Management Research

Mkt 470

Section 03

Summer 2020
Group Report On
Brand Loyalty on fashion products between Male and Female
Submitted To:
Khandker Md Nahin Mamun
Lecturer
Department of Marketing and International Business
North South University
Submitted by:
Ashiqur Rahman 1521722030

Samia Hossain Ridita 1430275630

Md. Rakibul Hasan 1612782030

Tarif Bin Kashem 1612779030

1
 Executive Summery

Brand loyalty, since it is the origin of revenue, is at the center of both marketing theory and
practice. Usually, the revenue is obtained from customer feedback, price premiums, increased
sales, greater balance, and reduced operating costs. If there is any distinction between male and
female brand loyalty on fashion products, we attempted to convey the research. First of all we
would like to thanks our honorable faculty for make this opportunities and every step he helps
us. Our research paper was completed by the Grace of Allah. Without the help of our honorable
faculty, our team mates and our family members in this pandemic situation around the world, it
would not be possible to assist us in our research paper.

To conduct our research and the findings, we used Statistical Software SPSS Seeing the
differences was quite fascinating. Every step of the analysis is in this research paper, explained
with care. Finally we got our answer from conducting the research that there is no significant
difference of Brand loyalty on faction products between male and female.

2
Contents
Introduction....................................................................................4
Literature Review............................................................................5
Methodology.................................................................................11
Analysis and Findings and Explanation...........................................13
Conclusion.....................................................................................20
References.....................................................................................21

3
 Introduction
Brand Loyalty is a scheme where the consumer despair purchasing and consuming product from
another brand which he does not trust. It is measured through methods like word of mouth
publicity, repetitive buying, price sensitivity, commitment, brand trust, customer satisfaction, etc.
Brand loyalty is the extent to which a consumer constantly buys the same brand within a product
category. The consumers remain loyal to a specific brand as long as it is available. They do not
buy from other suppliers within the product category. Brand loyalty exists when the consumer
feels that the brand consists of right product characteristics and quality at right price. Even if the
other brands are accessible at cheaper price or preferable quality, the brand loyal consumer will
stalk to his brand.
Greater loyalty levels lead to less marketing consumption because the brand loyal customers
bolster the brand positively. Also, it acts as a means of launching and recommending more
products that are targeted at same customers at less expenditure. It also restrains new competitors
in the market. Brand loyalty is a key component of brand equity. Brand loyalty can be developed
through various measures such as quick service, ensuring quality products, continuous
improvement, wide distribution network, etc. When consumers are brand loyal they love “you”
for being “you”, and they will minutely consider any other alternative brand as a replacement.
Brand loyalty is always developed post acquisition. To develop brand loyalty, an organization
should know their niche market, target them, support their product, assure accessible approach of
their product, afford customer contentment, bring continual modernization in their product and
offer schemes on their product so as to insure that customers regularly purchase the product.
There are three types of customer brand loyalty. These are:

1. Heart loyal customers: This group gravitates to pursue their heart and is usually
consumed by philanthropic motive.

2. Head loyal customers: This group is galvanized by coherence and common sense. In
fact, they are kind of the total contradictory of the heart loyal in that they will bargain
whatever makes the most impression rather than purchasing to fill a sensibility of
essential aspiration.

4
 3. Hand loyal customers: This type of customer bear to buy out of custom. They buy the
same variety at all without investigate for price or for what’s on demand.

Literature Review
Brand loyalty is the positive association consumers attach to a particular product or brand.
Customers that exhibit brand loyalty are devoted to a product or service, which is demonstrated
by their repeat purchases despite competitor's efforts to lure them away.

Companies with strong brand loyalty will see its customers repeatedly buy its products or
services, regardless of changes in price or convenience. Frequent purchasers of one company’s
product are less likely to be swayed by the marketing messages of competitors, thus increasing
the chances that those customers will continue to conduct business with the company.

Jacoby and Kyner (1973) argue for whether or not a consumer is brand loyal or if the consumer
only has a repeated purchase behavior. A consumer who only purchases a brand because it is the
cheapest compared to another consumer who actually buys the brand due to satisfaction are
examples of different types of brand loyalty (Jacoby & Kyner, 1973).

According to Bloemer and Kasper (1995), it is important to differentiate between consumers who
do not have any attachment to the brand and repurchase the brand because of convenience etc.,
and a consumer who is brand loyal to the brand. A consumer who is committed to the brand is
called a brand loyal consumer while a consumer with lack of attachment to the brand is called a
spurious consumer. The spurious brand loyal consumer can easily change brand if a better offer
would occur, or if some other brand would be more comfortable to buy (Bloemer & Kasper,
1995). Since brands want to achieve brand loyal consumers, different researches have been made
to find the most suitable way to do so. Several authors mentions two important factors that need
to be fulfilled by a brand in order to achieve brand loyal consumers.

Besides Loyal customers are the ones who will purchase the same brand regardless of
convenience or price. These loyal customers have found a product that meets their needs, and
they're not interested in experimenting with another brand. Most established brand name
products exist in a highly competitive market overwhelmed with new and old competing

5
products, many of them barely distinguishable. As a result, companies employ many tactics to
create and maintain brand loyalty. They spend their advertising budgets on messages targeted at
the segment of the market that includes their loyal customers and like-minded people who could
become loyal customers.

Background of brand loyalty

Brand loyalty is getting to be progressively critical for brands to form beyond any doubt that they
are competitive in each conceivable way. Building a strong brand that customers can be loyal
towards may be done with the assistance of a title, sign, image, term, plan, or a combination of
these. Today everything is branded in order to make it easier for customers to purchase products
that they will appreciate, find useful and of course be able to identify and come back to
(Armstrong et al, 2009). If a brand is competitive and consumers see value in the brand, they will
most likely repurchase it (Aaker, 1991).

To have customers that are faithful towards your brand is something that each brand should
prioritize, since those clients are an extraordinary source of conceivable wage (Roy, 2011).
Jacoby and Kyner (1973) describe brand loyalty as different factors for a customer to engage in,
those are; the buying decisions has to be nonrandom, expressed over time, a behavioral response,
occur decision making unit, conscious choose the brand even though it exist brands who offer
similar products, and it does also have to be a psychological evaluation process. Supervisors
must attempt to distinguish these clients, which regularly have comparable inclinations among
each other (Hanzaee et al, 2011).

Getting customers involved with a brand is a way to create brand loyalty (Jacoby and Kyner,
1973). The central premise in research is that the more involved a consumer is with a brand, the
more loyal the consumer will be towards the brand (Quester and Lim, 2003). Involvement is
somewhat differently referred to depending on the research, but there is an emerging consensus
for the definition: “Involvement is an unobservable state of motivation, arousal or interest. It is
evoked by a particular stimulus or situation and has driven properties. Its consequences are types
of searching, information-processing and decision making.” (Kapferer & Laurent, 1985, p.49).

Quester and Lim (2003) discuss involvement, compared to Kapferer & Laurent (1985) as a
consumer’s ongoing commitment in the form of feelings, thoughts and behavioral response

6
towards products. Involved consumers will have stronger reactions when exposed to a certain
product, such as in in advertising. Product involvement is today often seen as an important step
of a branding strategy (Kapferer & Laurent, 1985).

Components of brand loyalty

Quester and Lim (2003) discuss the relationship between brand loyalty and product involvement
and state that there is a relationship between them, something that can be seen in other research
as well (Leclerc & Little, 1997; Iwasaki & Havitz, 1998). The relationship between product
involvement and brand loyalty is described in research as a complex relationship that has come
to obscure studies as researchers take on different approaches due to the complex nature (Quester
& Lim (2003). When researchers refer to this relationship, it is typically done by examining high
product involvement or the concept of product involvement from a more general standpoint,
instead of examining low product involvement.

In order for researchers to be able to explain brand loyalty as clear as possible, Kabiraj and
Shanmugan (2011) and Kim et al (2008) have divided brand loyalty into two different sections;
behavioral and attitudinal brand loyalty.

Behavioral loyalty means Customers that are only loyal because they’re trapped. Behavioral
loyalty is when a customer continues to buy/use a particular product, service or brand. In
addition to these definitions, Hunt et al, (2012) mean that there needs to exist continual purchase
occasions to be a behavioral brand loyal consumer. A problem with this type of loyalty research
is the fact that one does not discover why consumers repurchase etc. a brand; instead one only
finds out the outcome of the behavior (Dick & Basu, 1994).

Attitudinal loyalty means Customers that are loyal because they love a particular brand.
Attitudinal loyalty is built on amazing experiences. It has strong ties into customer support.
Every interaction is a chance to reinforce attitudinal loyalty by exceeding expectations, removing
roadblocks, and delivering delight.

In comparison to behavioral brand loyalty, attitudinal loyalty focuses on consumer’s attitude

towards a brand, how they feel and what perceive the brand rather than how they behave towards
it (Kabiraj Shanmugan, 2011).

7
Emotional brand loyalty is more based on fulfillment than behavioral and cognitive brand
loyalty. In this case, brand loyalty is based on to what degree positive sentiments happen when
obtaining a particular brand (Roy, 2011). It is attachment to the brand rather than a positive 10
attitude towards it that makes a consumer repurchases the brand (Hartel & Russell-Bennett,
2010). The products which consumers are emotionally brand loyal towards are most often
products that create enjoyment, entertainment and satisfaction.

Product Involvement

Product involvement is a term that is derived from social psychology and refers to the
relationship between an individual and an object (Hanzaee et al, 2011), often described as the
individual’s general interest in the product (Lada et al, 2014). This interest could take the form of
an individual's feelings, thoughts and behavioral response. The concept has been applied into
marketing and consumer behavior with numerous researchers using the concept as way to
understand both various consumer groups and behavioral habits (Hanzaee et al, 2011). Product
involvement is typically divided into two categories, high or low. An individual that spend a lot
of time and energy in decision making and searching for information for differences among
products can be considered a highly involved consumer. An individual that on the contrast
spends limited time and effort in decision-making and information search can be considered a
low involved customer (Lada et al, 2014).

Facets of product involvement

The concept of product involvement is rich in nature and it would seem insufficient to examine it
from only a singular variable (Hanzaee et al, 2011). The way to describe the relationship
between low product involvement and brand loyalty is through different facets. A facet is used
often together with others to describe a concept, such as product involvement. The emergence of
the today's often used facets to describe product involvement can be traced back to the first
discussion on consumer behavior by Festinger (1957). Festinger (1957) firstly discussed
dissonance regarding the involvement process in the decision-making and post decisional
making of product purchases. The discussion concern the consumers thought on a purchased
product in relation the pre alternatives (Festinger, 1957). Kapferer and Laurent (1985) mention
this as two of the five facets that make up for product involvement, called risk probability and

8
risk importance. Risk probability regards an individual's probability of making a miss purchase.
This could take the form of the individual not being sure of what product to choose. Risk
importance concerns an individual's negative perceived consequences after a miss purchase. This
concerns the individual's view on whether a miss purchase is considered annoying or not
(Kapferer & Laurent, 1985). Kapferer and Laurent (1985) compiled the five often used facets,
which are independent of each other in the sense that do not continually build on each other, to
examine and describe product involvement today. The other facets except for the two previously
mentioned of risk probability and risk importance are interest, pleasure and sign. Interest
concerns the general interest or attached importance that an individual holds towards products
(Kapferer & Laurent, 1985). It occupies an individual's thoughts without necessarily leading to
an immediate purchase. Interest in a product often comes from that the individual perceive that
the product meet one's important goals and values (Hanzaee et al, 2011). Pleasure concerns the
rewarding value connected with certain products (Kapferer & Laurent, 1985), which provides the
individual with enjoyment and pleasure (Hanzaee et al, 2011). Sign concerns the perceived
image that one holds with a product and how that is related to oneself. If a product’s perceived
image lies near the individual's self-perception, there is an increased chance of purchase. It is
important to be aware of the distinction between whether an individual purchases the product
because of its image lying near one’s self-perception, as previously mentioned, or because of the
image it portraits towards others, which also could justify a purchase. Individuals do not always
purchase a product since its image is suited with one’s view of oneself, but because you will be
perceived by others depending on the purchased product (Kapferer & Laurent, 1985). Kapferer
and Laurent (1985) compiled these five facets after studying previous research of involvement.
Kapferer and Laurent’s (1985) five developed facets have been acknowledged in other research
concerning product involvement thereafter (Hanzaee et al, 2011; Lada et al, 2014; Quester &
Lim, 2003). Though the five facets are acknowledged in research (Hanzaeeet al, 2011; Kapferer
& Laurent, 1985; Quester & Lim, 2003), the facet of price is mentioned as well (Behe et al,
2015; Lada et al, 2014). Behe et al (2015) state that there is not much research examining the
relationship between price and product involvement, but mention that the little there is discusses
the price sensitivity aspect for low product involvement and high product involvement. This
discussion concerns the degree to which an individual react upon the change in price depending
on the product (Behe et al, 2015). Behe et al (2015) mention that the little research done

9
examining this relationship often state that the more involved an individual is with a product, the
less price sensitive this individual.

Risk Taking behavior and Surveillance behavior

Risk-taking behavior is potentially dangerous, some people wonder why anyone would take part.
On one hand, the behavior puts those who engage in it in harm's way; on the other, it gives
participants the chance to experience an outcome they perceive as positive. Risk-taking
behaviors such as driving fast or substance use, for example, may lead to car accidents or
overdoses, respectively. In the moment, however, they may bring about positive feelings such as
the thrill of a fast ride or the high one gets from drug use.

Some research indicates that men tend to be more likely to be risk-takers than women. But both
male and female risk-takers share the same personality traits, such as impulsive sensation-
seeking, aggression-hostility, and sociability, one study found. Genetics play a role in risk-taking
behavior as well. Identical twins separated at birth, for example, tend to engage in risk-taking
behaviors at high rates. Testosterone appears to play a role as well, which is why there's a gender
imbalance in the people most likely to take part in risk-taking behaviors. A 2012 study of 395
military veterans with PTSD found a link between risk-taking behavior and the disorder. In
addition to the above forms of riskiness, vets with PTSD have a propensity for firearms play,
potentially endangering their lives. People with PTSD may have already survived dangerous
situations, and risk-taking behavior may give them the feeling that they have more control over
their present danger than the danger that led to them developing PTSD.

Risky behavior or risk-taking behavior is defined according to Trimpop (1994) as “any

consciously, or non-consciously controlled behavior with a perceived uncertainty about its
outcome, and/or about its possible benefits, or costs for the physical, economic or psycho-social
well-being of oneself or others.” In addition to this broad definition, there are other definitions of
risky behavior depending on the field of research. While in the economic view, risk is defined in
terms of the variability of possible monetary outcomes, in the clinical literature, the risk is
generally defined as exposure to possible loss or harm (Schonberg, Fox, & Poldrack, 2011).
Turner et al. (2004) described risk-taking behavior further as either a socially unacceptable

10
volitional behavior with a potentially negative outcome in which precautions are not taken, such
as speeding, drinking and driving, drugs abuse or a socially accepted behavior.

Methodology
Due to covid-19 it was not possible for us to take interviews of individuals directly this is why
our analysis was based on the data we find online. The two main types of research we did for this
analysis of fashion trend in Bangladesh are qualitative research and quantitative research.
Qualitative research is an approach used largely in the social sciences to discover social
interactions, structures and processes. It gives an in-depth appreciation of the ways human beings
come to understand, act and control their everyday situations in unique settings. Research
following a qualitative approach is investigative and seeks to explain ‘how’ and ‘why’ of a
particular occurrence, or manner, operates as it does in a particular context. We in this case
created the survey question in a way that we get to track and understand about their choices in
fashion these days. However, the observations themselves would be descriptive of what the
customers prefer these days. Anecdotally, when customers are asked to tell about their taste in
fashion, they have to do an experiment that asks them to qualitatively describe do they follow
fashion trends and why do they prefer that? We gave them multiple options accordingly so that
they can answer quickly and easily. In this way can identify their buying pattern on fashion.
Apart from taking surveys and interviewing people about their preference in brands and fashion
trends we also conducted research on social media. There are many girls group and boys group
these days where people discuss about what they are looking for or what they prefer to buy. We
went through those conversation to track their choices of brands and preferences. We also
preferred the choice of both men and women and age group of (22-26) age old to understand
young typos of people's choices according to their age.

However, other research methods, such as social media observations and questionnaires on
surveys can produce both quantitative information. The goal of quantitative research, is to
quantify data and numbers and generalize the effects so that the marketer can come to an
ultimate conclusion about the route of action. The conclusion then makes hypothesizes primarily
based on that data. In this way we can understand more numerically about their buying
behaviors.

11
The research hypotheses are:

H0: μ1=μ2 There is no difference in brand loyalty amongst the fashion products between male and
female.
Ha: μ1≠μ2 There is a difference in brand loyalty amongst the fashion products between male and
female.

H0: μ3=μ4 There is no difference in risk seeking behavior when purchasing of fashion products between
male and female.
Ha: μ3≠μ4 There is a difference in risk seeking behavior when purchasing of fashion products between
male and female.
H0: μ5=μ6 There is no difference in surveillance about looks between male and female.

Ha: μ5≠μ6 There is a difference in surveillance about looks between male and female.

We adopted Quantitative mythology for this research.

Benefits of Quantitative Methodology

 The process of collecting observable data to answer a research question using statistical,
computational, or mathematical techniques is quantitative research. It is often seen as
more precise or valuable than qualitative research, which focuses on non-numerical data
collection.
 Because many people don't understand the mathematics involved, research involving
complicated statistics and data analysis is considered valuable and impressive. Technical
advancements such as computer modeling, stock selection, portfolio evaluation, and other
data-based business decisions are associated with quantitative research. The prestige and
value association with quantitative research can reflect well on your small business.
 Straightforward review. The type of results will tell you which statistical tests are suitable
to use when you gather quantitative data. As a result, it is straightforward to interpret
your data and present those results and less open to error and subjectivity.
 Testing and checking can be done. Proper research method and the capacity for anyone to
reproduce both the test and the results are required for quantitative research. This makes
the information you are collecting more reliable and less open to argument.

12
Questionnaire Design – We have developed questionnaire based on Odin et al. (2001) this
Brand Loyalty Scale and Grasmick et al. (1993) from risk taking behavior Scale. There are about
20 items.

Sampling: We collect our data through our survey result. Based on the questioner design we
arrange the survey with several options. The responses result we analyst graphically in google
form and google sheet.

Sample Size: In our research we can able to conduct 92 participants. Among them 46 are male
and 46 are female. All participants from North South University.

Data Collection: We have collected our data through online platform. We send our survey link
through Emil and Facebook messenger to rice the responses.

Data Preparation: Data was transferred to SPSS and there were no missing value.

Analysis and Findings and Explanation

Hypothesis Testing with Two Samples. We analyzed the mean difference using Independents
Sample T test (at 95% confidence Interval).

1.

H0: μ1=μ2 There is no difference in brand loyalty amongst the fashion products between male and female.

Ha: μ1≠μ2 There is a difference in brand loyalty amongst the fashion products between male and female.

13
 Group Statistics
Gender N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Loyalty_total Male 46 30.7391 8.33049 1.22826
Female 46 34.9565 6.62305 .97651

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for
Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Mean Std. Error
Difference
Sig. (2- Differenc Differenc
F Sig. t df tailed) e e Lower Upper

Loyalty_ Equal variances 2.298 .133 -2.688 90 .009 -4.21739 1.56914 -7.33477 -1.10001
total assumed

14
 Equal variances -2.688 85.64 .009 -4.21739 1.56914 -7.33693 -1.09785
not assumed 8

Explanation: Since the P-value is more than 0.05 we cannot reject null hypothesis and
conclude that there is no significant difference in brand loyalty on fashion products
amongst male and female.

2.

H0: μ3=μ4 There is no difference in risk seeking behavior when purchasing of fashion products between
male and female.

Ha: μ3≠μ4 There is a difference in risk seeking behavior when purchasing of fashion products between male
and female.

15
Group Statistics

Gender N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Risk_taking_total Male 46 11.8043 4.20909 .62060

Female 46 11.4565 4.48556 .66136

16
 Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for
Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Mean Std. Error
Difference
Sig. (2- Differenc Differenc
F Sig. t df tailed) e e Lower Upper
Risk_taking Equal variances .179 .673 .384 90 .702 .34783 .90694 -1.45397 2.14962
_total assumed
Equal variances .384 89.63 .702 .34783 .90694 -1.45406 2.14972
not assumed 8

Explanation: Since the P-value is more than 0.05 we cannot reject null hypothesis and
conclude that there is no significant difference in risk taking behavior amongst male and
female.

3.

H0: μ5=μ6 There is no difference in surveillance about looks between male and female.

Ha: μ5≠μ6
There is a difference in surveillance about looks between male and female.

17
 Group Statistics
Gender N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Surveillance_total Male 46 15.3478 3.71912 .54835
Female 46 17.1087 3.15685 .46545

Independent Samples Test

18
 Levene's Test for
Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence
Mean Std. Error Interval of the
Sig. (2- Differenc Differenc Difference
F Sig. t df tailed) e e Lower Upper
Surveillanc Equal variances .484 .488 - 90 .016 -1.76087 .71926 -3.18981 -.33193
e_total assumed 2.448
Equal variances - 87.68 .016 -1.76087 .71926 -3.19032 -.33141
not assumed 2.448 6

Explanation: Since the P-value is more than 0.05 we cannot reject null hypothesis and
conclude that there is no significant difference in surveillance behavior amongst male and
female.

Variable Name Mean for Mean for Mean P-Value Remark

Male Female Difference [SIG]
Loyalty_total 30.7391 34.9565 -4.2174 .133 Cant Reject
null
hypothesis
Risk_seeking_tota 11.8043 11.4565 0.3478 .673 Cant Reject
l null
hypothesis
Surveillance_total 15.3478 17.1087 -1.7609 .488 Cant Reject
null
hypothesis

19
 Conclusion.
We have thoroughly examined between male and female differ in terms of Brand loyalty on
fashion products throughout our research paper. After our research was conducted and analyzed
with the help of statistical software SPSS we got our answers in Quantitative research method.
We try to test our male and female responses about the brand loyalty of fashion products. There
have three components are concluded. These components are loyalty, risk seeking behavior and
surveillance. All the significance values or P values were more that .05% for which we couldn’t
accept any of the null hypothesis that were proposed. Overall we can say that there is no
significant difference of Brand loyalty of fashion products between male and female.

20
 References.
Lawrence X. Tarpey, Sr (1974) A Brand Loyalty Concept, journal Retrieved from:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3150565

Gilles Laurent & Jean-Noel Kapferer (1985, February) Measuring Consumer Involvement Profiles
Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265150358_Measuring_Consumer_Involvement_Pr
ofiles

Jacob Jacoby (1971, January) Brand loyalty: A conceptual definition, Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232546433_Brand_loyalty_A_conceptual_definition

Bloemer, J, M, M. and Kasper, H, D, P. (1995). ‘The complex relationship between consumer satisfaction
and brand loyalty’. Journal of Economic Psychology. 16(2), 311-329.

Aaker, D. (1991). ‘Managing Brand Equity: Capitalising on the Value of a Brand Name’. NY: The Free
Press.

Hanzaee, K. H., Khoshpanjeh, M., and Rahnama, A. (2011). Evaluation of the effects of product
involvement facets on brand loyalty. African Journal of Business Management. 5(16), 6964-
6971.

Kabiraj, S., and Shanmugan, J. (2011). ‘Development of a conceptual framework for brand loyalty: A
Euro-Mediterranean perspective’. Journal of Brand Management. 18(4/5), 285-299.

Kapferer, J, N., and Laurent, G. (1985). Consumer Involvement Profiles: A New Practical Approach to
Consumer Involvement. Journal of Advertising Research. 25(6), 48-56

Roy, S. (2011). ‘Brand Loyalty Measurement: A Framework’. SCMS Journal of Indian Management, 8(2),
112-122.

Rosenbaum-Elliott, R. (2011). Strategic Brand Management. 2nd Edition. Oxford University Press

21
Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research. The Qualitative
Report. 8(4). 597-607.

He, H., Li, Y., and Harris, L. (2012). ‘Social identity perspective on brand loyalty’. Journal of Business
Research. 65(5), 648-657.

Hunt, D, M., Geiger-Oneto, S., and Varca, P, E. (2012). ‘Satisfaction in the context of customer co-
production: A behavioral involvement perspective’. Journal of Consumer Behaviour. 11(5), 347-
356.

Iwasaki, Y. and Havitz, M.E. (1998). A path-analytic model of the relationships between involvement,
psychological commitment, and loyalty. Journal of Leisure Research. 30(2), 256-280.

Iglesias, O., Singh, J, J., and Batista-Foguet, J, M. (2011). The role of brand experience and affective
commitment in determining brand loyalty. Journal of Brand Management. 18(8), 570-582.

‘Brand loyalty vs. Repeat purchase behavior’. Journal of marketing research, 10(1), 1-9.

Kabiraj, S., and Shanmugan, J. (2011). ‘Development of a conceptual framework for brand loyalty: A
Euro-Mediterranean perspective’. Journal of Brand Management. 18(4/5), 285-299

Behe, B.K., Bae, M., Huddleston, P.T., & Sage, L. (2015). ‘The effects on involvement on visual attention
and product choice’. Journal of Retailing & Consumer Services. 24, 10-21

Schonberg, T., Fox, C. R., & Poldrack, R. A. (2011). Mind the gap: Bridging economic and naturalistic risk-
taking with cognitive neuroscience. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(1), 11–19.

Trimpop, R. (1994). The psychology of risk taking behavior. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.

Turner, C., McClure, R., & Pirozzo, S. (2004). Injury and risk-taking behavior-a systematic review.
Accident Analysis and Prevention, 36, 93–101.

22