Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 23 (2015) 21–31

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services

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

The role of brand exposure and experience on brand recall—Product

durables vis-à-vis FMCG
Chris Baumann a,c,n,1, Hamin Hamin b, Amy Chong c
a
Seoul National University (SNU), Seoul, South Korea
b
Krida Wacana Christian University, Jakarta, Indonesia
c
Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The purpose of this study was to examine the role of brand exposure and experience on brand recall,
Received 24 June 2014 mediated by three affectional drivers: brand trust, brand image and self-image congruence. The study
Received in revised form distinguishes between an individual consumer's brand exposure and experience, and how these impact
11 November 2014
brand recall. Using original data collected from a survey of 219 consumers, brand recall models in two
Accepted 12 November 2014
product categories (Fast Moving Consumer Goods FMCG and durable goods) were tested. Structural
equation modelling (SEM) was applied, resulting in models for the two types of goods, establishing
Keywords: notable differences between durables and FMCGs. Experience influences brand recall in durable goods
Brand exposure while brand recall is established via exposure for fast-moving consumer goods. This suggests that
Brand experience
consumers are better able to recall durable goods brands if they have personally used them, while
Brand recall
consumers of FMCG are more heavily influenced by advertising. Our study also established that brand
Affectional drivers
Brand trust trust has a significant role in mediating both of these relationships. Ultimately, the study establishes key
Self-image congruence differences between the brand recall of product categories, as well as the mediating role of brand trust,
providing a framework for future brand recall research.
& 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction constructs. Traditionally, exposure refers primarily to advertising

As consumers are increasingly inundated with marketing commu-
nication messages, recent studies have emphasised the importance of
brand recall research (Keller, 2009). Our study picks up from Keller's
call and investigates brand recall in two distinct product categories,
namely durables and non-durables. The importance of brand recall for
practitioners as well as scholars is undisputed. What is less clear,
however, is what ultimately leads to the formation of consumers being
able to recall brands, and naturally, hopefully ultimately will buy, and
repeat purchase such brands. A clear gap in theory and practice is
specifically the role that emotion plays in the formation of brand recall,
and our study is designed to fill precisely this gap.
There is quite a substantial amount of a literature on how con-
sumers relate to brands in various forms and shapes. In particular it is
well established that brand recall is related to a consumer's exposure
and experience with a brand (Nedungadi et al., 2001; Shapiro and
Krishnan, 2001; Warlop et al., 2005). Both constructs relate to how a
consumer interacts with a brand (Alba and Hutchinson, 1987; Brakus
et al., 2009) but there remains a clear distinction between the two
n
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: chris.baumann@mq.edu.au (C. Baumann).
1
Visiting Prof. at Seoul National University (SNU), Seoul, South Korea.
exposure, and is thought of as a type of ‘indirect exposure’ (Alba
and Hutchinson, 1987; Kent and Allen, 1994; Delgado-Ballester et al.,
2012). In contrast, experience is subjective and internalised, and is
related to a consumer's actual use of brands and products (Brakus
et al., 2009): past experience with a product or brand leads to
improved recall of brand information (Mikhailitchenko et al., 2009;
Delgado-Ballester et al., 2012). Our study builds on previous studies
such as Krishnan (1996), Korchia (2006) and Park et al. (1994), who
have made a distinction between familiarity and awareness pointing
towards exposure and experience not affecting consumers in the
same way. Selnes and Grønhaug (1986) establish that product knowl-
edge is developed via search and use of information as well as
through experience. In contrast, Wright and Lynch (1995) found that
exposure had a greater impact upon search attributes than experi-
ence. The constructs of exposure and experience together have been
termed ‘brand familiarity’ (Delgado-Ballester et al., 2012), and it has
been demonstrated that increased brand familiarity can lead to
improved brand recall (Gardner, 1983; Heckler et al., 2012). For the
purposes of this study, exposure does not only refer to advertising
exposure, but also “incidental exposure to features of the everyday
environment can influence product evaluation and choice” (Berger
and Fitzsimons, 2008, p. 1).
Brand recall is “a consumer's ability to retrieve [a] brand when
given the product category, the needs fulfilled by the category, or

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2014.11.003
0969-6989/& 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
22 C. Baumann et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 23 (2015) 21–31
some other type of probe as a cue” (Keller, 1993); in short, brand
recall is unaided awareness of a particular brand. Therefore, coupled
with the intense competition between brands (Valls et al., 2011),
brands increasingly need to become more memorable than their
competitors. Brand recall research is characterised in the realm of
cognition and memory, particularly as it pertains to understanding
its drivers (Keller, 1993; Cowley and Mitchell, 2003; Mullainathan,
2002). However consumer theory indicates that such memory pro-
cesses, as well as broad consumer behaviour processes in general,
are also influenced by affection or emotion (Loken, 2006; Bagozzi et
al., 1999). More recent research has argued that affect intertwines
and influences various constructs of branding and brand equity,
ultimately a key measure of marketing effectiveness (Mirzaei et al.,
2011), for example brand relationships (Heath et al., 2006), brand
community (Muniz and O’Guinn, 2001), and brand loyalty
(Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001; Baumann et al., 2007); however
the dynamic relationship between affect and brand recall has been
investigated to a lesser extent. Research in the field of psychology
has identified a strong link to affect and memory; specifically,
memories and events are more easily recalled if there are stronger
affectional or emotional ties (Bradley et al., 1992; Cahill and
McGaugh, 1995).
In this study we offer a new perspective to explain brand recall.
As an overall roadmap for our approach, we propose that the way
consumers are exposed and also experience a brand will then
impact their affection, and ultimately their brand recall. These
associations however depend on the involvement with the respec-
tive product category. For products in different categories con-
sumers have varying degrees of involvement (Zaichkowsky, 1985).
For high involvement products there is typically a higher price
point, a greater level of research and length of search; therefore
the formation of an affection, and subsequent hypothesised higher
level of brand recall may well be in marked contrast to low
involvement products (Zaichkowsky, 1985). Our study probes
these associations comparing cars, representing high involvement
products, to shampoo, a placeholder for FMCG and low involve-
ment products. While it could be seen as a limitation to have only
two products, intentionally two different product categories were
chosen to represent very different consumer behaviour processes
(shampoo representing a cheap, fast purchase process with low
research, in contrast to cars that are expensive, with long purchase
processes and intense research).
We hypothesise that the association between experience
through product usage and exposure through advertising on brand
recall will be mediated by a consumer's affections. In other words
the chain of action is for consumers to be emotionally affected by
experience and exposure, and subsequently they will or will not
recall a brand. Consumer affections we have split into three
affectional drivers: perceived brand image, self-image congruence
and trust.
The shortcomings of evaluating brands purely on a cognitive or
objective basis lies in the fact that it overlooks the role of the
emotional or subjective image that people may have of themselves
and of a brand; or in short, whether they ‘click’ with the brand.
The role of brand image is well established in the branding
literature, and we have included this dimension to explain brand
recall. In broader terms, image is seen as a classic construct in
branding, and therefore we have included brand image and self-
image congruence as affectional drivers. Drawing inspiration from
a recent study that included trust as a key driver of customer
loyalty (Walsh et al., 2010) we include trust as an affectional driver
in brand recall as well. Self-image congruence has received much
less attention in the marketing literature, which is perplexing
given that consumers may well choose their brands in accordance
with how they view themselves. We therefore now include this
crucial dimension as a mediating factor based on the premise that
the more a brand matches our personality, the higher our emo-
tional attachment, and by the very logic, the stronger our brand
recall. Naturally the same logic applies to the aforementioned
traditional brand research dimensions of a consumer's brand
image perception, as well as their trust in the brand.
2. Affectional drivers of brand recall
Past research on brand recall has focused on various aspects of
memory, exposure and experience as key influences (Hutchinson,
1983; Alba and Hutchinson, 1987; Hutchinson et al., 1994). In this
study we distinguish between brand recall and brand awareness.
However, since various aspects of consumption are reliant upon
both cognitive and affective functions (Hirschman and Holbrook,
1982; Laros and Steenkamp, 2005), it is also important to examine
the ‘affectional drivers’ (a term coined in this study) of brand recall.
Marketing theory dictates that exposure and experience influ-
ence the information that consumers gain about brands, thereby
influencing consumers' feelings about brands. Although the terms
‘emotion’ and ‘affect’ (affection) are often used interchangeably to
describe feelings, emotion refers to “a mental state of readiness
that arises from cognitive appraisals of events or thoughts”
(Bagozzi et al., 1999, p. 184), while affection is an “umbrella [term]
for a set of more specific mental processes including emotions,
moods, and attitudes” (Bagozzi et al., 1999, p. 184). For the sake of
consistency, the term ‘affection’ (using the definition stated above)
will be used henceforth in this study.
Zajonc (1980) argued that the affective quality of the original
input is the first element to emerge when people retrieve an object
from memory. Seminal research by Isen (1987) supported this
assertion by experimentally identifying a link between positive affect
and recall. Although it is impossible to exclude the actual descriptive
(i.e., cognitive) features of memory (as they are the fundamental
objects and cues memorised), Zajonc's study (1980) demonstrated
the important role of affect in consumer brand recall and recognition.
These findings highlight the fact that memories associated with
greater affection are easier to recall, as opposed to memories con-
taining neutral or no affect.
Examinations of affection in marketing and branding research are
broad, and include its application to both exposure and experience. It
has been argued that consumers' exposure to marketing commu-
nications (e.g., advertising) evokes some form of affect (Batra and
Ray, 1986; Olney et al., 1991). In addition, research on affection has
shown that consumers are drawn to specific brands and advertising
due to their emotional appeal (Holbrook and Batra, 1987; Heath et al.,
2006). Rossiter and Percy (1991), p. 100, established that a key role of
advertising is to “elicit appropriate emotions in the target audience”.
Similarly, experience with a brand has been found to trigger a range
of mild and strong, and positive and negative affects for the brand
(Schmitt, 2012; Andrade and Cohen, 2007).
The mediating nature of affection in brand recall can be measured
using three affectional drivers: perceived brand image (how a consumer
perceives the image portrayed by a brand) (Dobni and Zinkhan, 1990;
Keller, 1993), self-image congruence (the extent to which consumers
identify with a brand) (Sirgy, 1982; Elliott and Wattanasuwan, 1998),
and brand trust (the extent to which consumers feel a brand is reliable,
safe and honest) (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001; Delgado-Ballester
and Munuera-Alemán, 2001; Sirdeshmukh et al., 2002).
2.1. Perceived brand image
The literature has shown associations between a brand's image
and brand equity (Gardner and Levy, 1955; Park et al., 1986; Swait
et al., 1993; Faircloth et al., 2001), but little work has been done to
examine this relationship from the perspective of individual
 C. Baumann et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 23 (2015) 21–31
consumers. Gardner and Levy's (1955) original conceptualisation of
brand image was that it is a means of conveying meaning for a
brand to consumers. The original definition has since evolved,
adopting Keller's (1993), p. 3, definition of brand image, which
states that it is “perceptions about a brand as reflected by the brand
associations held in consumer memory”, where brand associations
are defined as “the other informational nodes linked to the brand
node in memory and contain the meaning of the brand for
consumers”. Brand image, as an affectional driver in this study, will
be termed “perceived brand image” henceforth, and can be seen as
the sum of any or all categories of brand imagery for an individual
consumer.
2.2. Self-image congruence
Early work identified the importance of the self in a marketing
context (Birdwell, 1968; Dolich, 1969), however this school of
thought only gained popularity around 1980 (Sirgy, 1982;
Solomon, 1983; Belk, 1988). Since, research has established that
products and brands are used not only for their utilitarian purposes,
but also because they provide symbolic meaning or value to
consumers (Elliott and Wattanasuwan, 1998). Expanding on the
literature regarding brand image, seminal work has found that
consumers feel that images portrayed by a product or brand can be
representative of their sense of self, or be an extension of self; this
increases a brand's value to the consumer (Sirgy, 1982; Belk, 1988;
Elliott and Wattanasuwan, 1998). Self-image congruence with a
brand is highly dependent upon and preceded by a consumer's
perception of a brand's image and its associations (Escalas and
Bettman, 2005).
2.3. Brand trust
Trust serves as an essential factor in the development of any
successful relationship in B2B (Dyer & Chu, 2000, 2011) and in B2C ,
including those between a brand and its consumers (Moorman et al.,
1992; Morgan and Hunt, 1994; Andaleeb, 1995; Chaudhuri and
Holbrook, 2001). Trust has been defined as “affect-based, referring
to a feeling that is the outcome of a communal relationship with a
brand” (Esch et al., 2006, p. 100). Of interest is the affective
dimension of trust, which is becoming more relevant to researchers
in the fields of consumer and organisational behaviour (McAllister,
1995; Johnson and Grayson, 2005). In addition, some researchers
have relayed the intensity of affection held towards brands by
consumers, citing examples such as naming and talking to auto-
mobiles, to being tattooed with brand logos (Aggarwal, 2004;
Morgan, 2009).
Fig. 1. Hypothetical model of the relationships between independent variables (ellipses) and their influence on brand recall (rectangle). Both exposure and experience
directly influence all three affectional drivers (brand image, self-image congruence and trust), which in turn influence brand recall. All relationships are hypothesised to be of
a positive nature. The relationship between exposure and experience is represented by a curved line, indicating the covariance between these two exogenous independent
variables.
23
Trust is developed by consumers' exposure and experience with
brands, and is an experiential learning process (Ravald and Grönroos,
1996; Garbarino and Johnson, 1999; Delgado-Ballester and Munuera-
Alemán, 2001). As an experience attribute, brand trust “arise[s] out of
different levels of cognitive and emotional abstraction” (Delgado-
Ballester, 2004, p. 576).
3. Model development
While it is clear that associations exist between exposure/experi-
ence and affection and between exposure/experience and brand
recall, no single model exists to adequately explain the relationships
between all four constructs. This study was designed to fill this gap in
the literature by testing the influence of a consumer's brand exposure
and experience on brand recall, while also testing the mediating roles
of affectional drivers (i.e., brand image, self-image congruence and
brand trust).
Based on our cursory literature review we have developed the
following hypotheses for this study. Our 15 hypotheses have been
divided into two categories each. Category M refers to mediated
relationships, whereas category P covers partial relationships. Each
of our hypotheses are tested for durable and non-durable goods
where our hypotheses structure development and formation have
been influenced by Walsh et al. (2010), p. 137.
HM1: Exposure has significant impact on brand recall for durable
goods mediated by perceived brand image.
HM2: Exposure has significant impact on brand recall mediated
by self-image congruence.
HM3: Exposure has significant impact on brand recall for durable
goods mediated by brand trust.
HM4: Experience has significant impact on brand recall mediated
by perceived brand image.
HM5: Experience has significant impact on brand recall mediated
by self-image congruence.
HM6: Experience has significant impact on brand recall mediated
by brand trust.
HP1: Exposure has significant impact on perceived brand image.
HP2: Exposure has significant impact on self-image congruence.
HP3: Exposure has significant impact on brand trust.
HP4: Experience has significant impact on perceived
brand image.
HP5: Experience has significant impact on self-image congruence.
HP6: Experience has significant impact on brand trust.
HP7: Perceived brand has significant impact on brand recall.
24 C. Baumann et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 23 (2015) 21–31
HP8: Self-image congruence has significant impact on brand
recall.
HP9: Brand trust has significant impact on brand recall.
A hypothetical model illustrating the associations between expo-
sure, experience, affectional drivers, and brand recall is proposed
(Fig. 1). To determine if there are product-dependent influences on
these associations, the model is tested in the context of two distinct
categories of goods: durable goods (using the product category of
automobiles), and fast-moving consumer goods (FMCGs) (using sha-
mpoo as a representative product). The overarching hypothesis is
that affectional drivers (perceived brand image, self-image congru-
ence and brand trust) significantly mediate the relationship between
brand recall and exposure, and between brand recall and experience,
for both FMGCs and durable goods.
4. Methodology
A questionnaire was used to examine brand recall and to inve-
stigate the influences of exposure, experience and three affectional
drivers (perceived brand image, self-image congruence and brand
trust) on consumers of durable goods (automobiles) and FMCGs
(shampoo). The primary objective of this study was to determine the
factors that drive brand recall (dependent variable); therefore, the
focus was not on the measurement of brand recall itself, but rather
on the five independent variables listed above (see Table 1 for a
summary of the questions related to each variable).
4.1. Questionnaire design
Participants answered questions related to the independent vari-
ables (exposure, experience, perceived brand image, self-image con-
gruence and brand trust) using a 7-point Likert scale format,
anchored by “1¼Strongly Disagree” and “7¼Strongly Agree”. Two
additional sets of questions were included for the dependent variable,
brand recall. Participants were asked to list the first three automobile
and shampoo brands that came to mind. As this study focused on the
affectional drivers of brand recall, the brands that were recalled in
these questions were not of particular interest; the focus on the
affectional drivers of brand recall necessitated an individualistic
approach to the questionnaire (i.e., subjective to each participant)
(Addis and Holbrook, 2001). The first brand of each type recalled was
thus treated as a reference point for the remaining questions regar-
ding the predictors of brand recall and brand recall itself (Mano and
Oliver, 1993). As such, brand recall was measured, rather than merely
self-reported. The specific questions that formed the basis for the
brand recall variable can be found in Table 1.
Questionnaire questions on exposure and experience were
informed by the literature on indirect and direct experience (e.g.,
Alba and Hutchinson, 1987; Oakenfull and McCarthy, 2010; Delgado-
Ballester et al., 2012). Exposure was measured with four questions,
each relating to different ways in which consumers may have had
indirect contact with a brand. Experience was examined following
Mano and Oliver's operationalisation (1993) and was tested via six
questions used to determine the respondent's self-reported level of
personal usage.
Participants were asked about their perceptions of a brand's
overall image, rather than specific image attributes (as was the case
in Batra and Homer's, 2004 study), as the brands were identified by
the users. Perceived brand image questions (Table 1) pertained to
users of the brand (e.g., “I like the people who use Brand 1”) as well
as to reflective measures of brand image (e.g., “Thinking of Brand
1 brings back pleasant memories”).
Previous tests of self-image congruence have involved consu-
mers rating their own self-concept, and the brand image of their
most preferred brand (e.g., Dolich, 1969). In keeping with the same
method used to investigate the other variables, self-image con-
gruence was tested overall for the participant's first recalled brand.
Four questions were used to test this construct.
Brand trust relates to the perceived reliability, safety and
honesty of a brand (Garbarino and Johnson, 1999; Delgado-
Ballester et al., 2003). Five questions tested the brand trust variable.
Cronbach's alpha tests were conducted to check for internal
consistency and reliability among the questions related to each
variable. These tests yielded values greater than 0.7 for all variables,
indicating that such consistency and reliability was achieved.
4.2. Sample population
Because of the possible implications of the research findings to
the automobile industry, it was decided to investigate the brand
recall of first-time buyers of automobiles. This consumer segment,
generally comprised of younger individuals, has the potential to
provide relatively high lifetime value to a brand compared to the
general car-buying population (Venkatesan and Kumar, 2004).
Young consumers, drawn from a population of university students,
were therefore chosen as the sample population for this study. A
questionnaire was distributed to business and economics students
at a major metropolitan Australian university. Missing values were
found to be significantly less than 10% and were missing at
random. Therefore, the missing values did not give rise to concerns
regarding response bias and were replaced with estimated values
using the ‘mean nearby’ method. The data were then checked for
normality to ensure that it met the assumptions required for
structural equation models (SEM). After these checks were com-
pleted, the final usable sample consisted of 219 respondents
(response rate of 63%), of which 101 were males (46%) and 118
were females (54%).
5. Results
5.1. Model assessment
Structural equation models (SEM) were used to test the hypothe-
sised associations between the variables included in the hypothe-
tical model (Fig. 1). SEM was also used to test all associations in
single, congruent models (one for each type of goods), and
facilitated a comparison of tests of the models using data generated
for both FMGCs and durables. SEM permits the simultaneous testing
of multiple types of variables (Kline, 2010), and it is also statistically
efficient. Its combination of statistical techniques (e.g., confirmatory
factor analysis, multiple regressions and path analysis) ensures that
a sound structural model can be identified (Kline, 2010).
The CFA model fit statistics for each variable were calculated for
FMCGs and durable goods, and non-representative indicators were
removed. For both types of goods, four variables were found to be
just-identified (brand recall, exposure, experience, and perceived
brand image) (Table 2). The model chi-square test result was not
calculated for the just-identified variables as it typically equals
zero and it can be assumed that the model perfectly fits the data
(Kline, 2010); the model fit indices are therefore not given for
these variables. The indices for the remaining variables (self-image
congruence and brand trust) can be found in Table 2. The self-
image congruence GFI achieved best fit (1.000), while the GFI for
brand trust was close to best fit, falling well within the cut-off
point (Table 2). Similarly, best fit was attained for the CFI for self-
image congruence, and the CFI for brand trust was above the cut-
off (0.95), signifying an exceptional model fit. The RMSEA value
for durables self-image congruence suggests a close model fit,
 C. Baumann et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 23 (2015) 21–31 25

Table 1
A list of the questions asked on the questionnaire and the variables (either brand recall itself or the factors that influence it) to which they were related. Key references used
in the formulation of the questions are also provided.

Variable Questions References

Brand recall This dimension was measured in two steps. First, (Keller, 2001; Yoo and Donthu, 2001)
respondents were asked to list the first three car brands
and shampoo brands that came to mind. From this point on,
the first brand listed in each product category was used as a
reference point for subsequent questions, and this was made
clear in the questionnaire.
1. I think of Brand 1 frequently.
2. I can quickly recall the symbol or logo of Brand 1.
3. Some characteristics of Brand 1 come quickly to my mind.

Exposure 1. I know about Brand 1 through advertising. (Alba and Hutchinson, 1987; Campbell and
2. I know about Brand 1 because I have seen it in the store. Keller, 2003; Fang et al., 2007; Berger and
3. I know about Brand 1 through friends. Fitzsimons, 2008).
4. I know about Brand 1 because I have seen it on the internet.

Experience 1. I know about Brand 1 through personal usage. (Yoo and Donthu, 2001) Also informed by
2. I regularly buy Brand 1. Alba and Hutchinson (1987), Campbell and
3. I regularly consume/use Brand 1. Keller (2003); Fang et al. (2007) and Berger
4. I actively engage with Brand 1 (e.g. internet forums, and Fitzsimons (2008).
talking about brand to others).
5. I recommend Brand 1 when asked about cars/shampoos.
6. I recommend Brand 1 when not asked about cars/shampoos
(i.e. I start the conversation).

Perceived brand image 1. People I admire and respect use Brand 1. (Keller, 2001)
2. I like the people who use Brand 1.
3. Thinking of Brand 1 brings back pleasant memories.

Self-image congruence
1. I feel Brand 1 reflects who I am. (Escalas and Bettman, 2005) Also informed
2. I can identify with Brand 1. by Sirgy et al., (1997) and Kressmann et al.
3. I feel a personal connection to Brand 1. (2006).
4. I use/would use Brand 1 to communicate who I am to
other people.

Brand trust 1. Brand 1 can be trusted at all times. (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001; Delgado-
2. If Brand 1 makes a claim or promise about its products, Ballester
it is probably true. et al., 2003; Delgado-Ballester, 2004; Esch
3. In my experience, Brand 1 is very reliable. et al., 2006; Harris and Goode, 2004)
4. I feel I know what to expect from Brand 1.
5. Brand 1 has high integrity.

Table 2
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA): model fit indices for durable goods (automobiles) and FMCGs (shampoo). Four of the model variables were found to be just-identified,
and therefore are not included here.

Variable Durable goods indices FMCGs indices

GFI AGFI CFI NFI RMSEA RMR GFI AGFI CFI NFI RMSEA RMR

Self-image congruence 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.005 0.988 0.941 0.995 0.991 0.082 0.045
Brand trust 0.990 0.949 0.996 0.992 0.064 0.032 0.996 0.985 1.000 0.996 0.000 0.020

while that of brand trust falls within the reasonable error of
approximation.
For FMCGs, self-image congruence and brand trust were close
to best fit for GFI values and fell within the cut-off points. Brand
trust achieved best fit for its CFI value, and the self-image
congruence CFI value indicated exceptional model fit. Close model
fit was suggested by the RMSEA value for brand trust, while this
value for self-image congruence fell slightly above the reasonable
error of approximation.
For both models, the chi-square tests indicated that self-image
congruence was not statistically significant (χ2 ¼0.041, p ¼0.980,
d.f. ¼2; and χ2 ¼4.951, p ¼0.084, d.f. ¼2, for durables and FMCGs,
respectively). Brand trust was also not significant (χ2 ¼5.661,
p¼ 0.129, d.f. ¼ 3; and χ2 ¼2.246, p ¼0.691, d.f. ¼4, for durables
and FMCGs, respectively).
The chi-square statistics for the durable goods and FMCGs
models are relatively high but other fit indices (GFI, NFI, and CFI)
were below the specified cut-off points (Table 3). The RMSEA value
is slightly above the cut-off point, but still falls within the upper
and lower bounds. Overall, these indices confirm that the model fit
is acceptable for both models.
In sum, the assessment of all variables in the CFA for both the
FMCGs and durable goods models showed acceptable fit. As the
factors were confirmed, overall models for both types of goods
26 C. Baumann et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 23 (2015) 21–31

were subsequently assessed via regression weights were deter- experience explain roughly 39% of brand trust (R2 ¼0.389) for the
mined. The results have been integrated in Figs. 2 and 3, which durable goods model, and both perceived brand image and self-
depict the paths between the variables in the models. image congruence were found to have R2 ¼1. Overall, the model
For durable goods, experience has a highly significant and was found to explain 66% of brand recall (R2 ¼ 0.658). The FMCGs
positive relationship with the three affectional drivers, whereas model explains roughly 51% of brand recall (R2 ¼0.509) (Table 4).
the only significant association found between exposure and the Fifty-four per cent of brand trust can be explained by exposure and
affectional drivers was between exposure and self-image congru- experience. However, these variables explain roughly 79% of per-
ence (Fig. 2). Brand trust was the only affectional driver found to ceived brand image (R2 ¼ 0.785), and 84% of self-image congruence
significantly predict brand recall. Perceived brand image and brand (R2 ¼0.843) in the FMCGs model.
recall were significantly related. A negative relationship was found
between self-image congruence and brand recall. The relationships
between experience and perceived brand image, and between
experience and self-image congruence, were found to have stan- 6. Discussion
dardized estimates greater than 1.0. While such findings can
indicate that there is an error in the data, Deegan (1978) states The purpose of this study was to examine the role of exposure
that they can instead be attributed to multicolinearity. In such and experience on brand recall, mediated by three affectional
instances, he advises against model modification because multi- drivers: perceived brand image, self-image congruence and brand
colinearity causes no bias in estimated coefficients, and could lead trust. It was overall hypothesised that perceived brand image, self-
to worse scenarios, such as model specification errors and biased image congruence and brand trust significantly mediate the rela-
coefficient estimations. tionship between brand recall and exposure, and between brand
In contrast to the durable goods model, exposure, rather than recall and experience, for both FMGCs and durable goods.
experience, had a significant influence on the affectional drivers in Specific hypotheses were assessed based on their mediated
the FMCGs model (Fig. 3). There were no significant associations associations between exposure and experience, and brand recall.
between experience and the affectional drivers, with the exception Only where experience or exposure were mediated by one of the
of brand trust. This relationship, however, showed a negative trend. three affectional drivers in their association with brand recall was
As with the durable goods model, there was a significant positive the hypothesis deemed supported. Six hypotheses were sup-
relationship between brand trust and brand recall. ported, as presented in Table 5a. Only Hypothesis M1 had to be
Overall, the extent that the model explains brand recall was fully rejected.
lower for FMCGs than for durable goods (Table 4). Exposure and The study revealed somewhat distinct drivers of brand recall,
depending on whether the brand represents durable or non-
durable goods. Specifically, experience is a key driver of brand
Table 3 recall for durable goods, mediated by all three affectional drivers.
Durable goods (automobiles) and FMCGs (shampoo) overall model fit indices. Cut- This is so because for high involvement products such as cars, also
off points are as per Jarvis et al. (2003) and Bollen (1989).
consumer electronics, and likely also luxury items, consumers
Fit indices Cut-off points form an affection based on the trust, self-image congruence and
brand image based on their actual experience with the product,
Durable goods FMCGs rather than via advertising exposure. At the same time, for non-
durable goods, or FMCG, exposure was found to be a key driver of
χ2 203.278, (p o 0.001) 213.409 (p o 0.001) small, p 40.05
brand recall, but only mediated via brand trust. This is so because
d.f. 122 122
χ2/d.f. 1.666 1.749 r5 for shampoo, and other personal care products such as toothpaste,
SRMR 0.057 0.048 o 0.08 and tissue paper, clearly consumers do not form their attitude in
RMSEA 0.055 0.059 r 0.05 accordance with their self-image because these products are not
GFI 0.908 0.901 40.900 directly related to the personality of the buyer. However because
NFI 0.919 0.919 40.900
CFI 0.965 0.963 40.950
there could be a convergence of such commoditised products,
consumers form trust to the brand based on media exposure such

Fig. 2. Brand recall durable goods model.

 C. Baumann et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 23 (2015) 21–31
Fig. 3. Brand recall FMCG model.
Table 4
R2 values for variables in the durable goods and FMCG models.
Variable Durable goods FMCGs
Brand trust 0.388 0.544
Perceived brand image 1 0.785
Self-image congruence 1 0.843
Brand recall 0.658 0.509
as advertising, rather than based on actual product usage. This in
turn markedly affects brand recall, whereas the effect of experi-
ence (as in actual everyday product usage) makes consumers blasé
and indeed the everyday character makes the product appear a
hygiene factor, unless there is a faulty product.
Trust is a key mediating factor between exposure and brand
recall of FMCGs, and also between experience and brand recall of
durable goods. Perceived brand image and self-image congruence
did not significantly mediate the relationship between exposure
and brand recall for FMCGs, and the mediating nature of these two
drivers on the relationship between experience and brand recall
displayed only a trend for durable goods. Interestingly, the trend
between self-image congruence and brand recall for durables is a
negative one.
The critical affectional driver identified in this study is brand
trust: this variable was found to have a significant relationship with
brand recall for both durables and FMCGs. Stated simply, the more a
consumer trusts a brand, the more likely they will be able to recall it.
The importance of trust is recognised by Hiscock (2001), p. 1, who
argues that “the ultimate goal of marketing is to generate an intense
bond between the consumer and the brand, and the main ingredient
of this bond is trust”, and by Arnott (2007), p. 981, who states that
trust “lies at the heart of the marketing concept”.
Surprisingly, perceived brand image did not explain brand recall
in FMCGs (shampoo), but there was a trend towards a positive
relationship with durable goods. This contradicts the established
literature, which has consistently highlighted the importance of
perceived brand image (e.g., Gardner and Levy, 1955; Biel, 1992;
Batra and Homer, 2004; Vieceli and Shaw, 2010), for the recall of both
FMCGs and durables. For durables, this relationship is historically tied
more closely to the hypothesised associations between affectional
drivers and brand recall. The use of automobiles has featured quite
extensively in the study of brand image, where image has been
demonstrated to be a clear differentiating factor between various car
manufacturers (Häubl, 1996; Anand and Ron, 2004; Büschken, 2007).
27
In order to gain a more holistic understanding of the full extent
of the model, we next discuss the partial relationships. For durable
goods five hypotheses were found to be supported, while four
hypotheses for non-durable goods were supported. Only Hypoth-
esis P8 had to be fully rejected (Table 5b).
A pattern emerged in FMCG where exposure partially affects all
three affectional drivers, whereas experience partially affects all
three affectional drivers for durable goods. For FMCG only brand
trust is significant but for durables, all three affectional drivers are
supported.
This study establishes that self-image congruence does not
explain recall for either FMCGs (shampoo) or durables (cars). More
specifically, in the case of durables however, there was a negative
trend between self-image congruence and brand recall. This result
is not expected. What our study found was that if a consumer's
concept of self-relates to their perceived image of a brand, they are
not likely to recall the brand. Two plausible explanations for this
relationship can be drawn from the literature.
The first explanation can be drawn from seminal work by Sirgy
(1982), who identifies four concepts of self: the actual self, the ideal
self, the social self, and the ideal social self. These concepts of self-
differ in the way a consumer views different aspects of themselves
(or, how the consumer would like to be portrayed). Bosnjak and
Rudolph (2008) show that consumers can have undesired self-image
congruence, which leads to attitude formation and further translates
into behaviour. It could be inferred that although a consumer feels
they identify with a brand, this identification could be undesired and
could lead to avoidance measures. As undesired self-image con-
gruence leads to negative attitude formations, consumers could then
suppress the brand in memory, thereby reducing the recall of the
brand. Given the age demographic of the sample population used in
this study, it is probable that the ideal social self is given more
weight than the actual self, particularly given the importance of a
consumer's peers, and would therefore override the impact of self-
image congruence with the actual self (Escalas and Bettman, 2005).
Compounding this factor is the nature of the products itself. Cars are
clearly displayed brands, and therefore may encourage conspicuous
consumption whilst shampoo is a product usually contained to the
privacy of one's home. This could contribute to the differences
identified in the models, particularly relating to the impact of self-
congruity.
A second possible explanation for the negative association
between self-image congruence and brand recall can be drawn
from Belk et al. (1989) examination of sacred objects. In this study,
28 C. Baumann et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 23 (2015) 21–31

Table 5a
Results of structural equation modelling for two product categories-mediated relationships.

Durable goods Non-durable goods

HM1: Exposure has significant impact on brand recall for durable goods mediated by perceived brand image Not supported Not supported
HM2: Exposure has significant impact on brand recall mediated by self-image congruence Supported Not supported
HM3: Exposure has significant impact on brand recall for durable goods mediated by brand trust Not supported Supported
HM4: Experience has significant impact on brand recall mediated by perceived brand image Supported Not supported
HM5: Experience has significant impact on brand recall mediated by self-image congruence Supported Not supported
HM6: Experience has significant impact on brand recall mediated by brand trust Supported Supported

HM denotes hypotheses regarding mediated relationships.

Table 5b
Results of structural equation modelling for two product categories-partial relationships.

Durable goods Non-durable goods

HP1: Exposure has significant impact on perceived brand image Not supported Supported
HP2: Exposure has significant impact on self-image congruence Not supported Supported
HP3: Exposure has significant impact on brand trust Not supported Supported
HP4: Experience has significant impact on perceived brand image Supported Not supported
HP5: Experience has significant impact on self-image congruence Supported Not supported
HP6: Experience has significant impact on brand trust Supported Not supported
HP7: Perceived brand has significant impact on brand recall Supported Not supported
HP8: Self-image congruence has significant impact on brand recall Not supported Not supported
HP9: Brand trust has significant impact on brand recall Supported Supported

HP denotes hypotheses regarding partial relationships.

sacred objects (or possessions) are not treated as normal objects,
but rather, seem to require ‘special’ handling. Consumers who
deem a possession as sacred take measures to retain the object's
sacred status (via protection/preservation), due to the fear of these
items becoming profane or tangibly contaminated. In taking
measures to protect these objects (or brands) consumers may, in
fact, keep them hidden from others by avoiding mention of the
brand name. After extended periods of time, this practice of
avoidance could lead the consumer to automatically avoid recal-
ling a brand.
The take home message from this study is the undeniable role
of brand trust in the formation of brand recall. In this study, brand
trust was established to be a driver of brand recall for both FMCG
and durable goods in our partial relationship analysis. Our findings
here are in line with the marketing literature, where assurance
was associated with customer loyalty, such as share of wallet
(SOW) (Baumann et al., 2005); customer satisfaction and affective
attitude (Baumann et al., 2007); and affective commitment, as well
as customer loyalty intentions (Walsh et al., 2010). Essentially the
importance of trust is not a new concept in a marketing literature,
for branding or customer loyalty. In order to fully predict and
understand the aforementioned concepts, theoretical and practical
research ought to include a wider range of plausible explanators,
as was attempted in this study.
6.1. Theoretical implications
The hypothetical model (Fig. 1) was tested in two product
categories: durables (automobiles) and FMCGs (shampoo). The
resulting models (see Figs. 2 and 3) have both theoretical and
practical implications, particularly for automobile manufacturers
and marketers of FMCGs wishing to develop strategies to increase
their brand recall for potential customers. The findings related to
these drivers can be used as groundwork for theoretical or
strategy-based improvement of brand recall, with respect to affect
as well as cognition.
Earlier studies on the role of exposure and experience have
typically treated the two constructs as a single variable. This study
makes a distinction between the two, and analyses them
separately, thereby making three contributions to the current state
of knowledge.
The first contribution to the marketing literature is the distinc-
tion between exposure and experience and their associations with
affectional drivers. Positive significant associations between experi-
ence and perceived brand image, experience and self-image con-
gruence, and experience and brand trust were found with respect to
durables. In contrast, exposure was found to have strong positive
associations with perceived brand image, self-image congruence
and brand trust for FMCGs. These findings suggest that consumers
perceive brands in the two product categories differently.
As a second contribution, this study has demonstrated that the
means by which consumers develop affection for brands in different
product categories depend on the type of product. These results
differ from the marketing literature, which essentially categorises
exposure and experience in the same construct (i.e., that of ‘brand
familiarity’, or ‘indirect and direct experience’) (Kent and Allen, 1994;
Holden and Vanhuele, 1999; Mikhailitchenko et al., 2009). The results
indicate that exposure via methods such as advertising is more
relevant for FMCGs, while experience via personal usage is of greater
importance for durable goods, in terms of the development of
affection and brand recall. Similarly, this study found a difference
in how a consumer's exposure or experience impacts affectional
drivers of brand recall. For durable goods, experience is the key
driving factor in brand recall, which is mediated by affection (or
affectional drivers); while for FMCG, exposure is the most significant
influence on brand recall.
The third contribution is in relation to the importance of affec-
tional drivers in brand recall. Cognition is well established in brand
recall research, namely, how the “increase in the salience of one
brand can inhibit recall of other brands” (Alba and Chattopadhyay,
1986, p. 363), the influence of cueing on brand recall (Alba and
Chattopadhyay, 1985); memory based choice situations (Nedungadi,
1990); and the moderating effect of product knowledge (Cowley and
Mitchell, 2003). Previous studies examined the effects of cognition
on brand recall excluding emotion. Despite not having compared
both affective and cognitive drivers of brand recall, our study focused
on affection and has now established its importance in explaining
brand recall. Future research could therefore incorporate both dim-
 C. Baumann et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 23 (2015) 21–31
ensions in one model to gain a more holistic view of brand recall.
Notwithstanding its centrality to consumer behaviour, determining
or predicting consumers' affection or emotions towards brands has
previously been considered mysterious and unpredictable, especially
in the case of individual consumers (Russell, 2003). This is despite
the emerging and convincing evidence in the literature of the crucial
role of emotion in one way or another, for example with affect
mediating consumer behaviour via “consumers' liking” of a shopping
area (Bell, 1999), or evidence of an ‘emotional hierarchy’ for family
and friends for gift-giving with consumers emotionally attached to
‘loved’ brands (Baumann and Hamin, 2014). This challenge notwith-
standing, the present study suggests that affection is a significant
mediator in determining brand recall, and therefore should not be
overlooked in future work.
6.2. Practical implications
In this study, experience was determined to be an important
factor in durables brand recall, whereas exposure was found to be
insignificant. Conversely exposure was found to be a significant factor
for FMCG, yet not for durable goods. The differences in the models
could be attributed to the level of risk involved with purchasing
expensive versus inexpensive products (cars versus shampoo). This
highlights the importance of the product itself, which triggers
affection for the brand via personal usage. The importance of expe-
rience is currently recognised by the automobile industry, as evi-
denced by the common sales strategy of encouraging consumers to
test-drive their products. Surprisingly, perceived brand image was
not important to automobile brand recall. This differs from the
image-driven advertising methods of car manufacturers. Therefore,
manufacturers wishing to improve brand recall should aim to incr-
ease consumers' experience with their brands, rather than increasing
exposure via extensive advertising expenditure.
Despite advertising expenditures aimed at increasing brand
imagery in the shampoo industry (and in the larger beauty
industry), the results of this study suggest that perceived brand
image does not increase brand recall. Instead, the brand recall of
shampoo is more influenced by brand trust, implying that the
products that consumers use for their hair is of personal impor-
tance. Brand recall for shampoo is developed via exposure, rather
than experience. This may indicate that consumers are unable to
judge the quality of shampoo brands, and subsequently that there is
little perceived difference between the products available to the
consumer. The improvement of brand image is therefore necessary
for FMCG brands. Although there is a clear relationship between
exposure and brand image, this does not lead to brand recall. A
possible explanation for this incongruity is that perceived brand
images of shampoo brands are not sufficiently refined for consu-
mers to notice a difference.
The ultimate purpose of a brand is to provide a promise to
consumers. Of more importance to a consumer is trust, in both
FMCG and durable goods. At the end of the day a brand is a
promise to the consumer in terms of what to expect from the
product in terms of product attributes and emotional modifiers
(e.g. social acceptance from a luxury car) and our study reflects
this notion given that brand trust is the only affectional driver
with mediating effects for both durable and non-durable products.
All in all, marketing efforts fail to fully transform perceived
brand image and self-image congruence into brand recall; the
present study suggests that these areas for improvement apply to
both automobiles and shampoo (or, more broadly, to durables and
FMCGs). For marketers of durable goods our study establishes the
important role self-image congruence plays in brand recall, an area
not yet well understood by brand managers. It appears however,
that a better alignment of brand positioning for durable goods
with the target market's most common self-perception would
29
indeed contribute to brand recall in one way or another. At the
same time, since trust has been identified as a key predictor of
brand recall, it is important for practitioners to develop or
maintain strategies to retain or improve consumer trust for their
brands.
6.3. Limitations and suggestions for future research
Further research, using sample populations with broader demo-
graphics and with different products in the two product categories, is
suggested in order to allow for generalisation of the study's findings
to other product categories and services. While our findings demon-
strate different drivers of brand recall for durable goods versus
FMCGs, this claim could be further verified by research involving
the testing of other products within each category to enable general-
isations across these categories. Such research should also explore
the nature and strength of the impact of self-image congruence,
where such products could be better aligned with an individual's
actual self-versus products that are aligned with an individual's ideal
self. Further to this a comparison between cognitive and affective
drivers as mediators in future brand recall models could potentially
enhance explanatory power.
Bello et al. (2009) discuss the appropriate use of student samples
in business research. One condition of appropriate use is that the
study must not use the data to make generalisations about the larger
population. The present study used a student sample to examine
brand recall. Although this demographic was highly appropriate (i.e.,
in the context of first-time automobile buyers) the results obtained
from such a sample cannot necessarily be generalised to the general
population.
The use of SEM is an accepted data analysis technique in the
marketing literature (Steenkamp and Baumgartner, 2000; Chin et al.,
2008), however it does not come without its limitations. Of concern
is its usability beyond obtaining empirical models. A suggestion for
future research is to extend the findings of this study with different
data analysis techniques, such as conjoint analysis, in order to better
explain the results attained. Applying conjoint analysis to future
research could assist in identifying utility values across various
product categories such as FMCG and durable goods.
Such an approach was applied in a recent car branding study
since it reveals specific utility values for a brand, for example, price,
product features, warranties and also place of manufacturing/
assembly (Hamin et al., 2014). The results of this study confirmed
the hypothesised ethnocentrism in the emerging markets with a
strong preference for their own latecomer brands (Great Wall, Tata
and AvtoVAZ, respectively). Developed markets in contrast are more
sceptical of the Chinese, Indian and Russian car brands, but there is
nonetheless substantial potential, especially with consumers who
have previously bought latecomer brands from Asia.
In addition to conjoint analysis, future research should consider
further techniques of data analysis, such as formative and reflective
modelling in SEM. The issue of formative and reflective constructs in
SEM have become increasingly relevant to the literature (Jarvis et al.,
2003; Baumann et al., 2011). An investigation of SEM has deter-
mined that all constructs may not, in fact, be reflective, suggesting
that all models may not be suited to the traditional ‘reflective’
modelling approach taken in SEM. Therefore, the consideration of
formative constructs may be applicable to the model that is
developed and tested in this study. Such research could identify
better model fit, and promote better understanding and application
of observed and latent constructs, including opinion leadership.
While this study captures the average consumer situation for
everyday products, it falls short of explaining extreme cases where
consumers have experienced drastic disappointments, such as
being deceived or cheated (e.g. false or misleading claims about
the product). What the model does is that it captures the relative
30 C. Baumann et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 23 (2015) 21–31
strength of the predictors and mediators in relation to the depen-
dent variable. What it does not do, however, is splitting up the
strength of these associations into the dimensionalities of favour-
ability, uniqueness and simple strength, as suggested for brand
equity research by Keller (2001). Future research should investigate
these dimensions, and by doing so, explore how extreme cases
could also be covered.
7. Conclusion
This study distinguishes between an individual consumer's
exposure and experience, and how these impact brand recall. A
hypothetical model was developed and tested using SEM in two
product categories (durables and FMCG). This model explained the
role of exposure and experience on brand recall, mediated by
affectional drivers. The resulting models for the two types of goods
established that there are important differences between durables
and FMCGs. While experience was determined to be a driver of
brand recall for durables, exposure was identified to influence
brand recall for FMCGs. This distinction between both exposure
and experience, and between FMCGs and durable goods, while
initially surprising, can be attributed to the nature of the products
themselves.
Examining brand recall in the context of its affectional drivers is
a novel concept in the branding literature. Differentiating from
brand recall research, as characterised by memory and cognition,
the role of affectional drivers in brand recall, particularly when
distinguishing between FMCGs and durables, can be utilised to
predict brand recall. In addition, the inclusion of two product
categories provides a new perspective to the branding literature.
The findings presented here provide valuable insights for both
the automobile and shampoo industries. These practitioners
should be able to target marketing strategies more effectively to
increase the brand recall of their brands for potential consumers.
The fact that this study was performed using a population of first-
time car buyers is of particular significance to automobile manu-
facturers, as this consumer stage signifies the beginning of a
potential lifelong customer relationship with a brand. The results
will be useful to firms operating in both product categories to
identify what aspects of business are more important to improve
brand recall, as consumers' feelings prior to making a purchase are
generally not readily available to these firms.
This study has established the significant role of trust in med-
iating consumer's exposure and experience driving brand recall for
both durables and FMCG. The roles of other affectional drivers
(perceived brand image and self-image congruence) were not
found to be significant. Our study establishes key distinct differ-
ences between the brand recall of product categories, as well as
the mediating role of brand trust. The results of this study provide
a framework for a broader understanding of brand recall, and
therefore provide a basis for future brand recall research.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the kind guidance by
the editor, Professor Harry Timmermans, as well as the most
helpful input by the anonymous reviewers. It all made our paper
that much stronger.
References
Addis, M., Holbrook, M.B., 2001. On the conceptual link between mass customisa-
tion and experiential consumption: an explosion of subjectivity. Journal of
Consumer Behaviour 1 (1), 50–66.
Aggarwal, P., 2004. The effects of brand relationship norms on consumer attitudes
and behavior. J. Consum. Res. 31 (1), 87–101.
Alba, J.W., Chattopadhyay, A., 1985. Effects of context and part-category cues on
recall of competing brands. J. Mark. Res. 22 (3), 340–349.
Alba, J.W., Chattopadhyay, A., 1986. Salience effects in brand recall. J. Mark. Res. 23
(4), 363–369.
Alba, J.W., Hutchinson, J.W., 1987. Dimensions of consumer expertise. J. Consum.
Res. 13 (4), 411–454.
Anand, B.N., Ron, S., 2004. Brands as beacons: a new source of loyalty to
multiproduct firms. J. Mark. Res. 41 (2), 135–150.
Andaleeb, S.S., 1995. Dependence relations and the moderating role of trust:
implications for behavioral intentions in marketing channels. Int. J. Res. Mark.
12 (2), 157–172.
Andrade, E.B., Cohen, J.B., 2007. On the consumption of negative feelings. J. Consum.
Res. 34 (3), 283–300.
Arnott, D.C., 2007. Trust – current thinking and future research. Eur. J. Mark. 41 (9/10),
981–987.
Bagozzi, R.P., Gopinath, M., Nyer, P.U., 1999. The role of emotions in marketing.
J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 27 (2), 184–206.
Batra, R., Ray, M.L., 1986. Affective responses mediating acceptance of advertising.
J. Consum. Res. 13 (2), 234–249.
Batra, R., Homer, P.M., 2004. The situational impact of brand image beliefs.
J. Consum. Psychol. 14 (3), 318–330.
Baumann, C., Burton, S., Elliott, G., 2005. Determinants of customer loyalty and
share of wallet in retail banking. J. Financ. Serv. Mark. 9 (3), 231–248.
Baumann, C., Burton, S., Elliott, G., Kehr, H.M., 2007. Prediction of attitude and
behavioural intentions in retail banking. Int. J. Bank Mark. 25 (2), 102–116.
Baumann, C., Elliott, G., Hamin, H., 2011. Modelling customer loyalty in financial services:
a hybrid of formative and reflective constructs. Int. J. Bank Mark. 29 (3), 247–267.
Baumann, C., Hamin, H., 2014. Premium generic brand (PGB) choice vis-à-vis
generic and national brands: a scenario comparison for self-use, family
consumption and gift giving in a food versus non-food and cross-cultural
context. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 21 (4), 492–501.
Belk, R.W., 1988. Possessions and the extended self. J. Consum. Res. 15 (2), 139–168.
Belk, R.W., Wallendorf, M., Sherry Jr, J.F., 1989. The sacred and the profane in
consumer behavior: theodicy on the Odyssey. J. Consum. Res. 16 (1), 1–38.
Bell, S.J., 1999. Image and consumer attraction to intraurban retail areas: an
environmental psychology approach. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 6 (2), 67–78.
Bello, D., Leung, K., Radebaugh, L., Tung, R.L., van Witteloostuijn, A., 2009. From the editors:
student samples in international business research. J. Int. Bus. Stud., 40; , pp. 361–364.
Berger, J., Fitzsimons, G., 2008. Dogs on the street, pumas on your feet: how cues in the
environment influence product evaluation and choice. J. Mark. Res. 45 (1), 1–14.
Biel, A.L., 1992. How brand image drives brand equity. J. Advert. Res. 32 (6), RC-
6–RC-12.
Birdwell, A.E., 1968. A study of the influence of image congruence on consumer
choice. J. Bus. 41 (1), 76–88.
Bollen, K.A., 1989. Structural Equations with Latent Variables. Wiley, New York.
Bosnjak, M., Rudolph, N., 2008. Undesired self-image congruence in a low-
involvement product context. Eur. J. Mark. 42 (5/6), 702–712.
Bradley, M.M., Greenwald, M.K., Petry, M.C., Lang, P.C., 1992. Remembering
pictures: pleasure and arousal in memory. J. Exp. Psychol.: Learn. Mem. Cogn.
18 (2), 379.
Brakus, J.J., Schmitt, B.H., Zarantonello, L., 2009. Brand experience: what is it? How
is it measured? Does it affect loyalty?. J. Mark. 73 (3), 52–68.
Büschken, J., 2007. Determinants of brand advertising efficiency. J. Advert. 36 (3),
51–73.
Cahill, L., McGaugh, J.L., 1995. A novel demonstration of enhanced memory
associated with emotional arousal. Conscious. Cogn. 4 (4), 410–421.
Campbell, M.C., Keller, K.L., 2003. Brand familiarity and advertising repetition
effects. J. Consum. Res. 30 (2), 292–304.
Chaudhuri, A., Holbrook, M.B., 2001. The chain of effects from brand trust and brand
affect to brand performance: the role of brand loyalty. J. Mark. 65 (2), 81–93.
Chin, W.W., Peterson, R.A., Brown, S.P., 2008. Structural equation modeling in
marketing: some practical reminders. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 16 (4), 287–298.
Cowley, E., Mitchell, A.A., 2003. The moderating effect of product knowledge on the
learning and organization of product information. J. Consum. Res. 30 (3), 443–454.
Deegan Jr., J., 1978. On the occurrence of standardized regression coefficients
greater than one. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 38 (4), 873–888.
Delgado-Ballester, E., 2004. Applicability of a brand trust scale across product
categories: a multigroup invariance analysis. Eur. J. Mark. 38 (5/6), 573–592.
Delgado-Ballester, E., Munuera-Alemán, J.L., 2001. Brand trust in the context of
consumer loyalty. Eur. J. Mark. 35 (11/12), 1238–1258.
Delgado-Ballester, E., Munuera-Alemán, J.L., Yagüe-Guillén, M.J., 2003. Develop-
ment and validation of a brand trust scale. Int. J. Mark. Res. 45 (1), 35–53.
Delgado-Ballester, E., Navarro, A., Sicilia, M., 2012. Revitalising brands through commu-
nication messages: the role of brand familiarity. Eur. J. Mark. 46 (1/2), 31–51.
Dobni, D., Zinkhan, G.M., 1990. In search of brand image: a foundation analysis. Adv.
Consum. Res. 17 (1), 110–119.
Dolich, I.J., 1969. Congruence relationships between self images and product
brands. J. Mark. Res. 6 (1), 80–84.
Dyer, J.H., Chu, W., 2000. The determinants of trust in supplier-automaker relation-
ships in the US, Japan, and Korea. Journal of International Business Studies,
259–285.
Dyer, J., Chu, W., 2011. The determinants of trust in supplier–automaker relations in
the US, Japan, and Korea: A retrospective. Journal of International Business
Studies 42 (1), 28–34.
 C. Baumann et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 23 (2015) 21–31
Elliott, R., Wattanasuwan, K., 1998. Brands as symbolic resources for the construc-
tion of identity. Int. J. Advert. 17 (2), 131–144.
Esch, F.R., Langner, T., Schmitt, B.H., Geus, P., 2006. Are brands forever? How brand
knowledge and relationships affect current and future purchases. J. Prod. Brand
Manag. 15 (2), 98–105.
Escalas, J.E., Bettman, J.R., 2005. Self-construal, reference groups, and brand mean-
ing. J. Consum. Res. 32 (3), 378–389.
Faircloth, J.B., Capella, L.M., Alford, B.L., 2001. The effect of brand attitude and brand
image on brand equity. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 9 (3), 61–75.
Fang, X., Singh, S., Ahluwalia, R., 2007. An examination of different explanations for
the mere exposure effect. J. Consum. Res. 34 (1), 97–103.
Garbarino, E., Johnson, M.S., 1999. The different roles of satisfaction, trust, and
commitment in customer relationships. J. Mark. 63 (2), 70–87.
Gardner, B.B., Levy, S.J., 1955. The product and the brand. Harv. Bus. Rev. 33 (2),
33–39.
Gardner, M.P., 1983. Advertising effects on attributes recalled and criteria used for
brand evaluations. J. Consum. Res. 10 (3), 310–318.
Hamin, H., Baumann, C., Tung, R.L., 2014. Attenuating double jeopardy of negative
country of origin effects and latecomer brand: an application study of
ethnocentrism in emerging markets. Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist. 26 (1), 54–77.
Harris, L.C., Goode, M.M.H., 2004. The four levels of loyalty and the pivotal role of
trust: a study of online service dynamics. J. Retail. 80 (2), 139–158.
Häubl, G., 1996. A cross-national investigation of the effects of country of origin and
brand name on the evaluation of a new car. Int. Mark. Rev. 13 (5), 76–97.
Heath, R., Brandt, D., Nairn, A., 2006. Brand relationships: strengthened by emotion,
weakened by attention. J. Advert. Res. 46 (4), 410–419.
Heckler, S.E., Keller, K.L., Houston, M.J., Avery, J., 2012. Building brand knowledge
structures: Elaboration and interference effects on the processing of sequen-
tially advertised brand benefit claims. J. Mark. Commun. 1–21, (ahead-of-print).
Hirschman, E.C., Holbrook, M.B., 1982. Hedonic consumption: emerging concepts,
methods and propositions. J. Mark. 46 (3), 92–101.
Hiscock, J., 2001. Most trusted brands. Marketing 1, 32–33.
Holbrook, M.B., Batra, R., 1987. Assessing the role of emotions as mediators of
consumer responses to advertising. J. Consum. Res. 14 (3), 404–420.
Holden, S.J.S., Vanhuele, M., 1999. Know the name, forget the exposure: brand
familiarity versus memory of exposure context. Psychol. Mark. 16 (6), 479–496.
Hutchinson, J.W., 1983. Expertise and the structure of free recall. Adv. Consum. Res.
10 (1), 585–589.
Hutchinson, J.W., Raman, K., Mantrala, M.K., 1994. Finding choice alternatives in
memory: probability models of brand name recall. J. Mark. Res. 31 (4), 441–461.
Isen, A.M., 1987. Positive affect, cognitive processes, and social behaviour. Adv. Exp.
Soc. Psychol. 20, 203–253.
Jarvis, C.B., MacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, P.M., 2003. A critical review of construct
indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and con-
sumer research. J. Consum. Res. 30 (2), 199–218.
Johnson, D., Grayson, K., 2005. Cognitive and affective trust in service relationships.
J. Bus. Res. 58 (4), 500–507.
Keller, K.L., 1993. Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand
equity. J. Mark. 57 (1), 1–22.
Keller, K.L., 2001. (Working Paper Series). Building Customer-Based Brand Equity: A
Blueprint for Creating Strong Brands. Marketing Science Institute, Massachusetts,
pp. 15–19.
Keller, K.L., 2009. Building strong brands in a modern marketing communications
environment. J. Mark. Commun. 15 (2–3), 139–155.
Kent, R.J., Allen, C.T., 1994. Competitive interference effects in consumer memory
for advertising: the role of brand familiarity. J. Mark. 58 (3), 97–105.
Kline, R.B., 2010. Principles and practice of structural equation modelling. In: Kenny,
D.A., Little, T.D. (Eds.), Methodology in the Social Sciences, 3rd ed. The Guilford
Press, New York.
Korchia, M., 2006. Brand knowledge: definitions and measures. In: Proceedings
from the 32nd EMAC Conference, Athens, Greece.
Kressmann, F., Sirgy, M.J., Herrmann, A., Huber, F., Huber, S., Lee, D.J., 2006. Direct
and indirect effects of self-image congruence on brand loyalty. J. Bus. Res. 59
(9), 955–964.
Krishnan, H.S., 1996. Characteristics of memory associations: a consumer-based
brand equity perspective. Int. J. Res. Mark. 13 (4), 389–405.
Laros, F.J.M., Steenkamp, J.B.E.M., 2005. Emotions in consumer behavior: a hier-
archical approach. J. Bus. Res. 58 (10), 1437–1445.
Loken, B., 2006. Consumer psychology: categorization, inferences, affect, and
persuasion. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 57 (1), 453–485.
Mano, H., Oliver, R.L., 1993. Assessing the dimensionality and structure of the consump-
tion experience: evaluation, feeling, and satisfaction. J. Cons. Res. 20 (3), 451–466.
McAllister, D.J., 1995. Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for inter-
personal cooperation in organizations. Acad. Manag. J. 38 (1), 24–59.
Mikhailitchenko, A., Javalgi, R.G., Mikhailitchenko, G., Laroche, M., 2009. Cross-
cultural advertising communication: visual imagery, brand familiarity, and
brand recall. J. Bus. Res. 62 (10), 931–938.
31
Mirzaei, A., Gray, D., Baumann, C., 2011. Developing a new model for tracking brand
equity as a measure of marketing effectiveness. The Marketing Review 11 (4),
323–336.
Moorman, C., Zaltman, G., Deshpande, R., 1992. Relationships between providers
and users of market research: the dynamics of trust within and between
organizations. J. Mark. Res. 29 (3), 314–328.
Morgan, A., 2009. Eating the Big Fish: How Challenger Brands Can Compete Against
Brand Leaders. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey.
Morgan, R.M., Hunt, S.D., 1994. The commitment-trust theory of relationship
marketing. J. Mark. 58 (3), 20–38.
Mullainathan, S., 2002. A memory-based model of bounded rationality. Q. J. Econ.
117 (3), 735–774.
Muniz Jr., A.M., O’Guinn, T.C., 2001. Brand community. J. Consum. Res. 27 (4),
412–432.
Nedungadi, P., 1990. Recall and consumer consideration sets: influencing choice
without altering brand evaluations. J. Consum. Res. 17 (3), 263–276.
Nedungadi, P., Chattopadhyay, A., Muthukrishnan, A.V., 2001. Category structure,
brand recall, and choice. Int. J. Res. Mark. 18 (3), 191–202.
Oakenfull, G.K., McCarthy, M.S., 2010. Examining the relationship between brand
usage and brand knowledge structures. J. Brand Manag. 17 (4), 279–288.
Olney, T.J., Holbrook, M.B., Batra, R., 1991. Consumer responses to advertising: the
effects of ad content, emotions, and attitude toward the ad on viewing time.
J. Consum. Res. 17 (4), 440–453.
Park, C.W., Jaworski, B.J., MacInnis, D.J., 1986. Strategic brand concept-image
management. J. Mark. 50 (4), 135–145.
Park, C.W., Mothersbaugh, D.L., Feick, L., 1994. Consumer knowledge assessment. J.
Consum. Res. 21, 71–82.
Ravald, A., Grönroos, C., 1996. The value concept and relationship marketing. Eur. J.
Mark. 30 (2), 19–30.
Rossiter, J.R., Percy, L., 1991. Emotions and motivations in advertising. Adv. Consum.
Res. 18 (1), 100–110.
Russell, J.A., 2003. Core affect and the psychological construction of emotion.
Psychol. Rev. 110 (1), 145–172.
Schmitt, B.H., 2012. The consumer psychology of brands. J. Consum. Psychol. 22 (1),
7–17.
Selnes, F., Grønhaug, K., 1986. Subjective and objective measures of product
knowledge contrasted. In: Lutz, R.J. (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research, 13.
Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 67–71.
Shapiro, S., Krishnan, H.S., 2001. Memory-based measures for assessing advertising
effects: a comparison of explicit and implicit memory effects. J. Advert. 30 (3),
1–13.
Sirdeshmukh, D., Singh, J., Sabol, B., 2002. Consumer trust, value, and loyalty in
relational exchanges. J. Mark. 66 (1), 15–37.
Sirgy, M.J., 1982. Self-concept in consumer behavior: a critical review. J. Consum.
Res. 9 (3), 287–300.
Sirgy, M.J., Grewal, D., Mangleburg, T.F., Park, J.O., Kye-Sung, C., Claiborne, C.B.,
Johar, J.S., Berkman, H., 1997. Assessing the predictive validity of two methods
of measuring self-image congruence. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 25 (3), 229.
Solomon, M.R., 1983. The role of products as social stimuli: a symbolic interaction-
ism perspective. J. Consum. Res. 10 (3), 319–329.
Steenkamp, J.E.M., Baumgartner, H., 2000. On the use of structural equation models
for marketing modelling. Int. J. Res. Mark. 17 (2–3), 195–202.
Swait, J., Erdem, T., Louviere, J., Dubelaar, C., 1993. The equalization price: a measure
of consumer-perceived brand equity. Int. J. Res. Mark. 10 (1), 23–45.
Valls, J.F., Andrade, M.J., Arribas, R., 2011. Consumer attitudes towards brands in
times of great price sensitivity: four case studies. Innov. Mark. 7 (2), 60–70.
Venkatesan, R., Kumar, V., 2004. A customer lifetime value framework for customer
selection and resource allocation strategy. J. Mark. 68 (4), 106–125.
Vieceli, J., Shaw, R.N., 2010. Brand salience for fast-moving consumer goods: an
empirically based model. J. Mark. Manag. 26 (13–14), 1218–1238.
Walsh, G., Hennig-Thurau, T., Sassenberg, K., Bornemann, D., 2010. Does relation-
ship quality matter in e-services? A comparison of online and offline retailing. J.
Retail. Consum. Serv. 17 (2), 130–142.
Warlop, L., Ratneshwar, S., van Osselaer, S.M.J., 2005. Distinctive brand cues and
memory for product consumption experiences. Int. J. Res. Mark. 22 (1), 27–44.
Wright, A.A., Lynch Jr, J.G., 1995. Communication effects of advertising versus direct
experience when both search and experience attributes are present. J. Consum.
Res. 21, 708–718.
Yoo, B., Donthu, N., 2001. Developing and validating a multidimensional consumer-
based brand equity scale. J. Bus. Res. 52 (1), 1–14.
Zajonc, R.B., 1980. Feeling and thinking: preferences need no inferences. Am.
Psychol. 35 (2), 151–175.
Zaichkowsky, J.L., 1985. Measuring the involvement construct. J. Consum. Res.,
341–352.