Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 57 (2020) 102219

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jretconser

Customer experience and commitment in retailing: Does customer

age matter?
Imran Khan a, Linda D. Hollebeek b, c, *, Mobin Fatma a, Jamid Ul Islam a, Iivi Riivits-Arkonsuo d
a
College of Business Administration, Prince Sultan University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
b
Montpellier Business School, 2300, Avenue des Moulins, Montpellier, France
c
Tallinn University of Technology, Ehitajate tee 5, 12616, Tallinn, Estonia
d
Tallinn University of Technology, School of Business and Governance, Akadeemia Tee 3, 19086, Tallinn, Estonia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: While the customer experience (CX) concept has rapidly gained traction in recent years, its effect on customer
Customer experience brand commitment and loyalty remains tenuous. Moreover, while customer age has been identified as an
Age influential driver of consumer behavior, little is known about its effect on the customer’s brand experience.
Affective/calculative commitment
Addressing these gaps, we develop a model that examines the relationships between CX, commitment, and
Brand loyalty
loyalty, while using customer age as a moderator in the proposed associations. A total of 423 valid responses was
collected from branded retail customers. Structural equation modeling results reveal a positive effect of (a) CX on
customers’ affective/calculative commitment, and (b) customer commitment on brand loyalty. Moreover, multi-
group analysis results reveal that while customer ages moderates the association between CX/affective
commitment, it does not significantly moderate the relationship between CX/calculative commitment. We
conclude with key implications that arise from this research.

1. Introduction
Marketing scholars have long explored the importance of product/
service attributes, including price, quality and functionality, and their
effects on consumer behavior (Oliver, 1999). However, in the 1990s, a
fundamental shift occurred from a purely transactional-to a more rela­
tional view, which recognizes the importance of building and main­
taining strong customer/firm relationships beyond transactions alone
(Coviello et al., 2002; Ravald and Gr€ onroos, 1996). More recently, a
further shift has transpired that is characterized by a growing focus on
customer experience management as a pivotal strategic imperative
(Klaus and Maklan, 2013; Verhoef et al., 2009).
The role of customer experience (CX) in building brands has received
extensive conceptual and empirical support (Brakus et al., 2009; Calder
et al., 2018; Schmitt, 2010). However, there is a debate regarding its
capacity to foster brand commitment (Iglesias et al., 2011; Lemon and
Verhoef, 2016). For instance, while Maffezzolli et al. (2014) advocate
CX’s indirect effect on commitment via relationship quality, Ramase­
shan and Stein (2014) propose a direct association, thus yielding
considerable ambiguity and exposing an important research gap.
Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to solidify insight into CX’s
effect on customer brand commitment and loyalty. In particular, we
explore these associations for customers of differing age profiles (i.e.
younger vs. older customers; Alkire et al., 2020). In exploring these
associations, we note a particular dearth of research regarding CX’s ef­
fect on customer commitment dimensions, including affective and cal­
culative commitment (Iglesias et al., 2011), as empirically explored in
this paper. While affective commitment reflects a customer’s emotional tie
to a brand, calculative commitment reflects a client’s more functional
brand-related exchange relationship (e.g. arising from perceived
switching costs, lack of alternatives; Morgan and Hunt, 1994; Randall
and O’Driscoll, 1997). Therefore, we ask: How does CX affect customers’
affective and calculative commitment?
Second, despite broad understanding about the importance of mod­
erators to enhance insight into the association between particular vari­
ables (Chen et al., 2018; Rubio et al., 2017), only a few CX studies
incorporate moderating factors to date. Customers’ personal character­
istics, such as age, have been found to exert profound behavioral effects
(Kuppelwieser, 2016; Roschk et al., 2013). That is, customers of
differing age profiles perceive and behave differently towards

* Corresponding author. Tallinn University of Technology, Ehitajate tee 5, 12616, Tallinn, Estonia.
E-mail addresses: imrankaifi@gmail.com (I. Khan), l.hollebeek@montpellier-bs.com, linda.hollebeek@montpellier-bs.com (L.D. Hollebeek), mobinfatimambd@
gmail.com (M. Fatma), jammicms.kmr@gmail.com (J.U. Islam), iivi.riivits@taltech.ee (I. Riivits-Arkonsuo).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102219

Available online 16 July 2020

0969-6989/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
I. Khan et al.
marketing-related stimuli (Huaman-Ramirez and Merunka, 2019; Khan
et al., 2019). Therefore, customer age is particularly suited as a
moderating variable in the association between customer-perceived or
-reported variables (Homburg and Giering, 2001; Kim and Jang, 2015).
Consequently, we explore the moderating role of customer age in the
association of customer brand experience and loyalty, thus enhancing
insight into CX’s loyalty-based effects across age groups.
Combining these issues, we also ask: How does CX affect younger (vs.
older) customers’ affective/calculative commitment? In other words, (how)
does customer age accentuate CX’s impact on customer commitment?
Relatedly, to what extent does age affect the relationship between CX
and brand loyalty (Imhof and Klaus, 2019)? To better understand these
issues, we examine the effect of CX on brand commitment, and the
ensuing effect of commitment on brand loyalty for younger (vs. older)
customers, across which we expect to see important differences (Hom­
burg and Giering, 2001). To test our hypotheses, we deploy structural
equation modeling (SEM) and multi-group analysis.
Our main contributions are as follows. Theoretically, we unite CX,
customer commitment, and brand loyalty in a conceptual model that
incorporates age as a key moderating variable in these associations.
Through our analyses, we develop enhanced insight into CX’s effect on
customers’ affective (vs. calculative) commitment across age groups.
Practically, our findings highlight CX’s role in building brand commit­
ment and loyalty for customers of differing age profiles, thus informing
organizational segmentation activities. For example, our findings shed
light on the important role of CX and commitment in building brand-
loyal customers, revealing important implications for retailers and
brand managers.
The paper is structured as follows. We first review literature on CX,
commitment, and brand loyalty in section 2. Then, we develop a con­
ceptual model and an associated set of research hypotheses in section 3,
followed by an overview of our research methodology in section 4.
Section 5 reports on the main results, followed by a discussion of
important theoretical/practical implications in section 6.
2. Theoretical background
2.1. Customer experience
Abbott (1955, p. 40) introduced the idea that “what people really
desire are not products, but satisfying experiences.” In the 1980s,
scholars extended this view by discussing the experiential aspects of
offerings, which exceed beyond cognitive or rational phenomena (Hol­
brook and Hirschman, 1982). In the 1990s, academic interest in CX
continued. Pine and Gilmore (1998, p. 3) theorized experiences as
distinct from goods or services, implying that customers purchase ex­
periences to “spend time enjoying a series of memorable events that a
company stages … to engage him in an inherently personal way.” Given
the growing interest in CX, Brakus et al. (2009) developed an influential
scale to measure the customer’s brand experience.
Customer experience incorporates any product/service exchange
(Schmitt, 2010), and as such, covers the customer’s entire purchase
journey (Lemon and Verhoef, 2016). It comprises the client’s cognitive,
affective, behavioral and social responses to his/her brand interactions
(Brakus et al., 2009). The literature sets forth multiple CX definitions,
revealing a lack of consensus regarding its conceptualization. For
example, Meyer and Schwager (2007, p. 18) define CX as “the internal
and subjective responses that customers have to any direct or indirect
contact with a company.” More recently, Lemon and Verhoef (2016,
p.71) define CX as “a multidimensional construct focusing on a cus­
tomer’s cognitive, emotional, behavioral, sensorial, and social responses
to a firm’s offerings during the customer’s entire purchase journey”.
Relatedly, Brakus et al. (2009, p. 53) conceptualize customer brand
experience as “subjective, internal consumer responses (sensations,
feelings, and cognitions) and behavioral responses evoked by
brand-related stimuli that are part of a brand’s design.”
2
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 57 (2020) 102219
Similar to Lemon and Verhoef (2016), Homburg et al. (2015, p. 8)
view CX as “the evolve[ing] of a person’s sensorial, affective, cognitive,
relational, and behavioral responses to a brand by living through a
journey of touchpoints along pre-purchase, purchase, and post-purchase
[stages], and continually judging this journey against response thresh­
olds of co-occurring experiences.” In retailing, CX has been viewed as a
multidimensional construct that reflects the customer’s emotional, so­
cial, cognitive, affective, and physical responses to the retailer (Verhoef
et al., 2009, p. 32), similar to Brakus et al. (2009).
From the reviewed CX definitions, we make the following observa­
tions. First, most authors view CX as a highly subjective, personal
concept that is subject to fluctuation across interactions, which collec­
tively comprise the customer’s overall purchase journey (Hollebeek
et al., 2020; Homburg et al., 2015). Therefore, unlike engagement, which
reflects a customer’s investment in a specific brand interaction, CX
covers the customer’s entire purchase journey (Hollebeek and Rather,
2019).
Second, CX is typically viewed as a multi-dimensional concept that
reveals a customer’s response to particular brand-related stimuli (Lemon
and Verhoef, 2016). While there is some debate regarding its dimen­
sionality, CX is commonly thought to comprise cognitive, emotional,
behavioral, sensorial, and social facets (Brakus et al., 2009; Schmitt,
2010; Verhoef et al., 2009; Verhulst et al., 2020). That is, CX’s dimen­
sionality is driven by the focal experience object, which may range from
macro-to micro-level objects (Hollebeek, 2011; Vargo and Lusch, 2017).
For example, while CX covers the customer’s entire journey, their
sub-experiences may also focus on particular interactions in their pur­
chase journey (e.g. a service failure experience; De Keyser et al., 2015;
Holloway and Beatty, 2003; Voorhees et al., 2017).
Consequently, the particular experience object adopted can affect
the customer’s experience dimensionality, revealing its context-specific
nature (Brodie et al., 2011). For example, McCarthy and Wright (2004)
technology experience comprises compositional, emotional, sensual, and
spatio-temporal sub-experiences, unlike Brakus et al. (2009) more gen­
eral brand experience dimensions. Based on our review, we define CX as
a multidimensional construct that reflects the customer’s cognitive,
emotional, behavioral, and sensorial responses to brand-related stimuli
throughout their entire purchase journey (Brakus et al., 2009; Lemon
and Verhoef, 2016).
2.2. Customer commitment
Commitment reflects an implicit or explicit pledge of relationship
continuousness between exchange partners (Dwyer et al., 1987, p. 19).
Moorman et al. (1992, p. 316) describe commitment as a customer’s
desire to uphold a valued relationship so as to warrant maximum efforts
at maintaining it. Therefore, commitment implies the customer’s will­
ingness to make sacrifices to achieve long-term relationship gains
(Anderson and Weitz, 1992) and reveals the individual’s brand attach­
ment that renders him/her both more forgiving in the event of
brand-related issues (e.g. failure) and less sensitive to competitors’
marketing activities (Hess and Story, 2005; Story and Hess, 2010;
Thomson et al., 2005).
As a customer’s brand attachment-based innate desire to maintain a
valued relationship, commitment differs, conceptually, from brand
loyalty (Aurier and N’Goala, 2010; Fullerton, 2005). First, attitudinal
loyalty is typically gauged through the customer’s favorable
brand-related word-of-mouth (Kim et al., 2011). Second, behavioral
loyalty manifests through the customer’s repurchase of the brand. Thus,
despite an expected association between these concepts, customer
commitment and loyalty are conceptually distinct (Fullerton, 2005).
Specifically, customer commitment is typically viewed as a loyalty
driver (Iglesias et al., 2011; Oliver, 1999).
Likewise, customer commitment is typically viewed as a multi-
dimensional concept comprising calculative, affective, and normative
tenets (Fullerton, 2005; Pandit and Vilches-Montero, 2016). First,
I. Khan et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 57 (2020) 102219

calculative commitment reveals a customer’s desire to stay in a brand

relationship, given high perceived switching cost or lacking alternatives
(Shukla et al., 2016). It therefore implies a more rational, functional
view of the brand relationship that is rooted in customer-perceived (e.g.
economic) gain, where prospective losses are considered if the rela­
tionship were to end (Allen and Meyer, 1990; Gilliland and Bello, 2002;
Johnson, 2007).
Second, affective commitment denotes a customer’s emotional
attachment to and identification with a brand (Allen and Meyer, 1996).
As a customer’s desire-based attachment (Bansal et al., 2004), affective
commitment offers an important foundation for customer/brand re­
lationships (Fullerton, 2005). For example, customers may feel
emotionally attached to a brand based on their relationship with service
personnel. Third, normative commitment reflects a customer-perceived
moral obligation (i.e. “ought to”) to continue with a relational partner
or perceived reciprocity towards the partner (Bansal et al., 2004). It is
therefore based on a psychological contract (Allen and Meyer, 1996).
While the definition of customer commitment is debated, we observe Fig. 1. Conceptual model.
some commonalities across most conceptualizations. First, commitment
reflects an individual’s innate desire to remain with their exchange
including brands and brand-related touchpoints or platforms (e.g. social
partner (e.g. a brand; McGee and Ford, 1987). Second, customer
media; Breidbach et al., 2014). By providing value-laden (e.g. pleasur­
commitment is typically viewed as a multi-dimensional concept. We
able) experiences, these touchpoints are conducive to fostering cus­
focus on customers’ calculative and affective commitment, which
tomers’ greater rational (i.e. calculative) and emotive (i.e. affective)
address customers’ cognitive and emotional foci, respectively (Iglesias
brand commitment (Hollebeek, 2019; Iglesias et al., 2019; Keiningham
et al., 2011). However, normative commitment focuses on issues that
et al., 2017).
customers perceive they “should” do, etc. (Pandit and Vilches-Montero,
In today’s hyper-competitive business environment, numerous
2016), which is not the focus of the current study.
studies suggest that brands must provide unique, valuable experiences
Third, customer commitment can be extrinsically motivated,
to gain competitive advantage (Iglesias et al., 2019; Jung and Soo,
including through brand engagement-building initiatives, including
2012). However, remarkably, much less research exists that links CX and
elevated customer service levels, warranties, or loyalty programs (Islam
commitment. We therefore propose:
et al., 2019; Viswanathan et al., 2017). Fourth, customer commitment
has been shown to affect a range of consumer behavior variables, H1. Customer experience has a positive effect on affective commitment.
including customer satisfaction and brand loyalty (intent; Dalziel et al.,
H2. Customer experience has a positive effect on calculative commitment.
2011), as explored further in this study.

3.2. The customer experience/brand loyalty interface

2.3. Brand loyalty
Scholars have studied the brand loyalty concept for many years,
leading to an extensive body of research in this area (Casteran et al.,
2019; Reynolds et al., 1974). In the early 1990s, academic interest in
brand loyalty took off. For example, Reichheld and Sasser (1990) raised
that the cost of retaining a customer is substantially lower than that of
attracting a new one, warranting the importance of having a loyal
customer base. At the turn of the decade, Oliver (1999, p. 392) influ­
ential definition described brand loyalty as “a deeply held commitment
to re-buy or re-patronize a preferred product or service consistently in
the future, despite situational influences and marketing efforts having
the potential to cause switching behavior.” Despite the author’s use of
the term commitment to define loyalty, the two concepts are distinct, as
discussed in section 2.2.
As discussed, loyalty is typically viewed to comprise behavioral and
attitudinal facets (Veloutsou, 2015). While behavioral loyalty reflects the
customer’s propensity to repurchase a brand, attitudinal loyalty denotes
the customer’s brand-related sentiment, which leads them to engage in
referrals or recommendations (Keiningham et al., 2007).
3. Conceptual model and hypothesis development
The conceptual model is shown in Fig. 1.
3.1. The customer experience/commitment interface
Consumers’ brand-related decision-making reveals rational and
more emotional components that differ across individuals and contexts
(Iglesias et al., 2011; Leek and Christodoulides, 2012; Manthiou et al.,
2020). As discussed, the literature proposes differing experience objects,
Customer experience is viewed as a major driver of brand loyalty
(Srivastava and Kaul, 2016). That is, when customers receive increas­
ingly valued experiences from a brand, they are more likely to make
repeat visits and display brand loyalty (Williams et al., 2020; Khan and
Rahman, 2016). According to Bilgihan (2016) and Khan and Rahman
(2015), a satisfactory experience is a major prerequisite to foster a
customer’s enduring brand-related interest, which in turn is conducive
to developing brand loyalty (Calder et al., 2018; Klaus and Maklan,
2013). Sikdar et al. (2015, p. 765) posit that “if [an] experience is
positive, it creates a desire for repeat usage [i.e. behavioral loyalty]”. We
postulate:
H3. Customer experience has a positive effect on brand loyalty.
3.3. The customer commitment/brand loyalty interface
The literature identifies customer brand commitment as an impor­
tant driver of brand loyalty (Evanschitzky et al., 2006; Fullerton, 2005;
Morgan and Hunt, 1994). When customers are committed to a brand,
they will tend to have a favorable attitude and high affective commit­
ment towards it. In line with the theory of reasoned action (Fishbein and
Ajzen, 1974), these customers are expected to engage in higher
brand-related attitudinal loyalty, as expressed through positive
brand-related word-of-mouth, referrals, or helping other customers
(Hollebeek and Chen, 2014; Johnson et al., 2006). We posit:
H4. Customers’ affective brand commitment has a positive effect on their
brand loyalty.
As discussed, calculative commitment represents a customer’s desire
to maintain his/her brand relationship given perceived switching costs

3
I. Khan et al.
or lack of alternatives (Gustaffsson et al., 2005). It is therefore based on
customer-perceived constraint, where individuals maintain a brand
relationship due to the perceived (e.g. economic, social, psychological)
cost of terminating it (Bansal et al., 2004). That is, customers displaying
high calculative commitment may stay with a brand based on a feeling
of being “locked into” the brand relationship, thus potentially experi­
encing spurious loyalty (Bowden, 2009). Therefore, elevated calculative
commitment leads customers to stay with a brand, affecting their brand
repurchase, and thus behavioral loyalty. We postulate:
H5. Calculative commitment has a positive effect on brand loyalty.
3.4. Moderating role: customer age
Age is considered an important demographic variable in marketing
research (Ye et al., 2019). Customers of differing age profiles are ex­
pected to exhibit unique needs, wants and preferences, generating
different behaviors (Evanschitzky and Wünderlich, 2006; Khan et al.,
2019). For example, the elderly tend to possess greater emotional con­
trol and maturity than young people (Carstensen et al., 2011), leading
them to make different types of purchases. Young (vs. older) consumers
are more likely to spend extensive time searching for product-related
information (Wells and Gubar, 1966) and rely less on heuristic pro­
cessing (Yoon, 1997).
In addition, as consumers move through their life-cycle, their needs
and responses to marketing programs tend to shift (Khan et al., 2019).
Consequently, we expect customer age to moderate the association of CX
and affective commitment, calculative commitment and brand loyalty
(Ye et al., 2019). We therefore examine age as a moderator in the
relationship between CX, affective/calculative commitment, and brand
loyalty across customers of different age profiles (i.e. young vs. older
consumers). We propose:
H6a. The strength of the association between CX and affective commitment
differs across younger (vs. older) consumer age groups.
H6b. The strength of the association between CX and calculative commit­
ment differs across younger (vs. older) consumer age groups.
H6c. The strength of the association between CX and brand loyalty differs
across younger (vs. older) consumer age groups.
H6d. The strength of the association between customers’ affective
commitment and brand loyalty differs across younger (vs. older) consumer
age groups.
H6e. The strength of the association between customers’ calculative
commitment and brand loyalty differs across younger (vs. older) consumer
age groups.
4. Methodology
4.1. Measures
To measure the modeled constructs, we adapted the relevant con­
structs’ items from prior research. Items were measured on 5-point
Likert-type scales (see Appendix 1). We first conducted a pretest with
45 Master and PhD-level students to ascertain the items’ content validity
and psychometric properties. All respondents were experienced branded
retail store shoppers.
4.2. Survey and sample
We tested the model for (a) self-service brands, including coffee
shops (e.g. Caf�e Coffee Day), fast food restaurants (e.g, McDonald’s),
and supermarkets, and (b) brands offering interactive services, including
travel agencies or car dealers in the Delhi-National Capital Region,
India. Using a mall-intercept survey, we collected the data from
August–October 2019. Of 500 distributed questionnaires, we attained a
4
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 57 (2020) 102219
total of 423 valid respondents, yielding a response rate of 84.6%. Fifty-
four per cent of the respondents were female, 48% were between 18 and
27 years old, 32% were 28–37 years old, and the remaining 20% were
over 37 years old.
5. Results
5.1. Data analysis
We first estimated and validated the measurement model through
covariance analysis, based on Anderson and Gerbing (1988) two-step
process. Next, we split the sample into the following sub-groups to
discover the existence of any cross-group (dis)similarities: (a) � 27 years
(young sub-sample), and (b) > 27 years (older sub-sample). As we
collected the data in India, we selected age 27 as the cut-off, given In­
dia’s median age of 27.1 (Worldometers, 2019). This suggests that 50%
of its population is under/over 27, respectively. Moreover, 27 represents
a common transition age where individuals tend to reassess their life
priorities, corroborating its suitability for our study (Levinson, 1986).
We next estimated multi-group structural equation models (SEMs) for
both age groups, which were checked for metric invariance, thereby
testing for age-dependent differences in our hypothesized relationships.
We also used Chi-square difference tests to compare relevant path co­
efficients across our sub-samples.
5.2. Measure validation
We estimated model fit, internal consistency, and validity through
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA; Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). Our
CFA results suggest the model’s good fit to the data: χ 2 ¼ 704, df ¼ 253,
χ 2/df ¼ 2.78, CFI ¼ 0.96, IFI ¼ 0.93, NFI ¼ 0.92, GFI ¼ 0.95, and
RMSEA ¼ 0.058 (Hooper et al., 2008). To assess internal consistency, we
inspected the factor loadings, Cronbach’s alphas, and composite reli­
ability statistics. We found each of the factor loadings to exceed the
critical value of 0.70 (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988). In addition, all Cronbach’s
alphas and composite reliability values for each construct exceeded the
required threshold of 0.70 (Hooper et al., 2008). Finally, the square root
of the average variance extracted (AVE) values were greater than the
correlation between each construct pair, thus establishing discriminant
validity (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Therefore, our results offer clear
support for our proposed measurement model (see Table 1).
Given the questionnaire’s self-report nature, we also checked for
common method bias in the data. First, we performed Harman’s single-
factor test to verify that no single factor explains the majority (i.e. over
50%) of the observed variance (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Our findings
show that the first factor accounted for 29.6% of the total variance,
suggesting that common method bias is not an issue in this study. Sec­
ond, we assessed common method bias by comparing a single-factor CFA
model fit to a multiple-construct CFA model. The results suggested a
better fit for the multiple-construct (vs. single-factor) CFA model,
rendering the single-factor model unacceptable and alleviating potential
concern around common method bias (Podsakoff and Organ, 1986).
Overall, our tests suggest that common method bias is not an issue in our
data.
5.3. Structural model results
Our structural model results suggest that the model fits well to the
data: χ 2 ¼ 734, df ¼ 262, χ 2/df ¼ 2.80, CFI ¼ 0.95, IFI ¼ 0.94, NFI ¼
0.96, GFI ¼ 0.95, and RMSEA ¼ 0.057. We found CX to exert a signifi­
cant, positive effect on affective commitment (β ¼ 0.61), calculative
commitment (β ¼ 0.02), and brand loyalty (β ¼ 0.47), thus supporting
H1–3. Notably, the effect of CX on affective commitment is stronger than
its effect on calculative commitment. Next, the attained effects of af­
fective commitment (β ¼ 0.38) and calculative commitment (β ¼ 0.12)
on brand loyalty were also significant, supporting H4–5. However, the
I. Khan et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 57 (2020) 102219

Table 1
Measurement properties and correlations.
Constructs Mean SD CR CA Correlations

CX AC CC BL

Customer experience (CX) 3.21 0.91 0.83 0.80 0.82

Affective commitment (AC) 3.52 0.89 0.81 0.83 0.28 0.81
Calculative commitment (CC) 2.73 0.98 0.78 0.81 0.09 0.34 0.79
Brand loyalty (BL) 3.47 0.83 0.87 0.77 0.17 0.25 0.38 0.84

Notes: SD¼Standard deviation; CR ¼ composite reliability; CA¼Cronbach alpha; AVE (square root) values are illustrated diagonally in italics.

effect of affective commitment on brand loyalty was stronger than that

Table 2
of calculative commitment. (Fig. 2)
Multi-group analysis - Moderating effect of customer age.

5.4. Subgroup comparisons for young/older customers Hypothesis Young Older customers: χ2 Decision
customers: β β value (t-value) difference
value (t-value)
We next deployed a multi-group SEM-based analysis to assess the
H6a 0.622 (4.472*) 0.175 (3.588*) 5.129* Supported
moderating effect of customer age (Evanschitzky and Wünderlich,
(CX→AC)
2006), as explored in H6a–e. We divided the sample into two age-based H6b 0.622 (0.725) 0.175 (0.563) 2.081 Not
groups, namely young- (n ¼ 203) and older consumers (n ¼ 220), and (CX→CC) supported
tested for cross-group measurement invariance to ensure the scales were H6c 0.347 (2.611*) 0.335 (3.935*) 6.473* Supported
measuring the same trait across the groups. First, we deployed a (CX→BL)
H6d 0.407 (6.287*) 0.113 (4.160*) 9.432* Supported
multi-group CFA to ensure configural invariance. The results indicated (AC→BL)
the model’s reasonable fit to the data for the two sub-groups (i.e. sig­ H6e 0.071 (2.049*) 0.206 (5.482*) 5.243* Supported
nificant factor loadings), thus providing support for configural equiva­ (CC→BL)
lence. Second, we conducted metric invariance testing by comparing the Notes: CX: customer experience, AC ¼ affective commitment, CC ¼ calculative
freely estimated model’s fit to that of a rival model in which the factor commitment; BL ¼ brand loyalty, *p < .05.
loadings were constrained to be equal across the groups. The results
indicated the existence of metric invariance across the two age
for young- (β ¼ 0.071, t ¼ 2.049 p˂0.05) versus older customers (β ¼
sub-groups (p˃0.05; Δχ 2 ¼ 11, Δdf ¼ 8). Finally, we analyzed the
0.206, t ¼ 5.482, p˂0.05). Overall, we attained strong support for H6a–e,
multi-group structural equation models to estimate the path coefficients
confirming the moderating role of customer age in the proposed
across two age subgroups.
associations.
Our multi-group analysis results indicated that the structural multi-
group model fit the data moderately well: χ 2 ¼ 628, df ¼ 211, p ¼
6. Discussion and implications
0.000; χ 2/df ¼ 2.97, CFI ¼ 0.92; GFI ¼ 0.91; IFI ¼ 0.90, and RMSEA ¼
0.061. The findings also suggested that the path coefficients significantly
In this study, we examined the effect of CX on calculative/affective
varied across our two age sub-groups (see Table 2). Specifically, the
commitment and brand loyalty for younger (vs. older) customers. Our
significant, positive effect of CX on affective commitment is stronger for
findings suggest that CX affects customers’ affective and calculative
young- (β ¼ 0.622, t ¼ 4.472, p˂0.05) versus older consumers (β ¼ 0.175,
commitment, as well as their brand loyalty. However, CX has a sub­
t ¼ 3.588, p˂0.05). No moderating effects were observed for the rela­
stantially stronger effect on affective (vs. calculative) commitment. This
tionship between CX and calculative commitment.
implies that customers’ brand experiences that develop an emotional
As displayed in Table 1, the significant effect observed for CX on
bond are more effective in driving the development of customer loyalty
brand loyalty did not differ significantly for young- (β ¼ 0.347, t ¼
than those based on rational, functional benefits.
2.611, p˂0.05) versus older customers (β ¼ 0.335, t ¼ 3.935, p˂0.05).
We also identified a significant effect of affective/calculative
Finally, we observed that while the significant effect of affective
commitment on brand loyalty. However, again affective (vs. calculative)
commitment on brand loyalty is stronger for young- (β ¼ 0.407, t ¼
commitment was found to have a stronger effect on brand loyalty. As
6.287 p˂0.05), rather than older customers (β ¼ 0.113, t ¼ 4.160,
another contribution, these findings confirm the key moderating role of
p˂0.05), the effect of calculative commitment on brand loyalty is lower
customer age in affecting the association between CX and affective/
calculative commitment and brand loyalty. For example, for younger
customers, CX developing their affective commitment but less so for
older customers. Our findings yield significant implications for mar­
keting theory and practice, as discussed below.

6.1. Theoretical implications

Our results offer important theoretical implications. First, they refine

existing insight into the association between CX and calculative/affec­
tive commitment, which has yielded inconclusive results in past
research. Our results demonstrate that though CX exerts a significant
effect on customers’ calculative and affective commitment, its effect on
the latter is stronger, thus highlighting the importance of forging
emotional bonds (Thomson et al., 2005).
Second, we assessed the effect of customers’ calculative and affective
Fig. 2. Structural model results. commitment on brand loyalty. Our results suggest a stronger effect of
Note: Significant at *p < 0.05. affective (vs. calculative) commitment on brand loyalty (Fullerton,

5
I. Khan et al.
2005), which makes intuitive sense because customers displaying high
attitudinal loyalty tend to feel positive about the brand. In turn, they will
be significantly more likely to repurchase the brand (i.e. behavioral
loyalty) and/or recommend it to their family, friends and peers (i.e.
attitudinal loyalty; Gustaffsson et al., 2005). Therefore, our findings
highlight the importance of developing strong, positive brand-related
sentiment.
Third, we explored customer age as an important moderating vari­
able in the model’s proposed associations. The results suggest that
customer age moderates the relationship of CX and affective commit­
ment. For younger (vs. older) customers, we observed a stronger effect of
CX on affective commitment, thus confirming that consumers of
differing age profiles experience brand-related stimuli differently (Khan
et al., 2019; Williams and Drolet, 2005). However, we did not find the
effect of CX on brand loyalty to significantly differ across younger (vs.
older) customers, suggesting CX’s role as a key predictor of consumer
buying behavior irrespective of customer age. That is, when brands
stimulate the customer’s senses in a desirable way, we expect in­
dividuals to be motivated to continue seeking this experience, regardless
of their age.
Finally, we identified customer age as a key moderator in the rela­
tionship between affective/calculative commitment and brand loyalty.
Specifically, for younger (vs. older) customers, affective commitment
exerts a stronger effect on brand loyalty. This may be due to the fact that
older consumers tend to have greater maturity and control of their
emotional states (Carstensen et al., 2011; Loureiro and Roschk, 2014).
However, we found the relationship between customers’ calculative
commitment and brand loyalty to be stronger for older (vs. younger)
customers. A plausible explanation, again, lies in older customers’
greater emotional control and emotional maturity, owing to their more
extensive CX-based repository (Carstensen et al., 2011; Phillips and
Sternthal, 1977). Overall, our results offer more decisive evidence into
the association of CX, customer commitment, and loyalty, which
remained tenuous to date.
6.2. Managerial implications
This study also has important managerial implications. First, for re­
tailers wishing to develop their customers’ (affective) commitment and
brand loyalty, our findings suggest CX as an important driver of these
variables. We therefore highlight the importance of experiential mar­
keting (Pine and Gilmore, 1998), which can be implemented by acti­
vating multiple customer senses and stimulating their cognitive,
emotional, behavioral, and sensorial experience. For example, retailers
may use self-checkout technology to scan customer bags and allow
payments without queues, thus reducing customer wait times and
improving their experience.
Broadly, our findings indicate that retailers should focus on
improving customers’ emotional (vs. cognitive) brand experience,
which has important effects on their ensuing affective brand commit­
ment. We therefore suggest that scarce organizational resources are
better spent on developing personalized, authentic affective
commitment-forming tactics (vs. cognitive experience; Hollebeek and
Macky, 2019). To help customers bond with their brands, retailers may
wish to establish brand-related user communities, create customized
social media content (e.g. Coke’s Name Campaign), develop authentic
brand-related communications (e.g. content marketing), establish
value-laden loyalty programs with customized, relevant user rewards, or
by linking to worthwhile social causes or events (e.g. Australian bush
fires; Hollebeek et al., 2017; Woodroof et al., 2019). Moreover, man­
agers need to ensure that frontline service employees receive adequate
training to accurately communicate the brand’s values to target cus­
tomers and help build customer/brand bonds.
The results also suggest the existence of customer age-based effects.
Specifically, for younger customers, CX more strongly drives affective
commitment than for older customers. Thus, the development of
6
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 57 (2020) 102219
experiential, value-laden interactions seems most promising for young
(vs. older) customers. To do so, we advise marketers to capitalize on
their technological toolkit, including gamification, virtual reality or in-
game brand placement (e.g. Grewal et al., 2017; Leclercq et al., 2020).
Finally, for younger (vs. older) customers, affective commitment
more strongly impacts the development of their brand loyalty.
Conversely, for older (vs. younger) customers, calculative commitment
more strongly drives the development of their brand loyalty. Thus, while
calculative commitment plays a primary role for these customers, af­
fective commitment takes a secondary role, with the reverse dynamic
characterizing younger customers. Therefore, though younger cus­
tomers tend to decode marketing stimuli more emotionally, older cus­
tomers do so more rationally. We consequently recommend marketers
adopt more functional (e.g. brand quality-related) appeals to older
customers, while utilizing more affective appeals to younger audiences.
In line with the elaboration likelihood model, we also argue that while
customers’ receipt of emotional appeals tends to be optimized through
the peripheral route to persuasion, rational appeals most effectively
transmit via the central route (Hollebeek and Srivastava, 2020). Relat­
edly, our findings suggest that younger (older) customers’ loyalty is
optimized through affective (calculative) commitment, respectively,
thus necessitating unique marketing approaches.
6.3. Limitations and future research
We conclude by discussing key limitations inherent in this study,
which offer opportunities for further research. First, we deployed cross-
sectional data, thus overlooking the potential existence of variable-
evolving or time-lag effects. Therefore, we recommend the undertak­
ing of longitudinal future research to facilitate the understanding of the
unfolding of CX, customer commitment, and brand loyalty over time
(Hair et al., 2017).
Second, future studies may wish to explore other possible drivers of
affective (or calculative) commitment, including customer engagement
or knowledge (Hollebeek et al., 2019). For example, relatively unen­
gaged (highly engaged) customers may display lower (higher) affective
commitment, respectively. For more knowledgeable customers, the
relative importance of calculative (vs. affective) commitment may be
higher, which may be due to their elevated need for cognition (Xu and
Huang, 2019), as may be explored in future research.
Third, we tested specific age-based moderation effects in the re­
lationships among CX, commitment and loyalty. It is therefore worth­
while to re-investigate the tested relationships across different customer
groups characterized by differing demographic profiles (e.g. gender;
Khan et al., 2019; Prayag et al., 2019). Fourth, we collected the data in
India, which has a relatively young population (Worldometers, 2019).
Therefore, the younger and older age groups used in our study (i.e. �27
and ˃27 years of age, respectively) may not be generalizable to other
countries’ populations, including those in the West, which tend to have
older (e.g. ageing) populations (Eggink et al., 2017). Therefore, future
researchers may replicate our study design in other countries, using a
potentially different cut-off age to distinguish younger (vs. older) con­
sumers, depending on the particular studied countries’ population age
compositions. The adoption of differently defined younger/older con­
sumer age groups may in turn yield unique CX/commitment or loyalty
dynamics, which could refine our attained insight.
Fifth, while we measured consumers’ brand loyalty intent, it is also
important to understand actual loyalty behaviors. Thus, to gauge atti­
tudinal loyalty, researchers may wish to assess the nature, extent and
valence of consumers’ brand-related (electronic) word-of-mouth. To
understand behavioral loyalty, point-of-sale-based purchase (e.g. scan­
ner) data will offer important insight.
Declaration of competing interest
None.
I. Khan et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 57 (2020) 102219

Appendix 1. Constructs and measurement items

Construct Measurement items Source

Customer experience � This brand makes a strong impression on my visual sense or other senses. Brakus et al. (2009)
(brand) � I find this brand interesting in a sensory way
� This brand appeals to my senses.
� This brand induces my feelings and sentiments.
� I have strong emotions for this brand.
� This brand is an emotional brand.
� This brand reminds me of actions and behaviors when I use this restaurant brand.
� This brand results in bodily experiences.
� This brand is action oriented.
� I engage in a lot of thinking when I encounter this brand.
� This brand makes me think.
� This brand stimulates my curiosity.

Affective commitment � I feel emotionally attached to X. Allen and Meyer (1990); Bansal et al. (2004); Fullerton (2005)
� X has a great deal of personal meaning for me.
� I do feel a strong sense of belonging with X.

Calculative commitment � It would be very hard for me to leave X right now, even if I wanted to. Allen and Meyer (1990); Bansal et al. (2004); Fullerton (2005)
� Too much in my life would be disrupted if I decided I wanted to leave X now.
� Right now, staying with X is a matter of necessity as much as desire.

Brand loyalty
Note - X: Retail brands.
� In the future, I will be loyal to this brand. Yoo and Donthu (2001)
� I will buy from this brand again.
� This brand will be my first choice in the future.
� I will not buy from other brands if this brand is available.
� I will recommend this brand to others.

References Coviello, N.E., Brodie, R.J., Danaher, P.J., Johnston, W.J., 2002. How firms relate to
their markets: an empirical examination of contemporary marketing practices.
J. Market. 66 (3), 33–46.
Abbott, L., 1955. Quality and Competition. Columbia University Press, New York.
Dalziel, N., Harris, F., Laing, A., 2011. A multidimensional typology of customer
Alkire, L., O’Connor, G.E., Myrden, S., Koecher, S., 2020. Patient experience in the digital
relationships: from faltering to affective. Int. J. Bank Market. 29 (5), 398–432.
Age: an investigation into the effect of generational cohorts. J. Retail. Consum. Serv.,
De Keyser, A., Lemon, K.N., Klaus, P., Keiningham, T.L., 2015. A framework for
(this issue).
understanding and managing the customer experience. Market. Sci. Inst. Work. Pap.
Allen, N.J., Meyer, J.P., 1990. The measurement and antecedents of affective,
Ser. 15 (121), 1–48.
continuance and normative commitment to the organization. J. Occup. Psychol. 63
Dwyer, F.R., Schurr, P.H., Oh, S., 1987. Developing buyer-seller relationships. J. Market.
(1), 1–18.
51 (2), 11–27.
Allen, N.J., Meyer, J.P., 1996. Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the
Eggink, E., Ras, M., Wottiez, I., 2017. Dutch long-term care use in an ageing population.
organization: an examination of construct validity. J. Vocat. Behav. 49 (3), 252–276.
J. Econ. Age. 9 (June), 63–70.
Anderson, J.C., Gerbing, D.W., 1988. Structural equation modeling in practice: a review
Evanschitzky, H., Wünderlich, M., 2006. An examination of moderator effects in the four-
and recommended two-step approach. Psychol. Bull. 103 (3), 411.
stage loyalty model. J. Serv. Res. 8 (4), 330–345.
Anderson, E., Weitz, B., 1992. The use of pledges to build and sustain commitment in
Evanschitzky, H., Iyer, G.R., Plassmann, H., Niessing, J., Meffert, H., 2006. The relative
distribution channels. J. Market. Res. 29 (1), 18–34.
strength of affective commitment in securing loyalty in service relationships. J. Bus.
Aurier, P., N’Goala, G., 2010. The differing and mediating roles of trust and relationship
Res. 59 (12), 1207–1213.
commitment in service relationship maintenance and development. J. Acad. Market.
Fishbein, M., Ajzen, I., 1974. Attitudes towards objects as predictors of single and
Sci. 38 (3), 303–325.
multiple behavioral criteria. Psychol. Rev. 81 (1), 59–74.
Bagozzi, R.P., Yi, Y., 1988. On the evaluation of structural equation models. J. Acad.
Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
Market. Sci. 16 (1), 74–94.
variables and measurement error. J. Market. Res. 18 (1), 39–50.
Bansal, H.S., Irving, P.G., Taylor, S.F., 2004. A three-component model of customer
Fullerton, G., 2005. How commitment both enables and undermines marketing
commitment to service providers. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 32 (3), 234–250.
relationships. Eur. J. Market. 39 (11/12), 1372–1388.
Bilgihan, A., 2016. Gen Y customer loyalty in online shopping: an integrated model of
Gilliland, D.I., Bello, D.C., 2002. Two sides to attitudinal commitment: the effect of
trust, user experience and branding. Comput. Hum. Behav. 61, 103–113.
calculative and loyalty commitment on enforcement mechanisms in distribution
Bowden, J., 2009. Customer engagement: a framework for assessing customer-brand
channels. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 30 (1), 24–43.
relationships: the case of the restaurant industry. J. Hospit. Market. Manag. 18 (6),
Grewal, D., Roggeveen, A.L., Nordf€ alt, J., 2017. The future of retailing. J. Retailing 93
574–596.
(1), 1–6.
Brakus, J.J., Schmitt, B.H., Zarantonello, L., 2009. Brand experience: what is it? How is it
Gustaffsson, A., Johnson, M.D., Roos, I., 2005. The effects of customer satisfaction,
measured? Does it affect loyalty? J. Market. 73 (3), 52–68.
relationship commitment dimensions, and triggers on customer retention. J. Market.
Breidbach, C., Brodie, R., Hollebeek, L., 2014. Beyond virtuality: from engagement
69 (4), 210–218.
platforms to engagement ecosystems. Manag. Serv. Qual. 24 (6), 592–611.
Hair Jr., J.F., Matthews, L.M., Matthews, R.L., Sarstedt, M., 2017. PLS-SEM or CB-SEM:
Brodie, R., Hollebeek, L., Ilic, A., Juric, B., 2011. Customer engagement: conceptual
updated guidelines on which method to use. Int. J. Multivariate Data Anal. 1 (2),
domain, fundamental propositions & implications for research in service marketing.
107–123.
J. Serv. Res. 14 (3), 252–271.
Hess, J., Story, J., 2005. Trust-based commitment: multidimensional consumer-brand
Calder, B.J., Hollebeek, L., Malthouse, E., 2018. Creating stronger brands through
relationships. J. Consum. Market. 22 (6), 313–322.
consumer experience and engagement. In: Palmatier, R.W., Kumar, V., Harmeling, C.
Holbrook, M.B., Hirschman, E.C., 1982. The experiential aspects of consumption:
(Eds.), Customer Engagement Marketing. Palgrave-MacMillan, pp. 221–242.
consumer fantasies, feelings, and fun. J. Consum. Res. 9 (2), 132–140.
Carstensen, L.L., Turan, B., Scheibe, S., Ram, N., Ersner-Hershfield, H., Samanez-
Hollebeek, L.D., 2011. Demystifying customer brand engagement: exploring the loyalty
Larkin, G.R., Brooks, K.P., Nesselroade, J.R., 2011. Emotional experience improves
nexus. J. Market. Manag. 27 (7–8), 785–807.
with age: evidence based on over 10 years of experience sampling. Psychol. Aging 26
Hollebeek, L., 2019. Developing business customer engagement through social media
(1), 21.
engagement-platforms: an integrative S-D Logic/RBV-informed model. Ind. Market.
Casteran, G., Chrysochou, P., Meyer-Waarden, L., 2019. Brand loyalty evolution and the
Manag. 81 (Aug), 89–98.
impact of category characteristics. Market. Lett. 30 (1), 57–73.
Hollebeek, L., Macky, K., 2019. Digital content marketing’s role in fostering consumer
Chen, T., Drennan, J., Andrews, L., Hollebeek, L., 2018. User experience sharing:
engagement, trust, and value: framework, fundamental propositions, and
understanding customer initiation of value co-creation in online communities. Eur.
implications. J. Interact. Market. 45 (1), 27–41.
J. Market. 52 (5/6), 1154–1184.
Hollebeek, L., Rather, R., 2019. Service innovativeness and tourism customer outcomes.
Int. J. Contemp. Hospit. Manag. 31 (11), 4227–4246.

7
I. Khan et al.
Hollebeek, L., Srivastava, R., 2020. Consumer involvement and engagement: from
involvement’s elaboration likelihood to engagement’s investment propensity. In:
Kahle, L.R., Lowrey, T., Huber, J. (Eds.), APA Handbook of Consumer Psychology.
American Psychological Association.
Hollebeek, L.D., Juric, B., Tang, W., 2017. Virtual brand community engagement
practices: a refined typology and model. J. Serv. Market. 31 (3), 204–217.
Hollebeek, L.D., Srivastava, R.K., Chen, T., 2019. S-D logic-informed customer
engagement: integrative framework, revised fundamental propositions, and
application to CRM. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 47 (1), 161–185.
Hollebeek, L.D., Chen, T., 2014. Exploring positively- vs. negatively-valenced brand
engagement: A conceptual model. Journal of Product & Brand Management 23 (1),
62–74.
Hollebeek, L., Clark, M., Andreassen, T., Sigurdsson, V., Smith, D., 2020. Virtual reality
through the customer journey: framework and propositions. J. Retailing Consum.
Serv. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102056 (in press).
Holloway, B., Beatty, S., 2003. Service failure in online retailing: a recovery opportunity.
J. Serv. Res. 6 (2), 92–105.
Homburg, C., Giering, A., 2001. Personal characteristics as moderators of the
relationship between customer satisfaction and loyalty: an empirical analysis.
Psychol. Market. 18 (1), 43–66.
Homburg, C., Schwemmle, M., Kuehnl, C., 2015. New product design: concept,
measurement, and consequences. J. Market. 79 (3), 41–56.
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., Mullen, M.R., 2008. Structural equation modelling: guidelines
for determining model fit. Electron. J. Bus. Res. Methods 6 (1), 53–60.
Huaman-Ramirez, R., Merunka, D., 2019. Brand experience effects on brand attachment:
the role of brand trust, age, and income. Eur. Bus. Rev. 31 (5), 610–645.
Iglesias, O., Singh, J.J., Batista-Foguet, J.M., 2011. The role of brand experience and
affective commitment in determining brand loyalty. J. Brand Manag. 18 (8),
570–582.
Iglesias, O., Markovic, S., Rialp, J., 2019. How does sensory brand experience influence
brand equity? Considering the roles of customer satisfaction, customer affective
commitment, and employee empathy. J. Bus. Res. 96, 343–354.
Imhof, G., Klaus, P., 2019. The dawn of traditional CX metrics? Examining satisfaction,
EXQ, and WAR. Int. J. Mark. Res. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470785319848955 (in
press).
Islam, J., Hollebeek, L., Rasool, A., Khan, I., Rahman, Z., 2019. Customer engagement in
the service context: an empirical investigation of the construct, its antecedents and
consequences. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 50 (Sept), 277–285.
Johnson, D.S., 2007. Achieving customer value from electronic channels through identity
commitment, calculative commitment, and trust in technology. J. Interact. Market.
21 (4), 2–22.
Johnson, M.D., Herrmann, A., Huber, F., 2006. The evolution of loyalty intentions.
J. Market. 70 (2), 122–132.
Jung, L.H., Soo, K.M., 2012. The effect of brand experience on brand relationship quality.
Acad. Market. Stud. J. 16 (1), 87–98.
Keiningham, T.L., Cooil, B., Aksoy, L., Andreassen, T.W., Weiner, J., 2007. The value of
different customer satisfaction and loyalty metrics in predicting customer retention,
recommendation, and share-of-wallet. Manag. Serv. Qual.: Int. J. 17 (4), 361–384.
Keiningham, T., Ball, J., Benoit, S., Bruce, H.L., Buoye, A., Dzenkovska, J., Nasr, L.,
Ou, Y.C., Zaki, M., 2017. The interplay of customer experience and commitment.
J. Serv. Market. 31 (2), 148–160.
Khan, I., Rahman, Z., 2015. Brand experience anatomy in retailing: an interpretive
structural modeling approach. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 24, 60–69.
Khan, I., Rahman, Z., 2016. Retail brand experience: scale development and validation.
J. Prod. Brand Manag. 25 (5), 435–451.
Khan, I., Fatma, M., Shamim, A., Joshi, Y., Rahman, Z., 2019. Gender, loyalty card
membership, age, and critical incident recovery: do they moderate experience-
loyalty relationship? Nov Int. J. Hospit. Manag.. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijhm.2019.102408 (in press).
Kim, D.H., Jang, S.C., 2015. Cognitive decline and emotional regulation of senior
consumers. Int. J. Hospit. Manag. 44 (1), 111–119.
Kim, D., Magnini, V.P., Singal, M., 2011. The effects of customers’ perceptions of brand
personality in casual theme restaurants. Int. J. Hospit. Manag. 30 (2), 448–458.
Klaus, P.P., Maklan, S., 2013. Towards a better measure of customer experience. Int. J.
Mark. Res. 55 (2), 227–246.
Kuppelwieser, V.G., 2016. Towards the use of chronological age in research: a cautionary
comment. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 33, 17–22.
Leclercq, T., Hammedi, W., Poncin, I., Kullak, A., Hollebeek, L., 2020. When gamification
backfires: the impact of perceived justice on online community contributions.
J. Market. Manag. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2020.1736604 (in press).
Leek, S., Christodoulides, G., 2012. A framework of brand value in B2B markets: the
contributing role of functional and emotional components. Ind. Market. Manag. 41
(1), 106–114.
Lemon, K.N., Verhoef, P.C., 2016. Understanding customer experience throughout the
customer journey. J. Market. 80 (6), 69–96.
Levinson, D.J., 1986. A conception of adult development. Am. Psychol. 41 (1), 3–13.
Loureiro, S.M.C., Roschk, H., 2014. Differential effects of atmospheric cues on emotions
and loyalty intention with respect to age under online/offline environment.
J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 21 (2), 211–219.
Maffezzolli, F., Semprebon, E., Prado, P.H.M., 2014. Construing loyalty through brand
experience: the mediating role of brand relationship quality. J. Brand Manag. 21 (5),
446–458.
Manthiou, A., Hickmann, E., Klaus, P., 2020. Beyond good and bad: challenging the
suggested role of emotions in customer experience (CX) research. J. Retail. Consum.
Serv., (this issue).
McCarthy, J., Wright, P., 2004. Technology as experience. Interactions 11 (5), 42–43.
8
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 57 (2020) 102219
McGee, G.W., Ford, R.C., 1987. Two (or more?) dimensions of organizational
commitment: reexamination of the affective and continuance commitment scales.
J. Appl. Psychol. 72 (4), 638.
Meyer, C., Schwager, A., 2007. Understanding customer experience. Harv. Bus. Rev. 85
(2), 116–126.
Moorman, C., Zaltman, G., Deshpande, R., 1992. Relationships between providers and
users of market research: the dynamics of trust within and between organizations.
J. Market. Res. 29 (3), 314–328.
Morgan, R., Hunt, S., 1994. The commitment-trust theory of marketing. J. Market. 58
(3), 20–38.
Oliver, R.L., 1999. Whence consumer loyalty? J. Market. 63 (4), 33–44.
Pandit, A., Vilches-Montero, S., 2016. Are reward cards just a business deal? The role of
calculative versus emotional card commitment in driving store loyalty. J. Retailing
Consum. Serv. 31, 355–360.
Phillips, L.W., Sternthal, B., 1977. Age differences in information processing: a
perspective on the aged consumer. J. Market. Res. 14 (4), 444–457.
Pine, B.J., Gilmore, J.H., 1998. Welcome to the experience economy. Harv. Bus. Rev. 76,
97–105.
Podsakoff, P.M., Organ, D.W., 1986. Self-reports in organizational research: problems
and prospects. J. Manag. 12 (4), 531–544.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y., Podsakoff, N.P., 2003. Common method
biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 88 (5), 879–903.
Prayag, G., Hosany, S., Taheri, B., Ekiz, E.H., 2019. Antecedents and outcomes of
relationship quality in casual dining restaurants: the mediating effects of relationship
quality and moderating roles of gender. Int. J. Contemp. Hospit. Manag. 31 (2),
575–593.
Ramaseshan, B., Stein, A., 2014. Connecting the dots between brand experience and
brand loyalty: the mediating role of brand personality and brand relationships.
J. Brand Manag. 21 (7–8), 664–683.
Randall, A., O’Driscoll, M., 1997. Affective versus calculative commitment: human
resource implications. J. Soc. Psychol. 137 (5), 606–617.
Ravald, A., Gr€onroos, C., 1996. The value concept and relationship marketing. Eur. J.
Market. 30 (2), 19–30.
Reichheld, F., Sasser, W., 1990. Zero defections: quality comes to services. Harv. Bus.
Rev. 68 (Sep/Oct), 105–111.
Reynolds, E.D., Darden, W.B., Martin, W.S., 1974. Developing an image of store-loyal
customer-life-style analysis to probe a neglected market. J. Retailing 50 (4), 73–84.
Roschk, H., Müller, J., Gelbrich, K., 2013. Age matters: how developmental stages of
adulthood affect customer reaction to complaint handling efforts. J. Retailing
Consum. Serv. 20 (2), 154–164.
Rubio, N., Villase~nor, N., Yagüe, M.J., 2017. Creation of consumer loyalty and trust in
the retailer through store brands: the moderating effect of choice of store brand
name. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 34, 358–368.
Schmitt, B.H., 2010. Customer Experience Management: A Revolutionary Approach to
Connecting with Your Customers. John Wiley & Sons.
Shukla, P., Banerjee, M., Singh, J., 2016. Customer commitment to luxury brands:
antecedents and consequences. J. Bus. Res. 69 (1), 323–331.
Sikdar, P., Kumar, A., Makkad, M., 2015. Online banking adoption: a factor validation
and satisfaction causation study in the context of Indian banking customers. Int. J.
Bank Market. 33 (6), 760–785.
Srivastava, M., Kaul, D., 2016. Exploring the link between customer
experience–loyalty–consumer spend. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 31, 277–286.
Story, J., Hess, J., 2010. Ethical brand management: customer relationships and ethical
duties. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 19 (4), 240–249.
Thomson, M., MacInnis, D.J., Park, C.W., 2005. The ties that bind: measuring the
strength of consumers’ emotional attachments to brands. J. Consum. Psychol. 15 (1),
77–91.
Vargo, S., Lusch, R., 2017. S-D logic 2025. Int. J. Res. Market. 34 (1), 46–67.
Veloutsou, C., 2015. Brand evaluation, satisfaction and trust as predictors of brand
loyalty: the mediator-moderator effect of brand relationships. J. Consum. Market. 32
(6), 405–421.
Verhoef, P.C., Lemon, K.N., Parasuraman, A., Roggeveen, A., Tsiros, M., Schlesinger, L.
A., 2009. Customer experience creation: determinants, dynamics and management
strategies. J. Retailing 85 (1), 31–41.
Verhulst, N., Vermeir, I., Slabbinck, H., Larivi�ere, B., Mauri, M., Russo, V., 2020.
A neurophysiological exploration of the dynamic nature of emotions during the
customer experience. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. (this issue).
Viswanathan, V., Hollebeek, L., Malthouse, E., Maslowska, E., Kim, S.J., Xie, W., 2017.
The dynamics of consumer engagement with mobile technologies. Serv. Sci. 9 (1),
36–49.
Voorhees, C., Fombelle, P., Gr�egoire, Y., Bone, S., Gustaffsson, A., Sousa, R., 2017.
Service encounters, experiences and the customer journey: defining the field and a
call to expand our lens. J. Bus. Res. 79, 269–280.
Wells, W.D., Gubar, G., 1966. Life cycle concept in marketing research. J. Market. Res. 3
(4), 355–363.
Williams, P., Drolet, A., 2005. Age-related differences in responses to emotional
advertisements. J. Consum. Res. 32 (3), 343–354.
Williams, L., Buoye, A., Keiningham, T.L., Aksoy, L., 2020. The practitioners’ path to
customer loyalty: memorable experiences or frictionless experiences? J. Retailing
Consum. Serv. (this issue).
Woodroof, P.J., Deitz, G.D., Howie, K.M., Evans, R.D., 2019. The effect of cause-related
marketing on firm value: a look at Fortune’s most admired all-stars. J. Acad. Market.
Sci. 47 (5), 899–918.
I. Khan et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 57 (2020) 102219

Worldometers, 2019. World Population Prospects: the 2019 Revision. https://www.wor Issues/Sections on Customer Engagement in the Journal of Service Research and Interna­
ldometers.info/world-population/india-population/. (Accessed 21 September 2019). tional Journal of Research in Marketing. She is also co-editor of The Handbook of Research on
Accessed. Customer Engagement (2019, Edward Elgar).
Xu, X., Huang, Y., 2019. Restaurant information cues, diners’ expectations, and need for
cognition: experimental studies of online-to-offline mobile food ordering.
Mobin Fatma, Ph.D is Assistant Professor in Marketing at the College of Business
J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 51, 231–241.
Administration, Prince Sultan University Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. She completed her Ph.D in
Ye, B.H., Barreda, A.A., Okumus, F., Nusair, K., 2019. Website interactivity and brand
Business Administration from the Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee. Her areas of
development of online travel agencies in China: the moderating role of age. J. Bus.
interest are CSR, customer experience, and consumer behavior. She has published articles
Res. 99, 382–389.
in the International Journal of Bank Marketing, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
Yoo, B., Donthu, N., 2001. Developing and validating a multidimensional consumer-
Management Research Review, International Review of Public and Non-Profit Marketing,
based brand equity scale. J. Bus. Res. 52 (Apr), 1–14.
Marketing Intelligence and Planning, and the Social Responsibility Journal, among others.
Yoon, C., 1997. Age differences in consumers’ processing strategies: an investigation of
moderating influences. J. Consum. Res. 24 (3), 329–342.
Jamid Ul Islam has earned his Ph.D from the Department of Management Studies, Indian
Institute of Technology Roorkee, India, and is currently working as Assistant Professor
Imran Khan, Ph.D is Assistant Professor of Marketing at College of Business Adminis­
(Marketing) at the College of Business Administration, Prince Sultan University Riyadh,
tration, Prince Sultan University Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. He received his Ph.D in Marketing
Saudi Arabia. His work to-date, which has centered on customer engagement and CSR, is
from the Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, India. His main research interest areas
published in journals, including Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Current Issues in
are customer/brand experience, customer engagement, and CSR. He has published several
Tourism, Management Decision, Internet Research, and Telematics and Informatics, among
papers in journals, including the Journal of Services Marketing, Journal of Retailing and
others. His areas of interest are customer engagement, CSR, and consumer behavior. Dr.
Consumer Services, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
Jamid is the recipient of 2018 Emerald Literati Network Awards, including an Outstanding
Journal of Brand Management, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Cornell Hos­
Paper and Highly Commended Paper.
pitality Quarterly, and International Journal of Bank Marketing, among others.

Iivi Riivits-Arkonsuo, Ph.D is Associate Professor of Marketing at the Department of

Linda D. Hollebeek, Ph.D is Senior Associate Professor at Montpellier Business School and
Business Administration, Tallinn University of Technology, Estonia. Her research focuses
Full Professor at Tallinn University of Technology (Adj.). Her research centers on
mainly on consumer/customer engagement, interactive consumer/brand relationships,
customer/consumer engagement and interactive consumer/brand relationships and value.
the digital divide, and digital exclusion in older age. She has been a Research Manager in
Her work to date has published in the Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Journal
one of the leading market-research companies in Estonia, Turu-uuringute AS, for more
of Service Research, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Industrial Marketing Management,
than twenty years.
Journal of Business Research, and European Journal of Marketing, among others. She is
Associate Editor of the European Journal of Marketing and is currently guest editing Special