JBR-08255; No of Pages 9

Journal of Business Research xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

The impact of franchisor support, brand commitment, brand citizenship behavior,

and franchisee experience on franchisee-perceived brand image
Munyaradzi W. Nyadzayo a,⁎, Margaret J. Matanda b,1, Michael T. Ewing c,2
a
Swinburne Business School, Department of Marketing, Tourism and Social Impact, Cnr Wakefield and William Streets, Hawthorn, Victoria 3122, Australia
b
Monash University, Department of Marketing, Peninsula Building D4, Room 24, McMahon's Road, Frankston, Victoria 3199, Australia
c
Deakin University, Faculty of Business & Law, 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood, Victoria 3125, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Purpose: This study examines the impact of franchisor support, brand commitment, brand citizenship behavior,
Received 30 December 2013 and franchisee experience on franchisee-perceived brand image (FPBI).
Received in revised form 4 December 2014 Methodology: The hypotheses were tested using survey data from retail franchisees in Australia, structural equa-
Accepted 16 December 2014 tion modeling, and bootstrapping regression methods.
Available online xxxx
Findings: The results show that both brand commitment and brand citizenship behavior mediate the effect of
franchisor support on FPBI. However, the effect of franchisor support on FPBI via brand commitment is higher
Keywords:
Franchisor support
for franchisees with less experience compared to their more experienced counterparts.
Brand commitment Practical implications: The study provides insights to franchise managers and B2B practitioners on factors that
Brand citizenship behavior enhance FPBI.
Franchisee-perceived brand image Originality/value: Despite the recognized importance of franchise brands, limited research examines how leverag-
Franchisee experience ing the franchise brand can improve franchisee performance. To address this gap, this study examines the effects
Franchise branding of franchisor support on FPBI via brand commitment and brand citizenship behavior moderated by franchisee
experience.
© 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction brand or organization (Baumgarth & Schmidt, 2010). Thus, similar to

Franchising is a rapidly growing business format and a major vehicle
for employment creation and economic growth, generating between
32–52% of retail sales in Australia, Germany, and the USA (Dant,
Grünhagen, & Windsperger, 2011). Franchising entails an arrangement
in which a franchisor sells contractual rights to the franchisee(s) to dis-
tribute goods or services using its brand name and business practices
(Combs, Michael, & Castrogiovanni, 2004). Thus, franchisor support
and franchise brand performance are crucial for the success of the
franchise business system. Additionally, the franchisee has a salient role
to play in developing the franchise brand and ensuring the success of
the franchise business. Hence, brand management is central to the pros-
perity of business-to-business (B2B) franchise exchanges (Chabowski,
Hult, & Mena, 2011).
Literature suggests that brand promise delivery to consumers
depends on how well customer-contact employees convey the brand
values as well as their attachment to, and identification with the
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 3 9214 8766.
E-mail addresses: mnyadzayo@swin.edu.au (M.W. Nyadzayo),
margaret.matanda@monash.edu (M.J. Matanda), michael.ewing@deakin.edu.au
(M.T. Ewing).
1
Tel.: +61 3 990 44021.
2
Tel.: +61 3 9244 6548.
customer-contact employees, the behavior of franchisees has a direct
impact on end-customers' brand experience and business performance
(Morhart, Herzog, & Tomczak, 2009). Franchisors can utilize internal
brand activities such as internal brand communications and brand-
centered human resource efforts (e.g., training support, recruitment
practices, and reward programs) to promote franchisees' brand commit-
ment and positive brand citizenship behavior (BCB). BCB refers to inter-
nal staffs' discretionary activities or generic behaviors that contribute to
the viability and vitality of the brand (Burmann, Zeplin, & Riley, 2009;
Hughes & Ahearne, 2010). Thus, franchisors should implement internal
branding strategies that enhance franchisees' attachment to the fran-
chise brand, since positive emotional connections to the brand can
promote constructive BCB. Also, successful franchise brand management
is a reflection of the value added by both B2B (franchisor–franchisee)
and B2C (franchisee–customer) relationships (Doherty & Alexander,
2006). However, despite the importance of B2B branding and internal
branding in enhancing the franchise brand (Baumgarth & Schmidt,
2010; Zachary, McKenny, Short, Davis, & Wu, 2011), there is limited
research on the benefits of leveraging the internal franchise brand to
enhance franchise brand image.
Franchisee's experience with the franchisor can strengthen or inhibit
relational value perceptions and relationship satisfaction (Grünhagen &
Dorsch, 2003). That is, as franchisees gain more experience with a

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.12.008
0148-2963/© 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Nyadzayo, M.W., et al., The impact of franchisor support, brand commitment, brand citizenship behavior, and franchisee
experience on franchisee-perceived brand image, Journal of Business Research (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.12.008
2 M.W. Nyadzayo et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
franchise system, they become more independent and derive fewer
benefits from franchisor support (Hodge, Oppewal, &
Terawatanavong, 2013). Others suggest that franchisees with long ten-
ure are more cooperative and tend to refrain from opportunistic behav-
iors (Blut et al., 2011). Thus, given the growing interest in franchise
relationship dynamics, this study examines whether the level of experi-
ence that a franchisee has with a franchise brand affects their percep-
tions of the brand image.
To examine the research gaps identified above, this study employs
an identity-based brand management (IBBM) framework to empirically
investigate (i) the relationships among franchisor support, franchisees'
brand commitment, BCB, and franchisee-perceived brand image; and
(ii) how these relationships can vary based on franchisee experience.
The remainder of the paper proceeds as follows: In the next section,
the paper draws from the IBBM view to provide a theoretical foundation
for the study. Next, relevant literature on franchisee-perceived brand
image, franchisor support, brand commitment, BCB, and franchisee
experience is reviewed and hypotheses are formulated. Research
methods, scale validation, data analysis, and results are then described.
The study concludes by discussing theoretical and managerial implica-
tions, and future research directions.
2. Theoretical framework, literature review, and hypotheses
2.1. Identity-based brand management (IBBM) framework
Prior research attests that strong brands are built through identity-
based brand management (Aaker, 1991; Burmann, Jost-Benz, & Riley,
2009; Kapferer, 2004). The IBBM framework articulates that strong
brands result from internal stakeholders' rationalization of who
they are within the organization and what is distinctive or enduring
about that organization (Aaker, 1991). Scholars using the brand
management approach argue that brand identity is the basis for brand
image (Burmann, Jost-Benz, et al., 2009; Kapferer, 2004). Thus, in
franchise brand management, it is presumed that franchisees' positive
perceptions of the franchise brand are likely to translate to positive
brand image to the end-customers.
The IBBM framework provides an appropriate theoretical founda-
tion to our understanding of the franchising phenomena (Lawrence &
Kaufmann, 2011; Zachary et al., 2011). The management of the fran-
chise brand identity is vital for the success of the brand since franchisees
engage with multiple and sometimes competing work groups with
which they can identify (Lawrence & Kaufmann, 2011). In addition,
aligning franchisees' brand identity with the franchise brand is critical
due to the mutual interdependent nature of the franchisor–franchisee
relationship (Combs et al., 2004; Croonen & Brand, 2013). Moreover,
research shows that franchisor–franchisee relationships operate under
the notion that economic activities occur within a social setting; hence
identity interpretations should be considered when investigating
franchisee behavior (Doherty & Alexander, 2006; Kidwell, Nygaard, &
Silkoset, 2007).
Extant research has also used the identification construct to under-
stand individuals' psychological attachment to organizations (Ashforth
& Mael, 1989). Conceptualized as the ‘perception of oneness’ within
the organization, organizational identification occurs when an
individual's beliefs about the organization become self-referential or
self-defining (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). When individuals identify
strongly with the organization, they are likely to be more intrinsically
motivated and behave congruently with the organization's interests
(Hughes & Ahearne, 2010). Even though limited empirical work has fo-
cused on examining the extent to which franchisees identify with the
brand that they sell, extant literature on brand relationships (Fournier,
1998; Tuškej, Golob, & Podnar, 2013) and brand identification
(Hughes & Ahearne, 2010) allows for some inferences to be made. For
instance, research suggests that people define themselves by what
they consume or possess and with whom they associate, leading to
Please cite this article as: Nyadzayo, M.W., et al., The impact of franchisor support, brand commitment, brand citizenship behavior, and franchisee
experience on franchisee-perceived brand image, Journal of Business Research (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.12.008
the formation of relationships with brands that reinforce self-concept
(Fournier, 1998), that in turn, enhances brand image (Da Silva & Syed
Alwi, 2008). Thus, organizational identity theory (such as IBBM) is an
appropriate framework to explain how franchisees' identification with
the franchise brand can engender positive brand feelings, thereby en-
hancing positive brand image perceptions (Lawrence & Kaufmann,
2011). In this study, the IBBM framework is adapted to explain how
franchisor support impacts franchisees' brand commitment and BCB
that, in turn, can influence franchisees' perceptions of brand image —
and how these relationships are moderated by franchisee experience
(see Fig. 1).
2.2. Franchisee-perceived brand image (FPBI)
Brand image is viewed as the perceptions about a brand as reflected
by the brand associations held in consumer memory (Keller, 2003). In
the present study, brand image is conceptualized from the perspective
of the owners of the franchise business (franchisees) and hence the
term franchisee-perceived brand image (FPBI) is used. Brand image
creates value for manufacturers as it makes it easier for customers
searching for product information and also helps create associations
that elicit positive feelings and attitudes that can spill over to other
brands in the product line (Aaker, 1991; Keller, 2003). Although the
concept of brand image was developed in the B2C context, it has since
been adapted to B2B research (see Bendixen, Bukasa, & Abratt, 2004).
For instance, Campbell, Papania, Parent, and Cyr (2010) argue that
B2B firms should select business partners whose brand personalities
mirror their own so as to enhance brand image. Prior research attests
that B2B marketers can accrue the same benefits as consumer marketers
by investing in building strong brand image among all stakeholders
(Bendixen et al., 2004). Further, the value created by brand image can
also be projected by the service delivery and behavior of its retailers
(e.g., franchisees) as consumers usually evaluate retailers based on the
brands that they sell (Baumgarth & Schmidt, 2010). Hence, brand
image is considered one of the main facets of the IBBM approach
(Burmann, Jost-Benz, et al., 2009).
While the franchise brand is critical to the success of franchise
businesses, research shows that franchise brand management can be
challenging (Pitt, Napoli, & van der Merwe, 2003). Although franchisors
set performance standards and provide marketing support, and a
codified business model, the performance of the franchise brand also
depends on how well franchisees understand, articulate, and identify
with the franchise brand (Nyadzayo, Matanda, & Ewing, 2011). Thus,
compared to other B2B markets, franchise branding is a distinctive
concept (Pitt et al., 2003) and the factors that impact FPBI are likely
to vary in this channel. For instance, since conflicts are inevitable in
franchise relationships, effective conflict handling and consistent infor-
mation exchange promote positive franchisee behavior such as trust
and satisfaction (Dickey, McKnight, & George, 2008). Additionally, past
research concurs that the provision of adequate support by franchisors
to franchisees can minimize opportunistic and free riding behavior,
resulting in constructive behavior toward brand building activities
that enhance FPBI (Nyadzayo et al., 2011). Accordingly, the present
study suggests that the provision of adequate franchisor support can
promote franchisees' brand commitment and BCB that can engender
FPBI.
2.3. Franchisor support
Franchisees that are provided with well-developed start-up and con-
tinual support services by their franchisors are more likely to maintain
consistent operational standards (Roh & Yoon, 2009) that can promote
the franchise brand. By providing adequate support, franchisors can min-
imize opportunistic and free-riding behavior that may reduce franchisee
satisfaction and inhibit relationship quality (Kidwell et al., 2007).
Thus, the level of franchisor support engenders pro-organizational
 M.W. Nyadzayo et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
H3
Brand
commitment
H1
Franchisor
support
H4
Brand
citizenship
H7a H7b behavior
H6
Franchisee
experience
Direct effect Moderating effect
Fig. 1. Conceptual model.
behavior in franchisees that in turn enriches the franchise brand image.
Franchisor support can be in the form of non-retrievable investments
or relationship-specific commitment of resources in the relationship
such as training, marketing, and business development (Wilson, 1995).
Also, franchisees assess the trustworthiness of their franchise system
based on the franchisor's ability to provide a range of operational support
services (Croonen & Brand, 2013). It is therefore rational to conclude that
franchisees that receive sufficient franchisor support are more likely to
have higher levels of brand commitment and BCB and tend to undertake
more brand value–creating activities.
2.4. Brand commitment
Brand commitment is crucial for successful long-term relationships,
as it enables B2B partners to preserve the relationship, avoid alternative
relationships, and reduce perceptions of risk (Davis & Mentzer, 2008).
Brand commitment is the emotional or psychological connection
between a consumer and a brand/organization (Fullerton, 2005). In
B2B marketing, brand commitment has been operationalized as a bi-
dimensional construct composed of behavioral and attitudinal loyalty
(Tuškej et al., 2013). The behavioral dimension is reflected through
repeated purchase of the brand, whereas attitudinal commitment is
reflected through consumers' psychological attachment to the brand
(Tuškej et al., 2013). Attitudinal commitment is comprised of calculative
commitment (rational, economic calculation) and affective commit-
ment (emotional, social sentiment) (Fullerton, 2005; Gilliland & Bello,
2002). Affective commitment is central to the current study as it reflects
the socio-psychological attachment to a business partner based on
loyalty, identification, and affiliation (Gilliland & Bello, 2002).
Franchising contracts can limit the alternatives available to franchise
owners which might constrain the promotion of affective or emotional
brand commitment. Consequently, franchisees' emotional commitment
to the franchise brand is important for brand success, as it can influence
their BCB, which is important for attaining franchise business system
goals and objectives (Kimpakorn & Tocquer, 2008). Prior research also
suggests that the level of franchisor support influences franchisees' atti-
tudes and attachment toward the franchise brand (Nyadzayo et al.,
2011). Thus, similar to employees, when franchisees perceive a positive
relationship based on the overall support provided, then they are likely
to develop higher levels of commitment to the brand (Burmann &
Please cite this article as: Nyadzayo, M.W., et al., The impact of franchisor support, brand commitment, brand citizenship behavior, and franchisee
experience on franchisee-perceived brand image, Journal of Business Research (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.12.008
3
H2
Franchisee-
perceived brand
image
H5
Zeplin, 2005). Moreover, brand commitment enhances brand image
since committed individuals are motivated to support the brand
and have positive brand associations (Kimpakorn & Tocquer, 2008).
Therefore, it is expected that positive emotions can lead to brand
commitment and, in turn, can promote positive franchisee's brand
perceptions. Hence:
H1. Franchisor support positively influences franchisee brand
commitment.
H2. Brand commitment has a significant positive effect on FPBI.
H3. Brand commitment positively mediates the link between franchisor
support and FPBI.
2.5. Brand citizenship behavior (BCB)
Brand citizenship behavior describes discretionary behavior that
benefits the corporate brand (Morhart et al., 2009). According to
Burmann and Zeplin (2005), BCB entails voluntary generic behaviors
that help enhance brand identity, such as brand consideration, brand
enthusiasm, sportsmanship, helping behavior, brand endorsement,
self-development, and brand advancement. BCB is crucial in franchise
retailing contexts due to regular and extensive interactions between
the franchisees/employees and customers (Nyadzayo et al., 2011).
Prior B2B research has represented BCB as a three-dimensional con-
struct comprising willingness for further development, willingness to
help, and brand enthusiasm (Burmann, Zeplin, et al., 2009). Extending
this logic, this present study suggests that BCB in franchising consists of
(i) brand endorsement, (ii) helping behavior, and (iii) brand enthusiasm.
Brand endorsement is suggested to be more crucial in franchising
relationships as positive word of mouth plays a major role in such highly
competitive markets (Tuškej et al., 2013). Brand endorsement involves
recommending the brand to others, such as customers, friends, and fam-
ily. Research shows that individuals who identify with the organization
tend to advocate the brand to others (Morhart et al., 2009), recommend
its products more often; defend it from criticism, and encourage other
employees to focus on the brand (Hughes & Ahearne, 2010). Helping be-
havior refers to positive attitudes, friendliness, helpfulness, and empathy
toward internal and external customers. Helping behavior can include
franchisees' reporting or confronting colleagues for behavior detrimental
4 M.W. Nyadzayo et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
to the brand or reporting initiatives that threaten the competitive posi-
tion of the brand. Brand enthusiasm involves taking extra brand building
initiatives, such as local marketing activities through charity events/
sponsorships, participating in brand-focused events (e.g., workshops
and conferences), and passing on customer views that support high
quality branding decisions.
Prior research suggests that psychological attachment to a brand can
lead to brand identification which promotes BCB (Burmann, Jost-Benz,
et al., 2009; Löhndorf & Diamantopoulos, 2014). In fact, franchisors
play a crucial role in enhancing franchisees' brand identification, as fran-
chisor initiatives (e.g., franchisor support) can motivate franchisees to
adopt various behavioral responses (Croonen & Brand, 2013). Thus,
franchisor support is essential in influencing positive BCB in franchisees
(Nyadzayo et al., 2011). Löhndorf and Diamantopoulos (2014) agree
that when organizational identification is high, organizational support
can enhance employees' voluntary behavior such as brand development
and positive word of mouth. Thus, it is expected that higher levels of
franchisor support can engender franchisees' feeling of belonging,
thereby promoting BCB. Hence:
H4. Franchisor support has a significant positive effect on BCB.
Further, it is also expected that committed franchisees that exhibit
positive BCB are more likely to have a positive franchise brand image.
Limited research has focused on the effect of intangible value-creating
psychological factors, such as brand commitment and BCB, on perceived
brand image in B2B contexts. An exception is a study by Burmann,
Zeplin, et al. (2009) that found that brand commitment and BCB
enhance brand-strengthening effects. The argument for internal brand
management is based on the crucial role played by the internal staff
(e.g., franchisees) to ensure coherent brand experiences across all
customer-touch points (Burmann & Zeplin, 2005). For instance, franchi-
sees with positive BCB are likely to forgive negative experiences and
dispel feelings of mistrust, thereby engendering long-lasting relation-
ships and maintaining positive associations with the franchise brand.
Vallaster and de Chernatony (2006, p. 761) concur with this view and
state that “… brand consistent behavior supports the development of
a coherent brand image, and is considered one of the crucial success
factors in corporate brand management.” The present study expects
that franchisees can develop a sense of attachment toward the franchise
brand that can promote BCB and, in turn, contribute to FPBI. Thus:
H5. BCB is positively related to FPBI.
H6. BCB positively mediates the relationship between franchisor
support and FPBI.
2.6. Franchisee experience
Franchisee experience refers to the length of a relationship between
a franchisee and a franchisor (Dickey et al., 2008; Tikoo, 2002). As
franchisees' behavior is influenced by franchisors' expertise, the level
of support provided by franchisors is presumed to be more important
to less experienced franchisees (Tikoo, 2002). The question of whether
relationship variables evolve with experience has had divergent views
in past research. For instance, Dickey et al. (2008) state that relationship
variables such as trust and commitment, knowledge about the franchise
system, and level of independence are all likely to vary with franchisee
experience. In fact, relational properties such as cooperation, depen-
dence, and relationship strength tend to be evaluated more positively
over time (Blut et al., 2011). Yet, Peterson and Dant (1990) posit that
less experienced franchisees identify more advantages compared to
those with more experience. That is, a considerable level of coordination
and support is required at the initial stages of the relationship to cater to
the inexperienced franchisees (Blut et al., 2011). This study therefore
posits that the indirect effect of franchisor support on FPBI via the
mediators (brand commitment and BCB) is likely to be stronger when
Please cite this article as: Nyadzayo, M.W., et al., The impact of franchisor support, brand commitment, brand citizenship behavior, and franchisee
experience on franchisee-perceived brand image, Journal of Business Research (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.12.008
franchisees have less experience than when they become more experi-
enced. Hence:
H7. The indirect effect of franchisor support on FPBI via (a) brand com-
mitment and (b) BCB is stronger at lower levels of franchisee experience
than at higher levels.
3. Methodology
3.1. Data collection, sample design, and measures
Data was collected from Australian franchise owners (franchisees)
via a self-administered questionnaire. The sampling frame was gathered
from a syndicated database, websites, franchise magazines, and the
Australian franchise directory. To ensure generalizability, the sampling
frame consisted of retail franchises from multiple industries (e.g., fast-
food, coffee, cleaning services, to mention a few). Stratified random
sampling was used to select respondents based on industry category
and geographic location and then a representative sample was random-
ly selected from the respective strata. A combination of online and mail
surveys were used to collect data to reduce overall costs, maximize
response rates, and minimize non-response bias (Deutskens, de Ruyter,
& Wetzels, 2006).
A package containing the mail survey, an explanatory statement, and
a pre-paid return envelope was mailed to 922 randomly selected
franchisees. Then, 1278 e-mail addresses were randomly generated
from the sampling frame discussed above and respondents were invited
by e-mail to complete the questionnaire online. Respondents were
offered a non-monetary incentive (i.e., results summary). Email and
mail reminders were sent two weeks after the first mail out and emails.
A total of 346 surveys (mail, 126; online, 220) were received and no
duplicates were identified in the sample. However, 11 mail responses
were unusable while online surveys had no missing data due to their
forced response nature. Thus, the 335 usable responses resulted in
response rates of 13% (mail surveys) and 17% (online surveys). The sam-
ple consisted mostly of males (68%), with an average age of 35 years,
and 53% had more than five years of franchising experience. Most
franchisees (55%) were in the food and non-food retail industry and
about 45% in the service sector. In terms of geographic location, all
Australian states were represented and the majority came from
Victoria (31%), New South Wales (25%), and Queensland (20%).
To check for non-response bias, mean scores of early and late re-
spondents were compared and no significant differences were found
(Armstrong & Overton, 1977). Non-response bias of the actual study
was assessed by contacting a random sample of 30 non-respondents
via email and asking them to answer all non-demographic questions.
T-tests of group means showed no significant differences between
respondents and non-respondents, thus non-response bias was not
evident. Further tests were undertaken to check for accuracy, represen-
tativeness, and bias between online and mail survey responses
(Deutskens et al., 2006), by comparing the distribution of responses
(e.g., means) (see Hansen, 1980). For instance, the descriptive results
for BCB (meanmail = 5.72, meanonline = 5.78) and brand commitment
(Mmail = 4.28, Monline = 4.30) confirm no significant variability
among the variables. Similar procedures were undertaken with all key
variables and no significant variances between online and mail survey
respondents were detected.
Multi-item measures (N3), on a seven-point Likert scale anchored
on ‘1’ = extremely disagree to ‘7’ extremely agree were used. All
measures were adapted from literature and modified to suit the study
context. The source and measurement items are shown in Table 1.
BCB appeared as a higher-order construct, whereas franchisor support,
brand commitment, FPBI, and franchisee experience were measured
as first-order factors. Finally, content validity was established by
assessing face validity using a panel of experts such as franchisors,
 M.W. Nyadzayo et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2014) xxx–xxx 5

franchisees, franchise consultants, and B2B branding academics, to Table 2

assess how well the instrument represented the variables and constructs Means, standard deviations, inter-construct correlations and discriminant validity.

under study. Constructs Mean SD AVE 1 2 3 4 5

1. Brand commitment 4.29 .75 .59 1

3.2. Preliminary analysis and measurement model 2. Franchisee-perceived brand 5.36 1.26 .69 .17a 1
image
In Table 1 the standardized factor loadings for each measurement 3. Franchisee experience 1.66 .73 n/a .00 .00 1
4. Brand citizenship behavior 5.78 .82 .55 .09 .38 .00 1
item as well as Cronbach's alpha scores are provided. Standardized
5. Franchisor support 6.03 .83 .50 .02 .35 .00 .17 1
factor loadings assess item reliability and loadings of .50 or more sug-
gest adequate item reliability (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010). AVE = average variance extracted; SD = standard deviation.
Underlined correlations are not significant at α = .05; all other correlations are sig-
The Cronbach's alpha scores ranged between .79 and .96, indicating nificant at p b .01 (2-tailed).
adequate convergence or internal consistency (Hair et al., 2010). Table 2 Note: Except for the mean-centered franchisee experience, all other means are based on a
shows the means, standard deviations, and correlations for all the 7-point Likert scale.
a
measures. Mean values indicate that most measures are generally above Squared multiple correlations of the paired constructs.

their respective midpoint, while revealing evidence of relatively low

Table 1
Measures, standardized factor loadings and Cronbach's alpha scores.
Items
Franchisor support (adapted from Roh and Yoon (2009))
The training provided by my franchisor was very useful.
The amount of franchise fees/royalties was not high.
The promotional and advertising assistance is very good.
The on-going service provided by my franchisor is very
good.
There are few franchisor restrictions on day-to-day
decisions.
The marketing fees and advertising fees are reasonable.
My franchisor/representative visits my store regularly.
Brand commitment (adapted from Kimpakorn and Tocquer
(2008))
I'm willing to put a great deal of effort, beyond what is
expected, to help the success of this brand.
I'm proud to tell others that this is a great brand to be part
of.
For me this is the best of all possible brands to be part of.
I regret I chose to work for this brand over others
considering.a
It would take very little to cause me to leave this brand.a
Franchisee-perceived brand image (adapted from Yoo and
Donthu (2001))
There are good reasons to work with this franchise brand
instead of others.
This brand has personality.
This brand is interesting.
I can easily recognize this brand among other competing
brands.
Overall, this brand provides good value for money.
Brand citizenship behavior (adapted from Johnson and Rapp (2010) and Lee and Allen
(2002))
Brand enthusiasm
Attend business events not required by my franchisor that .79
promote the brand.
Keep abreast with developments in the brand.
Offer ideas to improve the brand.
Recommend this franchise brand to others.
Brand endorsement
Defend the brand when other franchisees or people
criticize it.
Support this brand through good and bad times.
Forgive negative experiences with this brand.
Recommend this franchise brand to others.
Helping behavior
Wear this franchise's brands or logos on my clothes.
Promote this franchise brand in my local area.
Show genuine courtesy toward other franchisees, even
under the most trying circumstances.
Share my resources to help other franchisees who have
work-related problems.
Franchisee experience (adapted from Tikoo (2002))
Indicate the total number of months/years' experience
working with this franchise system. b
a
Reverse-coded; SFLs = standardized factor loadings, all significant at the .05 level.
b
Data transformed as 1 = low (b5 years); 2 = medium (greater than 5, less than
10 years); 3 = high (N10 years).
correlations among the independent variables. Thus, multicollinearity
was not a concern in this study (Hair et al., 2010).
SFLs Cronbach's α The results in Table 2 show that the average variance extracted (AVE)
.87 for each construct is greater than the squared correlation coefficient of the
.71 respective paired constructs, providing support for discriminant validity
.73
(Hair et al., 2010). The AVEs were all N .50 suggesting scale validity
.68
.78 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).
To assess convergent validity, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using
.67 AMOS v.20 was used and in the measurement model all items loaded on
their pre-specified constructs (Hair et al., 2010). The CFA model's
.75
.61
goodness-of-fit indices showed acceptable model fit (χ2130 = 299.30,
.89 χ2/df = 2.30, p b .001, GFI = .91, NFI = .94, TLI = .95, CFI = .96,
RMSEA = .060), proving convergent validity (Hair et al., 2010).
.57 Since measures were assessed using the same method and the data
were from the same source, common method variance (CMV) could be
.69
a concern (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). CMV can also
.85 be due to social desirability, ambiguous wording, or questionnaire
.81 length (Malhotra, Kim, & Patil, 2006), so care was taken to minimize
its likelihood during questionnaire design and data analysis. Specifically,
.87
.92
to reduce CMV a pretested self-administered survey was used to check
for ambiguity and help reduce social desirability effects. A marker vari-
.82 able that was theoretically unrelated to other variables was also includ-
ed in the questionnaire (Malhotra et al., 2006). The correlation of the
.89
marker variable with other constructs in the study was relatively low
.88
.80 and the correlation matrix between the marker and the other variables
was statistically significant after adjusting for CMV, so the results cannot
.76 be accounted for by CMV (Lindell & Whitney, 2001). Finally, this study
specified a complex moderated mediation model thereby minimizing
CMV as respondents are unlikely to use cognitive maps to visualize
.82 such relationships (Podsakoff et al., 2003).
.81
4. Data analysis and results
.62
.83 4.1. Results of direct and mediating effects
.83
.56
To examine direct and mediating effects between franchisor
.58 support, brand commitment, BCB, and FPBI, a structural model using
.83 structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis in AMOS v.20 was tested.
.83 The structural model revealed acceptable model fit (χ2138 = 360.52,
.79 χ2/df = 2.61, p b .001, GFI = .90, NFI = .92, TLI = .94, CFI = .95,
.72
RMSEA = .069). The results of the structural model are shown in
.69
.75 Fig. 2. The mediation effects were tested using the non-parametric
bootstrapping regression technique (Hayes, 2013) and 5000 sample it-
.83 erations were specified to estimate both direct and indirect effects. The
application of bootstrapped bias-corrected confidence intervals (CIs)
n/a
n/a helps to circumvent statistical power problems caused by asymmetric
and other non-normal indirect effect sampling distributions (Cheung
& Lau, 2008). The direct and mediation results are shown in Table 3.
Table 3a shows that the proposed direct effects between franchisor
support and brand commitment (H1), brand commitment and FPBI

Please cite this article as: Nyadzayo, M.W., et al., The impact of franchisor support, brand commitment, brand citizenship behavior, and franchisee
experience on franchisee-perceived brand image, Journal of Business Research (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.12.008
6 M.W. Nyadzayo et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Brand
commitment
b1 = .17***
a1 = .42***
Franchisee-
Franchisor perceived brand
support image

a2 = .62*** b2 = .72***
Brand
citizenship
behavior

***
Significant at p < .001

Fig. 2. Structural model results.

(H2), franchisor support and BCB (H4), and BCB and FPBI (H5) are all
statistically significant and supported. The results in Table 3b provide
support for H3 and H6 as the mediated effects of franchisor support
on FPBI via both brand commitment and BCB are significantly different
from zero at the .001 level. However, partial mediation was established
on these relationships as all direct (β = .36, t = 10.37) and total effects
(β = .53, t = 13.51) were statistically significant.
4.2. Tests of moderation analysis
To test for moderation (H7) a computational procedure in SPSS
using the PROCESS macro developed by Hayes (2013) was employed.
This tool is capable not only of implementing moderation or mediation
analysis, but also combine both to determine the significance of the in-
teraction effects at different values of the moderator in an integrated
moderated mediation model (Hayes, 2013). The results are shown in
Table 4.
The interaction effects of franchisee experience on the link between
franchisor support and brand commitment to FPBI was statistically
significant (β = −.08, t = −2.14), in support of H7a. There was no sup-
port for H7b as the interaction between franchisor support and BCB to
FPBI was not statistically significant (β = .02, t = .56). As the results
show that franchisee experience moderates the franchisor support–
brand commitment–FPBI link, it is necessary to examine how the effect
of the franchisor support on FPBI via brand commitment varies with
changes in franchisee experience. A simple slope analysis was then
used to estimate the effect on the focal variable (franchisor support)
at one standard deviation below the mean (−1SD), moderate (mean),
and one standard deviation above the mean (+1SD) levels of the mod-
erator–franchisee experience (Hayes, 2013).
Consistent with H7a, Table 4 shows that the slope of the indirect ef-
fect of franchisor support on FPBI via brand commitment is stronger
(steeper) at lower levels of franchisee experience (β = .05, boot SE =
.02) than at higher levels (β = .00, boot SE = .02). Further, Table 4 re-
veals that the franchisor support–brand commitment–FPBI link becomes
weaker and statistically insignificant at high levels of franchisee experi-
ence (+1SD = 2.41), as the bootstrapped confidence intervals contain
a zero. As shown in Fig. 3, the slope of the indirect effect is steeper at
low levels than at higher levels of franchisee experience. However, the
franchisor support–BCB–FPBI link is not moderated by franchisee experi-
ence, indicating that this mediated effect does not differ with the level of
franchisee experience (see Fig. 4).
5. Discussion and implications
Literature highlights how retailers are increasingly focusing on
brand building as a way to enhance their competitive advantage
(Aaker, 1991), particularly in franchise B2B markets (Chabowski et al.,
2011). Consequently, emerging literature agrees that internal branding
can turn internal staff such as franchisees and employees into brand
champions — that are motivated to engage in behaviors that support
their firm's brand building efforts (Löhndorf & Diamantopoulos,
2014). Franchisees adopt certain behavioral responses to the
franchisor's initiatives and these responses can either be constructive

Table 3
Results for direct relationships and simple mediation effects.

(a) Direct relationships

H Relationships β SE t-Value Conclusion

H1 Franchisor support → brand commitment .42 .12 6.23⁎⁎⁎ Supported

H2 Brand commitment → FPBI .17 .03 4.00⁎⁎⁎ Supported
H4 Franchisor support → BCB .62 .08 8.34⁎⁎⁎ Supported
H5 BCB → FPBI .72 .07 12.62⁎⁎⁎ Supported

(b) Standardized indirect effects: bias-corrected

Hypothesized mediated relationship β SE Bootstrap 95% CIs Conclusion

Lower Upper

H3: Franchisor support → brand commitment → FPBI .03 .02 .00 .07 Supported
H6: Franchisor support → BCB → FPBI .16 .03 .10 .18 Supported

Note: FPBI = Franchisee-perceived brand image; BCB = Brand citizenship behavior, CI = Confidence interval.
⁎⁎⁎ Significant at p b .001, 2-tailed test.

Please cite this article as: Nyadzayo, M.W., et al., The impact of franchisor support, brand commitment, brand citizenship behavior, and franchisee
experience on franchisee-perceived brand image, Journal of Business Research (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.12.008
 M.W. Nyadzayo et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2014) xxx–xxx 7

Table 4
Interaction effects of franchisee experience on the specified relationships.

Hyp. Y Interactions β SE t-Value p-Value Conclusion

Constant 3.42 .33 10.42 .000

H7a Brand commitment Franchisor support (F) .21 .07 2.91 .004
Franchisee experience (W) .34 .17 1.93 .054
F×W −.08 .04 −2.14 .033 Supported
Constant 4.88 .33 14.65 .000
H7b Brand citizenship behavior Franchisor support (F) .20 .07 2.81 .005
Franchisee experience (W) .08 .18 .46 .649
F×W .02 .04 .56ns .578 Not supported

Conditional indirect effects of franchisor support on FPBI via brand commitment at specific levels of franchisee experience

M ± 1 SD Boot β Boot SE Bootstrap 95% CIs

Lower Upper

Brand commitment Low: −1SD (1.00) .05 .02 .01 .11

Moderate: M (1.67) .03 .02 .00 .06
High: +1SD (2.41) .00 .02 −.04 .05

Note: FPBI = franchisee-perceived brand image, ns = not significant at α = .05, CI = confidence interval.

or destructive to the franchise brand (Croonen & Brand, 2013). Yet, lim-
ited empirical research has focused on how franchisors can promote
franchisees' constructive behavior and avert destructive behavior
(Croonen & Brand, 2013). To address this gap, the current study investi-
gated the relationships among franchisor support, franchisees' brand
commitment, BCB, and FPBI; and how these relationships vary with
franchisee experience.
Based on the IBBM framework the results of this study suggest that
franchisor support drives brand commitment, and that positive BCB
encourages franchisees to engage in brand supportive behaviors that
enhance FPBI. Prior research concurs that internal branding that fosters
organizational identification, can motivate internal staff to help build
and strengthen brand image (Baumgarth & Schmidt, 2010; Löhndorf
& Diamantopoulos, 2014; Morhart et al., 2009). Further, Altinay,
Brookes, Madanoglu, and Aktas (2014) attest that franchisors can
enhance franchisees' confidence in franchisors' capabilities through
the provision of appropriate training and operational support. More-
over, the current study aligns with past research that calls for the careful
integration of brand management and relationship management in
enhancing brand image to create value for the firm and its stakeholders
(Davis & Mentzer, 2008).
Perhaps the most significant findings of this study are related to the
moderating role played by franchisee experience. The results suggest
that the less experienced the franchisee, the stronger the influence
of franchisor support on FPBI via brand commitment. Thus, franchisor
support plays a critical role in engendering higher levels of brand
commitment that can promote positive brand image in less experienced
franchisees. Conversely, the results indicate that as franchisees gain
more experience, the impact of franchisor support on behavioral com-
mitment to the brand and brand image perceptions diminishes. These
findings are in line with prior research that advocates the tenuous and
dynamic nature of B2B relationships (Blut et al., 2011). For example,
prior research attests that the initial stages of a relationship are charac-
terized by franchisees that tend to lack the necessary experience and
confidence; hence a significant level of coordination and support is
essential to promoting constructive behavior, brand commitment, and
trust (Blut et al., 2011; Tikoo, 2002).
The unexpected finding was that franchisee experience did not
moderate the indirect effect of franchisor support on FPBI via BCB.
These results seem to suggest that BCB has a crucial role to play in facil-
itating the link between franchisor support and FPBI irrespective of
franchisee's experience. One possible explanation for this is that regard-
less of the stage of the franchisor–franchisee relationship, continuous
franchisor support is crucial in engendering constructive BCB that can
enhance FPBI.
5.1. Theoretical implications
This study responds to calls for a stronger theoretical grounding to
inform B2B branding and franchising research (Zachary et al., 2011).
First, by drawing on the IBBM framework, the study provides empirical

0.07

0.05
Indirect effect

0.03

0.01

-0.01

-0.03
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Franchisee experience
Short Mediated effect Long

Fig. 3. Conditional indirect effects of franchisor support on FPBI via brand commitment at Fig. 4. Conditional indirect effects of franchisor support on FPBI via BCB at different
different franchisee experience levels. franchisee experience levels.

Please cite this article as: Nyadzayo, M.W., et al., The impact of franchisor support, brand commitment, brand citizenship behavior, and franchisee
experience on franchisee-perceived brand image, Journal of Business Research (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.12.008
8 M.W. Nyadzayo et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
evidence that both brand commitment and BCB mediate the effect of
franchisor support on FPBI. Second, the study extends prior research
that has highlighted the importance of organizational identity theory
(IBBM framework) in explaining franchising phenomena and highlights
the importance of aligning franchisees' identity with the goals of both
the franchisor and the franchise brand. Third, the study builds on
existing research (see Burmann, Zeplin, et al., 2009) to conceptualize
and operationalize BCB in franchise relationships. Fourth, by examining
the moderating effects of franchisee experience, this study contributes
to knowledge by indicating how and why behavioral variables such as
brand commitment vary with the lifecycle stage of the franchise
relationship. Finally, despite the importance of franchisees in driving
the success of the brand, little empirical research has addressed how
franchisors can motivate franchisees into brand champions that are mo-
tivated to engage in behaviors that promote the franchise organization's
brand building efforts. Hence, the current study contributes to theory by
advancing an empirically tested model explaining how the effect of
franchisor support on FPBI via brand commitment and BCB is moderated
by franchisee experience. Consequently, the results of this study facilitate
a better understanding of the ‘how and what’ internal brand manage-
ment initiatives enhance FPBI.
5.2. Managerial implications
This study has several implications for managers in franchising and
B2B markets. First, franchise headquarters and franchisors need to
develop appropriate supporting structures (e.g. marketing, training,
recruitment, and business development) that reinforce franchisees'
brand commitment and lead to the articulation of BCB by franchisees.
Accordingly, the study seeks to inform franchise managers of the need
for well-integrated internal branding practices that are essential for
the development of positive attitudes and BCB in franchisees. Second,
the study highlighted the need for franchisors to develop and imple-
ment internal branding strategies focused on aligning franchisees'
behavior with the desired franchise brand image. Franchisors are
advised to encourage existing franchisees to embrace the culture of
self-driven positive brand-related attitudes. Third, it is rational to sug-
gest that when recruiting new franchisees, it is crucial for franchisors
to select individuals whose values are closely aligned to the franchise
brand image.
Finally, the study established and acknowledged the role played by
franchisee experience as this can guide franchise managers in under-
standing (i) the dynamic nature of franchise relationships, and (ii) ini-
tiatives that best fit the various stages of the franchisor–franchisee
relationship cycle. For example, given that organizational identification
is low at the early-stages of a relationship (less experienced franchi-
sees); adequate franchisor support can act as a proxy that promotes
the development of franchisees' brand commitment and motivate
them to engage in BCB.
5.3. Limitations and directions for future research
The study has some limitations that might constrain the interpreta-
tion of the results, but these also point to opportunities for future
research. First, while the results may be generalizable to other countries
and contexts, the economic, geographical, and cultural make-up of
Australia should be taken into consideration when interpreting the
results. Future research could test how cross-cultural or country-of-
origin effects may influence the relationships investigated in this
study. Second, future research could also investigate how the factors
investigated in this study affect other branding outcomes, such as fran-
chise brand equity. Third, franchising is a constrained environment that
may repress expression of voluntary functional BCB. Therefore, future
research could explore other underlying mechanisms, such as how the
franchise contracts or control systems promote or inhibit BCB, not
only in different franchises but also in non-franchised settings such
Please cite this article as: Nyadzayo, M.W., et al., The impact of franchisor support, brand commitment, brand citizenship behavior, and franchisee
experience on franchisee-perceived brand image, Journal of Business Research (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.12.008
as licensor–licensee relationships. Fourth, the study investigated the
moderating role of a single variable-franchisee experience. Future
research could consider the moderating role of other market-related
or organizational variables, such as franchisor/franchisee competence,
that could potentially moderate the relationships specified in this
study. Lastly, given that prior research has called for empirical work
on how branding practices and relationships differ between global
and national or local franchises (Zachary et al., 2011), a global-level
study examining relationships that emerged in this study across coun-
tries and different types of franchises would contribute to additional
knowledge in this area.
Acknowledgments
The authors want to thank the Editor and the two anonymous
Reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions.
References
Aaker, D.A. (1991). Managing brand equity: Capitalizing on the value of a brand name. New
York: Free Press.
Altinay, L., Brookes, M., Madanoglu, M., & Aktas, G. (2014). Franchisees' trust in and satis-
faction with franchise partnerships. Journal of Business Research, 67(5), 722–728.
Armstrong, J.S., & Overton, T.S. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys.
Journal of Marketing Research, 14(3), 396–402.
Ashforth, B.E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of
Management Review, 14(1), 20–39.
Baumgarth, C., & Schmidt, M. (2010). How strong is the business-to-business brand in the
workforce? An empirically-tested model of ‘internal brand equity’ in a business-to-
business setting. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(8), 1250–1260.
Bendixen, M., Bukasa, K.A., & Abratt, R. (2004). Brand equity in the business-to-business
market. Industrial Marketing Management, 33(5), 371–380.
Blut, M., Backhaus, C., Heussler, T., Woisetschläger, D.M., Evanschitzky, H., & Ahlert, D.
(2011). What to expect after the honeymoon: Testing a lifecycle theory of franchise
relationships. Journal of Retailing, 87(3), 306–319.
Burmann, C., Jost-Benz, M., & Riley, N. (2009). Towards an identity-based brand equity
model. Journal of Business Research, 62(3), 390–397.
Burmann, C., & Zeplin, S. (2005). Building brand commitment: A behavioral approach to
internal brand management. Journal of Brand Management, 12(4), 279–300.
Burmann, C., Zeplin, S., & Riley, N. (2009). Key determinants of internal brand manage-
ment success: An exploratory empirical analysis. Journal of Brand Management,
16(4), 264–284.
Campbell, C., Papania, L., Parent, M., & Cyr, D. (2010). An exploratory study into brand
alignment in B2B relationships. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(5), 712–720.
Chabowski, B.P., Hult, T.G., & Mena, J.A. (2011). The retailing literature as a basis for
franchising research: Using intellectual structure to advance theory. Journal of
Retailing, 87(3), 269–284.
Cheung, G.W., & Lau, R.S. (2008). Testing mediation and suppression effects of latent
variables. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 296–325.
Combs, J.G., Michael, S.C., & Castrogiovanni, G.J. (2004). Franchising: A review and
avenues to greater theoretical diversity. Journal of Management, 30, 907–931.
Croonen, E.P., & Brand, M. (2013). Antecedents of franchisee responses to franchisor-
initiated strategic change. International Small Business Journal. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1177/0266242613499805.
Da Silva, R.V., & Syed Alwi, S.F. (2008). Online brand attributes and online corporate brand
images. European Journal of Marketing, 42(9/10), 1039–1058.
Dant, R.P., Grünhagen, M., & Windsperger, J. (2011). Franchising research frontiers for the
twenty-first century. Journal of Retailing, 87(3), 253–268.
Davis, D.F., & Mentzer, J.T. (2008). Relational resources in interorganizational exchange:
The effects of trade equity and brand equity. Journal of Retailing, 84(4), 435–448.
Deutskens, E., de Ruyter, K., & Wetzels, M. (2006). An assessment of equivalence between
online and mail surveys in service research. Journal of Service Research, 8(4), 346–355.
Dickey, M.H., McKnight, D.H., & George, J.F. (2008). The role of trust in franchise organiza-
tions. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 15(3), 251–282.
Doherty, A., & Alexander, N. (2006). Power and control in international retail franchising.
European Journal of Marketing, 40(11/12), 1292–1316.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D.F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables
and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3),
382–388.
Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in con-
sumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 343–373.
Fullerton, G. (2005). The impact of brand commitment on loyalty to retail service brands.
Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 22(2), 97–110.
Gilliland, D.I., & Bello, D.C. (2002). Two sides to attitudinal commitment: The effect of
calculative and loyalty commitment on enforcement mechanisms in distribution
channels. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30(1), 24–43.
Grünhagen, M., & Dorsch, M.J. (2003). Does the franchisor provide value to franchisees?
Past, current, and future value assessments of two franchisee types. Journal of Small
Business Management, 41, 366–384.
Hair, J.F., Jr., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., & Anderson, R.E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis — A
global perspective (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education, Inc.
 M.W. Nyadzayo et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
Hansen, R.A. (1980). A self-perception interpretation of the effect of monetary and non-
monetary incentives on mail survey respondent behavior. Journal of Marketing
Research, 17(1), 77–83.
Hayes, A.F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis:
A regression-based approach. New York: The Guilford Press.
Hodge, C., Oppewal, H., & Terawatanavong, C. (2013). Determinants of franchisee
conversion: A franchisee perspective. European Journal of Marketing, 47(10),
1554–1575.
Hughes, D.E., & Ahearne, M. (2010). Energising the reseller's sales force: The power of
brand identification. Journal of Marketing, 74, 81–96.
Johnson, J.W., & Rapp, A. (2010). A more comprehensive understanding and measure of
customer helping behavior. Journal of Business Research, 63(8), 787–792.
Kapferer, J.N. (2004). The new strategic brand management: Creating and sustaining brand
equity long term (3rd ed.). London: Kogan Page.
Keller, K.L. (2003). Strategic brand management: Building, measuring and managing brand
equity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kidwell, R.E., Nygaard, A., & Silkoset, R. (2007). Antecedents and effects of free riding
in the franchisor–franchisee relationship. Journal of Business Venturing, 22,
522–544.
Kimpakorn, N., & Tocquer, G. (2008). Employees' commitment to brands in the service
sector: Luxury hotel chains in Thailand. Journal of Brand Management, 8(16),
532–544.
Lawrence, B., & Kaufmann, P.J. (2011). Identity in franchise systems: The role of franchisee
associations. Journal of Retailing, 87(3), 285–305.
Lee, K., & Allen, N.J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace deviance:
The role of affect and cognitions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 131–142.
Lindell, M.K., & Whitney, D.J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross
sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 114–121.
Löhndorf, B., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2014). Internal branding social identity and social
exchange perspectives on turning employees into brand champions. Journal of
Service Research. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1094670514522098.
Please cite this article as: Nyadzayo, M.W., et al., The impact of franchisor support, brand commitment, brand citizenship behavior, and franchisee
experience on franchisee-perceived brand image, Journal of Business Research (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.12.008
9
Malhotra, N.K., Kim, S.S., & Patil, A. (2006). Common method variance in IS research: A
comparison of alternative approaches and a reanalysis of past research.
Management Science, 52(12), 1865–1883.
Morhart, F.M., Herzog, W., & Tomczak, T. (2009). Brand-specific leadership: Turning
employees into brand champions. Journal of Marketing, 73(5), 122–142.
Nyadzayo, M.W., Matanda, M.J., & Ewing, M.T. (2011). Brand relationships and brand
equity in franchising. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(7), 1103–1115.
Peterson, A., & Dant, R. (1990). Perceived advantages of the franchise option from the
franchisee perspective: Empirical insights from a service franchise. Journal of Small
Business Management, 28(3), 46–61.
Pitt, L., Napoli, J., & van der Merwe, R. (2003). Managing the franchise brand: The
franchisee's perspective. Journal of Brand Management, 10(6), 411–420.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y., & Podsakoff, N.P. (2003). Common method bias
in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.
Roh, E.Y., & Yoon, J. -H. (2009). Franchisor's ongoing support and franchisee's satisfaction:
A case of ice cream. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
21(1), 85–99.
Tikoo, S. (2002). Franchiser influence strategy use and franchisee experience and depen-
dence. Journal of Retailing, 78, 183–192.
Tuškej, U., Golob, U., & Podnar, K. (2013). The role of consumer-brand identification in
building brand relationships. Journal of Business Research, 66(1), 53–59.
Vallaster, C., & de Chernatony, L. (2006). Internal brand building and structuration: The
role of leadership. European Journal of Marketing, 40(7/8), 761–784.
Wilson, T.D. (1995). An integrated model of buyer–seller relationships. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 23(4), 335–345.
Yoo, B., & Donthu, N. (2001). Developing and validating a multidimensional consumer-
based brand equity scale. Journal of Business Research, 52, 1–14.
Zachary, M., McKenny, A., Short, J., Davis, K., & Wu, D. (2011). Franchise branding: An
organizational identity perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
39(4), 629–645.