The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0960-4529.htm
MSQ
24,2
184
Received 23 April 2013
Revised 26 August 2013
10 November 2013
30 December 2013
Accepted 30 December 2013
Managing Service Quality
Vol. 24 No. 2, 2014
pp. 184-204
r Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0960-4529
DOI 10.1108/MSQ-04-2013-0072
The impact of relational bonds on
brand loyalty: the mediating effect
of brand relationship quality
Chao-Chin Huang
Institute of International Management, National Cheng Kung University,
Tainan City, Taiwan, R.O.C
Shih-Chieh Fang
Department of Business Administration, National Cheng Kung University,
Tainan City, Taiwan, R.O.C
Shyh-Ming Huang
Department of Marketing and Logistics Management,
Southern Taiwan University of Science and Technology,
Tainan City, Taiwan, R.O.C
Shao-Chi Chang
Institute of International Management, National Cheng Kung University,
Tainan City, Taiwan, R.O.C, and
Shyh-Rong Fang
Department of Marketing and Distribution Management,
HsiuPing University of Science and Technology, Taichung City,
Taiwan, R.O.C
Abstract
Purpose – While the literature attends to how customer retention strategies develop relationship
quality (e.g. trust), it does not account for the potential mediator (s) in this relationship. The purpose of
this paper is to examine the mediating role of brand relationship quality (BRQ) in the relationship
between relational bonds and brand loyalty in retail service contexts.
Design/methodology/approach – A total of 524 valid questionnaires from respondents aged
between 15 and 24 are analyzed using structural equation modeling.
Findings – First, BRQ significantly mediates the relationship between relational bonds and brand
loyalty. Second, structural bonds are the only driver of attitudinal attachment; social and structural
bonds lead to a sense of community. Third, attitudinal attachment is the main influence on both
behavioral and attitudinal loyalty.
Research limitations/implications – First, a focus on a single market segment, i.e. 15-24 year olds.
Second the dimensions used to measure relational bonds and BRQ might not be applicable to other
contexts. Third, does not consider potentially important moderator(s). Fourth, does not distinguish
between store and product brands.
Originality/value – This study makes the following contributions to the literature: First,
demonstrates the importance of BRQ as a mediator in the relationship between relational bonds and
brand loyalty. Second, elucidates the role of BRQ in establishing brand loyalty in three theoretical
frameworks applied to retail service contexts. Third, suggests a more comprehensive view of brand
loyalty involving both behavioral and attitudinal dimensions. Fourth, proposes the managerial
implications of this work for the customer retention strategies of retail service firms.
Keywords Brand loyalty, Structural equation modeling (SEM), Brand relationship quality (BRQ),
Relational bonds
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction The mediating
With the maturity of retailing services, firms have been encouraged to develop effect of BRQ
relational bonds to create links with the customers that help the relationship endure
over time (Chen and Chiu, 2009; Hsieh et al., 2005; Nath and Mukherjee, 2012). Through
the use of financial, social, and structural bonds, integral to the relationship marketing
approach, firms increase the customers’ opportunity costs of breaking relationship
with them (Berry, 1995; Seiders et al., 2005). Prior studies demonstrate the importance 185
of these types of bonds to firms’ overall performance in terms of enhancing customers’
trust, satisfaction, commitment, and loyalty (Čater and Čater, 2009; De Wulf et al.,
2001; Gounaris, 2005; Smith, 1998). Customer loyalty, among these, is a particularly
important source of firms’ competitive advantages, and in consequence has attracted
much research attention (Auh et al., 2007; Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001; Johnson et al.,
2006; Rust et al., 2004).
The importance of relational bonds and customer loyalty is now well established
in the literature (Berry, 1995; Hsieh et al., 2005; Reichheld, 1993, 2001; Stokburger-Sauer
et al., 2012). While these constructs are important to firms’ success, it is less
apparent what the boundary conditions of such bonds are. Prior studies pay
particular attention to how relational bonds develop trust, satisfaction, commitment,
and brand loyalty (Chen and Chiu, 2009; Lin et al., 2003; Nath and Mukherjee, 2012;
Olsen et al., 2013; Williams et al., 1998). While these studies are significant, they
overlook potentially important mediator(s) in the relationship between relational
bonds and brand loyalty. The literature has instead tended to focus on dimensions
of interpersonal relationship quality (RQ), such as trust and satisfaction. This
study departs from this perspective to examine how brand relationship quality
(BRQ), a non-interpersonal RQ, mediates the relationship between relational
bonds and brand loyalty (Fournier, 1998). This study therefore deepens the
understanding of the process of building brand loyalty by considering BRQ
as a mediating factor.
The existing literature demonstrates that brand loyalty is a significant outcome
of relational constructs, such as bond, trust, and commitment. These studies, however,
focus on behavioral dimensions, and so exclude attitudinal loyalty (Hyun, 2010;
Olsen et al., 2013; Stokburger-Sauer et al., 2012). In contrast, this paper incorporates
both behavioral and attitudinal dimensions in a way that presents a more
comprehensive view of brand loyalty than the extant literature, which treats it as a
one-dimensional construct.
This approach reveals intriguing, but unanswered research gaps, about the role
mediators play in the relational bonds and brand loyalty relationship, as well as
directing attention toward the need for a broader interpretation of brand loyalty.
This study thus examines the role played by BRQ in the relational bonds and brand
loyalty relationship. It also tests both behavioral and attitudinal dimensions of brand
loyalty to reveal the impacts on this important outcome variable. This paper examines
three specific issues. First, do both dimensions of BRQ (i.e. attitudinal attachment and
sense of community), act as significant but, as yet, unexplored mediators in the
relationship between relational bonds and brand loyalty? Second, do different types of
relational bonds (i.e. financial, social, and structural), and BRQ, vary in their impacts
on brand loyalty? Third, does BRQ exert significant effects on the way relational bonds
impact both aspects of brand loyalty? In examining these issues, this paper seeks
to contribute to understanding the manners and extent to which relational bonds in
retail contexts shape the process of brand loyalty.
MSQ 2. Literature review
24,2 In the following sections, the literature on each major construct (i.e. relational bonds,
BRQ, and brand loyalty) is reviewed and defined. Each of the constructs is then given
relevance within this study.

2.1 Relational bonds

186 Previous work has identified three categories of relational bonds, i.e. financial, social,
and structural (Berry, 1995). These form a hierarchy that starts with financial bonds,
which are typified by short-term purchase incentives, such as discounts. The second
level, social bonds, develops from personalized service delivery and the transformation
of customers into clients (Berry and Parasuraman, 1991; Crosby et al., 1990). Structural
bonds define the third level and emphasize value-added services that help clients to be
more efficient. While other studies identify additional bonds (Morris et al., 1998; Smith,
1998), Berry’s (1995) three relational bonds are particularly well-suited to the studies of
consumer-firm relationships, and thus are frequently adopted in the literature.
The context of this study, retail services, emphasizes these three types of relational
bonds to retain their customers – that is, financial bonds in the form of discounts, social
bonds as often develop with in-store service staff, and structural bonds such as online
purchasing. The selection of these particular relational bonds also fits choices made in
prior research (Hyun, 2010; Nath and Mukherjee, 2012). The importance of these bonds
to retailers likely reflects that while financial bonds are easy to imitate, firms can use
social and structural bonds to maintain and deepen client loyalty, with the latter two
bonds having a particularly marked impact on profitability as compared to the first one
(Emmelhainz and Kavan, 1999).

2.2 BRQ
BRQ is a multifaceted and dynamic relationship construct between consumers and
their brands (Fournier, 1994). Quality, more than any other construct, can capture the
richness of the fabric from which brand relationship arise (Fournier, 1998, p. 363).
Despite the research interest, the dimensions of the BRQ construct still remain unclear.
Fournier (1998) proposes six types of BRQ: love and passion, self-connection,
commitment, interdependence, intimacy, and brand partner quality. Keller (2001)
proposes the concept of brand resonance as the level of identification and a form of
ultimate relationship that the customer has with a brand. Brand resonance can be
understood through BRQ as represented by the following two categories:
(1) relationship intensity, i.e. the depth of the psychological bond that customers
have with the brand; and
(2) relationship activity, i.e. repeat purchases or the extent to which customers
seek out brand information, events and other loyal customers (Keller, 2001).
Relationship intensity consists of two dimensions: attitudinal attachment and sense of
community; while relationship activity consists of active engagement and behavioral
loyalty. Other dimensions of BRQ include: exchange and communal relationships
(Aggarwal, 2004), individual and group-level connections (Swaminathan et al., 2007),
and nostalgic connection (Smit et al., 2007).
There are three reasons underlying the choice of Keller’s (2001) two dimensions of
attitudinal attachment and sense of community in this study. First, these dimensions
of relationship intensity can explain the intermediate cognitive processes in shaping
loyalty, rather than relationship activity, which represents external behavior. Second, The mediating
the aim of this study is to understand the processes stimulated by the hierarchical effect of BRQ
levels of relational bonds. The choice of Keller’s relationship intensity, over Fournier’s
relationship types (e.g. brand partner quality) as the mediating factors, also facilitates
this approach. Third, Keller’s operational definitions are easier to quantify with more
reliable and valid measurements than Fournier’s BRQ dimensions (Smit et al., 2007).
This study defines attitudinal attachment as customers’ psychological connections 187
that extend beyond a positive attitude (e.g. love and a sense of ownership) to view the
brand as something special in a broader context. A sense of community refers to
customers’ identification with a brand community and a kinship or affiliation with
other people associated with the brand (Keller, 2001).
2.3 Brand loyalty
Brand loyalty was originally understood through two dimensions. Stochastic view,
suggests that consumers exhibit random behaviors so that purchases are not a function of
prior behavior. Deterministic view, in contrast, suggests that loyalty results from the
impact of external factors (Jacoby and Chestnut, 1978). However, this stream of research
overlooks the importance of cognitive processes. Studies of brand loyalty, consequently,
should not only consider behaviors, but also the rationales or attitudes consumers hold
toward these behaviors (Dick and Basu, 1994; Odin et al., 2001). This study directly
addresses this issue and overcomes the limitations of prior research by modeling both the
behavioral and attitudinal dimensions of brand loyalty (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001;
Jones and Taylor, 2007; Kabiraj and Shanmugan, 2010; Odin et al., 2001; Oliver, 1999).
In this study, behavioral loyalty refers to customers’ continuous purchase of a
brand, as well as their repeated intention to purchase it in the future. Since attitudinal
loyalty refers to customers’ degree of commitment and their attitude toward the brand,
it hence has an emotional component (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001).
3. Research model and hypotheses development
This study draws its foundation from the Stimulus-Organism-Response (S-O-R) theory
(Mehrabian and Russell, 1974). The S-O-R theory posits that an internal organism
(e.g. state of mind) triggers a response after a stimulus is reinforced. This section
develops this rationale in Figure 1 in a way that relational bonds (stimulus) affect
brand loyalty (response) after being mediated by BRQ (organism), and proposes six
hypotheses in the retail service contexts.
3.1 Financial bonds and BRQ
Financial incentives via transactional exchanges encourage customers to increase
their purchases, and this leads to positive RQ (De Wulf et al., 2001). Attitudinal
attachment is a form of positive BRQ that is represented in, for example, love, enjoyment,
and a desire to possess (Keller, 2001). A sense of community, another form of positive
BRQ, refers to feelings of kinship and commonality between members (McAlexander
et al., 2002; Muniz and O’Guinn, 2001). Positive RQ might lead to favorable BRQ. These
arguments suggest that monetary incentives develop customers’ feelings of kinship or
affiliation with the brand, and thus can increase their psychological connection with it.
Based on these, the following hypotheses are proposed:

H1a. Financial bonds have a positive impact on attitudinal attachment.

H1b. Financial bonds have a positive impact on a sense of community.

MSQ Relational Brand relationship Outcomes
bonds quality (BRQ)
24,2
H1a
Financial H4a
Attitudinal Behavioral
bonds attachment loyalty
H1b H4b
188
H2a
Social H5a
bonds H2b

H3a Sense of Attitudinal

community loyalty
H5b
Structural H3b
bonds

Figure 1.
Research model
Note: The model does not show the hypothesis related to the mediating effect (i.e. H6 )

3.2 Social bonds and BRQ

Social bonds have a positive effect, via interpersonal interaction, on relationship
variables that include trust, satisfaction, and commitment (Čater and Čater, 2009; Chen
and Chiu, 2009; Hsieh et al., 2005; Huang and Yu, 2006; Lin et al., 2003; Nath and
Mukherjee, 2012). Trust, satisfaction, and commitment are also understood to have a
significant influence on consumers’ attachment to brands (Grisaffe and Nguyen, 2011;
Thomson, 2006; Vlachos et al., 2010). This infers that social bonds are likely to
exert positive effects on attitudinal attachment, and thus the following hypothesis
is proposed:

H2a. Social bonds have a positive impact on attitudinal attachment.

Social bonds help customers identify with brands by tailor-making offerings or by

treating customers as friends (Berry and Parasuraman, 1991; Wilson, 1995). Prior research
demonstrates that identification with a brand influences customers’ sense of brand
community (Carlson et al., 2008). For example, Harley-Davidson’s use of social media
attempts to develop users’ identification with the brand, and over time, this develops
a sense of brand community. Based on these, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H2b. Social bonds have a positive impact on a sense of community.

3.3 Structural bonds and BRQ

Structural bonds, which are created via value-added activities, have positive effects on
relational constructs, such as trust, satisfaction, and commitment (Čater and Čater,
2009; Chen and Chiu, 2009; Hsieh et al., 2005; Lin et al., 2003; Nath and Mukherjee,
2012). Emotional attachment consists of multiple affective dimensions, such as love,
passion, delight, and connection (Keller, 2001; Thomson et al., 2005). Structural
bonds have a positive influence on satisfaction and commitment, and these are
affective components of relational constructs. Structural bonds are thus likely to have
positive effects on attitudinal attachment. Consequently, the following hypothesis The mediating
is proposed: effect of BRQ
H3a. Structural bonds have a positive impact on attitudinal attachment.

Structural bonds involve systems that enable firms to create value-added and highly
customized offerings (Berry, 1995). Such structural relationships tend to create mutual 189
commitment between the partners in the long term (Wilson, 1995). This mutual
commitment results from brand identification (Zhou et al., 2012), which is, in turn, an
imporant antecedent of a sense of community (Carlson et al., 2008). Thus it is argued
that the influence of structural bonds on commitment extends to a sense of community,
and so the following hypothesis is proposed:

H3b. Structural bonds have a positive impact on a sense of community.

3.4 BRQ and brand loyalty

Behavioral loyalty, in this study, refers to customers’ continuous purchases and extended
purchase intention, while attitudinal loyalty is seen as customers’ psychological commitment
to the brand, and their belief that a brand is unique (Keller, 2001). Attitudinal attachment
develops when consumers have brand preferences (Keller, 2001). From a conceptual
viewpoint, consumers’ preferences influence their repurchase decisions. Previous studies
reveal that brand preferences (Marzocchi et al., 2013), attitude (Kabiraj and Shanmugan,
2010), commitment (Davis-Sramek et al., 2009), and psychological benefits (Paul et al., 2009),
all impact behavioral loyalty. Based on these, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H4a. Attitudinal attachment has a positive impact on behavioral loyalty.

Emotional attachment consists of affective variables, such as commitment, enjoyment,

and love (Thomson et al., 2005), while attitudinal loyalty consists of customers’
psychological commitment to brands (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001; Oliver, 1999).
Since attitudinal attachment and loyalty are conceptualized based on one important
component, i.e. commitment, it is inferred that attitudinal attachment has an influence
on attitudinal loyalty. Related studies find that brand affection has a significant effect
on attitudinal loyalty (e.g. Marzocchi et al., 2013). Based on these, the following
hypothesis is proposed:

H4b. Attitudinal attachment has a positive impact on attitudinal loyalty.

Consumers who share a sense of community hold similar values, identification, and
a sense of belongingness toward a brand (Keller, 2001; Muniz and O’Guinn, 2001).
Two parties are likely to extend their interactions when they both identify with similar
values. Prior studies also demonstrate the significant effects of community benefits
(Paul et al., 2009) and brand identification (He et al., 2012; Lam et al., 2013) on
behavioral loyalty. Based on these, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H5a. A sense of community has a positive impact on behavioral loyalty.

One of the key components of attitudinal loyalty is the commitment between two
parties (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001; Oliver, 1999). Feelings of mutual commitment
MSQ are likely to emerge when positive interactions lead to identification of shared values.
24,2 Prior studies find that brand identification significantly affects commitment
(Tuskej et al., 2013; Zhou et al., 2012), as well as the positive influences of brand
identification on attitudinal loyalty (He et al., 2012; Lam et al., 2013; Marzocchi et al.,
2013). Consequently, the following hypothesis is proposed:

190 H5b. A sense of community has a positive impact on attitudinal loyalty.

3.5 The mediating effect of BRQ

Related works demonstrate the significant effects of relational bonds on RQ, such as
trust, satisfaction, and commitment (Chen and Chiu, 2009; De Wulf et al., 2001;
Hsieh et al., 2005; Nath and Mukherjee, 2012), as well as the significant influences of
these RQ on brand loyalty (Dagger and David, 2012; Davis-Sramek et al., 2009;
Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001; Johnson et al., 2006; Seiders et al., 2005). It is argued that
the significant effects of RQ might potentially extend to those of BRQ in a way that
relational bonds have a significant effect on BRQ, and in turn, that BRQ has an influence
on brand loyalty. Based on the S-O-R theory, a response is evoked through an internal
organism after a stimulus is reinforced (Mehrabian and Russell, 1974). If relational bonds
(stimulus) exert positive effects on BRQ, and BRQ (organism) has positive impacts on
brand loyalty (response), then the following hypothesis is likely to be supported:

H6. BRQ mediates the effects of relational bonds on brand loyalty.

4. Methodology
4.1 Data collection
The purpose of this study is to explore how retail customers respond to companies’
customer retention strategies. Sports retailers, which sell branded products, such as
those produced by Nike, Adidas, and New Balance, are selected as the research
contexts. These brands or retailers are chosen because they are not only popular with
target customers but also make particular clear attempts to retain customers by
making use of sales promotion, social media (e.g. Facebook), online purchasing,
membership clubs that deliver updated product information, and provision of toll free
service phone numbers.
This paper targets customers aged between 15 and 24 years old. This segment is
chosen for two reasons. First, this group tends to be less brand loyal than previous
generations (e.g. baby boomers), companies targeting this segment thus pay particular
attention in order to develop long-term and sound brand relationships (Nusair et al.,
2011; Vahie and Paswan, 2006). Second, this group has more disposable income
and spending power than any other teen groups in history, and particularly tends to be
peer relationship prone (e.g. independent from parents) and technology savvy (e.g. use
of internet, blogs) (Noble et al., 2009). These also fit the choices of three types of
bonds – that is, financial bonds such as discounts, social bonds as often develop
relationship with in-store service personnel, and structural bonds in the form of
technology delivery.
The quota sampling of this study draws on Taiwan’s population distribution of
15-24 years old, i.e. north (47 percent), central (21 percent) and south and east
(31 percent), and a gender split of 1:1 (Ministry of Interior, 2012). The respondents
show a good overall fit to the general population profile: north (47 percent), central
(24.7 percent), south and east (28.3 percent), and a gender split of females (59.8 percent) The mediating
and males (40.2 percent). Ten universities – north (five), central (two) and south and effect of BRQ
east (three) – were selected based on Taiwan’s population distribution of this group.
Data were collected using a survey instrument (i.e. questionnaire). The respondents
were chosen at each college of the selected universities, and were asked (i.e. face to face)
to recall a sports retailer they visited most recently or a sports brand (e.g. Nike)
they bought most recently in this retailer, followed by answering questions in the 191
questionnaires. Of the 621 questionnaires distributed, a total of 524 valid questionnaires
(84.4 percent) were available for analysis.
There are slightly more female (57.3 percent) than male respondents (42.7 percent).
The majority (75 percent) of the respondents are aged between 20 and 24, and the rest
of them are between 15 and 19. Nearly 84 percent of the respondents are students
whose average length of the relationship with the focal brands is approximately
4.5 years.

4.2 Measurement
The constructs are drawn from established measures, namely: relational bonds
(financial, social, and structural) (Berry, 1995; Berry and Parasuraman, 1991;
Emmelhainz and Kavan, 1999), BRQ (attitudinal attachment and sense of community)
(Keller, 2001), and brand loyalty (behavioral and attitudinal; Chaudhuri and Holbrook,
2001; Odin et al., 2001; Oliver, 1999). All the measurement items were translated into
Mandarin and back translated into English. Each item was assessed using a five-point
Likert scale with endpoints of “1 ¼ strongly disagree” and “5 ¼ strongly agree”.
Appendix 1 tabulates all the measurement items and sources.

4.3 Data analysis

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA), based on 406 valid responses, was conducted using
the SPSS 18.0 for support with the principle component and varimax rotation methods.
A valid factor had an eigenvalue of 41, total variance 45 percent, and an accumulated
total variance 450 percent (Hair et al., 2010). Invalid items were deleted from each
construct to increase the convergent validity and reliability. Appendix 2 tabulated the
results of the EFA. In total, 29 out of the initial 36 items remained for structural
equation modeling (SEM) analysis using SmartPLS 2.0. A structural partial least
squares (PLS) model was used to test the hypotheses, while the vector of parameter
estimates, obtained from 1,000 bootstrapping runs, was used to generate the standard
errors and t-statistics.

5. Results
The following sections present the assessment of the measurement model and the
analysis of the structural model using SmartPLS 2.0.

5.1 Measurement model

Table I shows the results of the analysis. The Cronbach’s a’s range from 0.70 to 0.91,
and so exceed the recommended threshold of 0.70 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).
Composite reliabilities range from 0.83 to 0.93, and the average variance extracted
(AVE) ranges between 0.53 and 0.73. These all exceed the recommended threshold
of CRX0.70 and AVEX0.50 (Hair et al., 2010). The measurement model thus has
high reliability and convergent validity. The discriminant validity is evaluated by
employing Fornell and Larcker’s (1981) test of shared variance between pairs of
MSQ Mean SD a CR AVE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
24,2
(Threshold) 40.7 X0.7 X0.5
Financial bonds 3.06 0.82 0.88 0.92 0.73 0.85
Social bonds 2.95 0.80 0.91 0.93 0.73 0.64 0.85
Structural bonds 3.28 0.72 0.85 0.89 0.62 0.55 0.71 0.79
192 Attitudinal attachment 3.75 0.67 0.83 0.89 0.66 0.14 0.18 0.37 0.81
Sense of community 3.22 0.70 0.78 0.85 0.53 0.33 0.41 0.40 0.54 0.73
Behavioral loyalty 3.77 0.65 0.74 0.85 0.67 0.16 0.22 0.30 0.57 0.44 0.82
Attitudinal loyalty 3.48 0.71 0.70 0.83 0.62 0.11 0.22 0.32 0.62 0.45 0.51 0.79
Table I.
Descriptive statistics Notes: SD, standard deviation; a, Cronbach’s a; CR, composite reliability; AVE, average variance
and correlation matrix extracted; diagonal items, | AVE

latent constructs. The results demonstrate that the correlations between each pair
of constructs do not exceed the AVE’s square root for any single construct, and this
confirms the model’s discriminant validity. To reconfirm the robustness and stability of
this model, this study calculates the goodness of fit value (GoF) (Chin, 2010; Fornell and
Larcker, 1981), and further conducts cross-validated (CV) redundancy Q2 and CV
communality Q2 tests (omission distance ¼ 3) using the blindfolding function in
SmartPLS 2.0. The GoF value (0.42) exceeds the threshold of 0.27 (Fornell and Larcker,
1981), and thus confirms an excellent fit of the model to our data. The values of CV
redundancy Q2 and CV communality Q2, range from 0.10 to 0.67, and thus reconfirm
the cross-validity of the proposed model as they exceed the threshold of 0.

5.2 Structural model and results

Figure 2 shows the path coefficients and t-values.
5.2.1 Antecedents of attitudinal attachment. Of the relational bonds, financial and
social bonds have no effect on attitudinal attachment (b ¼ 0.036, t ¼ 0.511; b ¼ 0.081,
t ¼ 1.894), while structural bonds have significant effects (b ¼ 0.482, t ¼ 7.434).
Relational bonds explain approximately 15 percent of attitudinal attachment
(R2 ¼ 0.15). While this value may seem low, one of around 0.20 holds adequate
explanatory power in consumer research (Hair et al., 2011). Consequently, H1a and H2a
are rejected while H3a is supported. These results show that only structural bonds
have a significant influence on attitudinal attachment.

–0.036 (0.511) 0.472 (8.733)***

Financial
Behavioral
bonds Attitudinal
loyalty
–0.136 (1.169) attachment
(R 2 = 0.35)
(R 2 = 0.15) 0.533 (12.081)***
0.081 (1.894)

Social
bonds 0.212 (3.44)*** 0.186 (3.715)***
Sense of Attitudinal
0.482 (7.434)*** community loyalty
(R 2 = 0.19) (R 2 = 0.40)
Figure 2. 0.161(3.459)***
Results of path coefficients Structural
and t-values bonds 0.201 (3.20) **
Significant Non-significant **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001
5.2.2 Antecedents of sense of community. Relational bonds show good explanatory The mediating
power over a sense of community (R2 ¼ 0.19), while financial bonds exert no effect effect of BRQ
(b ¼ 0.136, t ¼ 1.169), and so H1b is rejected. Since social and structural bonds exert
significant effects (b ¼ 0.212, t ¼ 3.44; b ¼ 0.201, t ¼ 3.20), this supports H2b and H3b.
These results demonstrate that social and structural bonds are both important
antecedents of a sense of community.
5.2.3 Consequences of attitudinal attachment and sense of community. Both 193
attitudinal attachment and a sense of community effectively explain behavioral loyalty
(R2 ¼ 0.35). Of these cognitive responses, both attitudinal attachment and a sense of
community exert significant effects (b ¼ 0.472, t ¼ 8.733; b ¼ 0.186, t ¼ 3.715), and so
H4a and H5a are supported. Attitudinal attachment and a sense of community also
very effectively explain attitudinal loyalty (R2 ¼ 0.40). Of these, attitudinal attachment
and a sense of community significantly influence attitudinal loyalty (b ¼ 0.533,
t ¼ 12.081; b ¼ 0.161, t ¼ 3.459), and so H4b and H5b are supported. Our results
demonstrate that attitudinal attachment is a more important antecedent of both
behavioral and attitudinal loyalty than a sense of community. The effect on attitudinal
loyalty is also greater than that on behavioral loyalty.
5.2.4 The mediating effects of attitudinal attachment and a sense of community. To
test the mediating effects of attitudinal attachment and a sense of community, this
study follows the procedures suggested by Baron and Kenny (1986), and tests four
competing models. Model 1 shows that only structural bonds significantly affect the
mediators. Model 2 shows that structural bonds affect the dependent variables (DV).
Model 3 shows that both mediators affect the DVs. Model 4 clearly shows that none of
the independent variables have any effects when the mediators, i.e. attitudinal
attachment and sense of community, are controlled, except for financial bonds, with
positive effects on attitudinal loyalty. A conclusion is that attitudinal attachment and
sense of community perfectly mediate the relationships between structural bonds and
both behavioral and attitudinal loyalty in a way that supports H6. Appendix 3 shows
the numerical details of the four models.

6. Discussion and implications

This study finds that financial bonds have no effect on BRQ and user loyalty, while
only structural bonds influence attitudinal attachment. Social and structural bonds are
both important drivers of a sense of community. Attitudinal attachment is the main
influence on both behavioral and attitudinal loyalty. Most importantly, this study finds
that BRQ mediates the relationship between relational bonds and brand loyalty.
The finding that financial bonds have no influence on BRQ and user loyalty is
a departure from the literature (Chen and Chiu, 2009; Hsieh et al., 2005; Lin et al., 2003;
Nath and Mukherjee, 2012). It may be that a stronger relationship is required to
develop BRQ and user loyalty than is needed to build trust and satisfaction. This work
thus suggests that the way financial bonds operate may orient customers toward
a short-term transaction rather than a long-term relational perspective (Edvardsson,
2005; Payne, 1994), in a way that influences trust and commitment but not BRQ.
The findings that structural bonds are the only driver of attitudinal attachment,
and that social bonds do not exert significant effects on attitudinal attachment, are also
significant. These issues have not yet received much research attention (Čater and
Čater, 2009; Chen and Chiu, 2009; Hsieh et al., 2005; Lin et al., 2003). A partial
explanation for these results may lie in the fact that while structural bonds have an
extensive influence on BRQ, they are often operated through such a mechanism as
MSQ self-service technology. This approach extends the ability to develop emotional
24,2 satisfaction and commitment (Edvardsson, 2005; Wong, 2004) that underpins the
relationship between structural bonds and attitudinal attachment. Social bonds,
however, operating through mechanisms such as interpersonal interactions, exert little
influence on either BRQ or identification and attitudinal attachment. Taken together,
these two important insights show how value creation activities can significantly
194 deepen the extent of customer attachment to brands. The results additionally suggest
that customer-personnel interactions and friendships, however, might not lead to
positive customer attachment.
The results reveal that social and structural bonds are both important drivers of a
sense of community. This issue has not received much research attention (Carlson et al.,
2008; Zhou et al., 2012). These findings might explain the fact that social bonds, via the
mechanism of interpersonal interaction, exert a sufficiently strong influence on BRQ to
create a sense of community. Structural bonds, operating through value creation
activities, also exert enough influence on BRQ, in turn, to build a sense of community
(Edvardsson, 2005). These results suggest that interpersonal interaction, triggered by
identification and value creation activities, plays an important role in driving a sense
of community.
This study demonstrates that attitudinal attachment is the main driver of both
behavioral and attitudinal loyalty. To date, there have been few studies on the
relationship between these constructs (He et al., 2012; Marzocchi et al., 2013;
Stokburger-Sauer et al., 2012; Vlachos et al., 2010). Dick and Basu (1994) propose four
types of brand loyalty: no loyalty, latent loyalty, spurious loyalty, and true loyalty.
Spurious loyalty refers to high levels of repeat patronage, but an unfavorable attitude
relative to comparable brands. True loyalty refers to the situation in which customers
are both repeat customers and have a relatively positive attitude toward a brand.
This paper therefore considers brand loyalty as a two-dimensional construct in a
departure from prior studies that treat it as one-dimensional construct. By making
the distinction between behavioral and attitudinal loyalty, this study accounts for the
distinction between spurious and true loyalty (Dick and Basu, 1994).

6.1 Theoretical implications

The findings demonstrate that BRQ mediates the relationship between relational
bonds and brand loyalty. Previous studies on relational bonds primarily discuss their
effects and outcomes – namely, trust, satisfaction, commitment, and brand loyalty
(Čater and Čater, 2009; Chen and Chiu, 2009; Hsieh et al., 2005; Lin et al., 2003; Nath and
Mukherjee, 2012; Olsen et al., 2013; Williams et al., 1998). These studies, while useful,
overlook potential mediator(s) in the relationships between relational bonds and brand
loyalty. Morgan and Hunt (1994) posit a key mediating variable (KMV) model in a retail
context which suggests that commitment and trust play central roles in successful
relationship marketing. This study departs from the existing literature that treats
commitment and trust as mediators, and confirms the validity of the KMV model with
BRQ as a key mediator with regard to customer loyalty in a retail service context
(Morgan and Hunt, 1994). In accord with the S-O-R framework (Mehrabian and Russell,
1974; Wang et al., 2011), this paper elucidates roles of relational bonds as a stimulus
and BRQ as an organism in the process of shaping brand loyalty (i.e. a response).
Arguments in the literature suggest that a bridging strategy with a focus on
company-level relationships (e.g. the use of brand relationship) should be adopted
to supplement an individual-level relationship strategy (e.g. the use of salespeople).
This prevents personal defects of salespeople from having a negative effect on The mediating
company turnover (Harrison-Walker and Coppett, 2003; Wong and Sohal, 2002). This effect of BRQ
study identifies two company-level bridging components (attitudinal attachment
and a sense of community) while testing the bridging strategy model in a retail service
context (Harrison-Walker and Coppett, 2003).

6.2 Managerial implications 195

This study is particularly relevant to retail service providers as it directs them to
develop more effective customer retention solutions. The findings suggest that
companies should not merely rely on financial bonds as a mechanism to build long-
term customer loyalty because they are easily imitated. Instead, the findings suggest
that the use of structural bonds is a more effective strategy to achieve customer
attachment and then in turn, to build customer loyalty. Moreover, the findings suggest
that companies that seek short-term spurious loyalty should focus on developing
a sense of community, while those seeking true loyalty should use attitudinal
attachment as their primary customer retention strategy. In addition, companies
should consider their current stage of mutual relationship development to choose either
social or structural bonds as their contingent customer retention strategy (Wilson,
1995). Companies seeking brand loyalty are also advised to maintain good BRQ under
their retention strategies, while also adopting diverse bridging strategies rather than
emphasizing personal selling alone.
By considering the following approaches, companies can shape their retention and
loyalty strategies. While the relationship between structural bonds, attitudinal
attachment, and behavioral loyalty may be the strongest, from a managerial viewpoint,
improving these requires significant investment in resource which may make it
infeasible. To effectively and efficiently trigger short-term behavioral loyalty,
managers can develop social bonds by building a sense of community in order to
drive behavioral loyalty in the form of repurchases and repurchase intention.
In practice, this may be achieved by developing a word-of-mouth strategy, launching
new advertisements, or adopting social media. Managers seeking attitudinal loyalty
are advised to develop structural bonds and attitudinal loyalty. This might, for
example, involve offering total customer service solutions in an online ordering and
delivery system supported by information technology. Technology may also be used
to offer latest news and update product knowledge to show a brand’s consideration for
the customers. Alternatively, managers may launch more personalized offerings that
give customers a sense of brand ownership.

6.3 Limitations and future research

This study should be viewed in light of its limitations. First, it focusses on a single
market segment of 15-24 years old, and further research could expand the sample
profile to include other groups. Second, this study uses three dimensions (financial,
social, and structural bonds) to measure relational bonds, and two dimensions of
BRQ (attitudinal attachment and sense of community). These dimensions may not be
directly applicable to other contexts. Brand relationships are complex
multidimensional phenomena that take many forms (Fournier, 1998). Future
research could choose context-dependent dimensions, such as active engagement
(Keller, 2001), interdependence, love/commitment, brand partner quality, self-
connection, and intimacy (Fournier, 1998) to measure BRQ. Inclusion of legal bonds
(Morris et al., 1998) would also provide a useful extension to examine this study’s
MSQ model in business-to-business settings. Third, brand relationships are dynamic and
24,2 evolving phenomena that involve changes in type (e.g. evolution from friends to lovers)
or level of intensity (e.g. an increase or decrease in emotional involvement) (Fournier,
1998). This study does not consider the moderating effects which might influence the
intensity of BRQ and/or brand loyalty. Future research could include important
moderators such as relationship age (Ranaweera and Menon, 2013; Wang and Wu,
196 2012), consumer relationship proneness (De Wulf et al., 2001), and customer inertia
(Ranaweera and Neely, 2003). Lastly, this study does not separate store and product
brands and subsequent research could examine the significance of this distinction.

7. Conclusion
Despite these limitations, this study makes the following contributions. First, while the
literature pays particular attention to how relational bonds develop trust, satisfaction,
and commitment (i.e. RQ) (Chen and Chiu, 2009; Nath and Mukherjee, 2012), this paper
departs from this approach and demonstrates the importance of BRQ as a mediator in
the relationship between relational bonds and brand loyalty in retail service contexts.
Second, this paper elucidates the roles of BRQ in shaping brand loyalty in three
theoretical frameworks, i.e. the KMV model (Morgan and Hunt, 1994), the S-O-R model
(Mehrabian and Russell, 1974), and the bridging strategy model (Harrison-Walker and
Coppett, 2003). Third, this study incorporates both behavioral and attitudinal
dimensions in a way that presents a more comprehensive view of brand loyalty than
the extant literature, which treats it as a one-dimensional construct (i.e. behavioral).
Finally, this paper proposes the managerial implications for the customer retention
strategies of retail service firms.
Acknowledgment
The authors wish to acknowledge financial support from the National Science Council
( NSC-96- 2416-H-218-014) for this research. The authors also wish to thank the MSQ
Editor, the two anonymous reviewers, as well as Dr James O. Stanworth for their
valuable insights in improving the quality of this manuscript.

References
Aggarwal, P. (2004), “The effects of brand relationship norms on consumer attitudes and
behavior”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 87-101.
Auh, S., Bell, S.J., McLeod, C.S. and Shih, E. (2007), “Co-production and customer loyalty in
financial services”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 83 No. 3, pp. 359-370.
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-1182.
Berry, L.L. (1995), “Relationship marketing of services – growing interest, emerging
perspectives”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 236-245.
Berry, L.L. and Parasuraman, A. (1991), Marketing Services: Competing Through Quality, Free
Press, New York, NY.
Carlson, B.D., Suter, T.A. and Brown, T.J. (2008), “Social versus psychological brand community:
the role of psychological sense of brand community”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 61
No. 4, pp. 284-291.
Čater, B. and Čater, T. (2009), “Emotional and rational motivations for customer loyalty in
business-to-business professional services”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 29 No. 8,
pp. 1151-1169.
Chaudhuri, A. and Holbrook, M.B. (2001), “The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect to The mediating
brand performance: the role of brand loyalty”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 65 No. 2, pp. 81-93.
effect of BRQ
Chen, Y.L. and Chiu, H.C. (2009), “The effects of relational bonds on online customer satisfaction”,
The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 29 No. 11, pp. 1581-1595.
Chin, W.W. (2010), “How to write up and report PLS analyses”, Handbook of Partial Least
Squares, Springer Verlag, Berlin and Heidelberg, pp. 655-690.
Crosby, L.A., Evans, K.R. and Cowles, D. (1990), “Relationship quality in services selling: 197
an interpersonal influence perspective”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 68-81.
Dagger, T.S. and David, M.E. (2012), “Uncovering the real effect of switching costs on the
satisfaction-loyalty association: the critical role of involvement and relationship benefits”,
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 4 Nos 3/4, pp. 447-468.
Davis-Sramek, B., Droge, C., Mentzer, J.T. and Myers, M.B. (2009), “Creating commitment and
loyalty behavior among retailers: what are the roles of service quality and satisfaction?”,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 440-454.
De Wulf, K., Odekerken-Schröder, G. and Iacobucci, D. (2001), “Investments in consumer relationships:
a cross-country and cross-industry exploration”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 65 No. 4, pp. 33-50.
Dick, A.S. and Basu, K. (1994), “Customer loyalty: toward an integrated conceptual framework”,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 99-113.
Edvardsson, B. (2005), “Service quality: beyond cognitive assessment”, Managing Service
Quality, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 127-131.
Emmelhainz, M.A. and Kavan, C.B. (1999), “Using information as a basis for segmentation and
relationship marketing: a longitudinal case study of a leading financial services firm”,
Journal of Market-Focused Management, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 161-177.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Fournier, S. (1994), A Person-Brand Relationship Framework for Strategic Brand Management,
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
Fournier, S. (1998), “Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in consumer
research”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 343-353.
Gounaris, S.P. (2005), “Trust and commitment influences on customer retention: insights from
business-to-business services”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 126-140.
Grisaffe, D.B. and Nguyen, H.P. (2011), “Antecedents of emotional attachment to brands”, Journal
of Business Research, Vol. 64 No. 10, pp. 1052-1059.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2010), Multivariate Data
Analysis, Pearson, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2011), “PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet”, Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 139-152.
Harrison-Walker, L.J. and Coppett, J.I. (2003), “Building bridges: the company-customer
relationship”, Journal of Business to Business Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 49-72.
He, H., Li, Y. and Harris, L. (2012), “Social identity perspective on brand loyalty”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 65 No. 5, pp. 648-657.
Hsieh, Y.C., Chiu, H.C. and Chiang, M.Y. (2005), “Maintaining a committed online customer: a study
across search-experience-credence products”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 81 No. 1, pp. 75-82.
Huang, S.M. and Yu, T.K. (2006), “A study of relationship bonds and the interaction of future
relations: the mediate effect of relationship quality”, Journal of Management & Systems,
Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 265-292.
Hyun, S.S. (2010), “Predictors of relationship quality and loyalty in the chain restaurant
industry”, Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 251-267.
MSQ Jacoby, J. and Chestnut, R.W. (1978), Brand Loyalty Measurement and Management, Wiley,
New York, NY.
24,2
Johnson, M.D., Herrmann, A. and Huber, F. (2006), “The evolution of loyalty intentions”, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 70 No. 2, pp. 122-132.
Jones, T. and Taylor, S.F. (2007), “The conceptual domain of service loyalty: how many
dimensions?”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 36-51.
198 Kabiraj, S. and Shanmugan, J. (2010), “Development of a conceptual framework for brand loyalty: a
Euro-Mediterranean perspective”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 285-299.
Keller, K.L. (2001), Building Customer-Based Brand Equity: A Blueprint for Creating Strong
Brands, Marketing Science Institute (MSI), Cambridge, MA.
Lam, S.K., Ahearne, M., Mullins, R., Hayati, B. and Schillewaert, N. (2013), “Exploring the
dynamics of antecedents to consumer – brand identification with a new brand”, Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 234-252.
Lin, N.P., Weng, J.C.M. and Hsieh, Y.C. (2003), “Relational bonds and customer’s trust and
commitment: a study on the moderating effects of web site usage”, The Service Industries
Journal, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 103-124.
McAlexander, J.H., Schouten, J.W. and Koenig, H.F. (2002), “Building brand community”, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 38-54.
Marzocchi, G., Morandin, G. and Bergami, M. (2013), “Brand communities: loyal to the
community or the brand?”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 47 Nos 1/2, pp. 93-114.
Mehrabian, A. and Russell, J.A. (1974), An Approach to Environmental Psychology, M.I.T. Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Ministry of Interior and Taiwan (2012), Statistical Yearbook of Interior, Taiwan, Dept. of
Household Registration Affairs, Ministry of Interior, Taipei.
Morgan, R.M. and Hunt, S.D. (1994), “The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 20-38.
Morris, M.H., Brunyee, J. and Page, M. (1998), “Relationship marketing in practice: myths and
realities”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 359-371.
Muniz, A.M. Jr and O’Guinn, T.C. (2001), “Brand community”, Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 412-432.
Nath, P. and Mukherjee, A. (2012), “Complementary effects of relational bonds in information
asymmetry contexts”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 168-180.
Noble, S.M., Haytko, D.L. and Phillips, J. (2009), “What drives college-age generation Y
consumers?”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 62 No. 6, pp. 617-628.
Nusair, K., Parsa, H.G. and Cobanoglu, C. (2011), “Building a model of commitment for generation
Y: an empirical study on e-travel retailers”, Tourism Management, Vol. 32 No. 4,
pp. 833-843.
Odin, Y., Odin, N. and Valette-Florence, P. (2001), “Conceptual and operational aspects of brand
loyalty: an empirical investigation”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 53 No. 2, pp. 75-84.
Oliver, R.L. (1999), “Whence consumer loyalty?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63 No. 2, pp. 33-44.
Olsen, S.O., Tudoran, A.A., Brunsø, K. and Verbeke, W. (2013), “Extending the prevalent
consumer loyalty modelling: the role of habit strength”, European Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 47 Nos 1/2, pp. 303-323.
Paul, M., Hennig-Thurau, T., Gremler, D.D., Gwinner, K.P. and Wiertz, C. (2009), “Toward a theory
of repeat purchase drivers for consumer services”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 215-237.
Payne, A. (1994), “Relationship marketing–making the customer count”, Managing Service
Quality, Vol. 4 No. 6, pp. 29-31.
Ranaweera, C. and Menon, K. (2013), “For better or for worse? Adverse effects of relationship age The mediating
and continuance commitment on positive and negative word of mouth”, European Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 47 No. 10, pp. 1598-1621. effect of BRQ
Ranaweera, C. and Neely, A. (2003), “Some moderating effects on the service quality-customer
retention link”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 23
No. 2, pp. 230-248.
Reichheld, F.F. (1993), “Loyalty-based management”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 71 No. 2, pp. 64-73. 199
Reichheld, F.F. (2001), “Lead for loyalty”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 79 No. 7, pp. 76-84.
Rust, R.T., Lemon, K.N. and Zeithaml, V.A. (2004), “Return on marketing: using customer equity
to focus marketing strategy”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 109-127.
Seiders, K., Voss, G.B., Grewal, D. and Godfrey, A.L. (2005), “Do satisfied customers buy more? Examining
moderating influences in a retailing context”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 69 No. 4, pp. 26-43.
Smit, E., Bronner, F. and Tolboom, M. (2007), “Brand relationship quality and its value for
personal contact”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 60 No. 6, pp. 627-633.
Smith, J.B. (1998), “Buyer-seller relationships: bonds, relationship management, and sex-type”,
Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 76-92.
Stokburger-Sauer, N., Ratneshwar, S. and Sen, S. (2012), “Drivers of consumer-brand
identification”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 406-418.
Swaminathan, V., Page, K.L. and Gürhan-Canli, Z. (2007), “‘My’ brand or ‘our’ brand: the effects of
brand relationship dimensions and self-construal on brand evaluations”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 248-259.
Thomson, M. (2006), “Human brands: investigating antecedents to consumers’ strong
attachments to celebrities”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 70 No. 3, pp. 104-119.
Thomson, M., MacInnis, D.J. and Park, C.W. (2005), “The ties that bind: measuring the strength of
consumers’ emotional attachments to brands”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 15
No. 1, pp. 77-91.
Tuskej, U., Golob, U. and Podnar, K. (2013), “The role of consumer-brand identification in
building brand relationships”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 53-59.
Vahie, A. and Paswan, A. (2006), “Private label brand image: its relationship with store image
and national brand”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 34
No. 1, pp. 67-84.
Vlachos, P.A., Theotokis, A., Pramatari, K. and Vrechopoulos, A. (2010), “Consumer-retailer
emotional attachment: some antecedents and the moderating role of attachment anxiety”,
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 44 Nos 9/10, pp. 1478-1499.
Wang, Y.J., Minor, M.S. and Wei, J. (2011), “Aesthetics and the online shopping environment:
understanding consumer responses”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 87 No. 1, pp. 46-58.
Wang, C.Y. and Wu, L.W. (2012), “Customer loyalty and the role of relationship length”,
Managing Service Quality, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 58-74.
Williams, J.D., Han, S.L. and Qualls, W.J. (1998), “A conceptual model and study of cross-cultural
business relationships”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 135-143.
Wilson, D.T. (1995), “An integrated model of buyer-seller relationships”, Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 335-345.
Wong, A. (2004), “The role of emotional satisfaction in service encounters”, Managing Service
Quality, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 365-376.
Wong, A. and Sohal, A. (2002), “Customers’ perspectives on service quality and relationship
quality in retail encounters”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 424-433.
Zhou, Z., Zhang, Q., Su, C. and Zhou, N. (2012), “How do brand communities generate brand
relationships? Intermediate mechanisms”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 65 No. 7,
pp. 890-895.
 24,2

200
MSQ

Table AI.

and sources
measurement items,
Operational definitions,
Constructs Operational definitions Item no. Measurement items Sources

Financial Financial incentives such as discount, coupons FB1 This brand often offers special incentives Berry (1995), Berry and
bonds to retain regular customers in FB2 With increases in the number or value of Parasuraman (1991),
the short term transactions, this brand gives more Emmelhainz and Kavan
Appendix 1

FB3 Transactions with this brand can receive (1999)

premiums or special offers
FB4 This brand often has co-marketing activities
with other companies, such as credit card firms
Social bonds Tailor-made and one-to-one services provided to SB1 This brand actively keeps contact with me and
regular customers based on their purchase develops a friendship
records. The relationship between sellers and SB2 This brand actively cares about my needs and
customers is similar to a friendship preferences
SB3 This brand helps me solve problems from a
friend’s viewpoint
SB4 This brand actively cares about my opinions
and how I use its products
SB5 This brand provides opportunities to interact
with other customers
Structural Value-added services that help clients be more StB1 This brand often provides product-related new
bonds efficient and that are not readily available from knowledge to me
other sources. These services are usually StB2 This brand provides complete and integrated
technology-based, and designed to deliver customer services
service system rather than merely interpersonal StB3 Problems can be solved anytime when I have
interaction difficulties or complaints
StB5 This brand actively predicts my needs and
provides personalized products or services
for me
StB6 This brand is caring and considerate with
regard to every customer
Attitudinal Customers are able to distinguish the brand AA1 I would think of owning this brand Keller (2001)
attachment from among its many competitors, develop AA2 This brand is very special to me
favorable feelings and expectations to own it AA3 I have a very good impression of this brand
AA4 Using this brand makes me feel very happy
Sense of Customers develop a sense of belongingness SC1 I feel uncomfortable when I hear other people
community through the brand and relevant personnel, criticize this brand
making them identify themselves with the SC3 When I mention this brand, I say: “What do you
brand think about OUR brand?”

(continued)
Constructs Operational definitions Item no. Measurement items Sources

SC5 I think the values delivered by this brand are

consistent with my own
SC7 I consider other people using this brand to be
part of my group
SC8 I feel that this brand is my friend
Behavioral Customers’ continuous purchase of the brand, BL2 Overall, I buy this brand most often Chaudhuri and Holbrook
loyalty as well as their repeated and extended purchase BL3 I’ll tell other people how good this brand is (2001), Odin et al. (2001),
intention BL4 I’ll recommend this brand to other people Oliver (1999)
Attitudinal Customers’ psychological commitment to the AL1 I identify with this brand very much
loyalty brand, and their belief that the brand is unique AL2 I’m willing to pay a higher price to buy this
brand
AL3 If this brand is out of stock, I’ll wait and refuse
any substitutes
The mediating
effect of BRQ

201

Table AI.
 24,2

202
MSQ

Table AII.

factor analysis (EFA)

Results of exploratory
Constructs Items no. Loading (40.6) Eigenvalues (41) Variance explained (%)
Appendix 2

Social bonds SB3 0.789 3.73 26.61

SB2 0.785
SB4 0.746
SB1 0.717
SB5 0.684
Structural bonds StB3 0.763 3.15 22.50
StB5 0.759
StB6 0.743
StB2 0.697
StB1 0.529
Financial bonds FB1 0.848 2.80 20.00
FB2 0.820
FB3 0.759
FB4 0.581
Attitudinal attachment AA3 0.825 2.83 31.39
AA2 0.793
AA1 0.777
AA4 0.734
Sense of community SC1 0.766 2.65 29.46
SC3 0.755
SC7 0.745
SC5 0.621
SC8 0.587
Behavioral loyalty BL3 0.860 2.18 36.37
BL4 0.855
BL2 0.587
Attitudinal loyalty AL2 0.880 1.75 29.14
AL3 0.880
AL1 0.465
Appendix 3 The mediating
effect of BRQ
Financial Financial
–0.03 (0.43)
bonds bonds –0.01 (0.20)

0.09 (1.20)
Attitudinal –0.11 (1.85) Behavioral
attachment
–0.14 (1.83) 0.021 (0.24)
loyalty
203
Social Social
bonds bonds
0.24 (3.62)*** 0.07 (0.95)

Sense of
0.49 (8.10)***
community 0.30 (4.07)*** Attitudinal
loyalty
Structural 0.19 (2.61)** Structural 0.34 (5.75)***
bonds bonds

Model 1 Model 2

Financial
bonds –0.01 (0.17)
–0.11 (2.06)*

0.47 (8.03)*** Social 0.06 (0.73) Behavioral

Attitudinal Behavioral bonds loyalty
attachment loyalty 0.01 (1.8)
0.53 (13.11)***
0.03 (0.48)
Structural
bonds 0.07 (1.32)

0.19 (3.43)*** 0.47 (8.42)***

Sense of Attitudinal Attitudinal 0.51 (11.41)*** Attitudinal

community loyalty attachment loyalty
0.16 (3.57)***
0.16 (3.11)**

Sense of 0.14 (3.07)**

community Figure A1.
Mediating effects of
Model 3 Model 4 attitudinal attachment and
sense of community
Notes: *,**,***Significant at p < 0.05, p < 0.01, p < 0.005 levels, respectively

About the authors

Chao-Chin Huang (Charlie) is a PhD Candidate in the Institute of International Management at
the National Cheng Kung University, Taiwan. His research interests include service marketing,
brand management, relationship marketing, and consumer behavior. He has presented his
papers at the annual conferences of Academy of Marketing Science (AMS), Academy of
International Business (AIB) and Academy of Management (AOM).
Shih-Chieh Fang is a Professor in the Department of Business Administration at the National
Cheng Kung University, Taiwan. His research has focussed on inter-organizational relationships,
knowledge management, and multinational enterprises collaboration. He has published in the
journals such as Industrial Marketing Management, Total Quality Management & Business
Excellence, International Small Business Journal, Technovation, Health Care Management Review
and International Journal of Management.
MSQ Shyh-Ming Huang is an Associate Professor in the Department of Marketing and Logistics
Management at the Southern Taiwan University of Science and Technology. His research areas
24,2 include marketing channel management, brand management, service marketing and relationship
marketing. His research papers have been published in the Journal of Management (TSSCI),
Management Review, Journal of Management & Systems, Sun Yat-Sen Management Review, and
Journal of Human Resource Management. Shyh-Ming Huang is the corresponding author and
204 can be contacted at: paulh@stust.edu.tw
Shao-Chi Chang is a Professor in the Institute of International Management at the National
Cheng Kung University, Taiwan. His research interests include financial management, corporate
finance, managerial economics, and international financial management. His publications have
appeared in the journals such as Journal of Banking and Finance, Corporate Governance: An
International Review, Journal of World Business, Emerging Market Finance and Trade and Asian
Pacific Management Review.
Shyh-Rong Fang is a Professor in the Department of Marketing and Distribution
Management at the Hsiuping University of Science and Technology, Taiwan. His research
interests include relationship marketing, service marketing, and marketing management. He has
published in the journals such as Industrial Marketing Management, Technovation, The Service
Industries Journal, and Technological Forecasting & Social Change, among others.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints