Journal of Product & Brand Management

Product involvement, price perceptions, and brand loyalty

Alcina G. Ferreira, Filipe J. Coelho,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Alcina G. Ferreira, Filipe J. Coelho, (2015) "Product involvement, price perceptions, and brand loyalty", Journal of Product &
Brand Management, Vol. 24 Issue: 4, pp.349-364, https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-06-2014-0623
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-06-2014-0623
Downloaded on: 14 March 2018, At: 12:00 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 102 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 5290 times since 2015*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Downloaded by Universite de Sherbrooke At 12:00 14 March 2018 (PT)

(2011),"Brand loyalty in emerging markets", Marketing Intelligence &amp; Planning, Vol. 29 Iss 3 pp. 222-232 <a href="https://
doi.org/10.1108/02634501111129211">https://doi.org/10.1108/02634501111129211</a>
(2003),"Product involvement/brand loyalty: is there a link?", Journal of Product &amp; Brand Management, Vol. 12 Iss 1 pp.
22-38 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/10610420310463117">https://doi.org/10.1108/10610420310463117</a>

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:353605 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics
(COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 Product involvement, price perceptions,
and brand loyalty
Alcina G. Ferreira
School of Technology and Management, Instituto Politécnico de Leiria, Leira, Portugal, and
Filipe J. Coelho
Faculdade de Economia/GEMF, Universidade de Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal

Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to contribute to the literature on brand loyalty by illustrating the mechanisms through which product involvement
influences brand loyalty. In doing so, the study is original in considering the mediating role of the multidimensional price perceptions’ construct.
Design/methodology/approach – Two thousand questionnaires were distributed in two shopping malls, yielding a sample of 535 consumers,
covering eight different grocery products. To test the hypothesized model, the authors relied on structural equation modelling.
Findings – Product involvement influences on brand loyalty are partially mediated by price perceptions. This is a novel finding. Moreover, product
involvement relates positively to six price perceptions, and this is also original. As expected, value consciousness and sale proneness are detrimental
to brand loyalty, whereas price – quality schema contributes to it. Unexpectedly, however, price consciousness, sale proneness and price mavenism
are positively related to loyalty.
Downloaded by Universite de Sherbrooke At 12:00 14 March 2018 (PT)

Practical implications – Managers can improve brand loyalty by increasing consumers’ product involvement, by reducing the reliance on a
value-for-money orientation and on non-coupon promotions and by focusing on lower or higher prices and on coupon promotions and emphasizing
a price – quality association.
Originality/value – The product involvement/brand loyalty relationship has been characterized by mixed findings. This paper contributes to this
debate by clarifying the mechanisms through which involvement relates to loyalty. In doing this, this paper also innovates by investigating the
relationship between involvement and the multidimensional price perceptions’ construct. In this process, this paper also inquires how seven price
perceptions relate to brand loyalty, with novel findings emerging.
Keywords Consumer behaviour, Brand loyalty, Consumer psychology
Paper type Research paper

An executive summary for managers and executive
readers can be found at the end of this issue.
1. Introduction
Research into the determinants of consumer loyalty is
voluminous. This mirrors the relevance of loyalty both to
consumers and to firms (Horppu et al., 2008). The
performance of firms should benefit from having a loyal
customer base, which contributes to market share and
premium prices (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001), constitutes
a barrier to entry, provides time for firms to respond to
innovation from competition, protects from price competition
(Aaker, 1996), generates favourable word of mouth (Dick and
Basu, 1994) and provides a strong reason for retailers to carry
such brands (Garretson et al., 2002). The increasing power of
store brands makes the issue of brand loyalty even more
important (Allaway et al., 2011). Manufacturers’ brands now
compete for consumer preference not only with other
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on
Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/1061-0421.htm
manufacturers’ brands, but also with retailers’ brands. Not
surprisingly, Pritchard et al. (1999, p. 333) state that
“understanding how or why a sense of loyalty develops in
customers remains one of the crucial management issues of
our day”. In this regard, Brexendorf et al. (2010) note that all
points of contact between a customer and a brand provide an
opportunity to enhance loyalty. Accordingly, a wide body of
research has emerged on the antecedents of consumer loyalty.
This research considers the interplay between product
involvement, price perceptions and brand loyalty. More
specifically, this paper models the effects of product
involvement on brand loyalty, proposing that involvement has
direct as well as indirect effects, via price perceptions, on
brand loyalty. Product involvement is a motivational construct
(Antón et al., 2007; Celsi and Olson, 1988; Olsen, 2007) that
influences consumer search behaviour and information
processing (Andrews et al., 1991; Arens and Rust, 2012; Celsi
and Olson, 1988; Denstadli et al., 2012; Samuelsen and
Olsen, 2012; Thelen et al., 2011). Malar et al. (2011, p. 39)
state that:
[. . .] the increased cognitive effort leads to a greater incorporation of the
brand into the consumer’s self-concept [. . .] when this occurs the consumer
feels a greater personal connection between the self and the brand, resulting
in a stronger emotional brand attachment.

In support of this, Gordon et al. (1998) note that involved

Journal of Product & Brand Management
24/4 (2015) 349 –364
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 1061-0421]
[DOI 10.1108/JPBM-06-2014-0623]
customers respond more positively to firms’ relational
marketing strategies. However, there are claims that the role of
product involvement in brand loyalty/brand relationship

349
 Product involvement
Alcina G. Ferreira and Filipe J. Coelho
studies has received scarce attention (Liang and Wang, 2008)
and that this relationship is not well-understood (Coulter
et al., 2003; Olsen, 2007). Moreover, the existing evidence
concerning the product involvement– brand loyalty linkage is
limited and inconsistent (Coulter et al., 2003; Quester and
Lim, 2003; Warrington and Shim, 2000). Warrington and
Shim (2000), for example, obtained an almost negligible
correlation between product involvement and brand
commitment. This reinforces the need to research the
potential mechanisms through which product involvement
affects brand loyalty. In this regard, Raykov and Marcoulides
(2000, p. 7) note that “if an indirect effect does not receive
proper attention, the relationship between two variables of
interest may not be fully considered”. Furthermore, there has
been no investigation of the relationship between product
involvement and price perceptions. Thus, exploring the links
through which product involvement affects brand loyalty is of
relevance to both theory and practice.
Price is an important market cue, being present in every
Downloaded by Universite de Sherbrooke At 12:00 14 March 2018 (PT)
market transaction (Lichtenstein et al., 1993), and
constituting a key element of manufacturers’ and retailers’
marketing strategy, whose goal is to maximize profits through
optimal pricing. Pricing is traditionally considered a tactical
variable of the marketing mix, but Piercy et al. (2010) argue
that it should move into a strategic tool capable of changing
customer behaviour as well as spawning new market
opportunities. Recent information technology advances have
improved the collection, handling and analysis of pricing
information by firms, enabling new pricing strategies (Dixit
et al., 2008).
With increasing advertising costs, marketers tend to rely
more on the price instrument and on price promotions to
influence buying decisions (Krishnamurthi and Raj, 1991).
The increase of sales promotions (Ailawadi et al., 2001) has
made consumers more price-sensitive in their brand choice
(Mela et al., 1997; Kopalle et al., 1999), requiring new
research on how consumers react to price and how this
reaction impacts on brand loyalty. There are also claims that
the equilibrium promotional strategy depends critically on
brand strength and the number of price-sensitive consumers
(Jing and Wen, 2008). Additionally, it is acknowledged that
information about customers’ perceptions of price is of central
concern for managers when they determine a price on their
offerings (Iveroth et al., 2013). Not surprisingly, Grewal and
Levy (2007) also call for additional research on consumers’
attitudinal and behavioural responses to price (e.g. on brand
switching) and on how consumers process retail price
information, and we contribute to attempts to address this.
Lichtenstein et al. (1993) develop a typology of price
perceptions comprising seven dimensions. In their study, such
price perceptions affect a number of behaviours, namely,
coupon-redemption, low price search outside the store,
sale-responsiveness, price recall and generic product
purchases. Other studies investigate the role of selected price
perceptions, finding them to be related to certain consumer
behaviours such as store brand usage (Ailawadi et al., 2001)
and loyalty (Garretson et al., 2002; Manzur et al., 2011).
Thus, price perceptions seem to constitute an important
determinant of consumer behaviour. However, the seven
consumer price perceptions have not yet been systematically
350
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 24 · Number 4 · 2015 · 349 –364
related to loyalty. Those studies that have considered the
effect of price perceptions on loyalty have focused on the
effects of a single (Lichtenstein et al., 1997; Manzur et al.,
2011), or of two price perceptions at the most (Garretson
et al., 2002), and have frequently concentrated on other
dependent variables. This is unwarranted, as it does not
enable an accurate identification of the specific effect of each
price perception on brand loyalty. In addition, many of these
studies have focused on loyalty in general (Garretson et al.,
2002; Manzur et al., 2011) and not on loyalty within specific
product categories. This may be undesirable, as there may be
variations in consumer behaviour across product categories
(Ailawadi et al., 2001; Batra and Sinha, 2000). Moreover, and
as far as we know, several price perceptions, including coupon
proneness, price mavenism and prestige sensitivity, have not
yet been related to brand loyalty. Therefore, investigating the
relationship between the multidimensional proposal of price
perceptions advanced by Lichtenstein et al. (1993), and brand
loyalty is likely to yield a relevant contribution to knowledge,
providing valuable insights to manufacturers and retailers in
respect of the effects of price and promotional decisions on
brand loyalty.
The relevance of brand loyalty for both consumers and firms
adds value and urgency to attempts to investigate its
determinants. Given the important cognitive and behavioural
implications of product involvement as well as the contradictory
findings associated with the product involvement– brand loyalty
relationship, this study focuses on how the effects of product
involvement should disseminate to influence loyalty. In
pursuing this, we consider the mediating role of price
perceptions on the above relationship, which enables us to test
a number of novel associations. In particular, price
perceptions as a mediating mechanism are relevant because
the information processing implications of product
involvement have an influence on the attributes perceived and
valued by consumers (cf. Beatty et al., 1988; Eguaras et al.,
2012) and, therefore, should affect how they react to the
complex price stimuli. Moreover, Lichtenstein et al. (1993)
call for the consideration of finer discriminations of the price
stimuli, having determined that different price perceptions
have different behavioural outcomes.
In summary, this paper’s contribution lies in proposing a
model establishing that product involvement affects brand loyalty
directly, as well as indirectly, through the seven price perceptions,
namely, value consciousness, price consciousness, sale
proneness, coupon proneness, price mavenism, price – quality
schema and prestige sensitivity. More specifically, the
contribution can be summarized referring to the following
research gaps and the corresponding research objectives:
● Research on the product involvement– brand loyalty
relationship has been limited, has produced contradictory
findings and, thus, it is ill-understood. Hence, we aim to
contribute to this debate by clarifying the mechanisms
through which product involvement relates to brand
loyalty.
● The relationship between product involvement and price
perceptions has not been investigated before. Accordingly,
this research seeks to shed light on how product
involvement should lead consumers to develop specific
price perceptions.
 Product involvement
Alcina G. Ferreira and Filipe J. Coelho
● Past research has not systematically researched the
relationship between price perceptions and brand loyalty.
Therefore, the third objective of this study is to investigate
how seven price perceptions should drive consumers to
become more or less brand-loyal.
The researchers test the model with a sample of over 500
consumers and data related to eight product categories.
2. Research background and hypotheses
2.1 Research background
Oliver (1997, p. 392) defines loyalty as:
[. . .] a deeply held commitment to rebuy or repatronize a preferred product/
service consistently in the future, thereby causing repetitive same-brand or
same brand-set purchasing, despite situational influences and marketing
efforts having the potential to cause switching behaviour.
This definition encompasses two dimensions, an attitudinal
one, concerning consumers’ dispositional commitment
towards the brand, and a behavioural one, indicating repeat
Downloaded by Universite de Sherbrooke At 12:00 14 March 2018 (PT)
brand purchases (Chiou and Droge, 2006; Chaudhuri and
Holbrook, 2001).
Given the importance of loyalty, past research has
investigated its determinants (Horppu et al., 2008),
identifying a number factors, such as customer satisfaction
(Chandrashekaran et al., 2007; Chiou and Droge, 2006;
Kuikka and Laukkanen, 2012), brand experience (Brakus
et al., 2009), corporate reputation (Bartikowski et al., 2011;
Caruana and Ewing, 2010) and brand trust and brand affect
(Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001). There is also evidence that
consumers concerned with paying low prices are more
variety-seeking (Garretson and Burton, 1998) and less
brand-loyal (Blattberg and Neslin, 1990). Brand loyalty also
erodes with frequent and significant brand promotions
(Gedenk and Neslin, 1999).
This research models the direct and indirect effects of
product involvement on brand loyalty. The concept of
involvement has received substantial research attention over
the past decades (Warrington and Shim, 2000). Product
involvement concerns the perception of the personal relevance
of a certain product (Park and Young, 1986; Zaichkowsky,
1985). This relevance is determined by the extent to which the
product is interesting and important for the consumer (Malär
et al., 2011), implying that involvement is not a property of the
product category itself, but rather a response of the consumer
to the product category (Malär et al., 2011), reflecting
personal needs, goals and characteristics.
Following Andrews et al. (1991, p. 29), involvement is an
internal state of arousal with three properties: intensity,
direction and persistence. Intensity concerns a consumer’s
“degree of arousal to engage in specific information processing
or goal-related behaviours”. Direction concerns the target, i.e.
the object or issue, towards which an individual’s arousal is
oriented. Persistence concerns the extent to which
involvement intensity is lasting, leading to the distinction
between situational and enduring involvement. The former
refers to a short-term interest in a certain product, with
involvement declining upon the achievement of a certain
objective, whereas the latter concerns a stable, enduring
involvement.
351
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 24 · Number 4 · 2015 · 349 –364
Previous research states that product involvement elicits a
motivational state that may generate cognitive, affective and
behavioural responses (Dholakia, 2001; Malär et al., 2011).
Involvement influences “the amount of effort, the focus of
attention and comprehension processes, and the number and
type of meanings produced by comprehension processes”
(Celsi and Olson, 1988, p. 213). Celsi and Olson further note
that involvement leads consumers to produce a larger number
of thoughts, and with greater elaboration, based on the
information collected. Andrews et al. (1991) specify many
consequences associated with involvement, including more
complex decision processes and a greater number of personal
connections. This suggests that product involvement is likely
to have an effect on brand loyalty issues, a topic that remains
ill-understood (Coulter et al., 2003; Liang and Wang, 2008;
Olsen, 2007; Warrington and Shim, 2000), as well as on how
individuals react towards the price stimuli, an issue which has
not been researched before.
The relationship between product involvement and brand
loyalty, apart from not being properly understood, is also
marked by contradictory findings (Olsen, 2007; Quester and
Lim, 2003; Warrington and Shim, 2000). Quester and Lim
(2003) determined that different dimensions of involvement
had differential effects on loyalty, with some having a positive,
others a non-significant and one dimension a negative effect
on loyalty for one of the products they investigated. Coulter
et al. (2003) obtained a positive relationship between
involvement and brand commitment, and Olsen (2007)
determined a positive relationship between involvement and
loyalty towards a product category (which is different from brand
loyalty). Warrington and Shim (2000), however, obtained a
negligible relationship between product involvement and brand
commitment (an attitudinal facet of brand loyalty). These mixed
findings make it more important to understand the mechanisms
through which product involvement might affect brand loyalty.
In this research, price perceptions are expected to carry, at
least partially, the effects of product involvement into brand
loyalty. Lichtenstein et al. (1993) note that price is a complex
stimulus, possessing both a negative and a positive role. In a
positive role, higher prices increase the purchase probability,
as high prices may convey positive cues about an offer, such as
its higher quality (Lichtenstein et al., 1988; Garretson et al.,
2002; Zeithaml, 1988). In the negative role, higher prices may
reduce the probability of purchase, as price conveys the cost or
sacrifice that consumers incur to purchase something.
Following the Lichtenstein et al. (1993) conceptualization,
price perceptions with a negative role include price
consciousness, value consciousness, sale proneness, coupon
proneness and price mavenism. According to Lichtenstein
et al. (1993), price consciousness concerns the extent to which
a consumer is focused on paying low prices. Value
consciousness refers to the extent to which consumers are
concerned with the balance between the price to pay and the
quality to be received when they purchase something. As to
sale proneness, it is defined as an individual’s enhanced
propensity to purchase an offer due to the sale form through
which the price is presented. Lichtenstein et al. (1990, p. 56)
define coupon proneness as an individual’s “increased
propensity to respond to a purchase offer because the coupon
form of the purchase offer positively affects purchase
 Product involvement
Alcina G. Ferreira and Filipe J. Coelho
evaluations”. Finally, price mavenism concerns the extent to
which:
[. . .] an individual is a source for price information for many kinds of
products and places to shop for the lowest prices, initiates discussions with
consumers, and responds to requests from consumers for marketplace price
information.
In the positive role, price perceptions include price – quality
perception and prestige sensitivity. According to Lichtenstein
et al. (1993), price – quality perception refers to the belief that
the quality of a product is positively related to its price.
Prestige sensitivity concerns a positive reaction to the price
due to feelings of prestige and status that higher prices convey
to others.
Past research relating price perceptions with brand loyalty
has not been systematic. Garretson et al. (2002), for example,
analyse the impact of value consciousness and price – quality
schema on brand loyalty. Manzur et al. (2011) focus on the
impact of value consciousness on brand loyalty, whereas
Lichtenstein et al. (1997) considered only the impact of sales
Downloaded by Universite de Sherbrooke At 12:00 14 March 2018 (PT)
proneness on brand loyalty. Consequently, the lack of studies
considering the simultaneous effect of the seven price
perceptions on brand loyalty does not enable the proper
identification of each of the former’s effects on loyalty. In
addition, and as far as we know, the relationship of several
price perceptions with brand loyalty, namely, coupon
proneness, price mavenism and prestige sensitivity, has
remained uninvestigated. As to price consciousness, the
literature presents evidence of a negative relationship between
brand loyalty and “price sensitivity”, but the measure of the
latter appears to substantially differ from the one offered by
Lichtenstein et al. (1993) resulting, frequently, and instead,
from estimations using scanner panel data (Krishnamurthi
and Papatla, 2003). Although the relationship between price
and brand loyalty has received considerable attention in the
marketing literature, such research tends to focus on other
relevant pricing questions such as brand loyalty and price
elasticity (Krishnamurthi and Raj, 1991), retail promotion
and future brand loyalty (Gedenk and Neslin, 1999), brand
loyalty and retail pricing strategies (Allender and Richards,
Figure 1 The research model
352
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 24 · Number 4 · 2015 · 349 –364
2012), price awareness and consumers’ use of deals in brand
choice (Murthi and Rao, 2012) and the influence of price
presentation order on consumer choice (Suk et al., 2012).
Considering the above background, the following research
model was established, specifying the hypotheses capturing
the predicted interplay between product involvement, the
entire set of price perceptions developed by Lichtenstein et al.
(1993) and loyalty (Figure 1).
2.2 Research hypotheses
2.2.1 Product involvement
Past studies suggest that commitment to a brand is preceded
by the activation of involvement (Coulter et al., 2003). Crosby
and Taylor (1983, p. 415) explain the rationale for this
relationship:
Involvement results from the fact that important values or the person’s
self-image are engaged or made salient by a decision situation. This would
lead to the arousal or drive activation [. . .] (with commitment to a brand
resulting) when these values, self-images, important attitudes, and so on
become cognitively linked to a particular stand or choice alternative.
Similarly, Beatty et al. (1988) comment that involvement leads
to a more extensive decision-making process, resulting in a
higher commitment to a brand after a choice has been made,
with this higher commitment arising from the hedonic or
symbolic value for the consumer.
When product involvement is low, consumers should
deploy minimal purchase efforts, given the low importance or
very small adverse consequences associated with wrong
purchase decisions (Bronnenberg and Vanhonacker, 1996;
Gordon et al., 1998). In these circumstances, the choice of a
particular brand should not be that relevant for consumers, as
all brands should provide a similar level of customer
satisfaction. In support of this, Beatty et al. (1988) state that
when a product does not relate much to an individual’s
self-concept and values, he will care less with their brand
choice. Malär et al. (2011, p. 39) also state that for lower
involvement levels, “consumers are less likely to make the
connection between the brand and their actual self”, and this
should be prejudicial to brand loyalty.
 Product involvement
Alcina G. Ferreira and Filipe J. Coelho
In addition, considering that firms’ loyalty strategies require
the active participation of customers, such strategies are more
effective when targeted at involved consumers, who are more
likely to respond by providing the required effort (Gordon
et al., 1998). Past research indicates that involved consumers
consider fewer brands (Belonax and Javalgi, 1989), that loyal
customers consider a smaller choice set (Bronnenberg and
Vanhonacker, 1996) and that involvement positively relates to
brand commitment (Coulter et al., 2003; Liang and Wang,
2008). Thus, the study predicts the following:
H1. Product involvement relates positively to brand loyalty.
Product involvement has important informational-related
effects and, thus, it is likely to have an impact on price
perceptions. Following Beatty and Smith (1987), as product
involvement increases, consumers dedicate a greater amount
of time and effort to their choice. Thus, product involvement
has a positive effect on the amount of product-related
information individuals collect before making purchase
Downloaded by Universite de Sherbrooke At 12:00 14 March 2018 (PT)
decisions (Denstadli et al., 2012; Dholakia, 2001; Richins
et al., 1992). In addition, Petty et al. (1983, p. 137) state that
as involvement increases, consumers reveal an increased
motivation to “devote the cognitive effort required to evaluate
the true merits of an issue or product”. In this regard,
Andrews et al. (1991) note that higher involvement leads
consumers to spend more time examining alternatives, use
more complex decision processes and greater perceived
product attribute differences. This suggests that consumers
will collect more information regarding the various facets of
the price stimuli, which will be more finely discriminated,
under situations of high involvement. In support of this,
Eguaras et al. (2012, p. 764) state that the “more intense
attention and learning processes could result in more
attributes being perceived”.
Dickson and Sawyer (1990), in a supermarket context,
determine that price search is very limited and that many
customers (about 40 per cent) do not check the price, with
67.8 per cent of these explaining that price was not important.
Moreover, Dickson and Sawyer (1990) note that more than
half of those shoppers who bought an item that was on a
special offer were unaware of its lower price. Obtaining price
information is costly (Stigler, 1961), requiring a certain
allocation of time (Becker, 1965). Accordingly, Murthi and
Rao (2012) noted that consumers are not fully informed about
exact prices when they make a grocery brand purchase, with
40 to 50 per cent of the purchases made by consumers being
based on price expectations of various brands rather than on
brands’ posted prices. This is a signal that low involvement
leads to the collection of less product-related information,
namely, related to pricing aspects. To further illustrate this,
consider for example, the two following price perceptions,
value and price consciousness. According to Lichtenstein et al.
(1993), value consciousness concerns the extent to which
individuals consider the ratio of price to quality in their
purchase decisions, whereas price consciousness refers to the
extent to which individuals focus on paying low prices. A
concern with these two price perceptions should thus drive
consumers to collect more information about the prices and/or
the quality of the offers in the marketplace, as well as to engage
in some comparative decision-making, to make sure that they
353
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 24 · Number 4 · 2015 · 349 –364
make the best purchase decision. Therefore, attention to price
perceptions should be associated with a more extensive search
and decision-making effort. Likewise, when involvement is
low, consumers are not likely to “engage in a detailed
comparison process” (Malar et al., 2011, p. 39), relying
instead on simple heuristics cues (Krishnan et al., 2013;
Meyers-Levy and Peracchio, 1996). Further supporting our
view, Garretson et al. (2002) note that value-conscious
consumers engage less in routine choice behaviour. In addition,
Arens and Rust (2012) determined that impulsiveness, which
involves unplanned decisions, was relatively more important than
satisfaction in affecting choice decisions for lower-involvement
products, with the opposite finding for higher-involvement
products. Accordingly, this study proposes the following:
H2. Product involvement relates positively to price
perceptions with a negative role, namely: (a) value
consciousness, (b) price consciousness, (c) sale
proneness, (d) coupon proneness, (e) price mavenism,
as well as with a positive role, namely: (f) price-quality
schema, and (g) prestige sensitivity.
2.2.2 Price perceptions
The perception of price in its negative role is generally likely to
increase consumers’ search for products with lower prices
(Lichtenstein et al., 1993), hence leading to the argument that
this negative role signals an economic sacrifice. This search for
lower prices thus looks incompatible with repeat brand
purchase. Value-conscious consumers tend to look for products
with a higher price/quality ratio. Rather than consider absolute
prices or make quality inferences per se, these consumers
balance price and quality and are interested in saving money,
searching for lower-priced brands that meet certain quality
requirements. Given the dynamics of the marketplace, these
consumers should be less loyal to specific brands (Garretson
et al., 2002). In fact, previous research demonstrates that value
consciousness has a negative influence on brand loyalty
(Garretson et al., 2002; Manzur et al., 2011).
Price consciousness regards the extent to which individuals are
mostly concerned with paying low prices. These consumers
tend to minimize or disregard other aspects of brand
evaluations (Burton et al., 1998), and tend to value more
transactional utility than brand loyalty benefits (Garretson
et al., 2002). Price-conscious consumers also search for low
prices outside the store (Lichtenstein et al., 1993), and obtain
emotional value or even entertainment from looking for lower
prices (Alford and Biswas, 2002). Research that analyses the
relationship between brand loyalty and price elasticity also
indicates that brand-loyals are less price-sensitive than non-loyals
in the brand choice decision (Krishnamurthi and Raj, 1991; Lin,
2010), and that price sensitivity progressively reduces as loyalty
increases (Krishnamurthi and Papatla, 2003). Given the above
discussion, price-conscious consumers should be less
brand-loyal.
Regardless of the type of promotion, sale-prone consumers
have a greater propensity to respond to discounts than to
engage in routinized brand choice behaviour (Lichtenstein
et al., 1997), and thus tend to exhibit less brand loyalty
(Blattberg and Neslin, 1990; Lichtenstein et al., 1997). When
the price is presented in a sale form, sale-prone consumers
tend to perceive a higher offer value compared with an
 Product involvement
Alcina G. Ferreira and Filipe J. Coelho
equivalent regular price, which in turn positively affects
buying intentions (Lichtenstein et al., 1993; Alford and
Biswas, 2002). Brand loyalty is a characteristic of those who
value price less and who favour the functional and symbolic
attributes of products (Wakefield and Barnes, 1996).
Accordingly, Murthi and Rao (2012) found that promotions
lead some consumers to focus only on the promoted brands.
For similar reasons, coupon-prone consumers are more likely to
be less brand-loyal. Previous research indicates a negative
relationship between brand loyalty and coupon redemption
(Mittal, 1994; Bawa and Shoemaker, 1987; Swaminathan and
Bawa, 2005). Notwithstanding, there is evidence that
brand-loyal customers are interested in deals for their
preferred brands (Krishnamurthi and Raj, 1991) and that they
could look for coupons on their favourite brands (Ailawadi
et al., 2001). In summary, sale-prone and coupon-prone
consumers should be less brand-loyal.
Price mavens are individuals who are more likely to be a
source of low price information and places to shop at lower
Downloaded by Universite de Sherbrooke At 12:00 14 March 2018 (PT)
prices, and who share this information with others. This
negative price cue proposed by Lichtenstein et al. (1993)
could be considered a particularization of the market maven
concept first introduced by Feick and Price (1987). Feick and
Price (1987, p. 85) define market mavens as:
[. . .] individuals who have information about many kinds of products,
places to shop, and other facets of markets, initiate discussions with
consumers and respond to requests from consumers for market information.
To develop their market knowledge, mavens search
information extensively, are likely to be particularly attentive
to the media and have a higher probability of reading pieces of
direct mail and advertising (Higie et al., 1987). Likewise, price
mavens are particularly attentive to price information to
develop their knowledge about prices. There is evidence that
mavenism relates negatively with resistance to change, and
positively with innovativeness (Andrews and Benedicktus,
2006). This discussion suggests that this negative perception
of the price cue is incompatible with a brand loyalty pattern.
When the consumer perceives the price cue in its positive
role, that is high prices mean better quality and/or more
prestige, they should be more brand-loyal. The literature
suggests that when the consumer believes there is a
relationship between price and quality, there is a greater
tendency to be brand-loyal (Blattberg and Neslin, 1990;
Garretson et al., 2002). These consumers rely on price as a cue
for quality, regardless of other quality cues and, thus, prefer
higher-priced products (John et al., 1986). Shih (2012)
concluded that the perceived high-price stimuli of
manufacturer brands is positively related to brand loyalty.
Prestige sensitivity relates to the perception that purchasing a
highly priced product conveys a certain signal to other
individuals (Lichtenstein et al., 1993). Individuals valuing
prestige sensitivity are thus concerned with this social sign
and, considering attribution theory, are likely to be sensitive to
others’ attributions, and to make attributions about others
based on the prices of their purchases. Accordingly, these
consumers have a greater propensity to buy highly priced
brands because of what they signal to others (i.e. status,
prominence), and not because of quality perceptions per se
(Lichtenstein et al., 1993). For example, Bao and Mandrik
(2004) find that prestige sensitivity relates negatively to the
354
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 24 · Number 4 · 2015 · 349 –364
purchase of store brands which, on average, are about 30 per
cent below national brand prices (Ailawadi et al., 2001).
Because different brands convey different signals, it is likely
that consumers will be brand-loyal, in particular to expensive
brands, to convey consistent signals to others. There is also
evidence that status-conscious consumers tend to avoid
switching brands because of the risk associated (Podoshen and
Andrzejewski, 2012). We thus offer the following:
H3. The perception of price in its negative role, (a) value
consciousness, (b) price consciousness, (c) sale
proneness, (d) coupon proneness and (e) price
mavenism, relates negatively to brand loyalty, whereas
the perception of price in its positive role, (f) price –
quality schema and (g) prestige sensitivity, relates
positively to brand loyalty.
3. Method
3.1 Setting of the study
Rather than focusing on studying brand loyalty in general, this
study explores brand loyalty at a product level, the reason
being that consumers’ perceptions and behaviours are likely to
vary across product categories (Ailawadi et al., 2001; Batra
and Sinha, 2000). Accordingly, we collected data for specific
grocery products: yoghurts, bleach, tomato pulp, table wine,
paper napkins, cracker biscuits, shampoo and laundry
machine powder. These categories were selected because they
tend to be bought on a regular basis, which facilitates the
evaluation of the aspects related to their purchase, and
because they are likely to generate different levels of product
involvement, including different utilitarian and sensorial
experiences. In fact, store brands command quite different
volume market shares for these products, ranging from 10 per
cent to 20 per cent for table wine and shampoo, to 60 per cent
to 80 per cent for paper napkins and tomato pulp. This clearly
indicates that decision-making processes differ markedly
across these products.
3.2 Data collection
The population of the study comprises all individuals with
grocery shopping responsibilities. The study involved the
distribution of 2,000 questionnaires in two shopping malls in
the centre of Portugal. Participants had to have grocery
shopping responsibilities and have bought a certain product
category in the past three months. They received a package
with a cover letter explaining the academic and anonymous
nature of the study, a structured questionnaire and a return
postage envelope. Each respondent provided data on only one
product category from the list of eight: yoghurts (62), bleach
(37), tomato pulp (80), table wine (64), paper napkins (77),
cracker biscuits (55), shampoo (112) and laundry machine
powder (104). Given the higher response rate for shampoo
(112) and laundry machine powder (104), and to avoid any
bias in the results arising from having these two products
over-represented in the sample, 80 questionnaires (the third
highest response rate, relating to tomato pulp) were randomly
selected for each of those two product categories. The study
thus retains 535 usable questionnaires, with the responses to
each product category now ranging from 37 to 80.
 Product involvement
Alcina G. Ferreira and Filipe J. Coelho
The typical respondent is female (72.7 per cent) with an
average age of 36 years. Actual percentages are 32.3 per cent
for up to 29 years, 34.6 per cent from 30 to 39 years, 19 per
cent from 40 to 49 years and the remaining 14.1 per cent
being 50 years or older. Additionally, the typical respondent is
married/living with a partner (58.5 per cent), and has a
university degree or higher (37.4 per cent). The sample has a
gender imbalance. Notwithstanding, its composition roughly
mirrors data from Marktest Portugal (2008), a market
research firm, which indicates that in about 88 per cent of the
cases, women are the main people responsible for household
shopping.
3.3 Measurement instrument
In line with other studies on brand loyalty, data were collected
by means of a structured questionnaire. All constructs are
measured with multiple-item five-point Likert scales anchored
from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree. Product
involvement, operationalized as a second-order factor model,
Downloaded by Universite de Sherbrooke At 12:00 14 March 2018 (PT)
is measured with 16 items concerning the five facets of
product involvement proposed by Kapferer and Laurent
(1985), namely, risk of the product class, probability of
mispurchase, interest, hedonism/pleasure and perceived
symbolic sign.
Price perceptions, namely, price consciousness, value
consciousness, sale proneness, coupon proneness, price
mavenism, prestige sensitivity and price – quality schema, are
measured with 38 items based on Lichtenstein et al. (1993).
The dependent variable brand loyalty is operationalized using
five items from previous studies (Ailawadi et al., 2001; Burton
et al., 1998; Garretson et al., 2002), tapping both the
attitudinal and behavioural component of loyalty.
3.4 Measurement properties
Before conducting confirmatory factor estimations, we
screened the data for outliers and normality. Multivariate
outliers are usually determined by computing the squared
Mahalanobis distance for each observation (Byrne, 2009).
Based on this analysis, we eliminated one observation that
stood apart from all others. Maximum likelihood, probably the
most popular estimation method in structural equation
modelling (SEM), requires the multivariate normality of
variables, which is rarely met in practice (Curran et al., 1996;
Lei and Lomax, 2005). One of the effects of non-normality is
the underestimation of standard errors, which affects
hypotheses testing (Kline, 2012). Notwithstanding,
simulations indicate that maximum likelihood is robust to
violations of the multivariate normality assumption, as long as
univariate skewness and kurtosis do not exceed certain
thresholds. Lei and Lomax (2005), for example, advanced 1.7
for skewness and 4 for kurtosis. Although our data are not
multivariate normal, they meet the thresholds above, as the
highest skewness and kurtosis we observed were 1.56 and
2.40, respectively. Therefore, the results should not be much
affected by departures from normality.
All measures were subjected to confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA). Given the five dimensions of the product involvement
scale developed by Kapferer and Laurent (1985), product
involvement was operationalized as a second-order factor
model comprising five first-order factors. Accordingly, we
355
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 24 · Number 4 · 2015 · 349 –364
conducted a first-order factor on the five facets of involvement
and, subsequently, a second-order factor. In the second-order
factor analysis, the facet “risk of the product class” had a very
low loading on the second-order construct (product
involvement), and for that reason was dropped from the
analysis. For comparison purposes, we re-ran the first- and
second-order factor analyses with the remaining four facets.
The fit of the first-order model is as follows: ␹2 ⫽ 99.07, df ⫽
38, p ⬍ 0.01; incremental fit index (IFI) ⫽ 0.99; Tucker–
Lewis index (TLI) ⫽ 0.98; comparative fit index (CFI) ⫽
0.99; RMSEA ⫽ 0.055. The second-order model yielded the
following fit indices: ␹2 ⫽ 103.34, df ⫽ 40, p ⬍ 0.01; IFI ⫽
0.99; TLI ⫽ 0.98; CFI ⫽ 0.99; RMSEA ⫽ 0.055. The fit
indices of the two models are fairly similar, thus indicating that
a second-order factor is an appropriate descriptor of the data
(Lichtenstein et al., 1993; Law et al., 2004).
Subsequently, we ran an overall measurement model. After
eliminating some items with large modification indices, this
measurement model obtained a significant ␹2 (␹2 ⫽ 1318.03;
df ⫽ 662; p ⬍ 0.01), but the remaining fit indexes were inside
conventional cut-off values: IFI ⫽ 0.95, TLI ⫽ 0.95, CFI ⫽
0.95, RMSEA ⫽ 0.043. All factor loadings are significant (p ⬍
0.01) (Table I), which indicates convergent validity.
Composite reliabilities equal or exceed 0.78, and all Cronbach
alphas are larger than 0.80, except value consciousness (0.78)
and product involvement (0.74). The correlations among
constructs range from ⫺0.29 to 0.66, and the average
variances extracted meet the 0.50 cut-off in all cases.
Consequently, the average variances extracted exceed the
squared correlations between all pairs of constructs, which is
evidence of discriminant validity (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).
Thus, the measurement model shows acceptable levels of
reliability and validity. Table II provides univariate statistics,
correlation coefficients, Cronbach alphas, average variances
extracted and composite reliabilities.
3.5 Common method bias
Given that we relied on a single source for data collection, we
took a number of procedural remedies to minimize common
method bias. Following Podsakoff et al. (2003), we did not
inform respondents of the specific purposes of the study and
assured them that their participation would be anonymous,
and this strategy should have reduced common method bias.
In addition, the study relies on established scales to reduce
bias resulting from ill-constructed scales. The measures of the
constructs were also mixed, so that respondents would not
easily identify the dependent and independent variables, and
attribute particular items to particular constructs. Apart from
procedural remedies, a number of statistical procedures were
used to investigate the potential for common method bias. A
single-factor CFA for the entire set of constructs in the study
was conducted, yielding an unacceptable model fit. This is an
indication that a single (common) factor does not account for
most of the variance in the data. In addition, several other
CFAs were estimated to compare simpler with more complex
models (Chaudhuri and Ligas, 2009). The existence of
common method variance (CMV) implies that simpler models
(fewer factors) should fit the data as well as, or better, than
more complex ones. Accordingly, as our model contains nine
constructs (seven price perceptions, product involvement and
 Product involvement Journal of Product & Brand Management
Alcina G. Ferreira and Filipe J. Coelho Volume 24 · Number 4 · 2015 · 349 –364

Table I Results of confirmatory factor analysis

Items Standard Load. CR
Product involvement
(a) Probability of a mispurchase
Whenever I buy (category), I never know whether I made the right choice or not 0.64 –
When I face a shelf of (category) I find it difficult to make a decision 0.70 13.74
When I buy (category) I am never certain of my choice 0.95 13.28
(b) Interest
I attach great importance to (category) 0.98 –
(category) is something that I value a lot 0.86 23.14
(c) Hedonic/pleasure
It gives me pleasure to buy (category) 0.85 –
Buying (category) is like buying a gift for myself 0.90 26.39
(category) is something that gives me pleasure 0.87 25.37
(d) Perceived symbolic sign
The brand of (category) I buy gives a glimpse of the type of person I am 0.94 –
The (category) you buy tells a little bit about you 0.97 47.14
You can tell a lot about a person by the (category) he or she buys 0.87 34.06
Downloaded by Universite de Sherbrooke At 12:00 14 March 2018 (PT)

Value consciousness
When I buy (category) I am very concerned about low prices, but I am equally concerned about product quality 0.71 16.27
I compare the prices of different brands of (category) to be sure I get the best value for the money 0.84 19.31
When purchasing a (category), I always try to maximize the quality I get for the money I spend 0.64 14.72
Price consciousness
I am willing to go to extra effort to find (category) at lower prices 0.69 17.15
The money saved by finding (category) at lower prices is usually worth the time and effort 0.79 20.55
The time it takes to find (category) at lower prices is usually worth the effort 0.87 23.50
Sale proneness
If (category) is on sale, that can be a reason for me to buy it 0.74 18.96
I have favourite brands of (category), but most of the time I buy the brand that’s on sale 0.71 17.94
One should try to buy the brand of (category) that’s on sale 0.80 21.00
I am more likely to buy brands of (category) that are on sale 0.84 22.57
Coupon proneness
I enjoy clipping coupons out to buy (category) 0.79 20.76
Redeeming coupons to buy (category) makes me feel good 0.90 25.22
Beyond the money I save, redeeming coupons to buy (category) gives me a sense of joy 0.80 21.11
Price mavenism
I know the prices of different (category) well 0.72 18.94
I am able to tell people how much they might expect to pay for different kinds of (category) 0.93 27.73
I am considered somewhat of an expert when it comes to knowing the prices of (category) 0.93 27.54
I like helping people by providing them with price information about (category) 0.75 19.95
Price – quality schema
The quality of (category) varies with its price 0.76 19.39
The price of (category) is a good indicator of its quality 0.89 23.59
You always have to pay a bit more for the best of (category) 0.78 20.11
Prestige sensitivity
I enjoy the prestige of buying a high priced brand of (category) 0.83 23.23
People notice when you buy the most expensive brand of (category) 0.75 19.93
My friends will give me more consideration if I buy the highest priced version of (category) 0.91 26.68
I have purchased the most expensive brand of (category) just because I knew other people would notice 0.86 24.29
Buying the most expensive brand of (category) impresses other people 0.82 22.75
Brand loyalty
Once I get used to a brand of (category), I hate to switch 0.81 20.48
I am willing to make an effort to search for my favourite brand of (category) 0.75 18.60
If I like a brand of (category), I will rarely buy another just for the experience 0.77 19.30

356
 Product involvement Journal of Product & Brand Management
Alcina G. Ferreira and Filipe J. Coelho Volume 24 · Number 4 · 2015 · 349 –364

Table II Standard deviation, correlations, Cronbach alpha, composite reliabilities and average variances extracted
Variables SD X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 X9 CR AVE
Brand loyalty (X1) 0.91 0.82 0.82 0.61
Product involvement (X2) 0.79 0.32 0.74 0.78 0.50
Value consciousness (X3) 0.82 ⫺0.25 ⫺0.03 0.77 0.78 0.54
Price consciousness (X4) 0.92 0.04 0.07 0.23 0.83 0.83 0.62
Sale proneness (X5) 0.92 ⫺0.29 ⫺0.03 0.27 0.55 0.86 0.86 0.60
Coupon proneness (X6) 0.94 0.17 0.39 0.15 0.57 0.35 0.87 0.87 0.69
Price mavenism (X7) 0.97 0.22 0.50 0.12 0.40 0.24 0.48 0.90 0.90 0.70
Price – quality schema (X8) 0.88 0.20 0.24 ⫺0.12 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.14 0.85 0.85 0.66
Prestige sensitivity (X9) 0.84 0.27 0.66 ⫺0.08 0.14 0.07 0.34 0.50 0.35 0.92 0.82 0.61
Notes: Diagonal, bold entries are Cronbach’s alpha coefficients; SD ⫽ standard deviation; CR ⫽ composite reliability; AVE ⫽ average variance
extracted

brand loyalty), we conducted several CFA estimations with
fewer factors. For example, we conducted a CFA in which the
items for price consciousness and coupon proneness were
Downloaded by Universite de Sherbrooke At 12:00 14 March 2018 (PT)
supporting H1. Product involvement also relates positively to six
out of seven consumer price perceptions. However, product
involvement does not have a significant relationship with value
consciousness (b ⫽ 0.00; p ⬎ 0.05). Therefore, H2a is not

merged into the same scale, another merging price

consciousness and prime mavenism and another merging
prestige sensitivity and price – quality schema. The chi-square/
degrees of freedom obtained were 1,774.03/669, 2020.87/670
and 1959.23/670, respectively. Accordingly, these and other
estimations indicate that the best results, using chi-square
difference tests, occurred when all constructs in our model
were specified (chi-square/degrees of freedom ⫽ 1,318.03/
662). Thus, the overall evidence is that the results should not
be much affected by methodological artefacts.
4. Results
To test the hypotheses comprised in the research model, the
study relies on SEM. The measures of overall fit of the
structural equation model meet acceptable standards (␹2 ⫽
1776.80; df ⫽ 683; p ⫽ 0.00, IFI ⫽ 0.92, TLI ⫽ 0.91, CFI ⫽
0.92 and RMSEA ⫽ 0.055). The results support many of the
hypotheses, but some were rejected (Table III).
The coefficient of product involvement on brand loyalty is
positive and statistically significant (b ⫽ 0.18; p ⬍ 0.05),
supported. Product involvement is positively related to price
consciousness (b ⫽ 0.21; p ⬍ 0.01), thereby supporting H2b.
Likewise, increases in involvement are also associated with
increases in sale proneness (b ⫽ 0.08; p ⬍ 0.05), and this means
that H2c is supported. H2d predicted that involvement was
positively related to coupon proneness. The results reveal a
positive and significant coefficient (b ⫽ 0.48; p ⬍ 0.01), implying
that H2d is supported. With regard to price mavenism, we
determined a statistically significant positive association with
involvement (b ⫽ 0.58; p ⬍ 0.01), supporting H2e. We now
consider the relationship between product involvement and the
price perceptions with a positive role. H2f predicted a positive
association between product involvement and price – quality
schema. We obtained a positive and significant coefficient (b ⫽
0.29; p ⬍ 0.01), thus supporting H2f. We also predicted that
changes in prestige sensitivity would be concomitant with
changes in the same direction in involvement. This hypothesis
(H2g) is supported, given the positive and statistically significant
coefficient (b ⫽ 0.73; p ⬍ 0.01).

Table III Estimation results

Paths Standard coefficient CR Hypotheses
ⴱ
Product involvement ¡ Brand loyalty 0.18 1.80 H1 (⫹)
Product involvement ¡ Value consciousness 0.00 0.00 H2a (⫹)
Product involvement ¡ Price consciousness 0.21 4.22ⴱⴱ H2b (⫹)
Product involvement ¡ Sale proneness 0.08 1.66ⴱ H2c (⫹)
Product involvement ¡ Coupon proneness 0.48 9.54ⴱⴱ H2d (⫹)
Product involvement ¡ Price mavenism 0.58 12.03ⴱⴱ H2e (⫹)
Product involvement ¡ Price – quality schema 0.29 5.67ⴱⴱ H2f (⫹)
Product involvement ¡ Prestige sensitivity 0.73 14.60ⴱⴱ H2g (⫹)
Value consciousness ¡ Brand loyalty ⫺0.19 ⫺3.97ⴱⴱ H3a (⫺)
Price consciousness ¡ Brand loyalty 0.11 2.35ⴱⴱ H3b (⫺)
Sale proneness ¡ Brand loyalty ⫺0.37 ⫺7.65ⴱⴱ H3c (⫺)
Coupon Proneness ¡ Brand loyalty 0.10 1.96ⴱ H3d (⫺)
Price mavenism ¡ Brand loyalty 0.10 1.65ⴱ H3e (⫺)
Price – quality schema ¡ Brand loyalty 0.09 1.97ⴱ H4a (⫹)
Prestige sensitivity ¡ Brand loyalty 0.02 0.23 H4b (⫹)
Notes: ⴱ p ⱕ 0.05; ⴱⴱ
p ⱕ 0.01 (one tailed tests)

357
 Product involvement Journal of Product & Brand Management
Alcina G. Ferreira and Filipe J. Coelho Volume 24 · Number 4 · 2015 · 349 –364

Finally, we consider the results relating price perceptions with
brand loyalty. Consumer perceptions of price in its negative
role have significant relationships with brand loyalty, although
not always in the expected direction. Of the price perceptions
with a negative role, price consciousness, coupon proneness
and price mavenism, though revealing significant associations
with brand loyalty, do not reveal the expected signal. As
hypothesized, value consciousness is significantly and
negatively related with brand loyalty (b ⫽ ⫺0.19; p ⬍ 0.01),
and this supports H3a. Accordingly, as consumers become
more concerned with the costs/benefits ratio of a certain
offering, the less likely they are to be brand-loyal. We
predicted price consciousness to be also negatively related
with loyalty. However, the results denote a coefficient that is
significant but positive (b ⫽ 0.11; p ⬍ 0.01), meaning that
price-conscious consumers are likely to be brand-loyal, and
this implies that H3b is rejected. Sale proneness is related in a
negative and statistically significant way with brand loyalty
(b ⫽ ⫺0.37; p ⬍ 0.01), and this supports H3c. This indicates
Downloaded by Universite de Sherbrooke At 12:00 14 March 2018 (PT)
emerge for higher-involvement products. The relationships
between product involvement and price perceptions generally
hold in each of the subsamples. The most noticeable
difference emerging from the estimations for these two groups
is that the role of price perceptions in affecting brand loyalty is
smaller for products with lower involvement, with only value
consciousness and sale proneness affecting loyalty.
5. Discussion of findings and theoretical
implications
Understanding consumer factors that determine brand loyalty
has been an important research avenue in the past decades.
This study has sought to further that stream of interest by
investigating the extent to which product involvement and
price perceptions combine to influence brand loyalty. Overall,
the results support many of the predicted hypotheses, but
others failed to obtain support. We initially discuss the results
associated with the overall sample and, at the end, we
comment on the findings in respect of low- and

that as consumers become more interested in promotions,

high-involvement products.
they become less loyal to a brand. The coefficient relating
As expected, the level of product involvement was revealed
coupon proneness to brand loyalty is positive and significant
to be positively related to brand loyalty. Thus, when the
(b ⫽ 0.10; p ⬍ 0.05). This result contradicts H3d, which is
importance attached to the product is high, consumers are
rejected. Thus, coupon proneness, unlike sale proneness,
more likely to buy the same brand across purchases. This
relates positively to brand loyalty. These results suggest that
result accords with the affective and behavioural consequences
brand switching is more likely to occur when the more
that have been associated with product involvement (Malär
favourable price is presented in a non-coupon sale form. The
et al., 2011), and reinforces the scarce evidence on the positive
association determined between price mavenism and loyalty is
product involvement– brand loyalty relationship (Liang and
statistically significant and positive (b ⫽ 0.10; p ⬍ 0.05), and
Wang, 2008; Olsen, 2007). This is a particularly noteworthy
this leads to the rejection of H3e, which predicted instead, a
finding, given that involvement was competing with other
negative relationship. As to the price – quality schema, the
variables, namely, the seven price perceptions, for explanatory
results show that increases in this variable are positively related
power over brand loyalty. Moreover, product involvement has
with brand loyalty (b ⫽ 0.09; p ⬍ 0.05). This leads to the
a significant association with price perceptions, which in turn
acceptance of H3f. Finally, prestige sensitivity is not
relate to brand loyalty. Given that both the direct and indirect
significantly related with brand loyalty (b ⫽ 0.02; p ⬎ 0.05),
effects, via price perceptions, are significant, the product
meaning that H3g is rejected.
involvement– brand loyalty relationship seems to be partially
To ascertain the mediating effect of price perceptions on the
mediated by price perceptions. Accordingly, price perceptions
involvement–loyalty relationship, we also estimated total, direct
appear to be one of the propagating mechanisms for the
and indirect effects, as well as their statistical significance, which
product involvement effects on brand loyalty. This is a novel
are based on a bootstrapping estimation (Cheong and
and important finding, given the limited knowledge on how
MacKinnon, 2012; Zhao et al., 2010). The results in Table IV
the product involvement– brand loyalty relationship is enacted
indicate that both the indirect and direct effects are significant,
(Coulter et al., 2003; Olsen, 2007). A further note is
and this demonstrates that the effects of product involvement are
warranted concerning the indirect effects of product
partially mediated by price perceptions.
involvement. Involvement contributes positively to price
Finally, because the results obtained could be susceptible to
perceptions, some of which have a positive, and others a
the product category, we divided the sample into
negative, effect on brand loyalty. Consequently, involvement
above-average-involvement (yogurts, table wine, cracker
has indirect effects on loyalty that are both positive and
biscuits and shampoo) and below-average-involvement
negative, depending on the specific price perception that
products (tomato pulp, paper napkins, bleach and laundry
mediates the relationship. Notwithstanding, we determined an
machine powder). The results for this sample breakdown are
overall significant positive indirect effect, meaning that
presented in Table V, which reveals that the product
increases in involvement will also lead to increases in loyalty,
involvement– brand loyalty relationship is only observed for
directly and indirectly, via the net positive effect via price
lower-involvement products. It is possible that the restriction
perceptions.
in involvement range has caused such a relationship not to
Product involvement relates with six price perceptions, and
these significant relationships are novel findings. As predicted,
Table IV Total, direct and indirect effects
consumers with high levels of product involvement pay more
Effects Total Direct Indirect attention to the price cue, both in its negative and positive
Standardized effect 0.320 ⴱⴱ
0.182ⴱ
0.137ⴱ role. Thus, our results show that product involvement has
important decision-making considerations, affecting the
Notes: ⴱ p ⬍ 0.05; ⴱⴱ
p ⬍ 0.01 (one-tailed tests)
choice of criteria in purchasing decisions, and this is consistent

358
 Product involvement Journal of Product & Brand Management
Alcina G. Ferreira and Filipe J. Coelho Volume 24 · Number 4 · 2015 · 349 –364

Table V Estimation results for low- and high-involvement products

Low involvement High involvement
Paths Standard coefficient Standard coefficient Hypotheses
ⴱⴱ
Product involvement ¡ Brand loyalty 0.34 0.05 H1 (⫹)
Product involvement ¡ Value consciousness 0.08 0.09 H2a (⫹)
Product involvement ¡ Price consciousness 0.28ⴱⴱ 0.33ⴱⴱ H2b (⫹)
Product involvement ¡ Sale proneness 0.11 0.24ⴱⴱ H2c (⫹)
Product involvement ¡ Coupon proneness 0.58ⴱⴱ 0.48ⴱⴱ H2d (⫹)
Product involvement ¡ Price mavenism 0.52ⴱⴱ 0.72ⴱⴱ H2e (⫹)
Product involvement ¡ Price – quality schema 0.23ⴱⴱ 0.37ⴱⴱ H2f (⫹)
Product involvement ¡ Prestige sensitivity 0.74ⴱⴱ 0.72ⴱⴱ H2g (⫹)
Value consciousness ¡ Brand loyalty ⫺0.21ⴱⴱ ⫺0.20ⴱⴱ H3a (⫺)
Price consciousness ¡ Brand loyalty 0.11 0.15ⴱ H3b (⫺)
sale proneness ¡ Brand loyalty ⫺0.34ⴱⴱ ⫺0.43ⴱⴱ H3c (⫺)
Coupon proneness ¡ Brand loyalty 0.02 0.16ⴱ H3d (⫺)
Price mavenism ¡ Brand loyalty ⫺0.03 0.27ⴱⴱ H3e (⫺)
Price – quality schema ¡ Brand loyalty 0.10 0.09 H4a (⫹)
Prestige sensitivity ¡ Brand loyalty 0.02 ⫺0.06 H4b (⫹)
Downloaded by Universite de Sherbrooke At 12:00 14 March 2018 (PT)

Notes: ⴱ p ⬍ 0.05; ⴱⴱ
p ⬍ 0.01 (one-tailed tests)

with the vast literature that emphasizes the role of product
involvement in consumer information search and processing
(Andrews et al., 1991; Denstadli et al., 2012; Dholakia, 2001;
Eguaras et al., 2012; Krishnan et al., 2013). Notwithstanding,
this study finds that product involvement is not related to
value consciousness. A possible reason is that value
consciousness contains a concern for both price and
“benefits”, and this ambivalence may have reduced the
significance of the coefficient.
This study finds that price perceptions have significant
relationships with brand loyalty, but not always as expected.
As predicted, value consciousness and sale proneness have a
negative association with brand loyalty, conforming to
previous studies. Unexpectedly, however, the relationships of
price consciousness, coupon proneness and price mavenism
with brand loyalty, though significant, had the opposite sign to
that predicted, and these are novel findings. The results show
that price-conscious consumers are likely to be brand-loyal,
and a potential reason for this is that they are loyal to
lower-priced brands. Mela et al. (1997) and Kopalle et al.
(1999) note that, because of increased promotions, consumers
become more price-sensitive in their brand choice. Similarly,
Bridges et al. (2006) conclude that after a promotion for any
brand in a product category, consumers’ price sensitivity
increases for all brands in that category, which in turn can
drive consumers to lower-priced brands. It is possible that,
once consumers find a lower-priced brand, they stick to it,
avoiding further information search, and thus alleviating
consumption-related efforts.
Likewise, and contrary to predictions, price mavenism has a
positive association with brand loyalty; that is, consumers
well-informed about low prices and places to shop for the
lowest prices, seem to be more brand-loyal. This is in line with
Murthi and Rao (2012), who found that long-term brand
loyalty was higher for price-aware, than for price-unaware
consumers. Price mavens are consumers well-informed about
low prices, and, therefore, it is possible that, just like
price-conscious consumers, price mavens tend to be loyal to
specific lower-priced brands, taking into account the
associated economic benefits.
Coupon proneness, unlike sale proneness, relates positively
to brand loyalty. Previous studies suggest that brand switching
accounted for around 80 per cent of sales increases during
promotional campaigns (Gupta, 1988), but this value seems
to be declining over time. More recent evidence indicates that
this figure has dropped to around 30 per cent, while the
remaining increase in sales during promotional campaigns is due
to the enhanced demand from current customers, which
accelerates consumption and/or increases purchased quantities
(van Heerde et al., 2003). Thus, the main users of coupons seem
to be brand-loyal consumers, who anticipate their future
purchases and stockpile to benefit from lower prices, and who
consume higher amounts of the brand than they usually
consume at non-promotional prices (Manzur et al., 2011).
This result should be combined with the finding discussed
above that brand switching is more likely to occur when the
more favourable price is presented in a non-coupon sale form.
Deals like cents-off, buy two get one free and free gifts with the
purchase represent more passive in-store behaviours,
requiring less effort (Lichtenstein et al., 1997). A price
reduction in a coupon form involves a larger amount of effort
and serves not to undermine brand loyalty (Lichtenstein et al.,
1997). Moreover, coupons are less likely to reduce the
consumer’s internal reference price and brand image (Folkes
and Wheat, 1995). The internal reference price is formed on
the basis of past prices of the brand (Winer, 1986),
representing the consumer’s internalization of observed prices
over time. This perception implies that when a coupon
discount is offered, the savings perceived by consumers are
greater (Grewal et al., 1998).
The study predicted that the perception of price in its
positive role would relate positively to brand loyalty. In fact,
the study observes that consumers believing that a higher price
signals superior quality are likely to be more brand-loyal. This
finding is consistent with prior research (Garretson et al.,
2002). However, the study finds prestige sensitivity unrelated

359
 Product involvement
Alcina G. Ferreira and Filipe J. Coelho
to brand loyalty. A possible justification for this non-
significant relationship is that prestige sensitivity is normally
related to products with a high social visibility. Our study
considers eight product categories that despite offering
different utilitarian and sensorial experiences are supermarket
products bought on a regular basis. In general, these products
have a low social visibility and, therefore, low potential to
signal the prestige or the status of the purchaser. This is unlike
price – quality schema, which is more affected by contextual
cues than by social visibility (Lichtenstein et al., 1993).
Unlike previous studies, we took a systematic look at the
relationship between price perceptions and brand loyalty,
having investigated the associations of the seven price
perceptions. This avenue contributes to a more accurate
identification of each perception’s role. In addition, this study
considered brand loyalty towards specific product categories,
and not towards loyalty in general. These probably
contributed to a number of unexpected findings in this study,
yielding a different picture of the likely effects of price
Downloaded by Universite de Sherbrooke At 12:00 14 March 2018 (PT)
perceptions on brand loyalty.
Finally, considering the estimation results for lower- and
higher-involvement products, it is noteworthy that product
involvement contributes positively to price perceptions for
both types of products. However, the role of price perceptions
in affecting brand loyalty is more pronounced for
higher-involvement products. This is not surprising. In fact,
this is consistent with the consequences that have been
associated with product involvement. Andrews et al.(1991)
noted that involvement was associated with more complex
decision processes, and Krishnan et al. (2013) observed that
less involved consumers rely to a greater extent on simple
heuristic cues. Thus, price perceptions have a lower role in
consumers’ brand choices when consumers are less involved
with a product.
6. Managerial implications
The results of this study provide a number of suggestions for
managers. Our findings indicate that firms should focus their
strategies on reinforcing consumers’ product involvement to
enhance brand loyalty. This outcome can be achieved by
reinforcing the importance that consumers attach to certain
product/brand attributes, whether functional or symbolic
(Malär et al., 2011). Price perceptions appear to impact
differently on brand loyalty, hence implying that firms must
look carefully at the management of their price signals.
Non-coupon sales tend to promote brand switching, whereas
discount coupons tend to enhance loyalty. Such knowledge
may be useful for manufacturers, namely, those who want
consumers to perceive their brands as having a higher image
and, thus, have higher reference prices. Therefore, brand
managers must pay particular attention to the selection of sales
promotion strategies, as different types of deal impact
differently on brand loyalty. In support of this, a meta-analysis
determined that sales promotions can either increase or
decrease brand preference, depending on characteristics of the
sales promotion and the promoted product (DelVecchio et al.,
2006).
A value-for-money orientation does not seem an optimal
price orientation when it comes to building brand loyalty, as it
contributes to brand switching, and an exclusive focus on
360
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 24 · Number 4 · 2015 · 349 –364
lower prices or higher prices seems to have better loyalty gains.
In support of the latter findings, Erdem et al. (2008), based on
scanner data, suggest that reductions in the mean offer price
and less price variability can increase brand profitability.
7. Limitations and directions for future research
This research suffers from a number of limitations, and future
research should consider these. The study relies on a
self-report questionnaire to collect information regarding the
dependent and independent variables from a single informant
and, hence, CMV might be influencing the results. To
minimize this potential bias, we took some procedural
remedies, as described previously. In addition, we have also
conducted some statistical tests, which indicate that such bias
should not be a major concern.
This study relied on self-reports to measure the dependent
variable, brand loyalty. However, it is possible that a measure
considering the actual behaviour of individuals would render
different results. In this regard, it would be of particular interest
to consider longitudinal measures assessing the brand loyalty of
consumers. This could involve measuring product involvement
and price perceptions at a certain moment, and collecting data on
the brands purchased by consumers across several periods to
determine their degree of loyalty. Related to this, the current
research has a cross-sectional nature, and for this reason,
causality mechanisms cannot be established. The study also
relied on a selection of eight products that are bought on a regular
basis. The fact that we have different products contributes to the
generalization of the findings. If we had relied instead on a
smaller and more similar group of products, the sample would
have had variables with lower variability, making it difficult to
find significant associations. Notwithstanding, consideration of a
different set of products might have yielded somewhat different
results, and this deserves attention in future research. In addition,
while we focused on brand loyalty, other brand-related
constructs could be related with involvement, namely, brand
identification, brand meaning and brand affect, and this could
also be the object of future research. Related to this, our measure
of loyalty comprises both an attitudinal and behavioural
component. However, it is possible that the results would be
different if we focused instead on an attitudinal or a behavioural
measure. Finally, it would also be interesting to conduct
qualitative research on the relationship between price perceptions
and brand loyalty. This could potentially uncover other
mechanisms for the unexpected relationships obtained in this
study.
References
Aaker, D.A. (1996), “Measuring brand equity across products
and markets”, California Management Review, Vol. 38
No. 3, pp. 102-121.
Ailawadi, K.L., Neslin, S.A. and Gedenk, K. (2001),
“Pursuing the value-conscious consumer: store brands
versus national brand promotions”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 65 No. 1, pp. 71-89.
Alford, B.L. and Biswas, A. (2002), “The effects of discount
level, price consciousness and sale proneness on consumers’
price perception and behavioral intention”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 55 No. 9, pp. 775-783.
 Product involvement
Alcina G. Ferreira and Filipe J. Coelho
Allaway, A.W., Huddleston, P., Whipple, J. and Ellinger, A.E.
(2011), “Customer-based brand equity, equity drivers, and
customer loyalty in the supermarket industry”, Journal of
Product & Brand Management, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 190-204.
Allender, W.J. and Richards, T.J. (2012), “Brand loyalty and
price promotion strategies: an empirical analysis”, Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 88 No. 3, pp. 323-342.
Andrews, J.C., Durvasula, S. and Akhter, S.H. (1991), “A
framework for conceptualizing and measuring the
involvement construct in advertising research”, Journal of
Advertising, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 27-40.
Andrews, M.L. and Benedicktus, R.I. (2006), “Are consumer
innovators less resistant to change than market mavens?”, in
S. Harlan (Ed.), Developments in Marketing Science, Vol. 29,
Academy of Marketing Science, Montreal, pp. 223-227.
Antón, C., Camarero, C. and Carrer, M. (2007), “Analysing
firms’ failures as determinants of consumer switching
intentions: the effect of moderating factors”, European
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 41 Nos 1/2, pp. 135-158.
Downloaded by Universite de Sherbrooke At 12:00 14 March 2018 (PT)
Arens, Z.G. and Rust, R.T. (2012), “The duality of decisions
and the case for impulsiveness metrics”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 468-479.
Bao, Y. and Mandrik, C.A. (2004), “Discerning store brand
users from value consciousness consumers: the role of
prestige, sensitivity and need for cognition”, Advances in
Consumer Research, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 707-712.
Bartikowski, B., Walsh, G. and Beatty, S.E. (2011), “Culture
and relationship ages as moderators in the corporate
reputation role and loyalty relationship”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 64 No. 9, pp. 966-972.
Batra, R. and Sinha, I. (2000), “Consumer-level factors
moderating the success of private label brands”, Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 76 No. 2, pp. 175-191.
Bawa, K. and Shoemaker, R.W. (1987), “The effect of direct
mail coupons on brand choice behavior”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 370-376.
Beatty, S.E., Kahle, L.R. and Homer, P. (1988), “The
involvement-commitment model: theory and implications”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 149-167.
Beatty, S.E. and Smith, S.M. (1987), “External search effort:
an investigation across several product categories”, Journal
of Consumer Research, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 83-95.
Becker, G.S. (1965), “A theory of the allocation of time”,
Economic Journal, Vol. 75 No. 255, pp. 493-517.
Belonax, J.J. and Javalgi, R.G. (1989), “The influence of
involvement and product class quality on consumer choice
Sets”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 17
No. 3, pp. 209-216.
Blattberg, R.C. and Neslin, S.A. (1990), Sales Promotion:
Concepts, Methods, and Strategies, 1st ed., Prentice Hall, NJ.
Brakus, J.J., Schmitt, B.H. and Zarantonello, L. (2009),
“Brand experience: what is it? How is it measured? Does it
affect loyalty?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 73 No. 3,
pp. 52-68.
Brexendorf, T.O., Mühlmeier, S., Tomczak, T. and Eisend,
M. (2010), “The impact of sales encounters on brand
loyalty”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 63 No. 11,
pp. 1148-1155.
Bridges, E., Briesch, R.A. and Yim, C.K.(B.) (2006), “Effects
of prior brand usage and promotion on consumer
361
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 24 · Number 4 · 2015 · 349 –364
promotional response”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 82 No. 4,
pp. 295-307.
Bronnenberg, B.J. and Vanhonacker, W.R. (1996), “Limited
choice sets, local price response, and implied measures of
price competition”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 33
No. 2, pp. 163-173.
Burton, S., Lichtenstein, D.R., Netemeyer, R.G. and
Garretson, J.A. (1998), “A scale for measuring attitude
toward private label products and an examination of its
psychological and behavioral correlates”, Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 293-306.
Byrne, B.M. (2009), Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS:
Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming, 2nd ed.
Routledge, New York, NY.
Caruana, A. and Ewing, M.T. (2010), “How corporate
reputation, quality, and value influence online loyalty”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 63 Nos 9/10,
pp. 1103-1110.
Celsi, R.L. and Olson, J.C. (1988), “The role of involvement
in attention and comprehension processes”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 210-224.
Chandrashekaran, M., Rotte, K., Tax, S.S. and Grewal, A.
(2007), “Satisfaction strength and customer loyalty”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 153-163.
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.
Chaudhuri, A. and Ligas, M. (2009), “Consequences of value
in retail markets”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 85 No. 3,
pp. 406-419.
Cheong, J. and MacKinnon, D.P. (2012), “Mediation/
indirect effects in Structural Equation Modeling”, in Hoyle,
R.H. (Ed.), Handbook of Structural Equation Modeling,
Guilford Press, London, pp. 417-435.
Chiou, J.S. and Droge, C. (2006), “Service quality, trust,
specific asset investment, and expertise: direct and indirect
effects in a satisfaction-loyalty framework”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 613-627.
Coulter, R.A., Price, L.L. and Feick, L. (2003), “Rethinking
the origins of involvement and brand commitment: insights
from postsocialist central Europe”, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 151-169.
Crosby, L.A. and Taylor, J.R. (1983), “Psychological
commitment and its effects on post-decision evaluation and
preference stability among voters”, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 413-431.
Curran, P.J., West, S.G. and Finch, G.F. (1996), “The
robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and
specification error in confirmatory factor analysis”,
Psychological Methods, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 16-29.
DelVecchio, D., Henard, D.H. and Freling, T.H. (2006),
“The effect of sales promotion on post-promotion brand
preference: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 82
No. 3, pp. 203-213.
Denstadli, J.-M., Lines, R. and Ortúzar, J.D. (2012),
“Information processing in choice-based conjoint
experiments: a process-tracing study”, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 46 Nos 3/4, pp. 422-446.
 Product involvement
Alcina G. Ferreira and Filipe J. Coelho
Dholakia, U.M. (2001), “A motivational process model of
product involvement and consumer risk perception”,
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 Nos 11/12,
pp. 1340-1360.
Dick, A.S. and Basu, K. (1994), “Customer loyalty: toward an
integrated conceptual framework”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 99-113.
Dickson, P.R. and Sawyer, A.G. (1990), “The price
knowledge and search of supermarket shoppers”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 42-53.
Dixit, A., Whipple, T.W., Zinkhan, G.M. and Gailey, E.
(2008), “A taxonomy of information technology-enhanced
pricing strategies”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 61
No. 4, pp. 275-283.
Eguaras, R.C., Domezain, M.E. and Grijalba, J.M.M. (2012),
“Consumers’ internal categorization structures: an additive
tree analysis”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46 No. 6,
pp. 760-789.
Erdem, T., Keane, M.P. and Sun, B. (2008), “A dynamic
Downloaded by Universite de Sherbrooke At 12:00 14 March 2018 (PT)
model of brand choice when price and advertising signal
product quality”, Marketing Science, Vol. 27 No. 6,
pp. 1111-1125.
Feick, L.F. and Price, L.L. (1987), “The market maven: a
diffuser of marketplace information”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 83-97.
Folkes, V.S. and Wheat, R.D. (1995), “Consumers’ price
perceptions of promoted products”, Journal of Retailing,
Vol. 71 No. 3, pp. 317-328.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D. (1981), “Evaluating structural
equation models with unobservable variable and
measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18
No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Garretson, J.A. and Burton, S. (1998), “Alcoholic beverage
sales promotion: an initial investigation of the role of
warning messages and brand characters among consumers
over and under the legal drinking age”, Journal of Public
Policy & Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 35-47.
Garretson, J.A., Fisher, D. and Burton, S. (2002),
“Antecedents of private label attitude and national brand
promotion attitude: similarities and differences”, Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 78 No. 1, pp. 91-99.
Gedenk, K. and Neslin, S.A. (1999), “The role of retail
promotion in determining future brand loyalty: its effect on
purchase event feedback”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 75
No. 4, pp. 433-459.
Gordon, M.E., McKeage, K. and Fox, M.A. (1998),
“Relationship marketing effectiveness: the role of
involvement”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 5,
pp. 443-459.
Grewal, D., Krishnan, R., Baker, J. and Borin, N. (1998),
“The effect of store name, brand name and price discounts
on consumers’ evaluations and purchase intentions”,
Journal of Retailing, Vol. 74 No. 3, pp. 331-352.
Grewal, D. and Levy, M. (2007), “Retailing research: past,
present, and future”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 83 No. 4,
pp. 447-464.
Gupta, S. (1988), “Impact of sales promotion on when, what,
and how much to buy”, Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 342-355.
362
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 24 · Number 4 · 2015 · 349 –364
Higie, R.A., Feick, L. and Price, L.L. (1987), “Types and
amount of worth-of-mouth communications about
retailers”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 63 No. 3, pp. 260-278.
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.
Iveroth, E., Westelius, A., Petri, C.J., Olve, N.G., Cöster, M.
and Nilsson, F. (2013), “How to differentiate by price:
proposal for a five-dimensional model”, European
Management Journal, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 109-123.
Jing, B. and Wen, Z. (2008), “Finitely loyal customers,
switchers, and equilibrium price promotion”, Journal of
Economics & Management Strategy, Vol. 17 No. 3,
pp. 683-707.
John, D.R., Scott, C.A. and Bettman, J.R. (1986), “Sampling
data for covariation assessment: the effects of prior beliefs
on search patterns”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 13
No. 1, pp. 38-47.
Kapferer, J-N. and Laurent, G. (1985), “Consumer’s
involvement profile: new empirical results”, in Hirschman,
E. and Holbrook, M. (Eds), Advances in Consumer Research,
Vol. 12, Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT,
pp. 290-295.
Kline, R.B. (2012), “Assumptions of structural equation
modeling”, in Hoyle, R. (Ed.), Handbook of Structural
Equation Modeling, Guilford Press, New York, NY,
pp. 111-125.
Kopalle, P.K., Mela, C.F. and Marsh, L. (1999), “The
dynamic effect of discounting on sales: empirical analysis
and normative pricing implications”, Marketing Science,
Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 317-332.
Krishnamurthi, L. and Papatla, P. (2003), “Accounting for
heterogeneity and dynamics in the loyalty–price sensitivity
relationship”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 79 No. 2,
pp. 121-135.
Krishnamurthi, L. and Raj, S.P. (1991), “An empirical
analysis of the relationship between brand loyalty and
consumer price elasticity”, Marketing Science, Vol. 10 No. 2,
pp. 172-183.
Krishnan, B., Dutta, S. and Jha, S. (2013), “Effectiveness of
exaggerated advertised reference prices: the role of decision
time pressure”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 89 No. 1,
pp. 105-113.
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.
Law, K.S., Wong, C.-S. and Song, L.J. (2004), “The
construct and criterion validity of emotional intelligence
and its potential utility for management studies”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 3, pp. 483-496.
Lei, M. and Lomax, R.G. (2005), “The effect of varying
degrees of nonnormality in structural equation modeling”,
Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Quarterly,
Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 1-27.
Liang, C.-H. and Wang, W.-H. (2008), “Do loyal and more
involved customers reciprocate retailer’s relationship
efforts?”, Journal of Services Research, Vol. 8 No. 1,
pp. 63-90.
 Product involvement
Alcina G. Ferreira and Filipe J. Coelho
Lichtenstein, D.R., Bloch, P.H. and Black, W.C. (1988),
“Correlates of price acceptability”, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 243-252.
Lichtenstein, D.R., Burton, S. and Netemeyer, R.G. (1997),
“Psychological correlates of a proneness to deals: a
domain-specific analysis”, Advances in Consumer Research,
Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 274-280.
Lichtenstein, D.R., Netemeyer, R.G. and Burton, S. (1990),
“Distinguishing coupon proneness from value consciousness: an
acquisition-transaction utility theory perspective”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 54-67.
Lichtenstein, D.R., Ridgway, N.M. and Netemeyer, R.G.
(1993), “Price perceptions and consumer shopping
behaviour: a field study”, Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 234-245.
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
and Brand Management, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 4-17.
Downloaded by Universite de Sherbrooke At 12:00 14 March 2018 (PT)
Malär, L., Krohmer, H., Hoyer, W.D. and Nyffenegger, B.
(2011), “Emotional brand attachment and brand
personality: the relative importance of the actual and the
ideal self”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 75 No. 4, pp. 35-52.
Manzur, E., Olavarrieta, S., Hidalgo, P., Farías, P. and Uribe,
R. (2011), “Store brand and national brand promotion
attitudes antecedents”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 64
No. 3, pp. 286-291.
Mela, C.F., Gupta, S. and Lehmann, D.R. (1997), “Long
term impact of promotion and advertising on consumer
brand choice”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34 No. 2,
pp. 248-261.
Meyers-Levy, J. and Peracchio, L.A. (1996), “Moderators of
the impact of self-reference on persuasion”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 408-423.
Mittal, B. (1994), “An integrated framework for relating
diverse consumer characteristics to supermarket coupon
redemption”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 31 No. 4,
pp. 533-544.
Murthi, B.P.S. and Rao, R.C. (2012), “Price awareness and
consumers’ use of deals in brand choice”, Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 88 No. 1, pp. 34-46.
Oliver, R.L. (1997), Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on
the Consumer, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Olsen, S.O. (2007), “Repurchase loyalty: the role of
involvement and satisfaction”, Psychology & Marketing,
Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 315-341.
Park, C.W. and Young, S.M. (1986), “Consumer response to
television commercials: the impact of involvement and
background music on brand attitude formation”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 11-24.
Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J.T. and Schumann, D. (1983),
“Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness:
The moderating role of involvement”, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 135-146.
Piercy, N.F., Cravens, D.W. and Lane, N. (2010), “Thinking
strategically about pricing decisions”, Journal of Business
Strategy, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 38-48.
Podoshen, J.S. and Andrzejewski, S.A. (2012), “An
examination of the relationships between materialism,
conspicuous consumption, impulse buying, and brand
363
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 24 · Number 4 · 2015 · 349 –364
loyalty”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 20
No. 3, pp. 319-333.
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.
Pritchard, M.P., Havitz, M.E. and Howard, D.R. (1999),
“Analyzing the commitment-loyalty link in service
relationships”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 333-348.
Quester, P. and Lim, A.L. (2003), “Product involvement/
brand loyalty: is there a link?”, Journal of Product & Brand
Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 22-38.
Raykov, T. and Marcoulides, G.A. (2000), A First Course in
Structural Equation Modelling, Laurence Erlbaum
Associates, London.
Richins, M.L., Bloch, P.H. and McQuarrie, E.F. (1992),
“How enduring and situational involvement combine to
create involvement responses”, Journal of Consumer
Psychology, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 143-154.
Samuelsen, B.M. and Olsen, L.E. (2012), “The attitudinal
response to alternative brand growth strategies”, European
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46 Nos 1/2, pp. 177-191.
Shih, T.Y. (2012), “Integrative effects of firms’ price and
endorsement strategies on consumers’ loyalty intention”,
The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 981-1005.
Stigler, G.J. (1961), “The economics of information”, Journal
of Political Economy, Vol. 69 No. 3, pp. 213-225.
Suk, K., Lee, J. and Lichtenstein, D.R. (2012), “The
influence of price presentation order on consumer choice”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 49 No. 5, pp. 708-717.
Swaminathan, S. and Bawa, K. (2005), “Category-specific
coupon proneness: the impact of individual characteristics
and category-specific variables”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 81
No. 3, pp. 205-214.
Thelen, S.T., Yoo, B. and Magnini, V.P. (2011), “An
examination of consumer sentiment toward offshored
services”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 270-289.
van Heerde, H.J., Gupta, S. and Wittink, D.R. (2003), “Is 75
per cent of the sales promotion bump due to brand
switching? No, only 33 per cent”, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 481-491.
Wakefield, K.L. and Barnes, J.H. (1996), “Retailing hedonic
consumption: a model of sales promotion of a leisure
service”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 72 No. 4, pp. 409-427.
Warrington, P. and Shim, S. (2000), “An empirical
investigation of the relationship between product
involvement and brand commitment”, Psychology &
Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 9, pp. 761-782.
Winer, R.S. (1986), “A reference price model of brand choice
for frequently purchased products”, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 250-256.
Zaichkowsky, J.L. (1985), “Measuring the involvement
construct”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 12 No. 3,
pp. 341-352.
Zeithaml, V.A. (1988), “Consumer perceptions of
price, quality and value: a means-end model and
 Product involvement
Alcina G. Ferreira and Filipe J. Coelho
synthesis of evidence”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52 No. 3,
pp. 2-22.
Zhao, X., Lynch, J.G. and Chen, Q. (2010), “Reconsidering
Baron and Kenny: myths and truths about mediation
analysis”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 37 No. 2,
pp. 197-206.
About the authors
Alcina G. Ferreira is an Associate Professor in Marketing at
the School of Technology and Management, Management for
Sustainability Research Center, Polytechnic Institute of
Leiria, Portugal. She holds a PhD in management, with a
specialization in marketing, from Universidade de Coimbra,
Portugal. She has written and presented scholarly papers at
Downloaded by Universite de Sherbrooke At 12:00 14 March 2018 (PT)
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
364
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 24 · Number 4 · 2015 · 349 –364
international conferences. Her research interests include
branding and consumer behaviour.
Filipe J. Coelho is an Assistant Professor in Marketing at
Faculdade de Economia da Universidade de Coimbra/
GEMF, Portugal. His areas of interest include the attitudes
and behaviours of frontline employees and consumer
behaviour. He has published in European Journal of Marketing,
Journal of Retailing, International Journal of Management
Reviews, Industrial Marketing Management, Journal of Service
Research, Journal of Services Marketing, International Journal of
Selection and Assessment, Service Industries Journal, International
Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, among others.
Filipe J. Coelho is the corresponding author and can be
contacted at: fcoelho@fe.uc.pt
 This article has been cited by:

1. Gordhan Saini, Arvind Sahay, Gurumurthy Kalyanaram. 2018. An Empirical Study of Latitude of Quantity Acceptance (LQA)
in an Emerging Economy: India. Journal of Global Marketing 1. [Crossref]
2. Mar Gómez, David Martín-Consuegra, Estrella Díaz, Arturo Molina. 2018. Determinants and outcomes of price premium and
loyalty: A food case study. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 17:1, 64-74. [Crossref]
3. MenidjelChoukri, Choukri Menidjel, BenhabibAbderrezzak, Abderrezzak Benhabib, BilgihanAnil, Anil Bilgihan. 2017.
Examining the moderating role of personality traits in the relationship between brand trust and brand loyalty. Journal of Product
& Brand Management 26:6, 631-649. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
4. Yueli Zhang, Feng Liu. 2017. The Formation of Brand Loyalty: A Partial Dual-Factor Explanation. Journal of International
Consumer Marketing 29:4, 239-249. [Crossref]
5. VeloutsouCleopatra, Cleopatra Veloutsou, GuzmanFrancisco, Francisco Guzmán. 2017. The evolution of brand management
thinking over the last 25 years as recorded in the Journal of Product and Brand Management. Journal of Product & Brand
Management 26:1, 2-12. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
6. OdoomRaphael, Raphael Odoom. 2016. Brand marketing programs and consumer loyalty – evidence from mobile phone users
in an emerging market. Journal of Product & Brand Management 25:7, 651-662. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
7. Hee Seok Song, Saidur Rahman, Chulho Jung. 2016. The Effects of Social Information on Recommendation Trust and
Downloaded by Universite de Sherbrooke At 12:00 14 March 2018 (PT)

Moderating Effect of Product Involvement. Management & Information Systems Review 35:3, 115-130. [Crossref]
8. Kumar MishraMukesh, Mukesh Kumar Mishra, KesharwaniAnkit, Ankit Kesharwani, DasDolly, Dolly Das. 2016. The
relationship between risk aversion, brand trust, brand affect and loyalty. Journal of Indian Business Research 8:2, 78-97. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]