Anda di halaman 1dari 12


discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:



Article December 2013


0 20

3 authors, including:

Vinasithamby Sritharan
University of Jaffna


All content following this page was uploaded by Vinasithamby Sritharan on 22 November 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
EXCEL International Journal of Multidisciplinary Management Studies ________________ ISSN 2249- 8834
EIJMMS, Vol.3 (12), DECEMBER (2013)
Online available at






The purpose of this study is to find out the impact of brand affect, brand trust, and perceived
value on brand loyalty in fast moving consumer good product category. First review the relevant
literature and establish hypotheses and conceptual framework. Data were collected from 314
Sunlight (brand) laundry shop users, using convenience sampling techniques. The results
indicate that the data were a good fit to the proposed model. The impact is measured with beta
coefficients of brand affect (0.223;t=6.284, p=0.000), brand trust (0.312; t-9.237; p=0.000), and
perceived value (0.496; t=13.881; p=0.000). Marketing managers need to concentrate on creating
superior value along brand trust and brand affect to their customers, which help them to enjoy
great market share in the market place in this competitive marketing situation. This research is
the first of its type that incorporates brand affect, trust and perceived value as the independent
variables to test the impact on brand loyalty in a single causal model.

KEYWORDS: Brand, Brand affect, Brand Trust, Perceived Value, Brand Loyalty,

Global marketing activities contribute to intense competitiveness among marketers, consumers
aware of different offering with different sophistication and tend to become more and more
demanding their wants. In the global competition, consumers increase their expectation for their
demands, in this juncture expected value, trust and affect of the product or service leads to
loyalty. Customer loyalty plays a major role that determines the competitive advantage of
businesses (Gremler & Brown, 1996)

A critical issue for the continued success of a firm is its capability to retain its current customers
and make them loyal to its brands (Dekimpe, Steenkamp, Mellens, & Vanden Abeele, 1997, p.
405). Loyal customers build businesses by buying more, paying premium prices, and providing
new referrals through positive word of mouth over time (Ganesh, Arnold, & Reynolds, 2000, p.

EXCEL International Journal of Multidisciplinary Management Studies ________________ ISSN 2249- 8834
EIJMMS, Vol.3 (12), DECEMBER (2013)
Online available at

The objective of this study is to empirically analyze a conceptual model that to test the impact of
affect, trust, and perceived value on brand loyalty in an integrated model for fast moving
consumer goods in Sri Lanka.

An empirical study of retail brand category of laundry soap (Sunlight) was conducted in Jaffna,
Sri Lanka to test the above conceptual model. Sunlight has now emerged further than any other
fast moving consumer goods (FMCG) brand and has become a way of life and a trusted
companion to the Sri Lankan Housewife (Perera, 2010). Laundry soap selected as a product
category due to the variables of interest in this study. Laundry soap normally belong to the
category of FMCGs, perceived value of the consumers is relatively high compared with other
FMCGs and they possess different attributes which are technological related such as cleaning
efficiency and preservation of fabric. In this situation, the perceived risk for consumption is quite
high and to avoid the risk trust and affect of the product is relatively important to take decision
about the purchase.

This study is designed as follows. First review the relevant literature and establish hypotheses
and conceptual framework. Then the research methodology part describes the detail procedure
about the sampling, measurement development and data collection. Finally, the study discusses
the findings in terms of their implications for managerial practice with some limitations and
point out some directions for further research.

Literature review

Brand is defined as a name, term, symbol, logo, or design, or combination of them, aims at
identifying a product or service of either one seller or a group of sellers, and distinguishing these
products or services from those of competitors (Kotler, 1997). In addition, Keller, (2003)
expressed, brand may be a product, service, shop, famous personality, place, organization or
idea. Brand can be defined in another way as set of expectations and perceptions that rose from
the experience of the product or the organization (Davis, 2002)

Brand Affect
There has been significant development in the study of affect and its role in marketing since the
early 1980s (Agarwal & Malhotra, 2005; Erevelles, 1998). Recent research broadly denoted
positive affect as the antecedent of customer loyalty in both managerial and academic
perspective (e.g, Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001).

Generally, the term affect refers to valenced emotions and feeling states. Emotions are
responses to causal-specific stimuli that are usually intense and more stable, especially if
emotional thoughts are saved and recovered (Cohen & Areni, 1991). Feelings are reactions to
causal-specific stimuli, too, but less powerful and more transient in comparison to emotions
(Agarwal & Malhotra, 2005). According to vast number of studies that affect functions as an
incremental and/or prime predictor of customer behavior (e.g. Erevelles, 1998). Several
researchers refer to Wright, (1975) stated about affect referral hypothesis, which indicates that

EXCEL International Journal of Multidisciplinary Management Studies ________________ ISSN 2249- 8834
EIJMMS, Vol.3 (12), DECEMBER (2013)
Online available at

in the process of brand selection, customers consider the most positive retrieved affect to select
the brand than any other specific attribute information.

Brand affect is a consumers overall favorable or unfavorable evaluation of the brand (Keller,
2003). Chaudhuri, (2001, p. 82) define brand affect as a brands potential to elicit a positive
emotional response in the average consumer as a result of its use.

Brand Trust
According to the psychology literature e.g. Lewis, (1985), most of the researchers distinguish
trust into two forms those are cognitive and affective/emotional trust. First, cognitive trust is
defined as good rational reasons why the object of trust merits trust (Lewis & Weigert, 1985).
It is described as evaluating the reliability, competence, and predictability of the trusted object
and reflects the economic understanding of trust as rational choice (Riegelsberger, Sasse, &
McCarthy, 2005). Second, affective trust, is the emotion-driven form of trust that is based on
instant affective reactions, on aesthetics, attractiveness, benefaction and signals of benevolence.
Frequently trust-based behavior results from a mix of affective and cognitive trust (Corritore,
Kracher, & Wiedenbeck, 2003 ; Riegelsberger, et al., 2005)
Indeed, the notion of reliance is vital to the definition of brand trust, suggesting that there are
two key characteristics and components necessary to brand trust: trustworthiness and expertise.
Trustworthiness reflects to the consumers confidence in the brand providing stated quality
performance in a sincere and honest way. Expertise is the extent to which a brand is perceived to
be skillful and knowledgeable, which comes from training/experience in the service or product
class. The literature has usually suggested that trust can be defined as belief, competence,
honesty, and benevolence (Coulter & Coulter, 2002; Doney & Cannon, 1997).

Brand trust can be defined as the willingness of the average consumer to rely on the ability of the
brand to perform its stated function (Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2002; Moorman, Deshpande, &
Zaltman, 1993), as the confidence a consumer develops in the brands reliability and integrity
(Chatterjee & Chaudhuri, 2005). The above definition leads to two general approaches to trust in
the literature (Dwyer & Lagace, 1986). First, Based on the partner's expertise, reliability, or
intentionality partners trustworthiness is viewed as a belief, sentiment, or expectation. Second,
trust has been viewed as behavior or a behavioral intention that reflects a trust on a partner and
involves uncertainty and vulnerability on the part of trustee (Moorman, et al., 1993, p. 315).
Brand trust could be generated by providing beliefs of safety, reliability and honesty about their
brands to consumers (Doney & Cannon, 1997).

Perceived Value
Customer value perceptions guide purchase behavior and refer to the value that customers
perceive they experience or receive by using the product/service (Bettman, Mary, & John, 1998),
Customers perception regarding value may differ based on their personal needs, values, financial
resources and preferences (Ravald & Gronroos, 1996).Value perception may differ based on the
usage circumstances (Anckar & D'Incau, 2002).

Marketing literature related to perceived value indicates that the measure of perceived value as a
multi-item scale to measure perceived value (Anderson & Srinivasan, 2003 ; Dodds, Monroe, &
Grewal, 1991) or to use single overall value construct (1991). A weighted sum of acquisition and

EXCEL International Journal of Multidisciplinary Management Studies ________________ ISSN 2249- 8834
EIJMMS, Vol.3 (12), DECEMBER (2013)
Online available at

transaction value of a customer creates overall perceived value (K.B Monroe, 1990). Hence,
another view of perceived value is to split it into transaction, acquisition, in-use, and redemption
value (Kent B Monroe & Chapman, 1987; Parasuraman & Grewal, 2000).

Zeithaml, (1988, p. 14) gives a general perspective that depicts value independent is determined
by the assessment of the consumption situations: perceived value is the consumers overall
assessment of the utility of a product based on what is received and what is given. Hence, value
perceptions are comprised as a trade-off between benefits and sacrifices. Time, search, costs and
physical or mental effort can be included in the perceived sacrification (Dodds, et al., 1991). The
customer has to invest money and/or time in order to receive the service or product. Many
authors indicate similar definitions in the literature (Keon, 1980; Lichtenstein & Bearden, 1989;
Lichtenstein, Netemeyer, & Burton, 1990).

Recent studies have concentrated on evaluating customers perceived value according to the
difference between what customers sacrifice and benefit (Hinterhuber, 2004; Walker, Johnson, &
Leonard, 2006). To avoid complex understanding of perceived value, a number of recent
studies have paid attention directly on the benefits obtained, and committed to construct
customers perceived value as a multi-dimensional construct (Callarisa Fiol, Bigne Alcaiz,
Moliner Tena, & Garca, 2009; Khan, 2010).

(Lindgreen & Wynstra, 2005) pointed out that customer value has two research perspectives
based on the benefits gained: first, on value of goods and services and second, on value of buyer-
seller relationships. Hence, customer perceived value can be divided into two dimensions:
perceived relational value and perceived functional value. The relational dimension of perceived
value could be defined as customers perceived belief / trust that the relationship established with
a seller or provider will contribute future value / benefits; on the other hand the functional
dimension of perceived value can be seen as customers perception of the utility or performance
of products or services they receive needs (Cheng, Wang, Lin, & Vivek, 2009; Khan, 2010).
Thus, functional value reflects the utility an enterprise customer perceives in a suppliers
utilitarian performance.

Perceived value is one of the most tangible signs of a brands ability to satisfy future
consumption and to give no reason to go against customers interests. Enhanced perceived value
also implies more affective attitudes towards the brand, which positively impacts affective
commitment that leads to loyalty (Johnson, Herrmann, & Huber, 2006).

Brand Loyalty
(Aaker, 1991) discussed the vital role of the brand loyalty in the brand equity process which
produces some marketing advantages such as less marketing costs, more new customer base, and
greater trade leverage.

The organizations success depends on its ability to attract and make loyal customer. This is to
create organization to have the ability to keep its current customers and make them loyal to its
brand for long run. The customers may have different degree of loyalty to brand (Kandampully
& Suhartanto, 2000). Loyalty means customers purchase a product or service repeatedly. Brand

EXCEL International Journal of Multidisciplinary Management Studies ________________ ISSN 2249- 8834
EIJMMS, Vol.3 (12), DECEMBER (2013)
Online available at

loyalty is the commitment and positive attitude to purchase the same brand in a durable manner
in their future purchase situation (Liu, 2007).
Jacoby and Chestnut, (1978) conceptually defined brand loyalty as a biased behavioral response
expressed over time by some decision-making unit with respect to one or more brands out of a
set of such brands, and is a function of psychological (decision-making evaluate) processes.
Brand loyalty can be estimated in three forms such as behavioral, attitudinal or composite
approach (Jacoby & Chestnut, 1978). Behavioral loyalty has been operationalized as repeat
purchases frequency (e.g.Brown, 1953) or proportion of purchase of the same brand over time
(e.g. Cunningham, 1956), while attitudinal brand loyalty considered to stated preferences,
commitment or purchase intentions of the customers.

Based on the above literature review, brand affect, brand trust, and perceived value have the
relationship with brand loyalty. The previous studies did not try to find out the relationship of
these constructs simultaneously in one model for fast moving consumer goods. This study
attempts to find out the relationship and the impact of these factors in one integrated model for
fast moving consumer goods and contribute to the literature.

Hypotheses and Conceptual Model

In the brand relationship context brand affect plays vital role as an antecedent of brand loyalty
(e.g. Fournier, 1998; Gundlach, Achrol, & Mentzer, 1995). Chaudhuri and Hobrook, (2001),
stated brand affect is a brands potential to elicit a positive emotional response in the average
consumer as a result of its use. Loyal Consumers are ready to pay more and repurchase due to
the perception of a unique value in the brand (F. Reichheld, 1996) or positive emotional mood or
affect (Dick & Basu, 1994). Thus, in order for developing brand loyalty, positive attitude of
affect created by the brand was necessarily required (Urban, Sultan, & Qualls, 2000).

It has been agreed that brand affect was considered as the major determinant of purchase loyalty
and attitudinal loyalty (Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001; Ringberg & Gupta, 2003). Further,
Matzler, Grabner-Krauter, and Bidmon, (2008), indicates that brand trust and brand effect are
positively related to repurchase and attitudinal loyalty. Hypothesis is developed based on the
above discussion.

H1: Brand affect will positively influence brand loyalty

Brand Trust and commitment should be associated, because trust is crucial in relational
exchanges and commitment is also important for such valued relationships. Thus, it can be
suggested that brand trust will contribute to loyalty (Morgan & Hunt, 1994). Literature reveals
support that brand trust is one of the determinant factors of loyalty (Berry, 1983; Wu, Chan, &
Lau, 2008).

Commonly, trust is considered as the determinant of relationship commitment and future

purchase intentions in the context of buyer-seller relationships (Crosby, Evans, & Cowles, 1990).
Further, trust has been found to be predictive of loyalty in the consumer market situation
(Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001). Constantly, Urban et al, (2000) proposed customer trust is a vital
element in creating strong customer relationships and sustainable market share. Frederick and
Schefter, (2000) also indicate that to gain the loyalty of customers, you must first gain their
trust. Based on the above literature, one can hypothesize that

EXCEL International Journal of Multidisciplinary Management Studies ________________ ISSN 2249- 8834
EIJMMS, Vol.3 (12), DECEMBER (2013)
Online available at

H2: Brand trust will positively influence brand loyalty

Recent studies have revealed the relationship between perceived value and brand loyalty
(Agustin & Singh, 2005; Lam, Shankar, Erramilli, & Murthy, 2004). Some of them argue the
perceived value and explain its impact on brand loyalty. They indicated that perceived value has
an impact on brand loyalty. In most cases they pointed out that value is the perception of the
customers regarding their perceived benefits and perceived cost ratio of particular service or
products (Zeithaml, 1988). Anderson and Srinivasan, (2003) expressed that when the perceived
value decrease, customers tend to buy competitive products in order to increase their perceived
value, the less the perceived value, the less the loyalty. (Yang & Peterson, 2004) concluded that
perceived value have both a direct and an indirect positive effect on loyalty. Based on the above
discussion, hypothesis is developed as follows;

H3: Perceived value will positively influence brand loyalty

Figure 1: Conceptual Model

Brand Affect
Brand Trust H2 Brand Loyalty

Perceived value

The research design for this empirical study is descriptive in nature. The methodology of this
study mainly depends on the primary data collected through well designed self administrated
questionnaire. Sunlight brand soap is popular laundry soap in FMCG categories in Sri Lankan
households. Sunlight brand soap consumers residing in Jaffna District were selected as study
sample. The study used convenient sampling techniques to collect the data. A sum of 420
questionnaires issued to the participants and 314 completed questionnaires were received that is
75 percent response rate.

The demographic characteristics of this sample composed higher percent of female (58 percent)
than male (42 percent). About 53.2 percent of the respondents have High school qualification,
followed by university degree (32.8 percent), and other qualification (14 percent). In terms of
age, below 25, 26-35 years old, 36-45 years old, and above 46 years old were 8 percent, 28
percent, 54 percent, and 10 percent respectively. Moreover the majority of the respondents (53.2
percent) had to Rs.30,000-Rs.40,000 monthly income.

Both descriptive and inferential statistics has been used to analyze the data. Statistical Package
for Social Sciences (SPSS-version 19) software has been used in the analysis


EXCEL International Journal of Multidisciplinary Management Studies ________________ ISSN 2249- 8834
EIJMMS, Vol.3 (12), DECEMBER (2013)
Online available at

The questionnaire consists two parts. First part is to describe the data related to consumers
demographic variables, and second part to describe the consumers perception about the
variables depicted in model such as brand affect, brand trust, perceived value, and brand loyalty.

The study employed the items for measurement scales on empirically validated scales from
previous studies. The measures incorporated from the study of (Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001);
four-item index to measure brand trust, three-item index to measure the brand affect and four-
item to measure brand loyalty. Three-item for perceived value obtained from (Eggert & Ulaga,
2002). The study utilized self administrated questionnaires constructs with seven-point Likert
scales anchored by strongly disagree to strongly agree.

Cronbachs alpha for the reliability of the variables for brand affect, brand trust, perceived value,
and brand loyalty, =0.865, =0.855, =0.835, and =0.785 respectively. They are all above the
recommended cut off of 0.60. These measures are compositely reliable and internally consistent
as recommended by (Nunnally, 1978).

Results and Discussion

A correlation matrix was constructed using SPSS 19.0 to show the strength of relationship
among the variables considered in the model. The table 1 indicates that brand affect, brand trust,
and perceived value were highly correlated with brand loyalty.

Table 1: Summary of Correlations

Affect Trust Perceived value
Trust .572**
Perceived Value .631** .581**
Loyal .713** .727** .817**
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Multicollinearity test was performed to ensure the independent variables are not highly
correlated among them. The table 2 depicts the results of variance inflation factor (VIF) is below
the cutoff (10). Based on the above result there is no issue regarding multicollinearity problem to
regression analysis to prove the hypotheses (O'brien, 2007).

Table 2: Summary of Multicollinearity Diagnostics

Tolerance VIF
Brand affect 0.539 1.856
Brand trust 0.593 1.687
Perceived value 0.530 1.886

Regression analysis employed to test the hypotheses. Brand affect, brand trust, perceived value
are independent variables, and brand loyalty is dependent variable. The table 3 describes the
results of the regression analysis. The regression model was statistically significant (F= 389.822;
R2 = 0.790; p=0.000). The impact of the three independent variables on dependent variable is

EXCEL International Journal of Multidisciplinary Management Studies ________________ ISSN 2249- 8834
EIJMMS, Vol.3 (12), DECEMBER (2013)
Online available at

significant. The impact is measured with beta coefficients of brand affect (0.223;t=6.284,
p=0.000), brand trust (0.312; t-9.237; p=0.000), and perceived value (0.496; t=13.881; p=0.000).
Thus, hypotheses H1, H2, and H3 are accepted.

Table 3: Summary of Regression Analysis

Model Error Beta T Sig.
(Constant) 0.715 -5.240 0.000**
Brand affect 0.065 0.223 6.284 0.000**
Brand trust 0.037 0.312 9.237 0.000**
value 0.056 0.496 13.881 0.000**
a: dependent variable: Brand loyalty
Notes: Significant at: **p<0.01 levels, R=0.889: R2=0.790; F=389.822; Sig. F=0.000

Managerial implications and limitations

Creating and providing superior value and keeping customers continuously in the highly
competitive market place are critical strategic issues for the survival of the company. The ability
of the company to provide the value to the customers makes them to commit to repurchase and to
be loyal to the company. Companies concentrating on providing superior value create long term
profit (Trasorras, Weinstein, & Abratt, 2009). Many researchers emphasize the importance of
brand trust and brand affect impact on brand loyalty. The results of this study support the above
statement. The perceived brand value along the brand trust and brand affect contributes to the
brand loyalty. The perceived value, brand trust and brand affect influence on brand loyalty, even
though influence of brand value is little higher than other variables. Influence of perceived
value to determine the brand loyalty is 49 percent. Thus, marketing managers need to concentrate
on creating superior value along brand trust and brand affect to their customers, which help them
to enjoy great market share in the market place in this competitive marketing situation.

Limitation of this research is that the convenience sample of the study concentrated on laundry
soap consumers living in Jaffna, Sri Lanka. Thus, the results cant be generalized to all products
or location or consumers. Further researchers should focus on different product category to
generalize the determinants of brand loyalty. In addition to the above, the independent variables
trust, affect, and perceived value may correlate themselves; further research is possible to
consider these issues.

Aaker, D. A. (1991). Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand Name. .
New York: The Free Press.
Agarwal, J., & Malhotra, N. K. (2005). An integrated model of attitude and affect: theoretical
foundation and an empirical investigation. Journal of Business Research, 58, 483-593.
Agustin, C., & Singh, J. (2005). Curvilinear Effects of Consumer Loyalty Determinants in
Relational Exchanges. Journal of Marketing Research, XIII.

EXCEL International Journal of Multidisciplinary Management Studies ________________ ISSN 2249- 8834
EIJMMS, Vol.3 (12), DECEMBER (2013)
Online available at

Anckar, B., & D'Incau, D. (2002). Value Creation in Mobile Commerce: Findings from a
Consumer Survey Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application, 4(1), 43.
Anderson, R. E., & Srinivasan, S. S. (2003). E-satisfaction and e-loyalty: a contingency
framework. Psychology & Marketing, 20(2), 123-138.
Berry, L. L. (1983). Emerging perspectives on service marketing. In L. T. Berry, G. L. Shostack
& G. D. Upah (Eds.), Relationship marketing (pp. 25-28). Chicago: American Marketing
Bettman, J. R., Mary, F. L., & John, W. P. (1998). Constructive Consumer Choice Processes.
Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 187-217.
Bolton, R. N., & Drew, J. H. (1991). A multistage model of customers' assessments of service
quality and value. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(4), 375-384.
Brown, G. H. (1953). Brand loyalty-fact or fiction. Trademark Rep., 43, 251.
Callarisa Fiol, L. J., Bigne Alcaiz, E., Moliner Tena, M. A., & Garca, J. S. (2009). Customer
loyalty in clusters: perceived value and satisfaction as antecedents. Journal of Business-to-
Business Marketing, 16(3), 276-316.
Chatterjee, S. C., & Chaudhuri, A. (2005). Are trusted brands important? Marketing
Management Journal, 15(1), 1-16.
Chaudhuri, A., & Holbrook, M. B. (2001). The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect
to brand performance: the role of brand loyalty. The Journal of Marketing, 6, 81-93.
Chaudhuri, A., & Holbrook, M. B. (2002). Product-class effects on brand commitment and brand
outcomes: The role of brand trust and brand affect. The Journal of Brand Management, 10(1),
Cheng, J. M.-S., Wang, E. S.-T., Lin, J. Y.-C., & Vivek, S. D. (2009). Why do customers utilize
the internet as a retailing platform?: A view from consumer perceived value. Asia Pacific journal
of marketing and logistics, 21(1), 144-160.
Cohen, J. B., & Areni, C. S. (1991). Affect and consumer behavior. In T. S. Robertson & H. H.
Kassarjian (Eds.), Handbook of Consumer Behavior (pp. 188-240). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Corritore, C. L., Kracher, B., & Wiedenbeck, S. (2003). On-line trust: concepts, evolving
themes, a model. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58(6), 737-758.
Coulter, K. S., & Coulter, R. A. (2002). Determinants of trust in a service provider: the
moderating role of length of relationship. Journal of Services Marketing, 16(1), 35-50.
Crosby, L. A., Evans, K. R., & Cowles, D. (1990). Relationship quality in services selling: an
interpersonal influence perspective. The Journal of Marketing, 54, 68-81.
Cunningham, R. M. (1956). Brand loyalty What, where, how much? Journal of Marketing
Research, 34(1), 116-128.
Davis, S. (2002). Implementing your BAM strategy: 11 steps to making your brand a more
valuable business asset. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 19(6), 503-513.
Dekimpe, M. G., Steenkamp, J.-B. E., Mellens, M., & Vanden Abeele, P. (1997). Decline and
variability in brand loyalty. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 14(5), 405-420.
Dodds, W. B., Monroe, K. B., & Grewal, D. (1991). Effects of price, brand, and store
information on buyers' product evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(3), 307-319.
Doney, P. M., & Cannon, J. P. (1997). An examination of the nature of trust in buyer-seller
relationships. The Journal of Marketing, 61, 35-51.

EXCEL International Journal of Multidisciplinary Management Studies ________________ ISSN 2249- 8834
EIJMMS, Vol.3 (12), DECEMBER (2013)
Online available at

Dwyer, F. R., & Lagace, R. R. (1986). On the Nature and Role of Buyer-Seller Trust. In T. A.
Shimp & S. Sharma (Eds.), AMA Educators Conference Proceedings. Chicago: American
Marketing Association.
Eggert, A., & Ulaga, W. (2002). Customer perceived value: a substitute for satisfaction in
business markets? Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 17(2/3), 107-118.
Erevelles, S. (1998). The role of affect in marketing. Journal of Business Research, 42(3), 199-
Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: deviations from the Dirichlet model for repeat
purchasing. Journal of Marketing Research, 30, 478-493.
Ganesh, J., Arnold, M. J., & Reynolds, K. E. (2000). Understanding the customer base of service
providers: an examination of the differences between switchers and stayers. The Journal of
Marketing, 64, 65-87.
Gremler, D. D., & Brown, S. W. (1996). Service Loyalty: Its Nature, Its Importance and
Implications. In B. Edvardsson, S. W. Brown, R. Johnston & E. Scheuing (Eds.), Advancing
Service Quality A Global Perspective (pp. 171-181). New York: ISQA.
Gundlach, G. T., Achrol, R. S., & Mentzer, J. T. (1995). The structure of commitment in
exchange. The Journal of Marketing, 59, 78-92.
Hinterhuber, A. (2004). Towards value-based pricing : An integrative framework for decision
making. Industrial Marketing Management, 33(8), 765-778.
Jacoby, J., & Chestnut, R. W. (1978). Brand Loyalty: Measurement and Management New York:
John Wiley & Sons.
Johnson, M. D., Herrmann, A., & Huber, F. (2006). The evolution of loyalty intentions. Journal
of Marketing, 70(2), 122-132.
Kandampully, J., & Suhartanto, D. (2000). Customer loyalty in the hotel industry: the role of
customer satisfaction and image. International journal of contemporary hospitality management,
12(6), 346-351.
Keller, K. L. (2003). Strategic brand management: building, measuring , and managing brand
equity (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NY: Prentice Hall.
Keon, J. W. (1980). The bargain value model and a comparison of managerial implications with
the linear learning model. Management Science, 26(11), 1117-1130.
Khan, N. (2010). Functional and relational value influence on commitment and future intention:
the case of banking industry. Journal of International Social Research, 3(10), 376-391.
Kotler, P. (1997). Marketing Management (9th ed.). USA: Prentice Hall Inc.
Lam, S. Y., Shankar, V., Erramilli, M. K., & Murthy, B. (2004). Customer value, satisfaction,
loyalty, and switching costs: an illustration from a business-to-business service context. Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32(3), 293-311.
Lewis, J. D., & Weigert, A. (1985). Trust as a social reality. Social forces, 63(4), 967-985.
Lichtenstein, D. R., & Bearden, W. O. (1989). Contextual influences on perceptions of
merchant-supplied reference prices. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(1), 55-66.
Lichtenstein, D. R., Netemeyer, R. G., & Burton, S. (1990). Distinguishing coupon proneness
from value consciousness: an acquisition-transaction utility theory perspective. The Journal of
Marketing, 54(3), 54-67.
Lindgreen, A., & Wynstra, F. (2005). Value in business markets: what do we know? Where are
we going? Industrial Marketing Management, 34(7), 732-748.
Liu, Y. (2007). The long-term impact of loyalty programs on consumer purchase behavior and
loyalty. Journal of Marketing, 71(4), 19-35.

EXCEL International Journal of Multidisciplinary Management Studies ________________ ISSN 2249- 8834
EIJMMS, Vol.3 (12), DECEMBER (2013)
Online available at

Matzler, K., Grabner-Krauter, S., & Bidmon, S. (2008). Risk aversion and brand loyalty: the
mediating role of brand trust and brand affect. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 17(3),
Monroe, K. B. (1990). Pricing, Making Profitable Decisions (2nd ed.). New York, NY:
Monroe, K. B., & Chapman, J. D. (1987). Framing effects on buyers' subjective product
evaluations. Advances in consumer research, 14(1), 193-197.
Moorman, C., Deshpande, R., & Zaltman, G. (1993). Factors affecting trust in market research
relationships. The Journal of Marketing, 57, 81-101.
Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing.
The Journal of Marketing, 58, 20-38.
Nunnally, C. J. (1978). Psychometric Theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
O'brien, R. M. (2007). A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Quality
& Quantity, 41(5), 673-690.
Parasuraman, A., & Grewal, D. (2000). The impact of technology on the quality-value-loyalty
chain: a research agenda. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(1), 168-174.
Perera, Q. (2010). Sunlight market leader with 75% share felicitates its users. Asian tribune,
12(363). Retrieved from
Ravald, A., & Gronroos, C. (1996). The value concept and relationship marketing. European
Journal of marketing, 30(2), 19-30.
Reichheld, F. (1996). The Loyalty Effect: The Hidden Force Behind Growth, Profits and Lasting
Value. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Reichheld, F. F., & Schefter, P. (2000). E-loyalty: your secret weapon on the web. Harvard
Business Review, 78(4), 105-113.
Riegelsberger, J., Sasse, M. A., & McCarthy, J. D. (2005). The mechanics of trust: a framework
for research and design. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 62(3), 381-422.
Ringberg, T., & Gupta, S. F. (2003). The importance of understanding the symbolic world of
customers in asymmetric business-to-business relationships. Journal of Business & Industrial
Marketing, 18(6/7), 607-626.
Trasorras, R., Weinstein, A., & Abratt, R. (2009). Value, satisfaction, loyalty and retention in
professional services. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 27(5), 615-632.
Urban, G. L., Sultan, F., & Qualls, W. J. (2000). Placing trust at the center of your internet
strategy. Sloan Management Review, 42(1), 39-48.
Walker, R. H., Johnson, L. W., & Leonard, S. (2006). Re-thinking the conceptualization of
customer value and service quality within the service-profit chain. Managing Service Quality,
16(1), 23-36.
Wright, P. (1975). Consumer choice strategies: Simplifying vs. optimizing. Journal of Marketing
Research, 12, 60-67.
Wu, W.-p., Chan, T., & Lau, H. H. (2008). Does consumers' personal reciprocity affect future
purchase intentions? Journal of Marketing Management, 24(3-4), 345-360.
Yang, Z., & Peterson, R. T. (2004). Customer perceived value, satisfaction, and loyalty: the role
of switching costs. Psychology & Marketing, 21(10), 799-822.
Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end model
and synthesis of evidence. The Journal of Marketing, 52(33), 2-22.


View publication stats