Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management

ISSN: 1936-8623 (Print) 1936-8631 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/whmm20

Impact of brand experience on loyalty

Chuan Huat Ong, Heng Wei Lee & T. Ramayah

To cite this article: Chuan Huat Ong, Heng Wei Lee & T. Ramayah (2018) Impact of brand
experience on loyalty, Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 27:7, 755-774, DOI:
10.1080/19368623.2018.1445055

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2018.1445055

Published online: 01 Mar 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 5001

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 8 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=whmm20
JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY MARKETING & MANAGEMENT
2018, VOL. 27, NO. 7, 755–774
https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2018.1445055

Impact of brand experience on loyalty

a
Chuan Huat Ong , Heng Wei Leea and T. Ramayahb
a
School of Business, KDU Penang University College, Georgetown, Penang, Malaysia; bSchool of Management,
Universiti Sains Malaysia, Gelugor, Penang, Malaysia

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Economic value has moved beyond delivering quality services to Brand experience;
include distinctive brand experiences. Brand experiences are vital in customer’s brand loyalty;
developing brand loyalty and achieving business sustainability. word of mouth; willingness
Business performance, in particular, is influenced by customer loyalty to pay more; repurchase
intentions; restaurant
directly through purchase behavior, as well as indirectly through
industry
attitude towards a brand. Customers may encounter different types
of experience with a brand through sensation, affection, behavior,
and intellect. Hence, this paper seeks to determine the relationships
between each component of brand experience and customers’ true
brand loyalties. Customers revisiting successful SMEs in the restau-
rant industry provided 228 units of feedback for this study. Findings
revealed that different types of brand experience influence each
customer’s true brand loyalty differently. Managerial implications
are addressed in the discussion section.

摘要
经济价值已经超越了提供优质服务，包括与众不同的品牌体验。品
牌体验对于发展品牌忠诚度和实现业务可持续性至关重要。商业表
现尤其是通过购买行为直接影响顾客忠诚，也间接地通过对品牌的
态度来影响顾客忠诚。顾客可能会通过感觉、感情、行为和智力对
品牌产生不同的体验。因此，本文试图确定品牌体验的各个组成部
分与顾客真正品牌忠诚之间的关系。顾客重新体验餐饮业的成功中
小企业提供了228个反馈单元。 研究结果表明，不同品牌体验对顾
客真实品牌忠诚的影响不同。讨论部分讨论了管理问题。

Introduction
We all remember when where birthday celebrations were special events we looked forward
to because they were a time to dine out as a family. Eating out was not common at that
time and left us with unique and lasting experiences. However, the days are gone when
consumers tended to visit a restaurant only to celebrate special occasions. Now, dining out
has become a casual lifestyle of today’s consumer behavior globally. In particular, Malaysia
exceeds the global average of diners dining out at least once a day (Nielsen, 2016).
Subsequently, the current trend of casual dining out has contributed towards increasing
numbers of restaurant establishments worldwide. Customers are no longer only seeking
tangible benefits, but also intangible benefits such as unique experiences in their purchase

CONTACT Chuan Huat Ong koch2u@gmail.com School of Business, KDU Penang University College, Georgetown,
Penang, Malaysia
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/whmm.
© 2018 Taylor & Francis
756 C. H. ONG ET AL.

(Morrison & Crane, 2007; Zarantonello & Schmitt, 2010). As a result, competition has
expanded from simply providing functional value through delivering quality services,
price, or food quality, to providing symbolic value such as unique dining experience.
Research in the restaurant industry has investigated numerous factors such as price,
food quality, service quality, atmosphere, and experience (Basri, Ahmad, Anuar, & Ismail,
2016; Han & Ryu, 2009; Jin, Lee, & Huffman, 2012; Polyorat & Sophonsiri, 2010). Most
such studies are motivated to understand the factors of value creation which are attractive
to improve the restaurant business either through purchase intention, customer retention,
word of mouth, or willingness to pay more. This is in line with the contention proposed
by prominent scholar Reichheld (1996), who claimed that superior value creation is vital
for a business to achieve better profits for sustainable business performance through
customer loyalty.
However, there is a dearth of studies measuring brand experience as compared to
customer experience in the hospitality industry. In support, a meta-analysis of research
conducted in the hospitality industry revealed fewer studies emphasize brand manage-
ment, in favor of consumer behavior, customer relationship management (CRM), pricing,
and service management (Yoo, Lee, & Bai, 2011). Customer experience research in the
restaurant industry typically measures experience with the environment, food quality, and
price fairness (Ali, Amin, & Cobanoglu, 2016; Jin et al., 2012). This implies that studies on
customer experience in the restaurant industry have largely ignored the fact that experi-
ence may also derive from sensation, affection, behavioral, and intellectual from the
perspective of branding (Brakus, Schmitt, & Zarantonello, 2009).
Brand experience measures the strength of each experience dimension evoked by the
brand, as compared to the specific experiences which are measured in studies of customer
experience. It is important to measure experience based on the brand rather than solely on
the customer perspective because a unique brand experience will serve as a sustainable
competitive advantage in the restaurant industry (Aaker, 1989; Ong, Salleh, & Yusoff,
2015a). In addition, Schmitt (2009) also encouraged more research to understand how
consumer experience a brand. Review of literature shows that the number of studies on
brand experience is higher in the western countries compared to the eastern side. Different
behaviors between western and eastern consumers further supported the demand for such
investigation to be conducted in Malaysia (Kandampully, Zhang, & Bilgihan, 2015).
Studies by Ong et al. (2015a, 2015b) on brand experience in the foodservice industry
had also overlooked the distinct effects of each dimension on loyalty. Industry report had
also reinforced the importance associating customer experience with values to improve
business performance (McKinsey & Company, 2016). Besides, brand experience had a
positive association with loyalty where the latter leads to profit (Brakus et al., 2009;
Ramaseshan & Stein, 2014; Reichheld & Sasser, 1990).
Following the points presented, this study’s objective is to construct a loyalty model
which emphasizes on symbolic factors such as experience as a value creation rather than
only focusing on the functional factor as a strategy. Hence, this study posits that it is
important to learn the type of experience that matters to dimensions of loyal customers
with the aim of understanding behavior in consumption. In order to bridge the differences
between literature and practical issues, this research will investigate the relationships
between each component of brand experience on customer’s brand loyalty. Particularly,
this research aims to understand (1) how sensory experience affects dimensions of
 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY MARKETING & MANAGEMENT 757

customer’s brand loyalty; (2) how affective experience affects dimensions of customer
brand loyalty; (3) how behavioral experience affect dimensions of customer brand loyalty;
and (4) how intellectual experience affect dimensions of customer brand loyalty.
This model is supported by the theory of value creation proposed by Reichheld (1996).
This theory contended that superior value creation is vital for a business to achieve better
profits for sustainable business performance through customer loyalty. Hogarth-Scott,
Watson, and Wilson (1996) suggested avoiding using complicated brand equity theory
for studies related to SMEs. Hence, this theory is deemed suitable given that the result is
obtained from the perception of customers in restaurant industry focusing on well
renowned SMEs.
The empirical evidence from this study will expand the current literature of SMEs,
branding, and hospitality in two ways. First, the results from this study will help expand
knowledge of brand experience as an engine for value creation in the restaurant industry
implemented by renowned SMEs. The results will particularly provide empirical support
for the correlation between the constructs from the context of the Asia-Pacific region.
Notably, the results are derived from loyal Malaysian customers who are regarded as one
of the top restaurant patrons in the Asia-Pacific region (Nielsen, 2016). Secondly, this
model will provide clearer insight into the importance of each brand experience compo-
nents in the exchange process between customer-brand relationships as highlighted by
Bagozzi (1975). From a practical view, the result could be applied by SMEs restaurant
managers, given that the results derive from successful SME restaurant brands. Thus, the
findings will serve as a clearer road map for managers to implement brand experience as a
strategy to win customers’ brand loyalty in the restaurant.

Literature review
Customer’s brand loyalty
Customers’ brand loyalty is crucial in the restaurant industry for sustainability. Loyal
customers are prerequisite to acquire strong customer base and higher market share for a
business (Aaker, 1996; Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001). This comes to no surprise, as most
studies in the restaurant industry aim to understand the predictors which serve as a value
to earn customer loyalty (Yoo et al., 2011). Despite this, customers’ brand loyalty is vitally
important to be studied.
Generally, customer loyalty is a type of loyalty for which the main concern of a business
is to help customers save money. To generate customer loyalty, a company usually focuses
on value saving and benefits, such as redeemable points, discounts, free items, coupons,
and special treatment for members through loyalty programs (Bridson, Evans, &
Hickman, 2008; Dowling & Uncles, 1997; Sharp & Sharp, 1997; Yi & Jeon, 2003).
However, loyalty programs are not always a success (Dowling & Uncles, 1997; Oliver,
1999; Yi & Jeon, 2003). The short-term benefits of a loyalty program will lead to liabilities
for a business (Shugan, 2005). According to Dowling and Uncles (1997), these benefits
may even become unattractive should an instant price reduction move be performed by a
competitor. In other words, customer loyalty formed through value saving in a loyalty
program is not sustainable, because customers in such program are more concerned with
758 C. H. ONG ET AL.

saving money. Hence, they are likely to defect quickly to another alternative perceived to
enjoy a better value offered by competitors.
On the other hand, brand loyalty is loyalty formed with nothing except for the brand
itself. According to Shugan (2005), a good way to create loyal customer is to make them
an asset through brand attachment. Similarly, Aaker (1996) contended that brand loyalty,
a vital element in brand equity, is regarded as one of the important measures for a
business marketing strategy success. Brand-loyal customers do not mind paying more
because they believe competing brands will never offer the unique value they are receiving
from their loyal brand (Aaker, 1996; Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001; Fullerton, 2003;
Rauyruen, Miller, & Groth, 2009; Zeithaml, Berry, & Parasuraman, 1996). Meta-analysis
of research conducted in the hospitality industry has also revealed that the ratio of studies
emphasizing on brand management (i.e., brand loyalty) is lower as compared to consumer
behavior (i.e., customer loyalty) (Yoo et al., 2011). Hence, loyalty in the present study is
conceptualized as customers’ brand loyalty rather than customer loyalty.
It is also notable that there seems to be no consensus among scholars as to what
constitutes brand loyalty (Pan, Sheng, & Xie, 2012). Despite that, it is important to employ
a multi-dimensional method to measure customers’ true brand loyalty (Day, 1969; Jacoby
& Kyner, 1973). A meta-analysis from the study of Pan et al. (2012) further supports this
idea by encouraging to include both attitudinal and behavioral aspect in measuring
customer’s true brand loyalty in order to gain a better insight of customer loyalty.
Review of the literature shows that loyalty has been measured differently by researchers
in the restaurant industry. Some researchers ignore the multi-dimensional method in
measuring customers’ brand loyalty by measuring loyalty solely from either the attitudinal
or behavioral perspective (Jin et al., 2012). Meanwhile, others have measured from both
attitudinal and behavioral perspective (Han & Ryu, 2009; Ong et al., 2015a).
Willingness to pay more (WPM), word of mouth (WOM), and repurchase intentions
(RI) are how brand loyalty is commonly being measured (Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001;
Fullerton, 2003; Lin, 2010; Ong et al., 2015a; Zeithaml et al., 1996; Zhang & Bloemer,
2008). Specifically, WOM and WPM are categorized under attitudinal loyalty, while RI is
categorized under behavioral loyalty. However, most studies measure loyalty as a single
component rather than a separate component consisting of WOM, WPM, and RI. This
study argues that the insight gained for revenue management will be much richer if
studies were to measure loyalty for its individual components separately. Scholars have
similarly expressed the need for such investigation (Kandampully et al. (2015). Following
this, brand loyalty in this study will be measured in terms of both the attitudinal and
behavioral aspects. In particular, a customer’s true brand loyalty in this study is measured
in terms of separate components of WOM, WPM, and RI in order to deepen our under-
standing of both academic and managerial interest.

Brand experience
Customer experience in a restaurant is crucial to influence their future return visit
(Mohamed & Musa, 2012). Moreover, customers in the marketplace are no longer only
seeking functional values but also symbolic values (Walter, Cleff, & Chu, 2013). The
subjectivity and uniqueness of an experience can serve as a sustainable competitive tool
for a restaurant. Aaker (1996) argued that competitive advantages which are difficult to
 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY MARKETING & MANAGEMENT 759

imitate could serve as a sustainable competitive advantage. A review of the literature

shows that only a few studies have empirically studied customer experience in the
restaurant industry. In support, some studies examine customer experience in the
restaurant from the aspect of facility aesthetics, ambiance, lighting, table settings,
layout, and service staff (Han & Ryu, 2009). Meanwhile, other studies include the
factor of the environment, food quality, and price in measuring experience (Ali et al.,
2016; Jin et al., 2012). In these studies, experience is measured from the perspective of
the environment, quality of food and service, customer interaction, and price. In
addition, a meta-analysis of research conducted in the restaurant industry revealed
that fewer studies have emphasized on branding (Yoo et al., 2011). Hence, this study’s
objective is to bridge the gap on branding by investigating customer experience from
the perspective of the brand.
There is a difference between customer experience and brand experience in terms of the
way both are measured. Brakus et al. (2009) defined brand experience as the individual,
internal reactions of a consumer in the form of sensations, emotions, cognition, and
behaviors incited by branding stimuli. The brand experience is a vital differentiation tool
to win diners’ loyalty (Ong et al., 2015a; Ong, Salleh, & Yusoff, 2015b). Additionally,
consumers gain consumption value from brand experience (Holbrook, 1999). In the
context of experience creation, the relationship between service provider and the buyer
is usually referred as actor and guest. Thus, a critical reflection from the research in
experience revealed that customer experience is actually inevitable because every touch
point (e.g., food, price, environment, service, staff, etc.) between a customer and the brand
is an experience itself. However, little is known on how each type of brand experience
actually influences a customer’s brand loyalty. Schmitt (2009) have also encouraged more
research on brand experience, given that not much research has been conducted regarding
the consumer’s brand experience. In particular, (1) how does each type of experience
influences a customer’s brand loyalty? and (2) which type of experience plays a prominent
role in brand strategy formulation to win overall customer brand loyalty?
Hence, this study was motivated to probe the relationships between each dimension of
brand experience (i.e., sensory, affective, intellectual, and behavioral) on brand loyalty
components (i.e. WPM, WOM, and RI). The results of this investigation are expected to
provide clearer knowledge for strategic decision-making for managers and narrow the
current literature gap. In particular, the insights gained will be useful for revenue and
resource management among managers.

Hypotheses development
The theory of value creation serves as a solid foundation for this model (Reichheld, 1996).
This theory stresses that loyalty is formulated via brand value (i.e., brand experience). The
proposed model is portrayed in Figure 1.

Sensory experience and customer brand loyalty

Sensory experience refers to a consumer’s experience as derived from sensory interaction
with the brand (i.e., sight, emotion, touch, smell, listen). Brakus et al. (2009) reported that
brand loyalty is influenced by brand experience. This result is also supported by the
760 C. H. ONG ET AL.

Customer’s Brand Loyalty

Brand Experience

Willingness to pay more

Sensory experience

Affective experience

Word of mouth

Behavioral experience

Intellectual experience
Repurchase Intentions

Figure 1. Proposed model.

studies of Ramaseshan and Stein (2014) in terms of consumer products. However,

(Nysveen, Pedersen, & Skard, 2013) found that brand loyalty is not driven by sensory
experience in the context of telecommunication industry. Separate research from eastern
countries conducted in the restaurant industry has also found a positive relationship
between both constructs (Ong et al., 2015a). The satisfaction of restaurant customers is
influenced by visual aesthetics, taste, smell, and music (Han & Ryu, 2009; Jin et al., 2012;
Wilson, 2003). Consequently, satisfied customers will exhibit their loyalty (i.e. WPM,
WOM, and RI). (Ryu, Han, & Jang, 2010). Thus, this study hypothesizes that:

H1a: Sensory experience positively influences willingness to pay more (WPM).

H1b: Sensory experience positively influences word of mouth (WOM).
H1c: Sensory experience positively influences repurchase intentions (RI).

Affective experience and customer brand loyalty

Affective experience refers to the consumer’s experience as derived from emotional
interaction with the brand (i.e., positive feelings). Several studies have determined empirically
that brand loyalty is driven by brand experience (Brakus et al., 2009; Ramaseshan & Stein,
2014). Conversely, Nysveen et al. (2013) found that emotion-based experience does not
influence brand loyalty in the telecommunication industry. Despite that, Ong et al. (2015a)
have supported the influence of brand experience on loyalty in the Malaysian restaurant
industry. In dining experience, customers are satisfied when they encounter favorable experi-
ence factors such as food quality, human interaction quality, furnishing quality and perceived
value (Jalilvand, Salimipour, Elyasi, & Mohammadi, 2017; Voon, Jager, Chitra, Kueh, &
Jussem, 2013). Consequently, happy restaurant patrons tend to exhibit their loyalty (i.e.
WPM, WOM, and RI). (Ryu et al., 2010). Thus, this study hypothesizes that:

H2a: Affective experience positively influences willingness to pay more (WPM).

H2b: Affective experience positively influences word of mouth (WOM).
 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY MARKETING & MANAGEMENT 761

H2c: Affective experience positively influences repurchase intentions (RI).

Behavioral experience and customer brand loyalty

Behavioral experience refers to a consumer’s experience with the brand which leads to an
action-based exhibition. Brakus et al. (2009) reported that brand loyalty is influenced by
brand experience. This result is also supported by the studies of Ramaseshan and Stein
(2014) for the consumer product. However, Nysveen et al. (2013) found that behavioral
experience does not influence brand loyalty in the context of telecommunication industry.
Separate research from eastern countries conducted in the restaurant industry has also
found a positive relationship between both constructs (Ong et al., 2015a). In addition,
diners tend to become involved in a behavioral experience, such as taking photos of food
presentation and ambiance or even co-preparation of the food. Furthermore, thrill-seeking
diners tend to exhibit their loyalty (i.e. WPM, WOM, and RI). (Ryu et al., 2010). Thus, this
study hypothesizes that:

H3a: Behavioral experience positively influences willingness to pay more (WPM).

H3b: Behavioral experience positively influences word of mouth (WOM).
H3c: Behavioral experience positively influences repurchase intentions (RI).

Intellectual experience and customer brand loyalty

Intellectual experience refers to a consumer’s experience derived from intellectual interaction
with the brand (i.e., positive thinking, curiosity). Brand experience is an important driver of
brand loyalty (Brakus et al., 2009; Ramaseshan & Stein, 2014). However, Nysveen et al. (2013)
found that intellectual experience had no significant influence on brand loyalty in the context
of the telecommunications industry. Despite that, the similar finding is supported in the
restaurant industry by studies of Ong et al. (2015a). A unique brand experience will serve as a
sustainable competitive advantage in the restaurant industry (Aaker, 1989). Experience is what
makes customer return, because offerings may be the same but differences lie in the experience
of dining. Secret recipes, order taking, food preparation, and food presentation may help to
create an appropriate dining experience for the restaurant brand. High food quality is one of
the important predictors of Malaysian patrons’ return visits and positive word of mouth
(Voon et al., 2013). Therefore, customers who are triggered cognitively in their dining
experience consider such experiences worth paying more, sharing the restaurant brand with
friends, and visiting again. Thus, this study hypothesizes that:

H4a: Intellectual experience positively influences willingness to pay more (WPM).

H4b: Intellectual experience positively influences word of mouth (WOM).
H4c: Intellectual experience positively influences repurchase intentions (RI).
762 C. H. ONG ET AL.

Methodology
Research settings and subjects
Two successful Malaysian casual dining restaurant brands listed in SME Corp Malaysia
have been selected for this study. The selection of SME brand adopts method practiced by
similar branding studies conducted in the restaurant industry (Lin & Huang, 2012; Nam,
Ekinci, & Whyatt, 2011; Ong et al., 2015b; Yoo, Donthu, & Lee, 2000). Within five weeks,
228 customers were intercepted in Klang Valley.
Multistage area probability sampling was adopted for this study (Sudman, 1980). There
are two cluster phases involved before selecting the particular branch as the venue for data
collection. The first phase involved grouping Peninsular Malaysia into Central, East Coast,
Northern, and Southern region. Subsequently, the Central region, with the highest popu-
lation of more than 7 million population, was chosen (DOSM, 2011). The next phase
involved further clustering of the central region into smaller districts governed by local
authorities. As a result, a total of ten districts were obtained. The combination of these
districts is best known as Klang Valley, the largest metropolitan comprising 6 million
residents, with contributions of more than RM250 billion to gross national income
(Economic Transformation Programme, 2012). Hence, the target population of this
research includes walk-in customers aged 18 years and above who had dined in a
particular SME restaurant brand within Klang Valley. Prior intercept studies (e.g.,
Chang, 2013; Chebat, Hedhli, & Sirgy, 2009; Jin, Park, & Kim, 2008; Weiss, Feinstein, &
Dalbor, 2004) collected their data from the same consumer group.
Next, random selection of the particular restaurant was implemented from each dis-
trict. Lastly, every fifth diner was intercepted on their exit after their meal on random days
in a week during peak hour (i.e., lunch and dinner).

Measurement
Existing scales were adapted for all constructs in this study. Brand experience scales were
revised from items advanced by Brakus et al. (2009). WOM, WPM, and RI scales were
improved from studies of Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001), Ismail and Spinelli (2012), Lau
and Lee (1999), as well as Zhang and Bloemer (2008). A six-point Likert scale (1 =
strongly disagree and 6 = strongly agree) is used to measure all the statements. Even
number response was chosen for several reasons. First was to reduce bias in answering due
to the higher propensity of Asians to select the neutral point (Mitchell, 1999; Si & Cullen,
1998). Second was to reduce bias of answering by simply selecting the neutral point
(Garland, 1991). Lastly, even number response has been reported to provide higher
validity and reliability (Birkett, 1986; Coelho & Esteves, 2007). A questionnaire was
conducted in two versions—English and Malay. Back to back translations were conducted
following the suggestions of Brislin (1970). A pilot study was conducted among 30 diners
(Malhotra, 2008). The results show that every item achieves a Cronbach’s alpha value of at
least 0.90, indicating high reliability (Nunnally, 1978).
 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY MARKETING & MANAGEMENT 763

Data analysis technique

Data collected is analyzed with Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM).
According to Cohen (1988) and Gefen, Rigdon, and Straub (2011), social science research may
use the 80% statistical power to determine minimum size for sampling. Adopting the power
analysis method suggested by Hair, Sarstedt, Hopkins, and Kuppelwieser (2014), a minimum of
85 diners are required to attain a 0.05 level of significance and 80% of statistical power. Data
collected is analyzed with Partial Least Squares (PLS) Version 2.0 (Ringle, Wende, & Will, 2005).
We chose PLS-SEM as an analytical tool because the aim of this study is to predict the relation-
ships among multiple latent variables, rather than to confirm a particular theory (Hair, Hult,
Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2017; Sosik, Kahai, & Piovoso, 2009). PLS-SEM also exhibits a higher level of
statistical power than CB-SEM (Hair, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2011; Reinartz, Haenlein, & Henseler,
2009). Prevention of restrictive assumptions, inappropriate resolution, as well as indeterminacy
of factor derived with ML techniques is overcome with PLS techniques (Fornell & Bookstein,
1982; Hair et al., 2017). Based on Hair et al. (2017) and Cain, Zhang, and Yuan (2016), multi-
variate skewness and kurtosis were examined via https://webpower.psychstat.org/models/kurto
sis/results.php?url=fb9771ad65087c96bdc6a313929fa338. The outcomes demonstrated that the
data we have gathered was not multivariate normal, Mardia’s multivariate skewness (b = 7.095, z
= 269.631, p < 0.01) and Mardia’s multivariate kurtosis (b = 85.714, z = 15.277, p < 0.01),
consequently we continued to use SmartPLS which is a non-parametric analysis software
(Ramayah, Yeap, Ahmad, Halim, & Rahman, 2017). Moreover, 500 resamples of bootstrapping
method was run to attain both loadings and path coefficients level of significance (Chin, 1998).
The requirement for a bootstrapping sample should be equal to or higher than sample size (Hair
et al., 2017). We have attempted a bootstrapping sample size of 5,000, but the values of the beta
values will not change while the t-values will only vary slightly. Thus, this would not affect the
results at all.

Analysis
Profile of respondents
A total of 228 usable surveys were analyzed. The number of surveys obtained surpasses the
minimum sample of 85 diners. Additionally, the number of surveys also meets the minimum
200 observations for SEM (Kelloway, 1998; Kline, 2011). To test for single source bias, we used
Harman’s single factors test and the results did not show a single factor emerging. Thus, single
source bias is not a serious concern in this study.
Table 1 portrayed the profiles of respondents for this study. From a total of 228
responses, the result shows that there were more female respondents at 73%. The result
is in line with results of research on loyalty in the restaurant industry (Chang, 2013;
Kim, Yoo, & Lee, 2012). In support, females tend to cooperate in a survey (Gannon,
Nothern, & Carroll, 1971; Green, 1996). Many of the respondents have one under-
graduate degree (41%), fall in an age range between 21–40 (72%), and are
employed (72%).
764 C. H. ONG ET AL.

Table 1. Respondent profile.

Demographic characteristics Demographic sub-characteristics Frequency (n = 228) Percentage (%)
Gender Male 62 27
Female 166 73
Age < 21 9 4
21–30 81 36
31–40 82 36
41–50 32 14
>50 24 10
Education Primary school 7 3
Secondary school 39 17
College (Certificate/Diploma/Advanced Diploma) 75 33
Bachelor degree 93 41
Postgraduate degree 14 6
Occupation Student 18 8
Employee 163 72
Self-employed 24 10
Unemployed/Housewife 23 10

Table 2. Result of the measurement model.

Model construct Measurement item Loading CRa AVEb
Sensory experience This restaurant brand is interesting in a sensory way. 0.926 0.945 0.853
This restaurant brand makes a strong positive impression 0.939
on my senses.
This restaurant brand focuses on experience through 0.904
positive senses.
Affective experience This restaurant brand induces positive feelings. 0.913 0.916 0.784
I have strong positive feelings about this restaurant brand. 0.902
This restaurant brand focuses on experience through 0.840
positive emotions.
Behavioral experience This restaurant brand tries to remind me of activities I can 0.893 0.925 0.805
do.
This restaurant brand tries to make me think about 0.891
lifestyle.
This restaurant brand focuses on experience through 0.907
activities.
Intellectual experience I engage in a lot of positive thinking when I encounter this 0.850 0.867 0.688
restaurant brand.
This restaurant brand stimulates my curiosity. 0.708
This restaurant brand focuses on experience through 0.917
positive thoughts.
Willingness to pay more I am committed to this restaurant brand. 0.862 0.943 0.846
I would be willing to pay a higher price for this restaurant 0.948
brand over other brands.
I would continue to dine at this restaurant brand, even if its 0.947
prices increase.
Word of mouth If this restaurant brand been mentioned in a conversation, I 0.865 0.866 0.684
would recommend it.
I have actually recommended this restaurant brand to my 0.863
friends or family.
If someone makes a negative comment about this 0.748
restaurant brand, I would defend it.
Repurchase intentions I would dine at this restaurant brand the next time I look 0.920 0.912 0.776
for places to dine with friends or family.
I intend to keep dining at this restaurant brand in the 0.915
future.
If this restaurant brand is not available here when I need it, 0.803
I will have it another time.
Note: AComposite Reliability (CR) = (square of the summation of the factor loadings)/{(square of the summation of the
factor loadings) + (square of the summation of the error variances)}; bAverage Variance Extracted (AVE) = (summation of
the square of the factor loadings)/{(summation of the square of the factor loadings) + (summation of the error
variances)}
 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY MARKETING & MANAGEMENT 765

Table 3. Discriminant validity of constructs.

Sensory Affective Behavioral Intellectual Willingness Word of Repurchase
Constructs experience experience experience experience to pay more mouth intentions
Sensory experience 0.923
Affective experience 0.767 0.886
Behavioral experience 0.593 0.624 0.897
Intellectual experience 0.645 0.658 0.728 0.829
Willingness to pay more 0.599 0.538 0.560 0.563 0.920
Word of mouth 0.491 0.544 0.548 0.605 0.709 0.827
Repurchase intentions 0.670 0.669 0.577 0.651 0.724 0.745 0.881
Note: Value on the diagonals represents the square root of the AVE while the other entries represent the correlations value.

Table 4. Cross loadings of constructs.

SE AE BE IE WPM WOM RI
SE 1 0.926 0.674 0.531 0.595 0.594 0.461 0.643
SE 2 0.939 0.714 0.529 0.570 0.549 0.435 0.609
SE 3 0.904 0.739 0.583 0.621 0.513 0.465 0.604
AE 1 0.700 0.913 0.544 0.597 0.491 0.503 0.652
AE 2 0.665 0.902 0.535 0.551 0.489 0.455 0.590
AE 3 0.673 0.840 0.584 0.601 0.447 0.488 0.530
BE 1 0.570 0.556 0.893 0.648 0.537 0.526 0.579
BE 2 0.503 0.553 0.891 0.647 0.472 0.434 0.492
BE 3 0.516 0.571 0.907 0.666 0.494 0.508 0.473
IE 1 0.618 0.631 0.638 0.850 0.534 0.556 0.659
IE 2 0.366 0.316 0.454 0.708 0.378 0.376 0.348
IE 3 0.576 0.627 0.689 0.917 0.469 0.544 0.558
WPM 1 0.593 0.582 0.618 0.583 0.862 0.639 0.699
WPM 2 0.524 0.438 0.442 0.473 0.948 0.655 0.639
WPM 3 0.517 0.435 0.454 0.473 0.947 0.656 0.639
WOM 1 0.437 0.481 0.446 0.453 0.694 0.865 0.612
WOM 2 0.424 0.485 0.422 0.453 0.590 0.863 0.664
WOM 3 0.356 0.383 0.483 0.580 0.476 0.748 0.568
RI 1 0.599 0.620 0.545 0.611 0.647 0.732 0.920
RI 2 0.650 0.623 0.501 0.572 0.699 0.714 0.915
RI 3 0.516 0.520 0.478 0.537 0.560 0.507 0.803
Note: SE = Sensory experience, AE = Affective experience, BE = Behavioral experience, IE = Intellectual experience, WPM =
Willingness to pay more, RI = Repurchase intention, WOM = Word of mouth.

Measurement model
The two-step approach following Anderson and Gerbing (1988) was adopted for this study.
The first step evaluates convergent validity and reliability. Convergent validity is achieved
when the model satisfies the following criteria. First, loadings should exceed 0.5 (Bagozzi & Yi,
1988). Second, composite reliability should exceed 0.7 (Gefen, Straub, & Boudreau, 2000).
Third, average variance extracted (AVE) should exceed 0.5 (Fornell & Lacker, 1981). The
model satisfies all of these criteria as shown in Table 2.
The following step evaluate the discriminant validity. Table 3 displays AVE shared
between pairs of latent variables (Fornell & Cha, 1994; Fornell & Lacker, 1981). This also
signifies that the respondents understood there were 7 distinct constructs. The VIF also
did not exceed 5; thus, multicollinearity is not of concern in this study. Also, Table 4
portrays items loadings larger than cross-loadings (Hair et al., 2014, p. 105). As a result,
the measurement model attains discriminant validity.
766 C. H. ONG ET AL.

Table 5. Result of hypothesis testing.

Hypothesis Relationship Std Beta Std Error t-value Supported
H1a Sensory experience → WPM 0.338 0.099 3.410** Yes
H1b Sensory experience → WOM 0.019 0.098 0.197 No
H1c Sensory experience → RI 0.272 0.077 3.547** Yes
H2a Affective experience → WPM 0.034 0.093 0.368 No
H2b Affective experience → WOM 0.205 0.100 2.046* Yes
H2c Affective experience → RI 0.242 0.075 3.232** Yes
H3a Behavioral experience → WPM 0.221 0.075 2.938** Yes
H3b Behavioral experience → WOM 0.161 0.091 1.765* Yes
H3c Behavioral experience → RI 0.072 0.079 0.916 No
H4a Intellectual experience → WPM 0.161 0.073 2.207* Yes
H4b Intellectual experience → WOM 0.341 0.098 3.461** Yes
H4c Intellectual experience → RI 0.264 0.078 3.375** Yes
Note: *p < 0.05 (1.645); **p < 0.01 (2.33) one-tail.

Structural model
The next step evaluates the structural model. The results of hypotheses testing are
displayed in Table 5. The first hypothesis examines the influence of sensory experi-
ence on WPM, WOM, and RI. Sensory experience has positive effects on both WPM
(β = 0.338, p < 0.01) and RI (β = 0.272, p < 0.01). The result indicates customers are
willing to pay more and show RI when they have good experience with the restau-
rant brand stimulating their visual, smell, sound or other senses. However, the
results also show an insignificant relationship between sensory experience and
WOM (β = 0.019, p > 0.05). The result implies that sensory experience does not
influence WOM behavior of customers. Following this, H1a and H1c are supported,
while H1b is rejected.
Secondly, affective experience is positively related to WOM (β = 0.205, p < 0.05) and RI
(β = 0.242, p < 0.01). The result implies that customers will have a higher tendency of
sharing WOM and exhibit RI when they have an overall good feeling from the dining
experience with a restaurant brand. However, the findings show an insignificant correla-
tion between affective experience and WPM (β = 0.034, p > 0.05). The results indicate that
emotional experience does not influence customers’ WPM behavior. Hence, H2b and H2c
are supported, while H2a is rejected.
Thirdly, behavioral experience is positively related to WPM (β = 0.221, p < 0.01) and
WOM (β = 0.161, p < 0.05). The results indicate that customers are willing to pay more
and share positive WOM when they engaged in action-oriented from their dining
experience with a restaurant brand. However, the results report an insignificant correla-
tion between behavioral experience and RI (β = 0.072, p > 0.05). This indicates that
action-oriented experience does not influence customers RI. Following this, H3a and H3b
are supported, while H3c is rejected.
Lastly, intellectual experience is positively related to WPM (β = 0.161, p < 0.05), WOM
(β = 0.341, p < 0.01), and RI (β = 0.264, p < 0.01). The results imply that customers are
willing to pay more, have a higher tendency of sharing WOM, and exhibit RI when they
are intellectually stimulated from their dining experience with a restaurant brand.
Therefore, H4a, H4b, and H4c are supported.
Figure 2 displays the values of Q2 and R2 for endogenous variables. The R2 values are 0.436,
0.415, and 0.558. These values denote brand experience explained WPM (43.6%), WOM
(41.5%), and RI (55.8%). All the R2 values are greater than 0.33, which suggest moderate
 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY MARKETING & MANAGEMENT 767

Customer’s Brand Loyalty

Brand Experience
0.338 Willingness to pay more
Q2 = 0.339
Sensory experience 0.034 R2 = 0.436
0.221 0.161

0.019
Affective experience
0.205 Word of mouth
Q2 = 0.281
0.161 R2 = 0.415
Behavioral experience 0.341

0.242 0.272
0.072
Intellectual experience Repurchase intentions
Q2 = 0.429
0.264 R2 = 0.558

Figure 2. Results of the structural model analysis.

explanatory power (Hair, Ringle, & Sarsedt, 2011; Henseler, Ringle, & Sinkovics, 2009).
Moreover, the Q2 values are 0.339, 0.281, and 0.429. The model attains predictive relevance,
given that the Q2 values are all greater than zero (Fornell & Cha, 1994; Hair et al., 2014).

Discussion
This study has resulted in interesting findings. First, the sensory experience was found to
influence WPM and RI, but not WOM. Second, WOM and RI are driven by affective
experience, but not WPM. Third, the behavioral experience was found to encourage WPM
and WOM, but not RI. Lastly, this study found an important result showing that the three
dimensions of brand loyalty, namely WPM, WOM, and RI, are driven by intellectual experience.
To the best of this researcher’s knowledge, the conclusion that sensory experience is a
major influence on customer’s WPM and RI, but not on customer’s WOM, is rarely found
in the marketing literature, although some discussion has occurred on the brand experi-
ence and customers’ brand loyalty linkages (Nysveen, Pedersen, & Skard, 2013; Ong et al.,
2015a). This finding expands our knowledge of the inter-relationships of the dimensions
between both constructs. A possible explanation for such finding may be that sensory
experience actually forms a better customer perception which influences their WPM and
RI. However, the indication that WOM is not influenced by sensory experience is rather
fascinating. Perhaps, this could be due to lack of aesthetical presentation of food given the
casual dining restaurant research context. Hence, we expect a further study to validate
these findings in a different research context which deliver visually appealing food pre-
sentation such as fine dining restaurant.
Next, findings showing affective experience as a major influence on a customer’s
exhibition of WOM and RI, but not on customer’s WPM, could rarely be found in
prior marketing literature. Though, some discussion might occur on the brand experience
and customers’ brand loyalty linkages (Nysveen et al., 2013; Ong et al., 2015a). This
finding expands our knowledge of the inter-relationships of the dimensions between both
constructs. A possible explanation for such findings may be due to positive feelings
768 C. H. ONG ET AL.

derived from overall brand experience leading to customer’s exhibition of WOM and RI.
Such feelings may come from the food, ambiance, or service quality offered by the
restaurant. However, such feelings which take place from a casual dining restaurant may
not be strong enough to encourage WPM. Customers may feel that the price charged is
already reasonable price for a casual setting. However, we believe that favorable results
may be found in research conducted in a fine dining setting.
Another finding that shows behavioral experience as the major influence of customer’s
WPM and WOM but not on customers RI is also interesting. This result could rarely be
found in prior marketing literature. Though, some discussions might occur on the brand
experience and customers’ brand loyalty linkages (Brakus et al., 2009; Nysveen et al., 2013;
Ong et al., 2015a). This finding expands our knowledge of the inter-relationships of the
dimensions between both constructs. A plausible explanation for such findings may be
that behavioral experience induces only short-term excitement for dine-in customers. For
instance, behavior experience may be derived from the in-store device which assists in
ordering and making payments. Such excitement will only encourage customers to pay
more and share WOM about the unique experience offered in the restaurant. Thrill-
seeking patrons tend to pay a premium price and making a recommendation to friends
and family (Ryu et al., 2010). In contrary, food is still the main reason to encourage return
visit for Malaysian customers in the foodservice industry as shown in the studies of Voon
et al. (2013).
Lastly, this study found interesting findings that show all the components of customers’
brand loyalty, namely WPM, WOM, and RI are driven by intellectual experience. This
result could rarely be found in prior marketing literature. Though, some discussion might
occur on the brand experience and customers’ brand loyalty linkages (Brakus et al., 2009;
Nysveen et al., 2013; Ong et al., 2015a). This finding expands our knowledge of the inter-
relationships of the dimensions between both constructs. A possible explanation for such
finding may be the uniqueness of food offered which triggered the curiosity of customers
such as recipe used to prepare the meal which results in mouth-watering flavors.
Customers are no longer only seeking tangible benefits but also intangible benefits such
as unique experiences in their purchase (Morrison & Crane, 2007; Zarantonello &
Schmitt, 2010). Hence, such uniqueness forms an intellectual experience, leading to
customer exhibition of all loyalty dimensions.

Theoretical contributions
Reichheld (1996) proposed the theory of value creation, suggesting that superior value
creation is vital for a business to achieve better profits for sustainable business perfor-
mance through customer brand loyalty. This study had demonstrated empirically the
relationships between brand experience and brand loyalty with emphasize on its dimen-
sions. This is a novel contribution because prior works rarely report these influences in
the brand experience and loyalty relationships (Brakus et al., 2009; Nysveen et al., 2013;
Ong et al., 2015a).
Brakus et al. (2009) reported that brand loyalty is influenced by brand experience.
Moreover, Nysveen et al. (2013) found that none of the other experience dimensions (e.g.,
sensory, affective, behavioral, and intellectual) except for the dimensions of relational
experience influences brand loyalty. This study, however, found there is at least one
 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY MARKETING & MANAGEMENT 769

dimensions of brand loyalty, namely WOM, WPM, and RI are influenced by each
dimension of brand experience. Furthermore, only the intellectual experience influences
all the dimensions of brand loyalty which show the importance of this dimension to win
customers’ brand loyalty in the restaurant industry. Additionally, these findings provide
an in-depth understanding of the complex relationship between both experience and
loyalty constructs.
Ultimately, two theoretical contributions to the field of brand experience can be derived
from this research. First, this study provides empirical validation for the brand experience
scale in the Malaysian casual-dining restaurant context from a successful restaurant brand.
Second, this study had tested empirically on the influence of individual brand experience
dimensions on individual loyalty dimensions. Such correlations have not been tested in
earlier researches. Hence, this research on the individual effects between each brand
experience dimensions and customers’ brand loyalty dimensions contributes to better
insight into the experience construct.

Managerial implications
This study offers managerial solutions to develop customers’ brand loyalty strategies,
particularly in the casual-dining restaurant industry. Companies aiming to increase their
revenues should emphasize a sensory experience strategy. Such a strategy may be imple-
mented by delivering values which could appeal to one of a combination of sensations (i.e.
sight, emotion, touch, smell, listen). A pleasing restaurant atmosphere and furnishing,
well-groomed restaurant employees, and tasty and visually attractive food presentation are
a few recommendations for restaurant brand managers to create a multi-sensory dining
experience.
Alternatively, companies might want to focus on affective experience strategy if the goal
is to encourage WOM recommendation and RI. Practically, this can be done by strategiz-
ing a positive emotion in every touch point during the entire journey of experiences from
the entrance to exit. Happy restaurant patrons tend to have a higher return visit rate and
share positive WOM about the restaurant brand (Ryu et al., 2010). Should the goal of a
company be to charge a premium price and spread positive word recommendation, the
behavioral experience strategy is recommended. This can be implemented by incorporat-
ing social media sharing such as Facebook or online games into exciting promotional and
brand image tactics. Thrill-seeking patrons tend to pay premium prices and make recom-
mendations to friends and family (Ryu et al., 2010).
Meanwhile, Companies aiming to achieve all the three components of brand loyalty
(i.e. WPM, WOM, and RI) should emphasize on intellectual experience strategy.
Experience is what makes customer return, because offerings may be the same, but
differences are found in the experience of dining. Secret recipes, order taking, and food
preparation and presentation may help to create the appropriate dining experience for the
restaurant brand. In practice, this could be done by delivering mouth-watering flavors
with secret and unique recipe used to stimulate customer curiosity. Food quality is one of
the important predictors of Malaysian patrons return visit and WOM (Voon et al., 2013).
Therefore, customers who are triggered cognitively in their dining experience consider
such experiences worth paying more for, sharing the restaurant brand with friends, and
returning for another visit.
770 C. H. ONG ET AL.

Limitations and future research

This study found that multi-sensory experience will influence customers’ brand loyalty
differently. Despite such novel, this research is not free from limitation. First, the result is
obtained from customers in the casual-dining restaurant context and should be further
validated by other researchers. The measurement of brand experience developed by
Brakus et al. (2009) has been merely tested with western consumers. Western consumers
tend to choose a brand for quality, while Eastern consumers tend to choose brands for
prestige (Wong & Ahuvia, 1998). Southeast Asian or the Eastern consumers tend to
behave differently when the variables involve public perception. As such, the result
obtained from Western consumers may be different as compared to eastern consumers.
Hence, we recommend more research to test this measurement on eastern consumers
given the differences that occur between both these consumers. Second, this study is
conducted among the SMEs brand in the restaurant industry with intercept sampling. As
females tend to cooperate in a survey (Gannon et al., 1971; Green, 1996), this could reduce
the generalizability of the result given the higher responses derive from female respon-
dents. We hope future studies could come out with better methodologies to validate our
findings. Lastly, the model proposed in this initial study only focused on the direct
relationship between brand experience and loyalty. Hence, the result may be indefinite.
Relevant mediators and/or moderators might enhance our understanding of the relation-
ships between brand experience and loyalty. We suggest future research to enhance the
model by incorporating related mediating or moderating variables accordingly to suit
studies in both the goods and services contexts.

Conclusions
The study has made the following contributions despite its limitations. First, this study
demonstrates the validities of the brand experience scale in the Malaysian casual-dining
restaurant context, which has received less research attention in the context of Southeast
Asian countries. Second, this study departs from earlier work by demonstrating the inter-
relationship between brand experience and loyalty in terms of dimensional aspects. This
deepens our understanding of the processes in earning customer brand loyalty, particu-
larly in the casual-dining restaurant industry.

ORCID
Chuan Huat Ong http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7426-8697

References
Aaker, D. A. (1989). Managing assets and skills: The key to sustainable competitive advantage.
California Management Review, 32(2), 91–106. doi:10.2307/41166561
Aaker, D. A. (1996). Building a strong brand. New York, NY: Free Press.
Ali, F., Amin, M., & Cobanoglu, C. (2016). An integrated model of service experience, emotions,
satisfaction, and price acceptance: An empirical analysis in the Chinese hospitality industry.
Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, 25, 449–475. doi:10.1080/
19368623.2015.1019172
 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY MARKETING & MANAGEMENT 771

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and
recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423. doi:10.1037/0033-
2909.103.3.411
Bagozzi, R. P. (1975). Marketing as exchange. Journal of Marketing, 39, 32–39. doi:10.2307/1250593
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, T. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of Academy
of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94. doi:10.1007/BF02723327
Basri, N. A. H., Ahmad, R., Anuar, F. I., & Ismail, K. A. (2016). Effect of word of mouth
communication on consumer purchase decision: Malays upscale restaurant. Procedia Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 222, 324–331. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.05.175
Birkett, N. J. (1986). Selecting the number of response categories for a Likert-type scale. Proceedings
of the American Statistical Association. 488–492. Retrieved from https://ww2.amstat.org/sections/
srms/Proceedings/papers/1986_091.pdf
Brakus, J. J., Schmitt, B. H., & Zarantonello, L. (2009). Brand experience: What is it? How is it
measured? Does it affect loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 73, 52–68. doi:10.1509/jmkg.73.3.52
Bridson, K., Evans, J., & Hickman, M. (2008). Assessing the relationship between loyalty program
attributes, store satisfaction, and store loyalty. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 15,
364–374. doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2007.08.004
Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 1(3), 185–216. doi:10.1177/135910457000100301
Cain, M. K., Zhang, Z., & Yuan, K. H. (2016). Univariate and multivariate skewness and kurtosis for
measuring nonnormality: Prevalence, influence and estimation. Behavior Research Methods.
doi:10.3758/s13428-016-0814-1
Chang, K.-C. (2013). How reputation creates loyalty in the restaurant sector. International Journal
of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 25(4), 536–557. doi:10.1108/09596111311322916
Chaudhuri, A., & Holbrook, M. B. (2001). The chain of effect from brand trust and brand affect to
brand performance: The role of brand loyalty. Journal of Marketing, 65, 81–93. doi:10.1509/
jmkg.65.2.81.18255
Chebat, J., Hedhli, K. E., & Sirgy, M. J. (2009). How does shopper-based mall equity generate mall
loyalty? A conceptual model and empirical evidence. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
16, 50–60. doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2008.08.003
Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. In G. A.
Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern methods for business research (pp. 295–336). Mahwah, New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Coelho, P. S., & Esteves, S. P. (2007). The choice between a 5-point and a 10-point scale in the
framework of customer satisfaction measurement. International Journal of Market Research, 49
(3), 313–345. doi:10.1177/147078530704900305
Cohen, J. B. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Day, G. S. (1969). A two-dimensional concept of brand loyalty. Journal of Advertising Research, 9(3),
29–35.
DOSM. (2011). Department of statistics Malaysia: Population distribution and basic demographic
characteristics in 2010. Retrieved from http://www.statistics.gov.my
Dowling, G. R., & Uncles, M. (1997). Do customer loyalty programs really works? Sloan
Management Review, 38(4), 71–82.
Economic Transformation Programme. (2012). A roadmap for Malaysia. Retrieved from http://
www.etp.pemandu.gov.my
Fornell, C., & Bookstein, F. L. (1982). Two structural equation models: LISREL and PLS applied
to consumer exit-voice theory. Journal of Marketing Research, 19(4), 440–452. doi:10.2307/
3151718
Fornell, C., & Cha, J. (1994). Partial Least Squares. In R. P. Bagozzi (Ed.), Advanced methods of
marketing research (pp. 52–78). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Business.
Fornell, C., & Lacker, D. F. (1981). Evaluation structural equation models with unobserved variables
and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. doi:10.2307/3151312
772 C. H. ONG ET AL.

Fullerton, G. (2003). When does commitment lead to loyalty? Journal of Service Research, 5(4), 333–
344. doi:10.1177/1094670503005004005
Gannon, M. J., Nothern, J. C., & Carroll, S. J., Jr. (1971). Characteristics of nonrespondents among
workers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55(6), 586–588. doi:10.1037/h0031907
Garland, R. (1991). The mid-point on a rating scale: Is it desirable? Marketing Bulletin, 2, 66–70.
Gefen, D., Rigdon, E. E., & Straub, D. (2011). An update and extension to SEM guidelines for
administrative and social science research. MIS Quarterly, 35(2), A1–A7. doi:10.2307/23044042
Gefen, D., Straub, D. W., & Boudreau, M.-C. (2000). Structural equation modeling and regression:
Guidelines for research practice. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 4,
1–79.
Green, K. E. (1996). Sociodemographic factors and mail survey response. Psychology and Marketing,
13(2), 171–184. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6793
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares
structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139–151. doi:10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202
Hair, J. F., Jr, Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L., & Kuppelwieser, V. G. (2014). Partial least squares
structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): An emerging tool in business research. European
Business Review, 26(2), 106–121. doi:10.1108/EBR-10-2013-0128
Han, H., & Ryu, K. (2009). The roles of physical environment, price perception, and customer
satisfaction in determining customer loyalty in the restaurant industry. Journal of Hospitality and
Tourism Research, 33(4), 487–510. doi:10.1177/1096348009344212
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). The use of partial least squares path modeling
in international marketing. Advances in International Marketing, 20, 277–319.
Hogarth-Scott, S., Watson, K., & Wilson, N. (1996). Do small business have to practice marketing to
survive and grow? Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 14(1), 6–18. doi:10.1108/
02634509610106197
Holbrook, M. B. (1999). Consumer Value: A framework for analysis and research. London:
Routledge.
Ismail, A. R., & Spinelli, G. (2012). Effects of brand love, personality, and image on word of mouth:
The case of fashion brands among young consumers. Journal of Fashion Marketing and
Management, 16(4), 386–398. doi:10.1108/13612021211265791
Jacoby, J., & Kyner, D. B. (1973). Brand loyalty versus repeat purchasing behavior. Journal of
Marketing Research, 10(1), 1–9. doi:10.2307/3149402
Jalilvand, M. R., Salimipour, S., Elyasi, M., & Mohammadi, M. (2017). Factors influencing word of
mouth behaviour in the restaurant industry. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 35(1), 81–110.
doi:10.1108/MIP-02-2016-0024
Jin, B., Park, J. Y., & Kim, J. (2008). Cross-cultural examination of the relationships among firm
reputation, e-satisfaction, e-trust, and e-loyalty. International Marketing Review, 25(3), 324–337.
doi:10.1108/02651330810877243
Jin, N. P., Lee, S., & Huffman, L. (2012). Impact of restaurant experience on brand image and
customer loyalty: Moderating role of dining motivation. Journal of Travel and Tourism
Marketing, 29(6), 532–551. doi:10.1080/10548408.2012.701552
Kandampully, J., Zhang, T., & Bilgihan, A. (2015). Customer loyalty: A review and future directions
with a special focus on the hospitality industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, 27(3), 379–414. doi:10.1108/IJCHM-03-2014-0151
Kelloway, E. K. (1998). Using LISREL for structural equation modeling. California, CA: Sage
Publications.
Kim, T., Yoo, J. J.-E., & Lee, G. (2012). Post-recovery customer relationships and customer partner-
ships in a restaurant setting. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 24
(3), 381–401. doi:10.1108/09596111211217879
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York, NY:
The Guilford Press.
 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY MARKETING & MANAGEMENT 773

Lau, G. T., & Lee, S. H. (1999). Consumers’ trust in a band and the link to brand loyalty. Journal of
Market Focused Management, 4(4), 341–370. doi:10.1023/A:1009886520142
Lin, L. (2010). The relationship of consumer personality trait, brand personality and brand loyalty:
An empirical study of toys and video games buyers. Journal of Product and Brand Management,
19(1), 4–17. doi:10.1108/10610421011018347
Lin, Y., & Huang, P. (2012). Effects of big five brand personality dimensions on repurchase
intentions: Using branded coffee chain as examples. Journal of Foodservice Business Research,
15, 1–8. doi:10.1080/15378020.2012.650509
Malhotra, N. K. (2008). Essentials of marketing: An applied orientation (2nd ed.). Australia: Pearson
Education.
McKinsey & Company. (2016). Customer experience: Creating value through transforming customer
journeys. Industry report. 1–92. United States of America: McKinsey Practice Publication.
Mitchell, J. (1999). Reaching across borders: Identifying, addressing issues globally. Marketing News, 33, 19.
Mohamed, R. N., & Musa, R. (2012). Disentangle the effects of brand experience trust, commitment, and
resonance: Evidence from popular fast food chain restaurants in Malaysia: Using structural equation
modeling approach, Cambridge, UK. Cambridge Business and Economic Conference. 1–22.
Morrison, S., & Crane, F. G. (2007). Building the service brand by creating and managing an
emotional brand experience. Journal of Brand Management, 14(5), 410–421. doi:10.1057/pal-
grave.bm.2550080
Nam, J., Ekinci, Y., & Whyatt, G. (2011). Brand equity, brand loyalty and consumer satisfaction.
Annals of Tourism Research, 38(3), 1009–1030. doi:10.1016/j.annals.2011.01.015
Nielsen. (2016). What’s in our food and on our mind: Ingredients and dining-out trends around the
world. Industry report. 1–31. The Nielsen Company.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Nysveen, H., Pedersen, P. E., & Skard, S. (2013). Brand experiences in service organizations:
Exploring the individual effects of brand experience dimensions. Journal of Brand
Management, 20(5), 404–423. doi:10.1057/bm.2012.31
Oliver, R. L. (1999). Whence consumer loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 63, 33–44. doi:10.2307/
1252099
Ong, C. H., Salleh, S. M., & Yusoff, R. Z. (2015a). Influence of brand experience on loyalty
dimensions: Evidence from successful Malaysian SME brands. International Journal of Business
and Commerce, 4(7), 51–75.
Ong, C. H., Salleh, S. M., & Yusoff, R. Z. (2015b). Brand experience, trust components, and
customer loyalty: Sustainable SME brands study. Asian Social Science, 11(26), 252–266.
doi:10.5539/ass.v11n26p252
Pan, Y., Sheng, S., & Xie, F. T. (2012). Antecedents of customer loyalty: An empirical synthesis and
reexamination. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 19, 150–158. doi:10.1016/j.
jretconser.2011.11.004
Polyorat, K., & Sophonsiri, S. (2010). The influence of service quality dimensions on customer
satisfaction and customer loyalty in the chain restaurant context: A Thai case. Journal of Global
Business and Technology, 6(2), 64–76.
Ramaseshan, B., & Stein, A. (2014). Connecting the dots between brand experience and brand
loyalty: The mediating role of brand personality and brand relationships. Journal of Brand
Management, 21(7/8), 664–683. doi:10.1057/bm.2014.23
Ramayah, T., Yeap, J. A. L., Ahmad, N. H., Halim, H. A., & Rahman, S. A. (2017). Testing a
confirmatory model of facebook usage in smartpls using consistent PLS. International Journal of
Business and Innovation (IJBI), 3(2), 1–14.
Rauyruen, P., Miller, K. E., & Groth, M. (2009). B2B services: Linking service loyalty and brand
equity. Journal of Service Marketing, 23(3), 175–186. doi:10.1108/08876040910955189
Reichheld, F. F. (1996). Learning From Customer Defections. Harvard Business Review, 74(2),
56–69.
Reichheld, F. F., & Sasser, W. E., Jr. (1990). Zero defections: Quality comes to services. Harvard
Business Review, 68, 105–111.
774 C. H. ONG ET AL.

Reinartz, W., Haenlein, M., & Henseler, J. (2009). An empirical comparison of the efficacy of
covariance-based and variance-based SEM. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 26(4),
332–344. doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2009.08.001
Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Will, A. (2005). SmartPLS 2.0 (beta). SmartPLS, Hamburg. Retrieved
from www.smartpls.de
Ryu, K., Han, H., & Jang, S. (2010). The effect of hedonic and utilitarian values on customers’
satisfaction and behavioral intention in the fast-casual restaurant industry. International Journal
of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 22(3), 416–432. doi:10.1108/09596111011035981
Schmitt, B. (2009). The concept of brand experience. Journal of Brand Management, 16, 417–419.
doi:10.1057/bm.2009.5
Sharp, B., & Sharp, A. (1997). Loyalty programs and their impact on repeat purchase loyalty
patterns. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 14, 473–486. doi:10.1016/S0167-8116
(97)00022-0
Shugan, S. M. (2005). Brand loyalty programs: Are they shams? Marketing Science, 24(2), 185–193.
doi:10.1287/mksc.1050.0124
Si, S. X., & Cullen, J. B. (1998). Response categories and potential cultural bias: Effects of an explicit
middle point in cross cultural surveys. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 6(3),
218–230. doi:10.1108/eb028885
Sosik, J. J., Kahai, S. S., & Piovoso, M. J. (2009). Silver bullet or voodoo statistic? A premier for using
the partial least squares data analytic techniques in group and organization research. Group &
Organization Management, 34(1), 5–36. doi:10.1177/1059601108329198
Sudman, S. (1980). Improving the quality of shopping center sampling. Journal of Marketing
Research, 423–431. doi:10.2307/3150496
Voon, B. H., Jager, J., Chitra, K., Kueh, K., & Jussem, P. M. (2013). Human service matters: A cross-
national study in restaurant industry. Asian Journal of Business Research, 3(2), 1–11.
doi:10.14707/ajbr.132
Walter, N., Cleff, T., & Chu, G. (2013). Brand experience’s influence on customer satisfaction and
loyalty: A mirage in marketing research? International Journal or Management Research and
Business Strategy, 2(1), 130–144.
Weiss, R., Feinstein, A. H., & Dalbor, M. (2004). Customer satisfaction of theme restaurant
attributes and their influence on return intent. Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 7(1),
23–41. doi:10.1300/J369v07n01_03
Wilson, S. (2003). The effect of music on perceived atmosphere and purchase intentions in a
restaurant. Psychology of Music, 31(1), 93–112. doi:10.1177/0305735603031001327
Wong, N. Y., & Ahuvia, A. C. (1998). Personal taste and family face: Luxury consumption in
confucian and western societies. Psychology and Marketing, 15(5), 423–441. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)
1520-6793
Yi, Y., & Jeon, H. (2003). Effects of loyalty programs on value perception, program loyalty, and
brand loyalty. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31(3), 229–240. doi:10.1177/
0092070303031003002
Yoo, B., Donthu, N., & Lee, S. (2000). An examination of selected marketing mix elements and
brand equity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(2), 195–211. doi:10.1177/
0092070300282002
Yoo, M., Lee, S., & Bai, B. (2011). Hospitality marketing research from 2000 to 2009: Topics,
methods, and trends. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 23(4), 517–
532. doi:10.1108/09596111111130010
Zarantonello, L., & Schmitt, B. H. (2010). Using the brand experience scale to profile consumers and
predict consumer behaviour. Journal of Brand Management, 17(7), 532–540. doi:10.1057/
bm.2010.4
Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioral consequences of service
quality. Journal of Marketing, 60(2), 31–46. doi:10.2307/1251929
Zhang, J., & Bloemer, J. M. M. (2008). The impact of value congruence on consumer-service brand
relationships. Journal of Service Research, 11(2), 161–178. doi:10.1177/1094670508322561