Journal of Consumer Marketing

Impact of contextual factors, brand loyalty and brand switching on purchase decisions
Paurav Shukla
Article information:
To cite this document:
Paurav Shukla, (2009),"Impact of contextual factors, brand loyalty and brand switching on purchase decisions", Journal of
Consumer Marketing, Vol. 26 Iss 5 pp. 348 - 357
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/07363760910976600
Downloaded on: 13 November 2014, At: 03:25 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 79 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 8722 times since 2009*
Downloaded by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY At 03:25 13 November 2014 (PT)

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

Jan Møller Jensen, Torben Hansen, (2006),"An empirical examination of brand loyalty", Journal of Product & Brand
Management, Vol. 15 Iss 7 pp. 442-449
Sharyn Rundle#Thiele, Marisa Maio Mackay, (2001),"Assessing the performance of brand loyalty measures", Journal of
Services Marketing, Vol. 15 Iss 7 pp. 529-546
Temi Abimbola, Myfanwy Trueman, Oriol Iglesias, Fang Liu, Jianyao Li, Dick Mizerski, Huangting Soh, (2012),"Self#congruity,
brand attitude, and brand loyalty: a study on luxury brands", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46 Iss 7/8 pp. 922-937 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090561211230098

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 466119 []
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.

 Impact of contextual factors, brand loyalty and
brand switching on purchase decisions
Paurav Shukla
Brighton Business School, University of Brighton, Brighton, UK

Abstract
Purpose – The consumer culture in recent times has evolved into one of the most powerful ingredients shaping individuals and societies. Although the
behavioural intentions and purchase decisions related models continue to dominate research and managerial practice, a deeper look indicates that
most studies do not take the complete picture in account and study parts of the above mentioned phenomena. Furthermore, consumers operate in a
dynamic and ever-changing environment which in itself demands a re-examination of their behavioural intentions and purchase decision influences
from time to time. This paper aims to focus on these issues.
Design/methodology/approach – Using the context of the young adults market, this study looks into how contextual factors vis-à-vis loyalty and
switching impact consumer purchase intentions. The study involved both qualitative and quantitative research methodology.
Findings – The findings suggest that contextual factors have the strongest influence on purchase decisions. Furthermore, contextual factors influence
the brand loyalty and switching behaviour.
Downloaded by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY At 03:25 13 November 2014 (PT)

Practical implications – The findings provide important insights with regards to the factors on which practitioners should focus to better tailor their
content and approaches.
Originality/value – The study supplies unique learning to managers and researchers alike, through conceptualising and subsequently empirically
verifying the issue of purchase decision, brand loyalty and switching with regard to contextual factors.

Keywords Purchasing, Brand loyalty

Paper type Research paper

An executive summary for managers and executive
readers can be found at the end of this article.
1. Introduction
To better understand why and how people engage themselves
in certain behaviours and refrain from risky habits, various
behaviour models have been developed. Behavioural
intentions are seen as a key ingredient in many such models
(for an overview, see Dick and Basu, 1994; Sheeran and
Abraham, 2003). Furthermore, translation of intentions into
purchase decision is presently regarded as a central challenge
for consumer research (Mittal and Kamakura, 2001;
Sniehotta et al., 2005).
This study focuses on three important research issues which
are critical to the phenomena of behavioural intentions and
purchase decisions that have been researched in isolation at
most times. First, in most previous studies related to
behavioural intentions, overall satisfaction was integrated as
a key determinant of purchase intentions (for a review, see
Spreng et al., 1996) which, in turn, affects brand loyalty or
switching behaviour. However, overall satisfaction construct
may not effectively capture the true behavioural effects as it is
a reflection of context an individual is represented by
(Sniehotta et al., 2005). Furthermore, few studies have
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0736-3761.htm
Journal of Consumer Marketing
26/5 (2009) 348– 357
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 0736-3761]
[DOI 10.1108/07363760910976600]
incorporated the impact of contextual factors on behavioural
intentions (Neelamegham and Jain, 1999). Therefore, the
incorporation of contextual factors into the behavioural
intentions model at the disaggregate level may enhance the
determination of the causality involved in purchase intentions.
Second, in many earlier studies, behavioural intentions have
been assumed to be principally determined by the consumers’
attitudinal assessment regarding product or service with little
consideration to marketing mix variables such as advertising
and promotional efforts. For instance, extent studies focused
on determinants of behavioural intentions such as self-image
(Wong, 1997), perceived risk (Snoj et al., 2004), variety
seeking (Roehm and Roehm, 2004), level of product
importance (Beckett et al., 2000), and personality (Gupta
et al., 2004).
Third, earlier studies have explicitly divided consumers into
groupings of loyals and switchers (Dekimpe et al., 1997; Yim
and Kannan, 1999). However, most studies have not looked
into both the impact of contextual factors and choice criteria
simultaneously. The interaction effects between contextual
factors, behavioural intentions and purchase decisions would
help us better understand the overall behaviour.
This study aims to attend to the above-mentioned three
issues by first exploring the concept of contextual factors and
its impact on behavioural intentions such as brand loyalty and
switching using the context of young adults market. Secondly,
the study seeks to discover the effect of choice criteria on
behavioural intentions. Thirdly, it will investigate the effect of
contextual factors as well as behavioural intentions on
purchase decisions. The paper is structured as follows. In
the next section relevant literature is discussed providing the
build up for the proposed model. Methodology and results are
discussed thereafter leading to conclusion and future
directions.

348
 Impact of contextual factors, brand loyalty and brand switching
Paurav Shukla
2. Literature review
2.1 The young adults market and importance of
contextual factors
The young adults market (age group 18-24) is an important and
powerful segment of consumers with many distinguishing
features that merit it to be considered as a separate segment
(Ness et al., 2002). Young adults make up 3.6 per cent of the
population with a spending power of approximately £10 billion
per annum within UK itself (Jenkinson, 2000). The young
adults worldwide represent a tremendous opportunity for
managers (Martin and Bush, 2000). Zollo (1999) predicts that
in the US the young adults splurge approximately US$100
billion a year and analysts project that by 2010, this segment will
spend more in comparison to baby boomers (Merrill, 1999)
demonstrating the significance of this segment for managers.
Zollo (1999) posits that young adults are exceedingly vital target
market for managers because of their: increasing influence over
family spending; capacity to spend in future; and ability to set
Downloaded by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY At 03:25 13 November 2014 (PT)
new trends. Young adults are found to be more involved with
new trends in comparison to any other segment and influential
in mass consumer movements of other segments. Moreover,
following the young adults can provide managers with an idea of
market reactions of future.
Consumers, including young adults, are frequently
influenced by a range of external factors which in turn
influences their self-image, lifestyle and consumption patterns.
Determining the specific factors that influence young adults and
their purchasing patterns has become a significant issue for
behavioural researchers (Martin and Bush, 2000). Earlier
studies have investigated how young adults learn what to
consume and what influences them (Keillor et al., 1996;
Moschis and Churchill, 1978). These studies have been
grounded on the social learning theory which proposes that
consumers’ behaviour is affected by variety of sources such as
their family values (Baltas, 1997; Feltham, 1998), financial
restraints (Ness et al., 2002; Rowley, 2005; East et al., 1995),
peer group influences (Feltham, 1998; Auty, 2001), self
concept (Ness et al., 2002; Auty, 2001), and other social
influences (Feltham, 1998; Ness et al., 2002). There are several
other important factors also identified by researchers such as
age, access, gender, lifestyle and purchase frequencies (Jacoby
and Chesnut, 1978; Veloutosou et al., 2004). Many of these
young adults being students several researchers have also found
the influence of accommodation type (Feltham, 1998; Ness
et al., 2002) and year of study (Hein, 2003).
While ample research has been carried out reflecting upon
the contextual factors and their influences, according to
Ganesh et al. (2000) current knowledge is inadequate in
offering insights to managers regarding this customer group
and their decision-making. One of the reasons why managers
may not target this consumer segment is because they are
thought to be less brand loyal. The other reason could be that
the young adults have less experience and involvement with
brands (Howell, 2004). Previous research (Pollay et al., 1996;
Spero and Stone, 2004; Roehm and Roehm, 2004) assumes
that young adults are not very loyal however; these findings
are relatively ambiguous and face much argument.
Researchers such as Wood (2004) suggest that findings
related to loyalty or switching within the young adults market
should be approached with caution as the segment is very
dynamic in its nature and the assumption would miss the
richness of their complexity in decision making. Furthermore,
349
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 26 · Number 5 · 2009 · 348 –357
Ness et al. (2002) observes that young adults have the
common dilemma of allocating scarce monetary resources
and because of this problem; they have more reasons to switch
between goods with the aim of saving money. On the other
hand Jenkinson (2000) points out that, young adults provide
managers with a rare opportunity. During their early life cycle,
young adults develop many of their behavioural response
patterns, which are observed much throughout their lives.
The phenomenon is well researched in the tobacco industry
where it has been observed by several researchers that young
adults tend to remain brand loyal for more than a decade once
addicted (Pierce and Gilpin, 1995; Gilpin et al., 1997).
Therefore, this segment becomes of further importance to
managers in terms of what defines their contextual factors.
Given these sentiments, it seems important for managers
that they have a comprehensive understanding of this
lucrative target market with regard to their traits, their
behavioural intentions and their decision-making. Therefore,
following hypotheses have been proposed:
H1. Contextual factors will have a significant impact on the
degree of brand loyalty.
H2. Contextual factors will have a significant impact on the
degree of brand switching.
2.2 Behavioural intentions
It is interesting to juxtapose the centrality of behavioural
intentions in marketing practice against research activity in
the academic discipline. While the constructs relating to
behavioural intentions are over seventy years old, few would
disagree that scientific progress in evaluating it has been
lacking (Fournier and Yao, 1997). Cries for relevant
theoretical perspectives that can breathe new life into
behavioural intentions research have been raised by
researchers (Lehmann and Russo, 1996; Rust et al., 2004).
Cognitive psychology and especially the branch dealing with
attitude formation has led the way for explanations of loyalty
literature in management (Dick and Basu, 1994).
2.2.1 Brand loyalty
The literature on loyalty measurement shows an evolutionary
development that began with behavioural-based notions but
which has now come to embrace attitudinal, cognitive and
values based approaches. Behavioural approaches
operationalise loyalty in four ways, first, through measures
based on the actual consumption of the goods or services.
This approach usually combines volume and frequency of
purchase over prescribed time periods (Lin et al., 2000;
Veloutosou et al., 2004). Ehrenberg (1988) observed that
patterns that emerge from such measures assist marketing
practitioners in identifying “frequent purchasers” and “heavy
purchasers”. Second, measures aimed at the proportion of
consumption within a specified set of other goods and services
located within a defined market or even within a nominated
retail location (Driver, 1996; East et al., 1995). The concept
of “brand loyalty” clearly falls within this class of measure.
Third, measures based on the probability of repeat purchase.
Fourth, measures that examine the point in time where
customer switch to other brands (Hsiu-Yuan and Li-Wei,
2005). While looking through the above measures,
researchers have used various choice criteria such as brand
familiarity (Dick et al., 1996; Wood, 2004, Feltham, 1998),
convenience and usage experience (Rowley, 2005; Lin et al.,
 Impact of contextual factors, brand loyalty and brand switching
Paurav Shukla
2000), social cost, image and self concept (Abendoth, 2001;
Auty, 2001), perceived value and satisfaction (Baltas, 1997;
Ness et al., 2002; Wood, 2004) among others to measure the
brand loyalty construct.
2.2.2 Brand switching
While brand loyalty has direct impact on long-term
sustainability of a brand (Howell, 2004), on the other hand,
brand switching occurs due to decline in brand loyalty and
growing acceptance of other brands, which increases the
consumer’s willingness to try alternative brands. Ehrenberg
(1988) is of the view that loyalty does not exist and is not a
valid concept. The view is also supported by Klein (2001) as
well as Trivedi and Morgan (1996) who focus on centrality of
brand switching and state examples where even the most loyal
of brand customers change. The switching behaviour could be
affected by intrinsic or extrinsic motivations. In the case
intrinsic motivations, variety and over choice plays a major
role (McAlister and Pessemier, 1982) and the resultant
Downloaded by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY At 03:25 13 November 2014 (PT)
behaviour can be the consequence of either curiosity (Sheth
and Raju, 1974) or attribute satiation (Zuckermann, 1979).
On the other hand, many brand switches occur not because
they are intrinsically rewarding but because they are key to
attaining or avoiding another purchase or consumption goal
(Van Trijp et al., 1996). Due to scarce financial resources
young adults are observed to be easily swayed by such
motivations (Ness et al., 2002; Dick et al., 1996). Researchers
have identified several choice criteria that affect consumer
behaviour such as involvement (Baltas, 1997; Shukla, 2004),
price, variety and packaging (Ness et al., 2002; Dick et al.,
1996; Veloutosou et al., 2004) and dissatisfaction (Abendoth,
2001; Shukla, 2004).
2.2.3 Purchase decision
Griffin (1997) discussed loyalty and the purchase cycle by
representing the repurchase loop. He described this process as
the most crucial attitude for loyalty giving the reason that
loyalty does not exist without repeat patronage. When
consumers purchase a product that they are not loyal to,
they will purchase a different brand of that product. The loyal
consumer however tend to purchase the same brand that they
feel a strong bond with and as long as this bond is not affected
by switching factors (Dick and Basu, 1994; Bolton et al.,
2000). However, Ehrenberg (1988) states that loyalty and
switching factors do not affect the purchase decision instead it
only depends on buyer characteristics. Johnson (1984), on the
other hand, calls the decline of brand loyalty a myth, as
neither Ehrenberg et al. (2004) nor Lal and Padmanabhan
(1995) have found sufficient evidence to prove otherwise.
There clearly seems a contradiction among researchers
regarding the impact of behavioural intentions and
contextual factors on purchase decisions. Therefore, the
study aims to discover how all these factors (contextual
factors, brand loyalty and brand switching) combined affect
the purchase decisions of consumers. Following hypotheses
are proposed to measure the impact of loyalty and switching
on purchase decisions:
H3. The contextual factors will have significant impact on
purchase decisions.
H4. Brand loyalty criteria will have significant impact on
purchase decisions.
H5. Brand switching criteria will have significant impact on
purchase decisions.
350
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 26 · Number 5 · 2009 · 348 –357
The model depicted in Figure 1 attempts to understand the
influence of contextual factors on purchase decision in
relation to brand loyalty and switching. The variables were
selected based on an extensive literature review and
scrutinized through the focus groups. The diagram
proposed, represents the hypotheses and shows the links
between them.
3. Research methodology
The research was conducted in two phases. At first, secondary
research was carried out forming the foundation of the
literature review and methodology, exploring the topic areas,
theories and concepts to enhance the validity of the primary
research (Chisnall, 2004). It helped in forming concepts and
ideas in the subject area. The secondary research was followed
by three focus groups in the Sussex county of the UK with
young adults to determine their loyalty and switching
behaviour as well as purchase decisions. The characteristics
that the segment possessed were also analysed in order to
understand their purchase decisions. These focus groups were
the exploratory part of the research and provided with
qualitative research allowing an in depth understanding of the
topic (Malhotra, 2004). Each focus group consisted of eight
members and took approximately one and a half hours to
complete. This enabled the variables to be tested qualitatively
and hypotheses to be developed through the integration of the
literature and the actual sample frame.
Several of the literature based variables for individual
characteristics; loyalty and switching were re-validated by the
focus group members. However, it was observed that without
deeper probing participants did not provide as exhaustive list
of variable as found in literature. Table I provides details of
the matching of variables between literature and focus group.
The primary research was conducted using structured, self-
administered questionnaire, which is one of the most widely
used data collection techniques (Saunders et al., 2002). A
pilot questionnaire was designed and administered to 24
young adults. This outlined a number of potential areas that
needed to be improved and worked upon. More than 380
questionnaires were administered resulting into 340 valid
responses, with an overall response rate of 89.47 per cent.
The output generated for each hypothesis was analysed for
multicollinearity. There was no danger of multicollinearity
within the analysis as the correlation between each of the
independent variables was below the threshold figure of 0.7.
Tolerance value was found below 0.10 and no VIF value
above 10 in the coefficients analysis. This means that the
predictor variables each correlate highly with the dependent
variable but correlate minimally with each other. The data
was also examined for Outliers and Normality as suggested by
Pallant (2001).
3.1 Construct validation
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used for establishing
the validity of the three constructs (Ahire et al., 1996). A two
stage approach (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988) was adopted –
first, estimating the measurement model and obtaining the
standardised regression coefficients, and second, estimating
the structural model.
The first stage in the two-stage process resulted in the
estimation of the measurement model. Unidimensionality of
the construct was analysed by specifying a measurement
 Impact of contextual factors, brand loyalty and brand switching Journal of Consumer Marketing
Paurav Shukla Volume 26 · Number 5 · 2009 · 348 –357

Figure 1 Model formulation

Table I Comparison of variables from literature and focus groups

Individual characteristics Focus groups Loyalty Focus groups Brand switching Focus groups
Downloaded by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY At 03:25 13 November 2014 (PT)

Age U Advertising Availability

Access Brand familiarity (brand name) U Consumer curiosity/personal involvement U
Accommodation type U Certainty Dissatisfaction
Family values U Consumer inertia Ease of switching U
Financial restraints U Convenience U Education
Gender Cost of switching Higher competition U
Lifestyle U Family values/usage Information availability U
Peer group influences Image/self-concept U Imitation products
Self concept U Opportunity cost/social cost Novelty and variety U
Social influences Past experience/expectations U Packaging U
Student loyalty offers U Perceived quality U Post-purchase behaviour
Time between purchases Perceived value Price U
Year of study U Pre/post purchase behaviour Promotions U
Product differentiation Quality
Reputation U Time
Satisfaction level U
Time U
Trust (perceived risk) U

model for each construct. As depicted in appendix 1, the GFI
values of all the constructs is above the recommended level of
0.90, confirming unidimensionality (Joreskog and Sorbom,
1993). Convergent validity was also achieved as all of the
constructs have NFI values above the recommended level of
0.90 (Bentler, 1990). Construct validity was also achieved,
with all constructs in the model displaying average variance
extracted (AVE) from 0.50 to 0.84 which is above the
minimum recommended level of 0.50.
Reliability was assessed via the Cronbach alpha coefficient
where the coefficient values range from a low of 0.66 to a high
of 0.72 (see the appendix). In all but one case, the coefficient
values are above 0.7. The contextual factors have a coefficient
value of 0.66, however this score is still above the “criterion in
use” level of 0.6 reported by Peterson (1994) and Slater
(1995). The totality of these tests provides strong evidence for
reliability and validity of the construct measures.
4. Results
The second stage of the analysis was an assessment of the
structural model. The proposed model was analysed via
the maximum likelihood estimator of LISREL8.70 by using
the covariance matrix of the measured variables as input.
Table II reports the results of the structural model with
standardized parameter estimates, respective t-values and
goodness of fit indices.
From the above table it can be observed that all goodness of
fit indices were above or very close to the recommended level
[GFI ¼ 0:90, AGFI ¼ 0:89, CFI ¼ 0:92, NFI ¼ 0:90,
RMSEA ¼ 0:048, x2 ð328Þ ¼ 580:26 (p , 0.001)]. The
results clearly show that the model fits the data well on all
fit measures, except the chi-square statistics. Fornell and
Larcker (1981) expressed doubts over using the chi-square
statistics in isolation, as it is considered to be an excessively
stringent test of model fit. Its use is generally recommended
only in comparative model testing (Joreskog and Sorbom,
1993). Satisfactory GFI (Joreskog and Sorbom, 1993) and
RMSEA (Browne and Cudeck, 1993) values observed above
represent absolute fit for the model. Furthermore, CFI value
was also satisfactory (. 0.9) representing incremental fit for
the model. Hence, the final model satisfactorily passes the
criteria to determine goodness of fit for the model.
As shown in the Table II, contextual factors have a
significant influence on brand loyalty (p , 0.001) supporting
H1. As proposed in H2, significant positive influence of

351
 Impact of contextual factors, brand loyalty and brand switching
Paurav Shukla
Table II Summary of results
Path
Contextual factors ! Brand loyalty
Contextual factors ! Brand switching
Contextual factors ! Purchase decision
Brand loyalty ! Purchase decision
Brand switching ! Purchase decision
Notes: Goodness of fit index (GFI) = 0.90; adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI) = 0.89; comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.92; normed fit index (NFI) = 0.90; root
mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.048; x2 (328) = 580.26 (p , 0.001); *relationship significant at p , 0.001; * *relationship significant at
p , 0.01
contextual factors is observed on brand switching
(p , 0.001). The findings support H3 where significant
positive relationship is observed between contextual factors
and purchase decisions (p , 0.001) as well as brand loyalty
criteria and purchase decision (H4; p , 0.001). However it
Downloaded by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY At 03:25 13 November 2014 (PT)
was found that brand switching criteria do not have a
significant impact on purchase decision.
5. Discussion and implications
The study examines our prior knowledge regarding influence
of contextual factors, and behavioural intentions (brand
loyalty and brand switching) on the purchase decisions. Using
extensive literature review combined with exploratory
research involving focus groups with young adults separate
scales were identified and validated for individual
characteristics, brand loyalty and brand switching. To assess
the strength of the hypothesised model, a survey of young
adults was conducted. The segment was chosen particularly
for their spending habits, trend setting attitude, and approach
to buying. Analysis provided support for the hypothesized
framework. The remainder of the discussion is focused on a
concise review of the implications of the findings of this study
and a series of recommendations for future studies.
While earlier scholars have studied contextual factors (Dick
et al., 1996; Ness et al., 2002), brand loyalty (Dick and Basu,
1994), brand switching (Wood, 2004; Shukla, 2004) and
purchase decisions (Baltas, 1997; Ehrenberg et al., 2004),
researchers such as Reichheld and Schefter (2000) have called
for further evidence with regard to the link between
behavioural intentions and purchase decisions. This study
constitutes a response to such calls for further research.
Furthermore, it has also been observed that all the constructs
measured in this study are dynamic in nature and need a re-
examination from time to time. The findings clearly show the
influence of contextual factors on consumers’ purchase
decisions and highlight the complexity of links between
these concepts providing useful insights for researchers and
managers. Consumer decision making being a complex
phenomenon itself, the findings of this study highlights the
importance of testing complex associations via holistic
frameworks such as one presented in this study.
Overall this study makes the following contributions to the
body of knowledge in the area purchase decisions:
1 It reveals that brand loyalty and brand switching are
significantly influenced by the contextual factors.
2 It also highlights what influences purchase decision
process and what does not.
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 26 · Number 5 · 2009 · 348 –357
Hypothesis Estimate t-value
H1 0.74 12.23 *
H2 0.37 5.16 *
H3 0.93 2.33 * *
H4 0.71 5.29 *
H5 0.32 1.22
3 It incorporates multiple constructs into a single
framework.
Consumers have many defining contextual traits and this
study has determined the impact of these characteristics on
brand loyalty and brand switching. While looking through
each variable, primary reference group especially friends had
the highest influence on consumers’ loyalty behaviour. The
product type and image as well as what supermarket they shop
had moderate effects on loyalty. However, many consumers in
the focus groups who shopped at supermarkets did not
consider it an important factor that influenced their brand
loyalty. This highlights the problem of what consumers
perceive they do compared to the behaviour that they display.
The strength and magnitude of associative links in the
measurement models provide further implications for
managers. Brand loyalty is affected by a number of
independent choice variables and the factors that are most
influential include product image as well packaging. The
strength of the brand name is an important factor in creating
loyalty to products. The findings find common ground with
Veloutosou et al. (2004) who implied that products with a
strong brand name and image would create more loyal
followers. Surprisingly advertising as an influencer of brand
loyalty was ranked very low by respondents. Therefore,
managers aiming to create greater levels of brand loyalty
through more advertising would fail to capture this segment’s
attention. This finding finds common ground with Ehrenberg
(1988) who stated that advertising would only slightly
increase purchase frequency in some categories. It was also
found that products with added features or improvements
influences brand loyalty within this segment. Therefore,
organizations focusing on continuous innovation and line as
well as brand extensions will be able to generate higher value
within this segment. The value derived from the product were
found to have moderate impact on purchase decision,
however, this can be argued on the front of the products
being discussed as a frame of reference for the study (see the
appendix). Factors such as past usage, expectations and
convenience were not significant contributors that contradicts
the findings by Wood (2004). These findings highlight the
need for creating a positive image (share of mind and heart) of
the product in the consumer minds. The tangible contact
(packaging) was also found to be of importance, therefore
managers should focus on how the consumers engage with the
product in the real-life environment and through active
observation decide on the best packaging alternative.
Similar results were also observed from the brand switching
measurement model. In-store promotion (the tangible
352
 Impact of contextual factors, brand loyalty and brand switching
Paurav Shukla
connection point) was found to be the most important factor
affecting brand switching. It was also observed that
promotions which were advertised in various media such as
television, radio and others had low impact on consumer
brand switching behaviour. These findings support
Jenkinson’s (2000) view that immediate in-store deals would
have a lasting effect on consumers. Dick et al. (1996) stated
that low price strategy can increase switching between brands
and so a low price store strategy could also influence this
behaviour. However, the findings contradict the earlier
assessment as price was not found to be significantly
influential factor in switching brands. Young adults do not
consider other factors such as curiosity, increased choice as
influential factors for switching between products. The most
surprising of this is price which is not rated as an important
reason for brand switching even though it is heavily tied with
in-store promotions. However, it can be assumed that
consumers look for the volume promotion instead of value
(price) based promotions. Managers, instead of focusing on
Downloaded by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY At 03:25 13 November 2014 (PT)
advertising purely as a communication medium and price as a
switching mechanism should look out for the possibility of
active engagement with the consumers in store were loyalty
behaviour is highly vulnerable on either ways.
The study provides insights into what factors influence
young adults’ loyalty behaviour as well as purchase decisions.
It also provides managers with an understanding that how this
large and influential segment of consumers make their choices
and decide on purchasing a product or service. Contextual
factors have a strong influence on loyalty and switching
behaviour as well as purchase decisions. This brings forward
the need for managers to segment young adults market on the
basis of contextual factors. It is interesting to note that brand
switching criteria do not affect consumers purchase decisions
as switching is largely found to be an impulsive phenomenon.
This finding further highlights the importance of tangible
contact (in-store campaign).
The study also provides a broader contribution to existing
knowledge regarding purchase decisions. While earlier
research in the area of behavioural intentions provides
interesting insights, most researchers have neglected the
general contextual factors (such as the ones included in the
current study). In that regard, the findings of this study
contributes towards the effect of contextual factors on
behavioural intentions. While understanding the link
between behavioural intentions and purchase decisions is
important, practical value exists for managers in
understanding what role is played by management
controlled factors in the same. The present study offers an
empirical contribution in this regard by providing a greater
understanding of the nature and dynamics of purchase
decisions and factors influencing the same.
While the study generates considerable theoretical and
practical contributions, such findings should be approached
with caution. The limitations of this study however form the
basis for future studies. While this study employed a holistic
framework, the parts of which had been tested partially by
researchers earlier, the tentative directionality of the
relationships between the constructs was partially observed.
However, it would be interesting to see a study that uses
longitudinal research design and tests the framework,
reconfirming the validity and reliability of these complex
relationships. Furthermore, this study focuses on single
segment and specific set of product categories in a single
353
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 26 · Number 5 · 2009 · 348 –357
market. Therefore, comparative studies focusing on multiple
segments with multiple product categories and multiple
markets will be a welcome endeavour in this regard.
References
Abendoth, L.J. (2001), “Disentangling regret from
expectancy-disconfirmation”, Advances in Consumer
Research, Vol. 28, pp. 371-2.
Ahire, S.L., Golhar, D.Y. and Waller, M.A. (1996),
“Development and validation of TQM implementation
constructs”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 23-56.
Anderson, J. and Gerbing, D. (1988), “Structural equation
modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step
approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3,
pp. 411-23.
Auty, R. (2001), “Being like or being liked: identity vs.
approval in a social context”, Advances in Consumer
Research, Vol. 28, pp. 235-41.
Baltas, G. (1997), “Determinants of store brand choice: a
behavioral analysis”, Journal of Product & Brand
Management, Vol. 6 No. 5, pp. 315-24.
Beckett, A., Hewer, P. and Howcroft, B. (2000), “An
exposition of consumer behaviour in the financial services
industry”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 18
No. 1, pp. 15-26.
Bentler, P.M. (1990), “Comparative fit indices in structural
equation models”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 107 No. 2,
pp. 238-46.
Bolton, R.N., Kannan, P.K. and Bramlett, M.D. (2000),
“Implications of loyalty program membership and service
experiences for customer retention and value”, Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 95-108.
Browne, M. and Cudeck, R. (1993), “Alternate ways of
assessing model fit”, in Bollen, K. and Long, J. (Eds),
Testing Structural Equation Models, Sage, Newbury Park,
CA.
Chisnall, P. (2004), Marketing Research, 8th ed., McGraw-
Hill, London.
Dekimpe, M.G., Steenkamp, J., Mellens, M. and Abeele, P.V.
(1997), “Decline and variability in brand loyalty”,
International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 14
No. 5, pp. 405-20.
Dick, A., Jain, A. and Richardson, P. (1996), “How
consumers evaluate store brands?”, Journal of Product &
Brand Management, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 19-28.
Dick, A.S. and Basu, K. (1994), “Customer loyalty: toward
an integrated framework”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 99-113.
Driver, L. (1996), “What is loyalty in customer loyalty: the
issues for the 90s”, The Researcher, Vol. 1, pp. 2-5.
East, R., Harris, P., Willson, G. and Hammond, K. (1995),
“Correlates of first-brand loyalty”, Journal of Marketing
Management, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 487-97.
Ehrenberg, A. (1988), Repeat-buying: Facts, Theory and
Applications, Griffin, London.
Ehrenberg, A.S.C., Uncles, M.D. and Goodhardt, G.J.
(2004), “Understanding brand performance measures:
using dirichlet benchmarks”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 57 No. 12, pp. 1307-25.
Feltham, T. (1998), “Leaving home: brand purchase
influences on young adults”, Journal of Consumer
Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 372-85.
 Impact of contextual factors, brand loyalty and brand switching
Paurav Shukla
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D. (1981), “Evaluating structural
equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18
No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Fournier, S. and Yao, J. (1997), “Reviving brand loyalty: a
reconceptualization within the framework of consumer-
brand relationships”, International Journal of Research in
Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 451-72.
Ganesh, J., Arnold, M.J. and Reynolds, K.E. (2000),
“Understanding the customer base of service providers:
an examination of the differences between switchers and
stayers”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 64 No. 3, pp. 65-87.
Gilpin, E.A., Pierce, J.P. and Rosbrook, B. (1997), “Are
adolescents receptive to current sales promotion practices
of the tobacco industry?”, Preventive Medicine, Vol. 26 No. 1,
pp. 14-21.
Griffin, J. (1997), Customer Loyalty: How to Earn It, How to
Keep It, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Gupta, A., Su, B. and Walter, Z. (2004), “Risk profile and
Downloaded by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY At 03:25 13 November 2014 (PT)
consumer shopping behavior in electronic and traditional
channels”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 38 No. 3,
pp. 347-67.
Hein, K. (2003), “Teen marketing they may be fickle, fast-
moving and seemingly sophisticated but, with disposable
income that keeps growing, teenage consumers are a prize
demographic that mitigates a unique approach”,
Brandweek, Vol. 44 No. 39, pp. 24-9.
Howell, D. (2004), “Today’s consumers more open to try new
brands”, DSN Retailing Today.
Hsiu-Yuan, T. and Li-Wei, C. (2005), “Exploring brand
loyalty from the perspective of brand switching costs”,
International Journal of Management, Vol. 22 No. 3,
pp. 436-41.
Jacoby, J. and Chesnut, W. (1978), Brand Loyalty
Measurement and Management, John Wiley & Sons, New
York, NY.
Jenkinson, E. (2000), “Carry on campus”, Checkout,
February, pp. 20-1.
Johnson, T. (1984), “The myth of declining brand loyalty”,
Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 9-17.
Joreskog, K.G. and Sorbom, D. (1993), Lisrel 8: A Guide to the
Program and Applications, Scientific Software International,
Chicago, IL.
Keillor, B.D., Parker, R.S. and Schaefer, A. (1996),
“Influences on adolescent brand preferences in the United
States and Mexico”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 36
No. 3, pp. 47-56.
Klein, N. (2001), No Logo, Flamingo, London.
Lal, R. and Padmanabhan, V. (1995), “Competitive response
and equilibria”, Marketing Science, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 101-8.
Lehmann, D.R. and Russo, J. (1996), “Another cup of coffee:
the view from different frames”, Advances in Consumer
Research, Vol. 23, pp. 309-10.
Lin, C., Wu, W.-Y. and Wang, Z.-F. (2000), “A study of
market structure: brand loyalty and brand switching
behaviours for durable household appliances”,
International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 42 No. 3,
pp. 277-300.
McAlister, L. and Pessemier, E. (1982), “Variety seeking
behavior: an interdisciplinary review”, The Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 311-22.
Malhotra, N. (2004), Marketing Research, 4th ed., FT
Prentice-Hall, London.
354
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 26 · Number 5 · 2009 · 348 –357
Martin, C.A. and Bush, A.J. (2000), “Do role models
influence teenagers’ purchase intentions and behavior?”,
Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 441-53.
Merrill, C. (1999), “Keeping up with teens”, American
Demographics, Vol. 21 No. 10, pp. 27-31.
Mittal, V. and Kamakura, W.A. (2001), “Satisfaction,
repurchase intent, and repurchase behavior: investigating
the moderating effect of customer characteristics”, Journal
of Marketing Research, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 131-42.
Moschis, G.P. and Churchill, G.A. Jr (1978), “Consumer
socialization: a theoretical and empirical analysis”, Journal
of Marketing Research, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 599-609.
Neelamegham, R. and Jain, D. (1999), “Consumer choice
process for experience goods: an econometric model and
analysis”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 36 No. 3,
pp. 373-86.
Ness, N., Gorton, M. and Kuznesof, S. (2002), “The student
food shopper”, British Food Journal, Vol. 104 No. 7,
pp. 506-25.
Pallant, J. (2005), SPSS Survival Manual: A Step by Step
Guide to Data Analysis Using SPSS for Windows, Open
University Press, Oxford.
Peterson, R.A. (1994), “A meta-analysis of cronbach’s
coefficient alpha”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 21
No. 2, p. 381.
Pierce, J.P. and Gilpin, E.A. (1995), “How long will today’s
new adolescent smoker be addicted to cigarettes?”,
American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 86, pp. 253-6.
Pollay, R., Siddarth, S., Siegel, M., Haddix, A., Merritt, R.,
Giovino, G. and Eriksen, M. (1996), “The last straw?
Cigarette advertising and realized market shares among
youths and adults, 1979-1993”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 1-16.
Reichheld, F.F. and Schefter, P. (2000), E-loyalty: Your Secret
Weapon on the Web, Harvard Business School Press, Boston,
MA.
Roehm, H. and Roehm, M. (2004), “Variety-seeking and
time of day: why leader brands hope young adults shop in
the afternoon, but follower brands hope for morning”,
Marketing Letters, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 213-21.
Rowley, J. (2005), “The four Cs of customer loyalty”,
Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 574-81.
Rust, R.T., Lemon, K.N. and Zeithaml, V.A. (2004), “Return
on marketing: using customer equity to focus marketing
strategy”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 109-27.
Saunders, M., Thornhill, A. and Lewis, P. (2002), Research
Methods for Business Students, Prentice-Hall, Harlow.
Sheeran, P. and Abraham, C. (2003), “Mediator of
moderators: temporal stability of intention and the
intention-behavior relation”, Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 205-15.
Sheth, J.N. and Raju, P.S. (1974), “Sequential and cyclical
nature of information processing models in repetitive choice
behavior”, in Ward, S. and Wright, P. (Eds), Advances in
Consumer Research, Association for Consumer Research,
Urbana, IL.
Shukla, P. (2004), “Effect of product usage, satisfaction and
involvement on brand switching behaviour”, Asia Pacific
Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 82-105.
Slater, S.F. (1995), “Issues in conducting marketing strategy
research”, Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 3 No. 4,
pp. 257-70.
 Impact of contextual factors, brand loyalty and brand switching Journal of Consumer Marketing
Paurav Shukla Volume 26 · Number 5 · 2009 · 348 –357

Sniehotta, F.F., Scholz, U. and Schwarzer, R. (2005),
“Bridging the intention-behaviour gap: planning, self-
efficacy, and action control in the adoption and
maintenance of physical exercise”, Psychology and Health,
Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 143-60.
Snoj, B., Korda, A.P. and Mumel, D. (2004), “The
relationships among perceived quality, perceived risk and
perceived product value”, Journal of Product & Brand
Management, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 156-67.
Spero, I. and Stone, M. (2004), “Agents of change: how
young consumers are changing the world of marketing”,
Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, Vol. 7
No. 2, pp. 153-9.
Spreng, R.A., Mackenzie, S.B. and Olshavsky, R.W. (1996),
“A reexamination of the determinants of consumer
satisfaction”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60 No. 3, pp. 15-32.
Trivedi, M. and Morgan, M.S. (1996), “Brand-specific
heterogeneity and market-level brand switching”, Journal
Downloaded by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY At 03:25 13 November 2014 (PT)
Mak, B.L. and Sockel, H. (2001), “A confirmatory factor
analysis of is employee motivation and retention”,
Information and Management, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 265-76.
Newman, J.W. and Werbel, R.A. (1973), “Multivariate
analysis of brand loyalty for major household appliances”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 404-9.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY.
Traylor, M.B. (1981), “Product involvement and brand
commitment”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 21 No. 6,
pp. 51-6.
Zaichkowsky, J. (1985), “Measuring the involvement
construct”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 12 No. 3,
pp. 341-52.
Appendix. The items and unidimensionality,
reliability, and convergent validity indices

of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 29-39.

Van Trijp, H.C.M., Hoyer, W.D. and Inman, J.J. (1996), Contextual factors
“Why switch? Product category-level explanations for true GFI ¼ 0:98, NFI ¼ 0:98, Cronbach’s a ¼ 0:66, Number of
variety-seeking behavior”, Journal of Marketing Research, items: 8
Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 281-92. To what extent do you think the following have had an
Veloutosou, C., Gioulistanis, E. and Moutinho, L. (2004), affect your shopping pattern?
“Own label choice criteria and perceived characteristics in 1 Family members.
Greece and Scotland: factors influencing willingness to 2 Flatmates.
buy”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 13 3 Friends.
No. 4, pp. 228-41. 4 Lifestyle.
Wong, N.Y.C. (1997), “Suppose you own the world and no 5 Self image.
one knows? Conspicuous consumption, materialism, and 6 Product image.
self”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 24, pp. 197-203. 7 Product type.
Wood, L. (2004), “Dimensions of brand purchasing 8 Supermarket choice.
behaviour: consumers in the 18-24 age group”, Journal of
Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 9-24. Brand loyalty
Yim, C.K. and Kannan, P.K. (1999), “Consumer behavioral GFI ¼ 0:96, NFI ¼ 0:93, Cronbach’s a ¼ 0:72, Number of
loyalty”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 44 No. 2, items: 11
pp. 75-92. How important were the following factors in influencing
Zollo, P. (1999), Wise up to Teens: Insights into Marketing and your decision to make your product choices above? (Three
Advertising to Teenagers, New Strategist Publications, Ithaca, product categories namely: colas, cornflakes and tissues were
NY. shown graphically to the respondents.)
Zuckermann, M. (1979), Sensation Seeking: Beyond the 1 Additional features.
2 Advertising.
Optimal Level of Arousal, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
3 Brand name.
4 Brand packaging.
Further reading 5 Convenience.
6 Expectations.
Backman, S.J. (1991), “An investigation of the relationship 7 Past usage.
between activity loyalty and perceived constraints”, Journal 8 Product image.
of Leisure Research, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 332-44. 9 Quality.
Bloemer, J.M.M. and Kasper, H.D.P. (1995), “The complex 10 Social status.
relationship between consumer satisfaction and brand 11 Value.
loyalty”, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 16 No. 2,
pp. 311-29. Brand switching
Earl, P. (1986), Lifestyle Economics; Consumer Behaviour in a GFI ¼ 0:96, NFI ¼ 0:90, Cronbach’s a ¼ 0:70, Number of
Turbulent World, St Martin’s Press, New York, NY. items ¼ 10
Kanwar, R. and Pagiavlas, N. (1992), “When are higher social To what extent would the following factors make you
class consumers more and less brand loyal than lower social change from the product you choose to another product?
class consumers? The role of mediating variables”, Advances (Three product categories namely: colas, cornflakes and
in Consumer Research, Vol. 19, pp. 589-95. tissues were shown graphically to the respondent)
Kahn, B.E., Kalwani, M.U. and Morrison, D.G. (1986), 1 Curiosity.
“Measuring variety-seeking and reinforcement behaviors 2 Easier to substitute.
using panel data”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 23 3 Increased choice.
No. 2, pp. 89-100. 4 In-store promotions.

355
 Impact of contextual factors, brand loyalty and brand switching
Paurav Shukla
5 Packaging quality.
6 Price.
7 Product dissatisfaction.
8 Product promotions.
9 Product quality.
10 Similar product lines.
All questions used a five-point scale from (1) least important
to (5) most important.
About the author
Paurav Shukla is a senior lecturer at the Brighton Business
School, University of Brighton, UK. He possesses a wide
range of industry and academic experience from middle to
senior level across various industries. He has been involved
with various EU funded research projects involving several
nations from the EU and Asia. He has been delivering
corporate training and consulting assignments for various
Downloaded by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY At 03:25 13 November 2014 (PT)
organizations in India, UK as well as other EU and African
countries. He has acted as a guest editor for the special issue
on “Emerging paradigms in Indian marketplace” for Asia
Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics. He has written
widely in the area of customer expectations management, and
SME management in international as well as national level
journals. Paurav Shukla can be contacted at:
p.shukla@brighton.ac.uk
Executive summary and implications for
managers and executives
This 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 benefits of the
material present.
Many marketers consider young adults aged between 18 and
24 as a distinct consumer segment that boasts considerable
purchasing power. In the UK, such consumers spend around
£10 billion each year, while it has been projected that young
adults will inject more into the US economy than baby
boomers by 2010.
The young adult segment
The importance of these consumers is also widely
acknowledged. Their impact on family purchase decisions is
growing and they are recognized as trend setters that influence
consumption change within other market segments.
Marketers also remain aware that securing the patronage of
young adults may be important given their capacity for future
spending.
Like other consumers, the image, lifestyle and purchasing
behaviour of young adults is shaped to some degree by various
external factors. The challenge to researchers is to identify
which factors hold sway. Previous investigations have
indicated aspects that include family values, peer influence
and self perception to influence consumer behaviours along
side such as age, gender and lifestyle. Some analysts believe,
however, that marketers have insufficient knowledge about
what motivates this market segment.
356
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 26 · Number 5 · 2009 · 348 –357
Some marketing managers continue to avoid the young
adult segment on the premise that such consumers are not
brand loyal. Evidence for this is, however, somewhat
inconclusive. On the one hand, researchers suggest that the
purchase behaviour of young adults is often determined by
monetary constraints. An aim to save money means that
switching to cheaper brands becomes a natural response.
Conversely, there are also those who argue that the
purchasing habits developed during their young adult phase
can remain with consumers for many years after.
Considerable research from the tobacco industry adds
weight to this particular claim.
Consumer loyalty to a brand is shaped by factors that
include brand familiarity, convenience, usage experience and
perceived value. Analysts previously measured loyalty through
behaviour alone but cognitive factors are now part of an
approach that also incorporates consumer attitude and values.
Behaviour continues as a key indicator of loyalty and enables
identification of such as purchase frequency, purchase volume
and likelihood of repeat purchase. It is likewise possible to
ascertain the ratio of purchases made against other products
or services within a specific market or retail location.
Marketers also note the impact of brand switching
tendencies on brand loyalty. It is argued in certain quarters
that intrinsic or extrinsic factors may motivate consumers to
switch to a different brand. Variety and an abundance of
choice are cited as key intrinsic motivators with the belief that
curiosity or need for specific attributes can inspire switching
behaviour. Extrinsic factors can be equally influential and
might, for instance, help the consumer to achieve or
circumvent purchase or consumption objectives. The earlier
reference to young people being motivated by financial
constraints is one such example. Involvement levels and
packaging are among other factors noted as being potential
antecedents to brand switching.
Behavioural intention is commonly perceived by scholars as
key to understanding consumer purchase behaviour since it
determines brand loyalty and switching behaviour. Many
scholars regard overall satisfaction as a key to behavioural
intentions but others are now challenging this assumption as it
does not consider the impact of contextual factors. It is
likewise argued that models founded on the premise that
behavioural intentions are largely fashioned by consumer
attitude are similarly flawed. In this case, marketing and
advertising variables are not considered seriously enough.
Study and findings
In view of these alleged limitations, Shukla investigates the
interaction between contextual factors, behavioural intentions
and purchase decisions in the belief that this will provide
richer insight into consumer behaviour.
The first part of the present work involved exploratory
study using three focus groups consisting of young adults in
the Sussex area of the UK. This qualitative research analysed
the characteristics of this consumer segment and explored the
loyalty, switching behaviour and purchase decisions of
participants. Findings were combined with extant literature
and used to develop hypotheses and a structured, self-
administered questionnaire, which was subsequently
completed by 340 young adult respondents.
Study findings indicated that, as predicted, contextual
factors substantially influence brand loyalty, switching
behaviour and purchase decisions. A significantly positive
 Impact of contextual factors, brand loyalty and brand switching
Paurav Shukla
relationship between brand loyalty criteria and purchase
decision was likewise found. But contrary to expectation, the
impact of brand switching criteria on purchase decision was
not significant.
Previous studies have explored these constructs
independently, whereas Shukla adopted an integrated
approach here to investigate the complexities of consumer
decision making. This enabled him to ascertain that:
.
key reference groups like friends had the most influence
on the loyalty behavior of young adult consumers;
.
the impact of product type and image on loyalty was
moderate;
.
brand loyalty is influenced by brand name and packaging;
.
the influence of advertising on loyalty was minimal;
.
enhancing products helped to increase brand loyalty; and
.
loyalty was not significantly affected by past usage,
expectations and convenience.
The store where the consumer shops was identified as
Downloaded by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY At 03:25 13 November 2014 (PT)
moderately influential, even though many focus group
members did not consider this factor as significant. This
raises the issue of conflict between consumers’ perceived and
actual behaviour.
For brand switching:
.
in-store promotion was found to be most influential;
.
the effect of media advertising was inconsequential; and
.
price was surprisingly identified as an insignificant factor.
Marketing implications and additional study
Based on these findings, Shukla recommends that marketers
should:
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
357
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 26 · Number 5 · 2009 · 348 –357
.
develop a strong brand name;
.
pay little attention to advertising;
. focus on continuous innovation and brand extensions;
.
be aware of how consumers connect with the product in
real life contexts; and
.
hold in-store promotions based on product volume rather
than price.
The author notes the sometimes impulsive nature of brand
switching and argues that this makes loyalty more vulnerable
in-store. He therefore recommends that marketing managers
should explore ways to positively engage with consumers
within this environment to lower the threat of switching
behaviour occurring.
Shukla believes that the apparent significance of contextual
factors warrants segmenting young adult consumers on this
basis. The dynamic nature of the constructs measured here is,
however, acknowledged and the author suggests periodic
reassessment is necessary to improve understanding of the
interplay between them.
Future research involving additional consumer segments,
product categories and markets can build on present findings,
while longitudinal study is suggested as a means of testing the
validity and reliability of the complex relationships identified
here.
(A précis of the article “Impact of contextual factors, brand loyalty
and brand switching on purchase decisions”. Supplied by
Marketing Consultants for Emerald.)
 This article has been cited by:

1. Gopal Das. 2014. Linkages of retailer awareness, retailer association, retailer perceived quality and retailer loyalty with purchase
intention: A study of Indian food retail brands. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 21:3, 284-292. [CrossRef]
2. Iason Papafotikas, Dimitrios Chatzoudes, Irene Kamenidou. 2014. Purchase Decisions of Greek Consumers: An Empirical Study.
Procedia Economics and Finance 9, 456-465. [CrossRef]
3. Martin Fraering, Michael S. Minor. 2013. Beyond loyalty: customer satisfaction, loyalty, and fortitude. Journal of Services
Marketing 27:4, 334-344. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
4. Victoria Magrath, Helen McCormick. 2013. Marketing design elements of mobile fashion retail apps. Journal of Fashion Marketing
and Management: An International Journal 17:1, 115-134. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Downloaded by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY At 03:25 13 November 2014 (PT)