quester1
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/30/2019 Quester1
1/8
THE PRODUCT INVOLVEMENT/BRAND LOYALTY LINK: AN EMPIRICAL
EXAMINATION
Pascale G. Quester, Amal Karunaratna and Ai Lin Lim
The University of Adelaide
Abstract
Product involvement (PI) and Brand Loyalty (BL) are two important concepts in consumer behaviour.
Several studies have examined the relationship between PI and BL but few empirical investigations have
been conducted to validate the notion emerging from the literature than PI precedes BL. In this empirical
study, two products associated with either low or high involvement are used to examine this issue. We
found support for a relationship between the two constructs. In addition, we found that the dimensions of
involvement varied depending on the product category.
Introduction
Product involvement and Brand Loyalty are two important concepts believed to explain a significant
proportion of consumer purchase choices. Several studies (Traylor 1981 and 1983, Park 1996, LeClerc
and Little 1997, Iwasaki and Havitz 1998), have examined the relationship between product involvement
and loyalty, albeit under other names. For instance, Traylor uses the terms ego involvement and brand
commitment whereas Park (1996) refers to just involvement and attitudinal loyalty. Moreover,
studies examining the relationship between product involvement and brand loyalty have remained
conceptual in nature and empirical investigations of the product involvement/brand loyalty link arelacking.
The central premise of the literature examining the relationship between loyalty and product
involvement is that consumers who are more involved with a particular brand, are more committed and
hence, more loyal to that brand (Traylor 1981 and 1983). High involvement has also been suggested as
a precondition to loyalty (Robertson 1976, Park et al. 1987, Assael 1987, Beatty et al. 1988). Indeed,
Assael (1987) argues that the cognitive definition of brand loyalty represents commitment and therefore,
involvement with the brand.
In a rare empirical examination of the issue (an experimental study of free-standing insert
coupons), LeClerc and Little (1997) found that brand loyalty interacted with product involvement. The
authors stated that repeat purchase behaviour for a high-involvement product was an indicator of brand
loyalty, whereas repeat purchase for a low-involvement product was simply habitual purchase behaviour,
without elaborating clearly on the relationship between these constructs.
In an attempt to elucidate these relationships, Park (1996), in a study on leisure activities, found
that involvement and attitudinal loyalty were highly correlated. However, Iwasaki and Havits (1998) later
argued that Parks findings of a correlation between involvement and attitudinal loyalty did not determine
whether involvement precedes loyalty. Rather, they proposed that individuals go through sequential
psychological processes in order to become loyal participants in leisure or recreational activities. Iwasaki
-
7/30/2019 Quester1
2/8
and Havitz (1998) also argued that highly loyal people tended to exhibit high levels of involvement and
that individual and social-situational factors,such as personal values or beliefs, social and cultural norms,
influenced the feedback effects of behavioural loyalty. However, their proposed framework has not been
empirically tested.
According to Traylor, the general convention in the literature (eg. Lastovicka and Gardner 1979,
Tyebjee 1979) is that ones involvement in a product class is directly related to ones commitment (orloyalty) to a brand within that product class. It is argued that the more focal a product class is to an
individuals ego or sense of identity, the stronger the psychological attachment to a particular brand
within that product class. Conversely, the more peripheral the product class is to the individuals ego, the
lower the attachment to the brand (Traylor 1983). Traylors reasons are that for a low-involvement type
product category, the consumer would have a large consideration set and therefore, brand commitment
would be low. Hence, brand switching would be a more frequent behaviour rather than for another
consumer to whom this product is more highly involving. Traylors (1981) reasoning seems to suggest
that consumers with a smaller consideration set of a high-involvement type product category would have
high brand commitment. This view is rather simplistic, relying on the size of the consideration set rather
than the actual relationship between the constructs.In earlier work, Traylor (1981) stated that brand commitment is generally not directly related to
product involvement, suggesting later (1983) that it is possible to consider cases where low brand
commitment is coupled with high product involvement and high brand commitment with low product
involvement. This is because involvement and loyalty are consumer-defined phenomena, as opposed to
product-defined (Tyebjee 1979b, Traylor 1981, Kassarjian 1981, Traylor 1983, Traylor and Joseph
1984, Kapferer and Laurent 1985a). As a result, Traylor (1983) believed that involvement and
commitment can each be thought of as a continuum along which consumers are distributed. Despite
some quantitative evidence, the small sample size and the composition of the sample precluded Traylor
from claiming any generalisability of his findings.
Surprisingly few empirical investigations have been conducted in this area. The complexity of therelationship between product involvement and brand loyalty along with the use of imprecise measures
appear to have obscured previous research. Hence, the present study seeks to examine this relationship
empirically. Following on the suggestion that the two constructs are consumer-defined phenomena, this
study developed product-specific measures in order to establish the link between product involvement
and brand loyalty.
Hypotheses and methodology
A review of the literature concerning the two constructs at the heart of this study suggests that high
product involvement could be a precondition to brand loyalty. For product categories that are highly
involving, Dick and Basu (1994) suggest that consumers (favourable) relative attitudes towards specific
offerings of a product are likely to contribute most to repeat patronage and to be less susceptible to
situational influences. The literature takes the view that product involvement and brand loyalty are
positively related and that high product involvement precedes the development of brand loyalty. By
contrast, Traylor (1983) argues that combinations of inverse relationships, eg. low product involvement
and high brand loyalty and vice versa are also possible. Further empirical work is clearly needed. In this
-
7/30/2019 Quester1
3/8
study, we investigate the general hypothesis, stated as follows: H: Product involvement is positively
associated with brand loyalty.
The studies cited above which examined the relationship between product involvement and
brand loyalty treated product involvement as a dichotomous construct. However, a representation of
product involvement as either high or low seems be too simplistic. Laurent and Kapferer (1985)
considered the possibility of a continuum and argued that involvement is a multi-dimensional constructand as such, the construct is better viewed in terms of an involvement profile. Based on this argument,
the authors developed a Consumer Involvement Profile (CIP) scale which measures involvement along
five dimensions/facets, namely, Interest, Pleasure, Sign, Risk Importance and Risk Probability.
Laurent and Kapferer (1985) have demonstrated that different facets of involvement have different
influences on certain aspects of consumer behaviour. Some later studies (eg. Jain and Srinivasan 1990,
Rodgers and Schneider 1993) found that scale items relating to Interest and Pleasure merged on one
factor. An involvement profile is argued to be able to clearly explain the nature and the consequences of
involvement. As such, the general hypothesis (H) is re-stated for each of these dimensions of involvement
on brand loyalty:
H1: Interest and Pleasure is positively associated with Brand Loyalty.H2: Sign is positively associated with Brand Loyalty.
H3: Risk Probability is positively associated with Brand Loyalty.
H4: Risk Importance is positively associated with Brand Loyalty.
The first stage of the study involved the use of focus group discussions to identify product
categories with which students in general would either have total or minimal involvement (using the
terms suggested by Laurent and Kapferer (1985a). The product categories had to be highly relevant to
students who comprised the convenience sample used in this study. In addition, students should have
extensive familiarity and purchasing experiences with those product categories. A total of 13 male and
14 female second year university students participated in these focus groups. Although subjective, this
ensured that the products eventually selected for the study named would fit the total and minimalinvolvement categories sought. The outcome of the discussions resulted in the selection of sports
shoes/sneakers to represent the total involvement product category and ballpoint pens to represent the
minimal involvement product category for this particular population (university students). A
questionnaire was then developed to measure each of the constructs, using multi-item scales. As the
present study involves two products - sports shoes/sneakers and ballpoint pens, the questionnaire was
duplicated for both products.
Most items in the questionnaire were adapted from existing scales, as recommended by Stangor
(1998). As such, the reliability and validity of these measures had already been established in other
contexts. Where existing scales were insufficient to capture the constructs, new items were also
developed. All items used in this study reproduced the reliability of the original literature from which they
were extracted (coefficient alpha ranging between 0.63 and 0.90).
The Consumer Involvement Profile (CIP) scale developed by Laurent and Kapferer (1985)
was deemed appropriate to measure product involvement in this study. The English translated version by
Rodgers and Shneider (1993) of the original French version of the CIP was used. The current CIP scale
comprises 16 Likert-type, five-point statements ranging from totally disagree to totally agree. Only minor
modifications were made to the scale to make these appropriate to the context of the present study.
-
7/30/2019 Quester1
4/8
Brand loyalty was measured using a variety of items borrowed from several previous studies
(Cooper-Martin 1993, Beatty and Kahle 1988, Lichtenstein, Netemeyer and Burton 1990, Raju 1980,
Holbrook 1986 and Mano and Oliver 1993). Analysis conducted using the response from a pilot study
undertaken with TAFE students enabled a reduction of the initial 31 items measuring brand loyalty to 16,
using exploratory factor analysis.
The final version of the self-administered questionnaire was distributed during a lecture to aconvenience sample of 253 university students, 56% of whom were female and 90% of whom were
aged 18 to 25 years. This sample was therefore representative of the student population for whom initial
qualitative research had demonstrated that the two product categories were highly relevant.
Results
Factor analysis was used to determine the number of factors that would account for maximum variance
in the data used in any subsequent multi-variate analysis (Hair et al. 1995). Principal components analysis
was used, followed by an orthogonal rotation to develop independent factors (Malhotra 1993). All itemsin the scales had factor loadings greater than .55. The measures were then assessed for validity and
reliability following the scale construction method proposed by (Churchill, 1979) and the Cronbachs
coefficient alpha were used to establish scale reliability.
In the case of sports shoes/sneakers, this analysis showed that that Interest and Pleasure
items merged on one single factor, while two distinct factors emerged for Risk Probability, Sign and
Risk Importance. The merging of Interest and Pleasure in one factor is consistent with previous
findings reported by Kapferer and Laurent (1985), Jain and Srinivasan (1990) and Rodgers and
Shneider (1993).
This, however, was not the case for ballpoint pens, where Sign and Pleasure items loaded on
Factor 1. Such a merging of Sign and Pleasure has not been previously reported for any productcategory. Risk Importance items loaded on Factor 2 and Risk Probability items merged on Factor 3
(note: for sports shoes/sneakers, the same items merged on Factor 2). Interest items loaded separately
on three factors. The loading of Interest items on different factors for ballpoint pens contrasted with
shoes/sneakers and confirms that respondents do not appear to attach too much personal interest in a
product that is of low cost, ordinary and inconsequential in nature.
In contrast with the Involvement scale, the factor analyses of items relating to brand loyalty for
both products showed that the measure was uni-dimensional with high coefficient alphas (>.8), displaying
properties of sound construct development (Gerbing and Anderson, 1988).
Despite a large body of literature arguing that attitude is a multi-dimensional construct made up
of cognitive, affective and conative components (eg. Dick and Basu 1994, Foxall and Goldsmith 1994,
Baldinger and Rubinson 1996), the emergence of a single factor from our data indicates that respondents
did not distinguish between the three components of attitude. This single dimension can be labelled
relative brand loyalty since the items were designed to capture attitude towards a brand relative to
other brands.
Our general hypothesis was that product involvement (PI) was positively associated with Brand
Loyalty (BL). As previously argued, Laurent and Kapferer (1985) proposed that the involvement
construct should be viewed in terms of multiple facets. Hence, different consumers would rate the facets
-
7/30/2019 Quester1
5/8
of the CIP differently. Contrasted profiles, according to these authors, may therefore be expected.
Since the facets of involvement are different for both products, our hypotheses were further refined to
reflect this difference (see Table 1). The involvement dimensions relevant for each product are also
shown in Table 1.
These hypotheses were tested using regression analysis where brand loyalty is the dependent
variable and the involvement dimensions described for each product in Table 1 (four for shoes and threefor ballpoint pens) form the independent variables. Table 2 summarises the results of the regression
analysis. For sports shoes/sneakers, the four independent variables, taken together, explained 29.4% of
the variance in brand loyalty. For ballpoint pens, the three independent variables, taken together,
explained 36.3% of the variance in brand loyalty.
Table 1: Restatement of Hypotheses for Sports shoes/Sneakers (A) and Ballpoint Pens (B).
Product A: Sport Shoes/Sneakers Product B: Ballpoint Pens
H1(a) Interest and Pleasure is positively
associated with brand loyalty.
H1,2(b) Sign and Pleasure is positively
associated with brand loyalty.
H2(a) Sign is positively associated with brandloyalty.
H3(a) Risk Probability is positively associated
with brand loyalty.
H3(b) Risk Probability is positively
associated with brand loyalty
H4(a) Risk Importance is positively associated
with brand loyalty.
H4(b) Risk Importance is positively
associated with brand loyalty
Table 2: Results of Regression Analysis for Hypothesis Testing
Dependent
Variable
Independent Variable
Product A: SportsShoes/Sneakers
Brand Loyalty Interest andPleasure
RiskProbability
Sign Risk Importance
Standardised beta
coefficients
.388* -.081 .312* -.106
t-value 5.640* -1.372 4.310* -1.602
Adjusted R2 = .294 F = 26.814*
Product B: Ballpoint
Pens
Brand Loyalty Sign and
Pleasure
Risk
Probability
Risk
Importance
Standardised beta
coefficients
.362* -.138* .376*
t-value 5.032* 2.256* 5.247*
Adjusted R2= .363 F = 48.340*
*p
-
7/30/2019 Quester1
6/8
the other hand, for ballpoint pens, while Sign and Pleasure and Risk Importance were significant and
supported the hypotheses on brand loyalty H1,2(b) and H3(b), Risk Probability resulted in a negative
coefficient (all coefficients were significant, p
-
7/30/2019 Quester1
7/8
Herche J. and Engelland B. (1996), Reversed-Polatity Items and Scale Uni-dimensionality,Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Sciences, 24(4), 366-74.
Holbrook M.B. (1986), Aims, Concepts and Methods for the Representation of Individual Differences
in Esthetic Response to Design features,Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 337-47.
Iwasaki Y. and Havitz M.E. (1998), A Path Analysis Model of the Relationships between Involvement,
Psychological Commitment and Loyalty,Journal of Leisure Research, 30(2), 256-80.Jain K. and Srinivasan N. (1990), An Empirical Assessment of Multiple Operationalisations of
Involvement, In M.E. Goldberg and R.W. Pollay (Eds.), Advances in Consumer Research, 17,
594-602.
Kapferer J.N. and Laurent G. (1985), Consumer Profiles: A New Practical Approach to Consumer
Involvement,Journal of Advertising Research, 25 (6), 48-56.
Kapferer J.N. and Laurent G. (1993), Further Evidence on the Consumer Involvement Profile: Five
Antecedents of Involvement, Psychology and Marketing, 10(4), 347-355.
Kassarjian H.H. (1981), Low Involvement: A Second Look, Advances in Consumer Research, 8,
31-34.
Lastovicka J.L. and Gardner D.M. (1979), Components of Involvement, in Attitude Research Playsfor High Stakes, J.C. Maloney and B. Silverman (Eds.), Chicago, American Marketing
Association, 53-73.
Laurent G and Kapferer J.N. (1985), Measuring Consumer Involvement Profiles, Journal of
Marketing Research, 22, 41-53.
LeClerc F. and Little J.D.C. (1997), Can Advertising Copy Make FSI Coupons More Effective?,
Journal of Marketing Research, 34, 473-84.
Lichtenstein D.R., Netemeyer R.D. and Burton S. (1990), Distinguishing Coupon Proneness from
Value Consciousness: An Acquisition-Transaction Utility Theory Perspective, Journal of
Marketing, 54, 54-67.
Malhotra N.K. (1993),Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey,Prentice-Hall Inc.
Mano H. and Oliver R.L. (1993), Assessing the Dimensionality and Structure of the Consumption
Experience: Evaluation, Feeling and Satisfaction,Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 451-466.
Park S-H (1996), Relationship Between Involvement and Attitudinal Loyalty Constructs in Adult
Fitness Programs,Journal of Leisure Research, 28(4), 233-250.
Park W.C. and Mittal B. (1985), A Theory of Involvement in Consumer Behaviour: Problems and
Issues,Research in Consumer Behaviour, 201-31.
Robertson T.S. (1976), Low-Commitment Consumer Behavior, Journal of Advertising Research,
16, 19-24.
Rodgers W.C. and Schneider K.C. (1993), An Empirical Evaluation if the Kapferer-Laurent Consumer
Profiles, Psychology and Marketing, 10(4), 333-345.
Stangor C. (1998), Research Methods for Behavioural Sciences, New York: Houghton Mifflin
Company.
Traylor M.B. (1981) Product Involvement and Brand Commitment: Not Necessarily the Same,
Journal of Advertising Research, 21, 51-56.
Traylor M.D. (1983), Ego Involvement and Brand Commitment: Not Necessarily the Same, Journal
of Consumer Marketing, 1, 75-79.
-
7/30/2019 Quester1
8/8
Traylor M.D. and Joseph W.B. (1984), Measuring Consumer Involvement in Products: Developing a
General Scale, Psychology and Marketing, 1(2), 65-77.
Tyebjee T.T. (1979), Response Time, Conflict and Involvement in Brand Choice, Journal of
Consumer Research, 5, 295-304.