This article was downloaded by: [University of West Florida]

On: 07 October 2014, At: 03:47

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The International Review of Retail,

Distribution and Consumer Research
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rirr20

Retail brand equity: a model based on

its dimensions and effects
a a b
Irene Gil-Saura , María Eugenia Ruiz-Molina , Geraldine Michel
a
& Amparo Corraliza-Zapata
a
Marketing Department, Faculty of Economics , Universidad de
Valencia , Avda. Naranjos, s/n, 46022 , Valencia , Spain
b
IAE of Paris, Panthéon-Sorbonne University , Paris , France
Published online: 11 Jan 2013.

To cite this article: Irene Gil-Saura , María Eugenia Ruiz-Molina , Geraldine Michel & Amparo
Corraliza-Zapata (2013) Retail brand equity: a model based on its dimensions and effects,
The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 23:2, 111-136, DOI:
10.1080/09593969.2012.746716

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09593969.2012.746716

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
 Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [University of West Florida] at 03:47 07 October 2014
 The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 2013
Vol. 23, No. 2, 111–136, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09593969.2012.746716

Retail brand equity: a model based on its dimensions and effects

Irene Gil-Sauraa, Marı́a Eugenia Ruiz-Molinaa*, Geraldine Michelb and
Amparo Corraliza-Zapataa
a
Marketing Department, Faculty of Economics, Universidad de Valencia, Avda. Naranjos, s/n,
46022 Valencia, Spain; bIAE of Paris, Panthe´on-Sorbonne University, Paris, France
(Received 20 January 2012; final version received 25 October 2012)
Downloaded by [University of West Florida] at 03:47 07 October 2014

Brand equity has been recognized as a key variable in both the academic and
professional literature. This article aims to deepen the nature of the retailer
equity construct and identify the variables that contribute to its formation,
proposing an integrative model based on their dimensions and effects. From
an empirical perspective, a survey is carried out with 300 consumers in three
retailer categories, in order to analyze the relationships of the model. Due to
the formative nature of two of the constructs, the analysis is developed
through the partial least squares technique. From the analysis of the results,
the importance of store image, perceived store value, and store awareness are
seen as retailer equity dimensions. Additionally, this study confirms the
relationship between retailer equity and the satisfaction–loyalty chain of
effects.
Keywords: retail brand equity; store image; perceived value; trust; satisfaction;
loyalty; PLS

Introduction
Research on marketing has suggested many times that consumers attach an added
value to products through brand (Lassar, Mital, and Sharma 1995; Yoo, Donthu,
and Lee 2000; Pappu and Quester 2006b). This added value is defined as product
brand equity (BE; Yoo, Donthu, and Lee 2000). In the same direction, the field of
retailing highlighted the importance of building BE linked to the store (Jinfeng and
Zhilong 2009), thus emerging in the literature a new concept: store equity (Pappu
and Quester 2006a). In this context, some studies have provided evidence about the
effects of BE in products (e.g., Lassar, Mital, and Sharma 1995; Yoo, Donthu, and
Lee 2000; Villarejo 2003; Taylor, Celuch, and Goodwin 2004) and store BE (e.g., De
Wulf et al. 2005; Beristain and Zorrilla 2011).
However, in spite of recent studies reflecting the gradual rise in the interest
regarding the conceptualization of store equity (e.g., Pappu and Quester 2006a;
Jinfeng and Zhilong 2009; Swoboda et al. 2009), the literature evidence on the
development and analysis of this construct have so far been scarce. Grewal and
Levy pointed out in 2004 the study of the role that store equity plays itself as a
brand – different from the brands commercialized by the retailer – as one of the

*Corresponding author. Email: M.Eugenia.Ruiz@uv.es

© 2013 Taylor & Francis

 112 I. Gil-Saura et al.

critical research areas. In particular, the authors propose to study the

development of store equity as a fruitful research area (Grewal and Levy 2004,
2009). In addition, to the best of our knowledge, there is no evidence about the
relationships of store equity with other constructs and its influence on consumer
behavior toward the store.
Nowadays, retailing is one of the most important economic activities in the
Spanish commercial structure. A good indicator to determine the weight of a sector
in the economy is the analysis of the contribution of gross value added (GVA) of that
sector to GVA in the economy. In 2007, retail trade is assigned a GVA at basic prices
of 43,954 million euros, representing 4.67% of the total GVA in the Spanish
economy which, in turn, amounts to 942,002 million euros. Meanwhile, the total
GVA of trade represents 15.43% of the total GVA in the services sector, the latter
reaching 634,583 million euros (BICE 2009, 27). Retail trade in Spain is also
Downloaded by [University of West Florida] at 03:47 07 October 2014

characterized by high fragmentation, with 526,695 companies and 638,566 premises

in 2009 (INE 2011). The contribution of retailing to economic development through
job creation is also remarkable. In this sense, the number of retail employees
increased to 1,974,230 employees in 2008, accounting for 62% of employment in the
commercial sector (BICE 2009, 52). These figures provide evidence of the importance
of retail activities and, thus, the interest to deepen their study and analysis, to
develop differentiation strategies based on sustainable competitive advantages (Sales
and Gil 2007) and enable retailers to deal with an increasingly demanding
environment (Interbrand 2011). In this sense, branding may be especially important
in retailing, given its highly competitive nature and its strong influence on patronage
behavior (Ailawadi and Keller 2004; Hartman and Spiro 2005), and further research
is required to develop the concept of retail BE as distinct from that of product BE.
The BE is just one element on which it is possible to support a strategy of
differentiation from competitors (Lassar, Mital, and Sharma 1995; Yoo, Donthu,
and Lee 2000). Store equity increases store utility and value (Yoo, Donthu, and Lee
2000), creating a series of competitive advantages that offer a value proposition
based on existing associations (Aaker 1996a), as well as superior financial results
(Roberts and Dowling 2002). In this vein, store equity provides the necessary
differential effect on consumer response (Hartman and Spiro 2005), based on a
comparison between alternatives. Consumers would place higher BE to those brands
considered as strong, unique, and desirable (Verhoef, Langerak, and Donkers 2007).
Thus, the view of the retailer as a brand is one of the most important trends in
retailing (Grewal, Levy, and Lehmann 2004). In this vein, due to the difficulties
associated with the measurement of BE, researchers have argued that measuring
retailer equity poses additional challenges in comparison to product BE (Ailawadi
and Keller 2004). For instance, extending the use of consumer preference ratings for
branded product versus an unbranded product (Aaker 1996b) is feasible only when
an unbranded retailer is available for comparison, thus requiring specific research on
retail BE.
In this context, this work is part of a research study that aims at deepening the
study of BE, focusing on retailing. The main objective is to analyze the nature and
extent of store equity, defining the variables that contribute to its formation and
define its characteristics, based on consumer perceptions, beliefs and associations, as
well as to estimate its effects and contribution to the customer response toward the
store. Thus, this study seeks to combine an intravariable methodological approach –
to understand the process of store equity creation and its dimensions – with an
 The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research 113

intervariable methodological approach for identifying the relationships between

store equity and other outcome variables.
The present article is structured as follows. Next, the theoretical framework is
presented. After this, we focus on the relationship between the concepts discussed in
the hypotheses formulation. In the fourth section, the methodology used to carry out
the fieldwork is developed. Subsequently, we discuss the results of the empirical
study conducted to test the hypotheses, and, finally, conclusions, research
limitations, future research lines, and some managerial implications are presented.

Literature review
BE: from product to store
Over the years, there have been several approaches to conceptualizing BE, being
Downloaded by [University of West Florida] at 03:47 07 October 2014

identified with the value added to the product due to the existence of a brand (Yoo,
Donthu, and Lee 2000). Brand is defined as a valuable intangible asset, difficult to
imitate (Roberts and Dowling 2002), that can offer a value proposition based on
existing associations and transmit culture and values of the organization (Aaker
1996a), helping to achieve superior financial results (Roberts and Dowling 2002).
Contributions to the BE concept from the marketing perspective give market and
consumers the most important role, analyzing it in terms of attitudes accumulated in
the minds of consumers (Ambler and Styles 1995), preferences (Park and Srinivasan
1994), perceptions (Lassar, Mital, and Sharma 1995; Yoo, Donthu, and Lee 2000),
associations, and behaviors (Aaker 1991) of consumers toward the brand. In this
sense, one of the most salient contributions in the BE literature is Aaker’s
conceptualization. Aaker (1996a) defines BE as ‘a set of assets (and liabilities) linked
to a brand’s name and symbol that adds to (or subtracts from) the value provided by
a product or service to a firm and/or that firm’s customers.’ Considering both
perceptual and market behavior measures, Aaker (1996b) suggests the following
dimensions as sources of BE: brand loyalty, perceived quality/leadership, associa-
tions/differentiation, awareness, and market behavior.
In turn, Keller (1993, 8) defines BE as ‘the differential effect of brand knowledge
on consumer response to the marketing of the brand.’ Alternatively, Yoo, Donthu,
and Lee (2000, 196) explicitly introduce the comparison and choice of alternatives
and define BE as ‘the difference in consumer choice between the focal branded and
an unbranded product given the same level of product features.’
The literature shows a very recent interest for the analysis of the BE concept in
the field of retailing, with a limited number of contributions aimed at defining the
content of this construct (Hartman and Spiro 2005; Pappu and Quester 2006a;
Jinfeng and Zhilong 2009; Swoboda et al. 2009). In this sense, taking as its starting
point the approximation of Keller (1993), Hartman and Spiro (2005, 1114) define
store equity as ‘the differential effect of store knowledge on customer response to the
marketing of the store.’ This definition consists of three elements: (a) differential
effect based on the comparison of perceptions of a store with other alternatives, (b)
store knowledge, defined as a store name node in memory, to which a variety of
associations are linked, (c) consumer responses, consisting of consumer evaluations,
preferences, and behavior (Hartman and Spiro 2005). Other conceptual proposals
also involve extensions of the model of BE applied to product. Thus, in accordance
with Pappu and Quester (2006a), store equity is a multidimensional concept formed
from awareness, associations, perceived quality, and loyalty. Subsequently, Jinfeng
 114 I. Gil-Saura et al.

and Zhilong (2009, 487) refer to retailer equity (store equity) as ‘the incremental
utility or value added to a retailer by its brand name,’ stressing an essential task of
establishing the brand being identified and generating a differential response. And
recently, Swoboda et al. (2009) introduce the level of consumer involvement as a key
aspect in building a strong brand and creating retailer equity. Table 1 summarizes
the main studies on store equity.
In short, as evidenced by the literature review in Table 1, the limited number of
contributions does not allow conclusions to be drawn about the nature of store
equity and the variables that contribute to its formation (Jinfeng and Zhilong 2009).
Notwithstanding, it seems to be clear that store image and reputation are related to
store equity creation (Hartman and Spiro 2005; Pappu and Quester 2006a; Jinfeng
and Zhilong 2009; Swoboda et al. 2009). Furthermore, considering the theories of
BE oriented to product (Koo 2003; Jinfeng and Zhilong 2009), we understand that
Downloaded by [University of West Florida] at 03:47 07 October 2014

the inclusion in the analysis of other variables developed under this perspective may
shed additional light on the structure of relationships for BE in the context of retail
stores. Thus, we propose to retain as a research proposal other constructs such as
trust and perceived value toward the store (Lassar, Mital, and Sharma 1995). As it is
argued by Lassar, Mital, and Sharma (1995), trustworthiness is included in our
model because consumers place high value in the brands that they trust. Regarding
value, it is included since consumer choice of a brand depends on a perceived balance
between the price of a product and all its utilities (Lassar, Mital, and Sharma 1995).
Prior to building the store equity model, we develop conceptually all these variables
in the following sections.

Retail BE and its dimensions

Store image
In the retailing literature, consumers’ perception of a retailer has been seen as closely
related to the construct ‘store image’ (Morschett, Swoboda, and Foscht 2005). The
image of the point of sale has been acknowledged as an important aspect in the
consumer’s evaluation process, as well as an element of the store personality
(Hartman and Spiro 2005).
One of the first attempts to conceptualize store image was done by Martineau,
who defined it as ‘the way in which the store is defined in the shopper’s mind, partly
by its functional qualities and partly by an aura of psychological attributes’ (1958,
47). After this definition, there have been various contributions, always assuming the
same approach, trying to define and give content to this term. Some of them express
a multidimensional concept (James, Durand, and Dreves 1976; Marks 1976), based
on the interaction of functional and emotional elements (Lindquist 1974; Oxenfeld
1974), which contribute to the formation of store image in the minds of consumers
based on their impressions and perceptions (Hartman and Spiro 2005), in addition to
physical characteristics of the establishment, marketing mix, and a set of
psychological attributes (Chang and Tu 2005). Therefore, in this sense, it is
important to stress the importance of individuals in the coding of the various
elements of image (Kapferer 1986) based on their prior knowledge and experience
(Mazursky and Jacoby 1986; Bloemer and Odekerken-Schröder 2002).
Along these lines, more recent studies integrate the formation of image not only
on perceptions, beliefs, and knowledge about a particular store but also about the
 Downloaded by [University of West Florida] at 03:47 07 October 2014

Table 1. Main contributions to research on product and store BE.

Authors Objective Variables analyzed Statistical method Scope

Swoboda et al. To analyze how Antecedents of store BE: retailer Structural Retail stores: 5 categories
2009 consumer attributes equation model
involvement affects Store BE dimensions: likeability,
store equity differentiation, trustworthiness,
perception and commitment, willingness to
evaluation. recommend
Moderating variable: consumer
involvement
Jinfeng and To explore relationships Antecedents of store BE: store image Structural Retail stores: 10 hypermarkets
Zhilong, 2009 between store equity dimensions equation model in China: 5 international
dimensions and store Store BE dimensions: retailer retailers and 5 national
image dimensions associations, awareness, perceived retailers
quality, loyalty
Decarlo et al. 2007 To examine the impact Store BE dimensions: store image, Confirmatory Retail stores: restaurants
of store equity on familiarity factor analysis.
negative received Consequences of store BE: word-of- Analysis of
word-of-mouth mouth communication variance
communication attributional processing and
attitudes
Swoboda et al. To show the relevance of Antecedents of store BE: perceptions Structural Retail stores: 5 sectors:
2007 service quality in of retailer service and perceptions equation model grocery, textiles, Do It
building a strong of other retailer attributes Yourself (DIY), consumer
retail brand electronics, and furniture
retailing
Pappu and To extend BE Store BE dimensions: awareness, Structural Retail stores: 2 retail formats: 3
Quester, 2006a measurement to store associations, perceived quality, equation model department stores and 3
equity loyalty specialist stores
The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research

(continued)
115
 Downloaded by [University of West Florida] at 03:47 07 October 2014

116

Table 1. (Continued)

Authors Objective Variables analyzed Statistical method Scope

Hartman and To define store equity. Store BE dimensions: awareness, Conceptual Retail stores
Spiro, 2005 Conceptual loyalty, image analysis
comparative analysis:
store equity vs. store
image
Arnett, Laverie, To develop a scale for Store BE dimensions: loyalty, PLS regression Retail stores
and Meiers measuring store awareness, service quality,
2003 equity associations, perceived value
Consequence of BE: shopping
intentions
Yoo, Mital, and To study the relationship BE dimensions: perceived quality, Structural Product: 3 product categories:
Sharma 2000 between marketing loyalty, awareness/associations equation model sport footwear brands,
mix and BE Antecedents of BE: marketing mix camera brands, and TV
elements brands
Lassar, Mital, and To develop a consumer- BE dimensions: brand performance, Confirmatory Product: 5 product categories:
I. Gil-Saura et al.

Sharma 1995 based instrument to social image, brand attachment, factor analysis sport footwear, TV, jeans,
measure BE perceived value, trust pens, and watches
Park and To measure BE in a Consequences of BE: market share Ordinary least Product: 2 product categories:
Srinivasan, product category and due to BE, price premium due to squares model toothpaste and mouthwash
1994 evaluating BE in a BE estimation
brand extension in a
related product
category
Keller, 1993 To explore the BE dimensions: brand knowledge: Conceptual Product
implications of BE in brand awareness and brand image analysis
brand strategic issues

Source: Authors’ compilation.

 The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research 117

category of retail outlets that this store belongs to (Hartman and Spiro 2005) and
even the influence of the opinion about this store brand (Martenson 2007). In this
context, store image is defined as ‘perceptions of consumers on primary marketing
activities of a store’ (Jinfeng and Zhilong 2009, 488).
In retailing, store image dimensions have been considered by some authors as
antecedents of retailer equity (e.g., Jinfeng and Zhilong 2009), whereas the most
common approach includes store image as a retailer equity dimension (e.g., Hartman
and Spiro 2005; Decarlo et al. 2007).

Perceived value of the store

Perceived value is one of the central strategic variables for organizations that wish to
maintain their market position and the main reason that governs the customers’
Downloaded by [University of West Florida] at 03:47 07 October 2014

purchasing decisions (Sweeney and Soutar 2001).

In the literature, there have been disagreements about the conceptualization of
perceived value (Zeithaml 1988). Notwithstanding, in recent years, there has been a
consensus about perceived value as: (1) a subjective concept that depends on the
consumer (Woodruff 1997) and (2) a relative construct, influenced by the alternatives
available, since the evaluation process occurs in a comparative context (Holbrook
1999).
According to Zeithaml (1988, 14), perceived value is ‘the consumers’ overall
assessment of the utility of a product based on perceptions of what is received and
what is given.’ From this definition, it is inferred that perceived value is a highly
subjective concept that emerges from the comparison between consumers’
perceived benefits and sacrifices (Zeithaml 1988). This is a relative and flexible
concept, since it allows internal comparisons between positive attributes (such as
quality) and negative attributes (such as price, risk, time spent) in a final
assessment that results in a balance in the mind of the consumer (Gil and Gallarza
2008).
The conceptualization of perceived value has evolved from an approach based on
measuring functional aspects, limited to measuring the quality–price relationship
(Sweeney and Soutar 2001), to also including more intangible elements of emotional
and social nature. Sweeney and Soutar (2001), based on the typology proposed by
Sheth, Newman, and Gross (1991), assume the multidimensionality and relativity of
this concept and propose to explain and measure perceived value through the
perceived value (PERVAL) scale, consisting of three pillars: (1) emotional value,
described by feelings and emotional states generated in the consumer (Sales and Gil
2007), (2) social value, related to the influence or sense of belonging to reference
groups of consumers (Sheth, Newman, and Gross 1991), and (3) functional value or
expected utility (Sheth, Newman, and Gross 1991), composed of two sub-
dimensions, i.e., price and quality (Sales and Gil 2007).
In particular, according to the empirical results of Swoboda et al. (2007), the
relevance of service in building a strong retail brand is intersectorally underlined in
comparison to the other retailer attributes. Following these authors, even in sectors
that intensively use self-service, the importance of service quality and particularly of
friendly and competent staff is evident.
In retailing, while some authors have considered value as a store equity
dimension (e.g., Arnett, Laverie, and Meiers 2003), others consider it as an
antecedent of retailer equity (e.g., Swoboda et al. 2007, 2009).
 118 I. Gil-Saura et al.

Trust toward the store

For many years, trust has been studied in many different sciences, including
marketing, considering it as an inherent characteristic of any social relationship
and one of the key variables in marketing relationships (Macintosh and Lockshin
1997).
Trust has been defined as the confidence that relationship partners have in the
reliability and integrity of each other (Morgan and Hunt 1994). Contributions on the
concept of trust have been mainly based on the approximation of Rotter (1967, 651),
who defines trust as ‘the expectancy held by an individual or a group that the word,
promise, verbal or written statement of another individual or group can be relied
upon.’ Based on this idea, other authors define trust as the confidence that
relationship partners have in the reliability and integrity of each other (Moorman,
Zaltman, and Deshpande 1992; Moorman, Deshpandé, and Zaltman 1993; Morgan
Downloaded by [University of West Florida] at 03:47 07 October 2014

and Hunt 1994). This emotional state involves certain vulnerability and uncertainty
for one party (Coleman 1990; Moorman, Zaltman, and Deshpande 1992; Moorman,
Deshpandé, and Zaltman, 1993) based on the positive expectations generated about
the behavior of the other party (Singh and Sirdeshmukh 2000).
Traditionally, trust has been conceptualized from two approaches: (1) reliability,
where trust is seen as a belief, expectation, or feeling about the ability or capacity
attributed to one of the parties of the relationship to develop an activity, to perform
an obligation, and to achieve certain results (Rotter 1967; Schurr and Ozanne 1985),
(2) intent, which implies that trust exists provided that there is a behavioral intention
or a behavior (Coleman 1990; Morgan and Hunt 1994), i.e., an attribution of
favorable motives or intentions of an individual in their relationship with another
individual so that the former is considered as trustworthy. In the context of retailer
equity, some authors consider trust as a store BE dimension (e.g., Swoboda et al.
2009).

Store awareness
Store identity is defined as the name and/or the logo associated with the store. The
awareness of the store identity may have an impact on store recall or recognition
processes by the consumer (Hartman and Spiro 2005). Today, retailers take
advantage of changes in the competitive environment to transform store identity into
an intangible asset with great value and difficult to imitate (Hartman and Spiro
2005). Thus, consumers’ knowledge about the store name may lead to success or
failure (Villarejo, Sánchez, and Rondán 2007).
Awareness has been traditionally related to the intensity of consumer recognition
or recall, i.e., the ability to identify a name among others (Rossiter and Percy 1987)
or the likelihood of being in the consumer’s memory and the consumer’s ability to
retrieve the brand when given the product category (Keller 1993). Through
measuring spontaneous or assisted memory, a distinction is made of two types of
awareness: (1) spontaneous awareness, i.e., without any stimulus, and (2) assisted
awareness, through suggestions (Villarejo, Sánchez, and Rondán 2007).
Consequently, several authors have analyzed the importance of the place of the
brand in consumers’ minds in the selection process, concluding that it plays a crucial
role in determining the consideration set (Keller 1993; McDonald and Sharp 2000).
In this sense, if the brand is not in the consumer’s memory, the store would be rarely
chosen between the existing alternatives (Villarejo, Sánchez, and Rondán 2007).
 The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research 119

Retail BE and its effects

Regarding the effects of BE, there are several contributions from the product
perspective (e.g., Taylor, Celuch, and Goodwin 2004; Broyles, Schumann, and
Leingpibul 2009) that examine the existence of a set of outcomes provided by the
differential effect of BE. Based on the literature review, we propose the satisfaction–
loyalty chain as consequences of store equity. Loyalty is identified as the result of a
series of attitudes and thoughts generated in the consumer (Keller 1993) as a
consequence of decision and evaluation processes (Bloemer and Ruyter 1998).
Satisfaction is considered as a variable that contributes to the formation of a loyalty
scheme in consumer behavior (Bloemer and Kasper 1995; Bloemer and Ruyter 1998).

Consumer satisfaction
Downloaded by [University of West Florida] at 03:47 07 October 2014

Satisfaction has been considered one of the main concepts of research in marketing,
due to its potential influence on consumer purchase intentions and customer
retention (Brady, Cronin, and Brand 2002).
The proposals for definitions of satisfaction are numerous (Giese and Cote 2000;
Vanhamme 2000), with identified different approaches to this concept (Oliver 1997):
(1) cognitive approach (Oliver 1980, 1997; Bloemer and Ruyter 1998), which has
traditionally defined satisfaction as the comparison between expectations and
perceived outcome of the chosen alternative (Bloemer and Ruyter 1998), with
reference to the disconfirmatory paradigm (Oliver 1980), where the similarity or
divergence from the expectations formed by the consumer with the results of his
choice will lead to confirmation or disconfirmation of his expectations (Oliver 1997),
and (2) affective approach (Westbrook and Reilly 1983; Cadotte, Woodruff, and
Jenkins 1987; Giese and Cote 2000), which highlights the emotional nature of
satisfaction in the consumption experience, highlighting the importance of
consumers perceptions and feelings in their comparison between expectations and
perceived outcome of the chosen alternative (Cadotte, Woodruff, and Jenkins 1987).
Considering these two approaches, more recent proposals assume the dual nature
of satisfaction, i.e., both cognitive and affective, defining satisfaction as the emotions
aroused following a cognitive evaluation process (Feldman 1998). From this point of
view, Vanhamme (2000) describes satisfaction as a relative psychological state that
results from a purchase/consumption experience.

Loyalty toward the store

Loyalty is a process, not just an act (Torres, Vásquez, and Zamora 2008), where both
attitudes and purchase or repurchase behavior should be taken into account.
Traditionally, according to Bloemer and Kasper (1995), two types of loyalty can
been defined: (1) spurious loyalty or inertia, which implies high probability behavior
and low commitment to repurchase (Dick and Basu 1994; Antón and Rodrı́guez
2004), consists of revisiting or re-buying in a store (Bloemer and Ruyter 1998) based
on situational signals (Dick and Basu 1994), and (2) true loyalty, which in addition
to repeat purchase, involves a choice and decision behavior based on consumer
preferences (Bowen and Shoemaker 1998) and intentions (Mellens, Dekimpe, and
Steenkamp 1996). Following Dick and Basu (1994), a cross-classification of attitude
and behavior dimensions results in four distinct types of loyalty: high (true),
spurious, latent, and low (no) loyalty.
 120 I. Gil-Saura et al.

Subsequently, a more comprehensive concept of loyalty is proposed, conceiving

this construct as a behavioral response bias resulting in a decision with respect to one
or more options within a group of establishments, expressed over time as a result of a
decision process.
Loyalty has been considered by some researchers as a dimension of BE (Aaker
1991, 1996a; Yoo, Donthu, and Lee 2000; Pappu, Quester, and Cooksey 2005) as
well as retailer equity (Arnett, Laverie, and Meiers 2003; Hartman and Spiro 2005;
Pappu and Quester 2006a; Jinfeng and Zhilong 2009). Notwithstanding, in the
context of retailing, recent research (e.g., Decarlo et al. 2007; Martenson 2007;
Chebat, El Hedhli, and Sirgy 2009; Fleck and Nabec 2010) provides evidence
supporting customer loyalty as the ultimate consequence of store BE.
Downloaded by [University of West Florida] at 03:47 07 October 2014

Proposed model and research hypotheses

As noted in the ‘Introduction’ section, the purpose of this article is twofold: to
explore the dimensionality of store equity and to provide a model that relates
store equity with other classical outcome variables such as satisfaction and
loyalty. Following the previous conceptual review and from the results of the
extant literature, a model is proposed and the various proposed relationships are
examined.
Firstly, store image is used as a marketing tool to create, increase, and improve
BE (Srivastava and Shocker 1991). Among a set of competing stores, each store is
likely to be evoked uniquely for certain associates by the stores’ respective primary
customers and by primary customers of competing stores. Since only a few (one to
three) of a larger set of stores in a market are likely to be retrieved for lowest prices,
competing stores in a market are likely to have a unique set of major benefit-to-store
retrievals (Thelen and Woodside 1997). In this sense, every store has a unique image,
defined as automatic associate-to-store retrievals, among its primary store
customers, even among two or more stores with exactly the same prices, store
layouts, names, operating policies, and located in the same market area (Thelen and
Woodside 1997). Various studies have concluded that the more favorable the store
image, the higher the value of that establishment (Bloemer and Ruyter 1998). In
retailing, Beristain and Zorrilla (2011) find empirical support to the notion that store
image can be used by retailers to influence all components of store BE, essentially
through its commercial and strategic dimension. These ideas lead to the first
hypothesis:

H1: Store image is positively related to store equity.

Secondly, previous research has reported the direct influence of perceived value
on BE (Lassar, Mital, and Sharma 1995), as well as other variables that determine
value, such as quality (Yoo, Donthu, and Lee 2000; Pappu and Quester 2006a;
Jinfeng and Zhilong 2009) or price (Yoo, Donthu, and Lee 2000). These studies
develop an approach to perceived value based on the usefulness perceived by the
consumer for what it is offered, assuming that one of the aspects that make up store
equity is consumer perception (Lassar, Mital, and Sharma 1995; Yoo, Donthu, and
Lee 2000). Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis:

H2: Perceived value is positively related to store equity.

 The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research 121

Thirdly, following Lassar, Mital, and Sharma (1995), trustworthiness is a

component of BE, since consumers place high value in the brands that they trust.
According to previous literature (Lassar, Mital, and Sharma 1995; Delgado and
Munuera 2005; Broyles, Schumann, and Leingpibul 2009), store equity may be due
to the superior consumer confidence the store promises in comparison to alternative
retailers. In this sense, we posit the following hypothesis:

H3: Trust is positively related to store equity.

Fourthly, brand awareness has traditionally been related to recognition, i.e., the
consumers’ ability to identify the brand among others (Rossiter and Percy 1987) or
to retrieve the brand when given the product category or the needs fulfilled by the
category (Keller 1993). Brand awareness has been identified as an element that
Downloaded by [University of West Florida] at 03:47 07 October 2014

influences BE to affect consumer decisions creating feelings of pleasure and

familiarity (Aaker 1991). In particular, brand awareness has been positively related
to BE (Keller 1993; Yoo, Donthu, and Lee 2000) and store equity (Arnett, Laverie,
and Meiers 2003; Hartman and Spiro 2005; Pappu and Quester 2006a; Jinfeng and
Zhilong 2009), reflecting the level of recognition or recall from a set of alternatives.
Thus, we posit:

H4: Store brand awareness is positively related to store equity.

Regarding the consequences of BE, several contributions from the perspective of

product (e.g., Taylor, Celuch, and Goodwin 2004; Broyles, Schumann, and
Leingpibul 2009) examine the existence of a set of outcomes provided by the
differential effect BE. Based on the extant literature, the chain store equity–
satisfaction–loyalty is suggested.
Satisfaction has been often considered as an expression of perceived value
(Sweeney and Soutar 2001) and perceived store image (Stanley and Sewall 1976;
Bloemer and Ruyter 1998; Kumar and Karande 2000; Bloemer and Odekerken-
Schröder 2002; Martenson 2007). According to the results of a review of 50 empirical
studies on customer satisfaction, equity is identified among the antecedents of the
buyers’ level of satisfaction (Szymanski and Henard 2001). In this sense, Broyles,
Schumann, and Leingpibul (2009) argue that one of the main consequences of BE is
an individual’s anticipated satisfaction with the product. Thus, if a customer
perceives that a brand meets or exceeds his/her expectations, he/she will likely
experience feelings of satisfaction (Oliver 1999). In this vein, there is evidence in
corporate brand (e.g., Martenson 2007) as well as in product BE literature (e.g.,
Broyles, Schumann, and Leingpibul 2009) supporting the role of satisfaction as a
consequence of BE. Thus, we enunciate the following hypothesis:

H5: Store equity has a positive effect on consumer satisfaction.

Finally, most researchers agree that satisfaction and loyalty toward the store are
closely and unidirectionally linked (e.g., Torres, Vásquez, and Zamora 2008). Store
loyalty has been considered as the biased behavioral response, expressed over time,
by a consumer with respect to one store out of a set of stores, which is a function of
both decision-making and evaluative processes resulting in brand commitment
(Bloemer and Ruyter 1998). Satisfaction helps to generate loyalty, since it
 122 I. Gil-Saura et al.

contributes to improve consumers’ attitude toward the store and increases

susceptibility to repeat purchases over time and to recommend to others (Torres,
Vásquez, and Zamora 2008). Thus, satisfaction has been pointed out as an
antecedent of loyalty (Dick and Basu 1994; Bloemer and Ruyter 1998; Koo 2003).
Based on this evidence, we posit the last hypothesis:

H6: Consumer satisfaction has a positive effect on loyalty toward the store.

Thus, we propose an integrative model to analyze dimensions and effects of store

equity simultaneously, as shown in Figure 1.

Methodology
Downloaded by [University of West Florida] at 03:47 07 October 2014

In order to obtain the information needed to test the above-mentioned hypotheses, a

personal survey is performed. A questionnaire is developed to gather information on
consumer perceptions about the variables selected, i.e., store image, awareness, trust,
perceived value satisfaction, and loyalty toward the establishment. In particular, the
items to measure store image have been adapted from the scales of Yoo, Donthu,
and Lee (2000) and Bloemer and Odekerken-Schröder (2002). For trust toward the

Figure 1. Theoretical model.

 The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research 123

store, items have been previously validated by Delgado, Munuera, and Yagüe (2003).
Items for measuring perceived value have been adapted from Sweeney and Soutar
(2001), while, for store brand awareness and store equity, they have been extracted
from Yoo, Donthu, and Lee (2000). Finally, satisfaction has been measured as an
overall assessment based on total consumer experience through a single item
proposed by Finn and Kayandé (1997), and loyalty is evaluated through the scale
proposed by Zeithaml, Berry, and Parasuraman (1996). Besides the mentioned scales,
global indicators to assess image, perceived value, trust, and loyalty are included in
the questionnaire. The items of the questionnaire are enunciated in Appendix 1. All
items are measured in a five-point Likert scale, ranking from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5
(strongly agree). Respondents are asked to assess the items referring to three retail
chains in Spain, i.e., Carrefour, Zara, and Ikea. These store brands have been selected
because of their product assortment and their position among most prominent retail
Downloaded by [University of West Florida] at 03:47 07 October 2014

brands in Europe (Interbrand 2011) and in the Spanish market (BICE 2011).
Regarding the sampling procedure, in order to obtain a representative sample, a
non-probability procedure, i.e., quota sampling, was followed. A total of 300 valid
questionnaires were collected at the exit of several stores in a region in Spain. Table 2
shows the sample distribution according to the classification variables.
From the data collected, both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses are
performed in order to test the measurement model, and, later, the hypotheses
proposed in the model displayed in Figure 1 are tested through a partial least squares
(PLS) regression. This technique allows the incorporation of both formative and
reflective constructs (Diamantopoulos and Winklhofer 2001). In this study, two of
the constructs retained – i.e., store image and perceived value – have been considered
formative, since each attribute or indicator reflects a specific aspect of the construct
and omitting an indicator alters the nature of the construct (Diamantopoulos,
Riefler, and Roth 2008). Therefore, we consider PLS as the most suitable technique.
Table 3 exhibits a summary of the technical details of the research.

Analyses and research results

In order to achieve the objectives of this article, a three-phase process is performed.
Firstly, we conducted an exploratory factor analysis to study the quality of the
measures used. Some problems were detected in the level of association between
different variables. In particular, the correlation matrix of perceived value and brand
awareness shows the presence of two indicators with values lower than 0.3. In
addition to this, the measure of sampling adequacy (MSA) values for these cases
were lower than 0.5 (V3: ‘The products of this store would not last a long
time’ ¼ 0.481; AW6: ‘I have difficulty in imagining X in my mind’ ¼ 0.427), which is
considered unacceptable (Hair et al. 2005). Therefore, both items were eliminated,
and results were consequently improved.
After this, the relevant goodness-of-fit tests were performed, observing
acceptable values for Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin and Bartlett sphericity tests (Hair et al.
2005), as shown in Table 4.
After this preliminary factor analysis, a confirmatory factor analysis was
performed to validate the measurement instrument of the structural model using
PLS. This technique provides acceptable values for the reliability, measured through
the composite reliability and Cronbach’s coefficient a (above 0.7) for all reflective
constructs (Table 5).
 124 I. Gil-Saura et al.

Table 2. Sample distribution.

Consumer characteristics No. %

Gender
Male 128 42.7
Female 172 57.3
Age
18–25 59 19.7
26–35 75 25.0
36–45 71 23.7
46–55 56 18.7
56–65 26 8.7
465 13 4.3
Educational level
No studies 21 7.0
Downloaded by [University of West Florida] at 03:47 07 October 2014

Primary studies 105 35.0

Secondary studies 131 43.7
University studies 43 14.3
Monthly income (Euros)
5600 17 5.7
601–900 40 13.3
901–1,200 87 29.1
1,201–1,500 68 22.7
1,501–1,800 26 8.7
1,801–2,100 10 3.3
2,101–2,400 24 8.0
42,400 24 8.0
na 22 7.3
Labor status
Student 33 11.0
Housewife 48 16.0
Unemployed 34 11.3
Retired 16 5.3
Employer 30 10.0
Employee 139 46.3

To evaluate convergent validity, indicator loadings, average variance extracted,

and cross-loadings are analyzed. Items of reflective variables with loadings lower
than 0.6 were deleted. Then, we assessed the average variance extracted, obtaining
values above 0.5 in all cases.
Regarding the formative constructs, variance inflation factors (VIFs) were
estimated to examine for collinearity. In general, VIFs greater than 10 indicate severe
multicollinearity problems (Mason and Perreault 1991). In the present study, items
showing VIF values higher than 10 were eliminated to avoid their potential unduly
influence on the model estimates.
Furthermore, cross-loadings show adequate values for each construct. Lastly,
through a bootstrapping process, 500 subsamples are generated, and significance of
weights and loadings is analyzed, eliminating non-significant items of formative
constructs. All this allows us to confirm the convergent validity of the model.
Additionally, in order to confirm the discriminant validity of the measuring
instrument, we have checked that each construct’s extracted variance is bigger than
the squared correlation of this construct with another construct, as described by
 The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research 125

Table 3. Technical details of the research.

Geographical scope Valencia region

Universe
Sample design
Sampling procedure
Sample size
Data collection period
Scales (5-point Likert)
Downloaded by [University of West Florida] at 03:47 07 October 2014
Consumers older than 18 years
Personal survey through structured questionnaire
Random sample
300 valid questionnaires
April–May 2009
Store image – adapted from Yoo, Mital, and Sharma (2000)
and Bloemer and Odekerken-Schröder (2002)
Trust toward the store – Delgado, Munuera, and Yagüe
(2003)
Perceived value – adapted from Sweeney and Soutar (2001)
Store awareness – adapted from Yoo, Mital, and Sharma
(2000)

Store equity – adapted from Yoo, Mital, and Sharma (2000)

Satisfaction – adapted from Finn and Kayandé (1997)
Loyalty – adapted from Zeithaml, Berry, and Parasuraman
(1996)
Sample error +5.8%
Confidence level 95.5%
Statistical software SPSS version 17
SmartPLS version 2.0

Table 4. Goodness-of-fit tests for the measurement model.

Store Perceived Store

image value Trust Awareness equity Loyalty
Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin 0.825 0.826 0.912 0.718 0.818 0.863
test
Bartlett’s test of sphericity
w2 1,367.474 1,329.164 1,450.336 396.893 724.918 1,162.342
Sig. 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Fornell and Larcker (1981). This technique represents the best method to assess
discriminant validity (Farrell 2010). From Table 6, it can be inferred that this
requirement is fulfilled in all cases. The results of all these analyses allow us to
confirm the convergent and the discriminant validity.
Once we confirmed the validity of the model, we estimate the model shown in
Figure 1 using the bootstrapping technique and PLS, obtaining the results displayed
in Table 7.
Firstly, regarding the predictive power of the structural model measured through
the determination coefficient, it is higher than 0.1 for all endogenous variables, as
shown in Table 7. Therefore, there is support for the assumptions made about these
latent variables.
Concerning the dimensionality of store equity, a positive impact of store image,
perceived value, and store brand awareness on store equity is observed. Therefore,
the store image that consumers have in their minds based on their impressions and
perceptions has a positively and significant impact on store equity (b ¼ 0.168,
p 5 0.05). Results also show that the overall value that consumers perceive is
 Downloaded by [University of West Florida] at 03:47 07 October 2014

126

Table 5. Confirmatory factor analysis results.

Composite Average variance

Factor Indicator Loading Weight VIF t Cronbach’s a reliability extracted (AVE)
F1. Store IM1 0.534*** 1.331 5.623 N/A N/A N/A
image IM6 0.282** 1.375 2.191
IM10 0.174* 1.298 1.861
IM11 0.249** 1.176 2.362
IM12 0.208** 1.494 2.001
F2. Perceived V1 0.153** 1.550 2.041 N/A N/A N/A
value V2 0.209*** 1.182 2.774
V5 0.190** 1.424 2.215
V6 0.193** 1.490 2.139
V10 0.374*** 1.401 3.593
V13 0.328*** 1.666 3.693
F3. Trust T1 0.724*** 17.991 0.907 0.924 0.576
T2 0.751*** 24.074
T3 0.774*** 31.093
T4 0.752*** 21.809
T5 0.817*** 33.769
I. Gil-Saura et al.

T6 0.799*** 33.073
T7 0.711*** 16.202
T8 0.600*** 12.301
T9 0.867*** 56.255
F4. Store AW1 0.622*** 6.534 0.751 0.838 0.566
awareness AW2 0.771*** 13.866
AW4 0.775*** 15.794
AW5 0.825*** 21.964
F5. Store SE1 0.776*** 23.870 0.886 0.922 0.748
equity SE2 0.887*** 75.507
SE3 0.886*** 56.102
SE4 0.903*** 72.639

(continued)
 Downloaded by [University of West Florida] at 03:47 07 October 2014

Table 5. (Continued)
Composite Average variance
Factor Indicator Loading Weight VIF t Cronbach’s a reliability extracted (AVE)
F7. Loyalty L1 0.844*** 52.304 0.889 0.916 0.645
toward the L2 0.826*** 43.682
store L3 0.847*** 46.090
L4 0.789*** 27.245
L5 0.793*** 36.808
L6 0.712*** 25.110

Notes: *p 5 0.10; **p 5 0.05; ***p 5 0.01; N/A, not applicable; F6 is omitted, since it is measured using a single item.
The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research
127
 128 I. Gil-Saura et al.

Table 6. Square AVE and correlations between constructs.

F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F7
F1 N/A
F2 0.6717 N/A
F3 0.6614 0.7103 0.759
F4 0.3167 0.3412 0.4328 0.752
F5 0.5488 0.6707 0.5194 0.3385 0.868
F7 0.5641 0.6485 0.66 0.3165 0.7103 0.803

Notes: N/A, not applicable. Below the diagonal: estimated correlation between factors. Diagonal: square
root of variance extracted.
Downloaded by [University of West Florida] at 03:47 07 October 2014

Table 7. Hypotheses testing results.

Causal relation Hypotheses Standarized b t

H1: store image ! store equity Supported 0.168** 2.916
H2: perceived value ! store Supported 0.533*** 9.517
equity
H3: trust ! store equity Not supported 70.018 0.223
H4: store awareness ! store Supported 0.111** 1.961
equity
H5: store equity ! satisfaction Supported 0.523*** 9.881
with the store
H6: satisfaction with the Supported 0.713*** 24.248
store ! loyalty toward the
store

Notes: GoF ¼ 0.3375. R2 (store equity) ¼ 0.4778; R2 (loyalty toward the store) ¼ 0.5086; R2
(satisfaction) ¼ 0.274; **p 5 0.05; ***p 5 0.01.

positively and significantly related to store equity (b ¼ 0.533, p 5 0.01). In addition

to this, the existence of a positive relationship between store brand awareness and
store equity, so that the higher the store awareness – expressed as the consumer’s
ability to identify the store among other alternatives (Rossiter and Percy 1987) or the
likelihood to be on his mind – the higher the BE (b ¼ 0.111, p 5 0.05) is confirmed.
However, in contrast to previous research (e.g., Lassar, Mital, and Sharma 1995;
Broyles, Schumann, and Leingpibul 2009), no support is found for the existence of a
positive relationship between trust and store equity. Several possible explanations
for this finding are suggested. Firstly, the low variability of responses in items
measuring trust – more than 60% of responses for the items measuring trust
concentrate in the upper values of the five-point Likert scale (i.e., 4 and 5) –
evidences that the three retail chains selected for this study are well established and
have been successful at building confidence among Spanish consumers. In fact, they
are the top retailers in their corresponding categories. Low variability of trust may
explain the weak contribution of this dimension to store equity. If a bigger sample of
retailers is analyzed, the role of trust as a dimension of store equity may be
supported or not. Secondly, previous evidence about the influence of trust on BE is
obtained in the context of product BE, whereas the scarce literature on retailer BE
 The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research 129

(e.g., Pappu and Quester 2006a; Jinfeng and Zhilong 2009; Beristain and Zorrilla
2011) includes trust as just one of the elements that form retailer associations. In the
context of retailing, maybe other factors building brand associations such as ‘liking’
and ‘pride’ (e.g., Pappu and Quester 2006a) may play a more relevant role in retailer
BE formation. Thirdly, while all three store brands operate in several countries, there
is recent empirical evidence in the sense that adopting a universalistic approach in
trust building does not seem appropriate in all cultures (Sia et al. 2009). The use of
specific strategies to build trust should depend on the extent that they appeal to the
specific cultural traits (e.g., individualism–collectivism) of potential customers, in
view of the importance of trusting beliefs on buying intentions and behaviors across
cultures, and, therefore, further research should be conducted in order to validate
results obtained for the Spanish case in other cultural contexts.
Lastly, regarding the relationship between store equity and its consequences, it is
Downloaded by [University of West Florida] at 03:47 07 October 2014

observed that the higher store equity, the greater the overall satisfaction with the
store (b ¼ 0.523, p 5 0.01). In turn, we find support for the positive relationship
between customer satisfaction and loyalty toward the store (b ¼ 0.713, p 5 0.01), so
that satisfaction can be considered as the main antecedent of loyalty toward the
store.

Conclusions and research limitations

The present article is intended to contribute to research about store equity in the field
of retail distribution through the examination of the nature of the store equity
construct and the definition of the variables influencing its formation. In order to
achieve this aim, an integrative model is proposed to analyze the dimensions and
effects of store equity.
As a result of the analyses performed, this research provides evidence about the
multidimensionality of store equity and its positive influence on customer
satisfaction and, ultimately, on loyalty toward the retailer. In particular, our results
allow us to identify store image, perceived value, and store brand awareness as the
three dimensions of store equity. Consequently, the way the store is defined in the
minds of consumers through their perceptions and feelings, the overall perceived
value, and the awareness of the store identity are the key tools to create store equity
and, thus, differentiate from competitors.
Additionally, our results reveal a significant positive relationship between store
equity and customer satisfaction, as well as a positive and significant influence of the
latter on loyalty toward the establishment. Thus, we find support to the mediating
role of satisfaction in the relationship between store equity and loyalty toward the
store.
In contrast to previous studies (e.g., Lassar, Mital, and Sharma 1995; Delgado
and Munuera 2005; Broyles, Schumann, and Leingpibul 2009), trust does not seem
to exert any significant influence on store equity. In this sense, in the area of BE,
product-oriented trust has been suggested as a result of BE (e.g., Amraoui and
Páramo 2006). Thus, further research should deepen the study of the relationship
between trust and store equity.
Regarding the managerial implications derived from this research, with growing
competition in retailing, store chains should implement strategies to stay competitive
through differentiation. In particular, service and other retailer attributes play a
highly significant role in building a retail brand. In this sense, retailers should not
 130 I. Gil-Saura et al.

concentrate on improving individual elements but should view their retailer

attributes as a whole, since the individual dimensions are not assessed in isolation
by the consumer. It makes sense to analyze perceived value in detail on the basis of
the importance attributed to this dimension. Swoboda et al. (2007) note that price is
not necessarily the dominating marketing instrument in generating customer
satisfaction and establishing customer loyalty in the long term. Product quality
and the benefits from buying in the store contribute at a greater extent to value
creation and, ultimately, to store equity, customer satisfaction, and loyalty.
In this regard, and given the influence of store equity on customer satisfaction
and loyalty, a better understanding of the variables that contribute to store equity
formation will enable the retailer to articulate strategies and actions to improve its
positioning and deliver increased value to the consumer. In order to achieve this, all
the functional and emotional aspects related to store image, perceived value, and
Downloaded by [University of West Florida] at 03:47 07 October 2014

brand awareness should be taken into consideration, to the extent that they may
exert a direct influence on consumers’ perceptions and impressions (Yoo, Donthu,
and Lee 2000). Communication actions oriented toward enhancing store image and
increasing store awareness may be very useful.
Notwithstanding, the present study is not free from limitations. Firstly, we
acknowledge the need to review the formulation of some items to measure store image
and perceived value in future research. Regarding store image, many aspects
identified in the literature (e.g., Yoo, Donthu, and Lee 2000; Bloemer and Odekerken-
Schröder 2002) have not been relevant in the context of our research, and, thus, other
attributes should be included in the measuring instrument. Some of these attributes
not evaluated in the present research are advertising (Martineau 1958; Marks 1976;
Ghosh 1990), style (Doyle and Fenwick 1974), or design (Marks 1976).
Concerning perceived value, although its importance in store equity formation
has been confirmed in our results, there is a certain limitation on the ability of the
original scale to reflect the perceptions of Spanish consumers in those items related
to the social dimension of value, since none of them have been significant in the
evaluation of the measuring instrument.
An additional research limitation is the potential presence of biases in brand
awareness because of the store selection for our empirical study. In particular, the
three retail chains selected for this study are the top companies in their
corresponding sectors, and, thus, they are well established and known among
Spanish consumers. Therefore, a bigger sample of retailers should be considered.
Furthermore, due to the limited geographical scope of this research, this study
should be replicated in other areas, since it is expected that retail distribution,
culture, and consumer habits in each country exert an influence in consumer
perceptions. Moreover, results for the proposed model should be compared across
different store categories or retail formats.
In addition to this, previous literature argues for the existence of further
dimensions of retailer equity such as service quality (Arnett, Laverie, and Meiers
2003; Pappu and Quester 2006a; Jinfeng and Zhilong 2009), differentiation
(Swoboda et al. 2009), attachment (Lassar, Mital, and Sharma 1995), or
commitment (Swoboda et al. 2009). Since the aim of this research was to explore
the dimensionality of retailer equity, future research should include these additional
constructs in the model and assess their contribution to retailer equity.
Finally, since loyalty has been both considered by some researchers as a
dimension of BE as well as a consequence, a model considering store loyalty as a
 The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research 131

source or cause and as a consequence of BE at the same time should be examined.

Lastly, further research should consider the introduction in the proposed model of
other relevant variables such as attitude and commitment, as well as the role of
consumer personal characteristics.

Acknowledgment
This research has been financed by the Spanish Ministry of Education and Science (Project
Ref.: ECO2010-17475).

References
Aaker, D.A. 1991. Managing brand equity. Capitalizing of the value of brand name. New York: Free
Press.
Aaker, D. 1996a. Building strong brands. New York: Free Press.
Downloaded by [University of West Florida] at 03:47 07 October 2014

Aaker, D.A. 1996b. Measuring brand equity across products and markets. California
Management Review 38, no. 3: 102–20.
Ailawadi, K., and K. Keller. 2004. Understanding retail branding: Conceptual insights and
research priorities. Journal of Retailing 80: 331–42.
Ambler, T., and C. Styles. 1995. Brand equity: Towards measures that matter. PAN’AGRA
Working Paper, London Business School.
Amraoui, L., and D. Páramo. 2006. Relación entre el riesgo y la confianza en la marca:
Estudio exploratorio en Francia. Pensamiento y gestión 20: 216–37.
Antón, C., and A.I. Rodrı́guez. 2004. Formas de lealtad a la marca: Identificación empı́rica y
determinación de sus principales caracterı́sticas. Cuadernos de Economı´a y Dirección de la
Empresa, no. 18: 122–45.
Arnett, D.B., D.A. Laverie, and A. Meiers. 2003. Developing parsimonious retailer equity
indexes using partial least squares analysis: A method and applications. Journal of
Retailing 79: 161–70.
Beristain, J.J., and P. Zorrilla. 2011. The relationship between store image and store brand
equity: A conceptual framework and evidence from hypermarkets. Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services 18: 562–74.
BICE – Boletı́n Información Comercial Española. 2009. La distribución comercial en España
en 2008. Boletı´n Económico de ICE, no. 2969.
BICE – Boletı́n Información Comercial Española. 2011. La distribución comercial en España
en 2010. Boletı´n Económico de ICE, no. 3015.
Bloemer, J.M.M., and J.D.P. Kasper. 1995. The complex relationship between consumer
satisfaction and brand loyalty. Journal of Economic Psychology 16: 311–29.
Bloemer, J.M.M., and G. Odekerken-Schröder. 2002. Store satisfaction and store loyalty
explained by customer-and store-related factors. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction,
Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior 15: 68–80.
Bloemer, J.M.M., and K. Ruyter. 1998. On the relationship between store image, store
satisfaction and store loyalty. European Journal of Marketing 32, no. 5/6: 499–513.
Bowen, J., and S. Shoemaker. 1998. Loyalty: A strategic commitment. Cornell Hotel and
Restaurant Administration Quarterly 2: 12–25.
Brady, M.K., J.J. Cronin, and R.R. Brand. 2002. Performance-only measurement of service
quality: A replication and extension. Journal of Business Research 55, no.1: 17–31.
Broyles, S.A., D.W. Schumann, and T. Leingpibul. 2009. Examining brand equity antecedent/
consequence relationships. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 17, no.2: 145–61.
Cadotte, E.R., R.B. Woodruff, and R.L. Jenkins. 1987. Expectations and norms in models of
consumer satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research 24: 305–14.
Chang, C.H., and C.Y. Tu. 2005. Exploring store image, customer satisfaction and customer
loyalty relationship: Evidence from Taiwanese hypermarket industry. Journal of American
Academy of Business 7, no.2: 197–202.
Chebat, J., K. El Hedhli, and M.J. Sirgy. 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.
Coleman, J.S. 1990. Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
 132 I. Gil-Saura et al.

De Wulf, K., G. Odekerken-Schröder, F. Goedertier, and G. Van Ossel. 2005. Consumer

perceptions of store brands versus national brands. Journal of Consumer Marketing 22, no.
4: 223–32.
Decarlo, T.E., R.N. Laczniak, C.M. Motley, and S. Ramaswami. 2007. Influence of image and
familiarity on consumer response to negative word-of-mouth communication about retail
entities. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 15, no. 1: 41–51.
Delgado, E., and J.L. Munuera, J.L. 2005. Does brand trust matter to brand equity? The
Journal of Product and Brand Management 14, no. 2/3: 187–96.
Delgado, E., J.L. Munuera, and M.J. Yagüe. 2003. Development and validation of a brand
trust scale. International Journal of Market Research 45, no. 1: 335–53.
Diamantopoulos, A., P. Riefler, and K.P. Roth. 2008. Advancing formative measurement
models. Journal of Business Research 61: 1203–18.
Diamantopoulos, A., and H.M. Winklhofer. 2001. Index construction with formative
indicators: An alternative to scale development. Journal of Marketing Research 38: 269–77.
Dick, A.S., and K. Basu. 1994. Customer loyalty: Toward an integrated conceptual
Downloaded by [University of West Florida] at 03:47 07 October 2014

framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 22, no. 2: 99–113.

Doyle, P., and I. Fenwick. 1974. Shopping habits in grocery chains. Journal of Retailing 50:
39–52.
Farrell, A.M. 2010. Insufficient discriminant validity: A comment on Bove, Pervan, Beatty and
Shiu (2009). Journal of Business Research 63, no. 3: 324–7.
Feldman, L. 1998. Discrete emotions or dimensions? The role of valence focus and arousal
focus. Cognition and Emotion 12, no. 4: 579–99.
Finn, A., and U. Kayandé. 1997. Reliability assessment and optimization of marketing
measurement. Journal of Marketing Research 34: 262–75.
Fleck, N., and L. Nabec. 2010. L’enseigne: Un capital pour le distributeur. Management &
Avenir 38, no. 8: 14–32.
Fornell, C., and D.F. Larcker. 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 18
(February): 39–50.
Ghosh, A. 1990. Retail management. Chicago, IL: Dryden Press.
Giese, J.L., and J.A. Cote. 2000. Defining consumer satisfaction. Academy of Marketing
Science Review, no. 1: 1–27.
Gil, I., and M.G. Gallarza. 2008. La investigación en valor percibido desde el marketing.
Innovar 18, no. 31: 9–18.
Grewal, D., and M. Levy. 2004. Retail branding and customer loyalty: An overview. Editorial.
Journal of Retailing 80: ix–xii.
Grewal, D., and M. Levy. 2009. Emerging issues in retailing research. Journal of Retailing 85,
no. 4: 522–6.
Grewal, D., M. Levy, and D.R. Lehmann. 2004. Retail branding and customer loyalty: An
overview. Journal of Retailing 80, no. 4: ix–xii.
Hair, J.F., B. Black, B. Babin, R.E. Anderson, and R.L. Tatham, 2005. Multivariate data
analysis. 6th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hartman, K.B., and R.S. Spiro. 2005. Recapturing store image in consumer-based store
equity: A construct conceptualization. Journal of Business Research 58: 1112–20.
Holbrook, M.B. 1999. Consumer value. A framework for analysis and research. London:
Routledge.
INE. 2011. Estadı́sticas Comercio minorista. http://www.ine.es.
Interbrand. 2011. Best global brands. http://www.interbrand.com/es/best-global-brands/Best-
Global-Brands-2011.aspx.
James, D.L., R.M. Durand, and R.A. Dreves. 1976. The use of a multi-attributes attitudes
model in a store image study. Journal of Retailing 52: 23–32.
Jinfeng, W., and T. Zhilong. 2009. The impact of selected store image dimensions on retailer
equity: Evidence from 10 Chinese hypermarkets. Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services 16: 486–94.
Kapferer, J.N. 1986. Beyond positioning: Retailer’s identity. Retail strategies for profit and
growth. Seminar Proceedings, ESOMAR, 167–75, Amsterdam.
Keller, K.L. 1993. Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity.
Journal of Marketing 57: 1–22.
 The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research 133

Knox, S.D., and D. Walker. 2001. Measuring and managing brand loyalty. Journal of
Strategic Marketing 9: 111–28.
Koo, D.M. 2003. Inter-relationships among store images, store satisfaction, and store loyalty
among Korea discount retail patrons. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics 15,
no. 4: 42–71.
Kumar, V., and K. Karande. 2000. The effect of retail store environment on retailer
performance. Journal of Business Research 49, no. 2: 167–81.
Lassar, W., B. Mital, and A. Sharma. 1995. Measuring customer-based brand equity. Journal
of Consumer Marketing 12, no. 4: 11–9.
Lindquist, J.D. 1974. Meaning of image: A survey of empirical and hypothetical evidence.
Journal of Retailing 50, no. 4: 29–38.
Macintosh, G., and L.S. Lockshin. 1997. Retail relationships and store loyalty: A multi-level
perspective. International Journal of Research in Marketing 14, no. 5: 487–97.
Marks, R.B. 1976. Operationalising the concept of store image. Journal of Retailing 52: 37–46.
Martenson, R. 2007. Corporate brand image, satisfaction and store loyalty. A study of the
Downloaded by [University of West Florida] at 03:47 07 October 2014

store as a brand, store brands and manufacturer brands, International Journal of Retail &
Distribution Management 35, no. 7: 544–55.
Martineau, P. 1958. The personality of the retail store. Harvard Business Review 36: 47–55.
Mason, C.H., and W. Perreault. 1991. Collinearity, power and interpretation of multiple
regression analysis. Journal of Marketing Research 28 (August): 268–80.
Mazursky, D., and J. Jacoby. 1986. Exploring the development of store images. Journal of
Retailing 62, no. 2: 145–65.
McDonald, E., and B. Sharp. 2000. Brand awareness effects on consumer decision making for
a common, repeat purchase product: A replication. Journal of Business Research 48: 5–15.
Mellens, M., M.G. Dekimpe, and Steenkamp, J.B.E.B. 1996. A review of brand-loyalty
measures in marketing. Tijdschrift voo Economie en Management 41, no. 4: 507–33.
Moorman, C., R. Deshpandé, and G. Zaltman. 1993. Factors affecting trust in market
research relationships. Journal of Marketing 57: 81–101.
Moorman, C., G. Zaltman, and R. Deshpande. 1992. Relationships between providers and
users of marketing research: The dynamics of trust within and between organizations.
Journal of Marketing Research 29: 314–29.
Morgan, R.M., and S.D. Hunt. 1994. The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing.
Journal of Marketing 58: 20–38.
Morschett, D., B. Swoboda, and T. Foscht. 2005. Perception of store attributes and overall
attitude towards grocery retailers: The role of shopping motives. The International Review
of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research 15, no.4: 423–47.
Oliver, R.L. 1980. A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction
decisions. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Research 17: 460–9.
Oliver, R.L. 1997. Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on the consumer. New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Oliver, R.L. 1999. Whence consumer loyalty? Journal of Marketing 63 (Special Issue): 33–44.
Oxenfeld, A.R. 1974. Developing a favorable price-quality image. Journal of Retailing 50, no.
4: 8–14.
Pappu, R., and P. Quester. 2006a. A consumer-based method for retailer equity
measurement: Results of an empirical study. Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services 13: 317–29.
Pappu, R., and P. Quester. 2006b. Does customer satisfaction lead to improved brand equity?
An empirical examination of two categories of retail brands, The Journal of Product and
Brand Management 15, no. 1: 4–14.
Pappu, R., P.G. Quester, and R.W. Cooksey. 2005. Consumer-based brand equity: Improving
the measurement – Empirical evidence. Journal of Product & Brand Management 14, no. 3:
143–54.
Park, C.S., and V. Srinivasan. 1994. A survey-based method for measuring and understanding
brand equity and its extendibility. Journal of Marketing Research 31: 271–88.
Roberts, P.W., and G.R. Dowling. 2002. Corporate reputation and sustained superior
financial performance. Strategic Management Journal 23: 1077–93.
Rossiter, J.R., and L. Percy. 1987. Advertising and promotion management. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book.
 134 I. Gil-Saura et al.

Rotter, J. 1967. A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. Journal of Personality
35, no. 4: 651–65.
Sales, V., and I. Gil. 2007. Valor percibido por el consumidor: Una aplicación en la compra de
equipamiento para el hogar. Estudios sobre Consumo 82: 63–82.
Schurr, P.H., and J.L. Ozanne. 1985. Influence on exchange processes: Buyer’s preconceptions
of a seller’s trustworthiness and bargaining toughness. Journal of Consumer Research 11:
939–53.
Sheth, J.N., B.I. Newman, and B.L. Gross. 1991. Why we buy what we buy: A theory o
consumption values. Journal of Business Research, no. 22: 159–70.
Sia, C.L., K.H. Lim, K. Leung, M. Lee, and W.W. Huang. 2009. Web strategies to promote
internet shopping: Is cultural-customization needed? MIS Quarterly 33, no. 3: 491–512.
Singh, J., and D. Sirdeshmukh. 2000. Agency and trust mechanisms in consumer satisfaction
and loyalty judgments, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 28, no. 1: 150–67.
Srivastava, R.K., and A.D. Shocker. 1991. Brand equity: A perspective on its meaning and
measurement. Report no. 91–124. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.
Downloaded by [University of West Florida] at 03:47 07 October 2014

Stanley, T.J., and M.A. Sewall. 1976. Image inputs to a probabilistic model: Predicting retail
potential. Journal of Marketing 40, no. 3: 48–53.
Sweeney, J.C., and G.N. Soutar. 2001. Consumer perceived value: The development of a
multiple item scale. Journal of Retailing 77: 203–20.
Swoboda, B., F. Haelsig, D. Morschett, and H. Schramm-Klein. 2007. An intersector analysis
of the relevance of service in building a strong retail brand. Managing Service Quality 17,
no. 4: 428–48.
Swoboda, B., F. Haelsig, H. Schramm-Klein, and D. Morschett. 2009. Moderating role of
involvement in building a retail brand. International Journal of Retail & Distribution
Management 37, no. 11: 952–74.
Szymanski, D.M., and H.D. Henard. 2001. Customer satisfaction: A meta-analysis of the
empirical evidence. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 29, no. 1: 16–35.
Taylor, S.A., K. Celuch, and S. Goodwin. 2004. The importance of the brand equity to
customer loyalty. Journal of Product & Brand Management 13, no. 4: 217–27.
Thelen, E., and A. Woodside. 1997. What evokes the brand or store? Consumer research on
accessibility theory applied to modeling primary choice. International Journal of Research
in Marketing 14: 125–45.
Torres, E., A.Z. Vásquez, and J. Zamora. 2008. Customer satisfaction and loyalty: Start with
the product, culminate with the brand. Journal of Consumer Marketing 25, no. 5: 302–13.
Vanhamme, J. 2000. The link between surprise and satisfaction: An exploratory research.
Journal of Marketing Management 16, no. 6: 565–82.
Verhoef, P.C., F. Langerak, and B. Donkers. 2007. Understanding brand and dealer retention
in the new car market: The moderating role of brand tier. Journal of Retailing 83, no.1: 97–
113.
Villarejo, A.F. 2003. La influencia de la imagen del establecimiento comercial en la
determinación del valor de marca de los bienes de conveniencia. Gestión cientı´fica
empresarial: temas de investigación actuales, 175–88.
Villarejo, A.F., M.J. Sánchez, and F.J. Rondán. 2007. Antecedentes de la notoriedad del
nombre en la determinación de la imagen de marca. Una visión desde un producto de gran
consumo. El comportamiento de la empresa ante entornos dinámicos: Libro de Actas XIX
Congreso anual y XV Congreso Hispano France´s de AEDEM 1.
Westbrook, R.A., and M.D. Reilly. 1983. Value-percept disparity: An alternative to the
disconfirmation of expectation theory of consumer satisfaction. In Advances in consumer
research, ed. K.B. Monroe, 94–9. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research.
Woodruff, R.B. 1997. Customer value: The next source for competitive advantage. Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science 25, no. 2: 139–53.
Yoo, B., N. Donthu, and S. Lee. 2000. An examination of selected marketing mix elements
and brand equity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 28, no. 2: 195–211.
Zeithaml, V.A. 1988. Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-end model
and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing 52: 2–22.
Zeithaml, V.A., L.L. Berry, and A. Parasuraman. 1996. The behavioral consequences of
service quality. Journal of Marketing 60, no. 2: 31–46.
 The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research 135

Appendix 1. Measurement scales

Store image (Yoo, Donthu, and Lee 2000; Bloemer and Oderkerken-Schröder 2002; Villarejo
2003)
I1. The stores where I can buy X carry products of high quality.
I2. The stores where I can buy X would be of high quality.
I3. The stores where I can buy X have well-known brands.
I4. This store has friendly personnel.
I5. This store extensive assortment.
I6. This store can easily be reached.
I7. This store offers value-for-money.
I8. This store has a nice atmosphere.
I9. This store has attractive promotions in the store.
I10. This store provides excellent customer service.
I11. This store offers an attractive loyalty program.
Downloaded by [University of West Florida] at 03:47 07 October 2014

I12. This store sells quality products.

I13. This store is a quality store.
I14. This store has prestige.
I15. This store has not a nice atmosphere.
I16. This store sells well-known brands.
Store perceived value (Sweeney and Soutar 2001; Sales and Gil 2007)
V1. The products of this store have an acceptable standard of quality.
V2. The products of this store have poor workmanship.
V3. The products of this store would not last a long time (*).
V4. The products of this store would perform consistently.
V5. The products of this store offer value for money.
V6. The products of this store would be economical.
V7. The people I know would like this store.
V8. Buying in this store may have an influence in the image of me that other people have.
V9. Buying in this store may give a good impression of me to other people.
V10. I would feel good if I had the products of this store.
V11. I would like buying in this store.
V12. I would enjoy buying in this store.
V13. In comparison to the monetary effort and other inconvenients derived from buying in this
store, I think the value it offers is adequate.
Trust in the store (Delgado, Munuera, and Yagüe 2003; authors’ proposal)
T1. With brand X I obtain what I look for.
T2. Brand X is always at my consumption expectation level.
T3. Brand X gives me confidence.
T4. Brand X never disappoints me.
T5. Brand X would be honest and sincere in its explanations.
T6. I could rely on brand X.
T7. Brand X would make any effort to make me be satisfied.
T8. Brand X would repay me in some way for the problem with the product.
T9. In general, trust in store X is (1 very low; 5 very high).
Store awareness (Yoo, Donthu, and Lee 2000)
AW1. I know what X looks like.
AW2. I can recognize X among other competing brands.
AW3. I am aware of X.
AW4. Some characteristics of X come to my mind quickly.
AW5. I can quickly recall the symbol or logo of X.
AW6. I have difficulty in imagining X in my mind (*).
Brand equity of the store (Yoo, Donthu, and Lee 2000)
SE1. It makes sense to go to store X instead of any other store, even if they are the same.
SE2. Even if another store has same features as store X, I would like prefer to go to buy in
store X.

(continued)
 136 I. Gil-Saura et al.

Appendix 1. (Continued)
SE3. If there is another store as good as store X, I prefer to go to buy in store X.
SE4. If the another store is not different from store X in any way, it seems smarter to go to buy
in store X.
Satisfaction (Finn and Kayande´ 1997)
S1. How satisfied are you with X?
Loyalty (Zeithaml, Berry, and Parasuman 1996; authors’ proposal)
L1. Say positive things about store X to other people.
L2. Recommend store X to someone who seeks your advice.
L3. Encourage friends and relatives to do purchases in store X.
L4. Consider store X my first choice to buy the product A.
L5. Do more purchases in store X in the next few months.
L6. The likelihood to revisit store X whenever I need groceries/clothing/furniture is (1 very
low; 5 very high).
Downloaded by [University of West Florida] at 03:47 07 October 2014

Note: *Reverse items.