International Journal of Information Management 36 (2016) 245–257

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Information Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijinfomgt

Predicting smartphone brand loyalty: Consumer value and

consumer-brand identification perspectives
Ching-Hsuan Yeh a , Yi-Shun Wang a,∗ , Kaili Yieh b
a
Department of Information Management, National Changhua University of Education, Taiwan
b
Department of Business Administration, National Changhua University of Education, Taiwan

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: With the growth and competition of the smartphone industry, developing a better understanding of
Received 1 June 2015 what drives consumers’ loyalty to smartphone brands has become an important issue for academics
Received in revised form and practitioners. This study hypothesizes four determinants of smartphone brand loyalty based on the
24 November 2015
perspectives of consumer value and consumer-brand identification. Furthermore, this study also explores
Accepted 25 November 2015
the moderating effects of age and gender differences on the determination process of smartphone brand
loyalty. Data collected from 157 respondents was tested against the research model using a partial least
Keywords:
squares (PLS) approach. The results indicate that functional value, emotional value, social value, and brand
Mobile computing
Consumer value
identification have a positive influence on smartphone brand loyalty. Of the two moderators, results show
Consumer-brand identification that age enhances the emotional value-brand loyalty and social value-brand loyalty linkages but weakens
Brand loyalty the brand identification-brand loyalty relationship. However, gender does not play a moderating role
Smartphone in the determination of smartphone brand loyalty. The results of this study provide several important
theoretical and practical implications for smartphone brand management.
© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction value from a given brand (Hansen, Beitelspacher, & Deitz, 2013).
The second viewpoint is the identification approach, which puts
With the proliferation of the competing brands in the mar- consumer-brand identification (hereafter referred to as brand iden-
ketplace, keeping consumers loyal is an imperative for marketing tification) as the antecedent of brand loyalty (Bhattacharya & Sen,
managers (Jones & Sasser, 1995). Researchers have devoted a 2003; Tuškej, Golob, & Podnar, 2013). Consumers stick with a given
considerable amount of effort investigating this issue. They have brand once they identify themselves with the attributes of the
advocated that the notion of brand loyalty should be extended from brand (Stokburger-Sauer, Ratneshwar, & Sen, 2012). Some stud-
patronage behavior to psychological commitment (Oliver, 1999), ies have further contended that both viewpoints may positively
and both attitudinal loyalty and behavioral loyalty contribute to result in brand trust and then brand loyalty (He, Li, & Harris, 2012),
pro-brand consequences. Attitudinal loyalty may be positively supporting claims that these are the foundations of brand loyalty.
associated with patronage intention, word-of-mouth, acceptance Although researchers generally recognize the predictive power
of premium price, and resistance to counter-persuasion, while of consumer value and brand identification, managers may face
behavioral loyalty may lead to greater market share and increased a dilemma about resource allocation because the two viewpoints
profitability (Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001; Shankar, Smith, & offer different guidelines for business practice. Strategies derived
Rangaswamy, 2003). from consumer value theory encourage managers to emphasize
Standing on various theoretical grounds, researchers have product development and to communicate the advantages of
investigated the reasons for brand loyalty, but two viewpoints the product attributes to consumers (Karjaluoto, Jayawardhena,
have received greater amount of attention. The first is consumer Leppäniemi, & Pihlström, 2012), whereas strategies derived from
value theory, which claims that value perception is the pivotal the identification approach may drive managers to create an
predictor of brand loyalty (Kim, Gupta, & Koh, 2011; Sweeney & attractive brand identity and to organize a community for
Soutar, 2001). Consumers remain loyal if they perceive superior intimate consumer-brand and consumer–consumer interactions
(Stokburger-Sauer et al., 2012). As managers may have to recon-
cile these marketing campaigns to generate synergies, it is crucial
∗ Corresponding author. to differentiate the effects of consumer value and consumer-brand
E-mail address: [email protected] (Y.-S. Wang). identification on brand loyalty. Therefore, an integrated analysis

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2015.11.013
0268-4012/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
246 C.-H. Yeh et al. / International Journal of Information Management 36 (2016) 245–257

with loyalty determinants should aid in understanding the deter- decisions are based on product evaluations. According to the prin-
minant priority and the allocation of marketing resources. ciple of utility maximization, a product/brand that has superior
In addition, studies on brand loyalty have argued for the neces- attributes than other alternatives is chosen because product per-
sity of taking individual heterogeneity into consideration (Floh, formance is expected to better satisfy consumers’ needs. Needs
Zauner, Koller, & Rusch, 2014). Model validation and/or hypothe- gratification is viewed as consumer value. Thus, product quality,
ses testing with entire samples may suffer from aggregation bias, which refers to “consumers’ judgment about a product’s overall
and the effectiveness of marketing campaigns may not be realized excellence or superiority” (Zeithaml, 1988:3), is conceptually close
as expected. Compared with mass marketing, targeted marketing to product benefits (i.e., what consumers get from the product)
might generate revenues and profits more efficiently. As such, indi- and consumer value. Products with high quality evaluations are
vidual heterogeneity needs to be considered in the analyses of believed to deliver more benefits to consumers, and consumers
brand loyalty. A moderation specification of individual heterogene- perceive great value (Zeithaml, Berry, & Parasuraman, 1996). In
ity can help managers tailor better loyalty programs and enrich this vein, notions of product quality, product benefit, and consumer
existing knowledge. A review of prior studies reveals that age value were initially seen as equivalent (Zeithaml, 1988).
and gender are two typical variables of individual heterogeneity However, as research on consumer value increases, researchers
(Venkatesh & Morris, 2000), and this study investigates whether have recognized that there are nuanced differences between these
and how the effects of loyalty determinants differ across age and three constructs. Zeithaml (1988) proposed and elaborated a new
gender categories. definition of consumer value; it essentially involves a give-get
To sum up, this study has two main objectives: tradeoff. Consumers evaluate value according to the product’s ben-
efits, which are derived from the perceived quality of product
1. To understand the relative influence of determinants (i.e., value attributes, and the mental, physical, and financial sacrifices gen-
and identification) on brand loyalty. erated from product acquisition and usage (Cronin, Brady, & Hult,
2. To understand the moderating effects of individual hetero- 2000). Both benefits and sacrifices are indispensable pillars of con-
geneity (i.e., age and gender) on the relationships between sumer value and contribute to consumer value with positive and
value/identification and loyalty. negative effects respectively (Lin, Sher, & Shih, 2005). If perceived
benefits outweigh perceived sacrifices, consumers view a potential
transaction as being valuable (Yang and Petersson, 2004). Based on
To achieve the two objectives, this study uses the smartphone
equity theory, the positive trade-off between benefits and sacri-
industry in Taiwan as the research context. In Taiwan, smartphones
fices creates a feeling of fairness for consumers, who are then more
have overwhelmed feature phones in use, and hold 71% of the
willing to repurchase the product. Thus, high perceived value is
mobile phone market in terms of supply in the third quarter of
accompanied by loyalty behaviors (Cronin et al., 2000).
2012 (Information Data Center, 2012). A recent survey from Google
In addition, many researchers have examined whether or not
(2013) reported that the penetration rate of smartphones was 51%
there are product benefits other than functional and economic ones.
in the first quarter of 2013, an increase of 19% over the same
Hirschman and Holbrook’s (1982) well-known study found that
period in 2012. Given that smartphones have growth potential in
consumers may receive symbolic, hedonic, or esthetic value from
Taiwan and brands are a crucial factor in smartphone marketing
shopping processes and/or product usage. Their narrative illustra-
(Arruda-Filho, Cabusas, & Dholakia, 2010), the research context is
tion expanded consumer value beyond the functional benefits and
appropriate. The results of this study may provide strategic sugges-
inspired a whole new stream of research. Next, Sheth, Newman, and
tions for smartphone marketing.
Gross (1991) suggested a detailed typology including functional,
The rest of this article proceeds as follows. Firstly, the literature
emotional, social, conditional, and epistemic value by synthesiz-
review describes the two theoretical viewpoints and illuminates
ing theories of economics, sociology, psychology, and marketing.
their underlying concepts. Then, Section 3 introduces the research
Extending Sheth et al.’s (1991) work, Pihlström and Brush (2008)
model and proposes the hypotheses regarding the direct and mod-
demonstrated that conditional and epistemic values were the
erating effects on brand loyalty. The research method is described
antecedents of monetary, convenience, emotional, and social value.
in Section 4, including sampling, measurement development, and
Babin, Darden, and Griffin (1994) developed a simplified but gener-
the examination of common method variance. Section 5 reports
alized value structure with two dimensions consisting of utilitarian
the empirical results. Lastly, the discussion of results, theoretical
and hedonic components. Similarly, Sweeney and Soutar (2001)
and managerial implications, limitations, and directions for fur-
decomposed consumer value into functional (i.e., quality and value
ther research are presented in Section 6 and the conclusions are
for money), emotional, and social value in the retailing context.
in Section 7.
Based on Sweeney and Soutar (2001)’s value classification, Kim
et al. (2011) argued that there are six types of consumer value.
2. Literature review Price utility and functional quality are related to functional value,
aesthetics and playfulness are related to emotional value, and social
2.1. Consumer value theory self-image expression and social relationship support are related to
social value.
Consumer value is the cornerstone of a successful transaction, Two interesting findings may be summarized from the stud-
and it motivates consumers to purchase repeatedly (Holbrook, ies just described. First, consumer value is generally specified with
1994). The expectation disconfirmation paradigm suggests that these three types of value (i.e., functional, emotional, and social)
once consumers have satisfactory experience with a product, they despite an increasing number of studies that have attempted to
have better value expectations and tend to repurchase the same tap into the nature of each value type (Karjaluoto et al., 2012;
product in the future instead of switching (Anderson & Srinivasan, Pihlström & Brush, 2008). Second, the definition of functional value
2003). Yang and Petersson (2004) indicated that value is a super- has expanded from physical performance/quality (Sheth et al.,
ordinate goal and positively regulates loyalty behavior, which is at 1991) to physical performance/quality and value for money (Kim
the subordinate level. et al., 2011; Sweeney & Soutar, 2001). Since value for money is con-
In Zeithaml (1988)’s exploratory study, the notion of consumer cerned with monetary sacrifice, the newly-defined functional value
value was found to be evolutionary and may originate from util- may be conceptually equivalent to Zeithaml (1988)’s give-get defi-
ity theory in economics, which assumes consumers’ purchase nition. The result is that consumer value, which contains functional,
 C.-H. Yeh et al. / International Journal of Information Management 36 (2016) 245–257 247

emotional, and social components, seems to be an appropriate tion theory, individuals are nurtured under gender roles that drive
framework because it includes all major benefits simultaneously. individuals to acquire masculine/feminine concepts and relevant
skills, and thus develop varied value systems (Mason & Mudrack,
2.2. Brand identification approach 1998). Self-construal theory claims that sex-specific self construal
causes individuals to process information differently (Meyers-Levy
The brand identification approach was conceptually devel- & Loken, 2015; Okazaki & Mendez, 2003a). For instance, men
oped from the consumer-company identification approach are perceived as independent and self-oriented while women are
(Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003), which posits that the extent to which viewed as dependent and relationship-oriented. Venkatesh and
consumers identify with a brand relates to extra-role behaviors Morris (2000) claimed that men and women process information
(e.g., recommendation or new consumer recruitment) and in- using different socially-constructed cognitive structures, and they
role behaviors (e.g., product utilization or repurchase; Ahearne, demonstrated that behavioral patterns are linked to gender. They
Bhattacharya, & Gruen, 2005). According to Lam, Ahearne, Hu, found that the effect of perceived usefulness on behavioral inten-
and Schillewaert (2010:129), brand identification is defined as tion was greater for men than for women because men are more
“consumers share the same self-definitional attributes with a task-oriented. Women likely suffer from IT anxiety and conform to
brand”. This definition suggests that brands possess a distinct reference groups; thus, the effects of perceived ease of use and sub-
identity/personality (Donavan, Janda, & Suh, 2006; Stokburger- jective norms on behavioral intentions were stronger for women
Sauer et al., 2012). Brands present an extrinsic cue with which than for men.
consumers can infer the quality of a product. Brands also project Taken together, this current study recognizes the differences
an intrinsic identity that is manipulated by brand managers to associated with age and gender, and it explores how age and gen-
differentiate it from competitors (Sung & Choi, 2010; van Rekom, der differences might moderate the effects of consumer value and
Jacobs, & Verlegh, 2006). For example, Heineken, a famous beer brand identification on brand loyalty.
brand, may have connotations of “sober, serious, successful, and a
little aloof” (Kotler, Ang, Leong, & Tan, 2003:421). The personifica-
tion of a brand enables consumers to interact with and establish 3. Hypotheses
relationships with the brand (Fournier, 1998).
Prior studies have expounded two mechanisms that motivate 3.1. The specification of research model
consumer brand identification. One is the need for consistency
(Kressmann et al., 2006). Consumers may search for a brand with a The research model is illustrated in Fig. 1. Brand loyalty is
salient identity that matches their actual self (He et al., 2012). High defined as consumers’ favorable attitude toward a brand that
identity similarity/congruence between consumers and a brand results in intentions to repurchase and recommend (Anderson &
facilitate strong consumer belongingness and generate brand iden- Srinivasan, 2003). To understand the relative importance of the
tification (Lam, Ahearne, Mullins, Hayati, & Schillewaert, 2013). determinants of brand loyalty, this study specifies that consumer
The second mechanism is the need for self-esteem. Consumers value and brand identification directly influence brand loyalty. Con-
can help form their ideal identity/self-image by means of purchas- sumer value is the consumer’s overall evaluation of the utility of
ing an idiosyncratic brand (He et al., 2012). The closer consumers a product/brand (Zeithaml, 1988), including functional, emotional,
approach their ideal self, the better they feel, which helps raise and social values (Sweeney & Soutar, 2001). Functional value, which
self-esteem (Kressmann et al., 2006). Thus, a brand that matches a is analogous to utilitarian value, is the benefits gained from a prod-
consumer’s ideal self can earn his/her attachment. uct/brand based on its functional performance and value for money.
Specifically, the definitional scope of functional value covers the
2.3. Individual heterogeneity: age and gender differences get-give trade-off idea of perceived value. Emotional value, which
is equivalent to hedonic value, refers to the feelings or the affective
Individual heterogeneity is the variation that results from demo- status aroused by a product/brand (Kim et al., 2011). In general,
graphics, personality, and socio-cultural influences (Quesenberry & emotional value is generated from product usage/exploration and
Trauth, 2012). Personal distinctiveness, or internal causality, gov- product appearance. Finally, social value is the extent to which a
erns individuals’ presentation of consistent attitudes and behaviors product/brand enhances consumers’ social well-being and inter-
towards specific objects or events. Of the individual hetero- personal relationships, and it is rooted in the symbolic meanings of
geneities, demographics are salient variables that are often used in the product/brand (Rintamäki, Kanto, Kuusela, & Spence, 2006). All
studies examining technology adoption (Venkatesh & Morris, 2000) three value types are unique and interrelated (Sweeney & Soutar,
and consumer value (Deng, Lu, Wei, & Zhang, 2010). This current 2001).
study looks into the moderating effects of age and gender. Viewing brand identification as “a psychological state of per-
Age affects individuals’ attitudes and behaviors. These differ- ceiving, feeling, and valuing his or her belongingness with a brand,”
ences originate from the bio-physical and psychological changes Lam et al. (2010:130) conceptualized it as a second-order forma-
that occur as age increases (Deng, Mo, & Liu, 2014). For example, tive construct with three reflective sub-dimensions. Because that
Carstensen, Isaacowitz, and Charles (1999) suggested that individ- affective brand identification may blend with other constructs such
uals in various life stages have unique awareness of the passage as brand love, and that evaluative brand identification is similar to
of time. Younger people are more future-oriented, and they per- brand attitude and it is likely to be the result of identification, this
ceive time as time since birth and open-ended, while more elder study follows Stokburger-Sauer et al. (2012) and considers brand
counterparts are present-oriented and perceive time as time left in identification as consumers’ perception of both entities’ identities
life and limited. Different perspectives of the passage of time cause at the cognitive level. This means that consumers’ brand identifica-
older people to emphasize socioemotional experience and younger tion is a psychological state rather than a process, and it positively
people to focus on skills and knowledge. Erikson (1959)’s 8-stage determines brand loyalty (Rocereto & Mosca, 2012; Stokburger-
psychosocial development elucidated that individuals in each stage Sauer et al., 2012). Lastly, individual heterogeneity is considered to
confront different identity crises and significant relationships, and alter the effects of the four determinants on brand loyalty; there-
thus they have different psychosocial needs. fore, the moderating effects of age and gender are examined.
In a similar vein, gender also produces distinctive attitudes Some studies are interested in the relationships between con-
and behaviors in men and women. According to gender socializa- sumer value and brand identification. In Lam and Shankar’s (2014)
248 C.-H. Yeh et al. / International Journal of Information Management 36 (2016) 245–257

Fig. 1. Research model.

study, brand attachment, which was defined as a brand’s resonance loyalty. Thus, the relationship between functional value and brand
with a consumer’s self-concept and provides consumers a sense of loyalty is hypothesized as follows:
security similar to the notion of brand identification, was found
H1. Functional value positively relates to brand loyalty.
to be an outcome of consumer value. However, He et al. (2012)
and So, King, Sparks, and Wang (2013) found evidence that brand In addition to functional value, consumers may experience emo-
identification was the antecedent of consumer value. Consider- tional value such as playfulness and pleasure from smartphone
ing the determinant priority of brand loyalty is our main research usage and exploration (Alba & Williams, 2013; Arruda-Filho et al.,
inquiry and the relationship between consumer value and brand 2010). Liao and Hsieh (2013) also pointed out that the fashionable
identification appears to be controversial, this study focuses on how and aesthetic appearance of smartphones contributes emotional
much consumer value and brand identification impact brand loy- value. Pihlström and Brush (2008) revealed when consumers per-
alty instead of their interrelationships, and how the effects of loyalty ceive greater emotional value in a product/brand, they show more
determinants change in varied age and gender. brand loyalty as measured by repurchase intentions, willingness to
pay, and positive word-of-mouth. Thus, the relationship between
emotional value and brand loyalty is hypothesized as follows:
3.2. The effects of consumer value on brand loyalty in the context
of smartphone consumption H2. Emotional value positively relates to brand loyalty.

Consumer may perceive social value from smartphones. Recruit-

Studies on technology marketing have recognized that a tech- ing iPhone users as interviewees, Arruda-Filho et al. (2010)
nology product has a combination of tangible and intangible conducted a netnographic analysis and found that consumers may
attributes. By grouping all the attributes into performance, appear- experience social value from the possession and usage of smart-
ance, and communication attributes, Lee, Ha, and Widdows (2011) phones. They may view the possession of an iPhone as a symbol of
suggested that technology products might deliver value to con- luxury and higher social status (Liao & Hsieh, 2013). In addition, the
sumers via these three attribute types. Consumers gain functional sharing of smartphone usage experience aids consumers’ interper-
value if the attribute performances of a technology product are sonal interactions. When consumers perceive higher social value
useful, easy to use, and innovative. A technology product with from a product/brand, they show greater brand loyalty behaviors
attractive appearance, novel material, and atypical design posi- such as disseminating positive information and accepting premium
tively elicits consumers’ feelings, and offers consumers emotional prices (Pihlström and Brush, 2008). Thus, the relationship between
value. Furthermore, a technology product may be a symbol itself social value and brand loyalty is hypothesized as follows:
and/or carry symbolic meanings, enabling consumers to commu-
nicate to their lifestyle and beliefs to others, thus acquiring social H3. Social value positively relates to brand loyalty.
value. Exploring the attributes of mobile phones, Horváth and
Sajtos (2002) identified utility/usefulness, experience/enjoyment 3.3. The effect of brand identification on brand loyalty in the
of use, and communicative power/expression as three main context of smartphone consumption
product-related consumer responses. These three responses are
similar to those mentioned by Lee et al. (2011). Some studies have found that mobile phones are surrogates for
A smartphone is a state-of-the-art technology product. By inte- self-identity expression (Mannetti, Pierro, & Livi, 2002; Walsh &
grating components such as processor, camera, display panel, White, 2007; Walsh, White, & Young, 2010). By using personalized
battery, and memory/storage capacity into a handheld device, a ringtones and decorations, consumers are able to extend their per-
smartphone is a telecommunication device and a tool that can be sonality to mobile phones. From a brand management standpoint,
used to listen to music, edit documents, take and record pictures, Lam et al. (2010) similarly observed that smartphone brands hold
and study (Liao & Hsieh, 2013; Park & Han, 2013). Also, a smart- unique identities and may accord with or enhance the consumer’s
phone has a connection to the Internet for access to online services identity. Furthermore, results from Stokburger-Sauer et al.’s (2012)
like e-mail, maps, information searches, and location-based ser- study, which surveyed four product categories (i.e., cell phones,
vices (Okazaki & Mendez, 2013a). Thus, a smartphone is able to athletic shoes, soft drinks, and grocery stores), confirmed that high
deliver various functional benefits to consumers. brand identification is able to turn consumers into brand loyal-
Prior studies have found evidence of relationship between func- ists and prevent consumers from switching to other brands. Thus,
tional benefit and brand loyalty, and they reported that a brand the relationship between brand identification and brand loyalty is
that offers high functional value earns consumers’ preference and hypothesized as follows:
 C.-H. Yeh et al. / International Journal of Information Management 36 (2016) 245–257 249

H4. Brand identification positively relates to brand loyalty. 3.5. The moderating effect of gender

Previous studies and theories have shown that gender has large
influence on consumer values, preferences, and behaviors. Okazaki
3.4. The moderating effect of age
and Mendez (2013a,b); Okazaki and Mendez (2013a,b) explained
that male and female consumers may have different value prefer-
Harverila (2012) and Kumar and Lim (2008) argued that the
ences and identification needs, and Hasan (2010) recognized that
motivational need for mobile phone usage is age-specific, and
men and women display diverse perceptions and attitudes. For
the effects of the three value types and brand identification on
example, Dittmar, Beattie, and Friese (1995), found that men were
brand loyalty may vary with consumers’ age (Barutçu, 2007; Coates,
more activity-focused and placed higher emphasis on functional
2001; Park, Eisingerich, & Park, 2013; Persaud & Azhar, 2012). In
value, while women were more relationship-oriented and focused
the context of mobile phone consumption, younger consumers
on emotional and social value. Dittmar (2005) also declared that
are more enthusiastic users of smartphones compared with elder
emotional value and identity-related factors were more important
consumers. As indicated by Coates (2001), younger consumers
for women than for men while shopping.
use more smartphone phone functions, such as texting, satellite
In the context of mobile phone consumption, Syed and Nurullah
navigation, and photo editing, whereas elder consumers tend to
(2011) reported that men tended to treat mobile phones as toys,
use them for communication. Complex functions, user-unfriendly
which means the functional and emotional value that men gain
menus, and unclear usage instructions may hinder elder consumers
from smartphone usage is more closely linked to product explo-
from exploring many smartphone applications, which might cause
ration and experience than women. In addition, Syed and Nurullah
elder consumers to perceive less functional and emotional value
(2011) found that women were more likely to use mobile phones
(Kurniawan, 2008). On the contrary, younger consumers may
for communication and relationship maintenance. In a related
“engage in high level . . .. mobile phone use” (Walsh et al., 2010,
direction, Walsh and White (2007) found evidence that social
p. 194), and are more likely to appreciate its fashion-designed
influence and normative pressure might be the main drivers
appearance (Park et al., 2013; Srivastava, 2005). Barutçu (2007)
of women’s mobile phone use. Dittmar (2005) maintained that
also found that the younger consumers were more accepting of
identity-related factors are more important for women than for
mobile entertainment services than elder consumers. This suggests
men while shopping; therefore, brand identification might have a
that younger consumers might receive more functional and emo-
stronger impact on women’s smartphone purchase decisions. More
tional value from their smartphones than elder consumers, and the
generally, women favor social value and brand identification more
relationship between functional value/emotional value and brand
than men. As men may receive more functional and emotional
loyalty may vary as consumers’ age is considered. More generally
value from their smartphones than women, and women may favor
stated, the effects of functional/emotional value on brand loyalty
social value and brand identification more than men, the relation-
may increase as age decreases.
ships between the four determinants and brand loyalty may vary
Furthermore, studies have suggested that younger consumers
as gender is considered.
are more susceptible to social influence from peers and friends
In summary, this study proposes the following hypotheses:
than elder consumers (Smetana, Campione-Barr, & Metzger, 2006),
and shared norms and standards strongly guide their consump- H6a. The positive relationship between functional value on brand
tion behaviors. Walsh and White (2006) stated that displaying loyalty is greater for men than for women.
a mobile phone in public improved younger consumers’ status
H6b. The positive relationship between emotional value on brand
among peers. As for the usage of smartphones, Persaud and Azhar
loyalty is greater for men than for women.
(2012) demonstrated that younger consumers were more involved
in social networking activities than elder consumers. According to H6c. The positive relationship between social value on brand loy-
Erikson’s (1959) theory of psychosocial development, younger con- alty is greater for women than for men.
sumers (especially at the adolescent stage) have a stronger need H6d. The positive relationship between brand identification on
for identity, so they tend to express themselves with their material brand loyalty is greater for women than for men.
possessions and identify with brands that represent their values
and beliefs (Syed & Nurullah, 2011; Walsh et al., 2010). Similarly,
4. Methods
Sheldon and Kasser (2001) claimed that age was negatively asso-
ciated with the demand for identity. Thus, younger consumers
4.1. Measures
may favor social value and brand identification more than elder
consumers, and the relationship between social value/brand identi-
There were five sets of measures developed for the major con-
fication and brand loyalty may vary as consumers’ age is considered.
structs in this study. The measures for the three value types were
The effects of social value and brand identification on brand loyalty
adopted from Kim et al.’s (2011) comprehensive work, and each
may increase as age decreases.
value had four items extracted from corresponding types (e.g.,
In summary, this study proposes the following hypotheses:
social value was measured with two items from social self-image
expression and two from social relationship support) to make the
H5a. The positive relationship between functional value and measures as balanced as possible. The measure for brand identifica-
brand loyalty is greater when age decreases. tion was taken from Stokburger-Sauer et al. (2012) and contained
three items. This measure provides a richer operationalization of
H5b. The positive relationship between emotional value and cognitive brand identification than that of Lam et al. (2010), which
brand loyalty is greater when age decreases. directly assesses identity similarity using a Venn diagram and a
verbal item. Lastly, the measure for brand loyalty was developed
H5c. The positive relationship between social value and brand from the studies by Anderson and Srinivasan (2003) and Zeithaml,
loyalty is greater when age decreases. Berry, and Parasuraman (1996). The four chosen items took both
the commitment element and the comparison element into con-
H5d. The positive relationship between brand identification and sideration (Dick & Basu, 1994; Oliver, 1999). To ensure better
brand loyalty is greater when age decreases. measurement quality and mitigate the negative effect of response
250 C.-H. Yeh et al. / International Journal of Information Management 36 (2016) 245–257

Table 1
Measures and reliability.

Construcuts and items Loading ˛ CR

Functional value (Kim et al., 2011) 0.91 0.94

FV1 X smartphones have an acceptable standard of quality. 0.93
FV2 X smartphones are reliable in their performance. 0.92
FV3 X smartphones possess a degree of quality that is satisfactory. 0.95
FV4 X smartphones offer value for money. 0.75

Emotional value (Kim et al., 2011) 0.86 0.90

EV1 I like the way X smartphones look. 0.84
EV2 X smartphones are not catching. (R) 0.81
EV3 Using X smartphones is interesting to me. 0.83
EV4 Using X smartphones gives fun to me. 0.86

Social value (Kim et al., 2011) 0.82 0.88

SV1 Using X smartphones enhances my self-image to others. 0.88
SV2 Using X smartphones improves the way I am perceived. 0.84
SV3 Using X smartphones does not help me maintain my social relationships with others. (R) 0.69
SV4 Using X smartphones enhances my social relationships with others. 0.81

Brand identification (Stokburger-Sauer et al., 2012) 0.83 0.90

BI1 I feel a strong sense of belonging to X smartphones. 0.87
BI2 X smartphones are like a part of me. 0.88
BI3 X smartphones have a great deal of personal meaning for me. 0.85

Brand loyalty (Anderson and Srinivasan, 2003; Zeithaml et al., 1996) 0.91 0.94
BL1 I believe that X smartphones are my favorites. 0.88
BL2 I say positive things about X smartphones to other people. 0.86
BL3 I recommend X smartphones to someone who seeks my advice. 0.89
BL4 When I need to make a purchase, X smartphones are my first choice. 0.92

Note: 1. (R) denotes that an item is in a reverse form.

2. The loadings were derived from the direct effect model.

fatigue, this study interlaced the items and two items were con- (telnet://ptt.cc). Only Internet surfers who were smartphone users
structed in reverse form. All the construct terms were concealed in were qualified to participate in this study. Access to the online
order to reduce social desirability bias. Table 1 lists all the measure- questionnaire was via a link embedded in the post. The web-
ment items. All the items were reflectively specified and responses site (http://www.mysurvey.tw/) which hosted the questionnaire
utilized 7-point Likert scales (Viswanathan, Sudman, & Johnson, restricts every computer to one response. To encourage partici-
2004). Respondents answered these items in terms of their experi- pation, respondents who provided usable responses were entered
ence with their most-used smartphone. into a lottery; respondents had a one in three chance of winning a
Based on the authors’ reviews and discussions, the measures gift voucher as a reward. The survey was open for one month and
were translated from English into Chinese to collect responses. a total of 179 responses were obtained. Of these, 22 samples were
All the authors have rich user/consumer research experience in invalid because of logical inconsistencies between their responses
IS and marketing fields. Taking research context into considera- to the reverse items and other items. Thus, the total number of
tion instead of literal translation, the translation equivalence was valid responses was 157. This number satisfied the rule of thumb
achieved with greater possibilities (Douglas & Craig, 2007). The lan- for using the partial least squares (PLS) method, which suggests that
guage of the translated questionnaire was made with the consensus sample size should be at least ten times the number of items in the
of all the authors. A pretest of questionnaire was conducted to check most complex construct or should be larger than 150 (Gefen, Straub,
whether respondents would have any difficulties in comprehension & Boudreau, 2000; Haenlein & Kaplan, 2004; Urbach & Ahlemann,
or find items ambiguous (Boudreau, Gefen, & Straub, 2001). After 2010). The power analysis also sustained our sample sizes met the
feedback from the pretest (a convenience sample of 6 smartphone minimum size requirement (n = 137) to detect minimum R2 values
users), refinements were made to the language of SV3 and SV4 and of 0.10, under 5% significance level, 80% statistical power, and the
the questionnaire was then finalized. maximum number of items/independent variables in the measure-
ment and structural models are four (Hair et al., 2014).
4.2. Control variable The demographics of the respondents are displayed in Table 2.
About 55% of the respondents were male. Their ages ranged from
Similar to the effect of length of patronage on store loyalty in 17 to 58, and the average age of the sample was about 27 years
service and retailing contexts revealed by Jones, Mothersbaugh, old. The age distribution showed that 68% respondents were in the
and Beatty (2000), there may be a positive relationship between 21–30 group. The average monthly disposable income was around
length of brand relationship and brand loyalty in the product con- US$664. More than 90% of the respondents held bachelor’s degrees
text (Kressmann et al., 2006). Hence, length of brand relationship or higher. Table 2 shows respondents’ mobile phone consumption.
was included in the analytic model as a control variable for effect On average, they bought a new mobile phone every 2.48 years, and
purification. Data was gathered from respondents’ answer to the had 1.20 smartphones and 0.68 feature phones simultaneously. The
question, “How long have you been using your most-used smart- number of the smartphones they had was twice as much as that
phone?” (Jones et al., 2000). of the feature phones, which was similar to the market share sug-
gested by Information Data Center (2012) mentioned earlier. Lastly,
39% (25/64) of the respondents who had purchased two or more
4.3. Data collection and consumer profile
smartphones bought their phones from the same brands, while only
19% (29/156) of the respondents who had purchased two or more
An online survey was created to collect data. Respondents were
voluntary recruits from the largest bulletin board system in Taiwan
 C.-H. Yeh et al. / International Journal of Information Management 36 (2016) 245–257 251

Table 2
Demographics of respondents (n = 157.)

Characteristics Frequency (%) Mean (SD)

Gender
Male 86 (54.8%)
Female 71 (45.2%)
Age (years) 26.98 (6.60)
Below 20 15 (9.6%)
21–30 107 (68.2%)
31–40 29 (18.5%)
41–50 4 (2.5%)
Above 51 2 (1.3%)

Education level
High school diploma 8 (5.1%)
Junior college 4 (2.5%)
Bachelor’s degree 109 (69.4%)
Master’s degree 36 (22.9%)

Occupation
Public employee 12 (7.6%)
Manufacturing 21 (13.4%)
Service 33 (21.0%)
Student 72 (45.9%)
Others 19 (12.1%)

Disposable income (USD) 664.01 (569.15)

How often do you buy a new mobile phone? (years) 2.48 (0.77)
How many smartphones do you have? 1.20 (0.45)
How many feature phones do you have? 0.68 (0.82)

Are the last feature phone and the last smart phone you bought the same brand?
Yes, they are the same brand. 29 (18.5%)
No, they are not the same brand. 127 (80.9%)
I never bought a feature phone. 1 (0.6%)
I never bought a smartphone. 0 (0.0%)

Are the last two smartphones you bought the same brand?
Yes, they are the same brand. 25 (15.9%)
No, they are not the same brand. 39 (24.8%)
I bought a smartphone once. 93 (59.2%)
How long have you been using your most-used smartphone? (years) 1.47 (0.95)

Note: (1) USD  30 ND.

mobile phones bought the same brands for their last smartphones 5. Results
and last feature phones.
The PLS method, which is variance-based structural equa-
tion modeling and is a distribution-free technique (Hair, Sarstedt,
Ringle, & Mena, 2012), was used to analyze the data. The results
4.4. Common method variance (CMV)
were produced using the SmartPLS 2.0 M3 package (Ringle, Wende,
& Will, 2005).
Common method variance (CMV), which results in spurious
relationships between variables, is a concern for all self-reported
questionnaires. As Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff (2003)
suggested, this study attempted to control for the CMV effect 5.1. Measurement model
in the development and design of the survey questionnaire by
counterbalancing item order, improving item comprehension (i.e., Table 1 presents the psychometric properties of the measures.
through pretesting), protecting respondent anonymity, and reduc- The values of Cronbach’s ˛ and composite reliability (CR) ranged
ing evaluation apprehension. Also, Harman’s single-factor test from 0.82 to 0.94, indicating that the five sets of measures had
was used to examine whether CMV had occurred statistically strong internal consistency (Henseler, Ringle, & Sinkovics, 2009).
(Podsakoff et al., 2003). The results of exploratory factor anal- The factor loadings were all above 0.69, suggesting that around or
ysis revealed that all the items did not converge into a single more than half of the variance of an item was attributed to its cor-
factor, but the first factor accounted for 53.43% variance of the responding construct (Chin, 1998). Thus, indicator reliability was
items. Further confirmatory factor analysis which is an alterna- adequate. Average variance extracted (AVE) values were all higher
tive of exploratory factor analysis (Malhotra, Kim, & Patil, 2006; than the threshold value (0.5) with the minimum value being 0.65
Podsakoff et al., 2003), was performed and the results showed (see Table 3), therefore, convergent validity was evident.
that the five-factor model (2 (142) = 485.52, GFI = 0.76, AGFI = 0.68, Discriminant validity was assessed using the Fornell-Larcker cri-
CFI = 0.95, IFI = 0.95, RMSEA = 0.12, RMR = 0.074, NFI = 0.93, and terion and cross-loadings (Urbach & Ahlemann, 2010). As shown in
NNFI = 0.94) yielded better goodness of fit than the one-factor Table 3, the AVE value of each construct was superior to its corre-
model (2 (152) = 884.49, GFI = 0.58, AGFI = 0.47, CFI = 0.90, IFI = 0.90, sponding squared correlations, demonstrating that constructs were
RMSEA = 0.20, RMR = 0.098, NFI = 0.88, and NNFI = 0.88). This indi- discriminable. The results also showed that each item loaded on its
cates that the CMV effect might be properly controlled and the designated construct without cross-loadings. Accordingly, discrim-
survey data was acceptable for PLS analyses. inant validity was satisfactory.
252 C.-H. Yeh et al. / International Journal of Information Management 36 (2016) 245–257

Table 3
Descriptive statistics and discriminant validity.

M SD FV EV SV BI BL

FV 5.07 1.03 0.79

EV 5.24 0.94 0.55 0.70
SV 4.27 1.07 0.27 0.30 0.65
BI 4.50 1.27 0.31 0.34 0.56 0.75
BL 4.77 1.27 0.53 0.58 0.45 0.52 0.79

Note: Diagonal elements and off-diagonal elements represent average variance

extracted and shared variance, respectively.

5.2. Structural model

Table 4 shows the results of the model evaluation. The esti-

mation of standardized path coefficients was based on the path
weighting scheme. The significance testing was based on 1000
bootstrapped samples and the option of construct level changes
(Tenenhaus, Vinzi, Chatelin, & Lauro, 2005). First the effect of
control variable was checked. Model 1 shows that consumers’ Fig. 2. The moderating effect of age on the relationship between emotional value
and brand loyalty.
length of brand relationship had a significant positive impact
on brand loyalty ( = 0.24, p < 0.01). Next, Model 2 examines
the effects of the four determinants and found that functional
value ( = 0.26, p < 0.001), emotional value ( = 0.32, p < 0.001),
social value ( = 0.14, p < 0.05), and brand identification ( = 0.28,
p < 0.001) predicted brand loyalty with statistical significance and
explained 73.17% of the variance. These results support H1, H2, H3,
and H4. Furthermore, Models 3 and 4 take the product-indicator
approach to test moderating effects (Chin, Marcolin, & Newsted,
2003) and found that only age strengthened the emotional value-
loyalty and social value-loyalty linkages while weakening the
relationship between brand identification and loyalty. Thus, H5d
is supported, but H5a, H5b, and H5c are not supported. Gender
differences did not exert any moderating effect across the four
hypothesized relationships. Thus, H6a, H6b, H6c, and H6d are not
supported.
Moreover, this study assessed the strength of the moder-
ating effects by evaluating effect sizes (Urbach & Ahlemann,
2010). The definition of effect size is “the degree to which
the phenomenon is present in the population” (Cohen, 1988),
and 0.02, 0.15, and 0.35 are the respective values to identify
whether the effect is small, medium, or large. Based on the Fig. 3. The moderating effect of age on the relationship between social value and
formula of f2 = (R2 modelwithmoderator − R2 modelwithoutmoderator )/(1 − R2 brand loyalty.
modelwithmoderator ), age had a medium effect size (0.23), while gender
(0.05) had a small one.
To further understand how the moderating role of age functions,
respondents were divided into two groups using latent scores of
age. Considering the range of ages in the sample was 17–58 and the
average age was 27, a middle-aged group (positive latent scores)
and younger group (negative latent scores) were found and showed
distinct patterns, which are shown in Figs. 2–4 . Fig. 2 shows that
the slope for the middle-aged group was steeper than the younger
group, indicating that the impact of emotional value on brand loy-
alty was stronger for middle-aged consumers than for younger
consumers. An increase in emotional value would lead to greater
brand loyalty of middle-aged consumers, compared with younger
consumers. It was also the case in the relationship between social
value and brand loyalty, which is presented in Fig. 3.
Moreover, both Figs. 2 and 3 reveal that as emotional
value/social value increased, the differences in brand loyalty
between the middle-aged consumer group and the younger con-
sumer group also increased. A comparison between Figs. 2 and 3
indicate that the intersection occurred at a lower social value (see
Fig. 3) than emotional value (see Fig. 2). At a given level of emotional
value/social value, the difference gap in brand loyalty between the Fig. 4. The moderating effect of age on the relationship between brand identification
two consumer groups was wider in the case of social value, com- and brand loyalty.

pared with the emotional value case.

 C.-H. Yeh et al. / International Journal of Information Management 36 (2016) 245–257 253

Table 4
Model evaluation.

Variable Expected sign Model 1 Model 2: direct effect Model 3: age Model 4: gender

Length of brand relationship C.V. (+) 0.24** (3.19) 0.02 (0.54) 0.01 (0.35) 0.03 (0.58)
Age M.V. – – 0.13* (2.45) –
Gender M.V. – – – −0.08 (1.81)
Functional value H1 (+) – 0.26*** (3.66) 0.25** (3.05) 0.25** (3.18)
Emotional value H2 (+) – 0.32*** (4.91) 0.30*** (4.15) 0.31*** (4.48)
Social value H3 (+) – 0.14* (2.08) 0.14* (2.29) 0.15* (1.99)
Brand identification H4 (+) – 0.28*** (4.09) 0.31*** (4.53) 0.29*** (4.05)
Functional value × age H5a (¡Ð) – – −0.12 (1.35) –
Emotional value × age H5b (−) – – 0.22* (2.29) –
Social value × age H5c (−) – – 0.29* (2.54) –
Brand identification × age H5d (−) – – −0.22* (2.00) –
Functional value × gender H6a (+) – – – 0.09 (1.11)
Emotional value × gender H6b (+) – – – −0.05 (0.67)
Social value × gender H6c (−) – – – −0.02 (0.27)
Brand identification × gender H6d (−) – – – 0.01 (0.11)
R2 brandloyalty = effect 5.92% 73.17% 78.25% 74.52%
size 0.2336 0.0530
(f2 )
Note: (1) The numbers in parentheses refer to t-values derived from 1000 bootstrapped samples.
(2) * Denotes p < 0.05; ** denotes p < 0.01; *** Denotes p < 0.001. Two-tailed test.
(3) C.V. is the abbreviation for “control variable”; M.V. is the abbreviation for “moderator variable”; n.s. refers to no significant difference.
(4) The formula for calculating the effect size is based on Cohen (1988). f 2 = (R2 modelwithmoderator –R2 modelwithoutmoderator )/(1–R2 modelwithmoderator ).

In contrast, Fig. 4 shows that the younger consumer group had ting, photo-taking, and video-viewing, and middle-aged consumers
a steeper slope than the middle-aged consumer group. It indicates (35–54 years old) engaged in smartphone activities for the use of e-
that the younger were more sensitive in brand loyalty than the mail, maps, news and information, and banking. Similar to Persaud
middle-aged as the brand identification increased. Interestingly, and Azhar (2012), the ease of use of the handheld smartphone
even though the impact of brand identification on brand loyalty was may contribute middle-aged and younger consumers to experience
stronger for the younger consumers, the middle-aged consumers multiple benefits from smartphone usage. Both consumer groups
consistently maintained a higher brand loyalty than the younger emphasize functional value equally, and functional value might
consumers until the brand identification reached higher levels. The thus contribute to brand loyalty without age differences.
gap between the two groups became smaller as brand identification In addition, this study failed to predict the effect of age dif-
increased. ferences on the relationship between emotional value and brand
loyalty. That is, age significantly strengthened the effect of emo-
tional value on brand loyalty, and the effect of emotional value
6. Discussion
on brand loyalty was greater as age increased. Our findings were
different from the studies of Barutçu (2007) and Coates (2001),
6.1. Discussion of the results
which evidenced that younger consumers were more likely to ben-
efit from the exploration of new mobile technology and enjoy
While consumer value and brand identification might domi-
mobile entertainment services. As with the explanation men-
nate the formation of brand loyalty, there is little understanding
tioned earlier, both middle-aged and younger consumers may
regarding their relative importance. The roles of age and gender dif-
experience functional value equally. Compared with younger con-
ferences in influencing these relationships are less examined. For
sumers, middle-aged consumers may confront more complicated
these reasons, this study intends to know the determinant priority
challenges and tasks from work and daily life. The functional
of brand loyalty and takes age and gender differences into account.
value experienced from smartphone usage may help middle-aged
The two theories are expected to be elaborated through consumer
consumers to manage these challenges and tasks efficiently and
segmentation, and the results may provide marketing managers
effectively and gain much more pleasure. This result may also
with more exquisite and feasible strategic directions to guide the
be explained by the socioemotional selectivity theory which sug-
deployment of their resources.
gests that older people are in search of emotion-related goals and
The empirical results of this study revealed that consumer value
material (Charles, Mather, & Carstensen, 2003). Thus, the effect of
(i.e., functional value, emotional value, and social value) and brand
emotional value on brand loyalty was greater as age increased.
identification positively predicted brand loyalty. Emotional value
Opposite to the results of Persaud and Azhar (2012), this
was evaluated to be most influential to brand loyalty, and was fol-
study showed the moderating influence of age on the relationship
lowed by brand identification, functional value, and social value.
between social value and brand loyalty was positive. The social
The relative importance of the top three determinants were close,
value middle-aged consumers perceive led to greater brand loyalty
and was nearly twice as much as that of social value. As expected,
than younger consumers. The result of this study may be in line with
the results further showed that age moderated the effect of brand
Churchill and Moschis’s (1979) argument that social consumption
identification on brand loyalty, and the effect of brand identifica-
motivation increases with age and human development maturity.
tion was getting greater as age decreased. Surprisingly, against our
Thus, the symbolic representations of brands might be more impor-
expectations, the effect of functional value on brand loyalty did not
tant for middle-aged consumers to earn social status and to foster
change as age increased. A possible reason may explain the insignif-
interpersonal relationships. Our results may also echo the finding of
icant effect of age differences. Most respondents in this study were
Heckhausen (1997) that middle-aged consumers were, compared
middle-aged and younger consumers (17–58 years old), and they
with younger consumers, in pursuit of community goals, and thus
had all experienced rapid technological changes in their lifetimes
social value is more crucial for them. By and large, the effects of
and might have had high acceptance of smartphones (Deng et al.,
emotional value, social value, and brand identification on brand
2014). Persaud and Azhar (2012)’s study reported that younger
loyalty varied with age.
consumers (13–24 years old) used smartphones mainly for tex-
254 C.-H. Yeh et al. / International Journal of Information Management 36 (2016) 245–257

Though Syed and Nurullah (2011) stated that the men and (2011) argue that product attributes which are classified as perfor-
women have different mobile phone usage patterns, this study mance, appearance, and communication attributes are related to
found that the moderating effect of gender was absent in all the pre- consumers’ approach behavior in the context of high-technology
dicted relationships between brand loyalty and the four predictors. products, and Horváth and Sajtos (2002) consider the three
These results support Leong, Ooi, Chong, and Lin’s (2013) findings of product-related consumer responses (utility/usefulness, experi-
no significant differences between men and women in the adoption ence/enjoyment of use, and communicative power/expression)
of mobile entertainment services, and it also agrees with Albert, positively lead to the buying behavior of mobilephone. Based on
Merunka, and Valette-Florence’s (2013) findings that there was no consumer value theory, this study may extend the two studies and
gender effect on the relationship between brand identification and elaborate that the three product attributes deliver corresponding
brand commitment. There may be two possible reasons for our value to consumers and prompt them to purchase the product of a
results. First, the gender indifferences may be attributed to the cul- brand repeatedly.
ture in terms of masculinity and feminine. Masculinity/feminine is Third, prior studies on self-brand relationship suggest shorten-
a dimension which Hofstede (1991) identified to evaluate national ing the distance between consumers and brand identity by figuring
culture, and refers to the degree to which gender inequalities are out consumer identity and brand identity respectively. One major
espoused by a society (Srite & Karahanna, 2006). Zhou, Dai, & Zhang criticism of this suggestion is a brand may confront a variety of
(2007) addressed that a masculine culture tends to show greater consumer identities, and it limits the generalizability of empiri-
gender inequalities or gender divide, and the social gender roles cal results and their practical applicability (Geuens, Weijters, & De
are distinctly constructed. Oppositely, the social gender roles in Wulf, 2009). Brand identification is a consumer’s subjective eval-
a feminine culture may be highly overlapped. The respondents uation of self-brand congruence. In accordance with He et al.’s
in this study were recruited in Taiwan, which is a less masculin- (2012) findings, the results of this study do imply that brands will
ity society with a scores of masculinity/feminine evaluation (i.e., successfully earn consumers’ loyalty via their perceived identifica-
45) compared with the 51 sampled countries (Mcountries = 51.24) tion while purchasing smartphones. The establishment of a salient
(Erumban & de Jong, 2006). Thus, the effects of gender differences brand identity may be more contributive to gain consumers’ per-
did not significant in the relationships between the four deter- ceived identification.
minants and brand loyalty. The second reason might be related Fourth, this study verifies the existence of moderating role for
to the research context in which smartphone brands were under age differences but not for gender differences. Not all demographics
evaluation. Though Venkatesh and Morris (2000) find that the rea- are excellent predictors to segment consumer behaviors. Similar
sons to use computers in the workplace may vary between men to Dittmar’s claims (2005) that the effect of gender differences is
and women, gender differences may not significantly exist in the product-specific, our findings may corroborate that greater care is
context of smartphone use which is not mandatory (Yol, Serenko, necessary while using gender as a moderator.
& Turel, 2006). Similar to the view that gender effects may not Lastly, this study developed moderating hypotheses of age
always exist or function in the same direction across product types mainly based on prior studies on mobilephone usage and age-
(Dittmar, 2005), contextual factors, such as voluntary and manda- related theories. The results revealed that three of the four
tory use, may influence the occurrence of gender differences. To hypotheses were observed significantly, and the effects of emo-
sum up, many researchers announce that men and women show tional value/social value/brand identification on brand loyalty
different mobile phone usage patterns. Most of their arguments are changed as age increased. Only the effect of age differences in the
based on observations or qualitative evidence (Lemish & Cohen, relationship between brand identification and brand loyalty met
2005; Srivastava, 2005; Syed & Nurullah, 2011; Walsh & White, our expectation. It indicates that aging is a highly complex pro-
2007). Unlike these studies, the results of this study which were cess and involves various development stages. Our results may
analyzed with survey data found no gender differences in any of imply that the determinants of brand loyalty may change from
the four relationships. identity-driven to emotional/social value-driven (see Figs. 2–4 and
the statements in Section 5.2). A joint consideration of age-related
6.2. Theoretical implications theories may prevent from the dilemma of age stereotype and pro-
vide a better predictability by clearly identifying the need of an
The empirical findings of this study have five main theoreti- individual in a given stage (Deng et al., 2014).
cal implications. First, this study validates that consumer value
and brand identification are two dominant grounds to predict 6.3. Managerial implications
consumers’ loyal intentions. Specifying consumer value which is
classified into three distinct types (i.e., functional, emotional, and As our investigation in Table 2 indicates, 39% respondents
social value) and brand identification as the determinants of brand revealed that the brand which they chose in their last two
loyalty jointly, our results show that 73% variance of brand loyalty is smartphone shopping experiences were the same while only 19%
explained. The higher the value and identification consumers per- respondents agreed that in their last shopping of feature phone and
ceive, the greater commitment to repurchase and recommend a smartphone. Patronage and cross-buying of the same brand were
given brand will be. Specifically, emotional value, brand identifica- not common behaviors for consumers when shopping for mobile
tion, and functional value have higher influence on brand loyalty phones, which suggests that a higher marketing effort is needed.
than social value with nearly twice the magnitude (see Models Given that consumer value and brand identification contribute
2–3 in Table 4). This finding implies that smartphone brand loy- to brand loyalty, smartphone marketers should not only deliver
alty may primarily depend on individual-related factors rather than functional, emotional, and social value to consumers, but also
interpersonal factors. establish brand identity in terms of attractiveness, distinctiveness,
Second, this study provides evidence for the effect of con- and salience to earn consumers’ identification with the brand (Kim,
sumer value on brand loyalty with the 3-value framework. The Han, & Park, 2001). Considering the relative importance of the four
significance of functional value, emotional value, and social value loyalty drivers, smartphones managers have to put more emphasis
indicates that consumers stay with a certain smartphone brand on the individual-related drivers (i.e., functional value, emotional
based on a variety of value evaluations. The explanatory power of value, and brand identification). This study indicates that out of the
consumer value appears not only in a retailing context (Sweeney three individual-related drivers, emotional value is the most signif-
& Soutar, 2001) but also in a technology product context. Lee et al. icant, followed by brand identification, and lastly, functional value.
 C.-H. Yeh et al. / International Journal of Information Management 36 (2016) 245–257 255

Therefore, managers should allocate their resources relative to their brand choices. In this regard, future studies may examine the effects
importance. Furthermore, the results may imply that the younger of platform preferences on the proposed relationships.
consumers may show brand loyalty because of brand identifica-
tion and the middle-aged consumers may favor emotional/social
value and then tend to repurchase and recommend. Smartphone 7. Conclusions
managers should communicate identity attractiveness to younger
consumers and emotional and social value to the middle-aged and Based on consumer value theory and brand identification
the elderly. Finally, a further look at Figs. 2 and 3 indicate that when approach, this study identified functional value, emotional value,
there was low emotional value/social value, younger consumers social value, and brand identification as the determinants of brand
had higher brand loyalty than middle-aged consumers. This situa- loyalty. To understand what the priority of the four loyalty deter-
tion was reversed in the case of brand identification (see Fig. 4). minants is and how the relationships between the four loyalty
Once a smartphone brand currently fails to deliver better emo- determinants and brand loyalty change in varied age and gender,
tional value/social value to consumers, younger consumers may the research model of this study was tested in the context of smart-
be the target market. Similarly, middle-aged individuals should be phone consumption with a surveyed sample of 157 respondents.
the target consumers for smartphones which receive less brand The results showed that there were positive relationships
identification. between the four determinants and brand loyalty. Emotional value
was related to brand loyalty with the strongest effect, and then were
6.4. Limitations and future research the brand identification, functional value, and social value sequen-
tially. Furthermore, these positive relationships changed while
Several limitations exist in the present study. The first is that this taking consumers’ age into consideration. The relationship between
study adopted non-probability sampling and recruited participants brand identification and brand loyalty was stronger for younger
from the Internet. There was considerable overlap between Inter- consumers than for middle-aged consumers. As age increased, the
net users and smartphone users in Taiwan. Even though 73.6% of effects of emotional value/social value on brand loyalty were get-
Internet users held smartphones (Phycos, 2013), the sample might ting greater. Emotional value and social value were more influential
not represent the population of smartphone users. Ideally, a rep- in forming brand loyalty for middle-aged consumers, compared
resentative sample needs to be utilized by future studies. Second, with younger consumers. Finally, gender did not moderate the four
this study oversampled highly-educated individuals, which may determinants-brand loyalty relationships. To sum up, as various
lead to biased results. Thus, if this research study is to be applied, theoretical perspectives are used to investigate consumers’ brand
one should be aware of the sampling bias. Third, this study is not loyalty, this study finds that individual-related factors (i.e., func-
fully free of CMV threat. Our results of CFA-based Harman’s test tional value, emotional value, and brand identification) may have
showed the control of CMV was acceptable, but those of EFA-based better predictability of smartphone brand loyalty than interper-
one were slightly against the criterion. Cautions need to be taken sonal factors (i.e., social value). Age, instead of gender, appears to
when generalizing the findings of this study to other situations. be more influential in the segmentation of smartphone consumers
Future studies are also suggested to assess CMV effects with more while building brand loyalty. Our findings may help practitioners
delicate approaches such as MTMM or marker-variable techniques in smartphone industry to develop effective marketing strategies
(Malhotra et al., 2006). Fourth, this study was conducted in the and campaigns.
smartphone consumption context, which is a high-involvement
product (Walsh, White, Cox, and Young, 2011). The role of prod- References
uct involvement in influencing consumer-brand identification has
been noticed by previous studies (e.g., Stokburger-Sauer et al., Ahearne, M., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Gruen, T. (2005). Antecedents and consequences
2012), generalization of this study’s findings may be restricted. of customer-company identification: expanding the role of relationship
marketing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(3), 574–585.
Future studies may address this limitation by examining the pro- Alba, J. W., & Williams, E. F. (2013). Pleasure principles: a review of research on
posed hypotheses in the context of different product involvement hedonic consumption. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(1), 2–18.
levels or by controlling the effects of product involvement in the Albert, N., Merunka, D., & Valette-Florence, P. (2013). Brand passion: antecedents
and consequences. Journal of Business Research, 66(7), 904–909.
analysis.
Anderson, R. E., & Srinivasan, S. S. (2003). E-satisfaction and e-loyalty: a
Fifth, this study defined age from the perspective of chrono- contingency framework. Psychology and Marketing, 20(2), 123–138.
logical age. It has been suggested that cognitive age is a predictor Arruda-Filho, E. J. M., Cabusas, J. A., & Dholakia, N. (2010). Social behavior and
of consumer behavior. People think, feel, and act according to their brand devotion among iPhone innovators. International Journal of Information
Management, 30(6), 475–480.
perceived age (Chang, 2008). In the light of this alternative perspec- Babin, B. J., Darden, W. R., & Griffin, M. (1994). Work and/or fun: measuring hedonic
tive, future studies are encouraged to investigate the effects of age and utilitarian shopping value. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(4), 644–656.
differences from the viewpoint of cognitive age. Sixth, in addition to Barutçu, S. (2007). Attitudes towards mobile marketing tools: a study of Turkish
consumers. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 16(1),
demographics, consumer traits such as lifestyle and innovativeness 26–38.
are predictive moderators or classifiers in studies on mobilephone Bellman, S., Potter, R. F., Treleaven-Hassard, S., Robinson, J. A., & Varan, D. (2011).
shopping (Sell, Mezei, & Walden, 2014) and situational variables The effectiveness of branded mobile phone apps. Journal of Interactive
Marketing, 25(4), 191–200.
such as switching cost may bias the effects consumer value/brand Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2003). Consumer-company identification: a
identification on brand loyalty (Jones et al., 2000). More academic framework for understanding consumers’ relationships with companies.
effort is needed to explore the moderating effect of individual dif- Journal of Marketing, 67(2), 76–88.
Boudreau, M.-C., Gefen, D., & Straub, D. W. (2001). Validation in information
ferences and situational variables. Seventh, the empirical evidence systems research: a state-of-the-art assessment. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 1–16.
of this study was derived from Taiwanese smartphone users. Given Carstensen, L. L., Isaacowitz, D. M., & Charles, S. T. (1999). Taking time seriously: a
that cultural differences may influence consumers’ value prefer- theory of socioemotional selectivity. American Psychologist, 54(3), 165–181.
Chang, C. (2008). Chronological age versus cognitive age for younger consumers:
ences and needs for identification (Park & Rabolt, 2009), future
implications for advertising persuasion. Journal of Advertising, 37(3), 19–32.
studies are needed to examine this issue. They are advised to recruit Charles, S. T., Mather, M., & Carstensen, L. L. (2003). Aging and emotional memory:
respondents from various cultural backgrounds. Lastly, the compe- the forgettable nature of negative images for older adults. Journal of
tition in smartphone industry is not only between brands but also Experimental Psychology: General, 132(2), 310–324.
Chaudhuri, A., & Holbrook, M. B. (2001). The chain of effects from brand trust and
between platforms (Bellman, Potter, Treleaven-Hassard, Robinson, brand affect to brand performance: the role of brand loyalty. Journal of
& Varan, 2011). Platform preferences may influence consumers’ Marketing, 65(2), 81–93.
256 C.-H. Yeh et al. / International Journal of Information Management 36 (2016) 245–257

Chin, W. W. (1998). Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling. MIS Karjaluoto, H., Jayawardhena, C., Leppäniemi, M., & Pihlström, M. (2012). How
Quarterly, 22(1), 7–16. value and trust influence loyalty in wireless telecommunications industry.
Chin, W. W., Marcolin, B. L., & Newsted, P. R. (2003). A partial least squares latent Telecommunications Policy, 36(8), 636–649.
variable modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: results from a Kim, H. W., Gupta, S., & Koh, J. (2011). Investigating the intention to purchase
Monte Carlo simulation study and an electronic-mail emotion/adoption study. digital items in social networking communities: a customer value perspective.
Information Systems Research, 14(2), 189–217. Information & Management, 48(6), 228–234.
Churchill, G. A., & Moschis, G. P. (1979). Television and interpersonal influences on Kotler, P., Ang, S. H., Leong, S. M., & Tan, C. T. (2003). Marketing management: an
adolescent consumer learning. Journal of Consumer Research, 6(1), 23–35. Asian perspective. Singapore: Prentice Hall.
Coates, H. (2001). Mobile phone users: a small-scale observational study. Kressmann, F., Sirgy, M. J., Herrmann, A., Huber, F., Huber, S., & Lee, D. J. (2006).
(Retrieved from http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Students/hec9901.html). Direct and indirect effects of self-image congruence on brand loyalty. Journal of
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Business Research, 59(9), 955–964.
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kumar, A., & Lim, H. (2008). Age differences in mobile service perceptions:
Cronin, J. J., Brady, M. K., & Hult, G. T. M. (2000). Assessing the effects of quality, comparison of generation Y and baby boomers. Journal of Service Marketing,
value, and customer satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service 22(7), 568–577.
environments. Journal of Retailing, 76(2), 193–218. Kurniawan, S. (2008). Older people and mobile phones: a multi-method
Deng, Z., Lu, Y., Wei, K. K., & Zhang, J. (2010). Understanding customer satisfaction investigation. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66(12),
and loyalty: an empirical study of mobile instant messages in China. 889–901.
International Journal of Information Management, 30(4), 289–300. Lam, S. K., Ahearne, M., Hu, Y., & Schillewaert, N. (2010). Resistance to brand
Deng, Z., Mo, X., & Liu, S. (2014). Comparison of the middle-aged and older users’ switching when a radically new brand is introduced: a social identity theory
adoption of mobile health services in China. International Journal of Medical perspective. Journal of Marketing, 74(6), 128–146.
Informatics, 83(3), 210–224. Lam, S. K., Ahearne, M., Mullins, R., Hayati, B., & Schillewaert, N. (2013). Exploring
Dick, A. S., & Basu, K. (1994). Customer loyalty: toward an integrated conceptual the dynamics of antecedents to consumer-brand identification with a new
framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22(2), 99–113. brand. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41(2), 234–252.
Dittmar, H. (2005). Compulsive buying-a growing concern? An examination of Lam, S. Y., & Shankar, V. (2014). Asymmetries in the effects of drivers of brand
gender, age, and endorsement of materialistic values as predictors. British loyalty between early and late adopters and across technology generations.
Journal of Psychology, 96(4), 467–491. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 28(1), 26–42.
Dittmar, H., Beattie, J., & Friese, S. (1995). Gender identity and material symbols: Lee, S., Ha, S., & Widdows, R. (2011). Consumer responses to high-technology
objects and decision considerations in impulse purchases. Journal of Economic products: product attributes, cognition, and emotions. Journal of Business
Psychology, 16(3), 491–511. Research, 64(11), 1195–1200.
Donavan, D. T., Janda, S., & Suh, J. (2006). Environmental influences in corporate Lemish, D., & Cohen, A. A. (2005). On the gendered nature of mobile phone culture
brand identification and outcomes. Journal of Brand Management, 14(1/2), in Israel. Sex Roles, 52(7/8), 511–521.
125–136. Leong, L. Y., Ooi, K. B., Chong, A. Y. L., & Lin, B. (2013). Modeling the stimulators of
Douglas, S. P., & Craig, C. S. (2007). Collaborative and iterative translation: an the behavioral intention to use mobile entertainment: does gender really
alternative approach to back translation. Journal of International Marketing, matter? Computers in Human Behavior, 29(5), 2109–2121.
15(1), 30–43. Liao, C. H., & Hsieh, I. Y. (2013). Determinants of consumer’s willingness to
Erikson, E. H. (1959). Identity and the life cycle. New York: International Universities purchase gray-market smartphones. Journal of Business Ethics, 114(3), 409–424.
Press. Lin, C. H., Sher, P. J., & Shih, H. Y. (2005). Past progress and future directions in
Erumban, A. A., & de Jong, S. B. (2006). Cross-country differences in ICT adoption: a conceptualizing customer perceived value. International Journal of Service
consequence of culture? Journal of World Business, 41(4), 302–314. Industry Management, 16(3/4), 318–336.
Floh, A., Zauner, A., Koller, M., & Rusch, T. (2014). Customer segmentation using Malhotra, N. K., Kim, S. S., & Patil, A. (2006). Common method variance in IS
unobserved heterogeneity in the perceived value-loyalty-intentions link. research: a comparision of alternative approaches and a reanalysis of past
Journal of Business Research, 67(5), 974–982. research. Management Science, 52(12), 1865–1883.
Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in Mannetti, L., Pierro, A., & Livi, S. (2002). Explaining consumer conduct: from
consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 343–353. planned to self-expressive behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(7),
Gefen, D., Straub, D. W., & Boudreau, M. C. (2000). Structural equation modeling 1431–1451.
and regression: guidelines for research practice. Communications of the AIS, 4, Mason, E. S., & Mudrack, P. E. (1998). Gender and ethical orientation: a test of
1–79. gender and occupational socialization theories. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(6),
Geuens, M., Weijters, B., & de Wulf, K. (2009). A new measure of brand personality. 599–604.
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 26(2), 97–107. Meyers-Levy, J., & Loken, B. (2015). Revisiting gender differences: what we know
Google. (2013). Our mobile planet. Taiwan: Google Taiwan. and what lies ahead. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25(1), 129–149.
Haenlein, M., & Kaplan, A. M. (2004). A beginner’s guide to partial least squares Okazaki, S., & Mendez, F. (2013a). Exploring convenience in mobile commerce:
analysis. Understanding Statistics, 3(4), 283–297. moderating effects of gender. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 1234–1242.
Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Mena, J. A. (2012). An assessment of the use Okazaki, S., & Mendez, F. (2013b). Perceived ubiquity in mobile services. Journal of
of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. Interactive Marketing, 27(2), 98–111.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(3), 414–433. Oliver, R. L. (1999). Whence consumer loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 63(4), 33–44.
Hansen, J. D., Beitelspacher, L. S., & Deitz, G. D. (2013). Antecedents and Park, C. W., Eisingerich, A. B., & Park, J. W. (2013). Attachment-aversion (AA) model
consequences of consumers’ comparative value assessments across the of customer-brand relationships. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(2),
relationship life cycle. Journal of Business Research, 66(4), 473–479. 229–248.
Harverila, M. (2012). What do we want specifically from the cell phone? An age Park, H. J., & Rabolt, N. J. (2009). Cultural value, consumption value, and global
related study. Telematics and Informatics, 29(1), 110–122. brand image: a cross-national study. Psychology & Marketing, 26(8), 714–735.
Hasan, B. (2010). Exploring gender differences in online shopping attitude. Park, J., & Han, S. H. (2013). Defining user value: a case study of a smartphone.
Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 597–601. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 43(4), 274–282.
He, H., Li, Y., & Harris, L. (2012). Social identity perspective on brand loyalty. Persaud, A., & Azhar, I. (2012). Innovative mobile marketing via smartphones: are
Journal of Business Research, 65(5), 648–657. consumers ready? Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 30(4), 418–443.
Heckhausen, J. (1997). Developmental regulation across adulthood: primary and Phycos (2013). Smartphone marketing. (Retrieved from http://www.phycos.com.
secondary control of age-related challenges. Developmental Psychology, 33(1), tw/index.php/tw/phycos-focus/business/146-smartphone-marketing).
176–187. Pihlström, M., & Brush, G. J. (2008). Comparing the perceived value of information
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). The use of partial least squares and entertainment mobile services. Psychology & Marketing, 25(8), 732–755.
path modeling in international marketing. Advances in International Marketing, Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common
20, 277–319. method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and
Hirschman, E. C., & Holbrook, M. B. (1982). Hedonic consumption: emerging recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.
concepts, methods and propositions. Journal of Marketing, 46(3), 92–101. Quesenberry, J., & Trauth, E. M. (2012). The (dis) placement of women in the IT
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: software of the mind. London: workforce: an investigation of individual career values and organizational
McGraw-Hill. interventions. Information Systems Journal, 22(6), 457–473.
Holbrook, M. B. (1994). The nature of customer value: an axiology of services in the Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Will, A. (2005). SmartPLS 2.0 (M3) beta. (Retrieved from
consumption context. In R. Rust, & R. L. Oliver (Eds.), Service quality: new http://www.smartpls.de).
directions in theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Rintamäki, T., Kanto, A., Kuusela, H., & Spence, M. T. (2006). Decomposing the value
Horváth, D., & Sajtos, L. (2002). How do mobiles communicate? The role of product of department store shopping into utilitarian, hedonic and social dimensions:
design in product related consumer responses: the case of mobile telephones. evidence from Finland. International Journal of Retail & Distribution
Advances in Consumer Research, 29, 237–238. Management, 34(1), 6–24.
Information Data Center (2012). IDC report: Taiwan’s mobile phone market in the Rocereto, J. F., & Mosca, J. B. (2012). Self-concept, gender, and product type: an
3rd Quarter of 2012. (Retrieved from http://www.idc.com.tw/about/407.html). investigation of brand loyalty. Journal of Business & Economics Research, 10(1),
Jones, M. A., Mothersbaugh, D. L., & Beatty, S. E. (2000). Switching barriers and 25–36.
repurchase intentions in services. Journal of Retailing, 76(2), 259–274. Sell, A., Mezei, J., & Walden, P. (2014). An attitude-based latent class segmentation
Jones, T. O., & Sasser, W. E. (1995). Why satisfied customers defect. Harvard analysis of mobile phone users. Telematics and Informatics, 31(2), 209–219.
Business Review, 73(6), 88–99.
 C.-H. Yeh et al. / International Journal of Information Management 36 (2016) 245–257 257

Shankar, V., Smith, A. K., & Rangaswamy, A. (2003). Customer satisfaction and Viswanathan, M., Sudman, S., & Johnson, M. (2004). Maximum versus meaningful
loyalty in online and offline environments. International Journal of Research in discrimination in scale response: implications for validity of measurement of
Marketing, 20(2), 153–175. consumer perceptions about products. Journal of Business Research, 57(2),
Sheldon, K. M., & Kasser, T. (2001). Getting older, getting better? Personal strivings 108–124.
and psychological maturity across the life span. Developmental Psychology, Walsh, S. P., & White, K. M. (2006). Ring, ring, why did I make that call? Mobile
37(4), 491–501. phone beliefs and behaviour amongst Australian University students. Youth
Sheth, J. N., Newman, B. I., & Gross, B. L. (1991). Why we buy what we buy: a theory Studies Australia, 25(3), 49–57.
of consumption values. Journal of Business Research, 22(2), 159–170. Walsh, S. P., & White, K. M. (2007). Me, my mobile, and I: the role of self- and
Smetana, J. G., Campione-Barr, N., & Metzger, A. (2006). Adolescent development in prototypical identity influences in the prediction of mobile phone behavior.
interpersonal and societal contexts. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 255–284. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37(10), 2405–2434.
So, K. K. F., King, C., Sparks, B. A., & Wang, Y. (2013). The influence of customer Walsh, S. P., White, K. M., Cox, S., & Young, R. M. (2011). Keeping in constant touch:
brand identification on hotel brand evaluation and loyalty development. the predictors of young Australians’ mobile phone involvement. Computers in
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 34, 31–41. Human Behavior, 27(1), 333–342.
Srite, M., & Karahanna, E. (2006). The role of espoused national cultural values in Walsh, S. P., White, K. M., & Young, R. M. (2010). Needing to connect: the effect of
technology acceptance. MIS Quarterly, 30(3), 679–704. self and others on young people’s involvement with their mobile phones.
Srivastava, L. (2005). Mobile phones and the evolution of social behaviour. Australian Journal of Psychology, 62(4), 194–203.
Behaviour and Information Technology, 24(2), 111–129. Yang, Z., & Petersson, R. T. (2004). Customer perceived value, satisfaction, and
Stokburger-Sauer, N., Ratneshwar, S., & Sen, S. (2012). Drivers of consumer-brand loyalty: the role of switching costs. Psychology and Marketing, 21(10), 799–822.
identification. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 29(4), 406–418. Yol, S., Serenko, A., & Turel, O. (2006). Moderating roles of user demographics in the
Sung, Y., & Choi, S. M. (2010). I won’t leave you although you disappoint me: the American customer satisfaction model within the context of mobile services.
interplay between satisfaction, investment, and alternatives in determining In Proceedings of the Twelfth Americas Conference on Information Systems
consumer-brand relationship commitment. Psychology and Marketing, 27(11), Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a
1050–1073. means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 2–22.
Sweeney, J. C., & Soutar, G. N. (2001). Consumer perceived value: the development Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioral consequences
of a multiple item scale. Journal of Retailing, 77(2), 203–220. of service quality. Journal of Marketing, 60(2), 31–46.
Syed, S. F., & Nurullah, A. S. (2011). Use of mobile phones and the social lives of Zhou, L., Dai, L., & Zhang, D. (2007). Online shopping acceptance model: a critical
urban adolescents: a review of literature. Trends in Information Management, survey of consumer factors in online shopping. Journal of Electronic Commerce
7(1), 1–18. Research, 8(1), 41–62.
Tenenhaus, M., Vinzi, V. E., Chatelin, Y. M., & Lauro, C. (2005). PLS path modeling.
Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 48(1), 159–205.
Tuškej, U., Golob, U., & Podnar, K. (2013). The role of consumer-brand identification
in building brand relationships. Journal of Business Research, 66(1), 53–59.
Urbach, N., & Ahlemann, F. (2010). Structural equation modeling in information
systems research using partial least squares. Journal of Information Technology
Theory and Application, 11(2), 5–40.
van Rekom, J., Jacobs, G., & Verlegh, P. W. J. (2006). Measuring and managing the
essence of a brand personality. Marketing Letters, 17(3), 181–192.
Venkatesh, V., & Morris, M. G. (2000). Why don’t men ever stop to ask for
directions? Gender, social influence, and their role in technology acceptance
and usage behavior. MIS Quarterly, 24(1), 115–139.