MEIKHTILA UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

MBA PROGRAMME (MANDALAY CAMPUS)

CONSUMER-BRAND RELATIONSHIP AND BRAND LOYALTY OF

MINDRAY ULTRASOUND PRODUCTS IN UPPER MYANMAR

NILAR OO

DECEMBER 2022

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Particular Page

Acknowledgement i
Abstract ii
Table of Contents iii
List of Table iv
List of Figures v

I Introduction
1.1 Rationale of the Study
1.2 Objectives of the Study
1.3 Methods of the Study
1.4 Scope and Limitations of the Study
1.5 Organization of the Study

II Literature Review
2.1 Concepts of Brand Loyalty
2.2 Consumer-brand relationship and Brand Loyalty
2.3 Consumer-brand relationships
2.4 Previous Study
2.5 Conceptual Framework

2
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

There is a significant growth in healthcare industry such as hospitals, clinics,

pharmaceutical & medical device industry and pharmacies in Myanmar within these
years. As a saying goes “Prevention is better than cure”, people are more aware of
their health rather than any other things. By growing bigger of healthcare industries,
Diagnosis and Health-screening is one of the major task in healthcare services.
Without diagnosing the underlying disease or conditions, no healthcare professionals
can give a treatment of the disease and cannot know the risk factors of the disease.

Diagnosis has important implications for patient care, research, and policy.
Diagnosis has been described as both a process and a classification scheme, or a “pre-
existing set of categories agreed upon by the medical profession to designate a
specific condition” (Jutel, 2009).1 When a diagnosis is accurate and made in a timely
manner, a patient has the best opportunity for a positive health outcome because
clinical decision making will be tailored to a correct understanding of the patient's
health problem (Holmboe and Durning, 2014). In addition, public policy decisions
are often influenced by diagnostic information, such as setting payment policies,
resource allocation decisions, and research priorities (Jutel, 2009; Rosenberg, 2002;
WHO, 2012).

In diagnosing the human body conditions, an imaging medical device called

Ultrasound is most popular among the healthcare industries. Ultrasound is very
essentials to all hospitals & clinics and ones have at least one Ultrasound machine.
Ultrasound is also referred to as “sonography,” ultrasound imaging is a safe imaging
method that creates images of the inside of the body. It does not use radiation, but

3
rather high-frequency waves. As a result, it is a safe procedure during pregnancy. The
ultrasound images are in real-time and show the structure and movement of internal
organs and the blood flow through vessels.

During an ultrasound, a sonographer will hold a transducer also known as probe —

a handheld device — over your skin. Sometimes it is placed internally. It uses sound
waves traveling through soft tissue and fluids, and as it hits denser surfaces, it echoes
or bounces back, which is how the images are created. More ultrasound echoes back
when the object is denser.

Doctors can diagnose a large variety of health conditions with an ultrasound. The
images it creates also help physicians come up with treatment plans. If you have
symptoms such as swelling, infection or pain, your doctor might suggest an
ultrasound to determine the cause. Ultrasounds are also used to assist anesthesiologist
during surgical procedures when they are guiding needles near nerves.

In many cases, ultrasounds are tools that allow doctors to examine problems
related to abdominal issues, circulation, urology, obstetrics, newborn care and even
musculoskeletal conditions. Some common body parts physicians use ultrasounds for
include Heart, Joints, Uterus, Blood vessels, Muscles, Bladder, Kidneys, and more.

As the Ultrasound is very important in diagnosing, choosing which brand of

ultrasound is a main task for a Radiologists and the owner of hospitals & clinics. In
Myanmar, as the innovations of ultrasonic technologies were very fast and growing, a
portable ultrasound with LED screen has been marketed since 2007. There are about
five popular Ultrasound brands in Myanmar including “Mindray” which is distributed
by ABMT Myanmar Company Limited. “Mindray” brand Ultrasound was distributed
in Myanmar since 2012 and now its journey in Myanmar is about 10 years and the
brand has a quite famous among the radiologists who can referred the consumer of
the ultrasound. This study tries to explore the consumer-brand relationships and
4
brand loyalty of “Mindray” Ultrasound in Myanmar. The result of the study will
provide valuable information to ABMT Myanmar Company Limited, which is the
authorized supplier of “Mindray” ultrasound in Myanmar. This study can also help
the manufacturer company in improving their innovations and upgrading their
technologies.

1.1 Rationale of the Study

As Ultrasound machine are very essentials to the healthcare professionals and in

diagnosing processes, choosing of right and quality one is also a considerable things
for every healthcare professionals using ultrasounds. Besides, as there are many types
of ultrasound from a basic portable black & white ultrasound to high-end cart type
colored ultrasound that can generate the 3D or 4D images. Customers used to
purchase a basic ultrasound at first while they are starting their clinics or hospitals.
Then, as the hospitals or clinics become more popular and have a significant demand,
they used to upgrade their Ultrasound machine that is currently using. In this case,
brand loyalty become a part of customers’ choice that they will use the current brand
or other brand to upgrade their ultrasound for their clinics or hospitals. Sometimes,
there are some cases that a consumer recommend a brand to his/her friend to use the
brand and tell the advantages of that brand.

The Upper Myanmar region is a very big area and represent the half the country,
Myanmar. Upper Myanmar is a geographic region of Myanmar, traditionally
encompassing Mandalay and it periphery. It has Chin State, Kachin State, Kayah
State, Shan State, Sagaing Region, Mandalay Region and Magway Region. As per
survey data of 2019, Upper Myanmar has about 25,015,928 populations and it has
1,299,095 km2 in area. In Upper Myanmar, there are about 41,049 healthcare
professionals, 608 government hospitals, (Source: Planning Division, Department of
5
Medical Services, Ministry of Health and Sports, Myanmar. As of October 2016,
HWF: Health workforce). There are now more than 249 private hospitals across the
country and the number is steadily growing. In addition, there are approximately 200
private specialist clinics, more than 5,000 private general clinics, and 800 private
dental clinics, according to a report by the Department of Medical Services (2017).
From increasing the numbers of healthcare professionals, hospitals & clinics in Upper
Myanmar, demand of ultrasound or upgrading of ultrasound is facing every day.
Thus, the diversity is found in the healthcare standard in the hospitals and clinics,
ranging from the small hospital, polyclinics to the international hospitals. Therefore,
the ultrasound marketers are willing to explore the loyalty of consumer to a brand of
ultrasound that is essential for a brand “Mindray”. In order to identify the consumer
loyalty to an Ultrasound brand, “Mindray”, the study uses the four variables (Brand
Relationship Quality, Brand Trust, Brand Commitment, and Customer Satisfaction).

1.2 Objectives of the Study

The objectives of this study are as below:

(1) To identify the main consumer’s reasons to loyal the brand “Mindray” in
choosing the diagnostic Ultrasound.
(2) To promote and improve the need of brand-consumer relationship “Mindary”
in order to increase consumer loyalty.

1.3 Methods of the Study

The population of Ultrasound users in Myanmar for 2021 was 412 radiologists
according Myanmar Radiology Society (2019 – 2021). The proposed model was
6
tested with data collected from customers of Ultrasound living in the Upper Myanmar
Region, where about 50% of the total Myanmar population is residing. Since
obtaining a comprehensive sample is difficult, a non-probabilistic sampling method
was used to reach research participants. Research participants were selected from
ultrasound users located in Upper Myanmar areas. The questionnaire was distributed
to 120 consumers during the fourth quarter of 2022. The scales used to operationalize
the concepts of the proposed model were adopted from different sources to suit the
study. The consumer-brand relationship scale that measures its four sub-dimensions
of Brand Relationship Quality (BRQ) was adopted from Fournier (1998). Customer
Satisfaction (CSF) was measured using the scale proposed by Moolla and Bischoff,
(2012), Brand Commitment (BCOM) was adopted from Jang et al. (2008) and Brand
Trust (BTR) was measured using the scale proposed by Chaudhuri and Holbrook
(2001, 2002). Finally, the scales proposed by Sanchez-Franco et al. (2009) were used
to measure brand loyalty, where the latter comprises three main dimensions:
repurchase intentions (RPI), positive recommendations (PREC), and price tolerance
(PTOL).

Scope and Limitation of the Study

This study, despite the significance of its findings, has a number of limitations.
First, this is a study of populations in Upper Myanmar. Therefore, the further study
should extend to lower Myanmar so that the study of a cross the country can be
obtained. Secondly, the use of a non-probability sampling method does not ensure the
full generalization of results. Finally, as the brand “Mindray” not only produces
Ultrasound for radiology diagnosis, but also manufactures Digital X-Ray and MRI.
Moreover, it has many other hospital equipment such as patient monitor, ECG,
Operation Theater Light and table as well as the laboratory equipment such as

7
Hematology analyzer, biochemistry analyzer and electrolytes, the further study
should extend for other products so that the marketer can know the consumer-brand
relationship of other Mindray products. The proposed model can be used for further
research using a random sampling approach that will result in a more representative
sample of the investigated population. Moreover, future research can incorporate
other variables into the proposed framework to enhance its predictive performance
and to provide a better understanding of the customer decision- making process. For
example, future studies can investigate the effects of perceived brand value;
customers’ positive and negative switching costs; calculative commitment, and the
attractiveness of rival offerings on brand loyalty and the possible moderating effects
of the length of consumer-brand relationships.

1.4 Organization of the Study

There are five chapters including in this study. Chapter I us the introduction
chapter including the rationale of the study, objectives of the study, methods of the
study, scope and limitations of the study, and organization of the study. Chapter II
concerns with the theoretical background concerning with the concepts of brand
loyalty, consumer-brand relationships, and the link between them, previous studies,
and conceptual framework of the study. Chapter III describes the consumer-brand
relationships and brand loyalty of Mindray Ultrasound Products. Chapter IV is the
analysis of consumer-brand relationships and brand loyalty towards Mindray
Ultrasound products discussing with the demographic characteristics and different
health facilities in Upper Myanmar. Chapter V is the conclusion, which consists of
findings and discussion of the study, suggestions and recommendations, and
limitations and needs for further research.

8
 CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter include the concept of brand loyalty following its three dimensions,
Repurchase Intentions, Positive Recommendations and Price Tolerance. It is then
followed by concept of Consumer-brand relationship and its dimensions, Brand
Relation Quality, Customer Satisfactions, Brand Commitment and Brand Trust.
After these literature reviews, Consumer-brand relationship and brand loyalty
follows. In the final part of this chapter, previous studies and conceptual framework
of the study follows.

2.1 Concept of Brand Loyalty

Brand: A distinct sign, term, symbol, name, design or combination of these that
differentiates and identifies the product or service of a supplier from those of its
competitors (Kotler and Armstrong, 2012).

Loyalty can be defined as the state or quality of being loyal, and as a feeling or
attitude of devoted attachment and affection (Oxford Dictionary, 2006). Loyalty is
commonly acknowledged in the literature as a dimensional construct (Rundle-Thiele
and Bennett, 2001), categorized as behavioral, attitudinal or a combination of both.
Loyalty is for a large number of authors, the dimension that best expresses the strength
of the brand (Aaker D.A. 1991). Brand loyalty is defined as the extent of faithfulness of
consumers to a particular brand, irrespective of the marketing activities of competitive
brands (Oliver, 1999). Brand loyalty is included in the conceptualization of brand
equity (Aaker, 1991; Keller, 1993; Yoo and Donthu, 2001), which is used in assessing
brand performance. According to the business dictionary, brand loyalty is the extent of

9
 the faithfulness of a consumer to a particular brand, expressed through repeat purchases,
irrespective of marketing pressures generated by the competing brands. Essentially,
consumers purchase and use a variety of brands, thereby making brand loyalty a relative
measure (Moolla, 2010). According to Matzler, Grabner-Krauter and Bidmon (2008),
brand loyalty is a function of both behavior and attitudinal reaction.

Most authors, when identifying loyalty types, take into account the behavioral and
attitudinal characteristics of the consumer. J. Hofmeyr, B. Rice introduce three types of
loyalty based on the delimitation of the concepts of “loyalty” and “commitment”: 1)
loyalty without commitment; 2) commitment without loyalty; 3) loyalty + commitment.

Categories of loyalty proposed by Dick and Basu are defined by the relationship
between attitudinal and behavioral aspects of loyalty. Antecedents to loyalty include
cognitive, affective and conative factors. They described loyalty as the strength of the
relationship between a customer's relative attitude and repeat patronage; four
dimensions had been identified here: true loyalty, latent loyalty, spurious loyalty and no
loyalty.

According to Roger J. Baran and Robert J. Galka, There are four types of loyalty:
Behavioural Loyalty, which is also, called “spurious”, Affect Loyalty, Situation-specific
loyalty and latent loyalty.
Repeat Purchase

Strong Weak

TRUE LOYALTY SPURIOUS LOYALTY

Strong
(Undivided or Divided) (Inertial Loyalty)

Strength of Affect

Weak LATENT LOYALTY NO LOYALTY

10
Figure: Four types of Loyalty

The above indicates four additional types of loyalty based on two dimensions: strength
of the affect (liking and preference) toward the brand and likelihood of repeat purchase
of the brand.

2.1.1. Repurchase Intention

Repurchase intention is “the subjective probability that a customer or

experienced customers will continue to purchase a product from the same online seller”
or “buying product/services again from same company” (Trivedi, 2019). This involves a
psychological behavior and one of the main reasons that encourage buyers to have
buying products or services again. Aghivirwiati, Giantari, & Yasa (2018) defined that
the repurchase intention is a consumer commitment that was formed after purchased a
product or service. Ibsan, Balarabe, & Jakada, (2016) defined repurchase as the actual
behavior of the consumer, which results in the purchase of the same product or service
on several occasions. Repurchase intention is the main concern of marketers is to
determine customer’s purchase intention in a product, thus marketers and economists
use the intent to purchase variable in forecasting consumer behavior in the future
(Yulisetiarini, Subagio, Paramu, & Irawan, 2017) .

2.1.2 Positive Recommendation

Recommendations are the gold standard for moving consumers down the
purchase funnel. Consumers can demonstrate brand loyalty by repeatedly buying a
product, service or by other positive behaviors such as by engaging in word of mouth
advocacy. This concept of a brand displays imagery and symbolism for a product or
11
range of products. Brands can engage consumers and make them feel emotionally
attached. Consumers' beliefs and attitudes make up brand images, and these affect how
they will view brands with which they come into contact. According to research
conducted by Nielsen, we know that 92% of consumers report that “word-of-mouth and
recommendations from people (they) know” are the leading influence on their purchase
behavior. Only 37% trust search engine ads, and just 24% trust online banner ads. They
trust their friends and family the most when looking for brand recommendations.

2.1.3 Price Tolerance

Price tolerance denotes the degree to which buyers are willing to pay the excess
amount rather than exiting/switching to the competitors (Anderson, 1996). The past
studies have referred price tolerance with various names (He, Chan, & Tse, 2008) such
as price acceptance (Kalyanaram & Winer, 1995), price thresholds (Gupta & Cooper,
1992; Kalwani & Yim, 1992), price response (Bell & Lattin, 2000), and price
expectations (Kalwani, Yim, Rinne, & Sugita, 1990). The price increase tolerance
measures the maximum amount of price increase that the satisfied consumers are
willing to accept for the product purchased (He et al., 2008), whereas price decrease
tolerance measures the minimum level of price discount attractive to dissatisfied
consumers for retaining the customer with the company. If a price crosses a certain
threshold, then even satisfied customer may switch to competitors; on the other hand, if
the price decrease is below a threshold, then dissatisfied customers may move to other
firms (He et al., 2008). However, price alone may not be the reason for dissatisfaction;
the other factors contribute too toward switching. Price tolerance is closely related to
the concept of consumer surplus: "the excess of the price which a man would be willing
to pay rather than go without having a thing over what he actually does pay is the
economic measure of his satisfaction surplus" (Marshall, 1 890).

12
2.2 Consumer-Brand Relationship

A consumer-brand relationship, also known as a Brand Relationship is the

relationship that consumers think, feel, and have with a product or company brand
(Fournier, 1998; Veloutsou, 2007). Three different theoretical perspectives have been
proposed to conceptualize and measure the development of consumer-brand
relationships.

Successful organizations have shifted their focus from transactional marketing to

relational marketing (Berry, 1995; Fournier, 1998; Gummesson, 1996) due to various
advantages a rich, meaningful, and enduring consumer–brand relationship may provide
to them. Numerous types of relationships may occur between consumer and brand
depending upon how personal, close or deep connection or bond is perceived to be
(Aggarwal, 2004). Consumer–brand relationship refers to the connection between an
individual and a brand that is voluntary or enforced interdependently between a brand
and an individual (Blackston, 2000; Fournier, 1994). The theory of consumer–brand
relationship is grounded in the premises that individuals develop various types of
relationships with different people they interact with (Keller, 2012). Extending this
notion, Aaker (1996) suggested that the interaction between consumers and brands, can
lead to the development of an active consumer–brand relationship and thus, brands may
act as active partners for the consumers. Researchers acknowledge that consumer–brand
relationships facilitate smooth communication between seller and buyer (Schultz &
Schultz, 2004) and help consumers to relate with brands (Pawle & Cooper, 2006;
Fetscherin, Boulanger, Gonçalves Filho, & Quiroga Souki, 2014). These relationships
tend to build so strong emotional bond between consumers and brands that in the case
of non-availability of those brands even store loyal customers can switch the stores
same as non-loyal customers (Verbeke, Farris, & Thurik, 1998). As consumers interact

13
with hundreds of brands every day, it is not possible to develop meaningful and strong
relationships with each of them. Therefore, brand managers have always strived hard to
focus on the important elements that can foster the relationships between consumers
and brand. Previous research has highlighted the importance of key marketing variables
to develop and maintain consumer–brand relationships such as brand attachment
(Belaid & Behi, 2011; Thomson, MacInnis, & Park, 2005), brand image (Chang &
Chieng, 2006; Esch, Langner, Schmitt, & Geus, 2006), consumer experience (Chang &
Chieng, 2006), brand identification (Tuškej et al., 2013) and brand reputation
(Veloutsou & Moutinho, 2009), brand Intimacy, brand commitment, brand relationship
equality (Susan Fourier, 1998) and brand trust (Chaudhuri and Holbrook 2001). The
consumer–brand relationship framework offers a number of opportunities to the
researchers to study and explore the bonds between consumers and brands from
different perspectives (Breivik & Thorbjørnsen, 2008). Furthermore, brands offer both
functional and emotional benefits that aim to create a unique and pleasurable experience
for consumers (De Chernatony, 2010). Nyffenegger et al. (2014) argue that consumer-
brand relationships have two types of dimensions, cognitive and affective and both
influence brand loyalty.

2.2.1 Brand Connection Matrix

There are many different concepts and facets studied and related to consumers'
relationships to brands (e.g., love styles). These relationships can be positive or
negative (love hate relationships). Below a few of those concepts studied in brand
relationships: Brand community, Brand engagement, Cult brand.

Inspired by the Hierarchy of Effects Model (Lavidge and Steiner, 1961), the
Relationship Investment Model (Rusbult, 1980), Keller’s (2001) Customer-Based
Brand Equity Model as well as drawing from theories of interpersonal attraction and
14
social exchange, one can classify the different brand relationship concepts into
relationships based on functional connections, emotional connections or a combination
of both. According to Fetscherin and Heinrich (2014), function connections are
achieved when only functional needs are met. Solely emotional connections result if
only emotional needs of the consumers are met. This leads us with a 2×2 matrix
consisting of four quadrants as illustrated in Figure 2.

Low High
Functional Connection
(Thinking/ Cognitive)

(1) (2)
High “functionally “fully invested”
Invested”
(3) (4)
Low “un-invested” “emotionally
Intested”

Fig. 2 Brand Connection Matrix

Quadrant (1): High functional but low emotionally connected consumers are
functionally invested to brands. Hence, they are satisfied with the brand in terms of
performance (that is, functional connection) but shop around (that is, emotionally not
connected). They are not as price sensitive as ‘uninvested’ consumers (as they
appreciate the brand in a functional way) but if there is a better deal in terms of value
proposition (price versus functionality) they might switch. Using in this case the
interpersonal relationship metaphor, consumers see the brand as a colleague.

15
 Quadrant (2): Consumers with high functional and high emotional connections to
brands are those who are fully invested to brands. In this relationship, consumers ‘love’
their brand and positive outcomes can occur such as high brand loyalty, an extreme
positive word of mouth, like brand evangelism or turning a blind eye after service
failures. Consumers with such relationship investments to brands are more loyal, switch
less likely to other brands, are willing to pay a price premium or are less price sensitive
and have higher brand forgiveness (Donavan et al, 2012). Using again the interpersonal
relationship metaphor, in this case, consumers see the brands as family and/or part of
themselves.

Quadrant (3): Low functional and low emotional connected consumers are
uninvested to brands and consumers see brands as acquaintance, if we would use an
interpersonal relationship metaphor to describe this brand relationship. They exhibit no
brand loyalty, they are mostly price sensitive, and brands are subject to the competitive
environment. Price premiums are hardly possible. Those brands have a high risk of
brand switching from consumers and brands need to fulfill either consumers’ function
or emotional needs to deepen their connection to consumers.

Quadrant (4): Consumers with a low functional but high emotional connection to
brands are those who are emotionally invested to brands. They like the brands mostly
for affective reasons even if the brand does not perform compared with what consumers
need or want or the brand performs less good than competitor brands (for example, a
legendary motorbike but with ‘outdated’ technology). In this case, the brand does not
have all the functions or features consumers are looking for or need. In some instances,
the consumer can forgive these functional shortcomings or the consumer is willing to
have less functionality. In this case, the emotional needs compensate functional
limitations. However, this ‘emotionally invested’ relationship might last only for a
while and brands need to address these shortcomings. Consumers see brands as a friend

16
but this friendship can end up as either a committed relationship or family (top-right
quadrant), or transit to a relationship with low emotional connection if frustrations of
functional limitation occur over time, or the relationship will even be terminated or
‘divorce’ (Sussan et al, 2012). As the Hierarchy of Effects Model (Lavidge and Steiner,
1961) suggests, only when the cognitive (thinking) and affective (feeling) connection
exist, consumers buy the product (conative or behavior). One major criticism of
Lavidge and Steiner’s (1961) model is the issue, that it is assumed ‘hierarchical’ and
that consumers move from one to the other stage. Our framework addresses this gap as
it allows a combination of both.

2.3 Cognitive and Affective Consumer-brand relationship

Part of today’s brand success lies on the development of relationships between

brands and consumers (Veloutsou and Moutinho, 2009), and in the past three decades,
an influential research stream has emerged associated with the dynamics of consumer–
brand relationships (Hollebeek et al., 2014). Cognition refers to people’s thoughts about
the attitude object. It encompasses the content of one’s thoughts regarding beliefs in the
statement of fact. Affect refers to feelings, moods, or emotional responses that can be
measured by collecting verbal reports or by physiological responses. These affective
responses can range from extremely positive to extremely negative and can be located
on an evaluative dimension of meaning (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). People who evaluate
an attitude object favorably are likely to experience positive affective reactions in
conjunction with it and are unlikely to experience negative affective reactions. In
addition, the affective component of attitude contains some involvement, liking, and
caring as proposed by Oliver (1997).

Cognition of the customer–brand relationship is the first step toward creating brand
loyalty. The first dimension of customer–brand relationship is two-way communication.
17
This dimension refers to whether customers can recognize the strength of
communication with the integrated resort. Two-way communication is formed through
the interaction between customers and brands, before, during, and after transactions
(Duncan & Moriarty, 1997; McKenna, 1991; Peppers, 1993; Schultz, 1992), and it is
the degree to which customers participate and exchange information (Graca, Barry, &
Doney, 2015). Two-way communication with the media can offer information to
customers on the tourism brands. Two-way communication also provides meaningful
information to service providers, such as customers’ feedback about the tourism brand.
Thus, two-way communication involves transactional, close, longterm, and interactive
relationships between customers and tourism brands. Service providers of an integrated
resort will benefit considerably from the use of the Internet and social media as
compared with other communication tools. They provide a possibility for the creation of
a favorable relational attitude through two-way communication. In the context of
customer behavior, Fournier (1998) claimed that the customer–brand relationship
influences customers’ affective responses. The affective component is related to the
feelings associated with a brand (Boush & Loken, 1991; Loken & John, 1993).
Customers’ favorable attitude is critical in the integrated resort setting because it is a
strong driver of customers’ future behavioral intention. Once customers have a positive
attitude toward a brand, customers behave positively toward it (McKenzie, 2006;
Raghunathan, Naylor, & Hoyer, 2006), and this strong affective brand relationship
influences brand commitment (Cristau, 2001). In addition, the level of positive attitude
affects not only the existing brand but also the extended brand (Hem & Iversen, 2003).
Customers who have affective predispositions toward a brand are more likely to choose
the integrated resort brand’s products/services. Whether cognition or emotion comes
first in customers’ evaluation of experience has long been the subject of debate.
Researchers have explored the relationship between cognition and emotion and some
argue that cognitive states precede emotional states (Lazarus, 1999; Oliver, 1980),
18
whereas others claim that emotional states precede cognitive states during service
industry evaluation or appraisal (Pham, Cohen, Pracejus, & Hughes, 2001; Zajonc,
1984). As Lazarus (1999) suggested, in the current study, cognition stimulates emotion
when customers appraise the integrated resort experience. Customers’ cognition plays a
key role in consumers’ affective attitude toward the brand. A high level of customer–
brand relationship is expected to generate positive customer responses toward the
integrated resort brand. . This model uses brand trust, brand satisfaction as the cognitive
dimensions and affective commitment as the affective dimension of brand relationships,
and investigates their relative impact on three service brand loyalty indicators (i.e.
repurchase intentions, positive recommendations, and price tolerance) both
independently and in tandem.

2.3.1 Cognitive Consumer-brand relationship

2.3.1.1 Brand Trust

The notion of brand trust was introduced by Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001,
2002) who built on earlier marketing work in inter- and intra-organizational contexts
(Moorman, Zaltman, and Desphande 1992; Morgan and Hunt 1994) and empirically
validated the first measure of brand trust, which they define as “the willingness of the
average consumer to rely on the ability of the brand to perform its stated function”
(Chaudhuri and Holbrook 2001, p. 82). Core features include consumers’ belief that the
brand is honest and safe as well as subjective feelings of reliance on the brand. Brand
trust has been examined in other ways too. For example, Delgado-Ballester and
Munuera-Alemán (2001) suggest brand trust is “a feeling of security held by the
consumer that the brand will meet his/her consumption expectations” (p. 1242).
Consumers’ trust in a brand is driven by the high expectancy of the brand to bring about
a positive outcome (Delgado-Ballester and Munuera-Aleman, 2005).While both views
19
contemplate consumers’ belief in brand characteristics and brand-related subjective
feelings, the latter view focuses somewhat more on the ideas of certainty and
confidence in the brand. Garbarino and Johnson 34 (amongst other authors) have
explained the relationship between loyalty and brand trust in their work. They
highlighted the importance of trust in developing positive and favorable attitudes. Brand
trust is the central construct for any long-term relationship. Therefore, in the consumer-
brand domain it may be an important contributor to the kind of emotional commitment
that leads to long-term loyalty. Therefore, it seems reasonable to expect that the higher
the feeling of trust in a brand, the more the consumers are loyal to it. The affective or
emotional elements leading to brand trust include expectations of brand integrity,
honesty and/or benevolence, which embrace expectations that the brand would act with
the consumer’s best interests across the product portfolio under that brand (Becerra and
Korgaanker, 2011). Brand trust impacts positive brand referral intention and purchase
intentions (Becerra and Badrinarayanan, 2013).

2.3.1.2 Brand Satisfaction

Customers will tend to choose brands that are in accordance with their wishes
and expectations, with that the superior companies today are companies that have
succeeded in satisfying consumers with their brands (Kaur et al., 2020). Brand
satisfaction and brand trust are the perfect roles to predict the future of the marketing
team (Jin & Lee, 2010). Customer satisfaction with a brand is an evaluation of the bar
after consuming the products and services in the brand (Şahin et al., 2011). Consumers
will be satisfied with a brand if the products or services used are in accordance with
their expectations (Roustasekehravani et al., 2015). Brand satisfaction cannot always be
measured from the price of a brand, but is based on the fulfillment and expectations of
consumers for the brand (Fang, 2017).

20
Brand satisfaction is defined according to Chinomona et al (2013) as cumulative
satisfaction where overall consumer evaluation is based on total purchases and
consumer experiences with products or services from the brand. Brand satisfaction
where customers make repeat purchases with the brand and tell positive things about the
brand to others, conversely, if the customer is not satisfied with the brand usually he
will not use the brand again and will say hello about his complaints about the brand to
others (Erciş et al., 2012).

Brand satisfaction that occurs continuously will create brand loyalty (Şahin et al.,
2011). Customers who feel more satisfied will clearly have high loyalty to the brand
(Marist et al., 2014). One of the main components of brand loyalty is consumer brand
satisfaction, with a preferred brand (Marist et al., 2014). According to (Fornell et al.,
1996) to measure brand satisfaction, three variables can be used, namely: Overall
satisfaction, Expectancy disconfirmation, Performance versus customer's ideal product.

Based on the above understanding, the writers draw the conclusion that brand
satisfaction is where consumers feel that the brand is in accordance with their wishes,
starting from the products / services or services that the brand provides to consumers, so
that satisfaction arises using the brand in the minds of consumers.

2.3.2 Affective Consumer-brand relationship

2.3.2.1 Affective Commitment

Commitment and satisfaction are essential antecedents of loyalty (Lariviere et al.,

2014). Commitment refers to the state of developing partner-relationships that are
stable, accepting short-term sacrifices, in order to maintain sustainable, stable
relationships, and customer loyalty (Ural, 2007). Commitment is vital to the
development of successful relationships; and it has a significantly positive effect on

21
loyalty (Hamid et al., 2013). The integration of commitment in the brand loyalty
literature contributes to a better understanding of this phenomenon and spreads its
definition beyond its behavioral aspect (Samuelson and Sandivik, 1997). Commitment
has generally been conceptualized as an intention and a desire of continuity in the
relationship. Kiesler (1971) defines it as “the link that exists between an individual and
his acts.” Johnson (1973) has conceptualized commitment as “the extent to which an
action is dedicated to the completion of a line of action.” Research shows that brand
affect leads to a higher level of brand commitment, which can lead to an increase in the
usage frequency of that brand (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001). Consistent with
Fishbein and Ajzen (1975), we view behavioral intention as the most predictable of
behaviors, and thus propose a direct antecedent of loyalty behavior. This intentional
brand loyalty construct is “brand commitment,” which we view as behavioral intention
held with affective and cognitive conviction. In psychology, the concept of commitment
is regarded as having intentional aspects, as evidenced by Kiesler’s definition of
commitment: “the pledging or binding of an individual to behavioral acts” (1971, p.
30). Contrary to many studies that viewed brand commitment as a direct indicator (i.e.,
a scale item) of brand loyalty, we regard it as a construct anteceding brand loyalty
behavior. In fact, recent literature has viewed brand commitment as a necessary and
sufficient condition of brand loyalty (e.g., Knox and Walker 2001). The evidence
presented in the literature is still correlational rather than causal, however. Some
scholars used brand commitment as an item of brand loyalty measurement (e.g.,
Bloemer and Kasper 1995), rather than a distinct and anteceding construct. Cunningham
(1967) was one of a few early efforts viewing brand commitment as and antecedent of
brand loyalty, but no distinction between true and spurious loyalty was made in the
study.

22
Affective commitment relates to the inclination to continue stable in the long-term
through the utilization of familiar relations and social ties with partners (Hamid et al.,
2013). Affective commitment is thus psychological (Hur, Park and Kim, 2010); as it
relates to “wanting” to maintain a relationship (Kelly, 2004).

Affective commitment can also be used to describe the process of consumer loyalty
towards a particular brand; as the consumer is a regular buyer, and has a favourable
attitude towards the brand (Louis and Lombart, 2010). Affective commitment has a
direct positive effect on customer loyalty (Wu et al., 2012); since higher levels of
affective commitment result in higher loyalty to the suppliers (Ruyter et al., 2001).
Affective commitment also has an impact on the switching intentions of the consumers;
since higher affective commitment results in lower switching intentions, and a greater
willingness to pay premium prices (Fullerton, 2003).

2.4 Consumer-brand relationships and brand loyalty

Expanding upon Fournier’s (1994, 1998) seminal work, much of the focus in the
consumer-brand relationships literature has been on identifying the various consumer-
brand relationship constructs. Such consumer-brand relationship constructs have been
called different things, including Brand Relationship Quality (Fournier, 1998),
Customer Satisfaction (Moolla and Bischoff, (2012), Brand Commitment (Jang et al.
2008) and Brand Trust (Chaudhuri and Holbrook 2001, 2002). Whether it be a customer
satisfaction or a trust, consumers often form multi-faceted relationships with brands that
they use in their daily lives.

These consumer-brand relationship constructs have been conceptualized many ways

but are united in that scholars examine these constructs through translating interpersonal
relationship concepts and theories into the branding domain (Fournier 1998; Miller,

23
Fournier, and Allen 2012). Over the last 20 years, there has been a proliferation of such
consumer-brand relationship constructs that each speak to important qualities of
consumers’ relationships with brands; the most common constructs are brand
attachment (Thomson, MacInnis, and Park 2005), brand love (Batra, Ahuvia, and
Bagozzi 2012), self-brand connection (Escalas and Bettman 2003), brand identification
(Stokburger-Sauer, Ratneshwar, and Sen 2012) and brand trust (Magnoni and Roux
2012). Consumer-brand relationship constructs can be portrayed as invaluable assets
that develop and solidify customer brand loyalty, which I treat broadly as constancy of
the consumer’s brand preference that manifests over time on attitudinal and behavioral
levels (Day 1969; Guest 1944, 1955; Jacoby 1971; Jacoby and Kyner 1973; Oliver
1999).

Extensive evidence suggests each in turn is an effective means of creating or

reinforcing customer brand loyalty (Batra et al. 2012; Carroll and Ahuvia 2006;
Chaudhuri and Holbrook 2001, 2002; Delgado-Ballester and MunueraAlemán 2001;
Magnoni and Roux 2012; Sen et al. 2015; Stokburger-Sauer et al. 2012; Thomson et al.
2005) where loyalty generally reflects the degree to which a person consistently
demonstrates a preference for the same brand within a product or service category. For
example, attachment predicts a brand’s purchase share (Park et al. 2010), identification
predicts future customer brand loyalty (Homburg et al. 2009) and behavioral intentions
(Einwiller et al. 2006), and trust predicts repurchase intentions (Mazodier and Merunka
2012). Because of their positive impact on customer brand loyalty, all three types of
brand relationships can thus be construed as brand loyalty drivers. Even so, uncertainty
remains extant research shows high variability in brand relationship elasticities, even
where studies focus on the same context or conceptual approach. For example, using
data from car owners, Loureiro et al. (2012) find that only affect based and identity-
based relationships are significantly associated with customer brand loyalty; Ashworth

24
et al. (2009) find that only trust-based and identity-based brand relationships drive
repeat purchase; and Marzocchi et al. (2013) show that only affect-based and trust-
based brand relationships generate attitudinal customer brand loyalty.

Furthermore, several studies assume that brand commitment fully mediates the
relationship between satisfaction; trust, and brand loyalty, meaning that only bonds
based on emotional values directly affect brand performance (i.e. Hess and Story, 2005;
Story and Hess, 2006; Esch et al., 2006; Chiou and Droge, 2006; Ou et al., 2014).
Recent literature, however, suggests that both cognitive and affective factors are
important for consumer-brand relationships and have different effects on brand
performance (Nyffenegger et al., 2014; Sreejesh and Roy, 2015).

Furthermore, brands offer both functional and emotional benefits that aim to create
a unique and pleasurable experience for consumers (De Chernatony, 2010).
Nyffenegger et al. (2014) argue that consumer-brand relationships have two types of
dimensions, cognitive and affective and both influence brand loyalty. Based on these
assertions, the brand commitment paradigm seems the best suited framework for
investigating the effects of both the cognitive (functional) and affective (emotional)
dimensions of brand relationships on brand performance and has received considerable
support by the branding literature (Hess and Story, 2005 Story and Hess, 2006;
Ashworth et al., 2009; Papista and Dimitriadis, 2012; Fritz et al., 2014; Veloutsou,
2015).

To address these issues, this study uses the brand commitment paradigm (Tsai,
2011a, 2011b), to propose and empirically test a comprehensive model that shows the
effect of both cognitive (functional) and affective (emotional) brand relationship
dimensions on brand loyalty for “Mindray” brand Ultrasound products in Upper
Myanmar. This model uses brand trust, brand satisfaction as the cognitive dimensions
and affective commitment as the affective dimension of brand relationships, and

25
 investigates their relative impact on three service brand loyalty indicators (i.e.
repurchase intentions, positive recommendations, and price tolerance) both
independently and in tandem.

2.4 Previous Study

The previous literature indicated Consumer-brand relationships and brand loyalty.

The empirical studies proved that the significant effects of Consumer-brand
relationships and brand loyalty as shown in following Table

Sr. Author Independent Dependent Findings

No. (Year) Variables Variables
1 V.C.ROZANI Customer Brand The results show that
(2014) Satisfaction, Switching Loyalty Customer Satisfaction,
Costs / Brand Trust, Relationship
Risk Aversion, proneness, Involvement,
Brand Trust, Perceived Value, Brand
Relationship Affect, Brand Relevance and
proneness, Brand Performance are
Involvement, significantly influence on the
Perceived Value, brand loyalty, and
Commitment, Commitment and Repeat
Repeat Purchase , Purchase are less significant
Brand Affect, Brand influence on the brand
Relevance, loyalty but Switching Costs/
Brand Performance, Risk Aversion and Culture
Culture have no influence on the
brand loyalty.
2 MIHALJ BAKATOR,Relationship towards Brand Loyalty The study has found that
DEJAN a company, Customer- consumers’ relationship
ORĐEVIĆ Brand Relationship, towards
, DRAGAN Customer-product Companies positively
ĆOĆKALO, relationship, influences brand loyalty. In
SRĐAN BOGETIĆ Brand Trust, addition, it has been found
(2020) Brand Relationship that there is a positive
26
 Quality relationship between the
consumer-brand relationships,
consumer-product
relationships, brand trust, and
Brand relationship quality.
Further, the tests for multi-
collinearity, autocorrelation,
and heteroscedasticity are
“negative” indicating that
there is no multi collinearity,
autocorrelation and
heteroscedasticity among the
observed variables
3 VIKAS KUMARA Brand Experience Customer-Brand The results showed that
AND ARUN (Sensory, Affective, Relationship sensory
K. KAUSHIK Behavioral, (Two-way brand experience emerged as
(2018) Intellectual) communication, a most significant predictor of
Emotional consumer–brand relationship
Exchange) for service brand category,
sensory experience affects
some elements of consumer–
brand relationships such as
brand satisfaction, whereas
for product brand category,
affective brand
experience was found to have
the most influence on the
consumer–brand relationship
4 NEERAJ PANDEY, Perceived Value, Price Tolerance The result shows that customer
AVINASH Customer Satisfaction, satisfaction, trust, loyalty, and
TRIPATHI, Loyalty, Trust perceived value on price
DEVENDRA JAIN tolerance for the
& SAPTRSHI ROY purchase of electronic/electric
(2019) items such as pen drive and
spike guard, the trust and
Loyalty were found to be
significant; however, customer
satisfaction and perceived
value were not significant.
On the other hand, none of the
27
 variables was significant for
the purchase of nonelectric
items, viz., bucket and
umbrella.
5 APOSTOLOS N. Consumer-Brand Brand Loyalty Results indicate that the main
GIOVANISA, Relationship driver of behavioral intentions
, PINELOPI (Integrity Benevolence, is brand trust, followed by
ATHANASOPOULO Competence, satisfaction and commitment.
UB (2016) Satisfaction, On the other hand,
Commitment, commitment and behavioral
Purchase intension, intentions and,
Positive at a lesser extent, satisfaction
Recommendations, affect customer's price
Price Tolerance tolerance. The impact of trust
on price tolerance is
insignificant, meaning that
trust affects price tolerance
only
indirectly through satisfaction;
commitment, and behavioral
intentions.
Finally, satisfaction
partially mediates the trust-
commitment relationship,
since the effects of trust on
satisfaction and commitment ,
as well as that of satisfaction
on commitment are
statistically significant. The
proposed model explains 56%
of the variance in
satisfaction; 41% of variance
in commitment; 62% of
variance in
behavioral intentions,
and 52% of variance in price
tolerance.

28
6 NEILA STA , Brand Love, Brand Brand Loyalty Based on the results of the
RABEH ABBASSI , Performance (word-of- statistical tests presented in
CHOKRI ELFIDHA mouth, Relative Price the study, the impact of brand
(2018) and Differentiation) love on
Loyalty is significant. Indeed,
love for the brand has
positive and significant effect
on brand loyalty and the
results reflect the effect of
brand loyalty respectively on
word of mouth, brand
Differentiation and relative
price. In other words, it's
about the brand's performance.

Source: Own Compilation

V.C.ROZANI (2014) studied the measuring brand loyalty in the medical device
industry of South Africa through A study across the Public and Private Health-care
system. He had used the conceptual framework for the medical-devices industry
adapted from Moolla (2012) framework. The results of his study concluded that the
brand loyalty influences, as identified by Moolla, are important for measuring brand
loyalty in the medical devices industry. The study also aimed at determining whether a
significant relationship exists between brand loyalty and repurchasing, the influence of
price on brand loyalty, and to determine whether the brand loyalty factors differ
between the private and public sector in the South African health-care system.

In 2020, Mihalj Bakator, Dejan Đorđević, Dragan Ćoćkalo, Srđan Bogetić studied
The Impact of Consumer-Company Relationships on Brand Loyalty by surveying male
and female consumers, aged from 15 to 65, from the major cities in Serbia. The results
indicate that there is a strong link between consumers’ relationship towards a company
29
and brand loyalty. In addition, the links between the mediating constructs shed light on
the complexity of developing relationships with consumers. Additionally, based on the
research results, managers have to develop long-term strategies in order to develop and
maintain good relationships with consumers, as developing relationships towards a
company further positively affect consumer-product and consumer-brand relationships.
The result of this is a stronger brand trust and brand relationship quality, and an overall
stronger brand loyalty. In brand management, managers have to address the
relationships between consumers and products, as these are good indicators for brand
loyalty development. By establishing good relationships with consumers, the company
increases its potential on the market and acquires a competitive advantage.

Vikas Kumar & Arun K. Kaushik had studied building consumer–brand

relationships through brand experience and brand identification in 2018. The results are
got from the populations who came famous malls in Dehradun, India. Participants were
asked to consider one product and one service category: mobile (as product brand) and
mobile services provider (as service brand). The study empirically verified the relative
importance of different dimensions of brand experience across product and service
brands. The findings suggest that sensory brand experience emerged as a most
significant predictor of consumer–brand relationship for service brand category, thereby
lending a slight support to the results of Nysveen et al. (2013). They also found that
sensory experience affects some elements of consumer–brand relationships such as
brand satisfaction, whereas for product brand category, affective brand experience was
found to have the most influence on the consumer–brand relationship.

Neeraj Pandey, Avinash Tripathi, Devendra Jain & Saptrshi Roy (2019) studied
“Does price tolerance depend upon the type of product in e retailing? Role of customer
satisfaction, trust, loyalty, and perceived value, Journal of Strategic Marketing”. The
study was conducted with the help of 120 respondents selected through convenience

30
sampling. The respondents were students of a reputed business school in Mumbai, India
(mean age 25.4 years, 37 females). The study was performed through three e-commerce
websites: Retailer K, Retailer L, and Retailer M for four products (from two categories:
two from electronic/electric category and two from nonelectric category) that were most
relevant to respondents. The ANOVA results showed that variables such as customer
satisfaction, trust, loyalty, and perceived value were insignificant as covariates for all
the product purchases. This study showed that trust, loyalty, and perceived value on
price tolerance for the purchase of electronic/electric items such as pen drive and spike
guard, the trust and loyalty were found to be significant; however, customer satisfaction
and perceived value were not significant. On the other hand, none of the variables was
significant for the purchase of nonelectric items, viz., bucket and umbrella. The finding
that trust and loyalty matter most for online purchase scenario is in line with past
research that many consumers preferred not to shop online due to lack of trust (Kim,
Chung, & Lee, 2011; Wu & Chang, 2005). The counterintuitive finding that the
customer perceived value may have moderating effect instead of the main effect on
online shopping behavior supports the findings from Hsin Chang and Wang (2011).
However, the findings contrast with the past assertion that online purchase intention
mainly depends on perceived value (Ponte, Carvajal-Trujillo, & Escobar-Rodríguez,
2015), probably, due to the e-tourism context of that study. Thus, it is imperative to
gain consumer’s trust in selling high-involvement goods in online context.

Apostolos N. Giovanisa,, Pinelopi Athanasopoulou studied Consumer-brand

relationships and brand loyalty in technology-mediated services in 2016. This study was
done by surveying the population of fixed broadband internet users in Greece. The
effect of brand commitment on behavioral intentions is lower than those of trust and
satisfaction and therefore, we conclude that the affective dimension of consumer-brand
relationships plays a secondary role in this case. Thus, if firms want to enjoy positive

31
word of mouth and repurchase intentions, they should focus on the management of
cognitive dimensions of relationships. On the other hand, consumers’ price tolerance is
highly related to brand commitment (affective dimension of relationships) while the
effect of trust is insignificant. Therefore, trust and satisfaction are not enough for the
consumer to become less sensitive to price increases. Price tolerance increases when
emotional bonds are formed with the brand. Thirdly, the current study confirms the
partial mediating role of commitment (affective dimension) in the relationship between
the cognitive dimensions of consumer-brand relationships (trust and satisfaction) and
brand loyalty indicators. This means that the presence of emotional bonding between
customers and brands positively enhance the impact of their service brand cognitions on
all brand performance indicators (Sreejesh and Roy, 2015). The findings suggest that
consumer-oriented brand development activities enhance customers’ perceptions about
internet service providers’ competence; integrity, and benevolence. These perceptions
have to be efficiently converted into brand satisfaction; brand commitment, and brand
loyalty.

Neila Sta , Rabeh Abbassi , Chokri Elfidha (2018) studied The effect of brand love
on brand performance: the role of brand loyalty in 2018. The purpose of their paper is to
explore the relationship between brand love and the actual performance of the brand.
Their study was conducted on the fact that the consumption behaviors of fashion
products using the convenience sampling technique, and 190 questionnaires were
administered by direct contact to students at the Tunis Institute of Applied Humanities.
The results reflect the effect of brand loyalty respectively on word of mouth, brand
differentiation and relative price. The results found that the impact of brand love on
loyalty is significant. Indeed, love for the brand has positive and significant effect on
brand loyalty. They found that the company's performance is closely tied to "brand
love" and that "brand love" is predictive of superior performance

32
2.5 Conceptual Framework

The following figure is developed to use as a conceptual framework in this study.

Based on the previous literature, the independent variables are Brand-Relationship
Quality, Customer Satisfaction, Brand Commitment and Brand Trust. The dependent
variable is Brand Loyalty to Mindray Ultrasound Products.

Figure: Conceptual Framework of the Study

Independent Variables Dependent Variables

Consumer-Brand Relationship

Brand Trust

Brand Satisfaction Brand Loyalty

Brand Commitment

REFERENCE

Aaker D.A. (1991), Managing brand, The Free Press, New Yok.

Albert, N., Merunka, D. (2013). The role of brand love in consumer-brand

relationships. J. Consum. Mark. 30(3), 258-266.

33
Amine, A. (1998). Consumers’ true brand loyalty: the central role of commitment.
Journal of Strategic Marketing, 6, 305-319.

Bakator, M., Boric, S., & Paunovic, M. (2017). Influence of advertising on consumer-
based brand loyalty. Journal of Engineering Management and Competitiveness
(JEMC), 7(2), 75-83.

Batra, R., Ahuvia, A., & Bagozzi, R. (2011). Brand love. Journal of Marketing. 76(2),
1–16.

Bergkvist, L., and Larsen, T. B. (2010). Two studies of consequences and actionable
antecedents of brand love. Journal of Brand Management, 17(7), 504-518.

Bloemer, J. M. M., & Kasper, H. D. P. (1995). The complex relationship between

consumer satisfaction and brand loyalty. Journal of Economic Psychology, 16, 311-
329.

Brakus, J. Joško, Bernd H. Schmitt, & Lia Zarantonello (2009). Brand Experience:
What Is It? How Is It Measured? Does It Affect Loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 73
(3), 52-68.

Breivik, E., & Thorbjørnsen, H. (2008). Consumer brand relationships: An

investigation of two alternative models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
36, 443–472.

Breivik, E., & Thorbjørnsen, H. (2008). Consumer brand relationships: an

investigation of two alternative models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
36(4), 443-472.

Carroll, B. A., & Ahuvia, A. C. (2006). Some antecedents and outcomes of brand
love. Marketing Letters, 17(2), 79–89.

34
Chaudhuri, A. & Holbrook, M. B. (2002). Product class effects on brand commitment
and brand outcomes: The role of brand trust and brand affect. Journal of Brand
Management, 10(1), 33-58.

Chaudhuri, A., & Holbrook, M. B. (2001). The chain of effects from brand trust and
brand affects to brand performance: The role of brand loyalty. Journal of Marketing,
65(2), 81-93.

Dick, A. S., & Basu, K. (1994). Customer loyalty: Toward an integrated conceptual
framework. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 22(2), 99-113.

Fatih, G., & Hayrettin, Z. (2013). The Relationship between Brand Trusts, Brand
Affect, Attitudinal Loyalty and Behavioral Loyalty: A Field Study towards Sports
Shoe Consumers in Turkey, International Journal of Marketing Studies. 5(2), 111-
119.

Fetscherin, M., & Heinrich, D. (2014). Consumer brand relationship: A research

landscape. Journal of Brand Management, 21(5), 366-371.

Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory

in Consumer Research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 343-353.

Francisco-Maffezzolli, E. C., Semprebon, E., & Muller Prado, P. H. (2014).

Construing loyalty through brand experience: The mediating role of brand relationship
quality. Journal of Brand Management, 21(5), 446–458.

Fullerton, G. (2003). When does commitment lead to loyalty? Journal of Service

Research, 5(4), 333-344.

Fullerton, G. (2005). The Impact of Brand Commitment on Loyalty to Retail Service

Brands. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 22(2), 97-110.

35
Garbarino, E. & Johnson, M. S. (1999). The different roles of satisfaction, trust and
commitment in customer relationships. Journal of Marketing, 63, 70-87.

Giovanis, A. N., & Athanasopoulou, P. (2018). Consumer-brand relationships and

brand loyalty in technology-mediated services. Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, 40, 287-294.

Gordon, F. (2003). When does commitment lead to loyalty? Journal of Service

Research, 5(4), 333-344

Hamid, A.B.B.A., Ebrahimpour, A., Roghanian, P., & Gheysari, H. (2013).

Commitment and customer loyalty in business-to-business context. European Journal
of Business and Management, 5(19), 156-164.

Hu, H.H., Kandampully, J. and Juwaheer, T. D. (2009). Relationships and impacts

of service quality, perceived value, customer satisfaction and image: an empirical

study. The Service Industries Journal, 29(2), 111-125.

Jang, H., Olfman, L., Ko, I., Koh, J. and Kim, K. (2008). The influence of On-Line

Brand Community Characteristics on Community Commitment and Brand Loyalty.

International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 12(3), 57-80.

Jagdish, N., Sheth, C. & Whan, P. (1974). A theory of multidimensional brand loyalty
Advances in Consumer Research, 1, 449-459.

Kabiraj, Sajal and Shanmugan, Joghee. (2010). Development of a conceptual

framework for brand loyalty: A Euro-Mediterranean Perspective, Brand Management,
18, 4-5.

Kim, K., Park, J., & Kim, J. (2014). Consumer–brand relationship quality: When and
how it helps brand extensions. Journal of Business Research, 67(4), 591-597.

36
Kirkire, M.S.; Rane, S.B. (2017). Evaluation of success factors for medical device
development using grey DEMATEL approach. J. Model. Manag. 12, 204-223.

Lin, C., Wu, W.-Y., & Wang, Z.-F. (2000). A study of market structure: brand loyalty
and brand switching behaviors for durable household appliances. International
Journal of Market Research, 42(3), 277.

M. Punniyamoorthy., & M. M. R. Prasanna. (2007). An empirical model for brand

loyalty measurement. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing,
15(4), 222-233.

Matzler, K., Grabner-Krauter, S., & Bidmon, S. (2008). Risk aversion and brand
loyalty: the mediating role of brand trust and brand affect. Journal of Product &
Brand Management, 17(3), 154-162.

Matzler, K., Krauter, S. G., & Bidmon, S. (2006). Individual determinants of brand
affect: The role of the personality traits of extraversion and openness to experience,
Journal of Product & Brand Management, 15(7), 427-434.

Moller Jensen, J., & Hansen, T. (2006). An empirical examination of brand loyalty.
Journal of Product & Brand Management, 15(7), 442-449.

Muyammil, H., Haffey, S., & Riaz, A. (2010). Factors affecting customer satisfaction.
International Research Journal of Finance and Economics, 60(1), 44-62.

Pritchard, M. P., Havitz, M. E. & Howard, D. R. (1999). Analyzing the commitment –

loyalty link in service contexts. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(3),
333-348.

Punniyamoorthy, M .and Prasanna, M. (2007). An empirical model for brand loyalty

measurement. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 15(4),
222-233..

37
Wu, W. Y., & Tsai, C. H. (2008). The empirical study of CRM: Consumer-company
identification and purchase intention in the direct selling industry. International
Journal of Commerce and Management, 17(3), 194–210.

Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality and value: A means-

end model and synthesis of evidence, Journal of Marketing, 52, 2-22.

38