Machine Translated by Google

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

article info abstract. abstract

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

As consumers are increasingly inundated with marketing
communication messages, recent studies have emphasized 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 exactly this gap.
There is quite a considerable 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
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 has 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 experience.
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).

n
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: chris.baumann@mq.edu.au (C. Baumann). Brand recall is “a consumer's ability to retrieve [a] brand when given
Visiting Prof. at Seoul National University (SNU), Seoul, South Korea.
first

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.
Machine Translated by Google
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 characterized 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 behavior 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 affectionate 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 subsequently hypothesized 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 involvement-ment products. While it
can be seen as a limitation to have only two products, intentionally two
different product categories were chosen to represent very different
consumer behavior processes (shampoo representing a cheap, fast
purchase process with low research, in contrast to cars that are
expensive, with long purchasing 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 divided into three affectionate drivers:
perceived brand image, self-image congruence and trust.
The disregard of evaluating brands purely on a cognitive or
objective basis in the fact that it lies overlooking 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
affectionate 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 affectionate 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 emotional
attachment, and by the very logic, the stronger our brand recalls.
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 dependent upon
both cognitive and affective functions (Hirschman and Holbrook, 1982;
Laros and Steenkamp, 2005), it is also important to examine the
'affective drivers' (a term coined in this study) of brand recall. recall.
Marketing theory dictates that exposure and experience influ-ence
the information that consumers gain about brands, depending on
consumers' feelings about brands. Although the terms 'emotion' and
'affect' (affect) 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 'affect' (using the definition stated above) will be
used henceforward in this study.
Zajonc (1980) argues 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 (ie, cognitive)
features of memory (as they are the fundamental objects and cues
remembered), Zajonc's study (1980) demonstrates 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 (eg, advertising) evokes some forms 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 effects for the brand
(Schmitt, 2012; Andrade and Cohen, 2007).
The mediating nature of affection in brand recall can be measured
using three affectionate 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 individuals
Machine Translated by Google
C. Baumann et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 23 (2015) 21–31
consumers. Gardner and Levy's (1955) original conceptualization 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
affectionate 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 image for an individual
consumer. 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 successful factor in the development of
any 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
organizational behavior (McAllister, 1995; Johnson and Grayson, 2005).
In addition, some researchers have relayed the intensity of affection
towards held 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 affectionate drivers (brand image, self-image congruence and trust), which in turn influence brand recall. All relationships are hypothesized 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
affectionate drivers (ie, 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.
Machine Translated by Google
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, affectionate 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 affectionate 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 affectionate
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 focuses on
the affectionate drivers of brand recall, the brands that were recalled
in these questions were not of particular interest; the focus on the
affectionate drivers of brand recall necessitated an individualistic
approach to the questionnaire (ie, 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 form 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 (eg, 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 operationalization (1993) and was tested via six
questions used to determine the respondents' 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 (eg, “I like the people who use Brand 1”) as well
as to reflective measures of brand image (eg, “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 (eg, 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 recall 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 yield values greater than 0.7 for all variables,
indicating that such consistency and reliability were 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 significant 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 meets the assumptions required for structural equation
models (SEM). After these checks were com-pleted, the final usable
sample contained 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-
sized 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 facilitate
a comparison of tests of the models using data generated for both
FMGCs and durables. SEM allows the simultaneous testing of
multiple types of variables (Kline, 2010), and it is also fuel efficient.
Its combination of statistical techniques (eg, 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 achieving 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,
Machine Translated by Google

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 created
clear in the questionnaire.
1. I think of Brand 1 often.
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 (eg 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
(ie 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-Ballester
2. If Brand 1 makes a claim or promise about its products,
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 consensus and brand trust were closed
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 indicates 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 indicate that self-image
congruence was not significantly significant (ÿ2¼0.041, p¼0.980,
df¼2; and ÿ2¼4.951, p¼0.084, df¼2, for durables and FMCGs,
respectively). Brand trust was also not significant (ÿ2¼5.661,
p¼0.129, df¼3; and ÿ2¼2.246, p¼0.691, df¼4, 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 fits
is acceptable for both models.
In sum, the assessment of all variables in the CFA for both the
FMCGs and durable goods models shown acceptable fit. As the
factors were confirmed, overall models for both types of goods
Machine Translated by Google

26 C. Baumann et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 23 (2015) 21–31

were subsequently assessed via regression weights were deter-mined.
The results have been integrated in Figs. 2 and 3, which
depict the paths between the variables in the models.
For durable goods, experience has a highly significant and
positive relationship with the three affectionate drivers, whereas
the only significant association found between exposure and the
affectionate drivers were between exposure and self-image congru-ence
(Fig. 2). Brand trust was the only affectionate driver found to
significantly predict brand recall. Perceived brand image and brand
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-dardized
estimates greater than 1.0. While such findings can
indicates that there is an error in the data, Deegan (1978) states
that they can instead be attributed to multicolinearity. In such
instances, he advises against model modification because multi-colinearity
causes no bias in estimated coefficients, and could lead
to worse scenarios, such as model specification errors and biased
coefficient estimates.
In contrast to the durable goods model, exposure, rather than
experience, had a significant influence on the emotional drivers in
the FMCGs model (Fig. 3). There were no significant associations
between experience and the affectionate drivers, with the exception
of brand trust. This relationship, however, shows a negative trend.
As with the durable goods model, there was a significant positive
relationship between brand trust and brand recall.
Overall, the extent that the model explains brand recall was
lower for FMCGs than for durable goods (Table 4). Exposure and
Table 3
Durable goods (automobiles) and FMCGs (shampoo) overall model fit indices. Cut-off points are
as per Jarvis et al. (2003) and Bollen (1989).
Fit indices
Durable goods FMCGs
ÿ2 203.278, (po0.001) 122 213,409 (po0.001) 122
df
ÿ2 /df 1.666 1.749
SRMR 0.057 0.048
RMSEA 0.055 0.059
GFI 0.908 0.901
NFI 0.919 0.919
CFI 0.965 0.963
experience explains roughly 39% of brand trust (R2¼0.389) for the
durable goods model, and both perceived brand image and self-image
congruence were found to have R2¼1. Overall, the model
was found to explain 66% of brand recall (R2¼0.658). The FMCGs
model explains roughly 51% of brand recall (R2¼0.509) (Table 4).
Fifty-four per cent of brand trust can be explained by exposure and
experience. experience. However, these variables explain roughly 79% of
per-received brand image (R2¼0.785), and 84% of self-image congruence
(R2¼0.843) in the FMCGs model.
6. Discussion
The purpose of this study was to examine the role of exposure
and experience on brand recall, mediated by three affectionateal
drivers: perceived brand image, self-image congruence and brand
trust. It was overall hypothesized that perceived brand image, self-image
congruence and brand trust significantly mediate the relationship between
brand recall and exposure, and between brand
recall and experience, for both FMGCs and durable goods.
Specific hypotheses were assessed based on their mediation
associations between exposure and experience, and brand recall.
Only where experience or exposure were mediated by one of the
three affectionate drivers in their association with brand recall were
the hypothesis considered supported. Six hypotheses were supported, as
presented in Table 5a. Only Hypothesis M1 had to be
fully rejected.
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
recall for durable goods, mediated by all three affectionate drivers.
This is so because for high involvement products such as cars, also
consumer electronics, and likely also luxury items, consumers
Cut-off points
form an affection based on trust, self-image congruence and
brand image based on their actual experience with the product,
rather than via advertising exposure. At the same time, for non-durable
goods, or FMCG, exposure was found to be a key driver
small, p40.05
brand recall, but only mediated via brand trust. This is so because
r5 for shampoo, and other personal care products such as toothpaste,
o0.08 and tissue paper, clearly consumers do not form their attitude in
r0.05 comply with their self-image because these products are not
40,900
directly related to the personality of the buyer. However because
40,900
40,950
there could be a convergence of such commodified products,
consumers form trust to the brand based on media exposure such

Fig. 2. Brand recall durable goods model.

Machine Translated by Google
C. Baumann et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 23 (2015) 21–31
Table 4
R2 values for variables in the durable goods and FMCG models.
Variable FMCGs
Durable goods
Brand trust 0.388 0.544 Hypoth-esis P8 had to be fully rejected (Table 5b).
Perceived brand image 0.785
Self-image congruence 0.843
Brand recall 1 1 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. Perhaps, the trend between
self-image congruence and brand recall for durables is a negative
one.
The critical affectionateal driver identified in this study is brand Rudolph (2008) show that consumers can have undesired self-
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. feels they identify with a brand, this identification could be undesired
The importance of trust is recognized by Hiscock (2001), p. 1, who
argues that “the ultimate goal of marketing is to create 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 (eg, 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 hypothesized associations
between affectionate drivers and brand recall. The use of automobiles impact of self-congruity.
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; Belk
27
Fig. 3. Brand recall FMCG model.
In order to gain a more comprehensive 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
A pattern emerged in FMCG where exposure partially affects all
three affectionate drivers, whereas experience partially affects all
three affectionate drivers for durable goods. For FMCG only brand
trust is significant but for durables, all three affectionate 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
image congruence, which leads to attitude formation and further
translates into behavior. It could be inferred that although a consumer
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
A second possible explanation for the negative association
between self-image congruence and brand recall can be drawn from
Büschken, 2007).examination of sacred objects. In this study,
et al. (1989)
Machine Translated by Google

28 C. Baumann et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 23 (2015) 21–31

Table 5a
Results of structural equation modeling for two product categories- 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 denots hypotheses regarding mediated relationships.

Table 5b
Results of structural equation modeling 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 denots hypotheses regarding partial relationships.

sacred objects (or treasures) 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. Print taking
measures to protect these objects (or brands) consumers garment, print
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 recalling 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 products
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 wish 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 theoretical purposes
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 analyzes them
separately, thereby making three contributions to the current state
of knowledge.
The first contribution to the marketing literature is the distinction between
exposure and experience and their associations with
affectionate drivers. Positive significant associations between experience 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
different from the marketing literature, which essentially categorises
exposure and experience in the same construct (ie, that of 'brand
familiar', or 'indirect and direct experience') (Kent and Allen, 1994;
Holden and Vanhuele, 1999; Mikhailitchenko et al., 2009). The results
indicates 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 emotional impacts
drivers of brand recall. For durable goods, experience is the key
driving factor in brand recall, which is mediated by affection (or
affectionate drivers); while for FMCG, exposure is the most significant
influence on brand recall.
The third contribution is in relation to the importance of affective drivers in
brand recall. Cognition is well established in brand
recall research, specifically, 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 choice based 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 emotions. Despite not having compared
Both affective and cognitive drivers of brand recall, our study focused
on affection and has now established its importance in explanations
brand recall. Future research could therefore incorporate both dim-
Machine Translated by Google
C. Baumann et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 23 (2015) 21–31
ensions in one model to gain a more comprehensive view of brand recall.
Notwithstanding its centrality to consumer behavior, determine or predict
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 emotions in one
way or another, for example with affect mediating consumer behavior 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
notwithstanding challenge, 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.
Contrast exposure was found to be a significant factor for FMCG, yet not
for durable goods. The differences in the models can 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 through personal
usage. The importance of experience is currently recognized 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 increase consumers' experience with their brands, rather
than increase exposure through extensive advertising expenditure.
Despite advertising expenditures aimed at increasing brand image 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 consequently 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 (eg social acceptance from a luxury car) and our
study reflects this notion given that brand trust is the only affectionate
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 contributes 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 generalization 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 actual 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 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 generalizations about the larger population.
The present study used a student sample to examine brand recall.
Although this demographic was highly appropriate (ie, in the context of
first-time automobile buyers) the results obtained from such a sample
cannot necessarily be generalized 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
concluding results. 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
revealed specific utility values for a brand, for example, price, product
features, specifications and also place of manufacturing/ assembly
(Hamin et al., 2014). The results of this study confirm the hypothesized
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 speculative of the Chinese,
Indian and Russian car brands, but there is still considerable 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 modeling in
SEM. The issue of formative and reflective constructs in SEM has
become increasingly relevant to the literature (Jarvis et al., 2003;
Baumann et al., 2011). An investigation of SEM has determined that all
constructs may not, in fact, be reflective, suggesting that all models may
not be suited to the traditional 'reflective' modeling 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 (eg false or misleading claims about the product). What the
model does is that it captures the relative
Machine Translated by Google
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 dependent variable. What
it does not do, however, is splitting up the strength of these associations into the
dimensions of favor-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
explains the role of exposure and experience on brand recall, mediated by
affectionate 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 affectionate drivers is a novel concept
in the branding literature. Differentiating from brand recall research, as characterized
by memory and cognition, the role of affectionateal drivers in brand recall, particularly
when distinguishing between FMCGs and durables, can be utilized 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 affectionate drivers (perceived brand image and self-image congruence)
were not found to be significant. Our study establishes key distinct differences
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.
Acknowledgments
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 reviewer. It
all made our paper that much stronger.
References
Addis, M., Holbrook, MB, 2001. On the conceptual link between mass customisa- tion and
experiential consumption: an explosion of subjectivity. Journal of Consumer Behavior 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, JW, Hutchinson, JW, 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, SS, 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, EB, Cohen, JB, 2007. On the consumption of negative feelings. J. Consum.
Res. 34 (3), 283–300.
Arnott, DC, 2007. Trust – current thinking and future research. Eur. J. Mark. 41 (9/10),
981–987.
Bagozzi, R.P., Gopinath, M., Nyer, PU, 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, HM, 2007. Prediction of attitude and behavioral
intentions in retail banking. Int. J. Bank Mark. 25 (2), 102–116.
Baumann, C., Elliott, G., Hamin, H., 2011. Modeling 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, RW, 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 profession in consumer
behavior: theodicy on the Odyssey. J. Consum. Res. 16 (1), 1–38.
Bell, SJ, 1999. Image and consumer attraction to intraurban retail areas: an environmental
psychological 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, AL, 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 consumption
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, MM, Greenwald, MK, Petry, MC, Lang, PC, 1992. Remembering pictures: pleasure
and arousal in memory. J. Exp. Psychol.: Learn. Mem. Cogn. 18 (2), 379.
Brakus, JJ, Schmitt, BH, 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, JL, 1995. A novel demonstration of enhanced memory associated with
emotional arousal. Conscious. Cogn. 4 (4), 410–421.
Campbell, MC, Keller, KL, 2003. Brand familiarization 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, WW, Peterson, RA, Brown, SP, 2008. Structural equation modeling in marketing: some
practical reminders. J. Mark. Theory Practice. 16 (4), 287–298.
Cowley, E., Mitchell, AA, 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, JL, 2001. Brand trust in the context of
consumer loyalty. Eur. J. Mark. 35 (December 11), 1238–1258.
Delgado-Ballester, E., Munuera-Alemán, JL, Yagüe-Guillén, MJ, 2003. Development and
validation of a brand trust scale. Int. J. Mark. Res. 45 (1), 35–53.
Delgado-Ballester, E., Navarro, A., Sicilia, M., 2012. Revitalizing brands through communication
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, IJ, 1969. Congruence relationships between self images and product brands. J. Mark.
Res. 6 (1), 80–84.
Dyer, JH, Chu, W., 2000. The determinants of trust in supplier-automaker relations- 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.
Machine Translated by Google
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 construct
tion of identity. Int. J.Advert. 17 (2), 131–144.
Esch, FR, Langner, T., Schmitt, BH, Geus, P., 2006. Are brands forever? How brand knowledge and
relationships affect current and future purchases. J. Prod. BrandManag . 15 (2), 98–105.
Escalas, JE, Bettman, JR, 2005. Self-construal, reference groups, and brand mean- ing. J. Consum.
Res. 32 (3), 378–389.
Faircloth, JB, Capella, LM, Alford, BL, 2001. The effect of brand attitude and brand image on brand
equity. J. Mark. Theory Practice. 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, MS, 1999. The different roles of satisfaction, trust, and commitment in customer
relationships. J. Mark. 63 (2), 70–87.
Gardner, BB, Levy, SJ, 1955. The product and the brand. Harv. Bus. Rev. 33 (2),
33–39.
Gardner, MP, 1983. Advertising effects on attributes recall 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 applied study of ethnocentrism in emerging markets. Asia Pac. J.
Mark. Logist. 26 (1), 54–77.
Harris, LC, Goode, MMH, 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, SE, Keller, KL, Houston, MJ, Avery, J., 2012. Building brand knowledge structures: Elaboration
and interference effects on the processing of sequentially advertised brand benefit claims. J. Mark.
Commun. 1–21, (ahead-of-print).
Hirschman, EC, Holbrook, MB, 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, MK, 1994. Finding choice alternatives in memory: probability
models of brand name recall. J. Mark. Res. 31 (4), 441–461.
Isen, AM, 1987. Positive affect, cognitive processes, and social behavior. Adv. Exp.
Soc. Psychol. 20, 203–253.
Jarvis, CB, MacKenzie, SB, Podsakoff, PM, 2003. A critical review of construct indicators and measuring
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, KL, 1993. Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brands
equity. equity. J. Mark. 57 (1), 1–22.
Keller, KL, 2001. (Working Paper Series). Building Customer-Based Brand Equity: A Blueprint for
Creating Strong Brands. Marketing Science Institute, Massachusetts, pp. 15–19.
Keller, KL, 2009. Building strong brands in a modern marketing communications environment. J. Mark.
Commun. 15 (2–3), 139–155.
Kent, RJ, Allen, CT, 1994. Competitive interference effects in consumer memory for advertising: the role
of brand familiarity. J. Mark. 58 (3), 97–105.
Kline, RB, 2010. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. In: Kenny, DA, Little, TD (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, MJ, Herrmann, A., Huber, F., Huber, S., Lee, DJ, 2006. Direct and indirect effects
of self-image congruence on brand loyalty. J. Bus. Res. 59 (9), 955–964.
Krishnan, HS, 1996. Characteristics of memory associations: a consumer-based
brand equity perspective. Int. J. Res. Mark. 13 (4), 389–405.
Laros, FJM, Steenkamp, JBEM, 2005. Emotions in consumer behavior: a hierarchical 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, DJ, 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.
thirty first
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, RM, Hunt, SD, 1994. The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. J. Mark. 58 (3),
20–38.
Mullainathan, S., 2002. A memory-based model of bounded rationality. QJ Econ. 117 (3), 735–774.
Muniz Jr., AM, O'Guinn, TC, 2001. Brand communities. J. Consum. Res. 27 (4),
412–432.
Nedungadi, P., 1990. Recall and consumer consideration sets: considering 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, GK, McCarthy, MS, 2010. Examining the relationship between brand usage and brand
knowledge structures. J. Brand Manag. 17 (4), 279–288.
Olney, TJ, Holbrook, MB, Batra, R., 1991. Consumer responses to advertising: the effects of ad content,
emotions, and attitudes toward the ad on viewing time.
J. Consum. Res. 17 (4), 440–453.
Park, CW, Jaworski, BJ, MacInnis, DJ, 1986. Strategic brand concept-image
management. J. Mark. 50 (4), 135–145.
Park, CW, 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, JA, 2003. Core affect and the psychological construction of emotion.
Psychol. Rev. 110 (1), 145–172.
Schmitt, BH, 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, RJ (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research, 13.
Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 67–71.
Shapiro, S., Krishnan, HS, 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, MJ, 1982. Self-concept in consumer behavior: a critical review. J. Consum.
Res. 9 (3), 287–300.
Sirgy, MJ, Grewal, D., Mangleburg, TF, Park, JO, Kye-Sung, C., Claiborne, CB, Johar, JS, Berkman, H.,
1997. Assessing the predictive validity of two methods of measuring self- image congruence. J.
Acad. Mark. Sci. 25 (3), 229.
Solomon, MR, 1983. The role of products as social stimuli: a symbolic interaction- ism perspective. J.
Consum. Res. 10 (3), 319–329.
Steenkamp, JEM, Baumgartner, H., 2000. On the use of structural equation models for marketing
modeling. 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, JF, Andrade, MJ, 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, RN, 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, SMJ, 2005. Distinctive brand cues and memory for product
consumption experiences. Int. J. Res. Mark. 22 (1), 27–44.
Wright, AA, Lynch Jr, JG, 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, RB, 1980. Feeling and thinking: preferences need no inferences. Am.
Psychol. 35 (2), 151–175.
Zaichkowsky, JL, 1985. Measuring the involvement construct. J. Consum. Res.,
341–352.