was totally
different & good concept
What specialty your It is completely differentiated you know as in if you look at the
brand possesses? Brand called Rado they have a particular style with black
watch so even you look at from far point u get to know that
its Rado so same it is with this because of the Touch dials &
illumination they provide
Tell me about the mag- Today I own four watches of this brand but every time I go I feel
nitude of relationship, probably this time they may not have a watch that is going to
is it augmenting? satisfy me again because usually all watch companies have
similar styling but Kenneth Cole has proved me wrong every
time. Whenever I go it has a distinct design ready for me
which would be totally different from what I had own. So my
relationship is going deeper & deeper because without going
to other brands I know that probably this has the watch I am
looking for

[email protected]
132 Appendix

Section 1

Specific questions about relationship establishment with the particular brand and
identification of starting point in this relationship establishment and maintenance,
with emphasis on the specified brand.

The first time you heard I was in 11 when my dad gifted this brand to me. I wasn’t
about this brand| aware of this brand but when you wear it people ask you
Would you say that because what brand is this because it’s one of the rare brands so
your dad gifted this so people don’t know about this so I studied about this brand
probably you might have & came to know that this is a good brand
emotional connection to Yes definitely it had emotional connection since my dad gifted
buy this brand? it but even if that has been gifted but I am not satisfied so
probably I won’t go for second buy just for the sake that it
has been gifted by my dad.
Its about the style statement because all watches give you time
only they only differentiate in style
What did you feel at that Initially when I got this brand I didn’t know about its perfor-
time? mance because it was still in testing period but then the first
watch that I got of this company is still with me & I have
just got it repaired just once in 10 years so quality aspect
is very good & it has this pick up service as in its not the
brand of India so you can register your complain online
& they would come to pick the watch from your place so
convenience aspect is also there.
How knowledgeable do you Yes I did some research online about what all models they had
feel you are about your & what I he money you would like to buy each of the brand
favourite brand at that feel that with each of the watch model was different so
point of time? that the kind of thing. So probably if you have money you
would tend to buy every model.
What kind of satisfac- You buy a watch just for the time sake but this watch give
tion you have with this you more in terms of style & added features like touch dial
brand? is pretty cool because you don’t find in regular watches &
Elaborate on the satisfac- then you it’s always going to be with you, will always show
tion aspect the right time so it’s like you have that trust on this brand.

Section 2

Specific questions about affective component in relationship maintenance with the

particular brand and identification of specific thoughts and feeling consumer felt
about the brand.

Do you felt that the brand is Yes, because whatever you wear it becomes part of you be it
part of you and who you clothes or watch for that matter, it kind of depicts my person-
are, how? ality showing that my sophisticated with a bit of trendiness
Talk about your emotional On the emotional aspect I am connected to it emotionally for
connection with this the reason being it was gifted by my dad & he preferred this
brand brand & wore it so it’s like this brand comes to my mind
automatically.
But for me it’s also about quality & suitability of this brand to
me

[email protected]
Appendix 4: Interview Participant Response Summary 133

This seems to be expensive It’s pricy but all good things come with a price tag so its high
watch so did price ever quality high price, simple
affect you? It’s worth every penny
Let’s just suppose your First thing is that person would definitely know about the style
brand is a human being statement because I will call him very stylish.
describe that person in It has bit of elegance
terms of appearance, Person who would try out different variety of things, unique
personality attributes, things
features, attitude Personality: The person will make you feel special because it’s
a premium brand so give you an extra edge
How often do you feel the Credible is because of quality & uniqueness
brand is credible, why I know it is always going to give me right time & with every
how? new purchase I will get altogether new design
Did you plan this brand Yes definitely
as your future option It has never disappointed me before so wouldn’t do that in
for catering your future future too that much trust I have in this brand
product needs? But yes I might try out other brands too because there are other
good brands too & looking at price, you cannot always go for
this pricy brand

Situation 1

Both Brands are equal on It depends upon price difference because if its little cheaper like
all terms but Brand B difference is only of 3k to 4k I would probably go for Kenneth
is cheaper than your Cole because I have that trust factor with it but yes if price dif-
brand. Now will you ference is more & features, style, design are same then I might
still buy your brand think of going for Brand B
Suppose you bough Trust factor would go down if 5 years down the line I got to
Brand B because you know that some other Brand was equal on all the aspect &
got everything at half were charging less than Kenneth Cole so probably I would feel
the price now depict cheated as in all these years I would be overpaying
your relationship with But then it’s also about brand even though it’s expensive but then
your brand since you people know about this brand & you are wearing it on your
chose some other wrist so even if it’s not worth it, it does make you feel special
brand over it?
Justify your trust factor
now?

Situation 2

Both Brands are equal on I will go for my Brand if all aspects are same because I am
all terms justifying my loyalty towards Kenneth Cole but then if some
other brand is better even 1 % than mine I won’t hesitate in
switching
If I have to ask you what Design, Ease of carry, how well you can relate to your personal-
features apart from ity, add on features it can give like even Rs.500 watch can
price will make you buy give you time but if the company can surprise you stuff
Brand B which you can never imagine with a watch so that is a major
hold on for me

[email protected]
134 Appendix

Respondent 4

Interview Date 7th Sept 2012

Name Shoaib Ahmed Khan
Gender Male
Age 23
Brand with whom respondent has strong relationship Apple iPhone

Moderator Respondent
Tell me about a brand It would be with Apple,
with which you have I have iphone, iPad, iPod & MacBook Pro
relatively strong Actually my first Apple product was iphone before that I knew
relationship? about Apple but didn’t have craze for it but after using the
iphone & seeing the market conditions that everybody is
copying iphone & above all the user experience that you get
from iphone, the simplicity, design, innovativeness, touch
panel has actually made me such a huge fan of Apple
What specialty your brand That would be innovation…Every product of theirs is always
possesses? new with new features, something that has never been done
before on a large scale
Their product features brings a lot of easiness, it makes your
life simpler as in case of iphone it would be its Applica-
tions. Iphone was the first phone to give real gaming power
on the phone as like that of PC
Second it is ease of communication, before this in the era of
Nokia we had to call customer care to download our inter-
net settings but in case of iphone you just insert the SIM &
the work is done, your internet stats working automatically
so need of calling customer care moreover it’s very easy to
operate, you don’t have to be tech-savvy to use iphone even
5 year or 6 year old can use it efficiently
Define your satisfaction On a scale of 10 I would say my satisfaction level is 9.5
level with Apple First of all satisfaction come when you do what you really
want to do
This is because everything is just so simple from making calls
to surfing net. Even any message comes you don’t have
to unlock your phone message just gets flashed on your
screen.
It’s simple, easy & its operations are too smooth hence I love
using iphone or ipod.
It’s about the feeling & quality because my phone in last
4 years have never hanged so I know my using the best
product.
Like you can use your phone even if only 1 % on battery is
left whereas in other phones you cannot do that, batter dies
immediately even if you click few numbers.
Then my phone can switch over 2G & 3G network automati-
cally without hampering my work
Tell me about the magni- Yes it is augmenting because with every purchase I know I had
tude of relationship, is it actually bout the best in market. That feeling has always
augmenting? been there
Is it because of features you See, I would say Features yes & above all the experience of
are with Apple using those applications

[email protected]
Appendix 4: Interview Participant Response Summary 135

Section 1

Specific questions about relationship establishment with the particular brand and
identification of starting point in this relationship establishment and maintenance,
with emphasis on the specified brand.

The first time you heard It was in 2002 & I was in 11th std when my cousin’s friend
about Apple had got this classic ipod from Apple but he didn’t know
how to put songs in it so he got it to me since I was good
with technology & then I used that ipod for a day or two &
actually liked it a lot because it was so easy to use. That was
my first experience with Apple
What did you feel at that I felt its user friendliness a lot at that time
time?
How knowledgeable do you I sync the ipod looking up at the internet since it was a new
feel you are about your product so at that time I searched about the company
favourite brand at that gained knowledge about this product. That was the instance
point of time? I would say made me know more about this product. I
regularly started following this brand through their websites
& though their product news. Like before this I knew about
Macintosh but didn’t know Apple has produced it but after
this incident I came to know about it
How confident were you At that time memory cards were new & most of them came
at that point in regard with 64 MB at the max but this ipod had memory of 4 GB
Apple. & at the same time the computer I was syncing with too had
the memory of 4 GB so I was quiet impressed that you fit
such a huge memory in such a small device.
So I anticipated at that time that if they come out with new
product it will be better than this. Therefore I had a positive
evaluation of Apple at that time

Section 2

Specific questions about affective component in relationship maintenance with the

particular brand and identification of specific thoughts and feeling consumer felt
about the brand.

Do you felt that the brand Of course, yes because I have 4 Apple products so they are very
is part of you and who much part of me. My every work is through them. Without
you are, how? them I would feel incomplete
Does (brand name) say Since childhood I like trying out different things, doing some-
something to other thing new, I don’t like monotony & even Apple always tries
people about who you to do something new
are, how? That’s what make my relationship with Apple so strong
Do you feel some emo- Yes because as we know Steve made Apple what it is today so
tional connection with reading about him & listening to him made me admire him
Apple today. He was the person who would break the rules will do
something without thinking of loosing something or fear of
losing some money so feel that emotional connection

[email protected]
136 Appendix

Can you describe your Thing about Steve Jobs is way he express himself…he talks
bond with Apple…. about what good can be done to people, what new can be
why do have that emo- added to the world. So they are just not concerned with their
tional connection profits instead what value they can add to the world
Let’s just suppose your Sleek & stylish
brand is a human If it’s a girl in a party then all the men will be looking at her
being describe that If it’s a man them he would be a well built man.
person in terms of Inner attributes: Straight forward person with a smile & helping
appearance, attributes, nature
features, attitude,
personality
How often do you feel Credibility comes from the fact that they have always been best
the brand is credible, on their products. Apple has
why and how?
Do you feel Apple as No, it has never deceived me before & will never do that, this
a brand will ever much trust I have on them on their technology because up till
deceive you on any now I have not faced any problem with Apple products
aspect? Do you have
that trust on your
brand?
Did you plan this brand Yes Apple will be the first option.
as your future option See iPhone 5 is yet to be launched & before knowing how that
for catering your phone will be, without seeing I have already thought of buy-
future product needs? ing it. Because I know Apple will come something different
This also shows credibility of Apple that you were talking
about
Do you think it makes See my family don not have Apple products they have Sam-
sense to continue sung, Sony so when I compare my Apple with them I could
using the brand? see the change. Apple is sleek, stylish, simple & has the best
Do you say this out of touch panel. All are just copying Apple but as said by cheat-
some emotion or ing you cannot win
logic because if we Apple has always done what he has said like Apple never said
see there are some it would have a Bluetooth but long time back they said they
better versions avail- would have video conferencing. They actually cannot have
able in the market so Bluetooth because their most of the revenues come from
how do you justify iTunes & with Bluetooth people can forward for free music
that? which is loss making thing for them

Section 3

Situation 1

There is Brand B which is equal on all param- I would prefer Apple only because of already
eters to you preferred brand & even on said reasons
price. Which will you go for?
Even Brand equity is same

[email protected]
Appendix 4: Interview Participant Response Summary 137

Situation 2

Both Brands are equal on all terms but Brand See Apple is worth every penny so even if
B is cheaper than your brand. Now will you are shelling out more you are getting
you still buy your brand more in return to so still Apple

Respondent 5

M. Hello Sir, can I please know your name first of all.

R. Mittal Parik
M. Ok.…tell me something more about yourself
R. Reading magazines and watching cricket
M. The brand which you like the most
R. Tupperware related to bottles and food related containers.
M. So why is it your favorite brand?
R. value for money, durability.
M. So what kind of relationship do you share with your brand?
R. Faith and trust
M. So there are number of people around us whom we share a very special relation-
ship with…now if I bring back the same concept to a brand…like u have relation-
ships with people and now I say you have a relationship with Tupperware..so how
would you define your relationship with this brand?
R. Secure & Trustworthy.
M. So friend, it’s like your friend? So how is it like your friend?
R. It cares for my well being by providing safe food
M. tell me something that is very special about this brand?
R.
M. Evaluation for the first time?
R. Initially ok, but substitutes couldn’t compensate for it.
M. so you said your brand is like your mate, so if I ask you your magnitude of rela-
tionship with this brand, what would it be like? Is it like your best friend or casual
friend? How do you see this relationship?
R. Blind faith(10/10).
M. What would be importance of Tupperware and level of dependency on the par-
ticular brand.
R. High since related to health and the level of confidence I have in this brand is
immense and confidence upto the mark.
M. Now let’s talk about some flaws in your brand?
R. Bundling up problem as a single piece of a product cannot be bought. Availabil-
ity is a big issue. Lack on promotion and more purchasing options should be there
M. If there is a new brand in the market which lay emphasis on the above mentioned
flaws in Tupperware and also providing the same quality would you wanna shift
with a escalated price?

[email protected]
138 Appendix

R. Yes would want to try to and would then surely adopt the product.
M. Words that could associate your relationship with Tupperware?
R. Trust, Reliable and safety with respect to health.

Respondent 6

M. Hello ma’am, can I please know your name first of all.

R. My name is Divya.
M. Ok.…tell me something more about yourself
R. I am a very chilled out person when I relate myself to clothing.
M. You said clothing…so this means you love clothes
R. Yes
M. So are you a shopaholic?
R. Ya I am too much of a shopaholic.
M. If I ask you then what are your favorite brands when you go out for shopping?
R. When I go out for shopping my favorite brands are Tommy, UCB, Esprit, Mango,
chemistry, woodland….
M. Oh my God! So you are a big Brand Freak.
R. Ya yes I am a very big brand freak
M. So what your one personal favorite brand then?
R. When it comes to variety I would be probably choosing United Colors of Benet-
ton….that is my favorite brand when it comes to shopping.
M. So why is it your favorite brand?
R. Actually I like its clothing, variety, accessories and all…so its o.k. when it comes
to UCB
M. Is it o.k. or is it very good? You said it’s your favorite brand?
R. Ya, it’s my favorite brand. It gives me a comfortable feeling when I go and shop
there. It makes me feel real.
M. So it makes you feel real…tell me what is this real?
R. Like when you go for shopping they have variety of things…and it’s not artifi-
cial..Like when you compare it with the other things, I have to think but in UCB I
don’t think, I just purchase it.
M. So there are number of people around us whom we share a very special relation-
ship with…now if I bring back the same concept to a brand…like u have relation-
ships with people and now I say you have a relationship with UCB..so how would
you define your relationship with this brand?
R. My relationship with this brand is….it’s like my mate
M. So friend, it’s like your friend? So how is it like your friend?
R. Like when it’s compared to friendship it’s like I every time carry this thing with
me.
M. So what all UCB’s stuff do you already have?
R. Ahh…when it comes to summer clothing I have summer clothes and for winter I
have my winter collection…accessories and all..I have almost everything of UCB.

[email protected]
Appendix 4: Interview Participant Response Summary 139

M. Tell me something that is very special about this brand?

R. Its variety
M. Ohk
R. Like when it comes to party-wear they have good party wear, In casuals they
have good casuals. Beach wears, lingerie’s, etc.
M. So you said your brand is like your mate, so if I ask you your magnitude of rela-
tionship with this brand, what would it be like? Is it like your best friend or casual
friend? How do you see this relationship?
R. Yes yes, it’s like my best friend.
M. So can I say you can’t live without this brand?
R. Yes I can’t be without this brand.
M. Ohk, so let me now go back to the time when your friendship with this brand
started…so when was the time when u got introduced to this brand?
R. It was back when I was in grade 9th, I saw its commercial and thought it to be
worth a try and since then I have been with this brand.
M. So it’s been like what 5 to 6 years right?
R. Ya, more than that I guess
M. So how did this association start? Was it some friend or relative who introduced
you to the brand or how was it?
R. In the start I saw an advertisement and then I was motivated by my friends and
all…so probably it was various influence that I had.
M. What was it of this brand that you first bought??what was your first purchase?
R. My purchase was a simple t-shirt.
M. So when you wore this t-shirt, how did you feel?
R. It was like whenever I make a purchase it is for a long use and when I wore this
t-shirt, it was very comfortable..its fabric was nice..and even after washing it again
and again, its color didn’t fade…its flexibility and the way it stretched were too
good…such that it lasted for 2 or 3 years.
M. So can we say that u had a very positive kind of experience?
R. Yes, it was very positive
M. So you feel confident when you wear this brand?
R. Yes, wearing a UCB t-shirt makes me feel so confident of myself.
M. Ohk…so how do you rate your knowledge about your brand? How well do you
know your best friend?
R. Yes I think I know a lot, I often keep looking for new deals that they offer…I am
also their member …so every time I keep looking for their schemes.
M. So tell me do you feel this brand is a part of who you are?
R. Yes surely, you can say that.
M. And how can I say that?
R. Like I am carrying this brand everywhere, my shoes, my belts, my t-shirts, al-
most everything.
M. So you are emotionally bonded to this brand?
R. Yes totally …I am emotionally boded.
M. So if I take out this brand from your life, how will that impact you?
R. It would be like walking away from my friend.

[email protected]
140 Appendix

M. So how will you live then without this brand?

R. No, I am very much attached to it.
M. Ok, so tell me does the brand name UCB say something to the other people of
who you are? like how do they perceive you when they see you wearing this brand?
R. Everybody see’s and says she is wearing a UCB t-shirt…this gives you a distinc-
tive feeling from others.
M. So how often are your thoughts and feelings are about this brand? Does it come
very naturally?
R. Yes
M. So when you go out to shop and see a UCB outlet, do you rush towards it or you
feel no, let me first check out some other stores?
R. See it’s like when I see a UCB retail store, it gives a very positive vibe…as if its
clothes will fit me perfect, these are meant for me..so my thoughts and feelings are
attached to that feeling.
M. Do you think the brand is very credible on whatever products it might have
given you or have you encountered some bad experiences as well?
R. Till now it has given me a good experience so yes I can safely say it’s credible.
M. So this brand is worth sticking for a long time? so do you see yourself using this
brand in future as well?
R. Actually the thing is that when you compare UCB with any other brand, even in
terms of price if I say…with Tommy or Espirit, you can’t buy much but UCB is very
affordable and you can buy a lot of t-shirts or accessories in one go.
M. So only because of price you have gone in for UCB or is there some other as-
sociation as well?
R. Price and variety, both are important for me. But price for sure is very important.
M. So, ohk if I ask you about your second favorite brand, what would that be?
R. I think it will be Espirit.
M. So ok, if I give you two dresses now, one UCB of 2500 and the other esprit of
2000, everything about the two dresses is the same…the only difference is price,
how will you chose one of them?
R. I will still stick to UCB as I am very much attached to it.
M. So give me 3 words about your relationship with this brand.
R. It gives me life, trust it and has a good quality.
M. Ohk, thank you so much for time.

Respondent 7

M. Hi ma’am…I am from IBS and we are conducting a survey on consumer brand

relationship. Can we start with your introduction…
R. Hello…I am Shubhangi Bose…I am doing my MBA from ICFAI University and
I have taken Finance as my major’s.

[email protected]
Appendix 4: Interview Participant Response Summary 141

M. So after taking finance as major are you left with any time to have some hobbies
of your own?
R. Yes, u have to manage time that is life all about and if u talk of hobbies those
would be reading books, watching movies, shopping…well that is every girl’s
favorite pass time.
M. Ok…so what do you shop generally then?
R. Well normally it’s all about clothes, apparels, cosmetics…
M. And what is it on that you send your maximum time on shopping?
R. I think that would be cosmetics and apparels.
M. So now that you are so much into shopping can I ask you that what’s your
favorite brand then?
R. Well clearly, my favorite brand is Revlon
M. And why do you say it’s Revlon?
R. It’s mainly because I like their products…I have been now using it from a long
time.
M. So what all range is Revlon offering to you?
R. Well range of products?
M. Yes, yes range of products
R. Well they have everything from eyeliner to lip gloss to lipstick to mascara to
foundation.
M. So are you using all the products?
R. Yes almost
M. So are you satisfied by using all the products they offer?
R. Yes I am satisfied.
M. Ok, so if I ask you what is your level of satisfaction on the scale of one to ten?
R. I would rate it at 9.5
M. Why did you leave that.5?
R. Well because there are some products of other brands which are better.
M. And what are these other brands?
R. Other brands as in Oriflame, Avon, Lakme.
M. So are you not brand loyal den?
R. I am brand loyal, that’s why I have rated it 9.5, else it would have been some-
where around 2.5 or 3.5 maybe.
M. So if u had to tell me a specialty about your brand Revlon, what would that be?
R. I think it goes with my skin very well, and I have been using this product and I
am very comfortable with this product.
M. Well just like we have people around us and we share some relationship with
them, in the same way if I ask you your relationship with your brand, what kind
would it be?
R. Well I have been with this brand for a very long time now, so it’s like my best
friend now
M. So, what is it in the brand that makes it your best friend?
R. Well the way it goes with the texture of my skin that is very important for me and
so it is like my best friend

[email protected]
142 Appendix

M. And are you satisfied about all the things related to your brand? The price, the
quality?
R. The quality comes first for me and I am satisfied with the price as well
M. Ok, so apart from the products you mentioned, do they have any other kind of
products as well, like body showers maybe?
R. No, they are only into cosmetics not into body care
M. So tell me when did your relationship with this brand began?
R. I think right from the teenage I have been using this product..Right from when I
was 15–16 years old.
M. Who introduced you to this brand?
R. Well I had my friends and some of my family members using their product and
that’s how I got to know about it
M. So it was because your friends were using that you started using?
R. Yes, I started because of them.
M. So gradually when you started using, how did you feel?
R. I liked the product, compared to other products I liked it better in every sense.
M. So if I go back to your teens when you started using this product, what was their
first product that you used?
R. The first product was probably eyeliner and now I have been using it from a very
long time…gradually I started using other products.
M. So the first time you used that eyeliner how did you feel about yourself?
R. I felt nice, also that yes the product is good, glazier…and I also got a lot of com-
pliments on using the product and it looked nice on me.
M. So, other people’s appreciation…was it one of the factors that you continued
with this product?
R. Yes
M. So it was your liking the product and others appreciation then?
R. Yes, it was both the factors being comfortable with the brand and other’s liking
it on you
M. So if I ask you, how knowledgeable do you feel about brand Revlon?
R. As far as its Revlon, I think I know about 80 % about the brand…
M. So where do you think are you missing out on the 20 %?
R. I don’t know about like some other products…like I don’t know like compacts.
M. So have you ever had any bad experience with the brand? Any skin allergies?
R. As of now I have not encountered any bad experience…none that I can think of.
M. So, has this brand become a part of you?
R. It’s been very long now that I have been using this product…and I have used
other products as well…but over time I have come to know that this product is much
suited to my skin than any other product…that’s why I am so comfortable with the
brand and I like it.
M. Do you feel emotionally bonded to this brand?
R. Yes, if you take this brand out of my life it will be a problem. Because for my
make up means the products of Revlon.
M. Well that’s a nice thought. So you were telling me, that when you wear the Rev-
lon products, you get a lot of compliments? Is it every time?

[email protected]
Appendix 4: Interview Participant Response Summary 143

R. Whenever I wear their products it tends to get noticed, maybe that’s why I get
more compliments when I wear Revlon on.
M. How often does brand Revlon evoke positive thoughts about past, present or
future?
R. Lot of times. Whenever it comes to makeup or whenever it comes to dressing up,
it is Revlon for me. It’s always a good memory.
M. So tell me any good memory associated with this brand.
R. Well it’s any friend’s birthday or marriage or any other party that I go to. Makeup
is an integral part of being a woman so it is like I associate a positive memory with
Revlon wherever I go.
M. Do you think this brand is trustworthy to be a relationship partner?
R. Yes totally. Because whenever I have applied it I have got good results. Never
have I felt people telling me that it’s not suitable, it’s not good. Never even has had
any negative effect on my skin…so yes it is totally trustworthy.
M. When you apply this product, does it say anything about who you are to other
people?
R. Revlon stands for confidence and self esteem and I think that is what defines me.
M. So in future also do you see yourself continuing with Revlon?
R. Well as of now I have got no reasons to say why I shouldn’t continue …I am very
satisfied with it.
M. So number 1 is Revlon, what would your number 2 be?
R. I think Lakme
M. So can you ever switch to that?
R. I sometimes use Lakme too because for some products Revlon is not available so
I have no other choice but to use Lakme. Like you don’t have a compact of Revlon
so its Lakme then. Also some products of Lakme are better than Revlon.
M. So let me give you a situation where you have an absolutely same eyeliner of
Lakme and Revlon …the only difference being price. Now would you go for Lakme
if it is cheaper in terms of price but has a similar product to that of Revlon?
R. I think I will still go for Revlon because I use almost all products of Revlon, feel
comfortable with it and trust it more…so I will still stick to it.
M. So at this stage when you are doing MBA, the earnings are coming from the
family …so how do you manage to buy Revlon then with its premium price?
R. Yes, it’s a premium priced product but I can’t take any chances with my skin.
M. Is it the sole reason?
R. Yes
M. Do you make impulse purchase or think before you buy?
R. It’s often impulse but sometimes when my stock gets over I go for buying
Revlon.
M. O.k. Shubhangi, thank you so much for your time!

[email protected]
144 Appendix

Respondent 8

Interview Date 18th Sept 2012

Name Deep
Gender Male
Age 25
Brand with whom respondent has strong relationship Budweiser

Moderator Respondent
Tell me about a brand I Think it will be Budweiser which is famous around the world
with which you have for its beer. I am a huge fan…it’s the biggest seller in the
relatively strong world…also like in whisky, it’s scotch that is famous and in
relationship? beer I would say that king of beer’s is Budweiser
Define the relationship with It’s next to water for me
your Brand
What specialty your brand The youth factor in it makes it special. I say that even the
possesses? advertisements it gives have youth and apart from that for me
and most of my friends, beer means Budweiser
Tell me about the magni- It has to be 10 on 10 but when I started it was less because I
tude of relationship, is it used to have other beer that was available in our supplies but
augmenting? now it has changed and for me it’s 10 on 10
With every purchase are Off course that is true cause every time I enjoy it much more
you getting more from than last time
what you got in your
previous purchase

Section 1

Specific questions about relationship establishment with the particular brand and
identification of starting point in this relationship establishment and maintenance,
with emphasis on the specified brand.

The first time you heard It was in my graduation 1st year …that would be 2008 and I
about the brand tried it the very same moment I came to know about it.
How (from ad, or reference There was an offer of one on one on this beer in one of the
or from other sources)? restaurants I went, so I suddenly got attracted and then at that
time I had it…later I talked about it to few of my friends and
they told me that it is very famous in other countries.
What did you feel at that That time I was just wondering what makes it the best beer in
time? the world, the most sold beer in the world because various
brands are there in India like kingfisher that makes beer but
I guess when Budweiser came it gave good competition to
kingfisher.
What was your expectation? Well for a beer love it’s the taste that matters and when I first
Did it meet them? drank it I just felt that it was nice, not very hard hitting…so
for me it was like more than expected.
How knowledgeable are I don’t know about any other products of Budweiser…I guess
you about Budweiser? it’s only beer they make. And yes even if there are offer’s I
do buy it at whatever price it is available. In India now there
are a lot of foreign beer’s but I guess Budweiser is the best.

[email protected]
Appendix 4: Interview Participant Response Summary
Appendix 145

Section 2

Specific questions about affective component in relationship maintenance with the

particular brand and identification of specific thoughts and feeling consumer felt
about the brand.

Do you felt that the brand Yes it is absolutely a part of me because whenever I want to have
is part of you and who something, drink something…I go and grab it
you are, how?
Let’s just suppose your I think the beer will be like my wife if it is a human being
brand is a human being because I is going to be so close to me every time…also the
describe that person in love and affinity factor comes in too
terms of appearance,
attributes, features,
attitude
Does (brand name) say I don’t think so because there can be guys around me drinking
something to other much better than this one but I associate myself with this,
people about who you without caring what people think
are, how?
How often do you feel the It has stood on its promises, never ever deceived and don’t think
brand is credible, why it ever will
how? Do you feel as a
brand will ever deceive
you on any aspect? Do
you have that trust?
Did you plan this brand Yes off course, why not! It’s the best option I have…
as your future option
for catering your future
product needs?

Section 3

Situation 1

Both Brands are equal on There are brands likes Heineken, Carlsberg, Tuborg but I
all terms but Brand B is associate myself with Budweiser because it’s like a buddy
cheaper than your brand. that makes you wiser. So I don’t care about the price when it
Now will you still buy comes to it
your brand
3 words to describe your My best companion when I am thirsty. one of the best things
relationship with the to have when I am thirsty so you can imagine how good a
brand relationship I have with this brand

[email protected]
146 Appendix

Respondent 9

Interview Date 15 Sept 2012

Name Gurveen Kaur
Gender Female
Age 24
Brand with whom respondent has strong relationship Allen Solly

Moderator Respondent
Tell me about a brand Allen Solly
with which you have
relatively strong
relationship?
Define the relationship with Intimate bcoz of great customer service
your Brand
What specialty your brand Variety and good collection, formal as well as casual and have
possesses? seasonal collection and has reward point system
Tell me about the magni- Started from 5 to 9 (Scale of 10)
tude of relationship, is it
augmenting?
With every purchase are More from every purchase and satisfaction has increased
you getting more from
what you got in your
previous purchase

Section 1

Specific questions about relationship establishment with the particular brand and
identification of starting point in this relationship establishment and maintenance,
with emphasis on the specified brand.

The first time you heard 4 to 5 years ago and I purchased two formal shirts
about Allen Solly
How (from ad, or reference From advertisement and references
or from other sources)?
What did you feel at that I got what I wanted and suited me and my taste
time?
What was the importance Suits me and I feel more confident
you associated with
Allen Solly
How knowledgeable do you Not that much knowledge earlier but with every purchase it has
feel you are about your increased
favourite brand at that
point of time?

[email protected]
Appendix 4: Interview Participant Response Summary 147

Section 2

Specific questions about affective component in relationship maintenance with the

particular brand and identification of specific thoughts and feeling consumer felt
about the brand.

Do you felt that the brand is part of you and who Yes since I feel more confident wearing it
you are, how?
Let’s just suppose your brand is a human being Best friend, smart, confident and good
describe that person in terms of appearance, looking
attributes, features, attitude
Does (brand name) say something to other Yes it does since I get more confident. And
people about who you are, how? I get a feel good factor with it
How often do you feel the brand is credible, Till now yes
why how?
Do you feel Allen Solly as a brand will ever Hope not since it is consistent till date
deceive you on any aspect? Do you have that
trust on your brand?
Did you plan this brand as your future option for Yes
catering your future product needs?
Do you think it makes sense to continue using Yes but if I am dissatisfied with the collec-
the brand? tion I would want to shift
Do you say this out of some emotion or logic
because if we see there are some better ver-
sions available in the market so how do you
justify that?

Section 3

Situation 1

There is Brand B which is equal on all No since the brand Allen Solly matters and it
parameters to you preferred brand & less is one company that is into premium seg-
in price. Which will you go for? ment clothing

Situation 2

3 words that descriebes your relation with Consistent and every lasting and style
Allen Solly? quotient.

[email protected]
148 Appendix

Respondent 10

Interview Date 12th Sept 2012

Name Naveen
Gender Male
Age 25
Brand with whom respondent has strong relationship Arrow

Moderator Respondent
Tell me about a brand You said rightly its arrow shirts and pants
with which you have
relatively strong
relationship?
Define the relationship I guess I have a strong relationship with this brand ever since I
with your Brand have passed out from my engineering college that is since 2008
more than 4 an h
What specialty your It’s into shirts, pants and also trousers, coats
brand possesses?
Tell me about the magni- Arrow is one such brand which has quality whenever u sees a
tude of relationship, is brand arrow you have that is classes apart others. U r assured
it augmenting? of quality of arrow. Whenever I used to go to office my first
collection was of arrow so that has professional and elite look
With every purchase are No it has changed, I had a strong relationship earlier but now 10
you getting more from on 10 but earlier it was 5 on 10 but after use of the product it
what you got in your has changed
previous purchase
First time purchase Shirt and trousers
was?

Section 1

Specific questions about relationship establishment with the particular brand and
identification of starting point in this relationship establishment and maintenance,
with emphasis on the specified brand.

The first time you heard The first time I felt that it bit expensive and not that much of
about arrow worth, but after use it has a long time use, I went to one of
the showrooms it was predominantly placed in the middle
of the showroom
How (from ad, or reference I came to know from a visit to a showroom in 2008
or from other sources)?
What did you feel at that They don’t have extensive range of shirts but whatever they
time? have the range is unique and shades are also unique but the
quality is also good
What was the importance Even though I didn’t own that desktop but working on it itself
you associated with made me feel better because I could compare it with my
arrow desktop at home & the difference was huge so I use to feel
better because of its appearance at that time because my
desktop was bulky one & Apple being sleek. Specially the
shape & the color which Apple provided was not available

[email protected]
Appendix 4: Interview Participant Response Summary 149

How knowledgeable do Not all, some are above my range

you feel you are about
your favourite brand at
that point of time?

Section 2

Specific questions about affective component in relationship maintenance with the

particular brand and identification of specific thoughts and feeling consumer felt
about the brand.

Do you felt that the Professionally yes because they are not into I mean other things. I
brand is part of you carry to my office
and who you are,
how?
Let’s just suppose your See if I say, the characteristics would be harp elite and professional
brand is a human and a celebrity apt for the arrow product will be Hritik Roshan
being describe that
person in terms
of appearance,
attributes, features,
attitude
Does (brand name) say Probably yes, they might feel that this guy has kind of features
something to other which arrow has, I have strong feeling for this brand
people about who
you are, how?
How often do you feel True 100 %
the brand is credible,
why how?
Do you feel arrow as No it will not, it has good quality and product. They are giving
a brand will ever perfect quality
deceive you on any
aspect? Do you have
that trust on your
brand?
Did you plan this brand Yes definitely
as your future option if tomorrow I need to buy a shirt again it has to be arrow
for catering your
future product needs?
Do you think it makes Yes it makes sense
sense to continue Yes because it’s being 4 and half years and if I don’t wear arrow
using the brand? in interviews or meeting then in fact people also ask where your
Do you say this out of Arrow is.
some emotion or
logic because if we
see there are some
better versions avail-
able in the market so
how do you justify
that?

[email protected]
150 Appendix

Section 3

Situation 1

There is Brand B which is equal on all Probably not initially, but once
parameters to you preferred brand Credibility which arrow brings in other brands don’t
& even on price. Which will you bring in
go for? Price is not an issue when selecting a brand
Even Brand equity is same
So you mean If someone gives you a
reference you can go for it

Situation 2

Both Brands are equal on all terms but Brand B is cheaper than your Probably not initially
brand. Now will you still buy your brand

Respondent 11

Interview Date 18 Sept 2012

Name Swati Sharma
Gender Female
Age 23
Brand with whom respondent has strong relationship BagIt

Moderator Respondent
Tell me about a brand Bag It (hand bag company)
with which you have
relatively strong
relationship?
Define the relationship Casual and its very me, relate to
with your Brand
What specialty your Bags for every occasion
brand possesses?
Tell me about the mag- Remained same (10/10) caters to every day requirement
nitude of relationship,
is it augmenting?
With every purchase Everything from color, size, pocket and price, value for money
are you getting more
from what you got
in your previous
purchase

[email protected]
Appendix 4: Interview Participant Response Summary 151

Section 1

Specific questions about relationship establishment with the particular brand and
identification of starting point in this relationship establishment and maintenance,
with emphasis on the specified brand.

The first time you heard about BagIt 4 to 5 years ago

How (from ad, or reference or from Met by chance as was shopping and accidently
other sources)? looked at the brand which was appealing and so
I liked a bag and bought one and thus relation-
ship started
What did you feel at that time? Wonderful and beautiful
What was the importance you associated Would want to hug it and would be possessive
with BagIt about it
How knowledgeable do you feel you No wasn’t but when came home, googled it and
are about your favourite brand at that saw the various other designs and its other offer-
point of time? ings and the brand was for younger generation

Section 2

Specific questions about affective component in relationship maintenance with the

particular brand and identification of specific thoughts and feeling consumer felt
about the brand.

Do you felt that the brand is part of you Yes it is part of me now as I carry it wherever I go
and who you are, how? since it suits me and I can correlate myself with
the brand. It goes with all my color its durability
and quality is perfect
Let’s just suppose your brand is a human Pretty and like my sister since best friends are
being describe that person in terms not forever and for a girl sister is very precious
of appearance, attributes, features, and cant correlate as a brother since it is not a
attitude masculine product
Beautiful, Intelligent, confident are the attributes
Does (brand name) say something to Bubbly, colorful and shiny girl
other people about who you are, how?
How often do you feel the brand is cred- Nothing bad gone till date
ible, why how?
Do you feel BagIt as a brand will ever Never
deceive you on any aspect? Do you
have that trust on your brand?
Did you plan this brand as your future Till date it is catering to me as a student and they
option for catering your future prod- have varieties for different age groups and occa-
uct needs? sions and can cater to my future needs
Do you think it makes sense to continue Yes since it’s like my sister and so will go on and
using the brand? high on emotional attachment
Do you say this out of some emotion or Wont make a shift
logic because if we see there are some
better versions available in the market
so how do you justify that?

[email protected]
152 Appendix

Section 3

Situation 1

There is Brand B which is equal on all param- For me price doesn’t matter so I will go for
eters to you preferred brand & even on price. BagIt will be there for me I may take the
Which will you go for? other brand as a substitute
Even Brand equity is same
So you mean If someone gives you a reference
you can go for it

Situation 2

Both Brands are equal on all terms but Brand Yes might but first preference will be BagIt
B is cheaper than your brand. Now will
you still buy your brand
3 words that describe your relationship with I love it
your brand

Respondent 12

Interview Date 15 Sept 2012

Name Shipra
Gender Male
Age 24
Brand with whom respondent has strong relationship Bausch and Lomb

Moderator Respondent
Tell me about a brand with which you have Bausch and Lomb
relatively strong relationship?
Define the relationship with your Brand Comfortable and easily available
What specialty your brand possesses? Availability and very friendly and its solution
is available everywhere
Tell me about the magnitude of relationship, Deteriorated (the usage part) from the past
is it augmenting? since when I started using it I was posses-
sive about it and my usage percentage has
decreased but loyalty hasn’t
With every purchase are you getting more Yes immense satisfaction
from what you got in your previous
purchase

[email protected]
Appendix 4: Interview Participant Response Summary 153

Section 1

Specific questions about relationship establishment with the particular brand and
identification of starting point in this relationship establishment and maintenance,
with emphasis on the specified brand.

The first time you heard about Bausch and Knew about it
Lomb
How (from ad, or reference or from other Recommended by my doctor
sources)?
What did you feel at that time? Freedom from specs, especially in monsoons
What was the importance you associated with Very possessive and I would probably let go
Bausch and Lomb my cell phone but not my lens
How knowledgeable do you feel you are about Talk a lot about the product and experience
your favourite brand at that point of time? since using for past 6 years and about the
company I don’t have a much idea

Section 2

Specific questions about affective component in relationship maintenance with the

particular brand and identification of specific thoughts and feeling consumer felt
about the brand.

Do you felt that the brand is part of you and who Definitely as I would let go my cell phone
you are, how? and not my lens
Let’s just suppose your brand is a human being Hospitable, warm, comfortable and easy
describe that person in terms of appearance, going
attributes, features, attitude Features—tomboyish and my attitude to this
person would be loyalty
Does (brand name) say something to other Yes it does give me a unique personality
people about who you are, how? and adds to my confidence and my style
quotient
How often do you feel the brand is credible, Yes since its always been satisfactory
why how?
Do you feel as a brand will ever it deceive you No
on any aspect? Do you have that trust on your
brand?
Did you plan this brand as your future option for Yes will be since I was given perfect train-
catering your future product needs? ing before and while using so it’s more
than satisfactory
Do you think it makes sense to continue using Yes trust since I tried another brand but was
the brand? not satisfied by it
Do you say this out of some emotion or logic
because if we see there are some better ver-
sions available in the market so how do you
justify that?

[email protected]
154 Appendix

Section 3

Situation 1

There is Brand B which is equal on all parameters to I would stick onto Bausch and Lomb
you preferred brand & even on price. Which will
you go for?
Even Brand equity is same
So you mean If someone gives you a reference you
can go for it

Situation 2

Both Brands are equal on all terms but Brand Yes I would stick to Bausch and Lomb since
B is cheaper than your brand. Now will health factor is more important I would
you still buy your brand stick onto it
3 words that would describe my relationship Long-lasting, loyalty and friendly
with this brand

Respondent 13

Interview Date 17 Sept 2012

Name Sidharth Negi
Gender Male
Age 27
Brand with whom respondent has strong relationship Casio

Moderator Respondent
Tell me about a brand with which you have Casio
relatively strong relationship? Watches
Define the relationship with your Brand Casio holds special bonding, remembrances and
high emotional quotient
What specialty your brand possesses? Something which is affordable for everybody
and it is like a box of bundled features in a
tight little box
Tell me about the magnitude of relation- Has increased with every purchase
ship, is it augmenting?
With every purchase are you getting more Yes, since from the last purchase I have bought
from what you got in your previous myself a new a high end watch from the
purchase same company which is providing me the apt
features
Over time has the brand been part of you Yes since I don’t travel without a watch it’s like
a personal connect with the brand

[email protected]
Appendix 4: Interview Participant Response Summary 155

Section 1

Specific questions about relationship establishment with the particular brand and
identification of starting point in this relationship establishment and maintenance,
with emphasis on the specified brand.

The first time you heard about Casio I knew about its existence but since I had a
watch earlier I wanted to go in for this par-
ticular brand
How (from ad, or reference or from other A gift but knew about the brand from advertise-
sources)? ments in magazines
What did you feel at that time? Great since I was longing for one and wanted to
experiment with it
What was the importance you associated Memories and delivering consistent
with Casio performance
How knowledgeable do you feel you are I know about every model which is coming and
about your favourite brand at that point which would come in the near future
of time?

Section 2

Specific questions about affective component in relationship maintenance with the

particular brand and identification of specific thoughts and feeling consumer felt
about the brand.

Do you felt that the brand is part of you Yes since according to me the person is known by
and who you are, how? the watch he wears. It represents who I am to
others depending upon the occasions
Something that anybody can connect to
Let’s just suppose your brand is a human One that is confident and can give anybody a run
being describe that person in terms for money and is trustworthy
of appearance, attributes, features,
attitude
Does (brand name) say something to Yes depending upon the situation depending
other people about who you are, how? upon what watch I wear does show my level of
sophistication to people
How often do you feel the brand is cred- Yes since it has a battery life indicator it indicates
ible, why how? when battery is low so caters to one thing
which one might slip from one’s mind
Do you feel Casio as a brand will ever No, since I have a large collection of it I haven’t
deceive you on any aspect? Do you had any problem like it
have that trust on your brand?
Did you plan this brand as your future See if my pocket allows I would like to try out
option for catering your future product with a higher end watch
needs?
Do you think it makes sense to continue Yes since till date it has innovative technology but
using the brand? if a watch comes out of the blue of some other
Do you say this out of some emotion or brand which is not there in my brand I would
logic because if we see there are some like to try it
better versions available in the market
so how do you justify that?

[email protected]
156 Appendix

Section 3

Situation 1

There is Brand B which is equal on all parameters to you pre- Would stick to Casio only
ferred brand & even on price. Which will you go for?
Even Brand equity is same
So you mean If someone gives you a reference you can go for it

Situation 2

Both Brands are equal on all terms but Brand B is Yes Casio since it is creditable
cheaper than your brand. Now will you still buy
your brand
3 words you would associate with this brand Confidence, remembrance and feelings
If I would share a relationship with this brand give Serious and intimate
me 2 words to describe it

Respondent 14

Interview Date 17 Sept 2012

Name Sourabh Bhattercherjee
Gender Male
Age 27
Brand with whom respondent has strong relationship Goldflake cigarettes

Moderator Respondent
Tell me about a brand with which you have Goldflake cigarette
relatively strong relationship?
Define the relationship with your Brand Matching my personality, strong, something
special, Have nothing to do it is like my mate
What specialty your brand possesses? Availability, Look (packaging), About the
product 69 mm long perfect to smoke a time
and the time it takes to burn is that I would
dedicate to smoke a product like cigarette
It is like having something that is perfectly
suiting you
Tell me about the magnitude of relation- Has changed since initially was smoking a dif-
ship, is it augmenting? ferent brand from WILLS (Wills Flake) but
that was too strong/hard so shifted to Gold-
flake. Somebody suggested I tried and now
the brand loyalty has moved to 10. Not that
much excitement with smoking other brands.
Since it is more refined
With every purchase are you getting more Yes immense satisfaction
from what you got in your previous
purchase

[email protected]
Appendix 4: Interview Participant Response Summary 157

Section 1

Specific questions about relationship establishment with the particular brand and
identification of starting point in this relationship establishment and maintenance,
with emphasis on the specified brand.

Interview Date 17 Sept 2012

Name Sourabh Bhattercherjee
Gender Male
Age 27
Brand with whom respondent has strong relationship Goldflake cigarettes

The first time you heard about Goldflake Knew about it

Earlier since opted for it when my earlier brand
was not available
How (from ad, or reference or from other Suggested by friend
sources)?
What did you feel at that time? Excitement with smoking every puff and sat-
isfaction with Goldflake since other brands
are light
What was the importance you associated with Something really special since if I do not have
Goldflake a Goldflake and opt for other brand the level
on contentment will not be there at all and
the price range is suitable according to my
budget
How knowledgeable do you feel you are about Know the manufacturers and where it is manu-
your favourite brand at that point of time? factured, gradual increase in price from the
time I started and how it is marketed

Section 2

Specific questions about affective component in relationship maintenance with the

particular brand and identification of specific thoughts and feeling consumer felt
about the brand.

Do you felt that the brand is part of Yes since if I don’t smoke and have an urge to
you and who you are, how? smoke the first thing that comes to my mind is
the packet and
Does (brand name) say something to Don’t know but there are people who smoke lighter
other people about who you are, cigarettes and others do give recommendations
how? that it is a harder cigarette and will harm you,
but the punch lacks with other cigrattes and thus
might perceive me as a strong person
How often do you feel the brand is Yes it has been trustworthy and as the length of
credible, why how? cigarette is 69 mm so the time it takes to burn
according to my level takes 5 to 6 min and if I
am working the time suites me to take a quick
break and if I am feeling sleepy and if I smoke I
can go on with my work for an hour more

[email protected]
158 Appendix

Do you feel Goldflake as a brand will Never and yes immense trust
ever deceive you on any aspect? Do
you have that trust on your brand?
Did you plan this brand as your future Yes
option for catering your future
product needs?
Do you think it makes sense to con- Yes it gives a punch to me so which other brands
tinue using the brand? don’t

Section 3

Situation 1

There is Brand B which is equal on all param- I could try but I am not sure that any other
eters to you preferred brand & even on price. brand might provide the same thing
Which will you go for? But for me as I said earlier the punch i.e.
Even Brand equity is same the taste matters so would stick onto my
So you mean If someone gives you a reference brand
you can go for it

Situation 2

Both Brands are equal on all terms but Brand then I would like to try first and see if the char-
B is cheaper than your brand. Now will you acteristics are same and then I would be in
still buy your brand dilemma but would like to evaluate since for
me taste is far more important than price

Respondent 15

Interview Date 18 Sept 2012

Name Charu Atiri
Gender Female
Age 23
Brand with whom respondent has strong Subway
relationship

Moderator Respondent
Tell me about a brand with which you have Subway
relatively strong relationship?
Define the relationship with your Brand Consistent
What specialty your brand possesses? Tasty, Healthy and no oil content, low content
and since I am a hosteller I need food afford-
able and quick snack. Well stored
Tell me about the magnitude of relation- Yes grown from 6 to 8 (on a scale of 10)
ship, is it augmenting?
With every purchase are you getting more Yes
from what you got in your previous
purchase

[email protected]
Appendix 4: Interview Participant Response Summary 159

Moderator Respondent
Taste and quality are the only criteria’s High level of customization as one can add and
you emphasize is making your brand subtract what one wants
so special

Section 1

Specific questions about relationship establishment with the particular brand and
identification of starting point in this relationship establishment and maintenance,
with emphasis on the specified brand.

The first time you heard about Subway 3–4 years

How (from ad, or reference or from other Suggested by friend
sources)?
What did you feel at that time? Something good and value for money
What was the importance you associated Would want to come back and try out with
with Subway every variety of subways
How knowledgeable do you feel you are Menu hasn’t changed a bit from the past years
about your favourite brand at that point and tried out everything
of time?

Section 2

Specific questions about affective component in relationship maintenance with the

particular brand and identification of specific thoughts and feeling consumer felt
about the brand.

Do you felt that the brand is part of you Yes since I am travelling and live in a hostel
and who you are, how? it’s a quick snack and better than brands
like McDonalds because its oil free, health,
customization
Does (brand name) say something to other That I am healthy and hygiene conscious and
people about who you are, how? brand loyal
Do you feel Subway as a brand will ever Yes since they have small outlets they is a prob-
deceive you on any aspect? Do you have ability not getting what I want
that trust on your brand?
Did you plan this brand as your future Yes
option for catering your future product
needs?
Do you think it makes sense to continue Its reliable and global and available every way
using the brand?
Do you say this out of some emotion or
logic because if we see there are some
better versions available in the market so
how do you justify that?

[email protected]
160 Appendix

Section 3

Situation 1

There is Brand B which is equal on all Brand B should have that much Global
parameters to you preferred brand & acknowledgement as Subway and the brand
even on price. Which will you go for? has to pick up for and somebody should come
Even Brand equity is same and tell me about this new brand. And to
So you mean If someone gives you a refer- switch I would want people to recommend
ence you can go for it me

Situation 2

3 words about the relationship with your brand Subway Everlasting, loyal and consistent

Respondent 16

Interview Date 17th September 2012

Name Kartikeya Vats
Gender Male
Age 22
Brand with whom respondent has strong relationship Nike

Moderator Respondent
Tell me about a brand with which you have I think undoubtedly it will be Nike…I am very
relatively strong relationship? fond of Nike shoes and make sure that when-
ever I am in need of a new pair, I buy only
Nike…almost all of my shoe collection is of
Nike…here almost all would mean around
90 % for sure, the rest 10 % may be of other
brands
Define the relationship with your Brand A person buys shoes for long term use and Nike
is a very credible brand. My relationship with
Nike is of trust and long term benefit. When I
buy a Nike shoe, I know it will last long and
people will surely notice what I am wearing
What specialty your brand possesses? Its main specialty is its sportswear and sneak-
ers…very trendy, very new….it’s basically
for the youth, the go getters
Tell me about the magnitude of relation- Well yes it is augmenting, it is giving me greater
ship, is it augmenting? and greater satisfaction each time I buy it…
in fact it has a ability to surprise me…each
time I go to the store they have something
new to offer, maybe with more comfort or
new design

[email protected]
Appendix 4: Interview Participant Response Summary 161

Moderator Respondent
With every purchase are you getting more Yes, that is very right…as I said, they have a
from what you got in your previous ability to surprise me with their offerings
purchase each time I visit their store
Why are you sticking to this brand? Because it’s worth the money… go for a long
time, don’t get spoiled very soon

Section 1

Specific questions about relationship established with the particular brand and
identification of starting point in this relationship establishment and maintenance,
with emphasis on the specified brand.

The first time you heard Well it’s been a long association now…almost 5 to 6 years…I
about Nike am into sports and Nike shoes give immense comfort and
grip so that I can be best at my sport…so from a long time I
have been associated with this brand
How (from ad, or reference Well my Mom first brought these shoes for me as my b’day
or from other sources)? gift…before that I had heard of these shoes but never thought
of buying it any sooner …but my mom surprised me with
this b’day gift
What did you feel at that Satisfaction…happiness, better than all other times I wore other
time? shoes
How knowledgeable do you At that time I didn’t know much about it, had just heard
feel you are about your about Nike from friend and had seen its shoes in malls but
favourite brand at that not really cared to see them very carefully with a buying
point of time? intention
Is there an emotional con- Off course, it was a gift from my mom and also it was some-
nect to this brand then? thing that I had longed to have in my life…so yes there is an
emotional connect…in fact I still have my first pair of Nike
shoes with me till date

Section 2

Specific questions about affective component in relationship maintenance with the

particular brand and identification of specific thoughts and feeling consumer felt
about the brand.

Do you felt that the brand is part of Yes completely…it adds a zing to my look…I am in fact
you and who you are, how? known in my friend circle for my trendy Nike shoes
and slippers. So it’s like…If not Nike, then what?
Let’s just suppose your brand is Its smart, trendy youthful…in tune with today’s
a human being describe that generation
person in terms of appearance, It’s a very loyal and trustworthy partner and someone I
attributes, features, attitude can stay my whole life with

[email protected]
162 Appendix

Does (brand name) say something Y not? off course…when I wear new design Nike shoes
to other people about who you and slippers, my friends often ask me from where I
are, how? purchased it…sometimes they even ask if they can
have the shoes to wear for a day or two..So basically
even my friends perceive it as trendy and very in
kinds
How often do you feel the brand is Well it is very credible till today…I as such have had no
credible, why how? issues with the brand…in fact I at times recommend
it to some of my friends or relatives
Do you feel Nike as a brand will It has till date not deceived me and I am sure it will not
ever deceive you on any aspect? do so in future as well…I have complete trust on it to
Do you have that trust on your deliver what it stands for
brand?
Did you plan this brand as your Yes it is here to stay in my life…I don’t think for some
future option for catering your time to come I will move away from this brand
future product needs?
Do you think it makes sense to Yes, y not? It is fairly priced, good on quality, durable…
continue using the brand? then y not just stay with it!
Do you say this out of some emo- It’s somewhat an emotional connect and somewhat my
tion or logic because if we see experience with the brand…both factors are very
there are some better versions important to me
available in the market so how
do you justify that?

Section 3

Situation 1

There is Brand B which is equal on all param- My brand off course …I don’t plan to switch
eters to you preferred brand & even on price. any time soon
Which will you go for?
Even Brand equity is same

Situation 2

Both Brands are equal on all terms but Brand B Yes, with good quality comes a premium and I
is cheaper than your brand. Now will you still am ready to pay that for Nike
buy your brand
Lastly, give me 3 words to describe your rela- Its trust, trust and more trust
tionship with Nike

[email protected]
Appendix 4: Interview Participant Response Summary 163

Respondent 17

Interview Date 18th Sept 2012

Name Jayraj
Gender Male
Age 23
Brand with whom respondent has strong relationship US Polo

Moderator Respondent
Tell me about a brand with It think so, that it has to be US POLO and I say this
which you have relatively because I have seen my cousins and all wearing it and
strong relationship? I have also grown up wearing it and It is a semi formal
kind of dress that most army people wear, so I can wear
it inside army club’s also in casuals. In casuals it offers
wide range of products like t-shirt’s, cargoes, jeans,
shoes, shirts, trousers, Capri’s
Define the relationship with your It’s like in brands it’s my best friend because I keep look-
Brand ing forward to any new t-shirt coming in the store every
now and then and I just go and grab it
What specialty your brand Nothing as such but it’s just that they are simple basic
possesses? color clothes and I like them. Also quality is very good.
Have been wearing its t-shirt from past 3 yrs now and
its color has not yet faded
Tell me about the magnitude of Earlier on it was 10 on 10 but now it is somewhere like 7
relationship, is it augment- on 10 because they have been trying to enter into a lot
ing? Was it 10 on 10 when u of things. They have introduced a lot of multi colored
started or it started low and t-shirts now which I do not like so yes I have gone
now is high or vice versa? down on likability. Also the shoe department is now
making not very comfortable shoes

Section 1

Specific questions about relationship establishment with the particular brand and
identification of starting point in this relationship establishment and maintenance,
with emphasis on the specified brand.

The first time you heard It was around 4 years ago through one of my cousins. Apart from
about Apple. How that I did have some knowledge about it. But the first show-
(from ad, or reference room that came to my place was 4 and a half, 5 years ago
or from other sources)?
What did you feel at that My first purchase was a white t-shirt and it was a good feeling as
time? not much people around me wore it…so yes it was a different
feeling
What was the importance The first time I saw it was in a mall called DT mall, Chandigarh.
you associated with the There US POLO showroom was one of the first to be opened
place where you saw in the mall and while just passing I saw the horses posters
US POLO for the very of US POLO and at that time there was a curiosity about it.
first time. people generally confuse this brand with Ralf Lauren which is
a very expensive brand, not here in brand..so US POLO can be
counted upon as mini Ralf Lauren kind of thing as those guys
who can’t afford Ralf Lauren can go in with US Polo

[email protected]
164 Appendix

Section 2

Specific questions about affective component in relationship maintenance with the

particular brand and identification of specific thoughts and feeling consumer felt
about the brand.

Do you felt that the brand Can’t really say that because passion for a brand is a differ-
is part of you and who ent about who I am..I am not that passionate about it…
you are, how? it’s just that it’s on the radar; this is what can I afford, is
easily available and suits my taste…that’s it
Let’s just suppose your I think I will make this person a close associate, a friend
brand is a human being and certainly be in a good relationship with it because it’s
describe that person in been my favorite thing from past 3 years and yes I would
terms of appearance, like to have a long term relationship with it and help him
attributes, features, to do better in future
attitude
Does (brand name) say No, it doesn’t say anything as such cause the other day a guy
something to other called me a cricket umpire when I was wearing a POLO
people about who you t-shirt with a trouser but still I go on wearing it because I
are, how? don’t wear clothes based on people telling me this is nice,
this is not. I like it so I wear it
How often do you feel the It is credible but the only thing is that choice of clothes is
brand is credible, why going down in casuals but formals it has a good range
how?
Do you feel Apple as a No… because it isn’t deceiving me up till now so I don’t see it
brand will ever deceive deceiving me in future as well
you on any aspect? Do
you have that trust on
your brand?
Did you plan this brand Yes it’s a safe option as long as they keep making good clothes
as your future option
for catering your future
product needs?

Situation 1

Both Brands are equal on all terms but I will still go in with US Polo even if it is at 100
Brand B is cheaper than your brand. $ a t-shirt
Now will you still buy your brand Actually this had happened with me once with
a brand called Beverly hills’ polo that came
up but it actually failed in India because it
was priced much low and hence no one could
connect to it
3 words to describe your relationship with Very good relationship…that’s all I can say
US Polo

[email protected]
References

Aaker, J. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34, 347–356.
Aaker, J., Fournier, S., & Brasel, S. A. (2004). When good brands do bad. Journal of Consumer
Research, 31(June), 1–16.
Abelson, R. P. (1995). Attitude extremity. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength:
Antecedents and consequences (pp. 25–41). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Abelson, R. P. (1988). Conviction. American Psychologist, 43, 267–275.
Achrol, R. S. (1991). Evolution of the marketing organization: New forms for turbulent environ-
ments. Journal of Marketing, 55, 77–93
Aggarwal, P. (2004). The effects of brand relationship norms on consumer attitudes and behaviour.
The Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), 87–101.
Ahluwalia, R., Burnkrant, R. E., & Unnava, H. R. (2000). Consumer response to negative public-
ity: The moderating role of commitment. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(May), 203–214.
Alba, J. W., & Lutz, R. J. (2013). Broadening (and narrowing) the scope of brand relationships.
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(2), 265–268. doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2013.01.005.
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance,
and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1–18.
Ambler, T. (1995). Brand equity as a relational concept. The Journal of Brand Management, 2(6),
387.
Ball, D. A., & Tasaki, L. H. (1992). The role and measurement of attachment in consumer behav-
iour. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1(2), 155–172.
Bansal, H. S., Irving, P. G., & Taylor, S. F. (2004). A three-component model of customer com-
mitment to service providers. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32(3), 234–250.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psy-
chological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personal-
ity and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.
Batra, R., Ahuvia, A., Bagozzi, R. P., & Love, B. (2012). Brand love. Journal of Marketing,
76(March), 1–16.
Batra, R., Lehmann, D. R., & Singh, D. (1992). The brand personality component of brand good-
will: Some antecedents and consequences. In D. A. Aaker & A. L. Biel (Eds.), Brand equity &
advertising: Advertising’s role in building strong brands (pp. 83–69). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Beatty, S. B., Kahle, L., & Homer, P. (1988). The involvement-commitment model: Theory and
implications. Journal of Business Research, 6(3), 149–168.
Bengtsson, A. (2003). Towards a critique of brand relationships. In P. A. Keller & W. R. Dennis
(Eds.), NA—advances in consumer research (Vol 30, pp. 154–158). Valdosta, GA: Association
for Consumer Research.
Berry, L. L., Parasuman, A., & Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). The service quality puzzle. Business Ho-
rizon, 31(5), 35–43.
Bettencourt, L. A. (1997). Customer voluntary performance: Customers as partners in service de-
livery. Journal of Retailing, 73(3), 383–406.

S. Sreejesh, S. Mohapatra, Mixed Method Research Design, 165

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-02687-9, © Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

[email protected]
166 References

Bizer, G. Y., & Krosnick, J. A. (2001). Exploring the structure of strength-related attitude features:
The relation between attitude importance and attitude accessibility. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 81, 566–586.
Blackston, M. (1992). A brand with an attitude: A suitable case for treatment. Journal of the Mar-
ket Research Society, 34, 231–241.
Bloemer, J. M. M., & Kasper, J. D. P. (1995). The complex relationship between consumer satis-
faction and brand loyalty. Journal of Economic Psychology, 16, 311–329.
Bloemer, J. M. M., & Odekerken-Schroder, G. (2002). Store Satisfaction and store loyalty ex-
plained by customer- and store-related factors. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfac-
tion and Complaining Behavior, 15, 68–80.
Bowlby, J. (1979). The making and breaking of affectional bonds. London: Tavistock.
Breivik, E., & Thorbjørnsen, H. (2008). Consumer brand relationships: An investigation of two
alternative models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(4), 443–472.
Brigita Jurisic, A. A. (2010). Building customer–brand relationships in the mobile communica-
tions market: The role of brand tribalism and brand reputation. Journal of Brand Management,
18(4–5), 349–366.
Broyles, S. A., Schumann, D. W., & Leingpibul, T. (2009). Examining brand equity antecedent/
consequence relationships. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 17(2), 145–161.
Carlson, B. D., Donavan, D. T., & Cumiskey, K. J. (2009). Consumer-brand relationships in sport:
Brand personality and identification. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Manage-
ment, 37(4), 370–384. doi:10.1108/09590550910948592.
Chaiken, S., Liberman, A., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Heuristic and systematic information process-
ing within and beyond the persuasion context. In J. S. Uleman (Ed.), Unintended thought. New
York: Guilford.
Chang, P. L., & Chieng, M. H. (2006). Building consumer-brand relationships: A cross-cultural
experiential view. Psychology & Marketing, 23(11), 927–959.
Chaudhuri, A., & Holbrook, M. B. (2002). Product-class effects on brand commitment and brand
outcomes: The role of brand trust and brand affect. Brand Management, 10(1), 33–58.
Churchill, G. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal
of Marketing Research, 16, 64–73.
Chusmir, L. H. (1988). Religious attitudes toward work: A new look at an old question. Journal of
Organizational Behaviour, 9, 251–262.
Copeland, M. T. (1923). Relation of consumers’ buying habits to marketing methods. Harvard
Business Review, 1 (April), 282–289
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16,
297–334.
Cunningham, R. M. (1956). Brand loyalty—what where how much? Harvard Business Review,
34, 116–128.
Cunningham, R. M. (1967). Perceived risk and brand loyalty, In D. F. Cox (Ed.), Risk-taking and
information handling in consumer behavior (pp. 507–523). Boston: Boston University Press.
Day, G. S. (1969) A two-dimensional concept of brand loyalty. Journal of Advertising Research,
9(3), 29–35
Day, G., & Wensley, R. (1988). Assessing advantage: A framework for diagnosing competitive
superiority. Journal of Marketing, 52(April), 1–20.
de Wulf, K., Odekerken-Schroder, G., & Iacobucci, D. (2001). Investments in consumer relation-
ships: A cross-country and cross-industry exploration. Journal of Marketing, 65, 33–50.
deChernatony, L., & Dall’Olmo Riley, F. (1998). Defining a “brand”: Beyond the literature with
experts interpretations. Journal of Marketing Management, 14, 417–443.
Delgado-Ballester, E., & Munuera-Alemán, J. (2000). Brand trust in the context of consumer loy-
alty. European Journal of Marketing, 35(11/12), 1238–1258.
Delgado-Ballester, E., & Munuera-Alemán, J. L. (2005). Does brand trust matter to brand equity?
Journal of Product & Brand Management, 14(3), 187–196
Dick, A., & Basu, K. (1994). Customer loyalty: Towards an integrated framework. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 22(2), 99–113.

[email protected]
References 167

Durgee, J. F. (1988). Understanding brand personality. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 5(3),

21–25.
Dwyer, F. R., Schurr, P. H., & Oh, S. (1987). Developing buyer-seller relationships. Journal of
Marketing, 51(2), 11–27.
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken., S. (I993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth: Harcourl College.
Erber, M. W., Hodges, S. D., & Wilson, T. D. (1995). Attitude strength, attitude stability, and the
effects of analyzing reasons. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Anteced-
ents and consequences (pp. 433–454). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Erdem, T., & Swait, J. (1998). Brand equity as a signalling phenomenon. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 7, 131–57
Evanschitzky, H., Iyer, G. R., Plassmann, H., Niessing, J., & Meffert, H. (2006). The relative
strength of affective commitment in securing loyalty in service relationships. Journal of Busi-
ness Research, 59(12), 1207–1213.
Falkenberg, A. W. (1996). Marketing and the wealth of firms. Journal of Macromarketing, 16(1),
4–24.
Fazio, R. H. (1986). How do attitudes guide behavior? In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.),
The handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior, (pp. 204–243).
New York: Guilford.
Fazio, R. H. (1995). Attitudes as subject-evaluation associations: Determinants, consequences,
and correlates of attitude accessibility. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength:
Antecedents and consequences (pp. 247–282). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in consumer re-
search. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 343–373
Fournier, S., & Alvarez, C. (2013). Relating badly to brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology,
23(2), 253–264. doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2013.01.004.
Fournier, S., & Yao, J. L. (1997). Reviving brand loyalty: A reconceptualization within the frame-
work of consumer-brand relationships. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 14(5),
451–472. Retrieved from http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0167811697000219.
Fullerton, G. (2003). When does commitment lead to loyalty? Journal of Service Research, 5(4),
333–344.
Fullerton, G. (2005). The impact of brand loyalty commitment on loyalty to retail service brands.
Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 22(2), 97–110.
Ganesan, S. (1994). Determinats of long-term orientation in buyer-seller relationship. Journal of
Marketing, 58, 1–19
Garbarino, E., & Johnson, M. S. (1999). The different roles of satisfaction, trust, and commitment
in customer relationship. Journal of Marketing, 63(2), 70–87.
Geyer, P. D., Dotson, M., & King, R. H. (1991). Predicting brand commitment: An empirical test
of rusbult’s investment model. The Mid-Atlantic Journal of Business, 27, 129–137.
Gremler, D. (1995). The effect of satisfaction, switching costs, and interpersonal bonds on service
loyalty. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Arisona State University, Tucson, Arizona.
Gross, S. R., Holtz, R., & Miller, N. (1995). Attitude certainty. In R. E. Petty & J. A Krosnick
(Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences. (pp. 215–246). Mahwah: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Gundlach, G. T., Achrol, R. S., & Mentzer, J. T. (1995). The structure of commitment in exchange,
Journal of Marketing, 59 (January), 78–92
Hatcher, L., Kryter, K., Prus, J. S., & Fitzgerald, C. (1992). Predicting college students satisfac-
tion, commitment, and attrition from investment model constructs. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 22(16), 1273–1296.
Hayes, J. B., Alford, B. L., Silver, L., & York, R. P. (2006). Looks matter in developing con-
sumer-brand relationships. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 15(5), 306–315.
doi:10.1108/10610420610685875.
Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. (2000). Close relationships: A sourcebook. Thousand Oaks: Saga
Publications.

[email protected]
168 References

Hess, J., & Story, J. (2005). Trust-based commitment: Multidimensional consumer-brand relation-
ships. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 22(6), 313–322.
Hibbard, J., & Iacobucci, D. (1999). Toward an encompassing theory of Business Marketing Rela-
tionships (BMRs) and Interpersonal Commercial Relationships (ICRs): an empirical general-
ization. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 13(3),13–33
Hill, R. P., & Stamey, M. (1990). The homeless in America: An examination of possessions and
consumption behaviors. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(December), 303–321.
Hinde, R. (1997). Relationships: a dialectic perspective. Hove, East Sussex: Psychological Press.
Hooley, G. I., Greenley, G. E., Cadogan, J. W., & Fahy, J. (2005). The performance impact of
marketing resources. Journal of Business Research, 58(1), 18–27.
Huber, F., Vollhardt, K., Matthes, I., & Vogel, J. (2010). Brand misconduct: Consequences on con-
sumer–brand relationships. Journal of Business Research, 63(11), 1113–1120. doi:10.1016/j.
jbusres.2009.10.006.
Hunt, S. D. (1997). Competing through relationships: Grounding relationship marketing in re-
source-advantage theory. Journal of Marketing Management, 13(5), 431–445.
Hunt, S. D., & Menon, A. (1995). Metaphors and competitive advantage: Evaluating the use of
metaphors in theories of competitive strategy. Journal of Business Research, 33(2), 81–90.
Hwang, J., & Kandampully, J. (2012). The role of emotional aspects in younger con-
sumer-brand relationships. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 21(2), 98–108.
doi:10.1108/10610421211215517.
He, J., & Lu, T. (2009). Consumer-brand relationship in the context of Chinese culture: A theo-
retical construct and empirical study. Frontiers of Business Research in China, 3(4), 493–513.
Jevons, C., Gabbott, M., & De Chernatony, L. (2005). Customer and brand manager perspectives
on brand relationships: A conceptual framework. Journal of Product & Brand Management,
14(5), 300–309. doi:10.1108/10610420510616331.
Ji, M. F. (2002). Children’s relationships with brands: ‘True Love’ or ‘One-Night’ Stand? Psychol-
ogy and Marketing, 19, 369–387.
Johnson, M. D., Andreas, H., & Frank, H. (2006). The evolution of loyalty intentions. Journal of
Marketing, 70(2), 122–132.
Jones, M. A., & Reynolds, K. E. (2006). The role of retailer interest on shopping behavior. Journal
of Retailing, 82(2), 115–126.
Jones, M. A., Reynolds, K. E., Mothersbaugh, D. L., & Beatty, S. E. (2007). The positive and
negative effects of switching costs on relational outcomes. Journal of Service Research, 9(4),
335–355.
Jones, T., Fox, G. L., Taylor, S. F., & Fabrigar, L. R. (2010). Service customer commitment and
response. Journal of Services Marketing, 24(1), 16–28.
Kaltcheva, V., & Weitz, B. (1999). The effects of brand–consumer relationships upon consumers’
attributions and reactions. Advances in Consumer Research, 26, 455–462.
Kates, S. (2000). Out of the closet and out on the street: Gay men and their brand relationships.
Psychology and Marketing, 17(June), 493–513
Kaynak, E., Salman, G. G., & Tatoglu, E. (2008). An integrative framework linking brand associa-
tions and brand loyalty in professional sports. Journal of Brand Management, 15(5), 336–357.
Keller, K. L. (1998). strategic brand management: Building, measuring and managing brand eq-
uity. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing consumer-based brand equity.
Journal of Marketing, 57, 1–22.
Keller, K. L. (2003). Strategic brand management. New York: Prentice Hall.
Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of independence. New
York: Wiley.
Kim, H. K., Lee, M., Lee, Y. W., & Korea, T. N. S. (2005). Developing a scale for measuring brand
relationship quality. Asia Pacific Advances in Consumer Research, 6(2001), 118–127.
Kim, J., Morris, J. D., & Joffre, S. (2008). Antecedents of true brand loyalty. Journal of Advertis-
ing, 37(2), 99–117.

[email protected]
References 169

Kressmann, F., Sirgy, M. J., Herrmann, A., Huber, F., Huber, S., & Lee, D. J. (2006). Direct and
indirect effects of self-image congruence on brand loyalty. Journal of Business Research, 59,
955–964.
Krishnan, H. S. (1996). Characteristics of memory associations: A consumer-based brand equity
perspective. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13(2), 389–405.
Krosnick, J. A. (Ed.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences. (pp. 215–246). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Krosnick, J. A., & R. E. Petty. (1995). Attitude strength: An overview in attitude strength: Anteced-
ents and consequences. (pp. 1–24). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Krosnick, J. A., & Abelson, R. P. (1992). The case for measuring attitude strength in surveys. In J.
Tanur (Ed.), Questions about survey questions (pp. 177–203). New York: Russell Sage.
Krosnick, J. A., Boninger, D. S., Chuang, Y. C., Berent, M. K., & Carnot, C. G. (1993). Attitude
strength: One construct of many related constructs? Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 65(6), 1132–1151.
Langer, J. (1997). What consumers wish brand managers knew. Journal of Advertising Research,
37, 60–65.
Lassar, W., Mittal, B., & Sharma, A. (1995). Measuring customer-based brand equity. The Journal
of Consumer Marketing, 12(4), 11–19.
Lau, G. T., & Lee, S. H. (1999). Consumers’ trust in a brand and the link to brand loyalty. Journal
of Market-Focused Management, 4(4), 341–370.
Leone, R. P., Rao, V. R., Keller, K. L., Luo, A. M., McAlister, L., & Srivastava, R. (2006). Linking
brand equity to customer equity. Journal of Service Research, 9(2), 125–138.
Levinger, G. (1979). A social exchange view on the dissolution of pair relationships. In R. L. Bur-
gess & T. L. Huston (Eds.), Social exchange in developing relationships (pp. 169–193). New
York: Academic Press.
Macneil, I. R. (1980). The New Social Contract: An Inquiry into Modern Contractual Relations.
New Haven: Yale University Press.
Mano, H., & Oliver, R. L. (1993). Assessing the dimensionality and structure of the consumption
experience: Evaluation, feeling, and satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(Decem-
ber), 451–466.
Marketing News. (1992). Get to the essence of a brand relationship. 26, 2, 4
McConnell, J. D. (1968). The development of brand loyalty: An experimental study. Journal of
Market Research, 5(1), 13–19.
McDonald, G. W. (1981). Structural exchange and marital interaction. Journal of Marriage and
the Family, (November), 825–839
Menictas, C., Wang, P. Z., & Louviere, J. J. (2012). Assessing the validity of brand equity con-
structs. Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ), 20(1), 3–8. doi:10.1016/j.ausmj.2011.10.008.
Meyer, J. P., & Herscovitch, L. (2001). Commitment in the workplace: Toward a general model.
Human Resource Management Review, 11, 299–326.
Mick, D. G., & DeMoss, M. (1990). Self-gifts: Phenomenological insights from four contexts.
Journal of Consumer Research, 17, 322–333.
Miller S. R. (1997). Inattentive and contented: Relationship commitment and attention to alterna-
tives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(4), 758–766.
Monga, A. B. (2002). Brand as a relationship partner: Gender differences in perspective. In S. M.
Broniarczyk & K. Nakamoto (Eds.), Advances in Consumer Research (pp. 36–41). Valdosta:
Association for Consumer Research
Moon, M. A., & Bonney, L. (2007). An application of the investment model to buyer–seller re-
lationships: A dyadic approach. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 15(4), 335–347.
Moorman, C., Zaltman, G., & Desphande, R. (1992). Relationships betweenÂÂ providers and us-
ers of market research. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(3), 314–29
Moorman, C., Deshpande, R., & Zaltman, G. (1993), Factors affecting trust in market research
relationships. Journal of Marketing, 57(21 Jan), 81–102
Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing.
Journal of Marketing, 58, 20–38.

[email protected]
170 References

Nebel, J. F., & Blattberg, R. C. (2000). Brand relationship management: A new approach for the
third millennium (White Paper). Retrieved 22 October 2009 from:. http:// mthink.com/sites/
default/files/legacy/crmproject/content/pdf/CRM1_wp_nebel. pdf
Nyadzayo, M. W., Matanda, M. J., & Ewing, M. T. (2011). Brand relationships and brand equity
in franchising. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(7), 1103–1115. doi:10.1016/j.indmar-
man.2011.09.004.
Nysveen, H., Pedersen, P. E., Thorbjørnsen, H., & Berthon, P. (2005). Mobilizing the brand: The
effects of mobile services on brand relationships and main channel use. Journal of Service
Research, 7(3), 253–276.
O’Malley, L., & Tynan, A. C. (1999). The utility of the relationship metaphor in consumer mar-
kets: A critical evaluation. Journal of Marketing Management, 15, 587–602.
Odin, Y., Odin, N., & Valette-Florence, P. (2001). Conceptual and operational aspects of brand
loyalty: An empirical investigation. Journal of Business Research, 53(2), 75–84.
Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model for the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction.
Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 460–469.
Oliver, R. L. (1999). Whence consumer loyalty. Journal of marketing, 63, 33–44.
Oliver, R. L. (1997). Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer. New York: The
McGraw-Hill Companies Inc.
Olson, B. (1999). Exploring women’s brand relationships and enduring themes at mid-life. In E.
J. Arnould & L. M. Scott (Eds.), Advances in Consumer Research (pp. 615–620). Provo, UT:
Association for Consumer Research
Palmer, A. (1996). Integrating brand development and relationship marketing. Journal of Retailing
and Consumer Services, 3(4), 251–257.
Papista, E., & Dimitriadis, S. (2012). Exploring consumer-brand relationship quality and identifi-
cation: Qualitative evidence from cosmetics brands. Qualitative Market Research: An Interna-
tional Journal, 15(1), 33–56. doi:10.1108/13522751211191982.
Park, C. W., Eisingerich, A. B., & Park, J. W. (2013). Attachment–aversion (AA) model of cus-
tomer–brand relationships. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(2), 229–248. doi:10.1016/j.
jcps.2013.01.002.
Park, J. W., & Kim, K. H. (2001). Role of consumer relationships with a brand in brand extension:
Some exploratory findings. Advances in Consumer Research, 28, 179–185.
Park, C. W., MacInnis,D.J., & Priester, J (2006). Beyond attitudes: Attachment and consumer
behavior. Seoul National Journal, 12(2), 3–36.
Park, C. W., Macinnis, D. J., & Priester, J. (2009). Brand attachment: Construct, consequences
and causes. Boston: Now Publishers.
Park, C. W., MacInnis, D. J., Priester, J., Eisingerich, A. B., & Iacobucci, D. (2010).Brand attach-
ment and brand attitude strength: Conceptual and empirical differentiation of two critical brand
equity drivers. Journal of Marketing, 1–58
Patterson, M., & O’Malley, L. (2006). Brands, consumers and relationships: A review. Irish Mar-
keting Review, 18(1/2), 10–20.
Priester, J. R., & Petty, R. E. (2013). Research dialogue introduction. Journal of Consumer Psy-
chology, 23(2), 228. doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2013.01.001.
Reichheld, F. F. (1996). Learning from customer defections. Harvard Business Review, 74(March-
April), 56–69
Rempel, J. K., Holmes, J. G., & Zanna, M. P. (1985). Trust in closer Relationships. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 49(1), 95–112.
Roberts, K. (2004). Love marks: The future beyond brands. NewYork: Power House Books
Roselius, T. (1971). Consumer rankings of risk-reduction methods.ÂÂ. Journal of Marketing,
35(1), 56–61.
Rousseau, D. M. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding written and
unwritten agreements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Rusbult, C. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the invest-
ment model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 172–186.

[email protected]
References 171

Rusbult, C. E. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The development (and deterio-
ration) of satisfaction and commitment in heterosexual involvements. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 45, 101–117.
Rusbult, C. E., & Buunk, B. P. (1993). Commitment processes in close relationships: An interde-
pendence analysis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 175–204.
Sahay, A., Sharma, N., & Mehta, K. (2012). Role of affect and cognition in consumer brand re-
lationship: Exploring gender differences. Journal of Indian Business Research, 4(1), 36–60.
doi:10.1108/17554191211206799.
Saunders, S., & Rod, M. (2012). Brand network maps: A multidimensional approach to brand-
consumer relationships in the New Zealand pharmacy industry. International Journal of Phar-
maceutical and Healthcare Marketing, 6(1), 55–70. doi:10.1108/17506121211216905.
Schmitt, B. (2013). The consumer psychology of customer–brand relationships: Extending the
AA Relationship model. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(2), 249–252. doi:10.1016/j.
jcps.2013.01.00.
Schouten, J. W., & McAlexander, J. H. (1995). Subcultures of consumption: An ethnography of the
new bikers. Journal of Consumer Research, 22 (June), 43–61
Selnes, F. (1998). Antecedents and consequences of trust and satisfaction in buyer-seller relation-
ships. European Journal of Marketing, 32, 305–322.
Sheth, J. N., & Parvatiyar, A. (1995). Relationship marketing in consumer markets: Antecedents
and consequences. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23(4), 255–271.
Simpson, J. A., Collins,W.A., Tran, S., & Haydon,K.C (2007). Attachment and the experience and
expression of emotions in adult romantic relationships: A developmental perspective. Journal
of. Personality and Social Psychology, 92(2), 355–367.
Slater, J. S. (2001). Collecting brand loyalty: A comparative analysis of how coca-cola and hall-
mark use collecting behavior to enhance brand loyalty. M. C. Gilly & J. Meyers-Levy (Eds.),
Advances in Consumer Research, (Vol. 28, pp: 362–369), Valdosta: Association for Consumer
Research.
Smit, E., Bronner, F., & Tolboom, M. (2007). Brand relationship quality and its value for personal
contact. Journal of Business Research, 60(6), 627–633. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.06.012.
Smothers, N. (1993). Can products and brands have charisma. In D. Aaker & A. Biel (Eds.), Brand
equity and advertising (pp. 97–111). Hillsdale: Erlbaum Associates.
Spence, M. (1974). Competitive and optimal responses to signals: An analysis of eï¬ciency and
distribution. Journal of Economic Theory, 7, 296–332.
Srivastava, R. K., Shervani, T. A., & Fahey, L. (1998). Market-based assets and shareholder value:
A framework for analysis. Journal of Marketing, 62(Jan), 2–18.
Srivastava, R., Fahey, L., & Christensen, H. K. (2001). The resource-based view and marketing:
The role of market-based assets in gaining competitive advantage. Journal of Management,
27(6), 777–802.
Sung, Y., & Campbell, K. W. (2007). Brand commitment in consumer–brand relationships: An
investment model approach. Journal of Brand Management, 1–17
Swaminathan, V., Page, K. L., & Gürhan-Canli, Z. (2007). “My” brand or “your” brand: The ef-
fects of brand relationship dimensions and self - construal on brand evaluations. Journal of
Consumer Research, 34(2), 248–259.
Sweeney, J. C., & Macy, C. (2002). Understanding consumer-service brand relationships: A case
study approach. Australian Marketing Journal, 10(2), 26–43.
Tenbült, P., de Vries, N. K., Dreezens, N., & Martijn, C. (2008). Intuitive and explicit reactions to-
ward “new” food technologies: Attitude strength and familiarity. British Food Journal, 110(6),
622–635.
Thomson M., MacInnis, D. J., & Park, C. W. (2005). The ties that bind: Measuring the strength of
consumers’ emotional attachments to brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(1), 77–91.
Thomson, M., & Johnson, A. R. (2002). Investigating the role of attachment dimensions as predic-
tors of satisfaction in consumer–brand relationships. In S. M. Broniarczyk & K. Nakamoto
(Eds.), Advances in consumer research, (29, pp. 42).Valdosta: Association for Consumer Re-
search

[email protected]
172 References

Thomson, M. (2006). Human brands: investigating antecedents to consumers’ strong attachments

to celebrities. Journal of Marketing, 70(July), 104–119
Touzani, M., & Temessek, A. (2009). Brand loyalty: Impact of cognitive and affective variables.
Annals of “Dunãrea de Jos” University–227–242. Accessed http://www.ann.ugal.ro/eco/
Doc2009/MouradTouzani_AzzaTemessek.pdf
Tsai, S. (2011). Fostering international brand loyalty through committed and attached relation-
ships. International Business Review, 20(5), 521–534. doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2010.10.001.
Tsai, S. (2011b). Strategic relationship management and service brand marketing. European Jour-
nal of Marketing, 45(7/8), 1194–1213. doi:10.1108/03090561111137679.
Tsai, S. (2011a). Fostering international brand loyalty through committed and attached relation-
ships. International Business Review, 20(5), 5521–5534.
Tucker, W. T. (1964). The development of brand loyalty. Journal of Marketing Research, 32–35
Tynan, C. (1997). A review of the marriage analogy in relationship marketing. Journal of Market-
ing Management, 13, 695–703.
Valta, K. S. (2013). Do relational norms matter in consumer-brand relationships? Journal of Busi-
ness Research, 66(1), 98–104. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.07.028.
Veloutsou, C. (2007). Identifying the dimensions of the product-brand and consumer relationship.
Journal of Marketing Management, 23(1/2), 7–26.
Venetis, K. A., & Ghauri, P. N. (2004). Service quality and customer retention: Building long- term
relationships. European Journal of Marketing, 38(11–12), 1577–1598.
Wang, G. (2002). Attitudinal correlates of brand commitment: An empirical study. Journal of Re-
lationship Marketing, 1(2), 57–75.
Webster, F. E. J. (1992). The changing role of marketing in the corporation. Journal of Marketing,
56(4), 1–17.
Whang, Y. O., Allen, J., Sahoury, N., & Zhang, H. (2004). Falling in love with a product: The struc-
ture of a romantic consumer–product relationship. Advances in Consumer Research, 31(1),
320–327.
Wieselquist, J., Rusbult, C. E., Foster, C. F., Agnew, Ch. R (1999). Commitment, pro-relationship
behaviour, and trust in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
77(5), 942–966.
Xie, D., & Heung, V. C. S. (2012). The effects of brand relationship quality on responses to service
failure of hotel consumers. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(3), 735–744.
doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.09.010.
Zayer, L. T., & Neier, S. (2011). An exploration of men’s brand relationships. Qualitative Market
Research: An International Journal, 14(1), 83–104. doi:10.1108/13522751111099337.
Zhou, Z., Zhang, Q., Su, C., & Zhou, N. (2012). How do brand communities generate brand
relationships? Intermediate mechanisms. Journal of Business Research, 65(7), 890–895.
doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.06.034.

[email protected]
Index

A C
Action or behavioral component, 110 Case study, 51
Affective component, 34, 35, 77, 110 Cognitive component, 110, 114
Affective relationship, 28, 74 Cognitive relationship, 27
Anthropomorphization, 1, 2, 22 Conative component, 23, 110, 112, 114
Attachment–Aversion (AA) Model, 19 Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), 10, 50, 81
Attitudinal and behavioral components, 24, model assessment measurement, 86
112 Constructs, 5, 21, 23, 37, 49, 59, 62, 63, 98,
109
B Consumer brand relationship, 5, 9, 12–15, 18,
Bartlett test, 84 22, 55, 71, 72, 109, 113, 114
Brand Attachment (BA), 32, 40, 59, 61, 72, conceptual definition, 24
74, 78, 112, 114 Convergent validity
Brand Attitude Strength and Brand examination of, 88
Satisfaction, 38, 74, 111 Critique of consumer–brand relationships,
relationship establishment stage, 74, 75 20–22
Brand Attitude Strength (BAT), 29, 39–42, 74, Cross validation, 61, 93, 102
75, 112, 114
brand satisfaction and, 38 D
Brand-based differentiation, 1 Discriminant validity
Brand Commitment (BC), 33, 34, 37–40, 112, examination of, 90, 91
114
brand equity and, 43 E
brand loyalty and, 44 Ethnography, 51
relationship maintenance stage, 76 Exploratory factor analysis (EFA), 81, 83–86
Brand Equity (BEQ), 35, 42, 61, 78, 112, 114
brand commitment and, 43 F
brand loyalty and, 44, 46 Final instrument, 61
Brand Loyalty (BL), 35–38, 59, 61, 78, 114 Fully mixed sequential, 48, 58
brand commitment and, 44 Further study
brand equity and, 44, 46 recommendations for, 115
Brand Relationship Quality (BRQ) Model,
15–17
Brand Satisfaction (BS), 30, 39, 41, 74, 112, G
114 Grounded theory, 51
brand attitude strength and, 38
Brand Trust (BT), 30–32, 39, 41, 42, 59–61, I
72, 74, 76, 78, 112, 114 In-depth interview protocol, 55
Instrument development, 59, 60

S. Sreejesh, S. Mohapatra, Mixed Method Research Design, 173

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-02687-9, © Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

[email protected]
 174 Index

Integrated approach, 9, 24 Q
Interdependency, 2, 8, 9 Qualitative research, 13, 15, 50, 51, 55
Quantitative analysis
L model testing and validation, 79, 80
Limitations Quantitative study
of research, 114, 115 model validation and testing, 58
LISREL Modeling, 62, 65, 68
R
M Reciprocity, 2, 11, 13
Managerial implications, 113 Relationship Investment (RI) Model, 17–19
Mixed methodology, 47, 48 Reliability and Validity, 10, 57, 62
Model comparison, 108 Research traditions, 51
Model fit, 97, 102
assessment of, 67 S
Models in Consumer–brand Relationships Strategic management
AA model, 19 implications for, 114
BRQ model, 15–17 Structural model, 92, 93, 97
RI model, 17–19 Structural model assessment, 92, 93, 95–98,
Models in Consumer–Brand Relationships, 15 102, 108
Multivariate normality
testing of, 82 U
Unidimensionality
N examination of, 86, 88
Narrative research, 51

O
Offending estimates
examination of, 86

P
Parameter estimation, 66
Personification, 1, 2, 8
Phenomenology, 51
Product category, 60

[email protected]
View publication stats