Promoting costumer involvement with service brand

Introduction:

Food sector at any part of world has its own worth. Food is a necessary part of anyone’s life. But
most of the places in the world prefer food more than anything. They are love to eat from outside
every day. They are addicted to this type of food. As I was told you, food is important at
anyplace in world. So, it is important to study on this sector in our country. Same as the most of
places, Gujranwala is most famous city in Pakistan from food references. The people of this city
are recognized from how much they love to eat food. It is a regular part for the people of this city
to eat from outside only for taste. At this type of place, where peoples are addicted to food, there
was a lot of competition in food market. So, which factors is necessary to attract intention of
consumer. In the huge competition of market, people only select those restaurants where they get
some factors that explain in our study. It is not surprising to find a near food market in
Gujranwala. This huge growth of food market in Gujranwala helps managers and researchers to
better understand food sector in Gujranwala. Opening a new food sector/shop is one of the great
opportunities, because its trend moves upward. But the problem is the failure of many food shops
because of huge competition. Industry standardization is one of the reasons, that food shops do
not survive for a long. The core element that develop brand is Brand Loyalty, because it is not a
problem to find a food shop. It is loyalty that attract costumer to again visit. Those factor that
help in understanding the customer brand involvement can help in making marketing strategies
to develop long term relations. When person is more likely to spend time and energy in
restaurant, which help in develop loyalty. Which leads to positive success in business.
Behavioral intention is more and more important factor that attracts consumer toward its brand.
In this study we focus some factor that effects intention of a consumer.

To check effect on behavioral intention we use some factor to study. First on is Costumer brand
identification. Brand identification is the term that we use for brand recognition. In first part it
effects on brand involvement and brand decision involvement and in second part in effects
through mediating on behavioral intention. Costumer brand identification has a positive effect on
brand involvement. It means if person recognize the brand then it is compulsory that he involve
with this brand. But in next portion, brand involvement does not affect behavioral intention.
which says, that only the involvement with brand not affect the intention of a person.
Furthermore, we see that costumer brand identification effects on brand decision involvement.
But in this case, brand decision also effects intention of a consumer. Involvement of decision
about brand by consumer is effect on intention of person. Moreover, service value is the next
factor we study in this research for behavioral intention. Service value is an important predictor
of brand involvement. It presents that service value has an importance to getting involve
costumer with brand. But service value not effect on brand decision involvement. Decision
involvement do not change with the change in service value. Self-congruity has positive effect
on both brand involvement and brand decision involvement. It effects, and make person to
involve in brand and getting decision involvement. Brand involvement also effect brand decision
involvement. But in case of costumer brand identification and service value, they do not effect
on behavioral intention of consumer. Intention not changes by these factors. But self-congruity is
proving an important factor in this case. It effects brand involvement, brand decision
involvement and behavioral intention. Behavioral intention is affected by only self-congruity.

The main objective of this study is to do a research in food sector of Gujranwala and to check the
effect of following factors on behavioral intention. To use these factors in the research of
behavioral intention is to clear the idea of this study in food sector. It totally understands that
which factor is useful to attract costumer by his intention. And which factors are effect on brand
involvement and brand decision involvement. Because in many cases only brand involvement is
necessary to make its effect on other variable. Total five variable are use in this study. Through
these five variables we develop fifteen hypotheses. It means fifteen effects we found in this
research.

Our contributing is this research is to add a new variable by expanding previous research and a
variable is behavioral intention. Main aim is to attach behavioral intention in this study. First part
is about behavioral intention. Second aim is to study this research in food sector of Gujranwala.
Our study theoretically contributes in the literature of behavioral intention in food sector. After
this study, mangers are clearly knowing that which things are getting involved in increasing
intention of consumer and from most of the studies, behavioral intention effects the sale of
brand. This research is directly getting involved in increasing sale of brands.

Literature:

1. Relationship Between Customer Brand Identification and Brand Involvement: -

Ahearne, Bhattacharya, & Gruen, (2005) and Vaux Halliday & Kuenzel, (2008) explore that
strong customer brand identification can give more desirable outcome of customers towards the
brand. Even so countless studies have figured out expository role of customer brand
identification towards establishing brand involvement but carrying out research on fast food has
lifted unexplained. Moreover, the role of customer brand identification has carried out on
different sectors but they have brought forth conflicting outcome. To the peerless of author
capability till now, no studies have testified the effect of customer brand identification on the
evaluation of fast food. Vaux Halliday & Kuenzel, (2008) suggested that researcher promote the
importance of customer brand identification as it brings forth more appropriate knowledge of
brand management. Moreover, So, King, Sparks, & Wang, (2013) argued that customer brand
identification could affect the customer’s judgment of brand. Olsen, (2007) explores that
customer brand identification deal with the customer’s psychological relationship of thinking,
perception and appreciates his or her attachment with a brand. Moreover, Kim, Han, & Park,
(2001) define the customer brand identification as the strength to which the brand demonstrates
and heighten the consumer’s specification. Belén del Río, Vazquez, & Iglesias, (2001), Carlson,
Suter, & Brown, (2008) tell the difference between personal identification function and social
identification of brand. Belén del Río et al., (2001) proposed that personal identification function
means that consumer can associate with single brand and establish feeling of sympathy with
brand whereas social identification function mention the brand ability to perform as
communication tool allowing consumer to demonstrate the wish to merge with group to make up
the environment. Bergami & Bagozzi, (2000), Podnar, (2004) argued that the researchers have
the tendency to research positive impact of identification on involvement habitually in
organization context. Earlier researcher document that consumer identification may have
affirmative effect on brand involvement (Brown, Barry, Dacin, & Gunst, 2005), (C. K. Kim et
al., 2001). Bhattacharya & Sen, (2003) proposed that brand identification bring people to become
bind with the organization, which inspire them to involve with the achievement of goals.
Furthermore, Bhattacharya & Sen, (2003), Brown et al., (2005) customer brand identification
could be one of the important element that affect brand involvement. Stokburger-Sauer,
Ratneshwar, & Sen, (2012) argued that depend upon the relationship between customer
identification and brand involvement it is supposed that when customer appreciate more
customer brand identification; they have tendency to show stronger brand and brand decision
involvement. Thus, following hypothesis is proposed;

H1. Customer brand identification positively influences their (a) brand involvement and (b)
brand-decision involvement.

2. Relationship between Service Value and Brand Involvement:

The concept of value is ancient and indigenous; many researchers have acknowledged an
insufficient attention in understanding and calculating perceived value (Zeithaml, 1988), (Dodds,
Monroe, & Grewal, 1991), (Sapp & Jensen, 1998), (Holbrook, 1994). Concentration on this topic
is restarted in past few years. Even so countless studies have figured out role of value but
carrying out research on fast food sector lifted unexplained. No studies are declared the result of
service value on food sector. Levitt (1960) was the first researcher who nominates the term value
in marketing field. His point of view is that if product can satisfy the customer then it has value
to survive. McQuitty & Sierra, (2005) explore that perceived value represent the response-based
approach. It describes how customers process and estimate the information during the service
delivery process. Zeithaml, (1988) argued that perceived value talk about the customer’s
universal judgment towards the product depends upon its advantage and cost. According to this
definition, value has four meanings 1. Value is whatever one needs in a product 2. Value is
quality of product 3. Value is low price 4. Value is what consumer acquires for what they give.
Moreover, Parasuraman & Grewal, (2000) proposed that value has four types; acquisition value,
transaction value, in-use value, and redemption value. They define acquisition value as profit
gain for the specific price and transaction value as the gladness the consumer get for an excellent
deal. In-use value is the benefit derived from the consumption of product and redemption value
is the advantage received at the time of trade in. There have been some studies, which have
indirect relationship between involvement and value. Beatty & Kahle, (1988), Professor &
Walker, (2003) explore that involvement has been linked to the brand commitment and money
spent (Chaudhuri & Shim, 1993). D. Kim & Jang, (2017) suggested that fast food customers take
care to accomplish their values. Therefore, it is predicted that when customers perceive value
during utilization process such as price or high quality they are more expected to entail with
brand involvement and brand decision involvement. Thus, following hypothesis is derived:
H2: Service value positively influence (a) brand involvement and (b) brand decision
involvement.

3. Relation between Self-Congruity and Brand Involvement: -

Laaksonen, (1994) explore that individual state of customer involvement describe individual
self-reaction. Customer looks after to assume his or her own image or their own-identity through
their expending behavior. Belk, (1988) explain that occupancy can represent the self, squeezing
persons own achievements and show common position. D. Kim & Jang, (2017) suggested that
customers opinion on self can be connected to the services they consume, such as fast food they
visit. This suggest that customers identify their own concept through fast food utilization due to
significant nature of the fast food industry. It is predicted that customers would show positive
response to the fast food shop when fast food brand closely related to customer perception of
self-congruity. Thus, following hypothesis is derived:

H3: Self-congruity positively affects (a) customer brand involvement and (b) brand decision
involvement.

4. Relationship between brand involvement and brand decision involvement:

Muncy & Hunt, (1984), Mittal & Lee, (1989) suggested that the study of customer involvement
has an extended history spread strongly over the last 40 years give more attention on different
forms of involvement including ego involvement by (Sherif & Cantril, 1947), purchase
involvement by (Slama & Tashchian, 1985), and purchase decision involvement by (Mittal &
Lee, 1989). Involvement in marketing research acquire small attention, thus it could be valuable
in this topic. No studies explain the brand involvement on fast food sector but in this paper, we
explain the effect of involvement on fast food sector. Capella & Kinard, (2006) explore that
customer involvement is important because it affect customers utilization experience and service
process. McQuitty & Sierra, (2005) explain involvement as the shared leadership between
service contributor and customers. Day, (1970) also define the involvement as “normal level of
curiosity in the items or the median of the item to the persons self-confidence. Bloch & Richins,
(1983), Shaffer & Sherrell, (1997) argued that involvement has two types; enduring involvement
and situational involvement. Enduring involvement deal with the knowledge about the products
that customer yield and keep in reserve in memory (Celsi & Olson, 1988). In contrast, situational
involvement is momentary take place for certain purchase condition (Shaffer & Sherrell, 1997).
Prior researchers disclose the relation between involvement and purchase decision. Richens and
Richins & Bloch, (1991), Shaffer & Sherrell, (1997) suggested that high involvement result in
high level of satisfaction if there is high satisfaction then customers tend to purchase the brand.
For instance, consumers tend to eat fast food at specific fast food shop, when they are more
satisfied with the fast food brand so following hypothesis is established:

H4: Brand involvement positively influence brand decision involvement.

5. Relationship between brand involvement and behavioral intention: -

Bloch & Richins, (1983), Lovelock, Patterson, & Walker, (1998), Schiffman & Kanuk, (1991)
explore that the involvement is pivotal when deliberating the procedure of purchase when pre-
owned by persons is neglect by similar researchers Day, (1970) define involvement like the
universal point of fascination in the item or principal of the item to the individual’s self-worth
configuration. Engel, Warsaw & Kinnear, (1987) promoted that involvement rely on
requirement, self-perception and private reply (Celsi & Olson, 1988). Involvement describes the
individual’s sensation about significance of item on their requirement and delight (Zaichkowsky,
1988). Tiao, Tsai, Kuo, Chen, & Yang, (2008) influence that involvement is well founded to
influence the consumer buying actions in determination procedure Tiao et al., (2008) explore that
old studies found a positive effect of involvement on buying manners. Involvement is
recommended as moderating variable in huge number of studies (Olsen, 2007). At penetrating
level of involvement individual, disclose liking of a brand and through back this liking in
purchasing of brand. Researcher expose that buyer is grab in repetition buying of brand because
he/she has an excellent feeling with being a customer of that brand. Thus, the following
hypothesis is purposed:

H5: Brand involvement positively influences behavior intension.

6. Relationship between brand decision involvement and behavioral intention:

Brand decision involvement is different from brand involvement. Mittal & Lee, (1989) suggested
that brand decision involvement is defined as “the area of fascination and significance that a
consumer bring to include involvement decision task and explore that decision involvement is
the most important form of involvement, although it influences the fascination of consumer in
 forming the choice of brand. Friedman & Smith, (1993) found in their research that when
individual choose a favor, his involvement rises so he or she try to get more information. Brand
involvement plays a vital role in consumer’s intention. Petty, Cacioppo, & Schumann, (1983)
explore that the increase in product involvement will cause higher co-relation. Neese & Taylor,
(1994) in their research track down that high involvement cause positive behavior towards the
brand. Thus, the following hypothesis is derived:

H6: Brand Decision involvement positively influences behavioral intention.

Customer Brand
Identification
Brand Involvement

Service Behavioral Intension

Value

Brand Decision
Self Involvement
Congruity

Methodology

One of the most active fields in terms of research is fast foods .The food service sector of the
food industry represents approximately half of the overall food industry z.US$313 billion in
1996, The fast food business in Pakistan served as a study context .Fast food is one of the most
important factor in the world specially Pakistan .Fast food refers to food that can be prepared and
service quickly .Fast food is popular because the food is inexpensive ,convenient and tastes good
.The Fast food is one typical form of global business (Emerson,1990).The Fast food industry is
growing rapidly in recent years .Recently ,there are Four Major Fast food in Pakistan
.McDonalds ,KFC ,Subway ,King Pizza ranks by the first markets share despite fierce challenges
by foreign fast food competitions .Fast food business is one of the most popular business is
Pakistan .Increasing the Fast food business day by day justify not the customers taste but also
change in culture in Pakistan ,which indicates the openers to global trends .Young generations
are the major elements of the fast food business in Pakistan .The experience of the young youth
generation are spending fashionable life style so the open minded youth visits the fast food shop
to a form of self-expression and for their self-identity (Euro monitor International,2004).The
purpose of this research is to measure the values of eating out and, fast food consumption .The
perception of the fast food is different from the one another .We used the survey Questionnaire
for collection of data .200 Respondent are answer who are the customer of fast food .All the
questionnaire were distributed only those people who are the customers of the fast food
personally.200 Questionnaire were completed ,in which some are male and some are Female
.The analysis of the survey questionnaire by using the Regressions with SPSS .The
questionnaire was designed to find out the value of eating out .The measurement of value of fast
food sector include five point Liker-Scale in which (5)is “Strongly agree” (4) is “agree” (3) is
somewhat (2) is disagree (1) is strongly disagree.

Table 1: Table of Correlation matrix

CBI SC SV BI BDI B_I

CBI 1
SC .494** 1
SV .224** .349** 1
BI .260** .267** .260** 1
BDI .254** .199** .200** .209** 1
B_I .120 .156* .064 .201** .272** 1
**Significant at 0.01
*Significant at 0.05
Table 4.2 show Pearson R co-relation coefficient. There is insignificant relationship between
CBI and SC (r=0.494, p>0.01). In significant relationship between CBI and SV (r=0.224,
p>0.01). Table show the insignificant relationship of CBI and BI (r=0.260, p>0.01). There is
insignificant relationship between CBI and BDI (r=.254, p>0.01). There is also insignificant
relationship between CBI and B_I (r=0.120, p>0.05). Table is also indicating the insignificant
relationship between SC and SV (r=0.349, p>0.01). There is insignificant relationship between
SC and BI (r=0.267, p>0.01). There is insignificant relationship between SC and BDI (r=0.199,
p>0.05). Table also show the insignificant relationship of SC and B_I (r=0. 156.p>0.05). There is
insignificant relationship between SV and BI (r=0.260, p>0.01). Table show the insignificant
relationship SV and BDI (r=0.200, p>0.05). It can also show the insignificant relationship
between SV and BI (r=0.064, p>0.01). There is insignificant relationship between BI and BDI
(r=0.209, p>0.01). There is also insignificant relationship between BI and B_I (r=0,201, p>0.01).
Table show the insignificant relationship between BDI and B_I (r=0.272, p>0.01).

Table 2: Table of Data analysis:

Structural equation modeling

IBM SPSS Amos V.24 used to measure the structural equational modeling. First CFA tested to
confirm of goodness of fit of the model.

Variables Standardize Loading Composite Reliability

CBI - 0.569
CBI1 .537 -
CBI2 .459 -
CBI3 .487 -
CBI4 .508 -
SC - 0.630
SC1 .514 -
SC2 .568 -
SC3 .563 -
SC4 541 -
SV - 0.497
SV1 .666 -
SV2 .479 -
BI - 0.682
BI1 .773 -
BI2 .664 -
BD - 0.424
BD1 .485 -
BD2 .551 -
B_I - 0.552
B_I1 .337 -
B_I2 .642 -
B_I3 .624 -
All the variable is within range. Composite reliability is also achieved within threshold criteria.
The model fit indesis shows that goodness of fit model has been achieved. X 2/CMIN=1.434,
CFI=.901, GFI=.924, RMSEA=.047.

Table 3 Unstandardized Regression weight

Estimates S. E C.R P
CBI ---> BI .752 .244 3.079 .002
BI ---> B_I .081 .053 1.521 .128
CBI ---> B_I .124 0.88 1.417 .157
CBI ---> BI ---> B_I .059 .084 .697 .486
CBI ---> BD .494 .210 2.354 .019
BD ---> B_I .327 .172 1.901 .057
CBI ---> BD ---> B_I -.011 .123 -.087 .931
SV ---> BI .775 .263 2.943 .003
BI ---> B_I .094 .052 1.804 .071
SV ---> B_I .085 .069 1.223 .221
SV ---> BI ---> B_I .011 .081 .130 .897
SV ---> BD .250 .150 1.661 .097
BD ---> B_I .339 .168 2.021 .043
SV ---> BD ---> B_I .000 .082 -.003 .998
SC ---> BI .630 .182 3.457 ***
BI ---> B_I .073 .044 1.676 .094
SC ---> B_I .119 .066 1.803 .071
SC ---> BI ---> B_I .082 .066 1.248 .212
SC ---> BD .237 .131 1.806 .071
BD ---> B_I .315 .158 1.990 .047
SC ---> BD ---> B_I .072 .131 1.806 .071
BI ---> BD .302 .121 2.490 .013

Table 4 Unstandardized Regression weight

Hypothesis Accept/Reject
H1: Costumer Brand identification Positively influences the Brand Accept
Involvement.
H2: Brand Involvement positively influences the Behavioral intention. Reject
H3 Costumer Brand identification positively influences the Brand decision Accept
involvement.
H4: Brand decision involvement positively influences the Behavioral Accept
intention.
H5: Brand Involvement positively mediates between the Costumer Brand Reject
identification and Behavioral intention.
H6: Brand decision involvement positively mediates between the Costumer Reject
 Brand identification and Behavioral intention.
H7: Service value Positively influences the Brand Involvement. Accept
H8 Service value positively influences the Brand decision involvement. Reject
H9: Brand Involvement positively mediates between the Service value and Reject
Behavioral intention.
H10: Brand decision involvement positively mediates between the Service Reject
value and Behavioral intention.
H11: Self congruity Positively influences the Brand Involvement. Accept
H12: Self congruity positively influences the Brand decision involvement. Accept
H13: Brand Involvement positively mediates between the Self congruity and Reject
Behavioral intention.
H14: Brand decision involvement positively mediates between the Self Accept
congruity and Behavioral intention.
H15: Brand involvement positively influences the Brand decision Accept
involvement.

Table 3 shows that there is a positive and significant relation between CBI & BI (β=.752,
t=3.079, p<0.08) thus H1 was accepted. BI & B_I show inconsequential effect between each
other (β=.081, t=1.521, p=.128) thus H2 was rejected. Significant results show between the CBI
& BD (β=.494, t=2.354, p<0.08) thus H3 was Accepted. Considerable results found between the
BD and B_I (β=.327, t=1.901, p<0.08) thus H4 was accepted. CBI & B_I between the mediation
of BI shows insubstantial effect between each other (β=.059, t=.697, p=.486) thus H5 was
rejected. CBI & B_I between the mediation of BD shows insignificant effect between each other
(β=-.011, t=-.087, p=.931) thus H6 was rejected. there is a positive and significant relation
between SV & BI (β=.775, t=2.943, p<0.08) thus H7 was accepted. Inconsiderable results found
between the SV and BD (β=.250, t=1.661, p=.097) thus H8 was rejected. SV & B_I between the
mediation of BI shows insubstantial effect between each other (β=.011, t=.130, p=.897) thus H9
was rejected. SV & B_I between the mediation of BD shows insubstantial effect between each
other (β=.000, t=-.003, p=.998) thus H10 was rejected. Significant results show between the SC
& BI (β=.630, t=3.457, p<0.08) thus H11 was Accepted. Significant results show between the
SC & BD (β=.237, t=1.806, p<0.08) thus H12 was Accepted. SC & B_I between the mediation
of BI shows insubstantial effect between each other (β=.082, t=1.248, p=.212) thus H13 was
rejected. SC & B_I between the mediation of BD shows substantial effect between each other
(β=.072, t=1.806, p<0.08) thus H14 was accepted. There is a significant result between SC and
BD (β=.302, t=2.490, p<0.08) thus H14 was accepted.

Conclusion:

Our study examine how Behavioral intention enhanced in the sector of food of Gujranwala,
Pakistan. Food sector is not only place for eating. It provides place to work, relax and interact
with others. Because of high competition of food in this area, it is difficult to survive in this
business. In result of this competition, generally behavioral intention increases. In this research
found the process of building behavioral intention through costumer brand involvement. To
check the action on behavioral intention of costumer, we collect 200 sample from the following
restaurant visitors (McDonald, KFC, Subway and King Pizza). Effect of behavioral intention
from costumer brand identification do not accept. Brand identification positively effect on brand
involvement, but brand involvement does not affect behavioral intention. Positive effect found
between brand identification and brand decision involvement and brand decision involvement
have same affect on behavioral intention. But mediation of brand decision involvement between
brand identification and behavioral intention is not accepted. Behavioral intention also not
effected by service value. Service value effects on brand involvement, but not on brand decision.
Only Self congruity effects positively on behavioral intention. Brand decision also effect by
brand involvement.

Costumer brand identification is an important predictor of brand involvement. Because Costumer

intention to choose brand is increases after brand identification. This result also matches with the
result of (S.-H. Kim & Lee, 2017) article. We also use this article as our base paper. The research
of our base paper is on coffee shop. But we try to find the action on behavioral intention in food
sector. And we found the same result in food sector. Brand identification also effect on brand
decision involvement. Costumer only take good decision about brand when he knows the brand.
In our food sector some of the restaurants are selected as a sample and in result that costumer
only choose brand when he knows the quality of brand. Brand decision involvement effects on
behavioral intention. Intention of consumer about brand is change with his/he decision. Brand
involvement do not affect intention of consumer. One research shows that influence of
involvement depends upon the price. This result shows that those people who are high in price
are high in product involvement (Hollebeek, Jaeger, Brodie, & Balemi, 2007). But our research
is not about low or high involvement. So, our result shows a bit change in research. From our
research brand involvement do not affect behavioral intention. Service value affect positively on
brand involvement. As we know service value depends upon the quality and performance. So,
much the service value is greater more effect in brand involvement. But service value has
opposite effect on brand decision involvement. It does not affect decision involvement. Self-
congruity has positive affect on both brand involvement and brand decision involvement. From
all these results only, service value has different result on brand decision involvement from our
base paper. the reason to change result is to change in study sector or in sample size. And all the
above, the Behavioral intention only effected by self-congruity and brand identification and
service value do not affect behavioral intention of consumer. Brand involvement and brand
decision involvement has positive effect between each other. Because these variables are closely
related to each other. Brand involvement increases so the decision involvement also increases.

Managerial implications:

Our first contribution in this research is behavioral intention. We add new variable in this
research to check effect on it in different sector. This research is useful for food sector of
Gujranwala brands. This tells how to increase behavioral intention of consumer. Managing
restaurants is not about provide good service. This research changes the mind to increase the
intention of consumer. Especially when environment is congruent with costumer expectation. A
successful restaurant relate brand to costumer. First, thing to do is to build a strong name like a
successful brand. After that this research is help to develop the intention. To build reputation use
different advertising techniques. Use advertising researches. Second, restaurants build a good
environment where consumer feel better for himself. Third, manager should create
multidimensional values for consumers to enhance consumption experience.

Limitations:

This study provides practical and theoretical contribution, but these limitations make further
researches. First, for better conclusion increase sample size. And to apply this research in
different areas, make research in different countries. Apply this research result in food sector. To
apply in other sector, make research in different sector to check different results. Might be every
sector shows different results. For next research, use situational variables and make effect as a
moderate or mediate variable. More area covered in research more better results are shown and
more area use this research.

Ahearne, M., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Gruen, T. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of

customer-company identification: Expanding the role of relationship marketing. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 90(3), 574.

Beatty, S. E., & Kahle, L. R. (1988). Alternative hierarchies of the attitude-behavior relationship:

The impact of brand commitment and habit. Journal of the Academy of Marketing

Science, 16(2), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02723310

Belén del Río, A., Vazquez, R., & Iglesias, V. (2001). The effects of brand associations on

consumer response. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(5), 410–425.

Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the Extended Self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2),

139–168. https://doi.org/10.1086/209154

Bergami, M., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2000). Self-categorization, affective commitment and group self-

esteem as distinct aspects of social identity in the organization. British Journal of Social

Psychology, 39(4), 555–577. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466600164633

Bhattacharya, C. b., & Sen, S. (2003). Consumer-Company Identification: A Framework for

Understanding Consumers’ Relationships with Companies. Journal of Marketing, 67(2),

76–88. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.67.2.76.18609

Bloch, P. H., & Richins, M. L. (1983). A Theoretical Model for the Study of Product Importance

Perceptions. Journal of Marketing, 47(3), 69–81. https://doi.org/10.2307/1251198

Brown, T. J., Barry, T. E., Dacin, P. A., & Gunst, R. F. (2005). Spreading the Word:

Investigating Antecedents of Consumers’ Positive Word-of-Mouth Intentions and

Behaviors in a Retailing Context ,

Spreading the Word: Investigating Antecedents of Consumers’ Positive Word-of-Mouth

 Intentions and Behaviors in a Retailing Context. Journal of the Academy of Marketing

Science, 33(2), 123–138. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070304268417

Capella, M. L., & Kinard, B. R. (2006). Relationship marketing: the influence of consumer

involvement on perceived service benefits. Journal of Services Marketing, 20(6), 359–

368. https://doi.org/10.1108/08876040610691257

Carlson, B. D., Suter, T. A., & Brown, T. J. (2008). Social versus psychological brand

community: The role of psychological sense of brand community. Journal of Business

Research, 61(4), 284–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.06.022

Celsi, R. L., & Olson, J. C. (1988). The Role of Involvement in Attention and Comprehension

Processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 210–224.

https://doi.org/10.1086/209158

Chaudhuri, S., & Shim, K. (1993). Query optimization in the presence of foreign functions. In

VLDB (Vol. 93, pp. 529–542). Citeseer.

Day, G. S. (1970). Buyer attitudes and brand choice behavior. Free Pr.

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.

https://doi.org/10.2307/3172866

Friedman, M. L., & Smith, L. J. (1993). Consumer evaluation processes in a service letting.

Journal of Services Marketing, 7(2), 47–61.

Holbrook, M. B. (1994). The nature of customer value: an axiology of services in the

consumption experience. Service Quality: New Directions in Theory and Practice, 21,

21–71.
Hollebeek, L. D., Jaeger, S. R., Brodie, R. J., & Balemi, A. (2007). The influence of involvement

on purchase intention for new world wine. Food Quality and Preference, 18(8), 1033–

1049.

Kim, C. K., Han, D., & Park, S.-B. (2001). The effect of brand personality and brand

identification on brand loyalty: Applying the theory of social identification. Japanese

Psychological Research, 43(4), 195–206. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5884.00177

Kim, D., & Jang, S. (Shawn). (2017). Symbolic Consumption in Upscale Cafés

, Symbolic Consumption in Upscale Cafés:

Examining Korean Gen Y Consumers’ Materialism, Conformity, Conspicuous

Tendencies, and Functional Qualities , Examining Korean Gen Y

Consumers’ Materialism, Conformity, Conspicuous Tendencies, and Functional

Qualities. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 41(2), 154–179.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1096348014525633

Kim, S.-H., & Lee, S. (Ally). (2017). Promoting customers’ involvement with service brands:

evidence from coffee shop customers. Journal of Services Marketing, 31(7), 733–744.

https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-03-2016-0133

Laaksonen, P. (1994). Consumer involvement: Concepts and research. Routledge.

Lovelock, C. H., Patterson, P. G., & Walker, R. H. (1998). Services Marketing: Australia-New

Zealand.

McQuitty, S., & Sierra, J. J. (2005). Service providers and customers: social exchange theory and

service loyalty. Journal of Services Marketing, 19(6), 392–400.

https://doi.org/10.1108/08876040510620166
Mittal, B., & Lee, M.-S. (1989). A causal model of consumer involvement. Journal of Economic

Psychology, 10(3), 363–389. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-4870(89)90030-5

Muncy, J. A., & Hunt, S. D. (1984). Consumer Involvement: Definitional Issues and Research

Directions. ACR North American Advances, NA-11. Retrieved from

http://acrwebsite.org/volumes/6241/volumes/v11/NA-11

Neese, W. T., & Taylor, R. D. (1994). Verbal strategies for indirect comparative advertising.

Journal of Advertising Research, 34(2), 56–69.

Olsen, S. O. (2007). Repurchase loyalty: The role of involvement and satisfaction. Psychology &

Marketing, 24(4), 315–341. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20163

Parasuraman, A., & Grewal, D. (2000). The Impact of Technology on the Quality-Value-Loyalty

Chain: A Research Agenda ,

The Impact of Technology on the Quality-Value-Loyalty Chain: A Research Agenda.

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(1), 168–174.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070300281015

Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and Peripheral Routes to

Advertising Effectiveness: The Moderating Role of Involvement. Journal of Consumer

Research, 10(2), 135–146. https://doi.org/10.1086/208954

Podnar, K. (2004). Corporate reputation, orgnizational identification and commitment.

Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). Ljubljana: Faculty of Social Sciences.

Professor, S. K., & Walker, D. (2003). Empirical developments in the measurement of

involvement, brand loyalty and their relationship in grocery markets. Journal of Strategic

Marketing, 11(4), 271–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254032000159072

Richins, M. L., & Bloch, P. H. (1991). Post-purchase product satisfaction: Incorporating the

effects of involvement and time. Journal of Business Research, 23(2), 145–158.

https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-2963(91)90025-S

Sapp, S. G., & Jensen, H. H. (1998). An Evaluation of the Health Belief Model for Predicting

Perceived and Actual Dietary Quality1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(3),

235–248. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1998.tb01704.x

Schiffman, L. G., & Kanuk, L. L. (1991). Con-sumer Behavior. Prentice-Hall, Engle-wood

Cliffs.

Shaffer, T. R., & Sherrell, D. L. (1997). Consumer satisfaction with health-care services: The

influence of involvement. Psychology & Marketing, 14(3), 261–285.

Sherif, M., & Cantril, H. (1947). The psychology of ego-involvements: Social attitudes and

identifications. Hoboken, NJ, US: John Wiley & Sons Inc. https://doi.org/10.1037/10840-

000

Slama, M. E., & Tashchian, A. (1985). Selected Socioeconomic and Demographic

Characteristics Associated with Purchasing Involvement. Journal of Marketing, 49(1),

72–82. https://doi.org/10.2307/1251177

So, K. K. F., King, C., Sparks, B. A., & Wang, Y. (2013). The influence of customer brand

identification on hotel brand evaluation and loyalty development. International Journal

of Hospitality Management, 34, 31–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.02.002

Stokburger-Sauer, N., Ratneshwar, S., & Sen, S. (2012). Drivers of consumer–brand

identification. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 29(4), 406–418.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2012.06.001
Tiao, M.-M., Tsai, S.-S., Kuo, H.-W., Chen, C.-L., & Yang, C.-Y. (2008). Epidemiological

features of biliary atresia in Taiwan, a national study 1996–2003. Journal of

Gastroenterology and Hepatology, 23(1), 62–66.

Vaux Halliday, S., & Kuenzel, S. (2008). Investigating antecedents and consequences of brand

identification. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 17(5), 293–304.

https://doi.org/10.1108/10610420810896059

Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1988). Involvement and the Price Cue. ACR North American Advances, NA-

15. Retrieved from http://acrwebsite.org/volumes/6833/volumes/v15/NA-15

Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality, and Value: A Means-End

Model and Synthesis of Evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 2–22.

https://doi.org/10.2307/1251446