Examining the moderating role of personality

traits in the relationship between brand trust

and brand loyalty
Choukri Menidjel
Abou Bekr Belkaid, Tlemcen, Algeria
Abderrezzak Benhabib
Department of Economics, Laboratory MECAS Tlemcen University, Tlemcan, Algeria, and
Anil Bilgihan
Department of Marketing, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida, USA

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this empirical study is to investigate both the relationships among brand satisfaction, trust and loyalty and the moderating
effects of personality traits, namely, consumer innovativeness, variety-seeking and relationship proneness, in the context of fast-moving consumer
goods.
Design/methodology/approach – Data were collected using a survey of 443 consumers. Structural equation modeling, specifically partial least
squares regression, was used to test the theoretical model.
Findings – The findings indicate that brand loyalty is the most affected (both directly and indirectly) by satisfaction through the mediation of brand
trust in both product categories studied. Moreover, variety-seeking behavior negatively moderates the relationship between brand trust and brand
loyalty for fruit juices.
Research limitations/implications – This research was conducted in the context of fast-moving consumer goods within a limited geographical
region. Future research could apply this model to different contexts and countries.
Practical implications – Companies that produce fast-moving consumer goods are advised to consider the important role of satisfaction in the
generation of trust, which leads to brand loyalty.
Originality/value – This study proposes and tests a theoretical model that is more comprehensive than the models used in previous studies because
it investigates the relationships among satisfaction, trust, loyalty and personality traits. It is the first attempt to examine the moderating effects of
consumer innovativeness, variety-seeking and relationship proneness on the relationship between brand trust and loyalty.
Keywords Partial least squares, Trust, Brand loyalty, Personality traits, Consumer satisfaction
Paper type Research paper

Introduction Trust is essential to building and maintaining long-term

relationships (Rousseau et al., 1998). As one of the most
The key objective of marketers is not only to satisfy customers
relevant antecedents of stable and collaborative relationships,
(Hess and Story, 2005) but also to develop and maintain
trust is a significant factor in determining customer loyalty and
enduring relationships with them (Elbedweihy et al., 2016).
is highly correlated with customer satisfaction (Lin and Wang,
Customer loyalty, which is central to marketing scholarship
2006). Previous research emphasizes the importance of
(Kandampully et al., 2015; Toufaily et al., 2013), is among the
understanding the nature of the relationship between
most important assets for a brand. The creation and
consumers and brands (Fournier, 1998). Similar to
maintenance of customer loyalty help brands develop
interpersonal relationships, specific characteristics of the two
long-term, mutually beneficial relationships with their
parties involved are important determinants of the nature of
customers (Pan et al., 2012). Loyal customers exhibit brand
the relationship. Several notable studies indicate that
attachment and commitment and are not attracted to
customer characteristics moderate the relationship between
competitors’ offerings; they are also willing to pay more. Thus,
satisfaction and behavioral outcomes (Baumann et al., 2005;
it is important for brands to have loyal customers
(Kandampully et al., 2015).
The authors would like to thank the editor and the three anonymous
reviewers for providing constructive comments. Choukri Menidjel would
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on like to thank Mourad Benabadji for providing help and inspiration.
Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/1061-0421.htm No external funding was received for this work.

Received 3 May 2016

Journal of Product & Brand Management Revised 11 October 2016
26/6 (2017) 631–649 19 March 2017
© Emerald Publishing Limited [ISSN 1061-0421] 23 March 2017
[DOI 10.1108/JPBM-05-2016-1163] Accepted 9 April 2017

631
 Relationship between brand trust and brand loyalty
Choukri Menidjel, Abderrezzak Benhabib and Anil Bilgihan
Cooil et al., 2007; Henrique and de Matos, 2015; Homburg
and Giering, 2001; Mägi, 2003). Even if customers are
satisfied with a product’s performance and implicitly trust the
brand, relationships do not always form (Hess and Story,
2005). Relationship formation is moderated by customer
attributes. In particular, personality traits are expected to
influence the relationship between brand trust and brand
loyalty because evidence indicates a nonlinear relationship
between personality characteristics and behavior (Perrewé and
Spector, 2002). Interestingly, Bove and Mitzifiris (2007)
suggest that personality traits do not directly affect trust and
commitment; they call for future research to investigate the
potential interactive effects.
Personality traits have been investigated as antecedents of
trust and loyalty (Bove and Mitzifiris, 2007; Lin, 2010).
However, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, no research
has investigated personality traits as moderators of the
relationship between these two constructs. Based on the
identification of this research gap, the present study aims to
investigate both the relationships between brand satisfaction,
brand trust and brand loyalty and the moderating role of
personality traits. The moderating effects of personality traits
have been empirically tested and validated by Adjei and Clark
(2010), who suggest that the effect of relationship quality (i.e.
relationship satisfaction, trust and commitment) on behavioral
loyalty is moderated by personality traits (i.e. consumer
innovativeness, variety-seeking and relationship proneness).
Thus, the current study attempts to bridge this research gap
and contribute to the existing literature by examining the
moderating effects of personality traits – that is consumer
innovativeness, variety-seeking and relationship proneness –
on the relationship between brand trust and brand loyalty.
If the findings indicate that personality traits exert an
important impact on this relationship, then marketers and
practitioners may need to segment their customers based on
personality traits and offer them different benefits. In
summary, given the importance of customer loyalty,
developing a brand marketing strategy that creates loyalty is
important. Satisfaction (Sharifi and Esfidani, 2014) and trust
(Rousseau et al., 1998) are the key components of this
relationship. However, it is important to consider that trust
and satisfaction are related to customer perceptions of value
(Alejandro et al., 2011), which are moderated by personality
traits. For example, variety-seeking behaviors cause
consumers to try different brands even though they may be
satisfied with a certain brand (Homburg and Giering, 2001).
Variety-seeking is not only a psychological trait but also a
relevant market characteristic that affects brand performance
(Berné et al., 2001). Furthermore, relationship proneness, a
personality trait that reflects a consumer’s relatively stable and
conscious tendency to engage in relationships with brands
(Bloemer et al., 2003), is another personality trait relevant to
marketing research. Finally, consumer innovativeness, which
is the tendency to buy new products more often and more
quickly than other individuals (Midgley and Dowling, 1978),
is expected to moderate customer loyalty. To date, the
moderating effects of the previously described personality
traits have not been tested in a comprehensive model that also
includes trust as a potential mediator. Against this backdrop,
developing a model that integrates potential moderators is
632
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 26 · Number 6 · 2017 · 631–649
important to better explain the relationships between brand
satisfaction, brand trust and brand loyalty.
The contribution of this study is threefold. First, this work
introduces and tests a model that investigates the nature of the
relationship among satisfaction, trust, loyalty and personality
traits; this model is more comprehensive than the models used
in previous studies. Second, this study is considered the first
attempt to examine the moderating effects of consumer
innovativeness, variety-seeking and relationship proneness on
the relationship between brand trust and brand loyalty; thus,
this study contributes to the existing literature by addressing
an important phenomenon. Third, this study empirically tests
the research model across two product categories, soft drinks
and fruit juices, and the findings may be applied to other
product categories. Previous research has tested potential
moderators in the durable goods context (Homburg and
Giering, 2001). The current research investigates a
comprehensive loyalty model in the fast-moving consumer
goods context. Fast-moving consumer goods are rapidly sold
at relatively low cost. Because they are purchased more
frequently, customer loyalty is important in this context
(Dupre and Gruen, 2004). The subsequent section of this
study presents the theoretical framework and hypotheses,
followed by a description of the research methods and results.
The paper concludes with a general discussion, managerial
implications, limitations and directions for future research.
Theoretical framework and hypothesis
development
Brand loyalty
A substantial number of studies in the consumer– brand
relationship literature have addressed brand loyalty (Dwivedi
et al., 2015; Ferreira and Coelho, 2015; Fetscherin et al.,
2014; Lin et al., 2017; Lu and Xu, 2015; Marticotte et al.,
2016; Molinillo et al., 2017; Odoom, 2016; Ruane and
Wallace, 2015; Rubio et al., 2015; Su and Tong, 2015).
Brands attempt to meet customer needs by providing special
and competitive benefits, which increase their loyalty (Quester
and Lim, 2003). Brand loyalty is conceptualized and
measured through two perspectives, that is, attitudinal and
behavioral loyalty (Jacoby and Kyner, 1973). Behavioral
loyalty refers to repeated purchases of the same brand,
whereas attitudinal loyalty refers to consumer intentions to
continue to purchase the same brand (Pappu et al., 2005).
These two perspectives have been widely used by many
researchers in the marketing literature (Hemsley-Brown and
Alnawas, 2016). Thus, this study incorporates both attitudinal
and behavioral aspects to measure brand loyalty.
Relationship between brand satisfaction and brand
loyalty
Brand satisfaction, which is determined by comparing what
the consumer needs and expects from a brand and what he/she
actually receives from the brand, is considered a key factor in
the development and maintenance of brand loyalty (Eskafi
et al., 2013; Wu et al., 2012). Consumers are satisfied when
their perceptions of products or services meet their
expectations (Bloemer and Odekerken-Schroder, 2002;
Fandos-Roig et al., 2009).
 Relationship between brand trust and brand loyalty
Choukri Menidjel, Abderrezzak Benhabib and Anil Bilgihan
Several definitions of customer satisfaction have been
proposed (Kim et al., 2007). The most widely accepted
definition of satisfaction is that of Oliver (1981, p. 27), who
defines it as “the summary psychological state resulting when the
emotion surrounding disconfirmed expectations is coupled with the
consumer’s prior feelings about the consumption experience”.
Accordingly, Oliver (1981) indicates that consumers may
experience three situations after trying a specific product or
brand:
1 positive disconfirmation, which occurs when consumers
believe that what they receive from the product or brand
exceeds their expectations;
2 negative disconfirmation, which occurs when consumers
feel that what they receive from the product or brand falls
below their expectations; and
3 confirmation, which occurs when consumers’
expectations match their perceptions of the brand.
Thus, both positive disconfirmation and confirmation lead to
satisfaction, whereas negative disconfirmation leads to
dissatisfaction. The direct and positive relationship between
satisfaction and loyalty has been suggested by several studies
(Cheng et al., 2015; Herrera and Blanco, 2011; Kim et al.,
2015; Murray and Kline, 2015; Sharma, 2017; Yoo and Park,
2016). Moreover, if customers perceive that a company fulfills
the agreed conditions, they will feel satisfied and believe that
this behavior will also continue in the future. Accordingly,
their likelihood of developing a relationship with the company
will increase. The alternative brands in the market will
simultaneously be less attractive. Therefore, satisfaction
becomes a mechanism through which the customer
differentiates between companies and what they provide
(Casaló et al., 2008). Based on the arguments, the following
hypothesis is proposed:
H1. Satisfaction has a direct positive influence on loyalty.
Brand trust as a mediator of the satisfaction–loyalty
relationship
The importance of trust has been proposed by many
researchers in the marketing literature (Kesharwani and Bisht,
2012; Loureiro et al., 2014; Yannopoulou et al., 2011).
Researchers and practitioners have recognized the difficulty of
precisely defining the term trust; however, they agree on its
importance for customer relationships (Cowles, 1997).
Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001, p. 82) define brand trust as
“the willingness of the average consumer to rely on the ability of the
brand to perform its stated function”. Brand trust is often
regarded as a main determinant of brand loyalty (Gómez and
Rubio, 2010) because it plays a critical role in building
long-term relationships between consumers and their
preferred brands (Bianchi et al., 2014). Several studies have
empirically demonstrated a strong and positive relationship
between satisfaction and trust, as well as between trust and
customer loyalty (Kassim and Abdullah, 2010; Yap et al.,
2012). Liang and Wang (2007) indicate that customer
satisfaction is a good predictor of trust. In a
business-to-business (B2B) context, Ramaseshan et al. (2013)
suggest that trust has a strong positive impact on customer
loyalty. This result is consistent with the findings of Phan and
Ghantous (2013), who suggest that brand trust is a strong
633
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 26 · Number 6 · 2017 · 631–649
predictor of customer loyalty. Furthermore, the positive
relationship between brand trust and brand loyalty is
supported by Laroche et al. (2012). Moreover, studies indicate
that trust mediates the relationship between satisfaction and
customer loyalty (Chen and Phou, 2013; Chen, 2012;
Shin et al., 2013). Castañeda (2011) indicates that trust is an
important factor in explaining the relationship between
satisfaction and loyalty. Thus, the following hypothesis is
presented:
H2. Satisfaction has an indirect positive influence on loyalty
through trust.
Moderating effects of personality traits
Observations focused on the relationships among trust,
satisfaction and loyalty have emphasized the importance of
potential moderators (Aydin et al., 2005; Fang et al., 2014; Jin
et al., 2013; Schirmer et al., 2016; Veloutsou, 2015). Building
customer loyalty depends on various factors (Reinartz et al.,
2004). The personality traits of consumers, such as their
personal innovativeness, variety-seeking behaviors and
relationship proneness, may affect the performance of
relationship marketing activities. Schiffman et al. (2013, p.
110) define personality as “those inner psychological
characteristics that both determine and reflect how an individual
responds to the environment”. Consumer personality is
considered one of the most important variables in the
marketing literature because of its fundamental role in
explaining and understanding consumer behavior. A review of
the consumer– brand relationship literature indicates that the
personality traits of consumer innovativeness, variety-seeking
(Gounaris and Stathakopoulos, 2004; Ramirez and
Goldsmith, 2009) and relationship proneness have the
greatest influences on consumer relationships. This study
focuses on these personality traits as moderators of the trust–
loyalty relationship. A brief discussion of each of the three
traits is subsequently provided.
Consumer innovativeness
Consumer innovativeness is a key topic that has received
substantial attention from marketing researchers (Bartels and
Reinders, 2011; Hur et al., 2012; Kahn, 1998). As an
important variable in marketing research, innovativeness is the
predisposition to buy new and different products and brands
rather than remain with previous choices and consumer
patterns (Roehrich, 2004). Consumer innovativeness is one of
three personality traits considered in this study.
Innovativeness is an innate trait in every consumer; however,
it appears at different levels for each individual (Hirschman,
1980). Some consumers have a strong tendency for
innovativeness, whereas other consumers have a lower
tendency (Midgley and Dowling, 1978). Consumers who are
highly innovative exhibit high rates of adoption of new
products (Adjei and Clark, 2010; Foxall, 1995). The
consumer innovativeness trait may help marketers distinguish
innovators from non-innovators (Midgley and Dowling,
1978) and early adopters from late adopters (Xie, 2008).
Previous studies have focused on two types of consumer
innovativeness: global innovativeness and domain-specific
innovativeness (Chao et al., 2013; Hirunyawipada and
Paswan, 2006; Kaushik and Rahman, 2014). Global or innate
 Relationship between brand trust and brand loyalty
Choukri Menidjel, Abderrezzak Benhabib and Anil Bilgihan
innovativeness is defined as “the degree to which an individual
makes innovation decisions independently of the communicated
experience of others” (Midgley and Dowling, 1978, p. 235),
whereas domain-specific innovativeness is defined as “the
predisposition to learn about and adopt new products in a specific
domain” (Goldsmith and Hofacker, 1991, p. 219). In general,
researchers support the use of domain-specific innovativeness
to measure consumer innovativeness (Kaushik and Rahman,
2014).
Variety-seeking
The concept of variety-seeking has been widely investigated in
marketing research (Desai and Trivedi, 2014; Kahn, 1998;
Tuu and Olsen, 2013), particularly within the domain of
consumer goods, especially supermarket goods (Kahn, 1995).
The basic notion behind this concept is that under specific
conditions, individuals need variety in their lives (Homburg
and Giering, 2001). The marketing literature has recently
affirmed the important role of variety-seeking in explaining
consumer behavior (Hoyer and Ridgway, 1984), and this
concept is considered a key determinant of exploratory
purchase behavior (Van Trijp et al., 1996). According to Bigné
et al. (2009) and Hoyer and Ridgway (1984), variety-seeking
is conceptualized as the desire to try new products or new
brands or to switch among familiar products or brands.
Woratschek and Horbel (2006) report that although
variety-seekers are not loyal customers, they contribute to
improving brand reputation through positive word of mouth.
Many marketing studies have been conducted to clarify the
nature of variety-seeking behavior. McAlister and Pessemier
(1982) distinguish two types of variety-seeking: direct and
derived variety-seeking behavior. Direct variety-seeking
behavior is an internal desire that motivates individuals to seek
change or novelty, whereas derived variety-seeking behavior is
the outcome of an individual’s exposure to external
motivations, such as promotions. Homburg and Giering
(2001) indicate that variety-seeking is intrinsically motivated,
which indicates that variety-seekers switch from one brand to
another brand because of intrinsic motivation (a desire for
variety). However, several consumer behavior studies have
focused on the behavioral side of variety-seeking instead of the
psychological side. To address this research gap, the current
study focuses on variety-seeking behavior as a personality trait.
Relationship proneness
Relationship proneness is a consumer’s tendency to engage in
a long-term relationship with a specific brand (De Wulf et al.,
2001). Consumer relationship proneness is considered a
personality trait (Odekerken-Schröder et al., 2003). A
relationship-prone consumer is more likely to develop and
maintain a successful relationship with a specific product or
brand (De Wulf et al., 2001). Most relationship-prone
consumers are proactive when they feel that the brand exerts
efforts to develop relationships (Bloemer and
Odekerken-Schroder, 2002). Adjei and Clark (2010) note that
relationship-prone consumers do not seek ordinary
relationships with firms or brands; instead, they seek to
substantially strengthen these relationships by increasing their
purchasing levels. In addition, Bloemer et al. (2003) indicate
that the personality trait of relationship proneness has
634
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 26 · Number 6 · 2017 · 631–649
frequently been investigated in the product category domain.
Similarly, this study investigates the effect of consumer
relationship proneness in the context of fast-moving consumer
goods, that is soft drinks and fruit juices. Based on the
previously described arguments, relationship proneness is
expected to moderate the relationship between brand trust
and brand loyalty.
The direct link between personality traits and relationship
variables, such as satisfaction, trust, commitment and loyalty,
is the subject of numerous studies (Odekerken-Schröder et al.,
2003; Parish and Holloway, 2010; Vázquez-Carrasco and
Foxall, 2006). However, few empirical studies have addressed
the moderating effect of consumer personality on both the
relationship between perceived relationship investment and
relationship quality (satisfaction, trust and commitment) (De
Wulf et al., 2001) and the relationships among satisfaction,
image, value, credibility and loyalty (Hansen et al., 2013;
Homburg and Giering, 2001). Moreover, to the best of the
authors’ knowledge, no research has explicitly investigated the
moderating effects of personality traits on the relationship
between brand trust and brand loyalty. Adjei and Clark
(2010) suggest that the link between relationship quality (i.e.
satisfaction, trust and commitment) and behavioral loyalty is
moderated by personality traits. More specifically, both
consumer innovativeness and variety-seeking negatively
interact with relationship quality. In contrast, relationship
proneness has a positive influence on the link between
relationship quality and behavioral loyalty. Based on previous
evidence, the effect of brand trust on brand loyalty is expected
to be moderated by consumer innovativeness, variety-seeking
and relationship proneness (Figure 1), which leads to the
following three hypotheses:
H3. Consumer innovativeness has a negative moderating
effect on the relationship between brand trust and
brand loyalty.
H4. Variety-seeking has a negative moderating effect on the
relationship between brand trust and brand loyalty.
H5. Relationship proneness has a positive moderating effect
on the relationship between brand trust and brand
loyalty.
Figure 1 Conceptual framework
CI
Trust
H3: b2
VS
RP
a H4: b3
b1
H2: SėTėL = ab1 H5: b4
Satisfaction Loyalty
H1: c’
CI: Consumer Innovativeness
VS: Variety-Seeking
RP: Relationship Proneness
 Relationship between brand trust and brand loyalty
Choukri Menidjel, Abderrezzak Benhabib and Anil Bilgihan
Methods
Sample and data collection
The data were collected through a self-administered
questionnaire between November 2014 and March 2015 in
Tlemcen, a city of 950,000 inhabitants in the northwestern
region of Algeria. The sampling frame of the study included all
consumers 15 years and older. The participants were real
consumers who reported their consumption experiences
within fast-moving consumer goods, that is, soft drinks and
fruit juices. These two categories were selected because they
are frequently purchased and because most consumers are
familiar with the brands. Soft drinks and fruit juices are
accessible in nearly every city, town and village, as well as ships
and aircraft (Ashurst, 2016), which creates a suitable context
to investigate fast-moving consumer goods. Soft drinks and
fruit juices appear to belong to similar product categories;
however, they are competitors at a higher level. Companies
use several different brands for each category; within each
category, brands compete heavily (Olsen et al., 2013) because
their choice criteria, preferences and consumer profiles are
different. Therefore, an examination of the model across these
two product categories is important. These two categories (i.e.
soft drinks and fruit juices) are represented by several brands
in the consumer goods market (Narayana and Markin, 1975).
A short survey was conducted in November 2014 to
determine the common brands that consumers most often
considered buying[1]. The questionnaire included two
sections. The first section contained two items repeated for
each of the two product categories. These items were adapted
from Narayana and Markin (1975) to measure the awareness
set and the evoked set[2]. A sample of 50 participants was
instructed to list:
● the names of all brands of which they were aware; and
● the names of brands that they considered buying.
The second section of the questionnaire comprised
demographic questions. The results indicated that the number
of brands of which consumers were aware ranged from 3 to 12
and 1-8 for soft drinks and fruit juices, respectively. Similarly,
the number of brands that consumers considered buying
ranged from 1 to 6 for both product categories (an average of
2.68 and 2.04 for soft drinks and fruit juices, respectively).
Wilkie and Farris (1975) indicate that for some product
categories, the average size of the evoked set could be only two
or three brands. Thus, this study adopted the three top brands
included in the evoked set for each product category (Table I).
Table I List of the three brands selected in each product category
Brand Percentage (N ⴝ 50)
Soft drinks
Coca-Cola 58
Pepsi 50
L’exquiseL’exquise 42
Fruit juices
Ramy 66
Ifruit 30
Rouiba 18
635
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 26 · Number 6 · 2017 · 631–649
The final questionnaire was categorized into three major
sections. The first section briefly introduced the purpose of the
study. The participants were instructed to complete the
questionnaire, were promised that it would take no longer
than 15 min of their time, and were thanked for their
participation. Details regarding the authors were also
provided. The second section included 27 items related to the
six research constructs, namely, satisfaction, trust, loyalty,
consumer innovativeness, variety-seeking and relationship
proneness. All research variables were measured using
multiple-item scales adopted from previous studies, with only
minor changes to the wording to tailor them to the target
context. The participants were instructed to first rank the
three brands described in each product category in order of
preference. They were subsequently instructed to answer the
same 27 items for each of the two product categories using a
five-point Likert-type scale that ranged from “⫹2” (strongly
agree) to “-2” (strongly disagree). The final section assessed
demographic information, such as gender, age, marital status,
education and quantity consumed. The demographic
questions were provided at the end of the questionnaire to
ensure that the participants completed the other questions
before completing private or personal questions (Rowley,
2014). Prior to the distribution of the questionnaires, a pretest
was conducted with 30 participants in December 2014 to test
and revise the questionnaire, improve the scale items and
reduce item ambiguity (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Following the
pretest, two questions were added, and the wording of specific
items was improved. When the questionnaire was finalized,
potential participants were randomly approached in shopping
streets, asked to participate in a brief survey if they drank soft
drinks and fruit juices, and informed that the purpose of the
survey was to understand their attitudes and behaviors toward
both product categories. Individuals who agreed to participate
were instructed to rank the three brands described in the
questionnaire for each product category from 1 to 3 according
to their preferences and then to answer the questions with
respect to their first-ranked brand. The participants were
requested to select one of the three brands for two reasons.
First, these brands are popular and available in the Algerian
markets, enabling researchers to identify a sufficient number
of participants and thereby improving the response rate.
Second, these brands are frequently purchased, and the use of
frequently purchased brands as stimuli is relatively common in
the literature, as loyalty is a predicted variable (Chinomona,
2016; Haryanto et al., 2016). To minimize common method
bias concerns, the participants were told that their responses
would be kept anonymous, were assured that there were no
right or wrong answers and were encouraged to answer the
questions accurately (Podsakoff et al., 2003). After completing
the questionnaire, each participant received a small gift, which
motivated them to respond and improved the response rate.
Five hundred thirty-seven questionnaires were distributed
to participants during the period between January and March
2015. Four hundred forty-three valid questionnaires were
collected, and 94 questionnaires were excluded because of
missing important data, which resulted in a response rate of
82.49 per cent. To ensure that the sample was representative
of the general population in the city, participants were selected
with respect to demographic characteristics, that is gender and
 Relationship between brand trust and brand loyalty Journal of Product & Brand Management
Choukri Menidjel, Abderrezzak Benhabib and Anil Bilgihan Volume 26 · Number 6 · 2017 · 631–649

age, in accordance with census data published in the Algeria scale was adapted from Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001). A
National Statistics Office (ONS, 2008). As suggested by Hair five-item scale was adapted from Goldsmith and Hofacker
et al. (2010), the minimum sample size required for structural (1991) to measure consumer innovativeness, whereas the
equation modeling (SEM) is 200; thus, the sample size used in variety-seeking construct was measured using seven items
this study was satisfactory. In addition, this study tested for adapted from Adjei and Clark (2010) and Manning et al.
non-response bias by comparing the demographic (1995). The relationship proneness construct was measured
characteristics of the sample (gender, age, marital status, using three items adapted from De Wulf et al. (2001)
education and quantity consumed) and the six research (Appendix). All items were measured using a 5-point
constructs (satisfaction, trust, loyalty, consumer Likert-type scale that ranged from “⫹2” (strongly agree) to
innovativeness, variety-seeking and relationship proneness) “-2” (strongly disagree). This study controlled for gender, age,
between early (n ⫽ 243) and late (n ⫽ 200) respondents marital status, education and quantity consumed.
(Armstrong and Overton, 1977). The results indicated that
there was no statistically significant difference in the means of Data analysis and results
the variables, with the exception of education ( p ⫽ 0.03),
SEM is one of the most commonly used methods in marketing
between the early and late respondents; thus, non-response
research (Baumgartner and Homburg, 1996; Chin et al.,
bias was not a serious problem in this study. The original
2008; Martínez-López et al., 2013), particularly for the
version of the questionnaire was prepared in English,
estimation of causal models and hypotheses (Ringle et al.,
translated into Arabic and French, and back-translated into
2013). SEM enables researchers to simultaneously test a set of
English. Table II presents the demographic characteristics of
interrelated hypotheses by estimating the relationships
the sample. An analysis of variance was conducted between
between multiple independent and dependent variables in a
soft drinks and fruit juices to determine whether the research
structural model (Gefen and Straub, 2000). Researchers have
constructs significantly differ across the two groups. The
distinguished between two major types of SEM:
results indicate that two of the six constructs (i.e. satisfaction
covariance-based SEM (CB-SEM), developed by Jöreskog
and trust) are significantly different between the two groups
(1978), and partial least squares SEM (PLS-SEM), developed
( p ⬍ 0.05).
by Wold (1974, 1980). Although CB-SEM and PLS-SEM are
different methods with different advantages, they are
Measures considered complementary statistical methods (Hair et al.,
The satisfaction construct was measured using four items 2012a; Sarstedt et al., 2014a). According to Hair et al. (2012a,
adapted from Kuikka and Laukkanen (2012). Four items were p. 312), CB-SEM is:
adapted from previous studies (Becerra and Badrinarayanan,
2013; Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001; Kuikka and [. . .] a confirmatory approach that focuses on the model’s theoretically
established relationships and aims at minimizing the difference between the
Laukkanen, 2012; Ruparelia et al., 2010) to measure the trust model-implied covariance matrix and the sample covariance matrix.
construct. To measure the brand loyalty construct, a four-item
In contrast to CB-SEM, PLS-SEM is viewed as “a
prediction-oriented variance-based approach that focuses on
Table II Demographic characteristics of the sample endogenous target constructs in the model and aims at maximizing
their explained variance (i.e. their R2 value)” (Hair et al., 2012a,
Characteristic Category Percentage (n ⴝ 443)
p. 312).
Gender Female 49.0 CB-SEM is considered a common traditional approach to
Male 51.0 estimate empirical research models; however, the
Age 15-25 37.2 popularity of the PLS-SEM approach has recently
26-35 26.6 increased in many disciplines, including (international)
36-45 19.2 marketing (Hair et al., 2012c; Henseler et al., 2009;
46-55 11.7 Reinartz et al., 2009), operations management (Peng and
56-65 4.7 Lai, 2012), group and organization research (Sosik et al.,
66 or older 0.5 2009), family business research (Sarstedt et al., 2014b),
Marital status Single 54.2 accounting (Lee et al., 2011), strategic human resource
Married 43.6 management (Becker et al., 2012), information systems
Other 2.3 (Chin et al., 2003; Ringle et al., 2012), strategic
Education Primary 3.6 management (Hair et al., 2012b; Hulland, 1999) and
Middle 9.3 tourism (do Valle and Assaker, 2016).
Secondary 14.7
Most researchers and practitioners are more familiar with
CB-SEM than PLS-SEM, which indicates that they must
University 71.6
justify their choice of PLS-SEM over CB-SEM (Chin,
Other 0.9
2010). Hair et al. (2011) indicate that researchers must
Quantity consumed per day choose between CB-SEM and PLS-SEM depending on
Soft drinks (%) Fruit juices(%) their study objectives. Therefore, this study focuses on the
1 glass or less 62.1 39.5 choice of PLS-SEM over CB-SEM for the following
Between 2 glasses and 1 L 35.2 54.0 reasons. First, the current data do not follow normal
More than 1 L 2.7 6.5 distributions. The skewness and kurtosis values fell outside
the recommended range from ⫺1 to 1 (Hair et al., 2014a).

636
 Relationship between brand trust and brand loyalty Journal of Product & Brand Management
Choukri Menidjel, Abderrezzak Benhabib and Anil Bilgihan Volume 26 · Number 6 · 2017 · 631–649

In contrast to CB-SEM, PLS-SEM is a distribution-free Measurement model

assumption (Hair et al., 2012b; Hair et al., 2014b; Peng and
Lai, 2012; Reinartz et al., 2009). Second, compared with
CB-SEM, PLS-SEM performs better with complex models
(Chin et al., 2008; Lee et al., 2011), which include latent
constructs with a large number of indicators and complex
relationships. Third, PLS-SEM is the preferred approach
for research objectives to predict endogenous latent
variables (Chin and Dibbern, 2010; Hair et al., 2011; Sosik
et al., 2009), which is consistent with the study objective.
Finally, PLS-SEM has received substantial attention from
marketing researchers in recent years (Rezaei, 2015; Wilden
and Gudergan, 2015). Based on this review, PLS-SEM
appears to be the appropriate approach for this research.
SmartPLS software (Ringle et al., 2005) was used in this
study to assess the measurement and structural models
(Anderson and Gerbing, 1988; Hulland, 1999).
This study examined the reliability and validity of the
measurement model (Chin, 2010; Hair et al., 2011).
According to Hair et al. (2011), reliability and validity may be
evaluated using four common criteria: individual item
reliability, construct reliability, convergent validity and
discriminant validity. First, individual reflective item reliability
was evaluated by assessing the item loadings of the constructs.
As a general rule, item loadings should be greater than the
recommended threshold of 0.7. Although most items exhibit
loadings higher than 0.7, some items exhibit loadings between
0.44 and 0.7 (Table III). While this result may appear
problematic, Chin (2010) indicates that items with loadings of
0.5 or 0.6 can be acceptable under certain circumstances.
Hulland (1999) reports that items with loadings less than 0.4
should be removed from the scales; however, in the current
study, all items exhibit loadings higher than 0.4. Second, the

Table III Individual item reliability-individual item loadingsa, construct reliability and convergent validity coefficients
Soft drinks Fruit juices
Latent dimension Load CR AVE Load CR AVE
Satisfaction 0.896 0.683 0.930 0.769
S1 0.851 0.889
S2 0.859 0.871
S3 0.849 0.895
S4 0.743 0.851
Trust 0.923 0.750 0.929 0.766
T1 0.860 0.803
T2 0.847 0.905
T3 0.893 0.906
T4 0.864 0.882
Loyalty 0.854 0.595 0.884 0.657
L1 0.786 0.732
L2 0.742 0.873
L3 0.761 0.838
L4 0.796 0.793
Consumer innovativeness 0.846 0.533 0.862 0.570
CI1 0.835 0.585
CI2 0.589 0.923
CI3 0.507 0.846
CI4 0.880 0.863
CI5 0.768 0.444
Variety-seeking 0.921 0.627 0.920 0.623
VS1 0.765 0.765
VS2 0.771 0.744
VS3 0.860 0.804
VS4 0.748 0.809
VS5 0.801 0.778
VS6 0.763 0.826
VS7 0.826 0.795
Relationship proneness 0.893 0.736 0.907 0.766
RP1 0.853 0.908
RP2 0.904 0.821
RP3 0.813 0.895
Notes: Load: Loading; CR: Composite Reliability; AVE: Average Variance Extracted; a All loadings are significant at p ⬍ 0.001 (based on t(4999), two-
tailed test)

637
 Relationship between brand trust and brand loyalty
Choukri Menidjel, Abderrezzak Benhabib and Anil Bilgihan
composite reliability (CR) was used to evaluate the construct
reliability. The CRs for satisfaction, trust, loyalty, consumer
innovativeness, variety-seeking and relationship proneness
exceeded the minimum threshold of 0.7. Third, the average
variance extracted (AVE) proposed by Fornell and Larcker
(1981) was used to assess the convergent validity. The AVE
for all constructs exceeded the minimum threshold of 0.5.
Finally, the assessment of discriminant validity is a common
practical tool used in marketing (Dwivedi, 2015; Tournois,
2015). Discriminant validity is used “to test whether a construct
is truly distinct from other constructs” (Xiong et al., 2015, p. 65).
Previous studies have primarily focused on the use of two
traditional approaches – the Fornell-Larcker criterion and the
examination of cross-loadings – to evaluate discriminant
validity (Hair et al., 2011; Henseler et al., 2009).
In a Monte Carlo simulation study, Henseler et al. (2015)
report that the Fornell-Larcker criterion and the examination
of cross-loadings cannot help researchers detect a lack of
discriminant validity in their measures. The authors propose a
novel approach, the heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) ratio of
correlations, to identify a lack of discriminant validity.
Furthermore, they compare the HTMT criteria to the
Fornell-Larcker criterion and the examination of
cross-loadings in marketing. Their findings indicate that the
HTMT criteria are superior to traditional approaches used to
identify a lack of discriminant validity. Consequently, the
authors strongly recommend the use of the HTMT criteria to
assess discriminant validity in PLS-SEM. This suggestion is
consistent with the work of Voorhees et al. (2015), who also
recommend the use of the HTMT technique with the
maximum threshold of 0.85 to evaluate discriminant validity.
Henseler et al. (2015) report that discriminant validity can
be evaluated in two ways using the HTMT criteria. First, the
HTMT is used as a criterion by means of HTMT0.85 and
HTMT0.90. Second, the HTMT is used as a statistical test by
means of HTMTinference. Accordingly, the HTMT criterion
and HTMTinference were used in this study to examine the
discriminant validity. As indicated in Table IV, the values
between the square brackets are different from 1, according to
HTMTinference, and the values marked in bold are lower than
0.85 and 0.90, according to HTMT0.85 and HTMT0.90,
respectively. As a result, discriminant validity is established for
both models in this study, according to HTMT0.85,
HTMT0.90 and HTMTinference.
The data were also assessed for common method bias using
Harman’s single-factor test (Podsakoff et al., 2003). The
results showed that the maximum variance explained by the
single factor was 28.659 per cent, which indicates that no
single factor accounted for the majority of the variance. Thus,
common method bias was not a significant problem in this
study.
Structural model
After assessment of the measurement model, the evaluation of
the structural model should be the next step. Therefore, the
variance explained (R2), path coefficient, effect size (f 2) and
predictive relevance (Q2) were used to assess the structural
model (Hair et al., 2011). A bootstrapping procedure (5000
samples) was applied in this study to estimate, using t-values,
the significance of the path coefficients. According to Cohen
638
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 26 · Number 6 · 2017 · 631–649
(1988), the difference between the variance explained for the
main effects model and the interaction effects model may be
used to determine the strength of the moderating effects (f2 ⫽
[R2 (Interaction effects model) – R2 (Main effects model)] 47
[1 – R2 (Interaction effects model)]). Furthermore, effect sizes
of 0.02, 0.15 and 0.35 are small, medium and large,
respectively (Cohen, 1988). The redundancy (Q2), however,
is “an indicator of the model’s predictive relevance” (Hair et al.,
2014a, p. 178). Q2 values greater than zero indicate that the
endogenous constructs have satisfactory predictive relevance.
Goodness of fit (GoF) is proposed as a new criterion for PLS
(Tenenhaus et al., 2005) to assess how well the data fit the
research model. GoF is calculated as the geometric mean of
the average communality (measurement model) and the
average R2 value (structural model), as described in Table V.
GoF values equal to 0.1, 0.25 and 0.36 are considered small,
medium and large, respectively (Wetzels et al., 2009).
To test the mediating effects, this research used the
bootstrapping procedure and determined whether the indirect
effect of satisfaction on loyalty via trust is significant. In this
case, the indirect effect of satisfaction on loyalty could be
considered the product of a and b or ab, as presented in Figure
2 (Preacher and Hayes, 2004, 2008). The variance accounted
for (VAF ⫽ Indirect effect (ab)/Indirect effect (ab) ⫹ Direct
effect (c’)) was calculated to assess the size of the mediating
effect (Hair et al., 2014a). According to Hair et al. (2014a),
VAF values ⬍ 20 per cent, 20 per cent ⬍ VAF ⬍ 80 per cent
and VAF ⬎ 80 per cent correspond to no mediation, partial
mediation and full mediation, respectively. With respect to the
moderating effects, the product indicator approach was
implemented in this study (Chin et al., 2003; Henseler and
Chin, 2010; Henseler and Fassott, 2010). Chin et al. (2003, p.
211) propose that:
In formulating and testing for interaction effects using PLS, one needs to
follow a hierarchical process similar to that used in multiple regression in
which one compares the results of two models (i.e. one with and one without
the interaction construct).
Thus, this study followed a hierarchical process to examine the
moderating effects of consumer innovativeness,
variety-seeking and relationship proneness on the trust–loyalty
link. As indicated in Table V, model 1 represents the main
effects without the moderating variables. Model 2
incorporates both the main effects and moderating variables.
Soft drinks
Table V presents the estimates of the path coefficients and the
explained variances (R2) of the structural model. Model 1
indicates that satisfaction explains 46.2 per cent of the
variance in trust, whereas both satisfaction and trust explain
43.9 per cent of the variance in loyalty. The R2 values of 0.462
and 0.439 may be considered weak to moderate. The study
results indicate that satisfaction (c’ ⫽ 0.278, t ⫽ 5.039, p ⬍
0.001) and trust (b1⫽ 0.442, t ⫽ 8.332, p ⬍ 0.001) have
significant effects on loyalty; thus, H1 is supported. In
addition, satisfaction significantly impacts trust (a ⫽ 0.680, t
⫽ 21.904, p ⬍ 0.001). The effect of trust on loyalty appears to
be greater than the effect of satisfaction on loyalty. As the
levels of satisfaction and trust increase, customers are likely to
be loyal to soft drink brands. Therefore, these constructs play
an important role in the enhancement and development of
 Table IV Discriminant validity coefficients
Construct Mean SD CA S T L CI VS RP
Soft Satisfaction 1.102 0.063 0.845
drinks Trust 0.680 0.033 0.889 0.776 [0.717;0.828]
Relationship between brand trust and brand loyalty
Choukri Menidjel, Abderrezzak Benhabib and Anil Bilgihan

Loyalty 0.600 0.215 0.774 0.706 [0.639;0.768] 0.743 [0.683;0.801]

Consumer innovativeness ⫺0.604 0.096 0.822 0.116 [0.025;0.207] 0.106 [0.012;0.197] 0.207 [0.108;0.302]
Variety-seeking ⫺0.554 0.069 0.902 0.146 [0.058;0.231] 0.141 [0.052;0.225] 0.201 [0.107;0.294] 0.709 [0.649;0.769]
Relationship proneness 0.247 0.068 0.819 0.428 [0.335;0.514] 0.502 [0.419;0.582] 0.568 [0.483;0.651] 0.115 [0.018;0.206] 0.291 [0.201;0.380]

639
Fruit Satisfaction 1.287 0.070 0.900
juices Trust 1.185 0.059 0.900 0.712 [0.642;0.779]
Loyalty 0.860 0.223 0.825 0.816 [0.768;0.861] 0.791 [0.737;0.844]
Consumer innovativeness ⫺0.500 0.066 0.838 0.091 [0.072;0.177] 0.081 [0.064;0.173] 0.166 [0.121;0.253]
Variety-seeking ⫺0.083 0.037 0.899 0.127 [0.071;0.223] 0.090 [0.057;0.177] 0.229 [0.144;0.321] 0.739 [0.681;0.794]
Relationship proneness 0.440 0.102 0.846 0.465 [0.382;0.545] 0.525 [0.445;0.603] 0.699 [0.626;0.768] 0.249 [0.176;0.341] 0.251 [0.155;0.346]
Notes: SD: Standard Deviation; CA: Cronbach’s Alpha; For adequate discriminant validity, the values between the square brackets should be different from 1, according to the HTMT (heterotrait-
monotrait ratio of correlations)inference, and the values marked in italics should be less than 0.85 and 0.90, according to the HTMT0.85 and HTMT0.90, respectively
Volume 26 · Number 6 · 2017 · 631–649
Journal of Product & Brand Management
 Relationship between brand trust and brand loyalty Journal of Product & Brand Management
Choukri Menidjel, Abderrezzak Benhabib and Anil Bilgihan Volume 26 · Number 6 · 2017 · 631–649

Table V Structural model Figure 2 Structural model

Relationship Model 1 Model 2
H1: c
Satisfaction Loyalty
Soft drinks Direct effect
ⴱⴱⴱ ⴱⴱⴱ
H1: Satisfaction ¡ Loyalty ⫽ c’ 0.278 0.246
Satisfaction ¡ Trust ⫽ a 0.680ⴱⴱⴱ 0.680ⴱⴱⴱ (a)
Trust ¡ Loyalty ⫽ b1 0.442ⴱⴱⴱ 0.352ⴱⴱⴱ
Gender ¡ Loyalty 0.023ns
Trust
Age ¡ Loyalty ⫺0.030ns
Marital status ¡ Loyalty 0.092ⴱ
Education ¡ Loyalty ⫺0.013ns a b1
Quantity consumed ¡ Loyalty 0.002ns H2: SėTėL = ab1
Interaction effect
H3: CI ⫻ Trust ¡ Loyalty ⫽ b2 ⫺0.055ns Satisfaction
H1: c’
Loyalty
H4: VS ⫻ Trust ¡ Loyalty ⫽ b3 0.027ns
H5: RP x Trust ¡ Loyalty ⫽ b4 0.021ns (b)
R2
Loyalty 0.439 0.498
Trust
Trust 0.462 0.462
Average R2 0.480
Average communality 0.633 a b1
GoFa 0.551 H2: SėTėL = ab1
Fruit juices Direct effect
H1: Satisfaction ¡ Loyalty ⫽ c’ 0.459ⴱⴱⴱ 0.385ⴱⴱⴱ Satisfaction
H1: c’
Loyalty
Satisfaction ¡ Trust ⫽ a 0.642ⴱⴱⴱ 0.642ⴱⴱⴱ
Trust ¡ Loyalty ⫽ b1 0.387ⴱⴱⴱ 0.312ⴱⴱⴱ H3: b2
CI*Trust Control variables
Gender ¡ Loyalty 0.017ns • Gender
H4: b3
Age ¡ Loyalty 0.023ns CI: Consumer • Age
VS*Trust • Marital status
Marital status ¡ Loyalty 0.001ns Innovativeness H5: b4
VS: Variety-Seeking • Education
Education ¡ Loyalty 0.009ns RP: Relationship RP*Trust
• Quantity
consumed
Quantity consumed ¡ Loyalty ⫺0.031ns Proneness

Interaction effect (c)

H3: CI x Trust ¡ Loyalty ⫽ b2 0.033ns
H4: VS ⫻ Trust ¡ Loyalty ⫽ b3 ⫺0.113ⴱⴱ Notes: Model A. Total effect; Model B. Mediating effect;
H5: RP x Trust ¡ Loyalty ⫽ b4 0.027ns Model C. Mediating and moderating effects
R2
Loyalty 0.588 0.666
effect of satisfaction on loyalty via trust (ab1 ⫽ 0.238, t ⫽
Trust 0.412 0.412 6.429, p ⬍ 0.001). Satisfaction has a direct and statistically
Average R2 0.539 significant effect on loyalty when trust is not included as a
Average communality 0.670 mediator (c ⫽ 0.489, t ⫽ 11.703, p ⬍ 0.001). When trust is
GoFa 0.600 subsequently included as a mediating variable, the direct effect
Notes: CI: Consumer Innovativeness; VS: Variety-Seeking; RP: Relation- of satisfaction on loyalty decreases but remains significant
ship Proneness; a GoF ⫽ 公Communality ⫻ R2; ⴱⴱⴱ p ⬍ 0.001; ⴱⴱ p ⬍ (c’ ⫽ 0.251, t ⫽ 4.683, p ⬍ 0.001). The VAF, however, has a
0.01; ⴱ p ⬍ 0.05; nsnot significant (based on t(4999), one-tailed test) value of 0.457, which indicates partial mediation. Thus, it may
be concluded that trust has a partial mediating effect on the
relationship between satisfaction and loyalty, which supports
loyalty. The Q2 values indicate that the endogenous constructs H2. This conclusion suggests that high consumer satisfaction
of the main effects model (Q2trust ⫽ 0.342 ⬎ 0; Q2loyalty ⫽ leads to greater trust and that high trust leads to high customer
0.252 ⬎ 0) and the interaction effects model (Q2trust ⫽ loyalty. These results emphasize the important role of trust in
0.342 ⬎ 0; Q2loyalty ⫽ 0.280 ⬎ 0) have acceptable predictive explaining the nature of the relationship between satisfaction
relevance. The GoF value of 0.551 indicates a good fit of the and consumer loyalty. Model 2 tests the moderating effects of
full model, that is the interaction effects model, to the research consumer innovativeness, variety-seeking and relationship
data. With respect to the control variables, the results suggest proneness on the relationship between trust and loyalty. The
that gender, age, education and quantity consumed do not R2 value for loyalty is 0.498. The results indicate that the
have a significant effect on loyalty, whereas marital status moderating effects of consumer innovativeness (b2 ⫽ -0.055,
significantly affects loyalty (Table V). In addition, this study t ⫽ 1.082, n.s.), variety-seeking (b3 ⫽ 0.027, t ⫽ 0.490, n.s.)
demonstrates the mediating effect of trust on the relationship and relationship proneness (b4 ⫽ 0.021, t ⫽ 0.288, n.s.) on the
between satisfaction and loyalty. Therefore, to evaluate the relationship between trust and loyalty are not significant.
mediating effect of trust, Table VI shows a significant indirect Thus, H3, H4 and H5 are not supported. These findings

640
 Relationship between brand trust and brand loyalty
Choukri Menidjel, Abderrezzak Benhabib and Anil Bilgihan
Table VI Mediating effects
Direct effect
ⴱⴱⴱ
Soft drinks Satisfaction ¡ Loyalty 0.251
Fruit juices Satisfaction ¡ Loyalty 0.403ⴱⴱⴱ
ⴱⴱⴱ
Notes: VAF: Variance accounted for; p ⬍ 0.001.
suggest that trust, regardless of the three personality traits,
plays a vital role in explaining the relationship between
satisfaction and loyalty. Therefore, the enhancement of
customer satisfaction leads to an increase in trust, which leads
to improvements in customer loyalty.
Fruit juices
As indicated in Table V, model 1 shows that trust and loyalty
present R2 values of 0.412 and 0.588, respectively; thus,
satisfaction explains 41.2 per cent of the variance in trust,
whereas both satisfaction and trust explain 58.8 per cent of the
variance in loyalty. R2 values of 0.412 and 0.588 are
considered weak to moderate and moderate to substantial,
respectively. Satisfaction was found to have a significant
positive effect on trust (a ⫽ 0.642, t ⫽ 15.833, p ⬍ 0.001) and
loyalty (c’ ⫽ 0.459, t ⫽ 9.896, p ⬍ 0.001), which supports H1.
This result indicates that consumers with a higher level of
satisfaction exhibit greater trust in and loyalty to fruit juice
brands. Trust has a significant positive effect on loyalty (b1 ⫽
0.387, t ⫽ 8.676, p ⬍ 0.001), which suggests that a higher
level of trust leads to a higher level of customer loyalty.
Customer satisfaction has a stronger influence on customer
loyalty than trust does. Thus, it appears that satisfaction and
trust are key factors that influence customer loyalty. The Q2
values indicate that the endogenous constructs of the main
effects model (Q2trust ⫽ 0.312 ⬎ 0; Q2loyalty ⫽ 0.383 ⬎ 0) and
the interaction effects model (Q2trust ⫽ 0.312 ⬎ 0; Q2loyalty ⫽
0.425 ⬎ 0) have acceptable predictive relevance. To evaluate
the GoF of the structural model, the GoF value of 0.600
indicates a good model fit with the research data (Table V). In
addition, the control variables (gender, age, marital status,
education and quantity consumed) have nonsignificant effects
on loyalty, as shown in Table V. H2 predicts that the
relationship between satisfaction and loyalty is mediated by
trust. As shown in Table VI, satisfaction has a significant
indirect effect on loyalty via trust (ab1 ⫽ 0.191, t ⫽ 5.873, p ⬍
0.001), and the VAF has a value of 0.321. These results
indicate that trust has a significant partial mediating effect on
the relationship between satisfaction and loyalty. Therefore,
H2 is supported. Thus, satisfied consumers have a certain level
of trust that increases their loyalty to fruit juice brands. Model
2 tests the moderating effects of consumer innovativeness,
variety-seeking and relationship proneness. The R2 value of
loyalty increased slightly from 0.657 to 0.666 following the
introduction of the moderating variables. Therefore, the
moderating effect size presents a value of 0.027, which is
considered small. The results indicate that variety-seeking has
a negative moderating effect on the relationship between trust
and loyalty, with a path coefficient of ⫺0.113 (t ⫽ 3.070, p ⬍
0.01). More specifically, the influence of trust on loyalty
decreases when variety-seeking increases. One potential
explanation for this result is that consumers with a low level of
641
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 26 · Number 6 · 2017 · 631–649
Trust
Indirect effect Total effect VAF (%)
ⴱⴱⴱ ⴱⴱⴱ
0.238 0.489 45.68
0.191ⴱⴱⴱ 0.594ⴱⴱⴱ 32.15
variety-seeking tend to remain and develop long-term
relationships with the same brands (familiar brands). In
contrast, consumer innovativeness (b2 ⫽ 0.033, t ⫽ 0.944,
n.s.) and relationship proneness (b4 ⫽ 0.027, t ⫽ 0.949, n.s.)
have no moderating effects on the relationship between trust
and loyalty, which indicates that these variables are not
moderators of the trust–loyalty relationship. These results
thus indicate that H4 is supported, whereas H3 and H5 are not
supported. The subsequent section discusses the managerial
implications of these findings and concludes with limitations
and suggestions for future research.
Discussion and conclusions
General discussion
Most previous studies have neglected the moderating effects of
personality traits on the relationship between satisfaction and
loyalty. The aims of this study were to investigate the
mediating role of brand trust in the relationship between
brand satisfaction and brand loyalty and to examine the
moderating effects of consumer innovativeness,
variety-seeking and relationship proneness on the relationship
between brand trust and brand loyalty in the context of
fast-moving consumer goods. Consistent with previous
studies, the findings of the two structural models confirm that
consumer satisfaction significantly influences trust (Giovanis,
2016; Horppu et al., 2008; Lee et al., 2015; Paulssen et al.,
2014), that there is a significant positive link between trust and
loyalty (Belaid and Behi, 2011; Lee and Jee, 2016; Mishra
et al., 2014; So et al., 2016; Veloutsou, 2015) and that
satisfaction has a direct positive influence on loyalty (Çifci
et al., 2016; Drennan et al., 2015; Elsäßer and Wirtz, 2017;
Fatma et al., 2016; Khan et al., 2016; Popp and Woratschek,
2017). In addition, the mediating role of trust between
satisfaction and loyalty is confirmed and consistent with the
findings of Bove and Mitzifiris (2007). The strengths of the
relationships among satisfaction, trust and loyalty differ across
the two categories. The relationships between satisfaction and
trust and between trust and loyalty are stronger for soft drinks
than for fruit juices, whereas the relationship between
satisfaction and loyalty is stronger for fruit juices than for soft
drinks. In addition, the moderating effect of variety-seeking is
significant for fruit juices but not for soft drinks, perhaps
because consumer perceptions of the characteristics of the
product category differ across product categories (Van Trijp
et al., 1996). In contrast, the findings provide limited evidence
of the moderating effects of consumer personality traits on the
relationship between trust and loyalty, as personality traits
may not play a decisive role in a low-involvement context.
Kassarjian (1981) indicates that product involvement may
interact with personality traits. When involvement is high,
personality traits appear to provide a significant explanation
 Relationship between brand trust and brand loyalty
Choukri Menidjel, Abderrezzak Benhabib and Anil Bilgihan
for the consumer’s relationship with a brand in the retail
context (Odekerken-Schröder et al., 2003). In this study,
consumers may have had little involvement because of the low
price and lack of perceived importance of the product
categories (Bove and Mitzifiris, 2007). Thus, contexts of low
involvement may not be sufficient to investigate the
moderating effects of consumer personality traits. Based on
this discussion, the authors recommend the consideration of
consumer innovativeness, variety-seeking and relationship
proneness in high-involvement contexts.
The findings of this study contribute to the current body of
knowledge in the context of fast-moving consumer goods in
several ways. The results provide a better understanding of the
determinants of brand loyalty. Satisfaction and trust are key
drivers of brand loyalty. Specifically, this study provides strong
evidence of the importance of trust as a mediator of the
relationship between satisfaction and loyalty. The results for
the interaction effect indicate that the strength of the trust–
loyalty relationship depends only on the level of
variety-seeking for fruit juices. This finding may corroborate
the results of Bove and Mitzifiris (2007), who report that
personality traits do not appear to influence consumer trust or
consumer commitment in a low-involvement product
category context. Further research could replicate these
results across other product categories with different levels of
involvement.
Managerial implications
This study has several implications for marketing managers.
The findings indicate that satisfaction has direct and indirect
positive effects on customer loyalty through the mediation of
trust across both product categories. The relationship between
satisfaction and loyalty is better explained when trust is
considered as a mediating variable. Thus, companies that
produce fast-moving consumer goods, such as soft drinks and
fruit juices, should consider the important role of satisfaction
in the generation of trust, which subsequently leads to loyalty.
Such companies should invest in satisfaction programs to
increase consumer trust in their brands, thereby building
brand loyalty. Gaining satisfaction, trust and loyalty is an
effective strategy for companies to build long-term
relationships with customers and create a sustained
competitive advantage. In addition, the findings suggest that
variety-seeking negatively moderates the positive relationship
between brand trust and brand loyalty for fruit juices. The
strength of the relationship between brand trust and brand
loyalty depends on the level of variety-seeking; this finding
suggests that if the level of variety-seeking increases, the
strength of the relationship will decrease. Moreover,
consumers who have a high level of variety-seeking tend to
switch between brands (Hoyer and Ridgway, 1984). They also
tend to obtain information regarding new products and brands
(Manning et al., 1995). Therefore, companies should
frequently provide new brands and products as well as
information regarding new brands to satisfy the need for
variety and prevent switching behavior.
Limitations and future research
This study has several limitations that should be noted. This
research was conducted in the context of fast-moving
642
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 26 · Number 6 · 2017 · 631–649
consumer goods within a limited geographical region in
Algeria, which may affect the generalizability of these findings.
Future research could apply this model to different contexts
and countries. Moreover, the order of the questions may have
affected the respondents’ answers. Future research may be
conducted to determine whether changes in the order of
questions affect the study outcomes. Furthermore, this study
considers two antecedents of customer loyalty (i.e. satisfaction
and trust). Future research could include other variables, such
as commitment and attachment. Because current research
does not separate attitudinal and behavioral loyalty but rather
addresses loyalty as a single construct, future research could
examine the effect of satisfaction and trust on the two
components of loyalty. This study focuses on examining the
moderating effects of consumer innovativeness, variety-
seeking and relationship proneness on the link between trust
and loyalty. Future research could examine the moderating
effects of these personality traits on both the relationship
between satisfaction and trust and that between satisfaction
and loyalty. The use of consumer innovativeness,
variety-seeking and relationship proneness as moderators may
not be sufficient to understand the relationship between trust
and loyalty (e.g. for soft drinks). Future research could use
other moderating variables, such as involvement and the
length of the relationship, to provide a more comprehensive
understanding of the trust–loyalty relationship. Whereas this
research controls for gender, age, marital status, education
and quantity consumed, future research could include
additional control variables, such as brand familiarity, brand
attitudes, brand switching and involvement. Finally, this study
focuses only on low-involvement products (i.e. soft drinks and
fruit juices). Future research could also include
high-involvement products, such as sportswear clothing and
cosmetics.
Notes
1 Frequently purchased brands were selected for this study
because personality traits may not be relevant to situations
that feature higher levels of impulse buying. Kollat and
Willett (1967) indicate that products (brands) with high
purchase frequencies tend to have a relatively low
percentage of impulse purchases.
2 The awareness set is a set of brands available on the
market of which the consumer is aware; this set includes
both the brands that the consumer would consider buying,
typically referred to as a consideration set or evoked set,
and the brands that the consumer would not consider
buying (Brown and Wildt, 1992; Roberts and Lattin,
1991). According to Brown and Wildt (1992) and Roberts
and Lattin (1991), the purchase decision depends on the
brands included in the evoked set.
References
Adjei, M.T. and Clark, M.N. (2010), “Relationship
marketing in A B2C context: the moderating role of
personality traits”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 73-79.
Alejandro, T.B., Souza, D.V., Boles, J.S., Ribeiro, Á.H.P. and
Monteiro, P.R.R. (2011), “The outcome of company and
 Relationship between brand trust and brand loyalty
Choukri Menidjel, Abderrezzak Benhabib and Anil Bilgihan
account manager relationship quality on loyalty,
relationship value and performance”, Industrial Marketing
Management, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 36-43.
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural
equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended
two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3,
pp. 411-423.
Armstrong, J.S. and Overton, T.S. (1977), “Estimating
nonresponse bias in mail surveys”, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 396-402.
Ashurst, P.R. (2016), Chemistry and Technology of Soft Drinks
and Fruit Juices, John Wiley & Sons.
Aydin, S., Özer, G. and Arasil, Ö. (2005), “Customer loyalty
and the effect of switching costs as a moderator variable: a
case in the Turkish mobile phone market”, Marketing
Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 89-103.
Bartels, J. and Reinders, M.J. (2011), “Consumer
innovativeness and its correlates: a propositional inventory
for future research”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 64
No. 6, pp. 601-609.
Baumann, C., Burton, S. and Elliott, G. (2005),
“Determinants of customer loyalty and share of wallet in
retail banking”, Journal of Financial Services Marketing,
Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 231-248.
Baumgartner, H. and Homburg, C. (1996), “Applications of
structural equation modeling in marketing and consumer
research: a review”, International Journal of Research in
Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 139-161.
Becerra, E. and Badrinarayanan, V. (2013), “The influence of
brand trust and brand identification on brand evangelism”,
Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 22 Nos 5/6,
pp. 371-383.
Becker, J.M., Klein, K. and Wetzels, M. (2012), “Hierarchical
latent variable models in PLS-SEM: guidelines for using
reflective-formative type models”, Long Range Planning,
Vol. 45 Nos 5/6, pp. 359-394.
Belaid, S. and Behi, A. (2011), “The role of attachment in
building consumer-brand relationships: an empirical
investigation in the utilitarian consumption context”,
Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 20 No. 1,
pp. 37-47.
Berné, C., Múgica, J.M. and Yagüe, M.J. (2001), “The effect
of variety-seeking on customer retention in services”,
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 8 No. 6,
pp. 335-345.
Bianchi, C., Drennan, J. and Proud, B. (2014), “Antecedents
of consumer brand loyalty in the Australian wine industry”,
Journal of Wine Research, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 91-104.
Bigné, J., Sánchez, I. and Andreu, L. (2009), “The role of
variety seeking in short and long run revisit intentions in
holiday destinations”, International Journal of Culture,
Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 103-115.
Bloemer, J. and Odekerken-Schroder, G. (2002), “Store
satisfaction and store loyalty explained by customer-and
store-related factors”, Journal of Consumer Satisfaction,
Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, Vol. 15 No. 1,
pp. 68-80.
Bloemer, J., Odekerken-Schröder, G. and Kestens, L. (2003),
“The impact of need for social affiliation and consumer
relationship proneness on behavioural intentions: an
643
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 26 · Number 6 · 2017 · 631–649
empirical study in a hairdresser’s context”, Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 231-240.
Bove, L. and Mitzifiris, B. (2007), “Personality traits and the
process of store loyalty in a transactional prone context”,
Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 507-519.
Brown, J.J. and Wildt, A.R. (1992), “Consideration set
measurement”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 235-243.
Casaló, L.V., Flavián, C. and Guinalíu, M. (2008), “The role
of satisfaction and website usability in developing customer
loyalty and positive word-of-mouth in the e-banking
services”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 26
No. 6, pp. 399-417.
Castañeda, J.A. (2011), “Relationship between customer
satisfaction and loyalty on the internet”, Journal of Business
and Psychology, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 371-383.
Chao, C.W., Reid, M. and Mavondo, F. (2013), “Global
consumer innovativeness and consumer electronic product
adoption”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics,
Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 614-630.
Chaudhuri, A. and Holbrook, M.B. (2001), “The chain of
effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand
performance: the role of brand loyalty”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 65 No. 2, pp. 81-93.
Chen, C.F. and Phou, S. (2013), “A closer look at
destination: image, personality, relationship and loyalty”,
Tourism Management, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 269-278.
Chen, S.C. (2012), “The customer satisfaction–loyalty
relation in an interactive e-service setting: the mediators”,
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 19 No. 2,
pp. 202-210.
Cheng, Q., Fang, L. and Chen, H. (2015), “Visitors’ brand
loyalty to a historical and cultural theme park: a case study
of Hangzhou Songcheng, China”, Current Issues in Tourism,
Vol. 19 No. 9, pp. 861-868.
Chin, W.W. (2010), “How to write up and report PLS
analyses”, in Esposito, V.V., Chin, W.W., Henseler, J. and
Wang, H. (Eds), Handbook of Partial Least Squares: Concepts,
Methods and Applications, Springer, Berlin, pp. 655-690.
Chin, W.W. and Dibbern, J. (2010), “An introduction to a
permutation based procedure for multi-group PLS analysis:
results of tests of differences on simulated data and a cross
cultural analysis of the sourcing of information system
services between Germany and the USA”, in Esposito,
V.V., Chin, W.W., Henseler, J. and Wang, H. (Eds),
Handbook of Partial Least Squares: Concepts, Methods and
Applications, Springer, Berlin, pp. 171-193.
Chin, W.W., Marcolin, B.L. and Newsted, P.R. (2003), “A
partial least squares latent variable modeling approach for
measuring interaction effects: results from a monte carlo
simulation study and an electronic-mail emotion/adoption
study”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 14 No. 2,
pp. 189-217.
Chin, W.W., Peterson, R.A. and Brown, S.P. (2008),
“Structural equation modeling in marketing: some practical
reminders”, The Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice,
Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 287-298.
Chinomona, R. (2016), “Brand communication, brand image
and brand trust as antecedents of brand loyalty in Gauteng
 Relationship between brand trust and brand loyalty
Choukri Menidjel, Abderrezzak Benhabib and Anil Bilgihan
Province of South Africa”, African Journal of Economic and
Management Studies, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 124-139.
Çifci, S., Ekinci, Y., Whyatt, G., Japutra, A., Molinillo, S. and
Siala, H. (2016), “A cross validation of consumer-based
brand equity models: driving customer equity in retail
brands”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 9,
pp. 3740-3747.
Cohen, J. (1988), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral
Sciences, 2nd ed., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale,
NJ.
Cooil, B., Keiningham, T.L., Aksoy, L. and Hsu, M. (2007),
“A longitudinal analysis of customer satisfaction and share
of wallet: investigating the moderating effect of customer
characteristics”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 71 No. 1,
pp. 67-83.
Cowles, D.L. (1997), “The role of trust in customer
relationships: asking the right questions”, Management
Decision, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 273-282.
De Wulf, K.D., 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.
Desai, K.K. and Trivedi, M. (2014), “Do consumer
perceptions matter in measuring choice variety and variety
seeking?”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 67 No. 1,
pp. 2786-2792.
do Valle, P.O. and Assaker, G. (2016), “Using partial least
squares structural equation modeling in tourism research: a
review of past research and recommendations for future
applications”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 55 No. 6,
pp. 695-708.
Drennan, J., Bianchi, C., Cacho-Elizondo, S., Louriero, S.,
Guibert, N. and Proud, W. (2015), “Examining the role of
wine brand love on brand loyalty: a multi-country
comparison”, International Journal of Hospitality
Management, Vol. 49, pp. 47-55.
Dupre, K. and Gruen, T.W. (2004), “The use of category
management practices to obtain a sustainable competitive
advantage in the fast-moving-consumer-goods industry”,
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 7,
pp. 444-459.
Dwivedi, A. (2015), “A higher-order model of consumer
brand engagement and its impact on loyalty intentions”,
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 24 No. 1,
pp. 100-109.
Dwivedi, A., Johnson, L.W. and McDonald, R.E. (2015),
“Celebrity endorsement, self-brand connection and
consumer-based brand equity”, Journal of Product & Brand
Management, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 449-461.
Elbedweihy, A.M., Jayawardhena, C., Elsharnouby, M.H.
and Elsharnouby, T.H. (2016), “Customer relationship
building: the role of brand attractiveness and consumer–
brand identification”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69
No. 8, pp. 2901-2910.
Elsäßer, M. and Wirtz, B.W. (2017), “Rational and emotional
factors of customer satisfaction and brand loyalty in a
business-to-business setting”, Journal of Business &
Industrial Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 138-152.
Eskafi, M., Hosseini, S. and Yazd, A. (2013), “The value of
telecom subscribers and customer relationship
644
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 26 · Number 6 · 2017 · 631–649
management”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 19
No. 4, pp. 737-748.
Fandos-Roig, J.C., García, J.S. and Tena, M.Á. (2009),
“Perceived value and customer loyalty in financial services”,
The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 775-789.
Fang, Y., Qureshi, I., Sun, H., McCole, P., Ramsey, E. and
Lim, K.H. (2014), “Trust, satisfaction, and online
repurchase intention: the moderating role of perceived
effectiveness of e-commerce institutional mechanisms”,
MIS Quarterly, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 407-427.
Fatma, M., Khan, I. and Rahman, Z. (2016), “How does
corporate association influence consumer brand loyalty?
Mediating role of brand identification”, Journal of Product &
Brand Management, Vol. 25 No. 7, pp. 629-641.
Ferreira, A.G. and Coelho, F.J. (2015), “Product
involvement, price perceptions, and brand loyalty”, Journal
of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 24 No. 4,
pp. 349-364.
Fetscherin, M., Boulanger, M., Gonçalves Filho, C. and
Souki, G.Q. (2014), “The effect of product category on
consumer brand relationships, Journal of Product & Brand
Management, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 78-89.
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. (1998), “Consumers and their brands:
developing relationship theory in consumer research”,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 343-373.
Foxall, G.R. (1995), “Cognitive styles of consumer
initiators”, Technovation, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 269-288.
Gefen, D. and Straub, D.W. (2000), “The relative importance
of perceived ease of use in IS adoption: a study of
e-commerce adoption”, Journal of the Association for
Information Systems, Vol. 1 No. 8, pp. 1-28.
Giovanis, A. (2016), “Consumer-brand relationships’
development in the mobile internet market: evidence from
an extended relationship commitment paradigm”, Journal of
Product & Brand Management, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 568-585.
Goldsmith, R.E. and Hofacker, C.F. (1991), “Measuring
consumer innovativeness”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 209-221.
Gómez, M. and Rubio, N. (2010), “Re-thinking the
relationship between store brand attitude and store brand
loyalty: a simultaneous approach”, The International Review
of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, Vol. 20 No. 5,
pp. 515-534.
Gounaris, S. and Stathakopoulos, V. (2004), “Antecedents
and consequences of brand loyalty: an empirical study”,
Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 283-306.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E.
(2010), Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed., Pearson
Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2011), “PLS-SEM:
indeed a silver bullet”, The Journal of Marketing Theory and
Practice, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 139-152.
Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2012a), “Partial
least squares: the better approach to structural equation
modeling?”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 45 Nos 5/6,
pp. 312-319.
 Relationship between brand trust and brand loyalty
Choukri Menidjel, Abderrezzak Benhabib and Anil Bilgihan
Hair, J.F., Sarstedt, M., Pieper, T.M. and Ringle, C.M.
(2012b), “The use of partial least squares structural
equation modeling in strategic management research: a
review of past practices and recommendations for future
applications”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 45 Nos 5/6,
pp. 320-340.
Hair, J.F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M. and Mena, J.A.
(2012c), “An assessment of the use of partial least squares
structural equation modeling in marketing research”,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 40 No. 3,
pp. 414-433.
Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M.
(2014a), A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural
Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), 1st ed., Sage, Thousand
Oaks, CA.
Hair, J.F., Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L. and Kuppelwieser, V.G.
(2014b), “Partial least squares structural equation modeling
(PLS-SEM)”, European Business Review, Vol. 26 No. 2,
pp. 106-121.
Hansen, H., Samuelsen, B. and Sallis, J. (2013), “The
moderating effects of need for cognition on drivers of
customer loyalty”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 47
No. 8, pp. 1157-1176.
Haryanto, J.O., Moutinho, L. and Coelho, A. (2016), “Is
brand loyalty really present in the children’s market? A
comparative study from Indonesia, Portugal, and Brazil”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 10, pp. 4020-4032.
Hemsley-Brown, J. and Alnawas, I. (2016), “Service quality
and brand loyalty: the mediation effect of brand passion,
brand affection and self-brand connection”, International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 28
No. 12, pp. 2771-2794.
Henrique, J.L. and de Matos, C.A. (2015), “The influence of
personal values and demographic variables on customer
loyalty in the banking industry”, International Journal of
Bank Marketing, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 571-587.
Henseler, J. and Chin, W.W. (2010), “A comparison of
approaches for the analysis of interaction effects between
latent variables using partial least squares path modeling”,
Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal,
Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 82-109.
Henseler, J. and Fassott, G. (2010), “Testing moderating
effects in PLS path models: an illustration of available
procedures”, in Vinzi, V.E., Chin, W.W., Henseler, J. and
Wang, H. (Eds), Handbook of Partial Least Squares: Concepts,
Methods and Applications, Springer, Berlin, pp. 713-735.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sinkovics, R.R. (2009), “The
use of partial least squares path modeling in international
marketing”, in Sinkovics, R.R. and Ghauri, P.N. (Eds),
New Challenges to International Marketing (Advances in
International Marketing), Vol. 20, Emerald Group
Publishing, Bingley, pp. 277-319.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2015), “A new
criterion for assessing discriminant validity in
variance-based structural equation modeling”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 115-135.
Herrera, C. and Blanco, C. (2011), “Consequences of
consumer trust in PDO food products: the role of
familiarity”, Journal of Product & Brand Management,
Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 282-296.
645
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 26 · Number 6 · 2017 · 631–649
Hess, J. and Story, J. (2005), “Trust-based commitment:
multidimensional consumer-brand relationships”, Journal of
Consumer Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 313-322.
Hirschman, E.C. (1980), “Innovativeness, novelty seeking,
and consumer creativity”, Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 283-295.
Hirunyawipada, T. and Paswan, A.K. (2006), “Consumer
innovativeness and perceived risk: implications for high
technology product adoption”, Journal of Consumer
Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 182-198.
Homburg, C. and Giering, A. (2001), “Personal
characteristics as moderators of the relationship between
customer satisfaction and loyalty? An empirical analysis”,
Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 43-66.
Horppu, M., Kuivalainen, O., Tarkiainen, A. and Ellonen,
H.K. (2008), “Online satisfaction, trust and loyalty, and the
impact of the offline parent brand”, Journal of Product &
Brand Management, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 403-413.
Hoyer, W.D. and Ridgway, N.M. (1984), “Variety seeking as
an explanation for exploratory purchase behavior: a
theoretical model”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 11
No. 1, pp. 114-119.
Hulland, J. (1999), “Use of partial least squares (PLS) in
strategic management research: a review of four recent
studies”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 20 No. 2,
pp. 195-204.
Hur, W.M., Yoo, J.J. and Chung, T.L. (2012), “The
consumption values and consumer innovativeness on
convergence products”, Industrial Management & Data
Systems, Vol. 112 No. 5, pp. 688-706.
Jacoby, J. and Kyner, D.B. (1973), “Brand loyalty vs. repeat
purchasing behavior”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 10
No. 1, pp. 1-9.
Jin, N., Line, N.D. and Goh, B. (2013), “Experiential value,
relationship quality, and customer loyalty in full-service
restaurants: The moderating role of gender”, Journal of
Hospitality Marketing & Management, Vol. 22 No. 7,
pp. 679-700.
Jöreskog, K.G. (1978), “Structural analysis of covariance and
correlation matrices”, Psychometrika, Vol. 43 No. 4,
pp. 443-477.
Kahn, B.E. (1995), “Consumer variety-seeking among goods
and services”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 139-148.
Kahn, B.E. (1998), “Dynamic relationships with customers:
high-variety strategies”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 45-53.
Kandampully, J., Zhang, T. and Bilgihan, A. (2015),
“Customer loyalty: a review and future directions with a
special focus on the hospitality industry”, International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 27
No. 3, pp. 379-414.
Kassarjian, H.H. (1981), “Low involvement: a second look”,
Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 31-34.
Kassim, N. and Abdullah, N. (2010), “The effect of perceived
service quality dimensions on customer satisfaction, trust,
and loyalty in e-commerce settings”, Asia Pacific Journal of
Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 351-371.
Kaushik, A.K. and Rahman, Z. (2014), “Perspectives and
dimensions of consumer innovativeness: a literature review
 Relationship between brand trust and brand loyalty
Choukri Menidjel, Abderrezzak Benhabib and Anil Bilgihan
and future agenda”, Journal of International Consumer
Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 239-263.
Kesharwani, A. and Bisht, S. (2012), “The impact of trust and
perceived risk on internet banking adoption in India”,
International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 30 No. 4,
pp. 303-322.
Khan, I., Rahman, Z. and Fatma, M. (2016), “The role of
customer brand engagement and brand experience in online
banking”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 34
No. 7, pp. 1025-1041.
Kim, J.W., Lee, F. and Suh, Y.G. (2015), “Satisfaction and
loyalty from shopping mall experience and brand
personality”, Services Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 1,
pp. 62-76.
Kim, W.G., Lee, S. and Lee, H.Y. (2007), “Co-branding and
brand loyalty”, Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality &
Tourism, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 1-23.
Kollat, D.T. and Willett, R.P. (1967), “Customer impulse
purchasing behavior”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 4
No. 1, pp. 21-31.
Kuikka, A. and Laukkanen, T. (2012), “Brand loyalty and the
role of hedonic value”, Journal of Product & Brand
Management, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 529-537.
Laroche, M., Habibi, M.R., Richard, M.O. and
Sankaranarayanan, R. (2012), “The effects of social media
based brand communities on brand community markers,
value creation practices, brand trust and brand loyalty”,
Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 28 No. 5,
pp. 1755-1767.
Lee, D., Moon, J., Kim, Y.J. and Yi, M.Y. (2015),
“Antecedents and consequences of mobile phone usability:
Linking simplicity and interactivity to satisfaction, trust,
and brand loyalty”, Information & Management, Vol. 52
No. 3, pp. 295-304.
Lee, H.J. and Jee, Y. (2016), “The impacts of brand asset of
domestic screen golf playing systems upon brand trust and
brand loyalty”, International Journal of Sports Marketing and
Sponsorship, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 320-332.
Lee, L., Petter, S., Fayard, D. and Robinson, S. (2011), “On
the use of partial least squares path modeling in accounting
research”, International Journal of Accounting Information
Systems, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 305-328.
Liang, C.J. and Wang, W.H. (2007), “The behavioral
sequence of information education services industry in
Taiwan: relationship bonding tactics, relationship quality
and behavioral loyalty”, Measuring Business Excellence,
Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 62-74.
Lin, H.H. and Wang, Y.S. (2006), “An examination of the
determinants of customer loyalty in mobile commerce
contexts”, Information & Management, Vol. 43 No. 3,
pp. 271-282.
Lin, J., Lobo, A. and Leckie, C. (2017), “The role of benefits
and transparency in shaping consumers’ green perceived
value, self-brand connection and brand loyalty”, Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 35, pp. 133-141.
Lin, L.Y. (2010), “The relationship of consumer personality
trait, brand personality and brand loyalty: an empirical
study of toys and video games buyers”, Journal of Product &
Brand Management, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 4-17.
646
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 26 · Number 6 · 2017 · 631–649
Loureiro, S., Miranda, F. and Breazeale, M. (2014), “Who
needs delight?”, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 25
No. 1, pp. 101-124.
Lu, J. and Xu, Y. (2015), “Chinese young consumers’ brand
loyalty toward sportswear products: a perspective of
self-congruity”, Journal of Product & Brand Management,
Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 365-376.
McAlister, L. and Pessemier, E. (1982), “Variety seeking
behavior: an interdisciplinary review”, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 311-322.
Mägi, A.W. (2003), “Share of wallet in retailing: the effects of
customer satisfaction, loyalty cards and shopper
characteristics”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 79 No. 2,
pp. 97-106.
Manning, K.C., Bearden, W.O. and Madden, T.J. (1995),
“Consumer innovativeness and the adoption process”,
Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 329-345.
Marticotte, F., Arcand, M. and Baudry, D. (2016), “The
impact of brand evangelism on oppositional referrals
towards a rival brand”, Journal of Product & Brand
Management, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 538-549.
Martínez-López, F.J., Gázquez-Abad, J.C. and Sousa,
C.M.P. (2013), “Structural equation modelling in
marketing and business research”, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 47 Nos 1/2, pp. 115-152.
Midgley, D.F. and Dowling, G.R. (1978), “Innovativeness:
the concept and its measurement”, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 229-242.
Mishra, A., Dash, S.B. and Cyr, D. (2014), “Linking user
experience and consumer-based brand equity: the
moderating role of consumer expertise and lifestyle”,
Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 23 Nos 4/5,
pp. 333-348.
Molinillo, S., Japutra, A., Nguyen, B. and Chen, C.H.S.
(2017), “Responsible brands vs. active brands? An
examination of brand personality on brand awareness,
brand trust, and brand loyalty”, Marketing Intelligence &
Planning, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 166-179.
Murray, A. and Kline, C. (2015), “Rural tourism and the craft
beer experience: factors influencing brand loyalty in rural
North Carolina, USA”, Journal of Sustainable Tourism,
Vol. 23 Nos 8/9, pp. 1198-1216.
Narayana, C.L. and Markin, R.J. (1975), “Consumer
behavior and product performance: an alternative
conceptualization”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 39 No. 4,
pp. 1-6.
Odekerken-Schröder, G., De Wulf, K. and Schumacher, P.
(2003), “Strengthening outcomes of retailer-consumer
relationships: the dual impact of relationship marketing
tactics and consumer personality”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 177-190.
Odoom, R. (2016), “Brand marketing programs and
consumer loyalty – evidence from mobile phone users in an
emerging market”, Journal of Product & Brand Management,
Vol. 25 No. 7, pp. 651-662.
Oliver, R.L. (1981), “Measurement and evaluation of
satisfaction processes in retail settings”, Journal of Retailing,
Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 25-48.
Olsen, S., Tudoran, A., Brunsø, K. and Verbeke, W. (2013),
“Extending the prevalent consumer loyalty modelling: the
 Relationship between brand trust and brand loyalty
Choukri Menidjel, Abderrezzak Benhabib and Anil Bilgihan
role of habit strength”, European Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 47 Nos 1/2, pp. 303-323.
ONS (2008), Office National des Statistiques, available at: www.
ons.dz
Pan, Y., Sheng, S. and Xie, F.T. (2012), “Antecedents of
customer loyalty: an empirical synthesis and
reexamination”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 150-158.
Pappu, R., Quester, P.G. and Cooksey, R.W. (2005),
“Consumer-based brand equity: improving the
measurement – empirical evidence”, Journal of Product &
Brand Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 143-154.
Parish, J. and Holloway, B. (2010), “Consumer relationship
proneness: a reexamination and extension across service
exchanges”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 1,
pp. 61-73.
Paulssen, M., Roulet, R. and Wilke, S. (2014), “Risk as
moderator of the trust-loyalty relationship”, European
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 48 Nos 5/6, pp. 964-981.
Peng, D.X. and Lai, F. (2012), “Using partial least squares in
operations management research: a practical guideline and
summary of past research”, Journal of Operations
Management, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 467-480.
Perrewé, P.L. and Spector, P.E. (2002), “Personality research
in the organizational sciences”, in Ferris, G.R. (Ed.),
Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, JAI
Press, Elsevier Science, Oxford, pp. 1-63.
Phan, K. and Ghantous, N. (2013), “Managing brand
associations to drive customers’ trust and loyalty in
Vietnamese banking”, International Journal of Bank
Marketing, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 456-480.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff,
N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in behavioral
research: a critical review of the literature and
recommended remedies”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Popp, B. and Woratschek, H. (2017), “Consumers’
relationships with brands and brand communities: the
multifaceted roles of identification and satisfaction”, Journal
of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 35, pp. 46-56.
Preacher, K.J. and Hayes, A.F. (2004), “SPSS and SAS
procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple
mediation models”, Behavior Research Methods, Instruments,
& Computers, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 717-731.
Preacher, K.J. and Hayes, A.F. (2008), “Asymptotic and
resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect
effects in multiple mediator models”, Behavior Research
Methods, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 879-891.
Quester, P. and Lim, A. (2003), “Product involvement/brand
loyalty: is there a link?”, Journal of Product & Brand
Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 22-38.
Ramaseshan, B., Rabbanee, F.K. and Hui, L. (2013), “Effects
of customer equity drivers on customer loyalty in B2B
context”, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 28
No. 4, pp. 335-346.
Ramirez, E. and Goldsmith, R.E. (2009), “Some antecedents
of price sensitivity”, The Journal of Marketing Theory and
Practice, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 199-214.
Reinartz, W., Krafft, M. and Hoyer, W.D. (2004), “The
customer relationship management process: Its
647
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 26 · Number 6 · 2017 · 631–649
measurement and impact on performance”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 293-305.
Reinartz, W., Haenlein, M. and Henseler, J. (2009), “An
empirical comparison of the efficacy of covariance-based
and variance-based SEM”, International Journal of Research
in Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 332-344.
Rezaei, S. (2015), “Segmenting consumer decision-making
styles (CDMS) toward marketing practice: a partial least
squares (PLS) path modeling approach”, Journal of Retailing
and Consumer Services, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 1-15.
Ringle, C.M., Wende, S. and Will, A. (2005), SmartPLS 2.0
(Beta), University of Hamburg, Hamburg, available at:
www.smartpls.de
Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M. and Straub, D.W. (2012), “A
critical look at the use of PLS-SEM in MIS quarterly”, MIS
Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 3-14.
Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M., Schlittgen, R. and Taylor, C.R.
(2013), “PLS path modeling and evolutionary
segmentation”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66 No. 9,
pp. 1318-1324.
Roberts, J.H. and Lattin, J.M. (1991), “Development and
testing of a model of consideration set composition”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 429-440.
Roehrich, G. (2004), “Consumer innovativeness: Concepts
and measurements”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 57
No. 6, pp. 671-677.
Rousseau, D.M., Sitkin, S.B., Burt, R.S. and Camerer, C.
(1998), “Not so different after all: a cross-discipline view of
trust”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 3,
pp. 393-404.
Rowley, J. (2014), “Designing and using research
questionnaires”, Management Research Review, Vol. 37
No. 3, pp. 308-330.
Ruane, L. and Wallace, E. (2015), “Brand tribalism and
self-expressive brands: social influences and brand
outcomes”, Journal of Product & Brand Management,
Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 333-348.
Rubio, N., Oubiña, J. and Gómez-Suárez, M. (2015),
“Understanding brand loyalty of the store brand’s customer
base”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 24
No. 7, pp. 679-692.
Ruparelia, N., White, L. and Hughes, K. (2010), “Drivers of
brand trust in internet retailing”, Journal of Product & Brand
Management, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 250-260.
Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M. and Hair, J.F. (2014a),
“PLS-SEM: looking back and moving forward”, Long
Range Planning, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 132-137.
Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M., Smith, D., Reams, R. and Hair,
J.F. (2014b), “Partial least squares structural equation
modeling (PLS-SEM): a useful tool for family business
researchers”, Journal of Family Business Strategy, Vol. 5
No. 1, pp. 105-115.
Schiffman, L., O’Cass, A., Paladino, A. and Carlson, J.
(2013), Consumer Behavior, 6th ed., Pearson Higher
Education AU, Australia.
Schirmer, N., Ringle, C.M., Gudergan, S.P. and Feistel,
M.S.G. (2016), “The link between customer satisfaction
and loyalty: the moderating role of customer
characteristics”, Journal of Strategic Marketing, pp. 1-20.
 Relationship between brand trust and brand loyalty
Choukri Menidjel, Abderrezzak Benhabib and Anil Bilgihan
Sharifi, S.S. and Esfidani, M.R. (2014), “The impacts of
relationship marketing on cognitive dissonance, satisfaction,
and loyalty: the mediating role of trust and cognitive
dissonance”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution
Management, Vol. 42 No. 6, pp. 553-575.
Sharma, V.K. (2017), “Patient satisfaction and brand loyalty
in healthcare organizations in India”, Journal of Asia
Business Studies, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 73-87.
Shin, J.I., Chung, K.H., Oh, J.S. and Lee, C.W. (2013), “The
effect of site quality on repurchase intention in internet
shopping through mediating variables: the case of university
students in South Korea”, International Journal of
Information Management, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 453-463.
So, K.K.F., King, C., Sparks, B.A. and Wang, Y. (2016),
“The role of customer engagement in building consumer
loyalty to tourism brands”, Journal of Travel Research,
Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 64-78.
Sosik, J.J., Kahai, S.S. and Piovoso, M.J. (2009), “Silver
bullet or voodoo statistics? A primer for using the partial
least squares data analytic technique in group and
organization research”, Group & Organization Management,
Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 5-36.
Su, J. and Tong, X. (2015), “Brand personality and brand
equity: evidence from the sportswear industry”, Journal of
Product & Brand Management, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 124-133.
Tenenhaus, M., Vinzi, V.E., Chatelin, Y.M. and Lauro, C.
(2005), “PLS path modeling”, Computational Statistics &
Data Analysis, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 159-205.
Toufaily, E., Ricard, L. and Perrien, J. (2013), “Customer
loyalty to a commercial website: Descriptive meta-analysis
of the empirical literature and proposal of an integrative
model”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66 No. 9,
pp. 1436-1447.
Tournois, L. (2015), “Does the value manufacturers (brands)
create translate into enhanced reputation? A multi-sector
examination of the value–satisfaction–loyalty–reputation
chain”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 26
No. 1, pp. 83-96.
Tuu, H. and Olsen, S.O. (2013), “Consideration set size,
variety seeking and the satisfaction-repurchase loyalty
relationship at a product category level”, Asia Pacific Journal
of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 590-613.
Van Trijp, H.C.M.V., Hoyer, W.D. and Inman, J.J. (1996),
“Why switch? Product category-level explanations for true
variety-seeking behavior”, Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 281-292.
Vázquez-Carrasco, R. and Foxall, G.R. (2006), “Influence of
personality traits on satisfaction, perception of relational
benefits, and loyalty in a personal service context”, Journal
of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 13 No. 3,
pp. 205-219.
Veloutsou, C. (2015), “Brand evaluation, satisfaction and
trust as predictors of brand loyalty: the mediator-moderator
648
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 26 · Number 6 · 2017 · 631–649
effect of brand relationships”, Journal of Consumer
Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 405-421.
Voorhees, C.M., Brady, M.K., Calantone, R. and Ramirez, E.
(2015), “Discriminant validity testing in marketing: an
analysis, causes for concern, and proposed remedies”,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 44 No. 1,
pp. 119-134.
Wetzels, M., Oderkerken-Schröder, G. and van Oppen, C.
(2009), “Using PLS path modeling for assessing
hierarchical construct models: guidelines and empirical
illustration”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 177-195.
Wilden, R. and Gudergan, S.P. (2015), “The impact of
dynamic capabilities on operational marketing and
technological capabilities: investigating the role of
environmental turbulence”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 181-199.
Wilkie, W.L. and Farris, P.W. (1975), “Comparison
advertising: problems and potential”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 7-15.
Wold, H. (1974), “Causal flows with latent variables: partings
of ways in the light of NIPALS modelling”, European
Economic Review, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 67-86.
Wold, H. (1980), “Model construction and evaluation when
theoretical knowledge is scarce”, in Kmenta, J. and Ramsey,
J.B. (Eds), Evaluation of Econometric Models, Academic
Press, New York, NY, pp. 47-74.
Woratschek, H. and Horbel, C. (2006), “Are variety-seekers
bad customers? An analysis of the role of recommendations
in the service profit chain”, Journal of Relationship
Marketing, Vol. 4 Nos 3/4, pp. 43-57.
Wu, X., Zhou, H. and Wu, D. (2012), “Commitment,
satisfaction, and customer loyalty: a theoretical explanation
of the ‘satisfaction trap’”, The Service Industries Journal,
Vol. 32 No. 11, pp. 1759-1774.
Xie, Y. (2008), “Consumer innovativeness and consumer
acceptance of brand extensions”, Journal of Product & Brand
Management, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 235-243.
Xiong, B., Skitmore, M. and Xia, B. (2015), “A critical review
of structural equation modeling applications in construction
research”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 49, pp. 59-70.
Yannopoulou, N., Koronis, E. and Elliott, R. (2011), “Media
amplification of a brand crisis and its affect on brand trust”,
Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 27 Nos 5/6,
pp. 530-546.
Yap, B., Ramayah, T. and Shahidan, W. (2012), “Satisfaction
and trust on customer loyalty: a PLS approach”, Business
Strategy Series, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 154-167.
Yoo, J. and Park, M. (2016), “The effects of e-mass
customization on consumer perceived value, satisfaction,
and loyalty toward luxury brands”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 69 No. 12, pp. 5775-5784.
 Relationship between brand trust and brand loyalty Journal of Product & Brand Management
Choukri Menidjel, Abderrezzak Benhabib and Anil Bilgihan Volume 26 · Number 6 · 2017 · 631–649

Appendix

Table AI Construct measurement

Construct Measurement item Source
Brand satisfaction I am pleased with this brand Kuikka and Laukkanen (2012)
I am happy with this brand
I am contented with this brand
Overall, I am satisfied with this brand
Brand trust I trust this brand Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001)
I rely on this brand
This is an honest brand
This brand is safe
Brand loyalty I am committed to this brand Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001)
I would be willing to pay a higher price for this brand over other brands
I will buy this brand the next time I buy [product name]
I intend to keep purchasing this brand
Consumer In general, I am among the first in my circle of friends to buy a new brand of Goldsmith and Hofacker (1991)
innovativeness [product name] when it appears
If I heard that a new brand of [product name] was available in the store, I would be
interested enough to buy it
I will buy a new brand of [product name], even if I have not heard/tried it yet
In general, I am the first in my circle of friends to know the brands of the latest
[product name]
I like to buy new brands of [product name] before other people do
Variety-seeking I take advantage of the first available opportunity to find out about new and Manning et al. (1995) and
different brands Adjei and Clark (2010)
I like to go to places where I will be exposed to information about new brands
When I go shopping, I find myself spending a lot of time checking out new brands
I am continually seeking new brands
I frequently look for new brands
I like magazines that introduce new brands
I seek out situations in which I will be exposed to new and different sources of
brand information
Relationship proneness Generally, I am someone who likes to be a regular customer of a brand De Wulf et al. (2001)
Generally, I am someone who wants to be a steady customer of the same brand
Generally, I am someone who is willing to “to go the extra mile” to buy the same
brand
Note: Items are ordered on a five-point Likert scale that ranges from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”

About the authors University of Delaware as well as Bachelor of Science

Choukri Menidjel is a PhD candidate in Marketing and a
member of Laboratory MECAS, Faculty of Economics and
Management, Abou Bekr Belkaid University, Tlemcen,
Algeria. His research interests include brand management and
relationship marketing. Choukri Menidjel is the
corresponding author and can be contacted at:
choukrimenidjel@gmail.com
Abderrezzak Benhabib (MPhil England, PhD France) is a
professor of Marketing and Managerial Economics, Director
of Laboratory MECAS and former Dean of the Faculty of
Economics and Management, Abou Bekr Belkaid University,
Tlemcen, Algeria. His research interests focus on marketing,
strategy, management, banking, managerial economics and
poverty analysis.
Dr Anil Bilgihan received his PhD from University of
Central Florida in 2012. He also holds a Master of Science
degree in hospitality information management from
degree from Computer Technology and Information
Systems from Bilkent University. Prior to joining Florida
Atlantic University, Dr Bilgihan served as an assistant
professor at the Ohio State University. He has several
academic publications in the areas of e-commerce and
Information Systems and he is the co-author of Hospitality
Information Technology: Learning How to Use it. He
published his research in prestigious journals including
Information & Management, Computers in Human Behavior,
International Journal of Information Management, Electronic
Research Commerce and Applications, Tourism Management,
IJCHM among others. He is the recipient of several awards
including Cisco Extensive Research Award, Warren Lloyd
Holtzman Excellence in Research Award, Emerald
Citations of Excellence Award, Highly Commended Award
winner of the 2013 Emerald/EFMD Outstanding Doctoral
Research Awards in the Hospitality Management category,
Rosen College Outstanding Dissertation award.

649