See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/262076571

The effects of purchase orientations on perceived loyalty programmes'

benefits and loyalty

Article  in  International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management · March 2013

DOI: 10.1108/09590551311306255

CITATIONS READS

36 2,896

3 authors:

Lars Meyer-Waarden Christophe Benavent

Toulouse 1 Capitole University University Paris Nanterre
52 PUBLICATIONS   890 CITATIONS    78 PUBLICATIONS   322 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Herbert Castéran
University of Strasbourg
14 PUBLICATIONS   178 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Social media and well being View project

Cultures View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Herbert Castéran on 07 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0959-0552.htm

The effects of
The effects of purchase purchase
orientations on perceived loyalty orientations
programmes’ benefits and loyalty
201
Lars Meyer-Waarden
Humans and Management in Society Institute, Received 17 May 2011
EM Strasbourg Business School, Strasbourg, France Revised 16 October 2012
Accepted 1 November 2012
Christophe Benavent
CEROS Institute, University Paris X, Paris, France, and
Herbert Castéran
Humans and Management in Society Institute,
EM Strasbourg Business School, Strasbourg, France

Abstract
Purpose – This article aims to dwell on theoretical, managerial, and empirical knowledge to improve
loyalty programme efficiency. Its intention is to try to understand how economic, hedonist, relational,
convenience, informational rewards enhance or undermine customers’ perceived programme benefits
as well as subsequently loyalty according to individual shopping orientations (economical, hedonist,
social-relational, apathetic, brand/loyal).
Design/methodology/approach – The research uses self-determination theory (SDT) and
purchase orientations to classify types of rewards in terms of their effect on perceived programme
benefits and loyalty. Scales are developed through exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. To
validate the hypotheses, surveys in two retail chains (grocery/perfumery) are used. Structural equation
modelling confirms the research model.
Findings – Perceived benefits and loyalty vary according to purchase orientations, in line with the
SDT. Intrinsic (extrinsic) rewards motivate customers to act to obtain a benefit within (apart from) the
target of their purchase orientation and influences loyalty positively (have low impact on loyalty).
Research limitations/implications – Further testing of reward types, in(ex)trinsic motivation,
across multiple contexts is necessary for validity enhancement as it remains challenging to categorize
purchase orientations and rewards. It is necessary to precisely define the degree of the relationship
among an intrinsic purchase orientation and perceived loyalty programmes’ benefits as orientations
might be multidimensional.
Practical implications – Differentiation through tailored rewards is necessary in markets with
strong competition to appeal to different segments. Differentiation could be achieved through
nonmonetary benefits. The principal role of loyalty programmes should be to identify and segment
customers as a means to improve resource allocations.
Originality/value – This is one of the pioneer articles in the use of SDT in marketing research. SDT
provides a multi-benefit framework which identifies the different (non-) monetary rewards customers
may value (in)extrinsically when participating in loyalty programmes. The development of scales
which focus on rewards and the impact of purchase orientations on loyalty programmes’ perceived
benefits is another contribution. International Journal of Retail
& Distribution Management
Keywords Loyalty programmes, Rewards, Self-determination theory, Purchase orientations, Vol. 41 No. 3, 2013
pp. 201-225
Scale development, Customer loyalty, Purchasing q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Paper type Research paper 0959-0552
DOI 10.1108/09590551311306255
IJRDM Introduction
41,3 Many firms use customer relationship management instruments, in which loyalty or
frequency reward programmes represent key marketing activities. For example, the
French grocery retailer Carrefour devotes approximately e80 million of its annual
marketing expenditures to managing its loyalty program. Furthermore, the popularity
of these programmes is evident in the number of participants: 55 per cent of the US
202 population, 81 per cent of Canadians, 85 per cent of UK consumers, and 90 per cent of
French customers are enrolled in at least one relational programme (Meyer-Waarden
and Benavent, 2009).
Yet despite their prominence in the marketing mix and in customers’ wallets, the
benefits of loyalty cards remain uncertain. Many researchers argue that in a
competitive market, good loyalty programmes simply get imitated, which means that
the market eventually returns to stasis, but with increased marketing costs – a highly
inefficient situation (Dowling and Uncles, 1997; Sharp and Sharp, 1997; Leenheer et al.,
2007; Liu, 2007; Meyer-Waarden, 2007; Meyer-Waarden and Benavent, 2009; Cedrola
and Memmo, 2010). Furthermore, those researchers argue that the rewards commonly
provided in association with such programmes might not change consumers’
motivations or behavioural patterns effectively. Yet little research investigates
customer perceptions on programme rewards (Bridson et al., 2008; Mimouni-Chaabane
and Volle, 2010; Meyer-Waarden, 2013), even if studies suggest that loyalty
programme effectiveness depends on the design of those rewards (Kivetz and
Simonson, 2002; Yi and Jeon, 2003; Kivetz, 2005; Kivetz et al. 2006; Demoulin and
Zidda, 2008; Smith and Sparks, 2009a; Bagchi and Li, 2011; Drèze and Nunes, 2011).
This article therefore dwells on theoretical, managerial, and empirical knowledge in
order to improve loyalty programme efficiency and differentiation. We try to
understand how economic, hedonist, relational, convenience, informational rewards
enhance or undermine customers’ perceived programme benefits as well as
subsequently loyalty according individual shopping orientations (economical,
hedonist, social-relational, apathetic, brand/loyal). We first develop a typology
describing the relationships between individual shopping orientations, rewards and
the different levels of customers’ perceived programme benefits as well as loyalty. We
provide a multi-benefit conceptual framework, based on the self-determination theory
(Deci, 1971; Deci and Ryan, 1985), as well as the purchase orientation theory (Stone,
1954; Moschis, 1976), which identifies the different monetary and non-monetary
rewards customers may value when participating in loyalty programmes. As one of
our main theoretical contributions, we introduce the concept of intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation into the discussion about rewards’ benefits, because we posit that intrinsic
or extrinsic motivation may be contingent on customer heterogeneity and individual
purchase motivations. Accordingly, we develop conclusions pertaining to how
differentiated rewards, moderated by (ex)intrinsic consumer purchase orientations,
affect perceived loyalty programme benefits and loyalty. Intrinsic (extrinsic) rewards
motivate customers to act to obtain a benefit within (apart from) the target of their
purchase orientation and influences loyalty positively (have low impact on loyalty). For
example for economical shoppers who are most motivated (intrinsically) by budget
optimizing economic rewards influence strongly loyalty intentions. However,
recognition and social relationships, hedonist, as well as convenience rewards are
extrinsic and have no impact on loyalty intentions.
 The ability to measure the perceived benefits of these rewards offers researchers The effects of
and managers a better capacity to study the behavioural impacts of loyalty purchase
programmes. We secondly demonstrate that the common belief stipulating that
intrinsic rewards are not material and extrinsic ones are, does not necessarily hold orientations
(Deci and Ryan, 2000). For one customer, an intrinsic reward can be material or
immaterial and intrinsically motivating, depending on the purchasing situation.
Finally, our findings contribute to a better loyalty programme management by 203
recommending customer portfolio segmentation through purchase orientations in
order to target diverse (non)-monetary rewards more accurately.
In this article we first present our conceptual framework and hypotheses. Then the
methodology and empirical investigation in French grocery and perfumery chains are
explained. We then present the results, and finally, we discuss the theory development
implications, weaknesses and some further research directions.

Conceptual framework
We require a better understanding of how rewards influence perceived benefits, and
then affect loyalty. Therefore, we define the concepts clearly and turn to theories
pertaining to self-determination, as well as purchase orientations to suggest some
theoretical possibilities for improving extant loyalty programmes.

Loyalty programmes, rewards and perceived benefits

Loyalty programmes comprise integrated systems of marketing actions and
communications that aim to increase loyalty, repeat buying, and switching costs by
providing economical, hedonist, informational, functional, and sociological or
relational rewards (Gwinner et al., 1998; Gable et al., 2008). They are thought of as
activities that offer incentives (rewards) to customers based on evidence of loyalty
(purchase frequency or amounts). These rewards refer to any abstract (e.g. virtue,
pleasure, novelty, self-esteem) or concrete (e.g. miles, points, discounts) stimuli granted
by the loyalty programme that launch consumers’ internal cognitive efforts and
thereby help:
.
create perceived benefits;
.
improve economic decision-making and motivation outcomes; and
.
strengthen the intensity of approved purchase behaviours, such as loyalty
(Tietje, 2002; Drèze and Nunes, 2006; Demoulin and Zidda, 2009; Drèze and
Nunes, 2011; Kwong et al., 2011).

The perceived benefit created by loyalty programme rewards is the relationship

between the consumer’s perceived benefits in relation to the perceived costs of
receiving these benefits, and represents a positive emotional response (e.g. such as
subjective feelings of pleasure or hedonic enjoyment) and a source of satisfaction and
motivation, because the rewards fulfil a desire or a goal (Zeithaml, 1988; Holbrook,
1996; Bagchi and Li, 2011). By categorizing the different types of rewards that induce
customer perceived benefit, we can derive specific motivations that induce loyalty
programme usage. For example, utilitarian rewards tend to encompass three fields
(Frisou and Yildiz, 2011):
IJRDM (1) economical rewards and monetary savings, which correspond to an economic
41,3 purchase motivation (e.g. price reductions, purchase vouchers (Gable et al.,
2008);
(2) convenience, in which case they satisfy commodity motivations (e.g. facilitate
purchase, reduce purchasing time (Kwong et al., 2011); or
(3) informational rewards, which are similar to exploration (Babin et al., 1994;
204 Chitturi et al., 2008; Drèze and Nunes, 2011).

In contrast, hedonistic rewards have more emotional benefits (Holbrook and

Hirschmann, 1982; Holbrook, 1996; Arnold and Reynolds, 2003; Chitturi et al., 2008;
Dagger and O’Brien, 2010) and correspond to motivations associated with giving or
receiving pleasure and entertainment (e.g. games, sweepstakes; Mimouni-Chaabane
and Volle, 2010). Recognition and social-relational rewards enable people to gain
status, be identified with a privileged group, or establish a firm relationship, which
makes their interactions more interpersonal and helps the firm satisfy their needs
better (Gwinner et al., 1998; Hennig-Thurau et al., 2002; Lacey et al., 2007; Drèze and
Nunes, 2009; Lacey, 2009; Zhang and Wedel, 2009; Morrisson and Huppertz, 2010).

Self-determination theory and purchase orientations

Motivation refers to the desire to engage in a goal-oriented behaviour such as loyalty.
Different theories about motivation exist. Self-determination theory (SDT) is one of
these particularly adapted theories to study human behaviour (Deci, 1971). It suggests
that various rewards and contexts have differential effects on motivation.
Furthermore, the SDT indicates that the nature of the reward itself determines
whether motivation is intrinsic or extrinsic. Intrinsic motivation occurs when people
engage in an activity because it provides an internal reward, that is, for its own sake.
These rewards increase the internal gratification associated with a behaviour and thus
the internal reasons for maintaining it. In contrast, extrinsic motivation results from
the offer of external rewards in exchange for the desired behaviour. Therefore, people
engage in the desired behaviour for a reward other than their interest in the activity
and feel pressure to obtain the offered reward. Economic benefits are the most
commonly cited external reward in psychology research (Deci et al., 1999).
(Ex)Intrinsic motivations have varying impacts on behaviour. Both motivation and
behaviour (de)increase in the long term in response to an intrinsic (extrinsic) reward.
Empirical evidence also shows that extrinsic rewards can undermine motivation and
behaviours, but intrinsic benefits tend to have a positive effect.
Applied to loyalty programmes, intrinsic rewards motivate people to act to obtain a
benefit that matches their individual purchase goals; extrinsic incentives motivate
them to act to obtain a benefit separate from their purchase target. Heterogeneous
intrinsic or extrinsic motivations probably depend on customers’ individual
characteristics and purchase orientations, such that purchasers are not intrinsically
motivated by the same rewards (Deci and Ryan, 2000).
Purchase orientations refer to consumers’ mental predispositions toward
purchasing (Stone, 1954; Moschis, 1976; Kahn and Schmittlein, 1989). They are
based on people’s experiences and personal value systems. Because such orientations
are goal oriented, they may explain various motivations, preferences, and behaviours
(e.g. search for information, purchase behaviour, loyalty).
 Many orientations exist in the form of shopping goals, but most typologies simplify The effects of
this consideration by citing five main orientations (Darden and Reynolds, 1971; purchase
Williams et al., 1978; Laaksonen, 1993; Childers et al., 2001). The economic,
budget-optimizing orientation attempts to realize price economies (Babin et al., 1994; orientations
Gable et al., 2008); a hedonist one aims to find pleasure through the potential
entertainment value and enjoyment of the fun and play arising from the shopping
experience (Holbrook and Hirschmann, 1982; Arnold and Reynolds, 2003; Chitturi et al. 205
2008; Dagger and O’Brien, 2010). An apathetic or uninterested orientation implies
efforts to decrease the demands associated with purchasing (Mägi, 2003; Kwong et al.,
2011); these buyers dislike shopping and hope to purchase in an efficient, timely
manner to achieve their goals with minimal irritation (Babin et al., 1994). The
brand/store-loyal orientation (Dawson et al., 1990) corresponds to a motive to remain
loyal to favourite brands/stores and gain reassurance about purchase choices to
minimize uncertainty and risk. This orientation implies a significant impact of habit
and inertia. Finally, shoppers with a social-relational orientation desire personalised,
privileged, interpersonal relationships with a brand or a store (Lacey et al., 2007; Smith
and Sparks, 2009b; Drèze and Nunes, 2009; Lacey, 2009; Morrisson and Huppertz, 2010;
Zhang and Wedel, 2009).
Depending on these orientations, heterogeneous consumers are differently
motivated and develop coherent shopping strategies, such as writing down a
shopping list, making impulsive purchases, comparing products and brochures, using
loyalty cards, relying on purchase vouchers, buying branded products, or searching for
contacts with sales staff (Darden and Reynolds, 1971; Babin et al., 1994; Arnold and
Reynolds, 2003).

Hypotheses
These ideas have significant implications for loyalty programmes, because they
suggest that extrinsic rewards might undermine some consumers’ motivation and
brand loyalty. In line with SDT, the intrinsic motivation for loyalty programme usage
and subsequently loyalty should be largely goal oriented (i.e. to receive a particular
reward) and thus depend on the desired rewards that induce perceived benefits
(Daryanto et al., 2010; Drèze and Nunes, 2011), assuming they are intrinsic and accord
with the individual customers’ purchase orientations (see Figure 1). Therefore,
purchase behaviours depend on specific perceived benefits, which must be coherent
with individual and heterogeneous customers’ motivations (McQuail, 1994).
Individual disparities in loyalty likely result from interpersonal heterogeneity;
customers have different purchase orientations and should be differentially intrinsically
motivated by various rewards that induce different perceived benefits. Therefore,
buyers devote unequal effort to obtaining a given reward, according to the benefit they
assign to it in comparison with the associated expenses. Loyalty changes only if
consumers perceive that the benefit delivered by the rewards are greater than the costs
(e.g. joining expenses, switching costs) to gain them (Vesel and Zabkar, 2009). The effect
of loyalty programmes’ rewards on customer perceived benefits, as well as their loyalty,
should be moderated by individual customers’ purchase orientations and thus their
(intrinsic/extrinsic) motivation for various rewards. In turn, if the reward corresponds to
a customer’s purchase orientation, which motivates him or her intrinsically to use the
loyalty programme it should relate positively to his or her perceived benefit and then
IJRDM
41,3

206

Figure 1.
Conceptual framework:
how a loyalty programme
works

should have a persistent, positive impact on loyalty. In contrast, if the reward does not
correspond with a customer’s purchase orientation, it should not motivate him or her
extrinsically to use the loyalty program, and it should not relate positively to his or her
perceived benefit and then should not have a persistent, positive impact on loyalty. We
thus test the moderating effect of purchase orientations on the link between perceived
benefits of rewards and loyalty. This general hypothesis leads us to detail the testable
sub hypotheses we summarise in Table I.
Among customers with an economical purchase orientation, economic rewards that
grant monetary savings and informational benefits about good deals (e.g. flyers,
brochures, e-mails about good deals and monetary savings) should create intrinsic
motivation as they engage in an activity for its own sake (e.g. budget optimisation).
They therefore positively influence loyalty (H1b).
In contrast, relational benefits c, such as recognition, status and relationships,
hedonist gratifications (H1c), such as entertainment or games, convenience benefits
(H1d ) that reduce the time and effort associated with shopping and informational
benefits (H1e), are external rewards in exchange for the desired behaviour, create
extrinsic motivation and do not influence loyalty.

Economical, Brand/
Purchase budget- Social- store-
orientation optimizing relational Apathetic loyal Hedonist

Benefit
Recognition and
relationship H1a 0 H2a þ H3a 0 H4a þ H5a þ
Table I.
Economy H1b þ H2b 0 H3b 0 H4b 0 H5b 0
Hypotheses about the Hedonism H1c 0 H2c 0 H3c 0 H4c 0 H5c þ
impact of loyalty Convenience H1d 0 H2d 0 H3d þ H4d 0 H5d 0
programmes’ benefits on Information H1e þ H2e 0 H3e 0 H4e þ H5e 0
loyalty, according to
purchase orientations Notes: “ þ ”positive effect on loyalty, “0” no effect on loyalty
Among customers with a social-relational purchase orientation, relational benefits The effects of
(H2a) that grant recognition, status and relationships with a specific store, brand, and purchase
its sales staff should create intrinsic motivation as they engage in an activity for its
own sake. They therefore positively influence loyalty (H2a). In contrast, economic orientations
(H2b), hedonist (H2c), convenience (H2d ) as well as informational (H2e) benefits are
external rewards in exchange for the desired behaviour, create extrinsic motivation
and do not influence loyalty. 207
Among customers with an apathetic purchase orientation, convenience benefits that
reduce the time and efforts associated with shopping should create intrinsic motivation
as they engage in an activity for its own sake. They therefore positively influence
loyalty (H3d ). In contrast, relational (H3a), economic (H3b) as well as hedonist benefits
(H3c), and informational gratifications (H3e), are external rewards in exchange for the
desired behaviour, create extrinsic motivation and do not influence loyalty.
Among customers with brand/store-loyal purchase orientation, informational
benefits (e.g. flyers, brochures, e-mails about good deals, monetary savings and general
information about the store or the brand) about their favourite brands or stores
probably create intrinsic motivation. These benefits make them feel more comfortable
and minimize uncertainty as they signal that customers chose the right brands or
stores. Recognition and social relationships should also create intrinsic motivation,
because a stronger relationship with the brand or the store increases their sense of trust
and commitment, which may offer a means to reduce risk perceptions (Morgan and
Hunt, 1994). Both rewards consequently influence loyalty positively (H4a and H4e). In
contrast, economic (H4b), hedonist (H4c), and convenience benefits (H4d ), are external
rewards in exchange for the desired behaviour, create extrinsic motivation and do not
influence loyalty.
Among customers with a hedonist purchase orientation, hedonist and relational
benefits that give pleasure and relationships with a specific store, brand, and its sales
staff, should create intrinsic motivation as they engage in an activity for its own sake.
Indeed, relationships are probably perceived as pleasant and should create hedonist
feelings. These type of rewards therefore positively influence loyalty (H5a and H5c). In
contrast, economic gratifications (H5b), convenience (H5d ) and informational benefits
(H5e), are external rewards in exchange for the desired behaviour, create extrinsic
motivation and do not influence loyalty.
At this stage though, we cannot establish precise predictions for these effects,
because it is not easy to define the degree of correlation between a single shopping
orientation and a single purchase goal. These variables probably are multidimensional,
because consumers rarely pursue just one purchase target. To our knowledge, no
investigations have considered the relationship among loyalty programme rewards,
purchase orientations as well as intrinsic motivation, and customer perceived benefits,
as well as loyalty. Therefore, we explore and evaluate the value of the general
framework (Table I) that we use to test our research hypotheses. The empirical
findings cannot provide a test of a well-established priori theory; rather, they represent
a step toward building a theory.

Methodology and empirical investigation

We first developed our measure instruments and pretested them in order to purify
them by a measurement model analysis. We then applied the scales to two sectors and
IJRDM investigated a sample loyalty programme members of a grocery retailing hypermarket
41,3 as well as a perfumery chain, both located in Toulouse (a major south-western French
city). These sectors are completely opposite in terms of product involvement (high
involvement for the perfumery, low involvement for the grocery retailing hypermarket)
in order to see if our results hold in these different consumption domains.

208 Measure development

The absence of directly applicable existing scales for each construct required us to
adapt or develop multi-item Likert scales for this study. For perceived rewards’
benefits of the loyalty programme, we adapted items from Arnold and Reynolds (2003),
and Hennig-Thurau et al. (2002); the purchase orientation items were adapted from
Laaksonen (1993). For our scale development, we employ concept mapping and expert
reviews to ensure the scales apply to the specific contexts of the two loyalty
programmes. Furthermore, our scale development process follows the procedures
advocated by prior literature (Churchill, 1979).
Our qualitative study of 30 French loyalty programme managers from different
retailing sectors (e.g. grocery, perfumery, and other specialized retailers) provided
further insights into the rewards that customers perceive when they participate in
loyalty programmes, as well as their common purchase orientations. Together, the
literature review and qualitative study suggested 20 items for measuring perceived
rewards’ benefit (Mimouni-Chaabane and Volle, 2010) and 25 items for purchase
orientations.
In Table II, we summarise the principal reward types offered by the various
programmes to members, which we classify according to loyalty programme

Recognition
and social
Program Hedonism relationship Economy Convenience Information

Grocery Games, Personalization Purchase Priority Newsletter with

sweepstakes, at check-out, vouchers, check-out, general
exchange points mailing birthday reductions at home information
against spa and special check-out (value delivery about the store,
events reward/ spent personalized
amount: 3 per mailings
cent according to
most bought
products and
good deals
Perfumery Games, Mailing birthday Purchase Beauty Newsletter with
sweepstakes, and special vouchers, services general
exchange points events reductions at information
against check-out (value about the store,
cosmetics, beauty reward/ spent mailings of news
Table II. services amount: 3 per and personalized
Typology of rewards cent) beauty advice as
offered by loyalty well as good
programmes to members deals
managers’ categorisations of benefits according the five dimensions of perceived The effects of
benefits. purchase
Hedonist rewards pertain to all benefits that give pleasure, such as games or
sweepstakes. Recognition and social rewards include personalisation, privileges, orientations
status, or special events; the economic benefits offer monetary savings, purchase
vouchers or price reductions. Convenience rewards attempt to decrease purchase time,
such as by offering priority check-out, and informational rewards entail personalised 209
mailings that provide information about the most bought products or advice. We
cannot necessarily classify rewards precisely into single perceived benefit categories
though, because in practice, they may be multidimensional and satisfy several
purchase targets (e.g. priority checkout could deliver relational and functional
benefits).
Loyalty consists of one behavioural dimension and one attitude dimension (Dick
and Basu, 1994). True loyalty entails purchase intensity, accompanied by an
underlying positive attitude and resistance to counter-persuasion from competitors.
We therefore employ a five-item scale (Bruner et al., 2005) to measure purchase
intensity (PI) and resistance to counter-persuasion (RCP).
To test the research instrument and purify the measurement instrument to optimize
the data collection procedure for a much larger sample, we pretested each scale with a
random sample of loyalty programme holders from the grocery retailer (n ¼ 210) and
the perfumery (n ¼ 120) in Toulouse (these respondents were not included in the final
study). All items used five-point Likert scales (1 ¼ “strongly disagree” to
5 ¼ “strongly agree”), such that respondents indicated their degree of agreement
with a series of statements about the stimulus object. We built our measurement model
using exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with three scales
(Gerbing and Anderson, 1988).

Measurement model analysis

The purification of the pool of items pertaining to the three multi-indicator constructs
(purchase orientations, perceived reward benefits, and loyalty) relied on using
item-to-total correlations and EFA (principal axis factor analysis with oblique rotation)
in an iterative process. Values with loadings close to or greater than 0.60 and factors
with eigenvalues greater than 1 are acceptable (Sharma, 1996). On the basis of the EFA
results, we performed three CFA with a new sample of respondents, recruited in both
retailing outlets (grocery n ¼ 199, perfumery n ¼ 101). We employed AMOS 5.0 for the
three multi-indicator constructs and confirm the EFA factor structures. Finally, our
measure purification results in 20 items for purchase orientations, 15 items for
perceived loyalty programmes’ benefits, and five items for loyalty, as we show in
Tables III-V, respectively.
Regarding purchase orientations, we identify five grocery retailing factors,
consistent with prior literature (Laaksonen, 1993):
(1) economic, budget-optimizing;
(2) brand/store-loyal;
(3) hedonist;
(4) social-relational; and
(5) apathetic or uninterested.
 41,3

210
IJRDM

Table III.

orientations
CFA: purchase
Loadings
“When doing purchasing (grocery, cosmetics)”
... Budget-optimizing Brand/store-loyal Hedonist Social-relational Apathetic

Items Grocery Perfumery Grocery Perfumery Grocery Perfumery Grocery Perfumery Grocery
I often purchase products on promotion 0.811 0.889
I do not pay attention to brands reputation 0.714 0.778
I try to minimise purchase amounts 0.721 0.760
I always research good deals 0.649 0.721
I have my preferred brands I choose first 0.832 0.777
I always use my loyalty card 0.672 0.772
I always choose the same store 0.641 0.761
Product/on-board quality is important 0.692 0.862
Purchase coupons give me pleasure 0.887 0.616
I like to try new products/destinations 0.814 0.821
It is a pleasure to discover new products 0.763 0.605
I look at magazines to get informed 0.624 0.710
I appreciate the contact with sales staff 0.814 0.750
I appreciate to be close to the store and have a
good relationship 0.732 0.848
I appreciate to be recognized as a privileged
customer 0.764 0.791
I appreciate the store’s paying more attention
to me than others 0.714 0.740
It is a chore 0.89
I buy in an impulsive way 0.79
I know perfectly in advance what buy 0.74
I look to ads before purchasing 0.63
Variance extracted (%) 18 22 16 20 15 18 11 11 10
Cronbach’s alpha 0.73 0.90 0.78 0.85 0.77 0.75 0.82 0.71 0.83
Fit indices x2 /sig RMSEA GFI AGFI CFI
Grocery 30.75/0.00 0.042 0.994 0.961 0.996
Perfumery 3.78/0.00 0.044 0.97 0.96 0.95
Note: Complete EFA results available on request
Factor The loyalty programme of firm X . . . Grocery Perfumery

Hedonism Gives me pleasure me as I participate in games 0.974 0.981

Gives me pleasure when I exchange points (miles) 0.963 0.924
Creates pleasant distractions and surprises 0.929 0.922
Variance extracted by the factor (%) 19 23
Cronbach’s alpha 0.96 0.76
Makes me feel as if the store’s paying more attention
Recognition and social relationship to me than others 0.889 0.930
Makes me adhere to a group of privileged customers 0.771 0.734
Makes the store (airline) treating me as a privileged
customer 0.768 0.900
Variance extracted by the factor (%) 16 17
Cronbach’s alpha 0.83 0.89
Economy Is the best means to reduce the purchase amount 0.844 0.932
Gives monetary advantages 0.702 0.913
Allows me to make substantial economies 0.605 0.899
Variance extracted by the factor (%) 13 12
Cronbach’s alpha 0.71 0.90
Convenience Allows me to find more easily usual bought products 0.871 0.975
Grants additional services 0.784 0.975
Makes purchases easier and more practical 0.611 0.791
Variance extracted by the factor (%) 12 11
Cronbach’s alpha 0.71 0.77
Information Makes me choose new products 0.785 0.859
Makes me discover good bargains and new ideas 0.660 0.827
Allows me to be well informed about news and
general information 0.615 0.746
Variance extracted by the factor (%) 11 10
Cronbach’s alpha 0.77 0.82
x2/sig 2.58/0.2 2.88/0.5
RMSEA , 0.05 0.04 0.04
GFI/AGFI/CFI $ 0.90 0.98/0.97 0.96/0.95
Note: Complete EFA results available on request
orientations
purchase

CFA perceived benefits

programme
from the loyalty
211

Table IV.
The effects of
IJRDM
Thanks to the loyalty program of firm X . . . Grocery Perfumery
41,3
Purchase intensity (PI)
I increase my purchase frequency 0.91 0.85
I buy a larger variety of products in this company 0.68 0.73
Variance extracted by the factor (%) 42 40
212 Cronbach’s alpha 0.81 0.77
Resistance to counter persuasion (RCP)
I return to the same shop 0.92 0.83
I shop (book) less often in competitors’ companies 0.80 0.79
I recommend this company to my family and friends 0.61 0.70
Variance extracted (%) 38 35
Cronbach’s alpha 0.79 0.75
x2/sig 5.65/0.1 6.11/0.04
RMSEA , 0.05 0.03 0.03
GFI/ AGFI/ $ 0.90 0.97/0.96 0.91/0.92
Table V.
CFA: loyalty Note: Complete EFA results available on request

Because the perfumery domain should be more involving and hedonistic than grocery
retailing, it seems logical that we find no apathetic orientation for it but instead identify
only four dimensions. The extracted variance is 70 per cent and 74 per cent in the
grocery and perfumery sectors, respectively.
Regarding perceived loyalty programmes’ benefits, we again identify five
dimensions (economy, hedonist, convenience, information, recognition and social
relationships; Hennig-Thurau et al., 2002; Arnold and Reynolds, 2003;
Mimouni-Chaabane and Volle, 2010), in both the grocery and perfumery sectors. The
extracted variance is 71 per cent and 72 per cent, respectively.
Finally, for the loyalty scale, we uncover two factors, purchase intensity (PI) and
resistance against counter-persuasion (RCP), for both sectors. The extracted variance
is, respectively, 80 per cent and 81 per cent.
To assess the overall fit of the model, we investigated several fit indices, as
recommended (Fornell and Larcker, 1981; Byrne, 2001). The goodness-of-fit indexes
(GFI) are greater than 0.9 for the multi-indicator constructs (1 – [x2 for the default
model/x2 for the null model]); the GFI measures adjusted for degrees of freedom
(AGFI), which uses mean squares instead of total sums of squares in the numerator
and a denominator of (1 – GFI), are greater than 0.8. Furthermore, the root mean
square error of approximation (RMSEA), or the mean of the squared residuals
comparing the observed and predicted covariance matrices, is less than 0.05. Finally,
the model x2 (CMIN) is not significant, whereas a significant x2 would indicate a lack of
satisfactory model fit. These indicators provide evidence of good model fit for the three
multi-indicator constructs.
To assess the adequacy of the measures, we also evaluate the reliability of the
individual items and the discriminant validity of all constructs. Our measure of item
reliability uses Cronbach’s alpha; the values are all greater than 0.7 for the purified
scales, and all loadings approach or exceed 0.7 with regard to the latent variable, which
indicates that more than 50 per cent of the variance in the observed variable can be
explained by the corresponding construct. Thus, we have evidence of good reliability
and internal consistency. Each item loaded significantly on its intended latent variable, The effects of
which suggests all items are adequate. We confirm the convergent validity of all scales purchase
and sectors.
To assess the discriminant validity of the constructs, we first examine the orientations
cross-loadings and find that the latent variables share more variance with their
respective items than with other latent variables. All values representing the square
root of the average variance extracted (AVE) from each construct also are substantially 213
greater than all other correlations of the factor with other constructs. The AVE for all
constructs is greater than the generally accepted value of 0.50. Thus, we confirm
discriminant validity for all constructs and unidimensionality for all purified
measurement scales (see Tables VI-X).

Data collection
For the final survey, we gathered two samples of loyalty card members of the grocery
hypermarket (n ¼ 2; 001) and the perfumery chain (n ¼ 1; 925). Respondents were
randomly invited (in 2007) to complete the questionnaire about a single loyalty
programme at each of the retailers during shopping trips, surveyed Monday-Saturday
to achieve greater representativeness. As a token of appreciation for participating,
respondents were offered chocolate from the grocery retailer and perfume samples
from the perfumery. After agreeing to participate, respondents indicated their
purchase orientations on the 20-item scale, then their perceived reward benefits from
the loyalty programmes on the 15-item scale. Finally, they revealed the impact of the
loyalty programmes’ perceived reward benefits on their loyalty, according to the
five-item scale.
As the final sample characteristics in Table XI show, more shoppers were women
for both the hypermarket (59 per cent) and the perfumery (70 per cent). Almost half of

Economical Brand/store-loyal Hedonist Social-relational Apathetic

Economical 0.83 *
Brand/store-loyal 0.02 0.94 *
Hedonist 0.33 0.16 0.79 *
Social-relational 0.17 0.07 0.31 0.89 * Table VI.
Apathetic 0.05 0.27 0.27 0.20 0.90 * Discriminant and
convergent validity:
Notes: Diagonal elements are the square roots of the AVE of the concerned constructs or factor; purchase orientations
*p ¼ 0.01 (Grocery)

Economical Brand/store-loyal Hedonist Social-relational

Economical 0.90 *
Brand/store-loyal 0.06 0.86 *
Hedonist 0.22 0.16 0.80 * Table VII.
Social-relational 0.09 0.06 0.28 0.79 * Discriminant and
convergent validity:
Notes: Diagonal elements are the square roots of the AVE of the concerned constructs or factor; purchase orientations
*p ¼ 0.01 (Perfumery)
IJRDM the sample was between the ages of 25 and 44 years, and a wide range of professions
41,3 was represented.
In terms of purchase behaviour, most respondents spent between 51e and 120e
per trip to the grocer (66 per cent) and the perfumery (49 per cent). Most customers
purchase twice per month from the grocery chain (60 per cent) but one to six times
per year from the perfumery (64 per cent). In both sectors, more than 80 per cent
214 had been programme members for more than two years, which implies they should
be highly familiar with the functioning and reward structure of the related loyalty
schemes.

Results
We developed structural equation models (SEM) to test our research hypotheses. To
test how individual purchase orientations moderate the relationship among loyalty

Recognition and
Hedonism relationship Economy Convenience Information

Hedonism 0.94 *
Recognition and
relationship 0.24 0.95 *
Economy 0.12 0.14 0.93 *
Table VIII. Convenience 0.23 0.04 0.18 0.91 *
Discriminant and Information 0.11 0.15 0.19 0.19 0.94 *
convergent validity:
perceived benefits loyalty Notes: Diagonal elements are the square roots of the AVE of the concerned constructs or factors;
programme (Grocery) *p ¼ 0:01

Recognition and
Hedonism relationship Economy Convenience Information

Hedonism 0.94 *
Recognition and
relationship 0.29 0.92 *
Economy 0.02 0.04 0.97 *
Table IX. Convenience 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.92 *
Discriminant and Information 0.1 0.17 0.12 0.13 0.94 *
convergent validity:
perceived benefits loyalty Notes: Diagonal elements are the square roots of the AVE of the concerned constructs or factors;
programme (Perfumery) *p ¼ 0:01

PI RCP
Grocery Perfumery Grocery Perfumery

Purchase intensity (PI) 0.94 * 0.92 *

Table X. Resistance to counter-persuasion (RCP) 0.19 0.13 0.98 * 0.97 *
Discriminant and
convergent validity: Notes: Diagonal elements are the square roots of the AVE of the concerned constructs or factors;
loyalty *p ¼ 0:01
 The effects of
Grocery Perfumery
Level (%) (%) purchase
Gender
orientations
Female 59 70
Male 41 30
Age 215
18-24 years 10 8
25-34 years 23 20
35-44 years 24 26
45-64 years 28 28
65 years and more 15 18
Marital status
Single 39 36
Married/Couple 60 63
Other 1 1
Profession
Inactive 22 22
Worker 21 7
Liberal profession 7 11
Employee 23 20
Merchant 6 11
Executive 21 29
Purchase expenditure per purch. act
1-50 e 8 12
51-120 e 66 49
. 120 e 26 39
Purchase frequency
1-6 times/year 4 64
1 times/month 14 25
2 times/month 60 10
.2 times/month 22 1
Card membership
1-2 years 18 20 Table XI.
. 2 years 82 80 Sample characteristics

programmes’ perceived benefits, and loyalty (PI and RCP), we used multigroup SEM
(AMOS 5.0). Furthermore, we compared the relaxed model against a constrained model
in which the parameters remain equal across the cluster, using a likelihood test. We
performed a multiple-group analysis by splitting the samples by sector (Byrne, 2001)
(Table XII).

Validation/hold-out sample Economical Social-relational Apathetic Brand/store-loyal Hedonist

Grocery 721 321 212 400 347 Table XII.

Perfumery 770 385 0 423 347 Samples by sector
IJRDM We first estimated a base model (without purchase orientations or restrictions), then
41,3 extended it by taking the different purchase orientations into account (with a set of
equality constraints), fit by sector.
In both sectors and both extended models, the indexes of adjustment are better than
those for the base model (see Table XIII).
The GFI and AGFI are all greater than 0.9, and the RMSEA is less than 0.05.
216 Furthermore, the x2 (CMIN) decreases from the base model to the extended models,
indicating a better fit of the more complex models that include purchase orientations.
Imposing restrictions in the extended models across the two samples does not result in
a statistically significant worsening of the overall model fit. Therefore, the model
appears to apply across groups.
After selecting the final model that best fits the data, we interpret the overall
parameter estimates (standardised path coefficients to validate the results across the
two different product categories). All hypothesised relationships (rewards !
perceived benefits according to intrinsic purchase orientation ! PI/RCP) are
statistically significant (p , 0:01 or p , 0:05). However, some rewards that we did not
anticipate would be intrinsic are significant for some shopper types (see Tables XIV
and XV).
Economical, budget-optimizing shoppers are most motivated (intrinsically) by
economic rewards in terms of both PI and RCP (grocery retailing b ¼ 0:74, b ¼ 0:62;
perfumery: b ¼ 0:66, b ¼ 0:17; p , 0:01). Informational rewards about good deals also
increase their PI and RCP (grocery retailing b ¼ 0:27, b ¼ 0:32; perfumery b ¼ 0:41,
b ¼ 0:16) and are highly significant (p , 0:01). We thus confirm H1b and H1e.
However, recognition and social relationships, hedonist, as well as convenience
rewards are extrinsic (p . 0:1), as expected and in support of H1a, H1c, and H1d,
respectively.
For social-relational shoppers, who are intrinsically motivated by their social
relationships with sales staff and recognition as a privileged customer, relational
rewards influence PI and RCP strongly, as expected in H2a (grocery: b ¼ 0:72,
b ¼ 0:63; perfumery: b ¼ 0:38, b ¼ 0:18; p , 0:01). Extrinsic economic, hedonist,
convenience, and informational rewards have no impact though (p . 0:1), so we
confirm H2b-H2e. These shoppers are indifferent to convenience devices that shorten
the shopping trip, because they are incompatible with their intrinsic purchasing target.
Apathetic buyers appear only in the grocery retailing context; because they perceive
shopping as drudgery, their intrinsic motivation is to make shopping effective and
quick. Convenience rewards increase their PI and RCP (b ¼ 0:95, b ¼ 0:88; p , 0:01),

Grocery Perfumery
Base Extended model Base Extended model

CMIN x2 8,500 6,665 6,665 897

p 0.8 0.7 0.48 0.41
df 1,772 1,732 1,732 191
CMIN/df 4.79 3.85 3.8 4.7
RMSEA 0.06 0.048/ 0.04 0.04
Table XIII. GFI 0.5 0.90 0.7 0.92
Indexes of fit AGFI 0.6 0.92 0.6 0.93
 Shopper
Economical Social-relational Apathetic Brand/store-loyal Hedonist
Perceived benefit PI RCP PI RCP PI RCP PI RCP PI RCP

Recognition and relationship 2 0.097ns 20.074ns 0.72 * * 0.63 * * 2 0.17 * 2 0.15 * 0.097 * 0.054 * 0.22 * 0.26 *
Economy 0.74 * * 0.62 * * 20.089ns 20.057ns 0.087ns 0.083ns 0.027ns 0.049ns 0.089ns 0.025ns
Hedonism 0.017ns 0.013ns 0.043ns 0.047ns 2 0.022 * 2 0.023 * 0.022ns 0.086ns 0.83 * * 0.85ns
Convenience 0.047ns 0.032ns 0.025ns 0.088ns 0.95 * * 0.88 * * 0.037ns 0.055ns 20.32 * 2 0.31 *
Information 0.27 * * 0.32 * * 0.15ns 0.19ns 0.093ns 0.022ns 0.94 * * 0.91 * * 0.044 * 0.015 *
Notes: *p , 0.05; * * p , 0.01; ns: not significant impact on dependent variables
orientations

path coefficients)
loyalty (standardized
purchase

of perceived benefits on
Table XIV.
Grocery retailing: impact
217
The effects of
 41,3

218
IJRDM

Table XV.

path coefficients)
loyalty (standardized
perceived benefits on
Perfumery: impact of
Shopper
Economical Social-relational Brand/store-loyal Hedonist
Perceived benefit PI RCP PI RCP PI RCP PI RCP

Recognition and relationship 20.06ns 0.07ns 0.38 * * 0.18 * * 0.22 * 0.17 * 0.21 * 0.17 *
Economy 0.66 * * 0.17 * * 0.02ns 0.21ns 20.25ns 20.12ns 2 0.20ns 0.19ns
Hedonist 0.85ns 0.38ns 0.044ns 0.029ns 20.88ns 20.19ns 2 0.90 * * 0.25 * *
Convenience 200.01ns 0.34ns 2 0.55ns 0.25ns 0.05ns 0.83ns 2 0.29ns 0.27ns
Informational 0.41 * * 0.16 * * 0.42ns 0.28ns 0.11 * * 0.05 * * 0.07 * 0.25 *
Notes: *p , 0.05; * *p , 0.01; ns: not significant
in support of H3d. Economic (b ¼ 20:087, b ¼ 20:083; p . 0:1) and informational The effects of
(b ¼ 0:093, b ¼ 0:022; p . 0:1) benefits are extrinsic and have no impact; we thus find purchase
support for H3b and H3e. Recognition and social relationships (b ¼ 20:17, b ¼ 20:15)
as well as hedonist rewards (b ¼ 20:022, b ¼ 20:023) even have a negative impact orientations
(p , 0:05). H3a and H3c are not supported because results show negative effects. Even
if there is no support for theses hypotheses the results are remarkable as they show
that some rewards might eventually erode intrinsic interests and undermine feelings of 219
control, which can interfere with consumers’ motivations and loyalty (Deci and Ryan,
1985).
Brand/store-loyal shoppers hope to gain reassurance about purchases, generally by
gaining more information. Informational rewards (e.g. information about good deals
and general information about the store or the brand; grocery: b ¼ 0:94, b ¼ 0:91;
perfumery: b ¼ 0:11, b ¼ 0:05; p , 0:01) as well as relational rewards (e.g. a stronger
relationship with the store or the brand increases trust, which may offer a means to
reduce risk perceptions; grocery: b ¼ 0:097, b ¼ 0:054; perfumery: b ¼ 0:22, b ¼ 0:17;
p , 0:01) have a strong influence on PI and RCP, in support of H4a and H4e. Finally,
in support of H4b, H4c and H4d, economic, hedonist, and convenience benefits are not
significant in either sectors (p . 0:1); that is, they are extrinsic.
For hedonist customers, who are intrinsically motivated by shopping pleasure, the
hedonist rewards (grocery: b ¼ 0:83, b ¼ 0:85; perfumery: b ¼ 0:90, b ¼ 0:25;
p , 0:01) and social relationships (grocery: b ¼ 0:22, b ¼ 0:26; perfumery: b ¼ 0:21,
b ¼ 0:17; p , 0:05) have strong influences on PI and RCP. Relationships are probably
perceived as pleasant and should create hedonist feelings. These results clearly
support H5a and H5c. Informational benefits (grocery: b ¼ 0:044, b ¼ 0:015;
perfumery: b ¼ 0:07, b ¼ 0:25; p , 0:05), contrary to our expectations, have a
positive influence as well, perhaps because they offer a means to gain information
about hedonist devices, events as well as to discover new ideas and products.
Regardless of the explanation, we must reject H5e. Convenience rewards have either a
negative significant impact on PI and RCP in the grocery retailing context (b ¼ 20:32,
b ¼ 20:31; p , 0:05) or are insignificant in the perfumery (b ¼ 20:29, b ¼ 0:27;
p . 0:1). The negative signs for these rewards show again that there might be an
erosion of consumers’ motivations and loyalty. We thus reject H5d. Economic rewards
are insignificant (p . 0:1) and extrinsic in with support H5b.

Discussion, academic and managerial implications

To improve knowledge about the effectiveness of loyalty programmes, we have
investigated how purchase orientations moderate the relationship between perceived
loyalty programmes’ benefits, motivation, and loyalty. Accordingly, we note the
following: Customers’ different intrinsic or extrinsic purchasing motivations or
orientations determine the perceived benefits from the loyalty programme’s rewards
and reinforce unique motivations and behaviours (Deci, 1971). Customers reportedly
develop different, coherent purchase behaviours (including loyalty programme usage),
because they are not intrinsically motivated by the same targets. Intrinsic rewards
motivate them to act to obtain a benefit that falls within the target of their purchase
orientation and thus creates interest or pleasure in the task. They also correspond
positively to intrinsic reinforcements and have a positive, long-term impact on
purchase behaviour and loyalty. Economic and informational rewards are intrinsically
IJRDM most motivating for economical, budget-optimizing shoppers and have the strongest
41,3 impact on their loyalty. Social-relational shoppers are intrinsically motivated by social
relationships, which influence loyalty positively. For apathetic buyers convenience
rewards increase loyalty. Brand/store-loyal shoppers are intrinsically motivated by
informational as well as relational rewards, which increase loyalty.
In contrast, extrinsic rewards motivate customers to act to obtain a benefit that is
220 separate from the target of their purchase orientation and do not influence their loyalty
(Deci et al., 1999; Kivetz, 2005).
Our results challenge the widespread behaviourist belief about conditioned
behaviour (Skinner, 1976), applied in the development of most loyalty programmes that
rely on money and sales promotions to motivate people. Extrinsic rewards that “buy”
customers’ intrinsic motivations to repurchase probably encourage them to focus
narrowly on the reward and attempt to obtain it as quickly as possible. Therefore, it
eventually might erode intrinsic interests and undermine feelings of control, which can
interfere with consumers’ motivations (Deci and Ryan, 1985).
From an academic point-of-view, this study contributes to existing knowledge
about relationship marketing. First, we provide a multi-benefit framework that
identifies the different rewards benefits customers may perceive when participating in
loyalty programmes. In addition to monetary aspects, members experience a range of
nonmonetary benefits, related to exploring the firm’s products, entertainment, or
relational aspects. The ability to measure these perceived rewards’ benefits offers
researchers and managers a better capacity to study the behavioural impacts of loyalty
programmes.
Second, we demonstrate that the intrinsic or extrinsic nature of rewards appears
contingent on individual purchase motivations (Deci and Ryan, 2000). For one
customer, an intrinsic reward can be material or immaterial and intrinsically
motivating, depending on the purchasing situation. Yet the same reward could be
extrinsically motivating for another customer or in another situation.
In turn, our findings have important implications for loyalty programme managers.
In particular, they should promote diverse rewards, segment their customer portfolios,
and achieve differentiation through nonmonetary benefits. The perceived benefits
associated with loyalty programmes are diverse and relate to multiple consumer
motivations and purchase orientations. The absence of segmentation in existing
loyalty schemes therefore causes inefficiency, because strong customer heterogeneity
can result in programme failure. The principal role of loyalty programmes should be to
identify and segment customers as a means to improve resource allocations. For
example, loyalty scheme managers might segment the target market according to
consumers’ purchase orientations and associated reward preferences. A more thorough
analysis of loyalty schemes’ effects and detriments at the individual level thus is
necessary, because consumer characteristics influence the strength and direction of the
impacts on repurchase behaviour. With such information, firms can adopt tailored
strategies, using both monetary and nonmonetary incentives and integrating
functional and hedonistic features into loyalty programmes to appeal to different
segments and enhance their use. For example, Tesco’s loyalty scheme demonstrates
how success can be a function of programme efficiency and data-driven customer
behaviour and needs knowledge (Humby et al., 2004).
 Differentiation through intangible, nonmonetary benefits also is possible in markets The effects of
marked by strong competition and isomorphism (Powell and DiMaggio, 1982). The purchase
differences among retailers’ offers are few, the benefit of rewards is low, programmes
are easily exchangeable, and switching costs are minimal (Meyer-Waarden, 2007). orientations
Therefore, retailers, such as Tesco, that invest in rewards such as personalised services
or functional value-added information can attain a difficult-to-imitate advantage.
221
Conclusions and future research directions
Our research suffers several limitations that further research should consider. First, we
find that for some purchase orientations, certain rewards are intrinsic and affect
behaviour, in contrast with our a priori expectations; it remains challenging to define
the degree of the relationship among an intrinsic purchase orientation and perceived
loyalty programmes’ benefits. Because purchase orientations are multidimensional,
segment overlaps likely exist (e.g. hedonist-relational). Second, our results confirm just
how difficult it is to classify rewards exactly and uniquely to one category, because
they can satisfy several purchase targets at the same time. Our research shows that
intrinsic or an extrinsic motivation depend on the individual but it is probable that is
also varies within an individual, depending on mood and circumstances (Smith and
Sparks, 2009b). Additional research should try to categorise purchase orientations and
rewards more precisely and to test motivation according to mood and circumstances.
Third, our analysis does not include the dynamics and value of accumulated points
or, more generally, dynamic rewards. A longitudinal approach could offer a strong
extension for further research.
Although previous experimental investigations indicate that loyalty scheme
effectiveness depends on the program’s design (Kivetz and Simonson, 2002; Yi and
Jeon, 2003; Kivetz, 2005), few supporting field data are available. More research and
replications are necessary to determine the psychological aspects of customer loyalty
reward schemes and individualized reward systems. Another critical concern involves
the applicability of self-determination theory (Deci, 1971) in marketing. The SDT
emerged from research in domains such as school education for children or motivation
of athletes; does it also hold in purchasing contexts such as grocery retailing?
Enhancement effects accrue when people receive rewards for performing uninteresting
tasks, such as purchasing (Hitt et al., 1992). Perhaps intrinsic interest in a task also
declines when firms grant extrinsic rewards. More experimental approaches that
analyse how rewards influence purchase behaviour are recommended, because
different theoretical points-of-view could help clarify this question.

References
Arnold, M.J. and Reynolds, K.E. (2003), “Hedonic shopping motivations”, Journal of Retailing,
Vol. 79 No. 2, pp. 77-95.
Babin, B.J., Darden, W. and Griffin, M. (1994), “Work and/or fun: measuring hedonic and
utilitarian shopping value”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 644-56.
Bagchi, R. and Li, X. (2011), “Illusionary progress in loyalty programs: magnitudes, reward
distances, and step-size ambiguity”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 37 No. 5,
pp. 888-901.
IJRDM Bridson, K., Evans, J. and Hickman, M. (2008), “Assessing the relationship between loyalty
program attributes, store satisfaction and store loyalty”, Journal of Retailing & Consumer
41,3 Services, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 364-74.
Bruner, G.C., James, K.E. and Hensel, P.J. (2005), Marketing Scales Handbook: A Compilation of
Multi-Item Measures for Consumer Behavior and Advertising 1998-2001, American
Marketing Association, Chicago, IL.
222 Byrne, B. (2001), Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and
Programming, Multivariate Applications Series, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah,
NJ.
Cedrola, E. and Memmo, S. (2010), “Loyalty marketing and loyalty cards: a study of the Italian
market”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 38 No. 3,
pp. 205-25.
Childers, T.L., Carr, C.L., Peck, J. and Carson, S. (2001), “Hedonic and utilitarian motivations for
online retail shopping behaviour”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 77 No. 4, pp. 511-35.
Chitturi, R., Raghunathan, R. and Mahajan, V. (2008), “Delight by design: the role of hedonic
versus utilitarian benefits”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 72 No. 2, pp. 48-63.
Churchill, G.A. (1979), “A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 64-73.
Dagger, T.S. and O’Brien, T.K. (2010), “Does experience matter?”, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 44 Nos 9/10, pp. 1528-52.
Darden, W.R. and Reynolds, F.D. (1971), “Shopping orientations and product usage rates”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 505-8.
Daryanto, A., Ruyter, K., Wetzels, M. and Patterson, P. (2010), “Service firms and customer
loyalty programs: a regulatory fit perspective of reward preferences in a health club
setting”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 604-16.
Dawson, A., Bloch, P.H. and Ridgway, N.M. (1990), “Shopping motives, emotional states, and
retail outcomes”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 66 No. 4, pp. 408-27.
Deci, E.L. (1971), “Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 18, pp. 105-15.
Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (1985), Intrinsic Motivation and Self-determination in Human
Behaviour, Plenum, New York, NY.
Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (2000), “The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goal pursuits: human needs and the
self-determination of behaviour”, Psychological Inquiry, Vol. 11, pp. 227-68.
Deci, E.L., Koestner, R. and Ryan, R.M. (1999), “A meta-analytic review of experiments
examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation”, Psychological Bulletin,
Vol. 125 No. 6, pp. 627-68.
Demoulin, N. and Zidda, P. (2008), “On the impact of loyalty cards on store loyalty: does the
customers’ satisfaction with the reward scheme matter?”, Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 386-98.
Demoulin, N. and Zidda, P. (2009), “Drivers of customers’ adoption and adoption timing of a new
loyalty card in the grocery retail market”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 85 No. 3, pp. 391-405.
Dick, A.S. and Basu, K. (1994), “Customer loyalty: toward an integrated conceptual framework”,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 99-113.
Drèze, X. and Nunes, J.C. (2006), “The endowed progress effect: how artificial advancement
increases effort”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 504-12.
Drèze, X. and Nunes, J.C. (2009), “Feeling superior: the impact of loyalty program structure on The effects of
consumers’ perceptions of status”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 35 No. 6,
pp. 890-905. purchase
Drèze, X. and Nunes, J.C. (2011), “Recurring goals and learning: the impact of successful reward orientations
attainment on purchase behavior”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 103-15.
Dowling, G.R. and Uncles, M. (1997), “Do customer loyalty programs really work?”, Sloan
Management Review, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 71-82. 223
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Frisou, J. and Yildiz, H. (2011), “Consumer learning as a determinant of a multi-partner loyalty
program’s effectiveness: a behaviorist and long-term perspective”, Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 81-91.
Gable, M., Fiorito, S. and Topol, M. (2008), “An empirical analysis of the components of retailer
customer loyalty programs”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management,
Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 32-49.
Gerbing, D. and Anderson, J. (1988), “An updated paradigm for scale development incorporating
unidimensionality and its assessment”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 25 No. 2,
pp. 186-92.
Gwinner, K.P., Gremler, D.D. and Bitner, M.J. (1998), “Relational benefits in service industries: the
consumer’s perspective”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 26 No. 2,
pp. 101-14.
Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K.P. and Gremler, D.D. (2002), “Understanding relationship
marketing outcomes: an integration of relational benefits and relationship quality”,
Journal of Service Research, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 230-48.
Hitt, D.D., Marriott, R.G. and Esser, J.K. (1992), “Effects of delayed rewards and task interest on
intrinsic motivation”, Basic and Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 405-14.
Holbrook, M. (1996), “Customer value: a framework for analysis and research”, Advances in
Consumer Research, Vol. 23, pp. 138-42.
Holbrook, M. and Hirschmann, E.C. (1982), “Hedonic consumption: emerging concepts methods
and propositions”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 92-102.
Humby, C., Hunt, T. and Phillips, T. (2004), Scoring Points: How Tesco Is Winning Customer
Loyalty, Kogan Page, London.
Kahn, B.E. and Schmittlein, D.C. (1989), “Shopping trip behavior: an empirical investigation”,
Marketing Letters, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 55-70.
Kivetz, R. (2005), “Promotion reactance: the role of effort-reward congruity”, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 725-36.
Kivetz, R. and Simonson, I. (2002), “Earning the right to indulge: effort as a determinant of
customer preferences toward frequency program rewards”, Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 155-70.
Kivetz, R., Urminsky, O. and Zheng, Y. (2006), “The goal-gradient hypothesis resurrected:
purchase acceleration, illusionary goal progress, and customer retention”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 39-51.
Kwong, J.Y., Soman, D. and Ho, C.Y. (2011), “The role of computational ease on the decision to
spend loyalty program points”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 146-56.
Laaksonen, M. (1993), “Retail patronage dynamics: learning about daily shopping behavior in
contexts of changing retail structures”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 28 Nos 1/2,
pp. 3-17.
IJRDM Lacey, R. (2009), “Limited influence of loyalty program membership on relational outcomes”,
Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 392-402.
41,3
Lacey, R., Suh, J. and Morgan, R.M. (2007), “Differential effects of preferential treatment levels on
relational outcomes”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 241-56.
Leenheer, J., Bijmolt, T.H.A., van Heerde, H.J. and Smidts, A. (2007), “Do loyalty programs
enhance behavioral loyalty? A market-wide analysis accounting for endogeneity”,
224 International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 31-47.
Liu, Y. (2007), “The long-term impact of loyalty programs on consumer purchase behavior and
loyalty”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 70 No. 4, pp. 19-35.
McQuail, D. (1994), Mass Communication Theory: An Introduction, 3rd ed., Sage Publications,
London.
Mägi, A.W. (2003), “Share of wallet in retailing: the effects of customer satisfaction, loyalty cards
and shopper characteristics”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 79 No. 2, pp. 97-106.
Meyer-Waarden, L. (2007), “The effects of loyalty programs on customer lifetime duration and
share-of-wallet”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 83 No. 2, pp. 223-36.
Meyer-Waarden, L. (2013), “The impact of reward personalisation on frequent flyer programmes’
perceived value and loyalty”, Journal of Services Marketing (forthcoming).
Meyer-Waarden, L. and Benavent, C. (2009), “Grocery retail loyalty program effects:
Self-selection or purchase behavior change?”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 345-58.
Mimouni-Chaabane, A. and Volle, P. (2010), “Perceived benefits of loyalty programs:
Scale development and implications for relational strategies”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 63 No. 1, pp. 32-7.
Morgan, R. and Hunt, S. (1994), “The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 20-38.
Morrisson, O. and Huppertz, J.W. (2010), “External equity, loyalty program membership, and
service recovery”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 244-54.
Moschis, G.P. (1976), “Shopping orientations and consumer uses of information”, Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 61-70.
Powell, W.W. and DiMaggio, P.J. (1982), “The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and
collective rationality in organizational fields”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 48 No. 2,
pp. 147-60.
Sharma, S. (1996), Applied Multivariate Techniques, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.
Sharp, B. and Sharp, A. (1997), “Loyalty programs and their impact on repeat-purchase loyalty
patterns”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 473-86.
Skinner, B.F. (1976), About Behaviourism, Vintage, New York, NY.
Smith, A. and Sparks, L. (2009a), “Reward redemption behaviour in retail loyalty schemes”,
British Journal of Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 204-18.
Smith, A. and Sparks, L. (2009b), “It’s nice to get a wee treat if you’ve had a bad week: consumer
motivations in retail loyalty scheme points redemption”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 62 No. 5, pp. 542-7.
Stone, G.P. (1954), “City shoppers and urban identification: observations on the social psychology
of city life”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 60 No. 1, pp. 36-45.
Tietje, B.C. (2002), “When do rewards have enhancement effects? An availability valence
approach”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 363-73.
 Vesel, P. and Zabkar, V. (2009), “Managing customer loyalty through the mediating role of The effects of
satisfaction in the DIY retail loyalty program”, Journal of Retailing & Consumer Services,
Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 396-406. purchase
Williams, R.H., Painter, J.J. and Nicholas, H.R. (1978), “A policy oriented typology of grocery orientations
shoppers”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 27-43.
Yi, Y. and Jeon, H. (2003), “The effects of loyalty programs on value perception, program loyalty
and brand loyalty”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 229-40. 225
Zeithaml, V.A. (1988), “Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end model
and synthesis of evidence”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 2-22.
Zhang, J. and Wedel, M. (2009), “The effectiveness of customized promotions in online and offline
stores”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 190-206.

About the authors

Lars Meyer-Waarden is a Professor at the EM Strasbourg Business School (Humans and
Management in Society Institute, EA 1347) and the Center of Research in Management Toulouse
(EAC CNRS 5032). His main research interests are customer relationship management as well as
retailing management. He is the author of a book about the efficiency of loyalty programs, and
has published lots of articles about these issues in international journals as in New York Wall
Street Journal, Journal of Retailing, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Journal of
Marketing Management, European Journal of Marketing and Recherches et Applications en
Marketing.
Christophe Benavent is a Professor at the University Paris X. His main research interests are
customer relationship management as well as social media marketing. He has published lots of
articles about these issues in international journals as Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science and Journal of Marketing Management. Prior to joining the University of Paris, he was
affiliated with the university of Lille and Pau.
Herbert Castéran is an Associate-Professor at the EM Strasbourg Business School. His main
research interests are marketing models and customer lifetime value modelling.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

View publication stats