Journal of Services Marketing

Promoting customers’ involvement with service brands: evidence from coffee shop customers
Soon-Ho Kim, Seonjeong (Ally) Lee,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Soon-Ho Kim, Seonjeong (Ally) Lee, (2017) "Promoting customers’ involvement with service brands: evidence from coffee shop
customers", Journal of Services Marketing, https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-03-2016-0133
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-03-2016-0133
Downloaded on: 17 October 2017, At: 13:10 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 92 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 7 times since 2017*
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:305060 []
Downloaded by University of Florida At 13:10 17 October 2017 (PT)

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.

 Promoting customers’ involvement with service
brands: evidence from coffee shop customers
Soon-Ho Kim
School of Hospitality, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, and
Seonjeong (Ally) Lee
Kent State University, Kent, Ohio, USA

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to investigate how service brand loyalty can be enhanced through customer involvement, based on
involvement theory and symbolic interaction theory as theoretical backgrounds.
Design/Methodology/approach – This study investigated how service brand loyalty can be enhanced through customer involvement, based on
involvement theory and symbolic interaction theory as theoretical backgrounds.
Findings – Results identified customer–brand identification and service value influenced both service brand involvement and service brand-decision
involvement. However, self-congruity only influenced customers’ service brand-decision involvement. Results also confirmed that customer
involvement positively influenced service brand satisfaction and service brand loyalty.
Research limitations/implications – This study contributed to involvement and brand loyalty research, investigating the role of customer
Downloaded by University of Florida At 13:10 17 October 2017 (PT)

involvement on service brand loyalty.

Practical implications – Results suggested what factors could enhance brand loyalty to gain competitive advantages.
Originality/value – This study proposed and empirically investigated ways to enhance brand loyalty in the context of the coffee shop industry.
Keywords Brand loyalty, Involvement, Customer brand identification, Self-congruity, Service value
Paper type Research Paper

Introduction moves in an upward trend, as many entrepreneurs aspire to

Coffee shops are ubiquitous in South Korea, expanding types
and increasing the number of coffee shops. The coffee shop
market in South Korea is becoming overcrowded, as the
number of chain and stand-alone coffee shops has more than
tripled from 12,400 in 2011 to 49,600 in 2015 (Lee and Kim,
2016a). In South Korea, coffee shops number more than
17,000 in a city with a population of over 10 million. A coffee
shop faces severe competition from various franchise brands,
independent coffee houses, non-franchise chains, quick service
restaurants and/or convenience stores (Cha et al., 2015). Coffee
shops can be multiunit, chain-brand coffee shops, including
international (Starbucks), Korea coffee brands (Caffebene),
non-brand coffee shops, unique cafés, fast food restaurants or
gas stations (Cha et al., 2015). The market has almost reached a
saturation point (Lee and Kim, 2016a). It is not surprising to
find coffee shops in nearly one of every two buildings in South
Korea (Lee and Kim, 2016a). This precipitous growth alerts
researchers and coffee shop managers to better understand
coffee shops in South Korea.
Opening a coffee shop is one of the most popular
entrepreneurial opportunities in South Korea and its popularity
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on
Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/0887-6045.htm
open their own coffee shop (Global Coffee Report, 2017).
However, one of the main problems managing coffee shops is
the high failure rate because of severe competition (Lee and
Kim, 2016b). One of the reasons many coffee shops do not
survive in the long run is because of industry standardization,
which makes it difficult for coffee shops to differentiate
customer–company relationships among coffee shops (Cha
et al., 2015 Choi et al., 2017). Thus, each coffee shop in South
Korea needs to develop a brand management strategy (Choi
et al., 2017). According to Kotler and Keller (2009), the core
value of a brand lies in developing its loyalty. Brand loyalty
plays a significant role in coffee shop businesses, because
barriers to enter the coffee shop business are low and
substitutes are easily found. This environment spurs amplified
competition; therefore, strong brand loyalty helps customers
differentiate a specific brand from others (Susanty and Kenny,
2015).
Understanding factors that enhance customers’ brand
involvement can help coffee shop managers provide effective
marketing strategies to develop a long-lasting relationship with
customers, such as brand loyalty (Parasuraman et al., 1985).
The facets of brand loyalty have been extensively investigated,
such as antecedents and outcomes of loyalty (for a complete
review, see Kandampully et al., 2015). While prior research
contributes to the understanding of how brand loyalty is

Received 19 April 2016

Journal of Services Marketing Revised 24 November 2016
© Emerald Publishing Limited [ISSN 0887-6045] 20 May 2017
[DOI 10.1108/JSM-03-2016-0133] Accepted 29 June 2017
 Promoting brand loyalty
Soon-Ho Kim and Seonjeong (Ally) Lee
established, little attention is paid to brand loyalty development
from a customer involvement perspective, which provides a
more comprehensive understanding of the customer–brand
relationship in the competitive coffee shop market. When
customers develop interests in one coffee shop and devote their
time and energy to choose that coffee shop, they are more likely
to develop loyalty (Hochgraefe et al., 2012), which leads to
positive impacts on the success of the business. Different from
product involvement, service brand involvement can be
difficult to understand, because of the unique characteristics of
the service industry, which are intangible and heterogeneous
(Lovelock and Gummesson, 2004).
Therefore, this study investigates how brand loyalty is
enhanced in the coffee shop context, based on involvement
theory (Zaichkowsky, 1984, 1985) and symbolic interaction
theory (Aksan et al., 2009). Specifically, this study examines how
brand loyalty is promoted through brand and brand-decision
involvement and the factors that promote brand and brand-
decision involvement, focusing on the customer–brand
Downloaded by University of Florida At 13:10 17 October 2017 (PT)
relationship. The coffee shop industry in South Korea is chosen
as a study context not only because visiting a coffee shop becomes
part of customers’ lives, but also because opening a coffee shop
business is a popular choice for small business entrepreneurs (Lee
and Kim, 2016b). Thus, identifying factors that influence brand
loyalty becomes important in South Korea to develop a brand
management strategy in the coffee shop industry.
Consumption at a coffee shop can be continuous or
occasional; therefore, developing brand loyalty is critical to
sustain a long-term customer relationship (Cha et al., 2015).
Prior research identifies the importance of customer loyalty
or brand loyalty to business success, yet the role of brand
loyalty has not been applied in the coffee shop industry. One
of the important contributions of this study is that it extends
customer involvement research to brand loyalty by
investigating different aspects of customer involvement
relevant to the development of brand loyalty. Customer
satisfaction, trust and service quality are identified as
important attributes to brand loyalty; however, scant
research incorporates the idea of involvement into brand
loyalty. Promoting customers’ interests and emphasis
toward the coffee brands become essential factors for coffee
shop brands. Thus, results from this study can help South
Korean coffee shops better develop successful brand
strategies.
Literature review
Symbolic interaction theory
Symbolic interaction theory explains how people
develop symbolic meaning through a social interaction process
(Aksan et al., 2009). It describes meanings from the reciprocal
interaction of individuals with others in a social environment
(Aksan et al., 2009). Symbolic interaction is based on the
interpretation process because each person develops symbolic
meanings differently (Aksan et al., 2009). Symbolic interaction
theory is viewed as a dynamic theory because customers express
their behaviors based on evaluations of the objects (i.e. service
offerings and/or brands) (Holman, 1980). For instance, brands
are built upon social representations of their meanings
Journal of Services Marketing
(Moscovici and Markova, 1998), as brands enable customers to
represent themselves.
Research on symbolic consumption (Hirschman and
Holbrook, 1981; Kim and Jang, 2014) supports symbolic
qualities of brands influence brand evaluations. Symbolic
consumption refers to “the fundamental part in the creation,
enhancement, maintenance, transformation, disposition,
expression, association, and differentiation of the self” (Ekinci
et al., 2013, p. 711). For instance, symbolic consumption
occurs when customers use services with the aim of creating
and expressing their identity (Belk et al., 1982). This
consumption can occur either in “private” or “socio-cultural
world” contexts (Elliot and Percy, 2007). The private context
includes personal cognitions, feelings and behaviors,
representing their self-concept (Belk, 1988). The socio-level
consumption represents something about the individual’s
social self, such as status, prestige and association with or
disassociation from a group (Sorensen and Thomsen, 2005).
The nature of customers’ interactions with symbols further
contributes to determining their attitudes toward brands
(Solomon, 1983). When a brand image fits in a customer’s
personal lifestyle, customers tend to be satisfied with the brand
experience (Susanty and Kenny, 2015).
Customer involvement
Customer involvement is important because it
influences customers’ consumption experiences and service
process (Kinard and Capella, 2006; Lundkvist and Yakhlef,
2014). It serves as the shared responsibility between the service
provider and the customer (Sierra and McQuitty, 2005; Sierra
et al., 2009). Customer involvement refers to “a person’s
perceived relevance of (an) object based on inherent needs,
values, and interests” (Zaichkowsky, 1985, p. 342).
Involvement explains how much time, energy and resources
customers devote to the purchase process. Because of the
“inseparability” characteristic of production and consumption
in the service industry, customers tend to participate in the
service delivery process, taking a part of employees’ roles (Chen
and Raab, 2014); thus, encouraging customers’ personal
relevance is important. Customers are more likely to be
satisfied with their decisions when they show high involvement
with the decision process (Russell-Bennett et al., 2007).
Customer involvement can be an individual state
(motivation/interest) (Huang et al., 2010), a process (enduring)
(Huang et al., 2010; Kinard and Capella, 2006) and/or serving
as a moderator between relationships (Martin et al., 2011).
Since Krugman (1965) published his seminal work, the
concept of involvement has been applied to the context of
advertisements (Lee et al., 2015), purchase decision(s) (Bojanic
and Warnick, 2012) and/or the service industry (Kinard and
Capella, 2006). Different involvement models have been
developed to understand the role of involvement, based on
different situations (Mittal, 1995). These models include:
 the involvement conceptual and methodological
perspectives model (Bezencon and Blili, 2011);
 personal involvement inventory (Zaichkowsky, 1985);
 the involvement conceptualizing and measuring model
(Huang et al., 2010); and
 Laaksonen’s (1994) involvement model.
 Promoting brand loyalty
Soon-Ho Kim and Seonjeong (Ally) Lee
Based on Laaksonen’s (1994) study, this study investigates
three different approaches to examine factors that influence
customers’ involvement with service brands. Laaksonen
proposed three categories for involvement:
1 cognitive-based approach (i.e. psychological tie between
an individual and a stimulus object);
2 individual-state approach (i.e. the inherent potential of a
situation to elicit concern on the part of individuals for
their behaviors in the situation); and
3 response-based approach (i.e. points of view related to
information processing) (pp. 25-69).
Coffee shops can be a way of associating with the brand,
representing customers’ self-concept and/or perceiving value to
provide pleasant experiences to encourage customers’
involvement with the brand and brand-decision.
Hypothesis development
Cognitive-based involvement: customer–brand
Downloaded by University of Florida At 13:10 17 October 2017 (PT)
identification
Explaining the psychological ties between an individual and an
object, customer–brand identification explains the cognitive-
based approach for customer involvement. Customer–brand
identification refers to a customer’s psychological connection of
perceiving, feeling and valuing his/her belongingness with a
brand (Olsen, 2007). Social identity theory (Tajfel and Turner,
1979) supports the customer–brand identification, explaining
people define their self-concepts related to brands. Scholars
advocate the importance of customer–brand identification, as it
provides a better understanding of brand management
(Kuenzel and Halliday, 2008).
Customers represent their identities and communicate with
others by relating themselves to the brand (Cha et al., 2015).
The level of customer–brand identification can influence
customers’ evaluation of the brand (So et al., 2013). For
instance, customers tend to be proud of using the brand and
satisfied with the brand consumption when they have a high
level of brand identification (Kuenzel and Halliday, 2008).
Based on a relationship between customer involvement and
brand identification (Stokburger-Sauer et al., 2012), it is
assumed when customers perceive greater customer–brand
identification; they tend to show stronger service brands and
service brand-decision involvements. Thus, the following
hypothesis is derived:
H1. Customer–brand identification positively influences
their (a) brand involvement and (b) brand-decision
involvement.
Individual-state involvement: self-congruity
The individual-state of customer involvement represents
individuals’ own behaviors (Laaksonen, 1994). Self-congruity
explains the individual-state approach. Customers tend to infer
their self-image and/or self-identity through their consumption
experiences. For example, self-congruity explains customers
are more likely to purchase brands when brands are congruent
with their own perceived self-image. Belk (1988) explains how
possessions can represent the self, expressing individual’s
personal achievement and showing social status.
Journal of Services Marketing
Customers’ view on self can be related to the services they
use, such as the coffee shops they visit (Kim and Jang, 2014).
This implies that customers recognize their self-concepts
through coffee brand consumption because of the symbolic
nature of the coffee industry. It is expected that customers
would exhibit positive responses to a coffee shop when coffee
shop brands are closely related to customers’ sense of self-
congruity. Thus, this study proposes the following hypothesis.
H2. Self-congruity positively influences customers’ (a) brand
involvement and (b) brand-decision involvement.
Response-based involvement: service value
A response-based approach explains how customers process
and evaluate external information during the service delivery
process. Perceived value represents the response-based
approach. The exchange process is dynamic in the service
industry, because of the evolving interactions between service
providers and customers (Sierra and McQuitty, 2005).
Perceived value refers to the customer’s overall assessment
toward product/brand, based on its benefits and cost
(Zeithaml, 1988). Service value explains various service
components that shape customers’ perceptions of value – a
trade-off between what customers receive and what they give
up.
Promoting customer value has been a key tactic that leads to
customer loyalty (Eid, 2015) and competitive advantage
(Woodruff, 1997). Kim and Jang (2014) suggest coffee shop
customers tend to fulfill their individual values (materialism),
social values and functional values through consumption. They
identify symbolic consumption tendency is related to individual
and social values that eventually influence customer loyalty in
brand coffee shops. Therefore, it is predicted when customers
perceive value during their consumption process, such as
competitive price or high quality, they are more likely to be
involved with the brand and brand-decision. Thus, the
following hypothesis is proposed:
H3. Service value positively influences customers’ (a) brand
involvement and (b) brand-decision involvement.
Customer involvement
Involvement explains customers’ levels of interest or
importance toward an object (Zaichkowsky, 1984). One of the
unique characteristics of the service industry is inseparability,
explaining interdependence between providers and customers
(Solomon et al., 1985). Therefore, shared responsibility from
both the service provider and the customer is required to lead to
the desired exchange outcomes (Sierra and McQuitty, 2005;
Sierra et al., 2009). Customer involvement refers to “the
interest a consumer finds in a product class” and brand-
decision involvement refers to “customers’ interest taken in
making the brand selection” (Mittal and Lee, 1989, p. 365).
Based on Mittal and Lee’s (1989) two distinctive involvement
types:
1 brand involvement is related to brand itself, focusing on
whether the brand meets customers’ consumption goals;
and
 Promoting brand loyalty
Soon-Ho Kim and Seonjeong (Ally) Lee
2 brand-decision involvement explains customers’ purchase
decisions toward a brand in this study.
Between these two types of involvements, brand involvement is
expected to influence brand-decision involvement, as the level
of customers’ engagement with a brand leads to customers’
purchase decisions. For instance, customers tend to consume
coffee at a particular coffee shop (brand-decision involvement)
when they are highly involved with a particular coffee brand
(brand involvement). Thus, the following hypothesis is
proposed:
H4. Customers’ brand involvement positively influences
their brand-decision involvement.
Customers develop cognitive (Russell-Bennett et al., 2007)
and/or affective responses (Park and Young, 1986) after their
involvement. Customer involvement influences loyalty
(Hochgraefe et al., 2012), service development (Lundkvist and
Yakhlef, 2014), service benefits (Kinard and Capella, 2006),
Downloaded by University of Florida At 13:10 17 October 2017 (PT)
behavior intentions (Yen and Teng, 2015) and purchase
satisfaction (Russell-Bennett et al., 2007). The relationship
between customer involvement and satisfaction is supported in
previous literature (Prayag and Ryan, 2012). For instance,
highly involved customers are more likely to experience a
higher satisfaction because they hold more knowledge about
the brand, leading to a better purchase decision. Thus, the
following hypotheses are proposed:
H5. Customers’ brand involvement positively influences
their brand satisfaction.
H6. Customers’ brand-decision involvement positively
influences their brand satisfaction.
In addition, the involvement-commitment model supports the
relationship between involvement and brand loyalty (Beatty
et al., 1988). Customers’ different levels of involvement
influence their levels of brand loyalty (Hochgraefe et al., 2012).
Therefore, it is predicted when customers are involved, they
tend to have higher brand loyalty, proposing the following
hypotheses.
H7. Customers’ brand involvement positively influences
their brand loyalty.
H8. Customers’ brand-decision involvement positively
influences their brand loyalty.
Figure 1 Proposed conceptual model
Customer Brand
Identification
Brand
Involvement
Self-Congruity
Brand-Decision
Involvement
Service Value
Journal of Services Marketing
Brand satisfaction
Brand satisfaction refers to a customer’s overall satisfaction
toward a brand, based on all encounters with the service
providers (Olsen, 2007). Satisfied customers tend to be less
price sensitive, less influenced by competitors’ promotions and
more loyal to companies, compared to dissatisfied customers
(Dimitriades, 2006). When customers are satisfied with a
brand, they are more likely to represent higher brand loyalty
(Li and Petrick, 2008). Thus, the following hypothesis is
proposed:
H9. Customers’ brand satisfaction positively influences their
brand loyalty.
Brand loyalty
Creating long-term relationships with customers is critical for
the success in the service industry (Sierra and McQuitty, 2005).
Brand loyalty refers to a customers’ commitment to re-buy or
re-patronize a preferred product/service reducing their
switching behavior (Oliver, 1999). Brand loyalty can be
explained in three different perspectives: behavioral, attitudinal
and composite loyalty. Behavioral loyalty refers to customers’
repeat purchases of a brand, evidenced through their continued
purchasing and spending behaviors (Russell-Bennett et al.,
2007). Attitudinal loyalty is an attitudinal predisposition
related to a commitment towards a brand, which explains the
psychological element of brand loyalty. The composite
approach captures both attitudinal and behavioral perspectives
to explain a customer’s loyalty (Li and Petrick, 2008). As
customers are one of the major stakeholders in the service
industry, their brand loyalty is directly related to the
companies’ performance.
Conceptual framework
This study proposes the conceptual framework that explains
how to enhance brand loyalty through involvement in the
Korean coffee shop business as a study context. This study
investigates factors that promote customers’ brand and brand-
decision involvements (Figure 1).
Methodology
Study context
The coffee shop business in South Korea served as a study
context. Hubbert (1995) proposed three levels of customer
Brand
Satisfaction
Brand
Loyalty
 Promoting brand loyalty
Soon-Ho Kim and Seonjeong (Ally) Lee
participation – low, moderate and high – across different service
categories. Bowen (1990) also classified services into three
groups – high contact customized, moderate contact non-
personal and moderate contact standardized service providers.
The coffee shop context is under the moderate contact and
standardized services category; thus, the development of brand
loyalty should be clearly understood.
Coffee is one of the most extensively consumed beverages in
the world (Weinberg and Bealer, 2001) and one of the most
popular small business options in South Korea (Global Coffee
Report, 2017). During the past decade, coffee shops have
played an important role as an emerging segment of the
foodservice industry, creating a new coffee culture in many
emerging markets, including South Korea (Isidore, 2012). The
increasing demands of coffee consumption at coffee shops
explain not only customers’ taste changes, but also a cultural
transformation in South Korea, indicating customers’ openness
to global trends (Vaidyanathan, 2012). In South Korea, coffee
shops are considered a classic example of symbolic
consumption because customers are attached to coffee brands
Downloaded by University of Florida At 13:10 17 October 2017 (PT)
in addition to coffee products, develop consumption meanings
and express their identity via coffee cups (often with brand
symbols) (Kim and Jang, 2014). The rapid growth of coffee
shops in South Korea signifies South Koreans’ attachment
toward the emerging café culture.
Young urban professionals are a major market segment for
coffee shop businesses in South Korea (Korea Customs
Service, 2012). Even though the price of a cup of coffee is
relatively expensive, compared to the prices of a cup of coffee in
a non-coffee shop setting, young South Korean customers
prefer a cup of coffee in a Western style coffee shop. Young
customers experience Western culture and fashionable life
styles when they visit coffee shops (Opus, 2010); thus,
adventurous, open-minded, young customers visit coffee shops
to represent a form of self-expression and to communicate their
self-identity (Euromonitor International, 2004).
Data collection
The survey was developed in English and then translated into
Korean. During this translation process, five bilingual graduate
students as well as two bilingual professors fluent both in
English and Korean repeated the interpretation and editing
process to ensure each survey question met the purpose and
context of this research and was able to be easily understood by
the participants. Then, five coffee shop owners and services
marketing experts reviewed the survey questionnaire to suggest
ways to further clarify the survey for participants and to ensure
the survey was designed to fulfill the purpose of this study. A
pilot test was performed with a convenience sample of 25
customers at 5 different coffee shops in South Korea to test the
reliability of the constructs and clarity of the measurement
items. After conducting preliminary tests and expert reviews,
minor adjustments were made to enhance the flow and improve
the interpretation of the survey’s questions.
A cross-sectional, self-administered field survey was
conducted at major cities in South Korea, including Seoul,
Busan, Incheon, Daejeon, Daegu, Gwangju and Ulsan, which
have popular commercial areas. Copies of the questionnaire
were distributed to 40 owners and/or managers, who possessed
an Intermediate Coffee Diploma Certificate earned through
Journal of Services Marketing
training with the Specialty Coffee Association of Europe and
who agreed to participate in the study. In all, 40 locations were
purposefully selected, as these coffee shops were expected to
attract customers from larger, geographical regions and would
better represent a wider range of issues of interest in this
research, partially compensating for the convenience sampling
approach. Examples of coffee shops were Starbucks,
Caffebene, Coffee Bean, Angel-In-Us, Hollys, Ediya Coffee,
Tom N Toms and several independent coffee shops. In all, 20
surveys were distributed to these 40 coffee shop owners and/or
managers in an attempt to achieve more representative
information from a variety of customers from each coffee shop.
The manager of each coffee shop asked for customers’
participation if they were over 18 years old, based on the
convenience sampling method. This convenience sampling
method has been one of the most commonly used sampling
designs in social science research (Mohr, 1990), including
services marketing research (Widing et al., 2003). A total of 780
questionnaires were collected, but 37 were discarded because
of missing information and incomplete responses, resulting in a
95.2 per cent response rate and a total of 743 valid surveys.
Measures
All measurement items were measured based on a seven-point
Likert-type scale, 1 being “strongly disagree” and 7 being
“strongly agree”. Measurement items were based on prior
research to ensure validity and reliability issues. Measurement
items of customer brand identification, self-congruity and
service value were adopted from Mael and Ashforth (1992),
Mazodier and Merunka (2012) and Sirdeshmukh et al.’s
(2002) studies, respectively. Serving as dependent variables,
brand involvement, brand-decision involvement, brand
satisfaction and brand loyalty were adopted from studies by
Mittal and Lee (1989), Mano and Oliver (1993) and Zeithaml
et al. (1996), respectively.
Data analysis
A LISREL 8.80 structural equation analysis package was used
to examine the theoretical framework proposed in this study.
Based on Anderson and Gerbing’s (1988) two-step approach,
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and structural equation
modeling (SEM) were applied to empirically examine the
proposed hypotheses. Issues of measurement model
identification and structural model identification (i.e. two
indicators rule) were confirmed before proceeding CFA and
SEM (Kline, 2010).
Suggestions from Podsakoff et al. (2003) were also followed
to decrease the risk of common method biases as this study was
conducted using a survey method. For instance, the
confidentiality of each respondent’s response was ensured. In
addition, respondents were informed there were no correct or
incorrect answers when answering questions to ensure factual
responses. Moreover, the CFA for all items loading on a single
latent factor was conducted and results for CFA with a single
factor indicated a poorer fit, compared to the multi-factor
models; thus, common method bias was deemed to not be an
issue.
 Promoting brand loyalty
Soon-Ho Kim and Seonjeong (Ally) Lee
Results
Sample profile
Almost 67 per cent (male = 247; female = 496) of the
respondents were female. In terms of age, almost 40 per cent of
the respondents were between 25 and 34, followed by between
35 and 44, and between 18 and 24 years of age. For education,
almost 67 per cent had a two- or four-year college degree for
their highest education and almost 50 per cent reported less
than $50,000 as their income level. As a majority of South
Koreans were aware of US currency and familiar with currency
conversion between Korean currency Won and US currency
dollar, the income had a response format in US dollar terms.
Results of CFA
Results from the fit indices were x 2 = 466.08, df = 149,
RMSEA = 0.054, NFI = 0.99, CFI = 0.99 and IFI = 0.97,
showing the proposed model fitted the data reasonably well.
Results were based on more than 500 surveys; so the x 2 value
was significant at a 1 per cent level. Because of the sample size
Downloaded by University of Florida At 13:10 17 October 2017 (PT)
effects on the model x 2 (Hair et al., 1998), it was necessary to
consider other goodness-of-fit indices. Table I describes results
of CFA, internal reliability and composite reliabilities (CR),
indicating a good convergent validity (Fornell and Larcker,
1981). Convergent validity for the measurement items were
confirmed based on the high average variance extracted (AVE)
value of each construct in the model and significant factor
loadings of the observed variables for each latent variable
(Fornell and Larcker, 1981). The constructs of the
measurement model also met the discriminant validity because
all AVE estimates were greater than the corresponding squared
inter-construct correlation estimates (Fornell and Larcker,
1981) (Table II).
Results of SEM
Results from the SEM yielded acceptable fit statistics – x 2 =
538.90, df = 155, RMSEA = 0.058, NFI = 0.99, CFI = 0.99
and IFI = 0.97. As the model’s x 2 was sensitive to sample size
(Hair et al., 1998), it was necessary to consider other goodness-
of-fit indices. In addition, the variance explained was 54 per
cent for brand involvement, 60 per cent for brand-decision
involvement, 42 per cent for brand satisfaction and 62 per cent
for brand loyalty.
The proposed model was compared to the models that
included additional paths that accounted for the variance
explained by the general domain of the item (Kline, 2010). The
results of the x 2 difference tests showed no significant
differences between the proposed model and a competing
model. The proposed model was accepted, as it was more
parsimonious than the competing model and was consistent
with previous empirical and theoretical evidence.
Results of hypotheses testing
Customer–brand identification positively influenced
customers’ brand involvement (H1a) ( b = 0. 88, p < 0.01) and
their brand-decision involvement (H1b) ( b = 0. 20, p < 0.05),
supporting H1a and H1b (Table III). Self-congruity did not
influence brand involvement (H2a) ( b = 0. 01, p > 0.10),
however, it influenced customers’ brand-decision involvement
(H2b) ( b = 0. 20, p < 0.01). Thus, H2a was not supported,
Journal of Services Marketing
while H2b was supported. Service value positively influenced
both customers’ brand involvement (H3a) ( b = 0. 10,
p < 0.01) and brand-decision involvement (H3b) ( b = 0. 08,
p < 0.05). Thus, H3a and H3b were supported.
The relationship between brand and brand-decision
involvement was supported (H4) ( b = 0. 49, p < 0.01), as
advocated in previous studies (Mittal and Lee, 1989). In
addition, brand involvement (H5) ( b = 0. 29, p < 0.01) and
brand-decision involvement (H6) ( b = 0. 18, p < 0.01)
influenced customers’ brand satisfaction, supporting H5 and
H6. Moreover, brand involvement (H7) ( b = 0. 17, p < 0.01)
and brand-decision involvement (H8) ( b = 0. 10, p < 0.01)
influenced customers’ brand loyalty. Thus, H7 and H8 were
supported. The relationship between brand satisfaction and
brand loyalty was further supported (H9) ( b = 0. 65, p < 0.01).
Discussion
This study examines how brand loyalty is enhanced in the
context of a coffee shop business in South Korea. Coffee shops
in South Korea are not only popular to customers by providing
a place to relax, work and interact with others, but also inspire
many entrepreneurs to open their own business. However,
because of severe competition and minimal product
differentiation, it is difficult to survive in the coffee shop
business, which urges each coffee shop to develop brand
loyalty. Results provide insights on the focal constructs
underlying the process of brand loyalty formation through
customer involvement.
This research supported the importance of customer–brand
relationships. Brand identification played a significant role in
influencing brand and brand-decision involvement. When
customers reported psychological connections with the brand,
they tended to be involved with the brand and brand-decision.
Customers had a deeper sense of brand identification, which
led to involvement as an expression of a strong customer–brand
relationship. Although prior research in the foodservice
industry investigated the potential effect of brand identification
on brand loyalty (So et al., 2013), this is the first research
designed to examine the effect in the relationship between
customer–brand identification and two different types of
involvement.
Results also supported the role of self-congruity on brand
involvement consistent with previous research. Sirgy et al.
(2008) investigated the role of self-congruity on customer
involvement and brand loyalty. They identified that self-
congruity positively influenced brand loyalty moderated by
customer involvement. Results identified customers’
perceptions of self-congruity were more related to brand
decision consumption than brand consumption. If the brand
was congruent with self-concept, then customers were more
likely to have positive brand-decision involvement. Even
though the relationship between a customer’s self-congruity
and brand involvement was not supported, customers’ self-
congruity perceptions were shown to influence brand-decision
involvement. As this study’s context was coffee shops, brand
consumption was not related to perceptions of self-congruity.
Self-congruity perceptions could be enhanced through brand-
decision, as customers made their purchase decisions based on
brand symbols.
 Promoting brand loyalty Journal of Services Marketing
Soon-Ho Kim and Seonjeong (Ally) Lee

Table I Measurement model constructs (n = 743)

Construct Mean SD CFA a CR Ave

Customer–brand identification 0.91 0.88 54.40

When someone praises my favorite coffee shop brand, it feels like a
personal compliment 4.48 1.74 0.73
I would experience an emotional loss if I had to stop going my favorite
coffee shop brand 4.38 1.77 0.73
I believe others respect me for my association with my favorite coffee shop
brand 3.93 1.58 0.75
I consider myself a valuable partner of my favorite coffee shop brand 4.29 1.67 0.74
Self-congruity 0.88 0.83 65.53
The typical customers at my favorite coffee shop brand have an image
similar to how I see myself 3.63 1.53 0.77
The overall atmosphere of my favorite coffee shop brand reflects who I am 4.25 1.46 0.75
The typical customers at my favorite shop brand have an image similar to
how other people see me. 3.60 1.46 0.90
The typical customers at my favorite coffee shop brand have an image
similar to how I would like other people to see me 3.59 1.52 0.81
Downloaded by University of Florida At 13:10 17 October 2017 (PT)

Service value 0.83 0.83 76.21

What I receive from my favorite coffee shop brand is favorable price-value
drinking 3.82 1.52 0.71
Service quality, considering price, time, and effort, my favorite coffee shop
brand is good values for the money 4.43 1.43 1.01
Brand involvement 0.88 0.85 79.22
I have a strong interest in coffee shop brand 4.98 1.29 0.88
Coffee shop brand is very important to me 4.84 1.29 0.9
Brand-decision involvement 0.91 0.90 83.74
Deciding which coffee shop brand to visit would be an important decision
for me 4.11 1.65 0.91
Which coffee shop brand I visit matters to me a lot 3.85 1.66 0.92
Brand satisfaction 0.89 0.87 80.10
Overall, satisfaction with my favorite coffee shop brand 5.26 1.10 0.90
Satisfaction with visiting my favorite coffee shop brand when compared
with my expectations 5.09 1.16 0.89
Brand loyalty 0.89 0.87 71.98
I will continue to enjoy drinks at my favorite coffee shop brand. 3.95 1.60 0.87
I would give positive recommendations to others about my favorite coffee
shop brand 4.93 1.46 0.80
Overall, I will continue to repurchase drinks at my favorite coffee shop
brand 4.84 1.46 0.90
I consider myself a loyal customer at my favorite coffee shop brand 5.1 1.38 0.82
Notes: All variables are measured on a seven-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree); CFA = Confirmatory factor analysis
standardized item loadings; AVE = Average variance extracted based on CFA; CR = Composite reliability based on CFA

Table II Discriminant validity (n = 743)

Latent constructs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mean (SD)
1. Customer–brand identification 0.54 4.27 (1.37)
2. Self-congruity 0.34 0.65 3.77 (1.28)
3. Service value 0.17 0.12 0.76 4.13 (1.36)
4. Brand involvement 0.37 0.19 0.11 0.79 4.59 (1.61)
5. Brand-decision involvement 0.33 0.25 0.12 0.42 0.83 3.99 (1.58)
6. Satisfaction 0.23 0.15 0.17 0.29 0.26 0.80 5.18 (1.07)
7. Brand loyalty 0.30 0.19 0.16 0.32 0.29 0.45 0.71 4.96 (1.28)
Note: The values in italics represent the AVE of the latent constructs and the values below the diagonal represent the squared inter-construct correlations
 Promoting brand loyalty
Soon-Ho Kim and Seonjeong (Ally) Lee
Table III Results of hypothesis testing (n = 743)
Hypotheses
H1a. Customer–brand identification fi Brand involvement
H1b. Customer–brand identification fi Brand-decision involvement
H2a. Self-congruity fi Brand involvement
H2b. Self-congruity fi Brand-decision involvement
H3a. Service value fi Brand involvement
H3b. Service value fi Brand-decision involvement
H4. Brand involvement fi Brand-decision involvement
H5. Brand involvement fi Brand satisfaction
H6. Brand-decision involvement fi Brand satisfaction
H7. Brand involvement fi Brand loyalty
H8. Brand-decision involvement fi Brand loyalty
H9. Brand satisfaction fi Brand loyalty
Notes: n.s. : Non-significant; significance at *** p < 0.01,** p < 0.05
In addition, when customers perceived service value during
the consumption process, they were more likely to be
Downloaded by University of Florida At 13:10 17 October 2017 (PT)
involved with a brand and brand-decision. As Kim and Jang
(2014) suggested, coffee shop customers preferred to fulfill
their individual value, social value and functional value
through coffee consumption. This study extended previous
research by providing additional evidence that supported the
role of service value on customer involvement in the context
of coffee shops. Moreover, results identified the positive
relationship between brand involvement and brand-decision
involvement, consistent with previous research. For
instance, Mittal and Lee (1989) confirmed the relationship
between product and brand-decision involvement. Their
study indicated customers tended to show higher brand-
decision involvement when they were directly involved with
products.
Furthermore, results confirmed positive outcomes of brand
involvement and brand-decision involvement. Customer
involvement played an important role to maximize customers’
pleasant experiences at coffee shops because customer
involvement in the service delivery process resulted in desirable
service outcomes. As supported in the commitment and
involvement model (Beatty et al., 1988), customers indicated
higher brand satisfaction and brand loyalty when they were
engaged in the consumption process. When customers were
involved with the value creation process, customers were more
likely to report positive responses, such as brand satisfaction
and brand loyalty (Li and Petrick, 2008).
Conclusion
Theoretical contributions
First, this study contributes to brand loyalty literature. Loyalty
is important in services marketing because customers rely more
on word-of-mouth than traditional advertising when choosing a
service provider, because of experiential characteristics of
services (Fraering and Minor, 2013). Customer loyalty has
been investigated in many different contexts (Kandampully
et al., 2015); however, the role of brand loyalty is less
emphasized in the food service industry. Developing brand
loyalty becomes critical in the competitive service markets.
Prior research identified antecedents of brand loyalty, including
perceived quality (Frank et al., 2014), brand trust (Veloutsou,
Journal of Services Marketing
Estimate t-value
0.88*** 10.82
0.20** 2.34
0.01n.s. 0.13
0.20*** 3.86
0.10*** 2.51
0.08** 2.25
0.49*** 9.75
0.29*** 7.75
0.18*** 4.78
0.17*** 4.33
0.10*** 2.61
0.65*** 13.31
2015) and attitudes (Liu et al., 2012). However, the role of
involvement on brand loyalty in the coffee shop industry has
received little attention. This research is the first study to
investigate how brand and brand-decision involvement in a
coffee shop context influence the process of brand loyalty
formation. By applying the idea of loyalty to the coffee shop
industry in South Korea, this study investigates ways to
enhance brand loyalty through customer involvement.
Triggering customer involvement is important to enhance
brand loyalty when the market is under severe competition and
the customer–brand relationship is important for the
consumption experience.
Second, this study contributes to involvement theory,
because it validates the applicability of customer involvement in
the coffee shop industry. Customer involvement is a critical
topic, as involvement influences affective, cognitive and
behavioral responses (Varki and Wong, 2003). Compared to
prior research that investigated the moderating role of customer
involvement (Sirgy et al., 2008), this study investigates
customer involvement by relating antecedents and outcomes of
brand and brand-decision involvement. In addition, prior
research on customer involvement focused on product
involvement (Mittal and Lee, 1989). This research is one of the
few studies that identifies and investigates the importance of
brand involvement on customer behavior. Moreover, this
research differentiates brand involvement from brand-decision
involvement, as certain attributes influence customers’ interests
toward the brand and customers’ brand-decision interests,
respectively. Therefore, it is critical to differentiate different
types of involvement to identify how they relate to brand
loyalty. Brands are identified as the most valuable asset in the
service industry because they influence customers’ behaviors
and opinions of a company (Merz et al., 2009). Considering the
severe brand competition in the service industry, it is important
to examine factors that lead to customers’ brand and brand-
decision involvement that further relate to brand satisfaction
and brand loyalty.
Third, this study extends symbolic interaction theory into the
coffee shop industry and supports the role of brand symbols
and the role of intangible features of service offerings on the
relationship between customers and the brand. Because of
experiential and intangible characteristics of the coffee shop
 Promoting brand loyalty
Soon-Ho Kim and Seonjeong (Ally) Lee
industry, customers develop meanings from symbolic features
of service offerings. Service brands are symbols that influence
customers’ decision-making. Applying symbolic interaction
theory to the coffee shop industry, this study investigates how
coffee consumption serves as a symbol of customers’
consumption experiences, relating to customer brand
identification, self-congruity and service value perceptions.
Managerial implications
Results from this study provide suggestions for coffee shop
owners on how to promote brand loyalty to achieve a
competitive advantage in the coffee shop market. Managing a
successful coffee shop is not just about brewing or serving
coffee. A coffee shop should create an environment, which
assures the quality of the coffee and develops brand loyalty,
especially when this environment is congruent with customer
expectations. A successful coffee shop integrates the coffee
shop’s brands that associate brand to customers, are relevant to
customers’ self-concept and provide a great value. All of these
Downloaded by University of Florida At 13:10 17 October 2017 (PT)
factors influence the customers’ consumption process through
symbols of the coffee brand and help determine the long-term
success of the business.
First, the coffee shop should maintain a favorable reputation
because customers are reluctant to develop a relationship with a
brand, if it is perceived as unfavorable to others. Different
promotional cues can be displayed to foster customers’
psychological associations with a brand. The coffee shop
experience should focus on customers, and the design should
be tailored to them (Stark, 2013). For instance, when
developing positive brand–customer identification, a local taste
can be included to arouse customers’ interests toward the
brand (Stark, 2013). When customers perceive strong
customer–brand identification, they are more likely to purchase
additional products to advertise their association with the
brand, such as take home bags of coffee beans or accessory
items, which improves the financial performance of the coffee
shop.
Second, coffee shops should create an environment where
customers can positively express themselves and convey a positive
self-image. A coffee shop can choose a specific theme based on
the congruence with its target market. Different environmental
cues can be incorporated to correspond to target customers’ self-
image. Layout, design, background music, menu development
and lighting can be utilized to create an atmosphere. For instance,
Jeon et al. (2016) identifies background music as a co-creation
experience, enhancing customers’ approach behaviors. Even
though results from this study indicate self-congruity does not
influence brand involvement, it does affect brand-decision
involvement. Coffee shop managers should develop different
cues that fulfill customers’ self-congruity perceptions to facilitate
their brand-decision involvement.
Third, coffee shop managers need to create
multidimensional values for customers, enhancing their
consumption experiences. Customers might seek economic,
social, functional, hedonic values or a combination of these
values. A coffee shop not only must sell the items on its menu,
but also provide an atmosphere that makes customers become
involved with the service delivery process. Customers
perceive value when coffee shops provide unique flavors of
coffee, consistent quality and an enjoyable overall experience.
Journal of Services Marketing
The layout and store design also influence customers’ overall
value perceptions; thus, they should be appealing and
comfortable to customers. For instance, coffee shop managers
should be keen to stay abreast of the market trends and
preferences of their target markets to make their coffee shops
involved with customers.
Moreover, managers should pay attention to attributes that
influence brand and brand-decision involvements and integrate
them into various marketing strategies to prolong the positive
relationship between their brands and customers. Based on the
prevalent usage of technology, coffee shops can create an
additional communication channel, such as a mobile
application to continuously encourage customers’ brand and
brand-decision involvement. To promote positive customer
responses, the consumption process should facilitate customer
involvement, enhancing the fit between customers and brand,
self-concept and service value perceptions.
Limitations of this study and suggestions for
future research
While this study provided theoretical and practical contributions,
it entailed limitations that would suggest future research. First,
even though results might be generalizable to those service
providers, such as coffee shops with similar price ranges and
characteristics, results from this study might not be generalizable
to other types of service providers. Thus, to better understand
customers’ involvement processes, the proposed model can be
compared between different types of services category, such as a
comparison between family physicians and fast food restaurants.
Each service type category might require different factors to
promote customers’ involvement in the service delivery process,
forming a potential stream of future research.
In addition, this study did not examine trait or situational
effects. Future research venues could address customers’
personal traits or situational variables that may moderate or
mediate the proposed relationships. For instance, customer
engagement (Brodie et al., 2011), cultural difference (Raajpoot,
2004) and/or customers’ emotional response (Sierra et al.,
2009) might play a moderating role in the consumption
evaluation process. Moreover, it is worthwhile to investigate
preferable brand strategies, based on different target markets
and different coffee shops. Future research can identify most
appealing factors that influence brand involvement and brand-
decision involvement by each target market and by different
types of coffee shop.
References
Aksan, M., Kisac, B., Aydin, M. and Demirbuken, S. (2009),
“Symbolic interaction theory”, Procedia-Social and
Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 902-904.
Anderson, J. and Gerbing, D. (1988), “Structural equation
modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step
approach”, Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-423.
Beatty, S., Kahle, L. and Homer, P. (1988), “The
involvement-commitment model: theory and implications”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 149-167.
Belk, R. (1988), “Possessions and the extended self”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 139-168.
 Promoting brand loyalty
Soon-Ho Kim and Seonjeong (Ally) Lee
Belk, R., Bahn, D. and Mayer, R. (1982), “Developmental
recognition of consumption symbolism”, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 4-17.
Bezencon, V. and Blili, S. (2011), “Segmenting the market
through the determinants of involvement: the case of fair
trade”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 7, pp. 682-708.
Bojanic, D. and Warnick, R. (2012), “The role of purchase
decision involvement in a special event”, Journal of Travel
Research, Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 357-366.
Bowen, J. (1990), “Development of a taxonomy of services to
gain strategic marketing insights”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 43-49.
Brodie, R., Hollebeek, L., Juric, B. and Ilic, A. (2011),
“Customer engagement: conceptual domain, fundamental
propositions, and implications for research”, Journal of
Service Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 252-271.
Cha, M., Yi, Y. and Bagozzi, R. (2015), “Effects of customer
participation in corporate social responsibility programs on
the CSR-brand fit and brand loyalty”, Cornell Hospitality
Downloaded by University of Florida At 13:10 17 October 2017 (PT)
Quarterly, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 1-15.
Chen, S. and Raab, C. (2014), “Construction and validation of
the customer participation scale”, Journal of Hospitality &
Tourism Research, Vol. 41 No. 2.
Choi, Y., Ok, J. and Hyun, S. (2017), “Relationships
between brand experiences, personality traits, prestige,
relationship quality, and loyalty: an empirical analysis of
coffeehouse brands”, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 29 No. 4,
pp. 1185-1202.
Dimitriades, Z. (2006), “Customer satisfaction, loyalty and
commitment in service organizations: some evidence from
Greece”, Management Research News, Vol. 29 No. 12,
pp. 782-800.
Ekinci, Y., Sirakaya-Turk, E. and Preciado, S. (2013),
“Symbolic consumption of tourism destination brands”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66 No. 6, pp. 711-718.
Eid, R. (2015), “Integrating Muslim customer perceived value,
satisfaction, loyalty and retention in the tourism industry: an
empirical study”, International Journal of Tourism Research,
Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 249-260.
Elliot, R. and Percy, L. (2007), Strategic Brand Management,
Oxford University Press, New York.
Euromonitor International. (2004), “Coffee brews a future in
China”, available at: www.euromonitor.com/coffee_brews_a_
future_in_China
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D. (1981), “Structural equation
models with unobservable variables and measurement error:
algebra and statistics”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18
No. 3, pp. 382-388.
Fraering, M. and Minor, M. (2013), “Beyond brand loyalty:
customer satisfaction, loyalty, and fortitude”, Journal of
Services Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 334-344.
Frank, B., Torrico, B., Enkawa, T. and Schvaneveldt, S.
(2014), “Affect versus cognition in the chain from perceived
quality to customer loyalty: the roles of product beliefs and
experience”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 90 No. 4, pp. 567-586.
Global Coffee Report. (2017), “Korean coffee, Gangnam
style”, available at: http://gcrmag.com/market-reports/view/
coffee-gangnam-style
Journal of Services Marketing
Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R. and Black, W. (1998),
Multivariate Data Analysis, Pearson, Upper Saddle River.
Hirschman, E. and Holbrook, M. (1981), Symbolic Consumer
Behavior, Association for Consumer Research, Ann Arbor,
MI.
Holman, R. (1980), “A sociological approach to brand choice:
the concept of situational self image”, Advances in Consumer
Research, Vol. 7, pp. 610-614.
Hochgraefe, C., Faulk, S. and Vieregge, M. (2012), “Links
between Swiss hotel guests’ product involvement and brand
loyalty”, Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management,
Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 20-39.
Huang, C., Chou, C. and Lin, P. (2010), “Involvement theory in
constructing bloggers’ intention to purchase travel products”,
Tourism Management, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 513-526.
Hubbert, A. (1995), “Customer co-creation of service
outcomes: effects of locus of causality attributions”,
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University.
Isidore, C. (2012), “Starbucks to add 3,000 new stores”, CNN
News, available at: http://money.cnn.com/2012/12/05/news/
companies/starbucks-new-stores/index.html
Kandampully, J., Zhang, T. and Bilgihan, A. (2015),
“Customer loyalty: a review and future directions with a
special focus on the hospitality industry”, International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 27
No. 3, pp. 379-414.
Kim, D. and Jang, S. (2014), “Symbolic consumption in
upscale cafés: examining Korean gen Y consumers’
materialism, conformity, conspicuous tendencies, and
functional qualities”, Journal of Hospitality & Tourism
Research, Vol. 41 No. 2.
Kinard, B. and Capella, M. (2006), “Relationship marketing:
the influence of consumer involvement on perceived service
benefits”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 6,
pp. 359-368.
Kline, R. (2010), Principles and Practice of Structural Equation
Modeling, 3rd ed., Guilford Press, New York, NY.
Kotler, P. and Keller, K. (2009), A Framework for Marketing
Management, Pearson, Lontoo.
Korea Customs Service (2012), “The trends of coffee
market in South Korea”, available at: www.customs.go.kr/
kcshome/cop/bbs/selectBoard.do?layoutMenuNo=294&
bbsId=BBSMSTR_1018&nttId=2133
Krugman, H. (1965), “The impact of television advertising:
learning without involvement”, Public Opinion Quarterly,
Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 349-356.
Kuenzel, S. and Halliday, S. (2008), “Investigating
antecedents and consequences of brand identification”,
Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 17 No. 5,
pp. 293-304.
Jeon, S., Park, C. and Yi, Y. (2016), “Co-creation of
background music: a key to innovating coffee shop
management”, International Journal of Hospitality
Management, Vol. 58, pp. 56-65.
Laaksonen, P. (1994), Consumer Involvement: Concepts and
Research, Routledge, London.
Lee, J. and Kim, H. (2016a), “Coffee wars: South Korea’s café
boom nears saturation point”, available at: www.reuters.
com/article/us-southkorea-coffee-idUSKCN0X12GF
 Promoting brand loyalty
Soon-Ho Kim and Seonjeong (Ally) Lee
Lee, J. and Kim, H. (2016b), “There are too many coffee shops
in South Korea”, available at: www.businessinsider.com/
massive-south-korean-coffee-market-2016-4
Lee, S., Kim, K. and Sundar, S. (2015), “Customization in
location-based advertising: effects of tailoring source, locational
congruity, and product involvement on ad attitudes”,
Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 51, pp. 336-343.
Li, X. and Petrick, J. (2008), “Examining the antecedents of
brand loyalty from an investment model perspective”,
Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 25-34.
Liu, F., Li, J., Mizerski, D. and Soh, H. (2012), “Self-
congruity, brand attitude, and brand loyalty: a study on
luxury brands”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46
Nos 7/8, pp. 922-937.
Lovelock, C. and Gummesson, E. (2004), “Whither services
marketing? In search of a new paradigm and fresh perspectives”,
Journal of Service Research, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 20-41.
Lundkvist, A. and Yakhlef, A. (2014), “Customer involvement
in new service development: A conversational approach”,
Downloaded by University of Florida At 13:10 17 October 2017 (PT)
Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 14
Nos 2/3, pp. 249-257.
Mano, H. and Oliver, R. (1993), “Assessing the dimensionality
and structure of the consumption experience: evaluation,
feeling, and satisfaction”, Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 451-466.
Mael, F. and Ashforth, B. (1992), “Alumni and their alma
matter: a partial test of the reformulated model of
organizational identification”, Journal of Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 103-123.
Martin, S., Camarero, C. and Jóse, R. (2011), “Does
involvement matter in online shopping satisfaction and
trust?”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 145-167.
Mazodier, M. and Merunka, D. (2012), “Achieving brand
loyalty through sponsorship: the role of fit and self-
congruity”, Journal of the Academic of Marketing Science,
Vol. 40 No. 6, pp. 807-820.
Merz, M., He, Y. and Vargo, S. (2009), “The evolving brand
logic: a service-dominant logic perspective”, Journal of the
Academic of Marketing Science, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 328-344.
Mittal, B. (1995), “A comparative analysis of four scales of
consumer involvement”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 12
No. 7, pp. 663-682.
Mittal, B. and Lee, M. (1989), “A casual model of consumer
involvement”, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 10 No. 3,
pp. 363-389.
Mohr, L. (1990), Understanding Significance Testing, Sage
Publications, Newbury Park, CA.
Moscovici, S. and Markova, I. (1998), “Presenting social
representations: a conversation”, Culture & Psychology,
Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 371-410.
Oliver, R. (1999), “Whence consumer loyalty?”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 63, pp. 33-44.
Olsen, S. (2007), “Repurchase loyalty: the role of involvement
and satisfaction”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 4,
pp. 315-341.
Opus, Y. (2010), “Marketing review: domestic marketing UP
strategy-brand name coffee shop industry”, availablet at:
http://opusyonsei.tistory.com/270
Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Lee, J. and Podsakoff, N.
(2003), “Common method biases in behavioral research: a
Journal of Services Marketing
critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. and Berry, L. (1985), “A
conceptual model of service quality and its implications for
future research”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 41-50.
Park, C. and Young, S. (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.
Prayag, G. and Ryan, C. (2012), “Antecedents of tourists’
loyalty to Mauritius: the role and influence of destination
image, place attachment, personal involvement, and
satisfaction”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 51 No. 3,
pp. 342-356.
Raajpoot, N. (2004), “Reconceptualizing service encounter
quality in a non-western context”, Journal of Service Research,
Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 181-201.
Russell-Bennett, R., McColl-Kennedy, J. and Coote, L.
(2007), “Involvement, satisfaction, and brand loyalty in a
small business services setting”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 60 No. 12, pp. 1253-1260.
Sierra, J. and McQuitty, S. (2005), “Service providers and
customers: social exchange theory and service loyalty”,
Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 392-400.
Sierra, J., Heiser, R. and McQuitty, S. (2009), “Exploring
determinants and effects of shared responsibility in service
exchanges”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 17
No. 2, pp. 111-128.
Sirdeshmukh, D., Singh, J. and Sabol, B. (2002), “Consumer
trust, value, and loyalty in relational exchanges”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 15-37.
Sirgy, M., Lee, D., Johar, J. and Tidwell, J. (2008), “Effect of
self-congruity with sponsorship on brand loyalty”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 61 No. 10, pp. 1091-1097.
So, K., King, C., Sparks, B. and Wnag, Y. (2013), “The
influence of customer brand identification on hotel brand
evaluation and loyalty development”, International Journal of
Hospitality Management, Vol. 34, pp. 31-41.
Solomon, M. (1983), “The role of products as social stimuli: a
symbolic interactionism perspective”, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 319-329.
Solomon, M., Surprenant, C., Czepiel, J. and Gutman, E.
(1985), “A role theory perspective on dyadic interactions: the
service encounter”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49 No. 1,
pp. 99-111.
Sorensen, E. and Thomsen, T. (2005), “The lived meaning of
symbolic consumption and identity construction in stable
and transitional phases: towards an analytical framework”,
E-European Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 7.
Stark, M. (2013), “Creating the coffee shop brand experience:
a designer’s view”, available at: http://scaa.org/chronicle/
2013/11/13/creating-the-coffee-shop-brand-experience-a-
designers/
Stokburger-Sauer, N., Ratneshwar, S. and Sen, S. (2012),
“Drivers of consumer–brand identification”, International
Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 406-418.
Susanty, A. and Kenny, E. (2015), “The relationship between
brand equity, customer satisfaction, and brand loyalty on
coffee shop: study of Excelso and Starbucks”, Asean
Marketing Journal, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 14-27.
 Promoting brand loyalty
Soon-Ho Kim and Seonjeong (Ally) Lee
Tajfel, H. and Turner, J. (1979), “An integrative theory of
intergroup conflict”, The Social Psychology of Intergroup
Relations, Vol. 33 No. 47, p. 74.
Vaidyanathan, R. (2012), “Coffee vs tea: is India falling for the
cappuccino?”, BCC News, available at: www.bbc.co.uk/
news/magazine-16932747
Varki, S. and Wong, S. (2003), “Consumer involvement in
relationship marketing of services”, Journal of Service
Research, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 83-91.
Veloutsou, C. (2015), “Brand evaluation, satisfaction and trust
as predictors of brand loyalty: the mediator-moderator effect
of brand relationships”, Journal of Consumer Marketing,
Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 405-421.
Weinberg, B. and Bealer, B. (2001), The World of Caffeine: The
Science and Culture of the World’s Most Popular Drug,
Routledge, New York, NY.
Widing, R., Sheth, J., Pulendran, S., Mittal, B. and Newman,
B. (2003), Customer Behavior: Consumer Behavior and Beyond
Pacific Rim, Thomson Learning, Melbourne.
Woodruff, R. (1997), “Customer value: the next source for
Downloaded by University of Florida At 13:10 17 October 2017 (PT)
competitive advantage”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 139-153.
Yen, C. and Teng, H. (2015), “Celebrity involvement,
perceived value, and behavioral intentions in popular media-
induced tourism”, Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research,
Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 225-244.
Zaichkowsky, J. (1984), Conceptualizing and Measuring the
Involvement Construct in Marketing. University Microfilms,
University of California, CA.
Zaichkowsky, J. (1985), “Measuring the involvement
construct”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 12 No. 3,
pp. 341-352.
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
Journal of Services Marketing
Zeithaml, V. (1988), “Consumer perceptions of price, quality,
and value: a means-end model and synthesis of evidence”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 2-22.
Zeithaml, V., Berry, L. and Parasuraman, A. (1996), “The
behavioral consequences of service quality”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 31-46.
Further reading
Arvidsson, A. (2008), “The ethical economy of customer
coproduction”, Journal of Macromarketing, Vol. 28 No. 4,
pp. 326-338.
Ave, S., Venter, M. and Mhlophe, B. (2015), “Sensory
branding and buying behavior in coffee shops: a study on
generation Y”, The Retail and Marketing Review, Vol. 11
No. 2, pp. 93-110.
Festinger, L. (1957), A theory of Cognitive Dissonance, Row
Peterson, Evanston, Ill.
Schmitt, B. (2012), “The consumer psychology of
brands”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 1,
pp. 7-17.
Sirgy, M. (1985), “Using self-congruity and ideal congruity to
predict purchase motivation”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 195-206.
So, K., King, C. and Sparks, B. (2014), “Customer
engagement with tourism brands scale development and
validation”, Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, Vol. 38
No. 3, pp. 304-329.
Corresponding author
Seonjeong (Ally) Lee can be contacted at: slee89@kent.edu