Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Brand Trustand Brand Loyalty AModerationand Mediation Perspective
Brand Trustand Brand Loyalty AModerationand Mediation Perspective
net/publication/337185438
CITATIONS READS
26 15,863
4 authors, including:
Kwasi Owusu-Antwi
Methodist University College Ghana
5 PUBLICATIONS 42 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Entrepreneur moral reflectiveness:Pursing low-carbon emission behaviour among SMEs through the relationship between environmental factors, entrepreneur personal
concept and outcome expectations View project
Marketing Capabilities & Seller Influence Tactics for SMEs in the B2B industry. View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Richard Basilisco on 12 November 2019.
Authors’ contributions
This work was carried out in collaboration among all authors. Author SKSS designed the study,
performed the statistical analysis, wrote the protocol and wrote the first draft of the manuscript.
Authors FEA and RB managed the analyses of the study. Author KOA managed the literature
searches. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Article Information
DOI: 10.9734/CJAST/2019/v38i430376
Editor(s):
(1) Dr. Orlando Manuel da Costa Gomes, Professor of Economics, Lisbon Accounting and Business School (ISCAL),
Lisbon Polytechnic Institute, Portugal.
Reviewers:
(1) Do Ngoc, University of Economics, Vietnam.
(2) Michael Kwamega, Sichuan Agricultural University, China.
Complete Peer review History: https://sdiarticle4.com/review-history/52364
ABSTRACT
This study aims to empirically test the effect of brand trust on brand commitment and brand loyalty
while examining the mediating and moderating roles of brand commitment and brand reputation
respectively. To achieve this aim, data is collected from 412 smartphone users in South Korea. The
hypotheses advanced to achieve this aim are tested through the structural equations modeling
technique. The results of the study reveal that brand trust and brand commitment positively and
significantly influence brand loyalty. The study further finds that brand trust is positively and
significantly related to brand commitment, while the latter mediates the relationship between brand
trust and brand loyalty. Equally, the study finds support for the moderating role of brand reputation
on the relationship between brand trust and brand commitment. The study provides managerial and
theoretical illuminations into comprehending brand trust, brand commitment, brand reputation, and
brand loyalty.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
2
Shin et al.; CJAST, 38(4): 1-17, 2019; Article no.CJAST.52364
al., 1993). From the view of [21] brand trust is 3.2.1 Brand credibility
assessed from the perspectives of the reasons
for reliance on the brand as capacity and Brand credibility refers to the brand’s ability to
intensions to fulfill its promises to consumers. meet the terms of exchange relative to expected
Drawing from Naggar and Bendary [13], brand performance. This dimension is grounded on the
trust is highlighted as perceptions and consumer’s attribution to the brand of a certain
expectations that are based on beliefs that a degree of expertise resulting from the
brand has specific features and traits that are consumer’s functional expectations for the
consistent, competent and credible. Similarly, satisfaction of his/her needs. In the views of
trust has been classified as a key mediator for Moorman et al. [30] and Rempel et al. [31],
long-term relationships that lead to brand loyalty credibility reflects the willingness of the customer
[12,13]. To this end, Garbine and Johnson [11] to rely on the competence and reliability of the
suggest that brand trust is an outcome of brand.
previous experiences and interactions and it
mirrors the process of learning over time. This 3.2.2 Brand integrity
position is a corroboration of Krishnan's [22]
stance that brand experience is the most relevant Brands are recognized as part of consumers’
and important source of brand trust. In their view, daily lives and are essential to how they identify
Morgan and Hunt [18] describe brand trust as an products [32]. Previous research has suggested
important factor in building loyalty as it that brands have a direct interface with
establishes relationships that are considered with consumers and are particularly valuable to the
high value. companies that own them. As a consequence,
consumers depend on and use them as a
Ndubisi et al. [23] and Lewis and Soureli [24] in benchmark for making product choices,
lending credence to the foregoing, reckon that amplifying their trust in it [32]. This justifies the
trust has an essential role in building long-term need for brand integrity, which dimension refers
relationships with customers. Brand trust is to the attribution of loyal motivations to the brand
regarded as a calculative phenomenon based on concerning its promises involving the terms of
the ability of the brand to continuously meet its the exchange. Integrity is also conceptualized as
obligations and on the estimation related to the a type of commitment to certain principles [33]
rewards of remaining in the relationship [12]. which identify and differentiate the brand from
Brand trust is the confident expectations of the the competition. By implication, the credo of
brand’s reliability and intention in situations brand integrity is that brand delivery should be
entailing risk to the customer [19]. Consequently, consistent with the brand promise.
high levels of trust in a brand enable customers
to reduce perceived risk and facilitate repeat 3.2.3 Brand benevolence
patronage of the brand [25]. The
overarching effect of brand trust as can be Benevolence has been described as the
adduced from the preceding conceptualizations attribution of a durable, consumer-oriented
is to enhance consumer commitment and character to the brand as well as a policy that
loyalty. takes into account consumer interest, ahead of
brand interest in the short term [34,35]. This
3.2 Dimensions of Brand Trust consciousness enables customers to envisage a
reduced insecure future since what is being
Brand trust has been recognized in the extant offered is the durability of the terms captured in
literature as the central element involved in the any form of fair exchange. Benevolence as a
development and maintenance of the relationship dimension of a brand also reflects the motives
between two exchange partners in diverse and intentions of the partner of the exchange as
contexts [26,27] Verhoef et al. [28]. Consumer well as qualities [27].
interests rest on the idea of reciprocity, which is
fundamental in the paradigm of exchange- 3.3 Brand Commitment
defined as the moral obligation to give something
in return for the good one has received [29]. Social psychologists have argued that
Three key dimensions of brand trust as have commitment is a central relationship-specific
been proposed in the extant literature are motive, and emotions of commitment consistently
credibility, integrity, and benevolence. The next promote pro-relational cognitions, motivations,
section throws some light on these dimensions. and behaviors [36,37]. According to Rusbult [37],
3
Shin et al.; CJAST, 38(4): 1-17, 2019; Article no.CJAST.52364
commitment level represents a psychological are less sensitive to price and open to pay a
state that globally epitomizes the experience of higher price for a particular brand as opposed to
attachment to a partner and an aspiration to other options, since customers may have a
maintain the relationship. Equally, commitment is perception of unique value in the brand.
conceptualized as a critical characteristic in the Companies with brand-loyal customers stand the
relationship marketing study. Relationship advantage of market benefits.
marketing is operationalized as an enduring
yearning to maintain a valued relationship [30]. Additionally, firms get trade leverage and do not
Accordingly, Morgan and Hunt [18] describe both need to advertise as much as companies without
commitment and trust as ‘key variables’ that loyal customers do [45,20]. Brand loyalty can
encourage the exchange parties to work at also inure to marketing advantages in the form of
preserving the relationship, avoid alternative enhanced word of mouth among brand loyal
relations with other partners and lessen the customers and result in higher profitability [46,20].
perception of risk in the environment. Jacoby and Kyner (1973) contend for whether or
not consumers are brand loyal or if they only
There is considerable consensus in the extant have repeated purchase behaviors. They
literature that commitment is a mediating maintain that consumers who only purchase a
construct engineered by factors such as trust and brand because it is cheaper compared to
satisfaction and has subsequent effects on consumers who buy brands due to satisfaction
customer behavioral dispositions [38]. Brand are quintessential of different types of brand
commitment is distinct from brand loyalty. From a loyalty (Jacoby & Kyner, 1973). To this end,
consumer-brand relationship context, Fournier Mittal and Kamakura [47] aver that consumers
[10] conceptualizes brand commitment as a who have repeated purchase behavior are less
psychological or emotional attachment to a brand sensitive if there would be changes in
within a product class. Similarly, brand satisfaction as compared to brand-loyal
commitment has been described as an average consumers. Consumers who are committed to a
customer’s long-term behavioral and attitudinal brand are referred to as brand loyal customers
inclination towards a relational brand [7,39,40,41]. while those who lack attachment to the brand are
Whiles brand loyalty implies a behavioral concept, called spurious consumers. Spurious brand loyal
brand commitment suggests an attitudinal customers can easily change brands if there is a
concept (Warrington & Shim, 2000). Brand better option or if it would be more comfortable to
commitment has been argued to help attenuate buy another brand [48,49]. Prior research
uncertainty and save the consumer the cost of [50,10,40] has emphasized that trust and
seeking new relational interactions with commitment are two of the pillars for building
alternative brands [40]. brand loyalty.
The concept of brand loyalty has intrigued To become profitable and successful, brands
researchers for at least three decades, and a have to develop a positive reputation
substantial body of literature has evolved. The [34,51,52,53,54]. Brand names can often be
most elaborate conceptualization of brand loyalty repositories for a firm’s reputation (i.e. high-
was the one presented by Jacoby et al. [42] quality performance on one product can often be
when they referred to it as a biased (nonrandom) transferred to another product through the brand
behavioral response, expressed over time by name) [55,56]. A brand’s reputation is regarded
some decision-making unit, with respect to one as the estimation of the consistency over time of
or more alternative brands out of a set of such an attribute of an entity [54]. Reputable brands
brands, and is a function of psychological are strong assets, which benefit from a high
processes. Generally, building strong and degree of loyalty and stability of future sales. The
positive brands leads to a preference for a reputation of a brand is a source of lasting
particular brand among customers, which might attractiveness and demand, the image of
lead to brand loyalty over time. Loyalty is made superior quality and added value justifies a
up of a high degree of bonding between a premium price. Kapferer [57] argues that for
customer and a brand. Moreso, loyal customers brands with high reputations, the ultimate goal
are those who are unwilling to switch brands and must be to enhance their image and to examine
prefer to stick with a brand they feel satisfied and which traits the loyal customers attribute to the
comfortable with [43,44]. Brand loyal customers brand (Aperia et al., 2004).
4
Shin et al.; CJAST, 38(4): 1-17, 2019; Article no.CJAST.52364
5
Shin et al.; CJAST, 38(4): 1-17, 2019; Article no.CJAST.52364
Brand reputation has also been described from a source of brand trust. Additionally, Morgan and
firm’s perspective as a pivotal construct which Hunt [18] note that trust is an important factor in
reflects how likely a customer will be able to building loyalty as it establishes relationships that
switch to other brands, especially when the are considered with high value. In line with the
brand makes a change, either in price or in foregoing, Kumar and Advani [25] intimate that
product features (Aaker, 1991). It also signifies high levels of trust in a brand enable customers
an extrinsic cue, that is an attribute relatable to to reduce perceived risk and facilitate repeat
the product [6], but not of the physical make-up patronage of the brand which leads to loyalty.
of the brand. A brand’s reputation evolves all the Consequent to these arguments, it stands to
time and is essentially developed through the reason that consumers’ trust in a brand has a
flow of information from one user to the other [54]. positive effect on consumer’s loyalty to the brand
Brand reputation embodies the generic and therefore we argue that brand trust will
estimation in which a firm is held by suppliers, positively and significantly predict brand loyalty.
customers, employees, competitors, distributors, Thus, the following hypothesis is advanced:
and the general public. Consequently, firms
compete for brand reputation with the H1: There is a positive and significant effect of
consciousness that those with a strong brand trust on brand loyalty.
reputation across their brands can leverage on
high sales prices, and thus being more powerful 4.2 The Role of Brand Commitment in the
compared to the competition [58]. Hence, Walsh Relationship between Brand Trust
and Beatty [59] suggest that to capture the and Brand Loyalty
perception of consumers about the reputation of
a brand, it should be premised on their overall Brand commitment has been argued to play a
evaluation of a firm based on their reactions to significant role as it serves as a major turning
the company’s goods, services, interactions and point for relationship marketing models [62]. In
communication with the firm and its the current era of business, customer satisfaction
constituencies. Reputation has been noted to be is no more sufficient, and firms must not suffice
a driver of emotional brand attachment, trust, in gaining customer satisfaction, but strive
commitment and loyalty [60,61,51]. towards getting loyalty as well (Pakdel et al.,
2011). Commitment has been regarded as the
4. HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENTS main predictor of consequences in relationship
marketing (Salciuviene et al., 2011). Vazifedouist
4.1 Brand Trust and Brand Loyalty and Omidzadeh [63] note that commitment is a
clear and explicit obligation to continue the
Brand trust and brand loyalty have been relationship between interacting parties.
classified as central aspects of brand Accordingly, Panahivanani and Sha’bani (2014)
management (Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001). suggest that commitment is the perpetual
Brand trust has been operationalized severally in tendency to maintain a valuable relationship.
the extant literature. For instance, Delgado-
ballester et al. [10] view brand trust as a state of Evidence from Morgan and Hunt (2000) as well
feeling secure while interacting with a brand as Vazifedouist and Omidzadeh [63] underscore
based on the discernment that the brand will the fact that commitment is formed when parties
remain dependable and responsible to satisfy the believe the relationship is important and do their
customer. Brand trust is also viewed as best to maintain or improve it. Commitment
consumers’ inclination to rely on a brand thrives on the tendency of recurrent purchase
(Chaudhri & Holbrook, 2001; Mobiman et al., and price analysis by customers and the fact that
1993). Additionally, brand trust is perceived as increasing customer loyalty leads to the
expectations that are based on beliefs that a guarantee of future revenues from the existing
brand has specific features and traits that are pool of customers. This solidifies the position that
consistent, competent and credible [13,12]. customer loyalty is the ultimate goal for every
firm [64], Evans et al., 2009. The practical
From the view of Garbine and Johnson [11], implication is that firms with a larger pool of
brand trust is an outcome of previous committed customers profit from an increase in
experiences and interactions and it mirrors the selling price, lower customer switching, positive
process of learning over time. This position is a word of mouth, higher purchasing power,
corroboration of Keller and Krishnan's [22] customer lifetime value, among others [63]. It
position that brand involvement is an essential stands therefore to reason that customers’
6
Shin et al.; CJAST, 38(4): 1-17, 2019; Article no.CJAST.52364
development of trust in brands is a sine qua non their competitors [58,51]. Equally, Walsh and
to their commitment to the brand and as they Beatty [59] intimate that in order to capture the
become more committed, they start displaying perception of the consumer about the reputation
actions consistent with loyal customers. We of the brand, it should involve the total evaluation
argue therefore that brand commitment mediates of a firm by a customer, based on his/her
the relationship between brand trust and brand reactions of the firm’s goods, communication
loyalty. Thus the following hypotheses are activities, services, interactions with the firm and
considered: its representatives or publics (i.e. management,
employees and customers). Consequently, we
H2: There is a positive and significant effect of argue that apart from customers’ trust and
brand trust on brand commitment commitment towards a brand, there is the need
H3: There is a positive and significant effect of for the brand to possess higher levels of
brand commitment on brand loyalty. reputation (relative to competitors’) to trigger
H4: Brand commitment mediates the customer’s loyalty towards the brand. In light of
relationship between brand trust and brand the above discussion, we suggest that:
loyalty.
H5: Brand reputation will moderate the
4.3 The Role of Brand Reputation relationship between brand trust and brand
commitment.
Previous research describes brand reputation as H6: Brand reputation will moderate the
an extrinsic variable-an attribute related to the relationship between brand trust and brand
product but not of the physical composition of the loyalty.
product [65]. Herbig and Melewicz [54] opine that
brand reputation evolves all the time and is This is represented in Fig. 1. We proposed a
created mainly by the flow of information from research model as shown in Fig. 1 and tested the
one user to another. Similarly, Fombrun and hypotheses. In the model we hypothesized that
Shanley (1990) report that brand reputation brand trust has a positive and significant effect
embodies the general assessment in which a on brand commitment (H1), and brand loyalty
company is held by employees, suppliers, (H2). Brand commitment positively and
competitors, and customers, among others. As a significantly affects brand loyalty (H3). We further
result, companies compete for brand reputation argue that brand reputation moderates the
knowing that those with a strong reputation relationship between brand trust and brand
across their products can leverage on the highest commitment (H4) as well as the relationship
sales prices and become more powerful than between brand trust and brand loyalty (H5).
7
Shin et al.; CJAST, 38(4): 1-17, 2019; Article no.CJAST.52364
8
Shin et al.; CJAST, 38(4): 1-17, 2019; Article no.CJAST.52364
9
Shin et al.; CJAST, 38(4): 1-17, 2019; Article no.CJAST.52364
In line with the foregoing, discriminant validity Hypothesis two states that there is a positive and
was established by comparing the shared AVE significant effect of brand trust on brand loyalty.
values between pairs of variables with their Concerning this hypothesis, the SEM results
squared phi correlations. In all instances, the showed a positive and significant effect of brand
values of the AVE were greater than the shared trust on brand loyalty (β= .306, t= 6.800,P < 0.05).
squared phi correlations connected with each Hypothesis three states that brand commitment
pair of variables, signifying the discriminant has a significant positive relationship with brand
validity of the constructs (Fornell & Larcker, loyalty. Consistently, the SEM results indicated a
1981). The correlation coefficients ranged from positive and significant effect of brand
0.179 to 0.321 with AVE’s also ranging from commitment on brand loyalty (β=.307,t=6.768,
0.708 to 0.860. Table 4 presents the outcome of P<0.05). Hypothesis four states that brand
the discriminant validity (indicative of the fact that commitment mediates the relationship between
the constructs are distinct from one another) as it brand trust and brand loyalty. As Table 6
displays the descriptive statistics and inter- indicates, the indirect effect was positive and
construct correlations with the shared average significant (β=.069***, P =0.001). The fifth
variance extracted. As mentioned above Table 3 hypothesis states that brand reputation
shows the second order construct Brand Trust moderates the relationship between brand trust
carried all measures from the three variables and brand commitment. As Table 7 shows, the
(Brand Competence, Brand Integrity and Brand structural equation modeling results showed that
Benevolence) that were imputed in the brand reputation moderates the relationship
measurement model. between brand trust and brand commitment as
both the direct and indirect relationships were
5.5 Model Fit and Hypothesis Test significant. Specifically, since the β estimate for
As Table 5 represents, the parameter estimates the interaction was positive, it can be posited that
show the final results which effectively elucidates brand reputation strengthens the positive
the findings of the study in consonance with the relationship between brand trust and brand
hypotheses submitted early on. The model fit commitment (β=.150, t=3.074, P =.002). In effect,
indices for the structural model adduce proof of a the higher the reputation of the brand, the higher
good model fit (ᵡ²/df=2.733, RMR=.054, the effect of brand trust on brand commitment.
GFI=.932, NFI=.942, RFI=.927, IFI=.962, Similarly, hypothesis six states that brand
TLI=.952, CFI=.962, RMSEA=.065). The first reputation moderates the relationship between
hypothesis states that brand trust has a positive brand trust and brand loyalty. Relative to this
and significant effect on brand commitment. hypothesis, the results showed an insignificant
Relative to this hypothesis, the structural outcome (β=-.073, t=1.592, P=.111).
equations modeling results revealed a positive Consequently, we can surmise that brand
and significant effect of brand trust on brand reputation does not moderate the relationship
commitment (β= .204, t= 4.253, P < 0.05). between brand trust and brand loyalty.
10
Shin et al.; CJAST, 38(4): 1-17, 2019; Article no.CJAST.52364
11
Shin et al.; CJAST, 38(4): 1-17, 2019; Article no.CJAST.52364
12
Shin et al.; CJAST, 38(4): 1-17, 2019; Article no.CJAST.52364
On a whole, this research progresses knowledge Deriving understanding into how brand trust
by adducing empirical and practical illuminations influences band loyalty via brand commitment
to the question that has remained mainly and brand reputation provides new guidelines in
unaddressed in the extant relationship marketing managing issues such as brand trust. Significant
literature: what is the role of brand reputation in empirical outcomes in the current research can
13
Shin et al.; CJAST, 38(4): 1-17, 2019; Article no.CJAST.52364
be observed along the following lines: that brand incongruities that may emerge between brand
trust is instrumental in predicting brand trust and brand loyalty as well as the moderating
commitment. That brand commitment and brand role played by brand reputation. Additional
loyalty are positive and significant antecedents of research that adopts different moderating and
brand loyalty. That brand commitment mediates mediating variables will be insightful.
the relationship between brand trust and brand
loyalty and that brand reputation moderates the 8. CONCLUSION
relationship between brand trust and brand
commitment. Consequently, to enhance and This research commenced to empirically test the
encourage consumers’ loyalty to smartphone effect of brand trust on brand commitment and
brands, firms in the smartphone industry and by brand loyalty while testing for the mediating and
extension all firms in South Korea and the world moderating roles of brand commitment and
as a whole must put in place strategies that brand reputation respectively. The results of the
enhance consumers’ trust in the brand. This may study reveal that brand trust and brand
include but not limited to building more brand commitment positively and significantly influence
credibility (ensuring the quality and safety of the brand loyalty. The study further finds that brand
phone as well as offering guarantees/warranties), trust is positively and significantly related to
enhancing the integrity of the phone brand brand commitment, while the latter mediates the
(through ensuring sincerity and honesty towards relationship between brand trust and brand
customers) as well as building on the brand loyalty. Equally, the study finds support for the
benevolence (through ensuring that the phones moderating role of brand reputation on the
are reviewed taking into account advances in relationship between brand trust and brand
research, looking for avenues to improve commitment.
customer service, among others). Also, to
enhance the reputation of the brand, firms should COMPETING INTERESTS
exert more effort into being customer-oriented,
ensuring the quality and reliability of the phones Authors have declared that no competing
and taking into consideration social and interests exist.
environmental responsibility as that has the
potential of appealing to the emotions of REFERENCES
customers.
1. Singla V, Gupta G. Emotional Branding
7. LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE Scale and Its Role in Formation of Brand
RESEARCH Trust. Paradigm; 2019.
0971890719859668.
Consistent with all empirical researches, the 2. Ramirez R, Merunka D. Brand experience
current study comes along with some limitations effects on brand attachment: The role of
providing fresh possibilities for future research. In brand trust, age, and income; 2019.
the first instance, this research is limited to South 3. Bhandari M, Rodgers S. What does the
Korean smartphone users only. Consequently, brand say? Effects of brand feedback to
the findings are only within this remit, implying negative eWOM on brand trust and
that practitioners and scholars should exercise purchase intentions. International Journal
high levels of caution in attempting to universally of Advertising. 2018;37(1):125-141.
generalize it with other contexts. Equally, the 4. Becerra PE, Badrinarayanan V. The
various hypotheses advanced in this study were influence of brand trust and brand
tested using respondents in a single country, is identification on brand evangelism. Journal
cross-sectional and hence, may not yield static of Product & Brand Management. 2013;
effects in other contexts. Besides, due to 22(5/6):371-383.
disparities in contexts, subsequent research is 5. Grönroos C. Relationship marketing:
needed to validate and substantiate the construct challenges for the organization. Journal of
relationships and outcomes from this research. Business Research. 1999;46(3):327-335.
Furthermore, the effects tested were 6. Zeithaml VA. Mary Jo Bitner. Service
relationships and not causalities. The concepts Marketing, Integrating Customer Focus
examined in the current study are also relevant Across The Firm; 2000.
across different economic contexts. Accordingly, 7. Das G, Agarwal J, Malhotra NK,
these outcomes open up fresh debates on the Varshneya G. Does brand experience
concept under investigation, particularly, the translate into brand commitment?: A
14
Shin et al.; CJAST, 38(4): 1-17, 2019; Article no.CJAST.52364
15
Shin et al.; CJAST, 38(4): 1-17, 2019; Article no.CJAST.52364
products. In 2018 AFM International 46. Dick AS, Basu K. Customer loyalty: toward
Congress; 2018. an integrated conceptual framework.
33. Rieke ML, Guastello SJ. Unresolved Journal of the Academy of Marketing
issues in honesty and integrity testing; Science. 1994;22(2):99-113.
1995. 47. Mittal V, Kamakura WA. Satisfaction,
34. Foroudi P. Influence of brand signature, repurchase intent, and repurchase
brand awareness, brand attitude, brand behavior: Investigating the moderating
reputation on hotel industry’s brand effect of customer characteristics. Journal
performance. International Journal of of Marketing Research. 2001;38(1):131-
Hospitality Management, 2019;76:271-285. 142.
35. Gurviez P, Korchia M. Test of a consumer- 48. Aluri A, Price BS, McIntyre NH. Using
brand relationship model including trust machine learning to cocreate value
and three consequences. In Thirtieth through dynamic customer engagement in
International Research Seminar in a brand loyalty program. Journal of
Marketing. 2003;1-20. Hospitality & Tourism Research, 2019;
36. Rusbult CE, Buunk BP Commitment 43(1):78-100.
processes in close relationships: An 49. Bloemer JM, Kasper HD. The complex
interdependence analysis. Journal of relationship between consumer
Social and Personal Relationships. 1993; satisfaction and brand loyalty. Journal of
10(2):175-204. Economic Psychology. 1995;16(2):311-
37. Rusbult CE, Farrell D. A longitudinal test of 329.
the investment model: The impact on job 50. Khan I, Fatma M. Connecting the dots
satisfaction, job commitment, and turnover between CSR and brand loyalty: the
of variations in rewards, costs, alternatives, mediating role of brand experience and
and investments. Journal of Applied brand trust. International Journal of
Psychology.1983;68(3):429. Business Excellence. 2019;17(4):439-
38. Dwyer FR, Schurr PH, Oh S. Developing 455.
buyer-seller relationships. Journal of 51. Loureiro SMC, Sarmento EM, Le Bellego,
Marketing. 1987;51(2):11-27. G. The effect of corporate brand reputation
39. Montgomery NV, Rajagopal P. Motivated on brand attachment and brand loyalty:
reconstruction: The effect of brand Automobile sector. Cogent Business &
commitment on false memories. Journal of Management. 20174;4(1):1360031.
Experimental Psychology: Applied, 2018; 52. Han SH, Nguyen B, Lee TJ. Consumer-
24(2):159. based chain restaurant brand equity, brand
40. Gundlach GT, Achrol RS, Mentzer JT. The reputation, and brand trust. International
structure of commitment in exchange. Journal of Hospitality Management. 2015;
Journal of Marketing. 1995;59(1):78-92. 50:84-93.
41. Chaudhuri A, Holbrook MB. Product-class 53. Sengupta AS, Balaji MS, Krishnan BC.
effects on brand commitment and brand How customers cope with service failure?
outcomes: The role of brand trust and A study of brand reputation and customer
brand affect. Journal of Brand satisfaction. Journal of Business
Management. 2002;10(1):33-58. Research. 2015;68(3):665-674.
42. Jacoby J, Chestnut RW. Brand loyalty 54. Herbig P, Milewicz J. The relationship of
measurement and management; 1978. reputation and credibility to brand success.
43. Coelho PS, Rita P, Santos ZR. On the Pricing Strategy and Practice. 1997;
relationship between consumer-brand 5(1):25-29.
identification, brand community, and brand 55. Joo, B., & Hwang, S. Impact of Negative
loyalty. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Review Type, Brand Reputation, and
Services. 2018;43:101-110. Opportunity Scarcity Perception on
44. Rosenbaum-Elliott R, Percy, Pervan S. Preferences of Fashion Products in Social
Strategic brand management; 2011. Commerce. Journal of Fashion Business.
45. Kim SS, Choe JYJ, Petrick JF. The effect 2016;20(4):207-225.
of celebrity on brand awareness, perceived 56. Moorthy K. Sridhar. Using Game Theory to
quality, brand image, brand loyalty, and Model Competition. Marketing. 1985; 262-
destination attachment to a literary festival. 282.
Journal of Destination Marketing & 57. Kapferer J. Strategic brand management,
Management. 2018;9:320-329. 2/e, Kogan Page; 1997.
16
Shin et al.; CJAST, 38(4): 1-17, 2019; Article no.CJAST.52364
Peer-review history:
The peer review history for this paper can be accessed here:
https://sdiarticle4.com/review-history/52364
17