The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1463-5771.htm

Examining the influence of Customer-

brand
customer-brand relationship relationship
constructs
constructs and bandwagon effect
on brand loyalty
Rajesh Anantharaman and Sanjeev Prashar Received 28 June 2021
Revised 22 October 2021
Department of Marketing, Indian Institute of Management Raipur, Raipur, 22 January 2022
India, and Accepted 19 February 2022

Sai Vijay Tata

Department of Marketing, Indian Institute of Management Ranchi, Ranchi, India

Abstract
Purpose – Organizations are being compelled to revamp their loyalty programs due to the increase in digital
transactions, customer acquisition costs and competition in the loyalty market. Given the significance of
consumer-brand relationships, businesses must quickly identify the relationships that best elicit brand loyalty.
Thus, this study seeks to develop a comprehensive model about the consumer-brand relationship that
encompasses the following constructs: brand trust, brand satisfaction, brand preference, brand affect, brand
equity, brand image, commitment, variety seeking, and relationship length, and their influence on brand loyalty.
The study also investigates the impact of the bandwagon effect, in tandem with the aforesaid antecedents.
Design/methodology/approach – A data set comprising 248 consumers in India was used to validate the
measures and test the hypotheses. Structural equation modeling was employed to test the hypothesis. The data
analysis was carried out on R version 4.0.2.
Findings – The study found that all the selected constructs exert influence on brand loyalty, although
commitment, brand equity and brand preference exhibited the strongest impact. The bandwagon effect also
demonstrated a strong effect.
Originality/value – This study advances the field’s understanding of information processing through a
consolidated meta-view of various consumer-brand relationship constructs along with bandwagon effects.
Perhaps the most important contribution is shedding light on the influence of bandwagon effects on brand
loyalty.
Keywords Consumer-brand relationships, Brand loyalty, Bandwagon effect, Brand trust, Brand satisfaction,
Brand preference, Brand affect, Brand equity, Commitment, Brand image, Variety-seeking, Relationship length
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
As customers become more costly to acquire and the significance of the consumer-brand
relationship grows, today’s leading brands are concentrating their efforts and resources on
customer retention and brand loyalty (Yotpo, 2019). Indeed, many brands are compelled to
revamp their loyalty programs in light of consumers flocking to digital companies
(McKinsey, 2020). In 2019, for example, the loyalty programs were valued at USD 126 billion
amidst a total customer spending ecosystem of USD 323 billion (HT, 2019). Two years after,
the US loyalty industry grew at a rate of 69% and this trend is expected to continue for at least
the next two years (HT, 2019).
Following this trend, several studies have added to our knowledge of consumer-brand
relationships and their influence on brand loyalty. Scholars have highlighted that the

The authors would like to thank the editor and the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments
Benchmarking: An International
and inputs to the authors. Journal
Funding: This research did not receive any specific grant/fund from funding agencies in the public, © Emerald Publishing Limited
1463-5771
commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. DOI 10.1108/BIJ-06-2021-0365
BIJ bandwagon effect can be persuasive for purchase decisions (Sundar, 2008) and potentially
trigger credibility associations for products or services. Regardless of its theoretical relevance
in explaining the customer engagement behaviors of today’s connected consumers, who
increasingly rely on community-driven consensus in making brand engagement decisions,
a study on the bandwagon effect is required to understand the behavioral aspects of
customer-brand relationships and engagement (Coulter et al., 2012; Oyedele and Goenner, 2021).
In that vein, the present study seeks to address this gap by evaluating the impact of not
only those constructs that are prevalent in the literature but also the less-considered
bandwagon effect.
Researchers have studied the impact of brand trust (Cuong, 2020; Song et al., 2019), brand
satisfaction (Atulkar, 2020; Menidjel et al., 2017; Sahin et al., 2011; Schirmer et al., 2018),
commitment (Cuong, 2020; Dhurup et al., 2018; Khan et al., 2019; Schirmer et al., 2018), brand
equity (Ebrahim, 2020; Nam et al., 2011; Taylor et al., 2004), brand affect (Singh et al., 2012;
Taylor et al., 2004) and brand preference (Seo and Park, 2017) on brand loyalty. While Jana
and Chandra (2016) noted that brand satisfaction and brand loyalty are moderated by a brand
image, Tuu and Olsen (2013) observed that brand satisfaction and brand loyalty are
moderated by variety-seeking with the brand. As per studies like Kim et al. (2016) and
Ranaweera and Menon (2013), the positive relationship between brand satisfaction and brand
loyalty is also moderated by the length of customers’ relationship with the brand.
However, neither the literature nor the leading brand experts agree on the types of consumer-
brand relationship constructs that best elicit brand loyalty (Khamitov et al., 2019). Studies in the
past have assessed the impact of various constructs on brand loyalty by examining a few of
them at a time. For example, the influence of brand trust, commitment and brand identification
on brand loyalty was examined by Cuong (2020). Song et al. (2019) investigated the relationship
of brand trust, brand satisfaction and brand image with brand loyalty. Further, the effect of
brand trust, brand satisfaction, value and differentiation were studied by Atulkar (2020). Besides
brand trust, Menidjel et al. (2017) studied the constructs like brand satisfaction, variety seeking,
consumer innovation and relationship proneness. Wang (2002) evaluated commitment as a
mediator between brand trust and brand loyalty. Jana and Chandra (2016) examined the
moderating effect of brand image and switching costs on brand satisfaction and brand loyalty.
Given the many fragmented studies on brand constructs and their inconsistent empirical
findings, there is a need to develop a comprehensive model (Gambetti et al., 2012; Zhang et al.,
2012). Likewise, Wu et al. (2020) stated that a multi-model can account for more variances
than a single model. Thus, our research aims to untangle these complicated relationships and
build on past research by developing a comprehensive model that synthesizes the various
frameworks with the less-studied bandwagon effect in order to capture the formation of
brand loyalty. The present research also investigated the mediating role of commitment on
brand trust and brand loyalty, as well as brand satisfaction and brand loyalty. Further, we
examined the role of brand image, variety seeking and relationship length as moderators
between brand satisfaction and brand loyalty.
We used an Indian sample for this study because of the country’s massive market for
smartphones (Businesswire, 2019) (our target product in this study). The market size in India
is 346 million, 133% higher than that of the United States (Bankmycell, 2021) and is expected
to reach about 442 million by 2022 (Statista, 2020). A rise in disposable income, a decline in
Internet costs and the need to stay connected are just a few of the factors that have propelled
the Indian smartphone market to become one of the largest markets in the world (Statista,
2021). A similar situation is unfolding for brands in India, which are revisiting their loyalty
programs for the digital age (Capillary, 2020). They are constantly evaluating a variety of
possibilities to combine new-age convenience with old-world customer service (Capillary,
2020). Against this background, there is a need to understand the factors that facilitate a
consumer-brand relationship, which is the cornerstone of brand loyalty.
 We focused on smartphone brands, as the intense competition in this industry compels firms Customer-
to invest in loyalty and retention programs. Additionally, we can leverage various studies that brand
have been conducted on customer smartphone preferences (Kim et al., 2020b; Liu and Liang,
2014; Yeh et al., 2016). The present study seeks to investigate the effect of brand trust, brand
relationship
satisfaction, brand preference, brand affect, brand equity, bandwagon effect, commitment, brand constructs
image, variety seeking, and relationship length on brand loyalty. In doing so, the study aims to
help practitioners understand how the consumer-brand relationship influences brand loyalty
and, accordingly, how to build retention programs and grow the customer base. In this way,
managers can dedicate resources to match the strength of a given construct (Yeh et al., 2016).
The remainder of the research proceeds as follows: The subsequent section summarizes
the literature on the aforementioned constructs as well as the associated hypotheses. The
third section describes the study’s research methodology. The fourth section presents the
results, followed by the discussion and implications. The paper closes with a highlight of its
limitations and avenues for future research.

Literature review and formulation of hypotheses

Brand loyalty
Oliver (1999, p. 34) defined brand loyalty as “a deeply held commitment to re-buy or re-patronize
a preferred product/service consistently in the future, thereby, causing repetitive same brand set
purchasing, despite situational influences and marketing efforts having the potential to cause
switching behavior.” Though brand loyalty was initially associated with a reliable repurchase,
later studies, including Kumar and Advani (2005), have recognized the affective component
(attitudinal) of brand loyalty. The attitudinal component of brand loyalty encourages strategies
for customer retention and supports the positive informal proposal (Reichheld and Schefter,
2000), which further causes as an instrument to contend in a highly competitive environment
(Amine, 1998; Bozbay and Baslar, 2020; Chinomona, 2016). Additionally, loyal consumers have a
close relationship with the brand and are more likely to make repeat purchases (Milan et al., 2018;
Seric and Pranicevic, 2018). Of course, it is especially challenging to create brand loyalty when
there is minimal differentiation between competing product offerings (Dawes et al., 2015), which
is an ongoing challenge for smartphone marketers. Thus, we sought to explore this construct
further.

Brand satisfaction
When consumers are satisfied with the product or brand, they are more inclined to spread
positive word-of-mouth and make repeat purchases (Nguyen-Phuoca et al., 2020).
Past studies have established brand satisfaction as a key stimulator of brand loyalty
(Cronin and Taylor, 1992; Sahin et al., 2011; Schirmer et al., 2018). However, past decades
have seen a refinement in the conceptualization around brand satisfaction (Song et al., 2019).
Tse and Wilton (1988) conceptualized this construct as a consumer’s emotional response to
the product or service experience post–purchase, as well as the expected and perceived
performance after the product has been consumed. Similarly, Oliver (1999) conceptualized
brand satisfaction as consumers’ emotional evaluation of the pleasure derived from
experiencing specific products or services. Giebelhausen et al. (2016) adopted a similar
perspective. Thus, brand satisfaction is related to one’s emotional response to the product
and its perceived performance post-consumption.
Of course, the structure and quality of the relationship between brand satisfaction and
brand loyalty may vary between markets (Jones and Sasser, 1995). Beyond the pleasure
derived from experiencing specific products or services, many organizations use brand
satisfaction as a way to anticipate future transactions or purchases (Jamshidi and Rousta,
2021). Overall, the marketing literature seems to conclude that brand satisfaction is a factor
that influences brand loyalty (Sahin et al., 2011). In this light, we postulate that:
BIJ H1. Brand satisfaction shall positively influence brand loyalty.

Brand trust
In the marketing literature, brand trust has been linked to several constructs (Chaudhuri and
Holbrook, 2001). Whether offline or online, trust is the core of the exchange between brands
and consumers (Sultan and Mooraj, 2001). Indeed, it is difficult to satisfy consumers without
first gaining their trust (Ercis et al., 2012). Studies have shown that established brand trust
leads to brand satisfaction (Berry, 2000; Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001), but few studies have
established brand satisfaction as an antecedent to brand trust (Geyskens et al., 1999; Yoon,
2002). While brand satisfaction has been treated as an aspect of brand trust assessment, it is
also one of the important prerequisites for forming brand trust (Song et al., 2019). This leads to
our hypothesis:
H2. Brand satisfaction shall positively influence brand trust.
Trust is seen as a core component for building and maintaining a long and stable relationship
with consumers (Larzelere and Huston, 1980; Lee et al., 2015), whose emotional investment
facilitates greater loyalty (Hess, 1995). Studies that have empirically analyzed the relationship
between brand trust and brand loyalty have discovered brand trust to be a key determinant
(Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001; Kumar and Advani, 2005). In the same vein, brand trust is a
crucial factor in developing consumer-brand relationships (Filieri et al., 2015; Jain et al., 2018).
Accordingly, the hypothesis:
H3. Brand trust shall positively influence brand loyalty.

Brand preference
Consumers prefer brands for a variety of reasons: sometimes for convenience or novelty, but
also for the sake of making repeat purchases (de Chernatony et al., 2004). In effect, consumers
develop a bias in favor of a brand (Chang and Liu, 2009). Some authors have argued that
building brand equity directly translates to increased brand preference (Cobb-Walgren et al.,
1995; Myers, 2003). Ganesan and Sridhar (2014) noted that brand preference enhanced
customers’ repurchase intention for the same brand, which led to brand loyalty (Ballantyne
et al., 2006). Brand preference is a concept that includes not only brand loyalty but also one’s
interest in other brands (Kim et al., 2020b). Studies have also shown that customers made
purchasing decisions based on peer effect (Azad and Safaei, 2012; Chen et al., 2016). Thus, to
understand whether brand preference overrides other factors to influence brand loyalty, we
formally propose the following:
H4. Brand preference shall positively influence brand loyalty.

Brand affect
Positive brand affect leads to commitment or brand loyalty, and this association may prevent
customers from choosing alternatives, at least in the short run. However, the benefits accrued
from brand affection could have a long-term impact (Gundlach et al., 1995). According to Dick
and Basu (1994), consumers who express affection for a brand tend to exhibit greater brand
loyalty. As a result, a brand with higher brand affect can be bought more often and inspire
greater commitment (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001). In their study, Kim et al. (2020a) defined
brand affect as a brand’s potential to elicit a positive emotional response in the average consumer
as a result of its use, drawing inspiration from Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001). More
importantly, Guan et al. (2021) and Kim et al. (2020a) suggested that brand affect influences
brand loyalty. Therefore, we hypothesize:
 H5. Brand affect shall positively influence brand loyalty. Customer-
brand
Brand equity relationship
Brand equity broadly encompasses brand image and familiarity (Nam et al., 2011). Brand constructs
loyalty could be viewed as a behavioral construct relating to repurchase intentions; in
contrast, brand equity involves a positive attitude that may not necessarily entail buying
conduct (Brady Cronin et al., 2008). As per Keller (1993), this attitude toward the brand also
depends significantly on how said brand is marketed. He further argues that a brand with
strong brand equity has more grounded or stronger brand loyalty. This is consistent with
Aaker (1991) and Taylor et al. (2004), who proposed that brand loyalty should be considered
an element of brand equity. This forms the basis of our research hypothesis:
H6. Brand equity shall positively influence brand loyalty.

Bandwagon effect
Leibenstein (1950) described the bandwagon effect as a surge in product demand due to
popularity. Bandwagon cues can be persuasive for purchase decisions (Sundar, 2008), which
has led advertisers to strategically incorporate them into their communications (Rikkers,
2002). Regardless of its theoretical relevance in explaining the engagement behaviors of
today’s connected consumers, who increasingly rely on community-driven consensus in
making brand engagement decisions, evaluating the bandwagon effect is necessary to
understand the behavioral aspects of customer-brand relationship and engagement (Coulter
et al., 2012; Oyedele and Goenner, 2021). However, the literature features limited insight into
how the bandwagon effect impacts brand loyalty. To address this gap, we go beyond one-off
purchases to focus on brand loyalty, including its ability to lend credibility to information
about products or services. Formally, we postulate the following:
H7. Bandwagon effect shall positively influence brand loyalty.

Commitment
Commitment denotes a desire to develop and maintain a valued (long and stable) relationship
(Moorman et al., 1993). Notably, commitment and brand loyalty are related, yet distinct constructs
(Schirmer et al., 2018): The former captures consumers’ stickiness toward the brand (Gustafsson
et al., 2005). The latter, on the other hand, encapsulates brand attitudes and behaviors that
commitment elicits (Han et al., 2008). Importantly, Hennig-Thurau et al. (2002) suggested that
commitment directly influences brand loyalty. Thus, the hypothesis proposed is:
H8. Commitment shall positively influence brand loyalty.
Trust creates a highly valuable exchange relationship between brands and consumers, which
then leads to commitment (Morgan and Hunt, 1994). Kaur and Soch (2018) examined the
mediation effect of commitment between brand trust and brand loyalty, but their findings
were not supported. Wang (2002) found that commitment mediates the link between brand
trust and brand loyalty. This leads to our hypothesis:
H8a. Commitment mediates the relationship between brand trust and brand loyalty.
If trust is not established, customers are unlikely to be committed to the brand (Garbarino and
Johnson, 1999). Thus, commitment is an outcome of established brand trust and brand
satisfaction (Schirmer et al., 2018). Brand satisfaction reflects the positive experiences with
goods and services, which leads to emotional attachment and commitment to the brand
(Hennig-Thurau et al., 2002). As per this discussion, we hypothesize:
BIJ H8b. Commitment mediates the relationship between brand satisfaction and brand
loyalty.

Brand image
Scholars suggest that brand image is a hallmark of the organization and cultural activity, which
differentiates this construct from the others (Camarero et al., 2010). Wang and Yang (2010)
presented brand image as a moderator of brand loyalty (and by extension, brand credibility) and
customers’ purchase intention. Brand satisfaction works alongside the brand image to positively
influence brand loyalty (Lai et al., 2009). The brand image helps brands gain insights into the
personal experience and functional consequences that consumers relate with the product or
service (Padgett and Allen, 1997). Therefore, the positive influence of the brand image will further
strengthen the influence of brand satisfaction on brand loyalty. Therefore, we hypothesize:
H9. Brand image moderates the effect of brand satisfaction on brand loyalty.

Variety seeking
As a phenomenon, variety-seeking is a highly researched, interdisciplinary topic (Homburg
and Giering, 2001). Because it is difficult for one brand to fulfill all consumers’ needs, variety-
seeking consumers switch brands frequently (Feinberg et al., 1992). Consumers do switch
brands for assortment, independent of fulfillment with the first or original brand or outcomes
of exchanging behavior. So, for intrinsically motivated consumers, variety-seeking could
impact the relationship between brand satisfaction and brand loyalty (Homburg and Giering,
2001). Accordingly, we propose:
H10. Variety-seeking moderates the effect of brand satisfaction on brand loyalty.

Relationship length
The relationship marketing literature has shown some interest in the age or length of the
brand relationship (Ganesan, 1994). Customers with a long-term relationship with the brand
are more committed than customers with a short-term relationship (Homburg et al., 2017).
Bolton (1998) noted that the relationship length has a positive influence on customer
retention. According to Verhoef et al. (2002), relationship length moderated the link between
brand satisfaction and purchases, as well as had a moderating effect on customer retention.
Likewise, Seiders et al. (2005) noted that a sustained long-term relationship can greatly
influence repurchase decisions. Thus, we propose:
H11. Relationship length moderates the effect of brand satisfaction on brand loyalty.
While some studies have not found sufficient evidence on the interaction between brand trust
and relationship length and brand loyalty (Verhoef et al., 2002; Raimondo et al., 2008), Garbarino
and Johnson (1999) noted that brand trust has a significant effect on repurchase intention and
commitment for customers who consistently subscribed to a product or service; however, this
effect was not significant for customers who only occasionally utilized said product or service.
This aligns with Oliver’s (1999) argument that long-term consumers base their brand loyalty on
brand trust. Going by the argument that brand loyalty improves as a result of brand trust with
a lengthening customer-brand relationship, we formally propose the following:
H12. Length of relationship with the brand will moderate the positive relationship
between brand trust and brand loyalty.
The following research model is derived from these hypotheses (refer to Figure 1):
 Customer-
brand
relationship
constructs

Figure 1.
Research model

Research methodology
Our study focuses on several constructs that arose from a thorough review of literature:
namely, brand trust, brand satisfaction, brand preference, brand affect, brand equity, brand
image, commitment, variety seeking, relationship length, bandwagon effect and brand
loyalty. To test our hypotheses, we decided to use smartphones as a product category. In
2019, the global smartphone industry was worth USD 714.96 billion, and it is expected to
expand to USD 1351.8 billion by 2025, with a CAGR of 11.2% from 2020 to 2025 (Mordor
Intelligence, 2020). With more mobile users than the entire population of the United States,
India is one of the most popular destinations for smartphone companies. By 2022, India’s
smartphone users are expected to grow to nearly 442 million (Statista, 2020). Given the
growth and competition in the smartphone industry, academics and practitioners can benefit
from a better understanding of consumer-brand relationships and brand loyalty (Yeh et al.,
2016). The respondents were presented with the questionnaire consisting of independent and
dependent variables, as well as demographic questions.

Measurement items and data collection

We chose to adapt measurement scales from existing studies to ensure the reliability and
validity of the structures used in this study. The scales were reworded as necessary to fit
the context of the present study. Brand trust, brand satisfaction and brand loyalty were
assessed using the eight-item, three-item and four-item scales respectively adapted from
Munuera-Aleman et al. (2003). The four-item scale from Sirgy et al. (1997) was adapted to
measure brand preference. The constructs brand affect and brand equity were assessed
using the three-item scale of Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001) and the four-item scale of
Washburn and Plank (2002), respectively. Commitment was evaluated using the two-item
scale from Schirmer et al. (2018). A four-item scale adapted from Sundar (2008) and Sundar
et al. (2008) was used to assess the bandwagon effect. Brand image, variety-seeking and
relationship length were respectively assessed using the three-item scale of Md. Mohsan
and Nighat (2016), the two-item scale of Homburg and Giering (2001) and the one-item scale
of Deng et al. (2010), Gerpott et al. (2013) and Raimondo and Costabile (2008). Table 1 lists
BIJ Number of
Constructs indicators Source

Brand trust 8 Munuera-Aleman et al. (2003)

Brand satisfaction 3 Munuera-Aleman et al. (2003)
Brand loyalty 4 Munuera-Aleman et al. (2003)
Brand preference 4 Sirgy et al. (1997)
Brand affect 3 Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001)
Brand equity 4 Washburn and Plank (2002)
Commitment 2 Schirmer et al. (2018)
Bandwagon effect 4 Sundar (2008), Sundar et al. (2008)
Table 1. Brand image 3 Md. Mohsan and Nighat (2016)
Number of indicators Variety seeking 2 Homburg and Giering (2001)
and scales for construct Relationship 1 Deng et al. (2010), Gerpott et al. (2013), Raimondo and Costabile
measures length (2008)

the standardized scales used to measure each construct, the number of indicators for each
construct and the sources used.
Respondents rated all the constructs on seven-point Likert scales, where 1 represented
“strongly disagree” and 7 represented “strongly agree” (Gunasekaran et al., 2017; Tata et al.,
2021). In the latter part of the questionnaire, respondents provided their demographic
information (i.e. age, gender and occupation). The survey questionnaire was hosted on
Qualtrics and the link was distributed using individual emails and on social media
(Facebook). Data collection was carried out between September and October 2020. To perform
a factor analysis, scholars indicate that the number of cases must be at least five times the
number of variables (Bryant and Yarnold, 1995; Costello and Osborne, 2005; Hair et al., 1995).
Accordingly, we needed a minimum sample of 190. In all, we received 397 responses and
removed 149 for being incomplete, leaving 248 surveys for the final analysis.
Harman’s post hoc one-factor analysis was used to determine whether common method
bias was a concern. This analysis demonstrated that the maximum variance explained by a
single factor was only 36%, which is less than the 50% threshold for bias. As a result, we
presume that common method bias is not an issue in our analysis.

Data analysis and results

The demographic variables are summarized in Table 2. Seventy-seven percent of the
respondents were male shoppers and almost two-thirds (63%) were in the age group of
21–30 years. Almost half of the respondents were students.

Measure Categories Frequency Percentage

Gender Male 190 76.6

Female 55 22.2
Prefer not to answer 3 1.2
Age Under 21 – –
21–30 156 62.9
31–40 66 26.6
41 or older 26 10.5
Occupation Business 17 6.9
Government employee 20 8.1
Table 2. Other 8 3.2
Summary of the Private employee 88 35.5
demographic variables Student 115 46.4
 The Cronbach alpha value for the above scales was greater than 0.7, indicating their Customer-
reliability (Nunnally, 1975). Table 3 presents the other indices measuring the reliability of the brand
constructs (AVE and CR).
relationship
constructs
Hypothesis testing
We used R version 4.0.2 to test our hypotheses using structural equation modeling. Please
refer to Appendix for the R code. The model fit indices (see Table 4) suggested that the
proposed model and the data were well-matched (Hair et al., 2010).
As Table 5 exhibits, the results supported all 12 hypotheses.
Based on the results, the constructs brand satisfaction (β 5 0.821; p 5 0.00), brand trust
(β 5 0.873; p 5 0.00), brand preference (β 5 1.001; p 5 0.00), brand affect (β 5 0.959; p 5 0.00),
brand equity (β 5 1.022; p 5 0.00), bandwagon effect (β 5 0.453; p 5 0.00) and commitment
(β 5 1.089; p 5 0.00) showed a significant positive relationship with brand loyalty. Brand

S. no Fit index Research model Cut-off value*

1 CMIN/DF 2.92 <3

2 GFI 0.954 >0.9
3 AGFI 0.905 >0.9
4 NFI 0.964 >0.9
5 IFI 0.977 >0.9
6 TLI 0.963 >0.9
7 CFI 0.976 >0.9 Table 3.
8 RMSEA 0.08 <0.08 Fit indices of
Source(s): *Hair et al. (2010) research model

Hypothesis Estimate p-value Result

H1: Brand satisfaction → brand loyalty 0.821 0.000 Supported

H2: Brand satisfaction → brand trust 0.743 0.000 Supported
H3: Brand trust → brand loyalty 0.873 0.000 Supported
H4: Brand preference → brand loyalty 1.001 0.000 Supported
H5: Brand affect → brand loyalty 0.959 0.000 Supported
H6: Brand equity → brand loyalty 1.022 0.000 Supported
H7: Bandwagon effect → brand loyalty 0.453 0.000 Supported
H8: Commitment → brand loyalty 1.089 0.000 Supported
H9: Brand image 3 brand satisfaction → brand loyalty 0.073 0.000 Supported
H10: Variety-seeking 3 brand satisfaction → brand loyalty 0.024 0.002 Supported
H11: Relationship length 3 brand satisfaction → brand loyalty 0.003 0.000 Supported Table 4.
H12: Relationship length 3 brand trust → brand loyalty 0.003 0.000 Supported Model results

Commitment Brand loyalty

Effect Effect Significance of indirect effect
Predictor variables Indirect Direct Total Indirect Direct Total p-value
Table 5.
Brand trust 0.000 0.623 0.623 0.535 0.169 0.704 0.015 Direct, indirect and
Brand satisfaction 0.000 0.637 0.637 0.476 0.144 0.620 0.021 total effects
BIJ satisfaction (β 5 0.743; p 5 0.00) showed a significant positive relationship with brand trust.
Meanwhile, brand image (β 5 0.073; p 5 0.00), variety-seeking (β 5 0.024; p 5 0.00) and
relationship length (β 5 0.003; p 5 0.00) showed a significant positive moderating
relationship between brand satisfaction and brand loyalty. Lastly, relationship length
(β 5 0.003; p 5 0.00) showed a significant positive moderating relationship between brand
trust and brand loyalty. The model explains 61% of the variance on brand loyalty and 70%
on brand trust.
The study also examined the mediation effect of commitment between brand trust and
brand loyalty, as well as brand satisfaction and brand loyalty. We adapted the method
suggested by Judd and Kenny (1981) for testing the mediation effect. As Table 6 shows,
commitment mediated both of the relationships, lending support to hypotheses H8a and H8b.
The model explains 57% of the variance for both of these constructs.

Discussion
The present study was motivated by a lack of consensus on which consumer-brand
relationship constructs best elicit brand loyalty (Khamitov et al., 2019), as well as a
shortage of studies on the influence of bandwagon effects on brand loyalty. Scholars have
highlighted that bandwagon effects can be persuasive on purchase decisions (Sundar,
2008) and have the potential to trigger credibility associations for products or services.
Thus, we sought to go beyond one-time purchases and evaluate bandwagon effects in line
with other consumer-brand relationship constructs when it comes to their effect on brand
loyalty. To fill this gap, our study aimed to unravel the complex consumer-brand
relationship and expand on previous work by creating a holistic model that combines the
different constructs (including the bandwagon effect) that have been said to form brand
loyalty. The results show that all the consumer-brand relationships considered (i.e. brand
trust, brand satisfaction, brand preference, brand affect, brand equity, bandwagon effect,
commitment, brand image, variety-seeking, and relationship length) exert an influence on
brand loyalty.
Our findings corroborate earlier studies (from Asia, Africa, Europe and the US) that noted
that the following constructs influence brand loyalty: brand trust (Cuong, 2020; Song et al.,
2019); brand satisfaction (Atulkar, 2020; Menidjel et al., 2017; Sahin et al., 2011; Schirmer et al.,
2018); brand preference (Seo and Park, 2017; Tolba, 2011); brand affect (Kim et al., 2020a;
Singh et al., 2012; Taylor et al., 2004); brand equity (Ebrahim, 2020; Nam et al., 2011; Taylor
et al., 2004); and commitment (Cuong, 2020; Dhurup et al., 2018; Khan et al., 2019; Schirmer
et al., 2018). We also found that brand satisfaction influences brand trust, which is in line with
Atulkar (2020) and Song et al. (2019). Similarly, the relationship between brand satisfaction
and brand loyalty is moderated by brand image, confirming the findings of Jana and Chandra
(2016). It seems that variety-seeking moderates the positive influence of brand satisfaction on
brand loyalty, thus cementing the observation of Tuu and Olsen (2013). Further, the
relationship length with the brand moderates the positive relationship between brand
satisfaction and brand loyalty, which is in line with Kim et al. (2016) and Ranaweera and
Menon (2013). In some cases, we observed a stronger influence of the aforementioned
constructs on brand loyalty than other studies. Indeed, some studies have indicated
insignificant findings: brand satisfaction on brand loyalty (Belaid and Temessek Behi, 2011;
Walter et al., 2013); brand image on brand loyalty (Cretu and Brodie, 2007; Helgesen and
Nesset, 2007); commitment as a mediator between brand trust and brand loyalty (Kaur and
Soch, 2018); and relationship length on brand loyalty (Raimondo and Costabile, 2008).
Meanwhile, Menidjel et al. (2017) found a negative influence of variety-seeking on brand
loyalty. To our knowledge, no research has looked into the impact of the bandwagon effect on
 AVE (should CR (should
Customer-
Factor and items Loadings α exceed 0.5) exceed 0.7) brand
relationship
Brand trust 0.91 0.68 0.92
This brand meets my expectations 0.885 constructs
I Feel confidence in this brand 0.896
This brand never disappoints me 0.844
This brand guarantees satisfaction 0.899
This brand would be honest and sincere in addressing 0.882
my concerns
I could rely on this brand to solve the problem 0.890
This brand would make any effort to satisfy me 0.873
Brand satisfaction 0.78 0.57 0.90
Considering all my consumption experience with this 0.933
brand, I am very satisfied
Considering all my consumption experience with this 0.931
brand, I am pleased
Considering all my consumption experience with this 0.672
brand, I am very disappointed
Brand equity 0.87 0.65 0.92
It makes sense to buy this brand instead of any other 0.702
brand, even if they are the same
Even if another brand has same features as this 0.794
brand, I would prefer to buy this brand
If there is another brand as good as this brand, I prefer 0.835
to buy this brand
If another brand is not different from this brand in 0.820
any way, it seems smarter to purchase this brand
Brand preference 0.95 0.82 0.94
I like this brand better than other brands 0.873
I would use this brand more than I would use other 0.875
brands
This brand is my preferred brand over other brands 0.879
I would be inclined to buy this brand over other 0.833
brands
Brand affect 0.95 0.86 0.93
I feel good when I use this brand 0.905
This brand makes me happy 0.893
This brand gives me pleasure 0.888
Bandwagon effect 0.96 0.86 0.95
The significant number of positive online ratings 0.897
about the brand of the smartphone
The significant number of positive online reviews 0.937
about the brand of the smartphone
The significant number of positive online ratings 0.944
about the brand of the smartphone
The significant number of positive online reviews 0.926
about the brand of the smartphone
Commitment 0.84 0.75 0.90
I feel good being a customer of this brand 0.896 Table 6.
This brand is my first choice 0.928 Measurement model

brand loyalty; thus, our finding that such influence exists represents a noteworthy
contribution to the field.
Our results indicate that commitment, brand equity and brand preference exert the
strongest influence on brand loyalty, followed by brand affect, brand trust, brand satisfaction
BIJ and the bandwagon effect. The influence of moderating factors (i.e. brand image, variety-
seeking and relationship length) was distantly followed by the main constructs. Our finding
that commitment exhibits a strong influence on brand loyalty aligns with Dhurup et al. (2018).
Overall, it seems that consumers’ commitment is essential to ensuring a long-term
relationship with a brand (Erics et al., 2012).

Theoretical implications
Studies have focused on many fragmented views of brand constructs, which has necessitated
the development of a comprehensive model (Gambetti et al., 2012). Furthermore, Zhang et al.
(2012) argued that the inevitability of inconsistent empirical findings necessitates the creation
of a comprehensive model. According to Wu et al. (2020), a multi-model can account for more
variances than a single model. Finally, Khamitov et al. (2019) highlighted the lack of
consensus on which consumer-brand relationship constructs best elicit brand loyalty. Thus,
our research aimed to untangle these complicated relationships and build on past research by
developing a comprehensive model that synthesizes the various frameworks with the less-
studied bandwagon effect in order to understand the formation of brand loyalty. To that end,
the current study contains several theoretical implications to enrich the literature on brand
loyalty. Primarily, the results confirmed the significant positive relationships among brand
trust, brand satisfaction, brand preference, brand affect, brand equity, bandwagon effect,
commitment, brand image, variety-seeking, relationship length and brand loyalty. Second,
we shed light on the impact of bandwagon effects on brand loyalty. Lastly, we advanced the
field’s understanding of information processing through a consolidated meta-view of various
consumer-brand relationship constructs along with bandwagon effects. Scholars should go
further and explore whether bandwagon effects also operate in a moderating or
mediating role.
Similar to Cuong (2020) and Song et al. (2019), the present study found that brand trust
influences brand loyalty, but extended this observation to India. We also confirmed that
brand satisfaction influences brand loyalty, in line with Atulkar (2020), Menidjel et al. (2017),
Sahin et al. (2011) and Schirmer et al. (2018). In congruence with Seo and Park (2017) and Tolba
(2011), this paper ascertained that brand preference influences brand loyalty. Parallel to the
findings of Kim et al. (2020a), Singh et al. (2012) and Taylor et al. (2004), we found that brand
affect has a positive effect on brand loyalty. We also observed that brand equity influences
brand loyalty, thereby corroborating the work of Ebrahim (2020), Nam et al. (2011) and Taylor
et al. (2004). We affirmed that commitment influences brand loyalty, in line with Cuong (2020),
Dhurup et al. (2018), Khan et al. (2019) and Schirmer et al. (2018). Further, brand satisfaction
has an effect on brand trust (Atulkar, 2020; Song et al., 2019), while brand image mediates the
impact between brand satisfaction and brand loyalty (Jana and Chandra, 2016). In accordance
with Tuu and Olsen (2013), we confirmed that variety-seeking moderates the positive effect of
brand satisfaction on brand loyalty. Finally, we reinforced the findings of Kim et al. (2016) and
Ranaweera and Menon (2013) that the length of the relationship with the brand moderates the
positive relationship between brand satisfaction and brand loyalty.

Managerial implications
For practitioners, this study highlights that the bandwagon effect positively influences brand
loyalty. Brand managers should leverage the bandwagon cues—perhaps in the form of
influencer marketing—to spur traffic on both online and offline platforms. Furthermore, this
study suggests that managers with strong consumer-brand relationship constructs could
focus on expanding their customer growth and retention programs. Managers are advised to
commit resources based on the relative strength of each construct (Yeh et al., 2016). Brand
managers should decipher each customer journey to gauge the interest of the customer cohort Customer-
and develop suitable product features to enhance brand equity (Nam et al., 2011). Because brand
higher brand equity generates higher brand preference (Chang and Liu, 2009), brand
managers must evaluate whether investments to enhance brand equity are worth the
relationship
potentially effects on brand preference. In general, increasing the perceived level of brand constructs
preference should influence brand trust and brand satisfaction (Chinomona et al., 2013).
Brand managers should understand that the favorable brand affect may be more prevalent
for certain products within the brand. Hence, the findings emphasize the need for different
marketing strategies for varied product categories (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001).
The results on the moderators (i.e. brand image, relationship length and variety-seeking)
underscore the complex relationship between brand satisfaction and brand loyalty. However,
firms stand to gain from implementing customer retention and growth strategies, in terms of
longer customer relationships and increased spending among those customers (Goncalves
and Sampaio, 2012). Our results should encourage brand managers to adopt a holistic model
that looks beyond their product offerings and addresses the overall brand image—a proposal
also offered by Alhaddad (2015) and Esch et al. (2006). Meanwhile, based on our results for
variety-seeking, managers should differentiate between consumers who switch brands based
on assortment vs fulfillment. This way, they can optimize the resources or investments for the
right set of customers, and work quickly to address the needs and interests of highly involved
customers (Homburg et al., 2007).
Lastly, brand managers may leverage our results on commitment as a significant
mediator between brand satisfaction and brand loyalty, as well as brand trust and brand
loyalty. For instance, brand managers could segment customers based on their level of
commitment and subsequent transactional outcomes. Given the importance of commitment
to customer engagement and experience, as well as its positive impact on brand loyalty,
brand managers should encourage consumers to form long-term relationships with their
brands (Khan et al., 2019).
Managers can learn more about the consumer-brand relationship and its role in brand
loyalty formation by utilizing the benefits of the comprehensive model. As a result, managers
will be in a better position to move customers through the user journey funnel more quickly.
Managers would also be better able to use marketing support to develop the right content for
their customers as a result of the comprehensive model’s insights.

Conclusion, limitations and future scope

Through a comprehensive model, our research aims to untangle the complicated consumer-
brand relationship constructs and synthesize the various frameworks with the less-studied
bandwagon effect in order to understand the formation of brand loyalty. Managers can
leverage the comprehensive model to gain a better understanding of the consumer-brand
relationship and its role in brand loyalty formation. This will assist managers in making data-
driven decisions.
The present study examined the influence of brand trust, brand satisfaction, brand
preference, brand affect, brand equity, brand bandwagon brand effect, commitment, brand
image, variety-seeking and relationship length on brand loyalty. While this study generated
some interesting findings for literature and practice, it features some limitations that could
inspire future studies. First, our experimental procedure focused on the broad category of a
smartphone. Future researchers could examine different price segments, as well as other
product categories to see if our results hold. Second, while we did find that the bandwagon
effect exerted a significant impact on online ratings and reviews, future studies could
determine whether other machine-generated cues (e.g. tweets, likes, etc.) drive different
results. Third, scholars could evaluate the influence of these consumer-brand relationship
BIJ constructs on brand loyalty across both offline and online platforms. Such efforts might
produce insights for managers in terms of customizing their retention programs. Fourth, it
would be valuable for future analyses to include variables such as switching costs and
moderating factors such as age and income. Fifth, it would be valuable for future studies to
look into the impact of consumer-brand relationship constructs on brand loyalty across
different cultures. The survey was based on the respondents’ stated preferences, but future
studies may improve the validity of the results by using revealed preferences, instead.

References
Aaker, D.A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity, Free Press, New York.
Alhaddad, A. (2015), “A structural model of the relationships between brand image, brand trust and
brand loyalty”, International Journal of Management Research and Review, Vol. 5 No. 3,
pp. 137-144.
Amine, A. (1998), “Consumers’ true brand loyalty: the central role of commitment”, Journal of Strategic
Marketing, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 305-319.
Atulkar, S. (2020), “Brand trust and brand loyalty in mall shoppers”, Marketing Intelligence and
Planning, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 559-572.
Azad, N. and Safaei, M. (2012), “The impact of brand value on brand selection: case study of mobile
phone selection”, Management Science Letters, Vol. 2, pp. 1233-1238.
Ballantyne, R., Warren, A. and Nobbs, K. (2006), “The evolution of brand choice”, Journal of Brand
Management, Vol. 13, pp. 339-352.
Bankmycell (2021), “How many smartphones are in the world?”, available at: https://www.bankmycell.
com/blog/how-many-phones-are-in-the-world.
Belaid, S. and Temessek Behi, A. (2011), “The role of attachment in building consumer-brand
relationships: an empirical investigation in the utilitarian consumption context”, Journal of
Product and Brand Management, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 37-47.
Berry, L.L. (2000), “Cultivating service brand equity”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 28, pp. 128-137.
Bolton, R.N. (1998), “A dynamic model of the duration of the customer’s relationship with a continuous
service provider: the role of satisfaction”, Marketing Science, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 45-65.
Bozbay, Z. and Baslar, E.K. (2020), “Impact of brand trust on brand loyalty: mediating role of brand
affect”, Journal of Academic Research in Economics, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 247-259.
Brady, M.K. , Cronin Jr, J.J., Fox, G.L. and Roehm, M.L. (2008), “Strategies to offset performance
failures: the role of brand equity”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 84 No. 2, pp. 151-164.
Bryant, F.B. and Yarnold, P.R. (1995), “Principal-components analysis and exploratory and confirmatory
component analysis”, in Grimm, L.G. and Yarnold, P.R. (Eds), Reading and Understanding
Multivariate Statistics, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, pp. 99-136.
Businesswire (2019), “The smartphone market in India, 2018 to 2023-with a 14% yearly market
growth since 2016, India is the fastest growing smartphone market globally”, available at:
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20190426005357/en/Smartphone-Market-India-2018-
2023–-14 (accessed 6 October 2021).
Camarero, C., Garrido, M.J. and Vicente, E. (2010), “Components of art exhibition brand equity for
internal and external visitors”, Tourism Management, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 495-504.
Capillary (2020), “Best loyalty programs in India”, available at: https://www.capillarytech.com/blog/
loyalty/best-loyalty-programs-india/ (accessed 15 March 2020).
Chang, H.H. and Liu, Y.M. (2009), “The impact of brand equity on brand preference and purchase
intentions in the service industries”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 29 No. 12, pp. 1687-1706.
Chaudhuri, A. and Holbrook, M.B. (2001), “The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect Customer-
to brand performance: the role of brand loyalty”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 65 No. 2,
pp. 81-93. brand
Chen, Y.S., Chen, T.J. and Lin, C.C. (2016), “The analyses of purchasing decisions and brand loyalty for
relationship
smartphone consumers”, Open Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 4 No. 7, pp. 108-116. constructs
Chinomona, R. (2016), “Brand communication, brand image and brand trust as antecedents of brand
loyalty in Gauteng Province of South Africa”, African Journal of Economic and Management
Studies, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 124-139.
Chinomona, R., Mahlangu, D. and Pooe, D. (2013), “Brand service quality, satisfaction, trust and
preference as predictors of consumer brand loyalty in the retailing industry”, Mediterranean
Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 4 No. 14, pp. 181-190.
Cobb-Walgren, C.J., Ruble, C.A. and Donthu, N. (1995), “Brand equity, brand preference, and purchase
intent”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 25-40.
Costello, A.B. and Osborne, J.W. (2005), “Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four
recommendations for getting the most from your analysis”, Practical Assessment, Research and
Evaluation, Vol. 10 No. 7, pp. 1-9.
Coulter, K.S., Gummerus, J., Liljander, V., Weman, E. and Pihlstr€om, M. (2012), “Customer engagement
in a Facebook brand community”, Management Research Review, Vol. 35, pp. 857-877.
Cretu, A.E. and Brodie, R.J. (2007), “The influence of brand image and company reputation where
manufacturers market to small firms: a customer value perspective”, Industrial Marketing
Management, Vol. 36, pp. 230-240.
Cronin, J.J. Jr and Taylor, S. (1992), “Measuring service quality: a reexamination and extension”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56, pp. 55-68.
Cuong, D.T. (2020), “The effect of brand identification and brand trust on brand commitment and
brand loyalty at shopping malls”, International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology,
Vol. 29 No. 7, pp. 695-706.
Dawes, J., Meyer-Waarden, L. and Driesener, C. (2015), “Has brand loyalty declined? A longitudinal
analysis of repeat purchase behavior in the UK and the USA”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 68 No. 2, pp. 425-432.
de Chernatony, L., Harris, F.J. and Christodoulides, G. (2004), “Developing a brand performance
measure for financial services brands”, Services Industries Journal, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 15-33.
Deng, Z., Lu, Y., Wei, K.K. and Zhang, J. (2010), “Understanding customer satisfaction and loyalty: an
empirical study of mobile instant messages in China”, International Journal of Information
Management, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 289-300.
Dhurup, M., Pieter, V.S. and Vusemuzi, J.T. (2018), “The relationship between brand identification,
brand trust, brand commitment and brand loyalty: evidence from supermarket store food
brands”, International Journal of Business and Management Studies, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 166-182.
Dick, A.S. and Basu, K. (1994), “Customer loyalty: toward an integrated conceptual framework”,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 22, pp. 99-113.
Ebrahim, R.S. (2020), “The role of trust in understanding the impact of social media marketing on
brand equity and brand loyalty”, Journal of Relationship Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 287-308.
Ercis, A., Unal, S., Candan, B.F. and Yildirim, H. (2012), “The effect of brand satisfaction, trust and
brand commitment on loyalty and repurchase intentions”, Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences, Vol. 58, pp. 1395-1404.
Esch, F.R., Langner, T., Schmitt, B.H. and Geus, P. (2006), “Are brands forever? How brand knowledge
and relationships affect current and future purchases”, Journal of Product and Brand
Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 98-105.
Feinberg, F.M., Kahn, B.E. and McAlister, L. (1992), “Market share response when consumers seek
variety”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 29, pp. 227-237.
BIJ Filieri, R., Alguezaui, S. and McLeay, F. (2015), “Why do travelers trust TripAdvisor? Antecedents of
trust towards consumer-generated media and its influence on recommendation adoption and
word of mouth”, Tourism Management, Vol. 51, pp. 174-185.
Gambetti, R., C., Graffigna, G. and Biraghi, S. (2012), “The grounded theory approach to consumer-
brand engagement: the practitioner’s standpoint”, International Journal of Market Research,
Vol. 54, pp. 659-687.
Ganesan, S. (1994), “Determinants of long-term orientation in buyer-seller relationships”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 1-19.
Ganesan, P. and Sridhar, M. (2014), “Smart phone attribute choice and brand importance for millennial
customers”, Contemporary Management Research: An International Journal, Vol. 8 No. 2,
pp. 71-89.
Garbarino, E. and Johnson, M.S. (1999), “The different roles of satisfaction, trust, and commitment in
customer relationships”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63, pp. 70-87.
Gerpott, T.J., Thomas, S. and Weichert, M. (2013), “Characteristics and mobile Internet use intensity of
consumers with different types of advanced handsets: empirical study of iPhone, Android and
other web-enabled mobile users in Germany”, Telecommun. Policy, Vol. 37 Nos 4-5, pp. 357-371.
Geyskens, I., Jan-Benedict, E., Steenkamp, M. and Kumar, N. (1999), “A meta-analysis of satisfaction in
marketing channel relationships”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. XXXVI, pp. 223-238.
Giebelhausen, M., Chun, H.E.H., Cronin, J. Jr and Hult, G.T.M. (2016), “Adjusting the warm-glow
thermostat: how incentivizing participation in voluntary green programs moderates their
impact on service satisfaction”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 80 No. 4, pp. 56-71.
Goncalves, H.M. and Sampaio, P. (2012), “The customer satisfaction-customer loyalty relationship”,
Management Decision, Vol. 50 No. 9, pp. 1509-1526.
Guan, J., Wang, W., Guo, Z., Chan, J.H. and Qi, X. (2021), “Customer experience and brand loyalty in
the full-service hotel sector: the role of brand affect”, International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, Vol. 33 No. 5, pp. 1620-1645.
Gunasekaran, A., Papadopoulos, T., Dubey, R., Wamba, S.F., Childe, S.J., Hazen, B. and Akter, S.
(2017), “Big data and predictive analytics for supply chain and organizational performance”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 70, pp. 308-317.
Gundlach, G.T., Achrol, R.S. and Mentzer, J.T. (1995), “The structure of commitment in exchange”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 59 No. 1, pp. 78-92.
Gustafsson, A., Johnson, M.D. and Roos, I. (2005), “The effects of customer satisfaction, relationship
commitment dimensions, and triggers on customer retention”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 69
No. 4, pp. 210-218.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1995), Multivariate Data Analysis, Vol. 4,
Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Babin, B.J. and Black, W.C. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global
Perspective, Vol. 7, Pearson, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
Han, X., Kwortnik, R.J. Jr and Wang, C. (2008), “Service loyalty: an integrative model and examination
across service contexts”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 22-42.
Helgesen, O. and Nesset, E. (2007), “What accounts for students’ loyalty? Some field study evidence”,
International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 126-143.
Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K.P. and Gremler, D.D. (2002), “Understanding relationship marketing
outcomes”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 230-247.
Hess, J.S. (1995), “Construction and assessment of a scale to measure consumer trust”, American
Marketing Association, Vol. 6, Chicago, pp. 20-26.
Homburg, C. and Giering, A. (2001), “Personal characteristics as moderators of the relationship
between customer satisfaction and loyalty: an empirical analysis”, Psychology and Marketing.,
Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 43-66.
Homburg, C., Hoyer, W.D. and Stock, R.M. (2007), “How to get lost customers back? A study of Customer-
antecedents of relationship revival”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 35,
pp. 461-474. brand
Homburg, C., Jozic, D. and Kuehnl, C. (2017), “Customer experience management: toward
relationship
implementing an evolving marketing concept”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, constructs
Vol. 45, pp. 377-401.
HT. (2019), “71% of companies invest 2% of total revenue in loyalty & CRM”, available at: https://
hospitalitytech.com/71-companies-invest-2-total-revenue-loyalty-crm (accessed 15
March 2021).
Jain, N.K., Kamboj, S., Kumar, V. and Rahman, Z. (2018), “Examining consumer brand relationships on
social media platforms”, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 63-78.
Jamshidi, D. and Rousta, A. (2021), “Brand commitment role in the relationship between brand loyalty
and brand satisfaction: phone industry in Malaysia”, Journal of Promotion Management,
Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 151-176.
Jana, A. and Chandra, B. (2016), “Role of brand image and switching cost on customer satisfaction-
loyalty dyadic in mid-market hotel sector”, Indian Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46 No. 9, pp. 35-52.
Jones, T.O. and Sasser, W.E. (1995), “Why satisfied customers defect”, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 73, pp. 88-99.
Judd, C.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1981), “Process analysis estimating mediation in treatment evaluations”,
Evaluation Review, Vol. 5, pp. 602-619.
Kaur, H. and Soch, H. (2018), “Satisfaction, trust and loyalty: investigating the mediating effects of
commitment, switching costs and corporate image”, Journal of Asia Business Studies, Vol. 12
No. 4, pp. 361-380.
Keller, K.L. (1993), “Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity”, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 57, pp. 1-22.
Khamitov, M., (Shane) Wang, X. and Thomson, M. (2019), “How well do consumer-brand relationships
drive customer brand loyalty? Generalizations from a meta-analysis of brand relationship
elasticities”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 46, pp. 435-459.
Khan, I., Hollebeek, L.D., Fatma, M. and Rahman, Z. (2019), “Brand engagement and experience in
online services”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 163-175.
Kim, S.-H., Kim, M., Holland, S. and Townsend, K.M. (2020a), “Consumer-based brand authenticity and
brand trust in brand loyalty in the Korean coffee shop market”, Journal of Hospitality and
Tourism Research, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 423-446.
Kim, J., Lee, H. and Lee, J. (2020b), “Smartphone preferences and brand loyalty: a discrete choice model
reflecting the reference point and peer effect”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
Vol. 52, pp. 1-9.
Kim, M.-K., Wong, S.F., Chang, Y. and Park, J.-H. (2016), “Determinants of customer loyalty in the
Korean smartphone market: moderating effects of usage characteristics”, Telematics and
Informatics, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 936-949.
Kumar, R.S. and Advani, J.Y. (2005), “Factors affecting brand loyalty: a study in an emerging market
on fast moving consumer goods”, Journal of Customer Behavior, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 251-275.
Lai, F., Griffin, M. and Babin, B.J. (2009), “How quality, value, image, and satisfaction create loyalty at
a Chinese telecom”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 62 No. 10, pp. 980-986.
Larzelere, R. and Huston, T. (1980), “The dyadic trust scale: toward understanding interpersonal trust
in close relationships”, Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 595-604.
Lee, D., Moon, J., Kim, Y.J. and Mun, Y.Y. (2015), “Antecedents and consequences of mobile phone
usability: linking simplicity and interactivity to satisfaction, trust, and brand loyalty”,
Information and Management, Vol. 52, pp. 295-304.
BIJ Leibenstein, H. (1950), “Bandwagon, Snob, and Veblen effects in the theory of consumers’ demand”,
The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 64 No. 2, pp. 183-207.
Liu, C.-J. and Liang, H.-Y. (2014), “The deep impression of smartphone brand on the customers’
decision making”, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 109, pp. 338-343.
McKinsey (2020), “Customer loyalty: the new generation”, available at: https://www.mckinsey.com/
business-functions/marketing-and-sales/our-insights/customer-loyalty-the-new-generation#
(accessed 15 March 2021).
Menidjel, C., Benhabib, A. and Bilgihan, A. (2017), “Examining the moderating role of personality
traits in the relationship between brand trust and brand loyalty”, Journal of Product and Brand
Management, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 631-649.
Milan, G.S., Slongo, L.A., Eberle, L., De Toni, D. and Bebber, S. (2018), “Determinants of customer
loyalty: a study with customers of a Brazilian bank”, Benchmarking: An International Journal,
Vol. 25 No. 9, pp. 3935-3950.
Moorman, C., Deshpande, R. and Zaltman, G. (1993), “Factors affecting trust in market research
relationships”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 81-101.
Mordor Intelligence (2020), “Smartphones market – growth, trends, Covid-19 impact, and forecasts
(2021-2026)”, available at: https://www.mordorintelligence.com/industry-reports/smartphones-
market (accessed 15 March 2021).
Morgan, R.M. and Hunt, S.D. (1994), “The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing”, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 58 No 3, pp. 20-38.
Munuera-Aleman, J.L., Delgado-Ballester, E. and Yague-Guillen, M.J. (2003), “Development and validation
of a brand trust scale”, International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 1-18.
Myers, C.A. (2003), “Managing brand equity: a look at the impact of attributes”, Journal of Product and
Brand Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 39-51.
Nam, J., Ekinci, Y. and Whyatt, G. (2011), “Brand equity, brand loyalty and consumer satisfaction”,
Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 1009-1030.
Nguyen-Phuoca, D.Q., Suc, D.N., Tranc, P.T.K., Led, D.-T.T. and Johnson, L.W. (2020), “Factors
influencing customer’s loyalty towards ride-hailing taxi services – a case study of Vietnam”,
Transportation Research Part A, Vol. 134, pp. 96-112.
Md Mohsan, K. and Nighat, F. (2016), “Identifying the key dimensions of consumer-based brand
equity model: a multivariate approach”, Asian Journal of Marketing, Vol. 11, pp. 13-20.
Nunnally, J.C. (1975), “The study of change in evaluation research: principles concerning
measurement, experimental design, and analysis”, in Struening, E.L. and Guttentag, M.
(Eds), Handbook of Evaluation Research, Sage, London, Vol. 1.
Oliver, R.L. (1999), “Whence consumer loyalty?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63 No. 4 (suppl1), pp. 33-44.
Oyedele, A. and Goenner, E. (2021), “Propensity to use smartbands to engage with brands and the moderating
role of the bandwagon effect on satisfaction”, Journal of Consumer Behavior, Vol. 20, pp. 709-724.
Padgett, D. and Allen, D. (1997), “Communicating experiences: a narrative approach to creating
service brand image”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 49-62.
Raimondo, M.A. and Costabile, M. (2008), “How relationship age moderates loyalty formation”, Journal
of Service Research, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 142-160.
Raimondo, M.A., Gaetano, M. and Costabile, M. (2008), “How relationship age moderates loyalty
formation: the increasing effect of relational equity on customer loyalty”, Journal of Service
Research, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 142-160.
Ranaweera, C. and Menon, K. (2013), “For better or for worse? Adverse effects of relationship age and
continuance commitment on positive and negative word of mouth”, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 47 No. 10, pp. 1598-1621.
Reichheld, F.F. and Schefter, P. (2000), “E-loyalty: your secret weapon on the web”, Harvard Business Customer-
Review, Vol. 78, pp. 105-113.
brand
Rikkers, L.F. (2002), “The bandwagon effect”, Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Vol. 6 No. 6,
pp. 787-794.
relationship
Sahin, A., Zehir, C. and Kitapci, H. (2011), “The effects of brand experiences, trust and satisfaction on
constructs
building brand loyalty; an empirical research on global brands”, Procedia Social and Behavioral
Sciences, Vol. 24, pp. 1288-1301.
Schirmer, N., Ringle, C.M., Gudergan, S.P. and Feiste, M.S.G. (2018), “The link between customer
satisfaction and loyalty: the moderating role of customer characteristics”, Journal of Strategic
Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 298-317.
Seiders, K., Voss, G.B., Grewal, D. and Godfrey, A.L. (2005), “Do satisfied customers buy more?
Examining moderating influences in a retailing context”, Journal of Marketing No. 69, pp. 26-43.
Seo, E.-J. and Park, J.-W. (2017), “A study on the impact of airline corporate reputation on brand
loyalty”, International Business Research, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 59-67.
Seric, M. and Pranicevic, D.G. (2018), “Managing group work in the classroom: an international study
on perceived benefits and risks based on students’ cultural background and gender”, Journal of
Contemporary Management Issues, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 139-156.
Singh, J.J., Iglesias, O. and Batista-Foguet, J.M. (2012), “Does having an ethical brand matter? The influence of
consumer perceived ethicality on trust, affect and loyalty”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 111,
pp. 541-549.
Sirgy, M.J., Grewal, D. and Mangleburg, T.F. (1997), “Assessing the predictive validity of two methods
of measuring self-image congruence”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 25
No. 3, pp. 229-241.
Song, H., Wang, J. and Han, H. (2019), “Effect of image, satisfaction, trust, love, and respect on loyalty formation
for name-brand coffee shops”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 79, pp. 50-59.
Statista (2020), “Number of smartphone users in India in 2015 to 2020 with a forecast until 2025”,
available at: https://www.statista.com/statistics/467163/forecast-of-smartphone-users-in-india/
(accessed 15 March 2021).
Statista (2021), “Smartphone market in India - statistics & facts”, available at: https://www.statista.
com/topics/4600/smartphone-market-in-india/ (accessed 5 May 2021).
Sultan, F. and Mooraj, H.A. (2001), “Designing a trust-based e-business strategy”, Marketing
Management; Chicago, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 40-45.
Sundar, S.S. (2008), “The MAIN model: a heuristic approach to understanding technology effects on
credibility”, in Metzger, M.J. and Flanagin, A.J. (Eds), Digital Media, Youth, and Credibility, The
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 72-100.
Sundar, S.S., Oeldorf-Hirsch, A. and Xu, Q. (2008), “The bandwagon effect of collaborative filtering
technology”, Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (ACM
SIGCHI), Vol. 26, pp. 3453-3458.
Tata, S.V., Prashar, S. and Parsad, C. (2021), “Examining the influence of satisfaction and regret on online
shoppers’ post-purchase behavior”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 1987-2007.
Taylor, S.A., Celuch, K. and Goodwin, S. (2004), “The importance of brand equity to customer loyalty”,
Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 217-227.
Tolba, A.H. (2011), “The impact of distribution intensity on brand preference and brand loyalty”,
International Journal of Marketing Studies, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 56-66.
Tse, D.K. and Wilton, P.C. (1988), “Models of consumer satisfaction formation: an extension”, Journal
of Marketing Research, Vol. 25, pp. 204-212.
Tuu, H.H. and Olsen, O.S. (2013), “Consideration set size, variety seeking and the satisfaction-
repurchase loyalty relationship at a product category level”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing
and Logistics, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 590-613.
BIJ Verhoef, P.C., Franses, P.H. and Hoekstra, J.C. (2002), “The effect of relational constructs on customer
referrals and number of services purchased from a multiservice provider: does age of
relationship matter?”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 2002-2216.
Walter, N., Cleff, T. and Chu, G. (2013), “Brand experience’s influence on customer satisfaction and
loyalty: a mirage in marketing research?”, International Journal of Management Research and
Business Strategy, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 130-144.
Wang, G. (2002), “Attitudinal correlates of brand commitment”, Journal of Relationship Marketing,
Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 57-75.
Wang, X. and Yang, Z. (2010), “The effect of brand credibility on consumers’ brand purchase intention
in emerging economies: the moderating role of brand awareness and brand image”, Journal of
Global Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 177-188.
Washburn, J.H. and Plank, R.E. (2002), “Measuring brand equity: an evaluation of a consumer-based
brand equity scale”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 46-62.
Wu, W.-Y., Do, T.-Y., Nguyen, P.-T., Andirdho, N. and Vu, M.-Q. (2020), “An integrated framework of
customer-based brand equity and theory of planned behavior: a meta-analysis approach”,
Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, Vol. 7, pp. 371-381.
Yeh, C.-H., Wang, Y.-S. and Yieh, K. (2016), “Predicting smartphone brand loyalty: consumer value
and consumer-brand identification perspectives”, International Journal of Information
Management, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 245-257.
Yoon, S.-J. (2002), “The antecedents and consequences of trust in online-purchase decisions”, Journal of
Interactive Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 47-63.
Yotpo (2019), “Key brand loyalty statistics”, available at: https://www.yotpo.com/resources/brand-
loyalty-statistics/ (accessed 15 March 2021).
Zhang, L., Zhu, J. and Liu, Q. (2012), “A meta-analysis of mobile commerce adoption and the
moderating effect of culture”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 28, pp. 1902-1911.

Further reading
Harris, L.C. and Goode, M.M.H. (2004), “The four levels of loyalty and the pivotal role of trust: a study
of online service dynamics”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 80, pp. 139-158.

Appendix
The Appendix file is available online for this article.

About the authors

Rajesh Anantharaman is a research scholar in the Marketing area at Indian Institute of
Management Raipur. His research interest includes – online consumer reviews and buying behavior,
and heuristics in marketing. Rajesh Anantharaman is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
rajesh.efpm2015@iimraipur.ac.in
Dr. Sanjeev Prashar is a Professor at Indian Institute of Management Raipur India in the area of
Marketing Management. Prior to this, he worked with Institute of Management Technology (IMT),
Ghaziabad, as Professor in the area of Marketing Management. His areas of interest are Impulse Buying,
Online Buying, Mall Selection, Rural Marketing, International Marketing/Exports Management and
Marketing of Services. He has published research papers/Case studies in various journals like –Richard
Ivey School of Business, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, IGI Publishing Limited, Inderscience
Publishers, Palgrave Macmillan and Journal of Retailing and Consumer.
Dr. Sai Vijay Tata is presently working as an assistant professor, at Indian Institute of Management
Ranchi, in the department of Marketing. His research interest includes – online consumer behavior,
online consumer reviews, consumer buying behavior for new and innovative products, customer
relationship marketing and impulse buying behavior. He has published research papers in various
journals like Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Journal of Customer-
Global Information Management, Journal of Consumer Behavior, Journal of Internet Commerce, Pacific
Asia Journal of the Association for Information Systems, International Journal of Strategic Decision brand
Sciences, Asian Academy of Management Journal, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, etc. He relationship
has also published case studies in Ivey publishing and Case center. constructs

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com