An empirical examination of brand loyalty

Jan Møller Jensen

Department of Marketing, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark, and
Torben Hansen
Department of Marketing, Copenhagen Business School, Frederiksberg, Denmark

Abstract
Purpose – This article aims to measure relative attitude as a latent two-dimensional second-order factor and to investigate the relationship between
relative attitude and repeat purchasing.
Design/methodology/approach – A conceptual model of attitude-behaviour consistency and brand loyalty is proposed and empirically tested in the
context of frequently purchased consumer goods. Structural equation modelling was used on survey data from 395 households to test the model and
corresponding hypotheses.
Findings – The results support the conceptualization of relative attitude as a composite of purchase involvement and perceived brand differences and
also support the hypotheses proposed in our research model. Theoretical and managerial implications are discussed at the end of the article.
Originality/value – Survey data from 395 households was used to test the model and corresponding hypotheses.

Keywords Brand loyalty, Consumer goods

Paper type Research paper

An executive summary for managers and executive
readers can be found at the end of this article.
Introduction
Representing one of the most important factors believed to
explain consumer brand choices, it is no surprise that the
concept of brand loyalty has aroused an enormous interest
among academics as well as practitioners within the field of
marketing and consumer behaviour. Firms with large groups
of loyal customers have been shown to have large market
shares, and market share, in turn, has been shown to be
associated with higher rates of return on investment (Buzzell
et al., 1975; Raj, 1985; Reichheld and Sasser, 1990). Dick
and Basu (1994) suggest that brand loyalty favours positive
worth of mouth and greater resistance among loyal customers
to competitive strategies. Obviously such findings encourage
marketers to build and maintain brand loyalty among
customers. When striving for such goals, information on
factors determining the creation of brand loyalty among
customers becomes an important matter.
This article investigates the importance of the relative
attitude to the determination of brand loyalty. Our empirical
investigation focuses on the market of frequently purchased
consumer goods. In relation to this, we agree with the dictum
put forward by Rundle-Thiele and Bennet (2001) that
“variation between the characteristics of each market
indicates that the measures used to capture brand loyalty
should be very different, as will the antecedent variables”
(p. 28). Furthermore, by examining the relative attitude as an
antecedent of repeat purchasing we assume a determinist
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1061-0421.htm
Journal of Product & Brand Management
15/7 (2006) 442– 449
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 1061-0421]
[DOI 10.1108/10610420610712829]
approach to brand loyalty rather than the more behavioural
oriented stochastic approach (Odin et al., 2001). From a purely
stochastic approach, brand loyalty is considered tantamount to
repeat purchasing and grounded on no manifest factors
determining the behaviour. It is impossible to detect any
antecedents of repeat purchases, and therefore companies gain
no understanding of how to build brand loyalty. From a
determinist approach brand loyalty is conceptualised more like
an attitude or intention to purchase and it is believed that the
researcher can investigate the factors producing brand loyalty.
Marketers investigating these factors may therefore gain
valuable insights into the creation and retaining of brand
loyalty among customers.
Although the stochastic approach seems very useful for
explaining consumer purchase behaviour of fast-moving
consumer goods (e.g. powder, detergent, toothpaste etc.),
we do believe that even for frequently purchased consumer
goods the purchase decisions are rarely made on a purely
arbitrary basis. Therefore, we lean to the composite definition
of brand loyalty which was originally suggested by Day (1969)
and later supported by other researchers (e.g. Jacoby, 1971;
Dick and Basu, 1994; Assael, 1998). Jacoby (1971) defines
brand loyalty as repeat purchase but clearly points out that
this behaviour is a function of psychological processes. In
other words, repeat purchase is not just an arbitrary response
but the result of some proceeding factors (for example
psychological, emotional or situational factors). Likewise
Dick and Basu (1994) point out that even a relatively
important repeat purchase may not reflect true loyalty to a
product but may merely result from situational conditions
such as brands stocked by the retailer. In their framework,
attitude is a requirement for true loyalty to occur.
Consequently, they define repeat purchasing without a
favourable attitude as spurious loyalty. Similar thoughts are
found in Assael (1998) who conceptualizes brand loyalty as
repeat purchase under high involvement and defines repeat
purchase under low involvement as inertia. The relationship
between attitude and behaviour is well accepted among
consumer researchers although this relationship appears to be

442
 An empirical examination of brand loyalty
Jan Møller Jensen and Torben Hansen
most likely when applied to high involvement situations
(Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980). Assuming that, even with regard
to frequently purchased consumer goods, some consumers
will exert more involvement to the purchase decision than
others, this article investigates the relationship between
relative attitude and repeat purchasing. Understanding the
role of relative attitude to brand loyalty is important for brand
managers in order to enhance and maintain consumers’
repeat purchasing of their brand. Only if an increase in
relative attitude results in an increase in repeat purchase it is
meaningful for marketers seeking to influence repeat
purchasing through attitude building marketing strategies.
Model development and research hypotheses
Figure 1 presents our conceptual model of loyalty formation
focusing on the relationship between relative attitude and
repeat purchasing.
We adopt the composite perspective of brand loyalty first
suggested by Day (1969) and later supported by other
researchers (e.g. Jacoby, 1971; Dick and Basu, 1994). The
composite approach to loyalty claims that to be truly loyal the
consumer must hold a favourable attitude toward the brand in
addition to repeat purchasing it. Accordingly, we suggest that
relative attitude positively influence repeat purchasing.
However, in our research model we do not expect a direct
influence from relative attitude on repeat purchases but rather
hypothesise relative attitude to have an indirect influence on
repeat purchase through variety-seeking and enhancing
resistance to situational factors. More precisely we expect
higher relative attitude to have a negative effect on the
consumer’s tendency towards variety-seeking and a positive
effect on the consumers resistance to situational factors
triggering brand switching (e.g. “out-of stock” situations).
The concept of relative attitude as well as the hypothesised
relationships is further discussed in the following sections.
Relative attitude as a two-dimensional construct
As explained in the Methods section, we conceptualise
relative attitude as a latent second order factor composed of
two dimensions; purchase involvement and perceived brand
Figure 1 Conceptual model and research hypotheses
443
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 15 · Number 7 · 2006 · 442 –449
differences. The rationale for the inclusion of these two
dimensions as components of relative attitude is found in
Dick and Basu (1994).
According to Dick and Basu (1994) attitudinal differentiation
is a prerequisite for a high relative attitude. If the consumer is
unable to differentiate among alternatives and/or sees no or very
few differences among alternatives, relative attitude will be low
with absence of true loyalty as a consequence. This view is
supported by Muncy (1996) who emphasizes that in the
absence of perceived differences between brand alternatives it
will be difficult to build brand loyalty.
Dick and Basu (1994) further argue that relative attitude is at
its highest on condition of high attitudinal strength. In our
model we suggest attitudinal strength to be represented by the
concept of purchase involvement. The role of involvement as
an important factor in loyalty formation has been investigated
and to some degree supported by consumer researchers
(Quester and Lim, 2003). An experimental study focusing on
the relationship between product involvement and brand
loyalty (LeClerc and Little, 1997) concludes that repeat
purchasing of high involvement products reflects true loyalty,
whereas repeat purchasing of low involvement products is
simple habitual purchase behaviour. Yet, other researchers (e.g.
Traylor, 1983) have questioned the definition of high and low
involvement products suggesting that it is up to the consumer
and not to the product to decide the involvement degree of a
purchase decision. For example, a person with great interest
and experience in wine may be highly involved in the product
category wine without necessarily feeling highly involved when
purchasing a bottle of wine. Conversely, an individual
purchasing a detergent to be used for washing an expensive
blouse may experience high risk and feel highly involved in
choosing the right brand of detergent. Thus, in order to
investigate the influence of involvement on brand loyalty a
purchasing-related conceptualization of consumer involvement
seems more appropriate. Additionally, as argued by Quester
and Lim (2003), involvement should not be investigated in a
dichotomous form (e.g. high or low involvement) but rather as
a continuum. Thus, in our model we view involvement as a
purchase-related concept representing a consumer’s subjective
perception of how important (involving) the outcome of a
 An empirical examination of brand loyalty
Jan Møller Jensen and Torben Hansen
purchase within a particular product category is to the
consumer. Purchase involvement is believed to range within a
scale continuum and to be one of two dimensions comprising
the concept of relative attitude.
Relative attitude and variety-seeking
When studying consumers’ variety-seeking behaviour, it is
important to distinguish “true” variety- seeking behaviour
from extrinsically motivated brand switching (Van Trijp et al.,
1996). Van Trijp et al. (1996) argue that brand switching
behaviour should only be attributed to true variety-seeking
when variation is aimed at for its own intrinsic value and for
the stimulation it brings to the situation. Consumers’ need for
something to reduce boredom or a need for sensory
stimulation by exploring new product variants (e.g. a
differently flavoured coffee) are examples of true variety-
seeking. Van Trijp et al. (1996) provide empirical evidence for
variety-seeking to be more likely when involvement is lower,
when smaller brand differences are perceived among choice
alternatives and when consumers brand preferences are lower.
On the basis of these considerations, we hypothesize
H1. Relative attitude influences variety-seeking negatively.
Relative attitude and resistance to situational factors
In addition to the above mentioned intrinsical motivation for
brand switching Van Trijp et al. (1996) call attention to the
extrinsically motivated or derived brand switching behaviour
caused by situational factors (e.g. friends recommending
alternative brand, usual brand sold out or not stored by the
retailer, competitors’ brand on sale). The authors further
hypothesise that brand switches caused by external factors are
more likely to happen in circumstances of low involvement
purchasing and in situations where perceived differences among
brands are small. Emmelheinz et al. (1991) found that perceived
risk of purchasing another brand than the preferred one (e.g.
high relative attitude) reduced the likelihood of switching brand.
In a similar way, Dick and Basu (1994) propose that a consumer
with a strong relative attitude will be more likely to overcome
countervailing social norms and/or situational influences.
Therefore we expect a consumer with high relative attitude to
be less alert to competitors’ price offers and more likely to
postpone purchases or to patronise another store if the usual
brand is sold out. We therefore propose the following hypothesis:
H2. Relative attitude influences resistance to situational
factors positively.
Variety-seeking and resistance to situational factors
Intuitive consumers intrinsically motivated for brand
switching will more actively be in search for alternative
brands and therefore pay more attention to offers from the
competition. Further they will be more likely to give up their
usual brand in case of out of stock situations. Van Trijp et al.
(1996) find that variety-seeking tendency seems to influence
consumers’ response to out of stock situations. We therefore
propose consumers with a higher level of true variety-seeking
will be less resistant to situational factors and we forward the
following hypothesis:
H3. Variety-seeking influences resistance to situational
factors negatively.
Variety-seeking and repeat purchasing
As mentioned above brand switches may result from
consumers’ need to reduce boredom or a need for sensory
444
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 15 · Number 7 · 2006 · 442 –449
stimulation by exploring new product variants. Thus, suggest
the following hyphothesis:
H4. Variety-seeking influence repeat purchasing negatively.
Resistance to situational factors and repeat purchasing
In today’s market environment, particularly on the frequently
purchased consumer goods market, many marketers are
switching promotional spending from advertising to sales
promotion, including in-store displays, shelf-space and price
reductions. The axiom behind this is that although advertising
creates brand loyalty, sales promotion creates brand switching.
This axiom stems from a common belief that when consumers
experience fewer differences between alternatives, they become
more price sensitive and thus more vulnerable to competitive
brands on sale. Yet, in our conceptual model we suggest that
enhancing consumers’ resistance to situational factors (through
building higher relative attitudes) is a possible and perhaps
more sustainable way to increasing or maintaining repeat
purchasing. Hence, we propose this hypothesis:
H5. Resistance to situational factors influence repeat
purchasing positively.
Data collection
The data used in this paper were obtained as part of a large
survey of brand loyalty. Data were collected in Odense, the
third largest city in Denmark, situated on the island of Funen.
Random sampling using the Odense telephone directory drew
600 phone numbers. Households were first contacted by
phone in order to get their acceptance of participation and to
set up an appointment for distribution of questionnaires.
Questionnaires were distributed to the respondents by use of
the “drop-off-call-back” method (e.g. Hair et al., 1998). The
following six non-durables were investigated: shampoo, toilet
paper, coffee, chocolate, tooth pasta and washing powder. In
order to improve response rate it was decided to split the
product sample into two identical questionnaires including
only three non-durables each. For each product category the
respondents were asked various questions concerning their
attitudes to and actual purchase of the products. Additionally
there were a number of questions concerning household
demographics and general purchase patterns. 348
questionnaires were returned leaving us with a potential of
1,046 product cases to be analysed. However, for each of the
investigated products we decided only to include answers
from persons indicating that they had at least sharing
influence on brand decision and that they usually bought
this product for the household. Furthermore, cases with
“don’t know” responses to any items to be included in the
measurement model were excluded. The application of these
procedures resulted in a total of 395 cases, distributed across
product types in a satisfactory way (all products were
represented by 46 to 78 cases).
Measurements
Repeat purchasing is measured by a single item. In this study
we asked respondents for each product category, to indicate
how many times of the last five purchases they bought the same
brand. Although we recognize that this is a measure of past
behaviour, we believe that such a measure is a reasonable
indicator for future repeat purchasing. An alternative way to
measure behavioural loyalty could be the perceived probability
 An empirical examination of brand loyalty
Jan Møller Jensen and Torben Hansen
of purchasing the same brand in the future (Jacoby and
Chestnut, 1978). Considering the weak relationship between
attitude and behaviour often found in studies of low
involvement situations, such an indicator would neither be a
very reliable measure of future repeat purchasing, particularly
not with regard to frequently purchased goods markets.
Except for repeat purchasing, all constructs in our
conceptual model are latent unobservable variables. In order
to obtain reasonable accurate measures of such constructs it is
recommended to developed multi-item scales including two or
more items. In our study we created scales with two or three
items, mostly adapted from previous research. Each construct
and its corresponding items is displayed in the Appendix. All
items were measured on a seven-point Likert-like scale ranging
from 1 ¼ “completely disagree” to 7 ¼ “completely agree”.
Dick and Basu (1994) conceptualize relative attitude as a
composite of attitudinal strength and attitudinal
differentiation. In their GRID-model the two dimensions
are treated as independent constructs. Dick and Basu (1994)
do not question the assumption of independency, nor do they
suggest how to measure the two constructs. In this study we
suggest attitudinal strength and attitudinal differentiation to
be represented by purchase involvement and perceived brand
differentiation respectively and propose relative attitude to be
a latent variable (or function) comprised of these two
subdimensions. To accomplish this measurement we will
specify a second-order factor model, which suggests that the
second-order factor “relative attitude” is a composite (or
function) of the first-order factors “purchase involvement”
and “perceived brand differentiation”.
Purchase involvement was assessed by Ratchford’s (1987)
three-item involvement scale. The three items are shown as
INV1 to INV3 in the Appendix.
Considering perceived brand differences as the opposite to
the concept of brand parity we adapted three items from
Muncy’s (1996) five-item scale of perceived brand parity. The
three items are named PBD1 to PBD3 in the Appendix.
In order to measure consumers’ resistance to situational
factors we use two items from Munchy (1996). The two items
are named RSF1 and RSF2 in the Appendix.
Variety-seeking is measured with two items framed with
reference to Van Trijp et al. (1996) and is referred to as VS1
and VS2 in the Appendix.
Results
The model in Figure 1 was translated into a LISREL model
consisting of a measurement part (confirmatory factor analysis)
and a structural equation part (simultaneous linear regression).
The relationship between variables was estimated by maximum
likelihood estimation. A two-stage approach (see Anderson and
Gerbing, 1988; Gerbing and Anderson, 1992) tested the
proposed model. First, conducting confirmatory factor analysis
on the applied multi-item scales developed the measurement
model. Next, the measurement model and the structural
equation paths were estimated simultaneously to test the
proposed model (overall model). By applying this two-stage
method we want to ensure that the measures of the constructs
are reliable and valid before attempting to draw conclusions
about relations between constructs.
Measurement model
An initial confirmatory factor analysis revealed an offending
estimate as the loading of “purchase involvement” on “relative
445
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 15 · Number 7 · 2006 · 442 –449
attitude” was greater than 1.0 (producing a corresponding
negative variance to the construct). Since such an estimate is
not theoretically appropriate, it was necessary to solve this
problem before the results from the conducted confirmatory
factor analysis could be examined. To solve the problem we
decided to fix the variance of the concept “involvement” to a
small positive figure (here 0.1), as recommended by several
researchers (e.g. Hair et al., 1998).
Table I shows the results of the confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA). The aim of CFA is to verify the factor structure as
proposed. Prior to examining results from elaborating on the
figures in Table I we call attention to the fact that x2
(df ¼ 37) ¼ 122.82 is highly significant ( p , 0.001)
indicating that the model fails to fit in an absolute sense.
However, since the x2-test is very powerful for large sample
sizes, even a good measurement model could be rejected.
Thus, several writers (e.g. Hair et al., 1998) recommend that
for sample sizes greater than 200 the x2-measure should be
complemented with other goodness-of-fit measures as for
example GFI and RMSEA.
The GFI value (0,955) is well above the recommended 0.90
threshold level. RMSEA, which is less dependent on sample
size, constitutes a measure of fit between the proposed model
and the population covariance matrix. Brown and Cudeck
(1993) suggest that RMSEA less than or equal to 0.05
indicates a good fit, RMSEA between 0.05 and 0.08 a fair fit,
and values in the range of 0.08 and 0.10 indicate mediocre fit.
RMSEA for our measurement model is 0.074, which is below
the 0.08 threshold level and thus indicates an acceptable fit
(Brown and Cudeck 1993; Hair et al. 1998). To conclude, the
results indicate an acceptable overall fit between the model and
the observed data. All other fit measures, including AGFI,
CFI, NFI and TLI, also show acceptable (. 0.90) results.
All factor loadings were highly significant (t-value . 2.64;
p , 0.01), which demonstrate that the chosen generic questions
for each latent variable reflect a single underlying construct. The
reliabilities and variance extracted for each variable indicate that
the model was reliable and valid. All composite reliabilities
exceed 0.70 and all variance-extracted estimates were above
0.50, indicating an acceptable level of unidimensionality. The
reliabilities and the estimates of extracted variance were
computed, using indicator standardized loadings and
measurement errors (Hair et al. 1998; Shim et al. 2001).
These model considerations indicate that the constructs do exist
and that they are tapped by the measures used.
Discriminant validity of the applied constructs was tested
applying the approach proposed by Fornell and Larcker
(1981). In Table II, the diagonals represent for each construct
the variance extracted as reported in Table I. The other
entries represent the squares of correlations among constructs
(i.e. the shared variance among constructs).
An examination of the matrix displayed in Table II shows an
acceptable level of discriminant validity of constructs.
Extracted variance of each construct (displayed as diagonal
entries) is higher or equal to the shared variance between
constructs (displayed as non-diagonals) except for resistance
to situational factors sharing a relative high amount of
variance with relative attitude and variety-seeking as well
(variance_resistance to situational factors ¼ 0.65 , squared
correlation_ relative attitude – resistance to situational
factors ¼ 0.73; variance_variety-seeking ¼ 0.56 ,
squared correlation_variety-seeking – resistance to
situational factors ¼ 0.58). Yet, these correlations are
below the suggested threshold of 0.85 (see Frambach et al.,
 An empirical examination of brand loyalty Journal of Product & Brand Management
Jan Møller Jensen and Torben Hansen Volume 15 · Number 7 · 2006 · 442 –449

Table I Confirmatory factor analyses results (n ¼ 395)

Construct/indicator Standardized factor loadinga Standard error t-value Construct reliabilityb Extracted variancec
j1 Relative attitude 0.921 0.855
h1 Involvement 0.883 –
h2 Perceived brand differences 0.964 0.138 10.427
h1 Involvement 0.777 0.543
I1 0.572 –
I2 0.825 0.131 11.567
I3 0.789 0.118 11.345
h2 Perceived brand differences 0.761 0.522
PBD1 0.873 –
PBD2 0.673 0.062 13.707
PBD3 0.593 0.053 11.848
h3 Variety-seeking 0.706 0.559
VS1 0.900 –
VS2 0.555 0.057 9.416
h4 Resistance to situational factors 0.789 0.651
RSF1 0.792 –
RSF2 0.822 0.064 16.264
2 2
x 5 122.82; p < 0.001 x /DF ¼ 3.149
RMSEA 5 0.074
GFI 5 0.947; AGFI 5 0.911; CFI 5 0.955; NFI 5 0.936; TLI 5 0.936
Notes: aThe first item for each construct was set to 1; bCalculated as S(Std. Loadings)2/S(Std. Loadings)2 + Sjj; cCalculated as SStd. Loadings2/SStd. Loadings2
+ S jj

Table II Discriminant validity of constructs Table IV Results of the structural equation model (n ¼ 395) (Part 2)
Construct 1 2 3 Squared multiple
Explained proportion of construct variance correlations (R2)
1. Relative attitude 0.86
2. Variety-seeking 0.56 0.56 Resistance to situational factors 0.76
3. Resistance to situational factors 0.73 0.58 0.65 Variety-seeking 0.55
Repeat purchasing 0.21
Note: Diagonals represent average amount of extracted variance for each
construct; non-diagonals represent the shared variance between constructs Notes: x2 (38) ¼ 117,21, p ¼ 0.000; x2/DF ¼ 3,08; CFI ¼ 0.957; NFI
(calculated as the squares of correlations between constructs) ¼ 0.939; GFI ¼ 0.948; TLI ¼ 0.938; RMSEA ¼ 0.073; HOELTER(0.05)
¼ 180; HOELTER(0.01) ¼ 206

1998). Also, considering the hypothesized paths from both

relative attitude and variety-seeking towards resistance to
situational factors (see H2 and H3), these relatively high
correlations are not surprising.
Overall model fit
Tables III and IV display the results of testing the proposed
theoretical model. The results of the structural equation
modelling reveal that the x2 for the estimated model was
122.82 (df 39; p , 0.001). This result indicates that the model
fails to fit in an absolute sense. However, as mentioned above,
the x2-measure should be complemented with other goodness-
of-fit measures. The results of the full model (structural and
measurement models) indicate a good fit (GFI: 0.95; AGFI:

Table III Results of the structural equation model (n ¼ 395) (Part 1)

Estimates of structural
Hypotheses Construct relationships equation coefficients Standard error t-value Test-results
H1 Relative attitude ! Variety-seeking 2 0.743 0.135 29.57 * Accept
H2 Relative attitude ! Resistance to situational factors 0.621 0.164 6.12 * Accept
H3 Variety-seeking ! Resistance to situational factors 2 0.303 0.084 23.34 * Accept
H4 Variety-seeking ! Repeat purchasing 2 0.104 0.075 21.05 Reject
H5 Resistance to situational factors ! Repeat purchasing 0.370 0.081 3.72 * Accept
Notes: x2 (38) ¼ 117,21, p ¼ 0.000; x2/DF ¼ 3,08; CFI ¼ 0.957; NFI ¼ 0.939; GFI ¼ 0.948; TLI ¼ 0.938; RMSEA ¼ 0.073; HOELTER(0.05) ¼ 180;
HOELTER(0.01) ¼ 206; *Significant at the 0.01 level

446
 An empirical examination of brand loyalty
Jan Møller Jensen and Torben Hansen
0.91; NFI ¼ 0.94; CFI ¼ 0.96 and RMSEA 0.07) providing
acceptable support for the model as proposed.
Hypotheses testing
The structural equation results reveal that 21 per cent of the
variance in repeat purchasing can be explained by the
proposed model (refer to the R2 figure in Tables III and IV).
Most of the explained variance in repeat purchasing is
produced by consumers’ resistance to situational factors (H5:
standardized coefficient ¼ 0.370; t ¼ 3.72; p , 0.01).
Surprisingly, the path from variety-seeking to repeat
purchasing is not significant. In other words we find no
support for our hypothesis with respect to this association
(H4: standardized coefficient ¼ 2 0.104; t ¼ 2 1.05;
p . 0.05). However, variety-seeking has a significant negative
effect on consumers’ resistance to situational factors (H1:
standardized coefficient ¼ 20.303; t ¼ 2 3.34; p , 0.01).
As hypothesised, relative attitude has a significant negative
effect on variety-seeking (H1: standardized coefficient ¼
2 0.743; t ¼ 2 9.57; p , 0.01) and a significant positive
effect on resistance to situational factors (H2: standardized
coefficient ¼ 0.621; t ¼ 6.12; p , 0.01). 55 per cent of the
variance in variety-seeking is explained by relative attitude and
76 per cent of the variance in resistance to situational factors
is explained by relative attitude and variety-seeking (refer to
figures on R2 in the lower part of Table II). These results show
that relative attitude plays an important role in explaining
consumers’ need for variety-seeking and in enhancing
consumers’ resistance to situational factors as well.
Summary and implications
The results of our study confirm to a large extend the
proposed hypotheses and suggest a number of important
managerial implications for consumer researchers and brand
managers. First, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first
study that attempts to measure relative attitude as a second
factor composite of perceived brand differences and purchase
involvement. Considering the high reliability (alpha ¼ 0.92)
and predictive validity (see the acceptance of H1 and H2)
found in our conceptualisation and measurement of relative
attitude, the results lend some support to Dick and Basu’s
(1994) two dimensional conceptualisation of relative attitude.
Second, as hypothesised relative attitude has a significant
influence on variety-seeking as well as resistance to situational
factors, providing support for some of the propositions
forwarded by Dick and Basu (1994). Third, although
resistance to situational factors turns out to be the most
important factor in predicting repeat purchasing, separating
intrinsically motivated variety-seeking from extrinsically
imposed brand switching, reveals that consumers’ variety-
seeking tendencies may play a mediating role inhibiting
resistance to situational factors.
The results have implications for brand managers,
especially with respect to marketing frequently purchased
consumer goods. The results show that consumers with a high
relative attitude are less prone of variety-seeking, more
resistant to out of stock situations and competitors offers, and
consequently more likely to keep loyal to their usual brand.
Thus, it is still possible for marketers to create loyal
consumers by building positive attitudes towards their
products. Our conceptualisation and measurement of
relative attitude as a composite of purchase involvement and
perceived brand differences suggest two ways for marketers to
447
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 15 · Number 7 · 2006 · 442 –449
enhance relative attitudes towards their brand. First,
marketers should try to increase consumers’ purchase
involvement, for example trying to relate the consumption
situation to consumers’ value system. Second, marketers
should clearly differentiate their own brand from competing
alternatives by telling the consumer why and how their brand
is better than alternative brands. Within certain product
categories (e.g. food products) consumers are more likely to
seeking variations in their purchases. Since consumers’
tendencies to variety-seeking make them more alert to offers
from competing brands, it is important for marketers
competing on such markets to expand their product lines
(e.g. tee products with many different flavours) making it
possible for the consumer to vary their purchase experiences
without having to switch brands.
Limitations and future research directions
Our study is focusing on the frequently purchased consumer
goods market, and the results may therefore not necessarily be
generalised to other market types. Other studies should test
our model on other market types. Also, our results are limited
by the nature of measuring repeat purchases. In this study we
asked respondents for each product category to indicate how
many times of the last five purchases they bought the same
brand. Although we recognize that this is a measure of past
behaviour we believe that such a measure is a reasonable
indicator of future repeat purchasing. An alternative
operationalisation of behavioural loyalty could be the
perceived probability of purchasing the same brand in the
future (Jacoby and Chestnut, 1978). Considering the weak
relationship between attitude and behaviour often found in
studies of low involvement situations, such an indicator would
neither be a very reliable measure of future repeat purchasing,
particularly not with regard to frequently purchased goods
markets. Further research may wish to investigate brand
loyalty through longitudinal studies.
References
Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1980), Understanding Attitudes and
Predicting Social Behavior, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Stuctural
equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step appraoch”, Psychological Bulletin,
Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-23.
Assael, H. (1998), Consumer Behavior and Marketing Actions,
6th ed., South-Western College Publishing, Mason, OH.
Brown, M.W. and Cudeck, R. (1993), “Alternative ways of
assessing model fit”, in Bollen, K.A. and Long, J.S. (Eds),
Testing Structural Equation Models, Sage, Thousand Oaks,
CA, pp. 136-62.
Buzzell, R.D., Gale, B.T. and Sultan, R.G.M. (1975),
“Market share – a key to profitability”, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 53, pp. 97-106.
Day, G.S. (1969), “A two-dimensional concept of brand
loyalty”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 9, pp. 29-35.
Dick, A.S. and Basu, K. (1994), “Customer loyalty: toward
an integrated conceptual framework”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 22, pp. 99-113.
Emmelheinz, M., Stock, J. and Emmelheinz, L. (1991),
“Consumer response to retail stock-outs”, Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 67, pp. 138-46.
 An empirical examination of brand loyalty
Jan Møller Jensen and Torben Hansen
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural
equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 18, pp. 77-90.
Frambach, R.T., Barkema, H.G., Nooteboom, B. and
Wedel, M. (1998), “Adoption of a service innovation in
the business market: an empirical test of supply-side
variables”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 41, pp. 161-74.
Gerbing, D.W. and Anderson, J.C. (1992), “Monte Carlo
evaluation of goodness fit indices for structural equation
models”, Sociological Methods and Research, Vol. 21,
pp. 132-60.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.l. and Black, W.C.
(1998), Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th ed., Prentice-Hall
International, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Jacoby, J. (1971), “A model of multi brand loyalty”, Journal of
Advertising Research, Vol. 11, pp. 25-31.
Jacoby, J. and Chestnut, R. (1978), Brand Loyalty:
Measurement and Management, John Wiley & Sons,
New York, NY.
LeClerc, F. and Little, J.D.C. (1997), “Can advertising make
FSI coupons more effective?”, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 34, pp. 473-84.
Muncy, J.A. (1996), “Measuring perceived brand parity”,
Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 23, pp. 411-7.
Odin, Y., Odin, N. and Valette-Florence, P. (2001),
“Conceptual and operational aspects of brand loyalty:
an empirical investigation”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 53, pp. 75-84.
Quester, P. and Lim, A.I. (2003), “Product involvement/
brand loyalty: is there a link?”, Journal of Product & Brand
Management, Vol. 12, pp. 22-38.
Raj, S.P. (1985), “Striking a balance between brand
‘popularity’ and brand ‘loyalty’”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 49, pp. 53-9.
Ratchford, B.T. (1987), “New insights about the FCB
GRID”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 27, pp. 24-38.
Reichheld, F. and Sasser, W.E. (1990), “Zero defections”,
Harward Business Review, Vol. 68, pp. 105-11.
Rundle-Thiele, S. and Bennet, R. (2001), “A brand for all
seasons? A discussion of brand loyalty approaches and their
applicability for different markets”, Journal of Product and
Brand Management, Vol. 10, pp. 25-37.
Shim, S., Eastlick, M.A., Lotz, S.L. and Warrington, P.
(2001), “An online prepurchase intentions model: the role
of intention to search”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 77,
pp. 397-416.
Traylor, M.B. (1983), “Ego involvement and brand
commitment: not necessarily the same”, Journal of
Consumer Marketing, Vol. 1, pp. 75-9.
Van Trijp, H.C.M., Hoyer, W.D. and Inman, J.J. (1996),
“Why switch? Product category-level explanations for true
variety-seeking behavior”, Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 33, pp. 281-92.
Further reading
Baldinger, A.L. and Rubinson, J. (1996), “Brand loyalty: the
link between attitude and behaviour”, Journal of Advertising
Research, Vol. 36, pp. 22-34.
Cunningham, R.M. (1956), “Brand loyalty – what, where,
how much?”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 34, pp. 116-28.
448
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 15 · Number 7 · 2006 · 442 –449
East, R., Sinclair, J. and Gendal, P. (2000), “Loyalty:
definition and explanation”, paper presented at ANZMAC
2000, Visionary Marketing for the 21st Century: Facing the
Challenge, Gold Coast, pp. 286-290.
Oliver, R.I. (1980), “A Cognitive model of the Antecedents
and consequences of satisfaction decisions”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 17, pp. 460-9.
Rundle-Thiele, S. and Mackay, M.M. (2001), “Assessing the
performance of brand loyalty measures”, Journal of Services
Management, Vol. 7, pp. 529-46.
Uncles, M. and Laurent, G. (1997), “Editorial”, International
Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 14, pp. 399-404.
Appendix. Scale items used in the study
INV1 Our choice of ________ is a very important decision
INV2 Buying ________ requires a lot of thoughts
INV3 It’s not a big deal if a wrong brand of ______ is chosena
PBD1 I can’t think of many differences between the major
brands of _______a
PBD2 To me, there are big differences between the various
brands of _______
PBD3 _____ is _____, most brands are basically the samea
RSF1 If a brand of ______ other than the one I usually
purchase was on sale, I would probably buy ita
RSF2 I the store were out of my favourite brand of ______,
I would rather postpone my purchase than trying
another brand
VS1 Buying ______, I would rather stick with a brand
I usually buy than try something elsea
VS2 I enjoy buying another brand of _______ just to get
some variation in my purchases
Notes: All items were measured on a five-point Likert scale
from 1 ¼ totally disagree to 5 ¼ totally agree; aReversed score
About the authors
Jan Møller Jensen is an Associate Professor at the Department
of Marketing, University of Southern Denmark, Odense. He
received his PhD at the University of Southern Denmark,
Odense, in 1990. Jan Møller Jensen has taught “Theory of
Consumer Behaviour” and “Quantitative Market Analysis”
for several years and his research up to now also reflects his
interest in those two disciplines. His research focuses on a
wide range of topics in consumer behaviour, including family
decision making, consumer purchasing on the Internet, brand
loyalty, and consumer behaviour in Tourism. He has worked
as a consultant for Ad agencies and Marketing Research
firms. Jan Møller Jensen is the corresponding author and can
be contacted at: jmj@sam.sdu.dk
Torben Hansen is a Professor at the Department of
Marketing, Copenhagen Business School. His main fields of
research are consumer behaviour and marketing research
methods. He has published a number of books within these
areas and his papers have appeared in various academic
journals, including Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Journal of
International Consumer Marketing, Journal of Euromarketing,
International Journal of Information Management, International
Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, British Food
Journal, The International Review of Retail Distribution and
Consumer Research, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
Journal of Food Products Marketing, The Marketing Review, and
the European Management Journal. In 1998 Torben Hansen
 An empirical examination of brand loyalty
Jan Møller Jensen and Torben Hansen
received the Copenhagen Business School Gold Medal.
Torben Hansen has worked as a consultant for various
organisations dealing with consumer behaviour and/or with
marketing research methods.
Executive summary
This executive summary has been provided to allow managers and
executives a rapid appreciation of the content of this article. Those
with a particular interest in the topic covered may then read the
article in toto to take advantage of the more comprehensive
description of the research undertaken and its results to get the full
benefit of the material present.
A missing ingredient deep within your mix
Not all of your customers are the same. Intuitively this is not a
difficult point to understand. It probably feels like a statement
of the blindingly obvious. As marketers generations of
thinking about market segmentation has surely defined and
redefined over many years how we have come to view and
relate to our customers.
Brand loyalty is essential for businesses to grow over the
medium to long term. This is also not the most controversial
statement ever, although some might still dispute it. Firms
with large groups of loyal customers have been seen to grow
into having large market share and been able to provide good
returns to their investors. Again, it has been a rich source of
inquiry for academics and practitioners alike. Loyal customers
are likely to be resistant to the machinations of competitors.
They are likely to tell family, friends and colleagues of the
wonders the products perform. When they need what is on
offer they are very likely to come back and buy it again.
Combining the need to understand our customers, with the
need to understand what makes them loyal customers is not
too much of a stretch. After all, at its most basic marketing is
about understanding customer needs and supplying them
with goods and services that fill the void. Yet there has been
something missing. Decisions to make purchases are not
arbitrary ones that people make, even when, as in the case of
toothpaste, they are making the same decision time after time.
A Danish study focusing on frequently purchased consumer
goods by Jensen and Hansen of the University of Southern
Denmark and Copenhagen Business School respectively
points to a key, under-researched ingredient at work, that of
consumers’ relative attitude towards a given brand.
Increasing consumers’ repeat purchasing patterns
Researchers have long considered the correlation between
attitude and behaviour, most frequently explored in high
involvement situations. Buying frequently purchased
consumer goods is not exactly a classic high involvement
scenario. For many consumers a trip to the supermarket can
be a case of putting the mind into neutral while filling the
trolley with all of the usual products. Not everyone wants to
rethink thirty or forty different purchasing decisions.
Yet some will exert more involvement in the purchasing
decision than others, so repeat purchases don’t just happen. A
customer who knows a lot about wine may take time and
trouble over that purchase because it is seen as an important
one. A customer who knows nothing about detergent may
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
449
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 15 · Number 7 · 2006 · 442 –449
take similar time and trouble. This time it is in order not to
make a gaffe. This is where relative attitude to brand loyalty
becomes the issue to consider. Increasing customers’ relative
attitude towards your brand increases their repeat purchasing
behaviour. Marketers can influence this by focusing on
attitude building marketing strategies.
For relative attitude to be high, customers must be able to
differentiate among alternative products and brands. Where
such differences are not distinguishable it is hard to build
brand loyalty. For Jensen and Hansen, the issue is not just one
of understanding, but of relating this to consumer purchasing
decisions. This they were able to do by exploring five
dimensions.
1 Relative attitude and variety-seeking – which falls into two
major areas, brand switching behaviour and customers
seeking more product variety to alleviate boredom with
the status quo (more likely when involvement is lower).
2 Relative attitude to situational factors – such as friends
recommending an alternative or the usual brand being
sold out and an alternative being all that is available.
Consumers with high relative attitude are likely to be less
alert to price offers from competitors and more likely to
put off a purchase if their preferred brand is sold out.
3 Variety-seeking and resistance to situational factors –
customers who have a high propensity towards variety
seeking are more likely to buy alternative products during
stock-out situations and be more alert to offers from other
suppliers.
4 Variety-seeking and repeat purchasing – which can result
from customers needing to reduce boredom with current
products or in some way be stimulated.
5 Resistance to situational factors and repeat purchasing –
marketers spend on advertising (which tends to build
brand loyalty) but also on store promotions (which tend to
encourage switching behaviour). Reducing customer’s
resistance to situational factors that cause switching may
be a more sustainable way to grow.
The survey reveals that it is indeed possible for marketers to
build success by creating positive attitudes to their brands
among target consumer groups. In predicting success,
situational factors are the most important ones in
determining repeat purchasing behaviour. However, in
examining these, the effects of the competition should be
differentiated from consumers’ own desires to have a change.
While companies can craft strategies that encourage
customers not to be tempted by the offers being made by
the competition, the need for variety that consumers exhibit is
a mitigating factor to consider.
That said, customers with a high relative attitude are much
more likely to stick with your brand, even when it is not
available. So working on building high relative attitude among
the largest number of customers is an area for brand managers
to focus on, and from that base see improvements in repeat
purchases and customer loyalty. If customers want variety,
make it possible for them to have it by providing it, and not by
switching brands.
(A précis of the article “An empirical examination of brand
loyalty”. Supplied by Marketing Consultants for Emerald.)