Thesis Bsc Business Administration
Consumer behavior
In which extent does personal devices affect the behavior
of the customer?
Student
Danny Derksen
Student ID
10779469
Supervisor
Mr Troost
Statement of Originality
This document is written by Danny Derksen who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document are original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it. The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
Abstract
Since the beginning of the digital world, mobile shopping has become increasingly popular among people. Many studies have shown the importance of brand experience, because it will lead to greater customer loyalty. But the digital world brings challenges to the marketer, because consumers have more and more power due to transparency of information. The aim of this study is to investigate if personal devices affects consumer behavior. The
research question conducted in this study is; In which extent does personal devices affect the
behaviour of customers. Hypotheses were formed based on previous literature. The first
hypothesis is about the positive relation between brand experience and customer brand loyalty. The second hypotheses is about the positive relation between personal devices and customer brand loyalty. The last hypotheses is about the moderation effect of personal devices on the relation between brand experience and customer brand loyalty. To test the hypotheses a survey is conducted and an analysis is runned. Furthermore, the hypothesis were tested for three scenario’s; hedonic, utililtarian and the total model. Only for the first hypothesis statistically evidence has been found. Means there has no statistical evidence been found for the other two hypotheses. The most important finding and answer to the research question is that there is no moderation effect of personal devices. However, according to the results, personal devices do not affect the behavior of customers. This study emphasizes the importance of a positive brand experience. Further research can study the same research model with other products (types) and specify the difference in gender.Table of contents
1. Introduction 5
2. Theoretical framework 7
2.1 Brand experience 7
2.2 Customer brand loyalty 10
2.3 Moderating effect of personal devices 12
2.4 Conceptual model 15 3. Methodology 15 3.1 Overall design 15 3.2 Participants 17 3.3 Sampling procedure 19 3.4 Measures 19 3.4.1 Brand experience 20
3.4.2 Customer brand loyalty 21
3.4.3 Personal devices 21
3.4.4 Different product types 22
3.5 Data analysis 23 3.6 Data preparation 23 4. Results 24 4.1 Reliability 24 4.2 Correlations 25 4.3 Regressions 27 4.3.1 Hedonic scenario 27 4.3.2 Utilitarian scenario 29 4.3.3 Total model 30 4.4 Anova analysis 32
5. Discussion 33
5.1 Discussion of the results 34
5.2 Managerial and theoretical implications 35
5.3 Limitations and future research 36
6. Conclusion 37
7. References 39
1. Introduction
We live in a more digital world, where consumers more and more purchase products online. This trend can be referred to m-shopping; “any monetary transactions related to purchases of goods or services through internet-enabled mobile phones or over the wireless
telecommunication network” (Wong, Lee, Lim, Chua & Tan, 2012, p. 25). As a consequence, the power shifts from the marketers to the consumers. The internet empowered the
consument by giving them access to all information and reduce asymmetric information (Rezabakhsh, Bornemann, Hansen & Schrader, 2006). Companies can use strategies such as transparency or comparison tools (e.g. Coolblue) to win the empowered consumer.
As a result of m-shopping and the empowered consumer, creating loyal relationships with customers is nowadays more challenging. Loyalty is defined differently in several studies, but is a combination of three components; Word-of-Mouth (WOM), Willingness to pay more (WPM) and Repurchase intention (RPIN) (Ong, Lee & Ramahayan, 2018). Prior studies show that loyalty can be achieved by delivering a great and memorable experience rather than only a product. However, customers are no longer seeking for only tangible benefits, but also intangible benefits such as unique experiences in their purchase (Zarantonello & Schmitt, 2010). Additionally, prior research concluded there is a general positive relation between brand experience and loyalty (e.g. Brakus, Schmitt & Zarantonello, 2009; Ong et al., 2018). So, a positive experience leads to more loyal relations with
customers.
Brand experience is defined differently in several studies but generally as follow; responses, both subjective and behavioural, from customers (internally) caused by brand-related stimuli (Brakus et al., 2009). Furthermore, they developed a four-factor model to describe brand experience more clearly and includes both behavioural and attitudinal dimensions. The four dimensions in the four-factor model are the sensory, affective, behavioural and intellectual dimension (Brakus et al., 2009).
After discussing the relevance of this research and defining the concepts of this research, it is interesting to look if m-shopping influences consumers. However, because of the trend of m-shopping, it seems logical that it influences consumer behavior. Prior research shows that the purchase probability and size order is increasing by m-shopping (Al Dmour, Alshurideh & Shishan, 2014). A more interesting thing is that orders made by two or more devices, are larger than e.g. smartphone-only orders, so this implicate their is difference in degree of influence of mobile devices on consumer behavior (Wang, Malthouse, Krishnamurthi and Wang, 2016). Additionally, marketers (brands) have to let customers engage with the brand through mobile platforms/ devices and so increase customer engagement which finally leads to more loyalty and the likelihood of purchases (Wang et al., 2016; Thakur, 2016). So, literature suggests there is some positive influence of the use of mobile devices on customer behavior and possibly also on the loyalty of customers.
Besides the fact there is a distinction between different devices, there is also a difference in product type. The research of Baker, Fang and Luo (2014) showed a
difference between two different products; hedonic and utilitarian products. Moreover, there is found a significant difference in influence between hedonic and utilitarian products on consumer behaviour. This distinction in products can be seen as luxury and useful products, respectively hedonic and utilitarian products.
Generally, there can be concluded that several factors influence the relation between brand experience and loyalty, according to prior research. Factors such as satisfaction, service quality and customer value influence behavioural outcomes like loyalty (Cronin, Brady & Hult, 2000) and factors such as brand personality and brand relationships seems influence loyalty (Ramaseshan & Stein, 2014). Although much research is done about influencing factors of customer loyalty, but there is missing consistent explanation in the existing literature about which factors influence customer loyalty (Kumar, Pozza & ganesh, 2013). Specifically, further research is needed to investigate other factors that influencing customer loyalty (Kumar et al., 2013).
Additionally, the research of Kannan (2017) showed also there is a missing field in the literature about the influence of personal devices on the relationship between brand experience and loyalty, suggests there is a new moderator. There is some literature about personal devices on customer behavior such as suggestions from different studies (e.g. Thakur, 2016; Al Dmour et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2016), but it is still poor and incomplete.
Finally, because of several reasons and prior research, researching the influencing of mobile devices on the relationship of brand experience and customer loyalty is interesting. This research will study to which extent the use of personal devices affect the relationship between brand experience and customer loyalty. This leads to the following research question: In which extent does personal devices affect the behavior of customers?.
Firstly, the results of this study will expand existing literature about the relation between brand experience and loyalty, with possibly a new important moderator. Secondly, the models used in this research are based on prior research and builds further on it. Managers can use the results of this research to be more focussed on experiences of customers and create more loyal connections and engagement through strategic marketing via personal devices. However, managers are more aware of the influence of personal devices on consumers. This may finally lead to more profitability and sustainable relationships with customers.
2. Theoretical framework
2.1 Brand experience
Brand experience is a well known concept and frequently discussed in prior research. An important change has taken place; customer are no longer seeking for only tangible benefits of a product, but also for intangible benefits such as unique experiences (Zarantonello & Schmitt, 2010).
Moreover, the consumer is generally more affected by intangible benefits instead of tangible benefits, that differs from generations ago where consumers were seeking for mostly the tangible benefits (Zarantonello & Schmitt, 2010). Consequently, delivering the customer a great experience is become more important for creating loyal relations and thus increases the chance that customers (re)purchase a product.
As been said, the concept brand experience is frequently studied. Despite the fact that brand experience is studied frequently, several studies gave a different meaning to this concept. Moreover, brand experience was unclearly defined and often conceptually referred to terms such as brand attitudes; general evaluations based on beliefs and or automatic reactions (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975; Murphy and Zajonc, 1993) and brand involvement; motivational factors like needs and personal interests that motivate the customer towards the brand and get involved (Zaichkowsky, 1985).
However, brand experience is not only about general evaluations or motivational factors, but is more a multi-dimensional concept with four dimensions; sensory, affective, behavioural and intellectual (Brakus et al.,2009). This model builds further on previous research of Schmitt (1999) about the four different dimensions of brand experience. Firstly, the sensory dimension is related to impressions with visual senses or other senses.
Secondly, the affective dimension is about emotions evoked by the brand. Thirdly, the behavioural dimension is about action oriented or bodily experience, so physical actions caused by the brand. Finally, the intellectual dimension is about curiosity and to make the consumer think about the brand and products. These four dimensions in the four-factor model developed by the research of Brakus et al. (2009) conceptualized brand experience
more clearly and completely. Brand experience is described as follow; ‘Subjective, internal consumer responses (sensations, feelings and cognitions) as well as behavioral responses evoked by brand-related stimuli that are part of a brand’s design and identity, packaging, communications and environments’ (Brakus et al., 2009, p. 53).
In 2013, the research of Nysveen, Pedersen and Skard added a fifth dimension to the four-factor model developed by Brakus et al. (2009). This added dimension is the relational
dimension. It is about interactions between customers and the brand. This dimension was firstly proposed by Schmitt in 1999, but is never empirical supported. Nysveen et al. (2013) does find empirical support for this fifth dimension, which is studied for service products.
Furthermore, this relational dimension is possibly became more important; ‘Relational experiences in the form of customer–brand, customer–customer interactions about the
brand, or brand communities, may become increasingly important in the future as digital social media and networks as well as the ‘sharing economy’ are growing’ (Schmitt, Brakus &
Zarantonello, 2014, p. 730). So, the fifth ‘relational’ dimension developed by Schmitt (1999) and for the first time supported by Nysveen et al. (2013), seems as an important part of brand experience.
However, research has shown that the usefulness and importance of the four-factor model is supported by several studies (e.g. Ong, Lee & Ramahayan, 2018, Schmitt & Zarantonello, 2010). A theory of value creation proposed by Reichheld (1996) does also supports the four dimensions in the four-factor model. This theory suggests that superior value creation is vital for a business to achieve more profits for sustainable business
performance through customer loyalty, so highlighted the importance of brand experience for creating loyal relations with customers.
Despite the supported importance of the four-factor model, it can be emphasized that in many studies the four important dimensions of brand experience are highly ignored. They focus more on other factors like product quality and waiting-time (Ong et al., 2018).
However, the relational dimension has also received support from several studies and also seems to be an important part of brand experience. So, with the added fifth dimension to the four-factor model, relational, brand experience has been given a different (extended) view that makes this and future research more interesting.
2.2 customer brand loyalty
For firms it is important to create a loyal connection or engagement with the customer, because this will finally leads to (more) profits (Brakus et al., 2009; Kumar and Pansari, 2016; Ramaseshan & Stein, 2014). Concluding that studying and understanding loyalty is highly important for businesses.
Furthermore, prior research showed that loyal customers are more willing to pay more (e.g. Srinivasan, Anderson & Ponnavolu, 2002) and for companies often more profitable because of repurchases and positive feedback. Recent research of Ong et al. (2018) confirmed also this view and argues that creating loyalty with the customer is crucial.
Although a lot of research has been done into the field of loyalty, many researches focussed only on one side of loyalty (Ong et al.,2018). Furthermore, the same research demonstrated that there exist two different sides of loyalty; brand loyalty and customer loyalty. Brand loyalty is more about brand management and how to get customers loyal to your brand, while customer loyalty is more about customer behaviour and psychological factors (Yoo, Lee and Bai, 2011). In order to understanding the whole concept of loyalty and to measure the impact of brand experience on it, the two sides are combined into one concept; ‘customer’s brand loyalty’ (Ong et al., 2018). Moreover; ‘Customer brand loyalty contains the three components of Word-of-Mouth (WOM), Willingness to pay more (WPM) and Repurchase intention (RPIN), so both behavioural and attitudinal aspects’ (Ong et al.,
2018).
However, the formulation of loyalty by Ong et al. (2018) is different to previous research, because they combined different components separately, included both
behavioural and attitudinal discussed by several researches such as Chestnut (1978) and Oliver (1999). In other studies loyalty has been measured as a single component (e.g. Zhang & Bloemer, 2008; Fullerton, 2003) rather than a cobination.
Furthermore, the measuring model of Ong et al. (2018) is also a supplement to the model used in the research of Srinivasan et al. (2002); who used the two factors WOM and WPM. Additionally, the model of loyalty of Ong et al. (2018) builds also further on the theory of Oliver (1999) which says that both behavioural and attitudinal are important to measure loyalty.
With the new definition ‘customer brand loyalty’ created by Ong et al. (2018), loyalty has been given a more clear and extended definition for this research and future research. As said, studying and understanding loyalty is important for companies.
To clarify the relationship with brand experience, several studies confirm there is a relation between these two variables. Furthermore, findings in the research of Ong et al. (2018) suggested that customer loyalty can be achieved when the customer experiences the brand positively in the four dimensions and finally this will lead to strong positively loyalty
outcomes, so brand experience is positively related to loyalty. Most studies find also a positive relation between brand experience and loyalty (e.g. Brakus et al., 2009; Ong et al,2018).
Despite the fact that most of the research has results showing a positive relationship between brand experience and loyalty (Ladeira et al., 2018), there are also studies
demonstrating brand experience has a negative (Forsido, 2012) or neutral (Iglesias et al., 2011) effect instead of a positive effect, discussed in last section. Overall, the meta-analysis of Ladeira et al. (2018) shows that there is generally a positive relation between brand experience and loyalty. This study also supports the contribution and importance of the four-factor model of Brakus et al. (2009) and shows that this model is used in more and more research into the field of brand experience.
A small addition will be made before formulating hypothesis based on the theory above. It is logical that there is a difference (strength) in the relation between brand
experience and loyalty for different types of products. So, it is useful to distinguish different types of products for generalization of the results.
Prior research distinguish for example materialism versus experientialism (Gilovich, Kumar & Jampol, 2015), cheap versus expensive (Ladeira et al., 2018) and products classified by durability or tangibility (Kotler, 2003). This confirmed there is difference between different
products towards customers. An other research suggests there is a main difference between hedonic and utilitarian products (Baker, Fang, & Luo, 2014) and is easier to understand and
therefore used in this research. Firstly, hedonic products are products that are more for pleasure and luxury. Secondly, utilitarian are products that are more ‘useful’ and ‘needed’.
Despite the fact that there is a distinction between product types, according to many researches, brand experience is generally positive related to loyalty (e.g. Brakus et al., 2009; Ong et al., 2018). Finally, this leads to the first hypothesis based on the literature:
H1a Brand experience is positive related to customer brand loyalty for both product
types
H1b Brand experience is for hedonic products positive related to customer brand
loyalty.
H1c Brand experience is for utilitarian products positive related to customer brand
loyalty.
2.3 Moderating effect of personal devices
The last couple of years, online purchases have increased considerably. Means that, in general, consumers buy products more often online than in physical stores, according to the research of Deloitte done in 2016 (also called ‘the Deloitte Study’). This increase applies for all kind of products. So, the relevance and importance of digital devices and platforms have been increased considerably. Furthermore, according to the research of Kim, Kim b, Choi b & Trivedi (2017), little is known about mobile shopping.
Therefore it is interesting to analyse what is known about m-shopping and what kind of influence it has, translated from existing literature. Additionally, Kannan (2017) showed also an interesting topic for further research about the influence of personal devices on brand experience and customer behaviour.
Previous research suggests that mobile devices increases customer engagement which finally leads to a greater loyalty (Thakur, 2016). Moreover; ‘With mobile devices being first and most intimate screens for customers, engagement on this media has high potential
for retailers to get desirable business outcomes from customers in the form of purchases and advocacy.’ (Thakur, 2016, p. 152).
Customer engagement is conceptualized as arising out of customer experiences while going through the shopping applications (browsing) and platforms on mobile devices (Calder, Malthouse & Schaedel, 2009).
Additionally, in the literature, customer engagement is described as a predictive tool for predicting consumer behaviour such as loyalty (Roderick and Brodie, 2011). For this research, the most important finding in the research of Thakur (2016) is that customer engagement has a significant influence on loyalty. This indicate the increased influence of the digitalization and use of mobile devices. Literature from other studies confirm the results of Thakur; ‘marketers (brands) have to let customers engage with the brand through mobile platforms/ devices and so increase customer engagement which lead to more loyalty and the likelihood of purchases’ (Wang et al., 2016).
The research of Al Dmour, Alshurideh and Shishan (2014) showed there is a generally positive relation between the use of mobile/personal devices and purchase behaviour. Purchase probability and size order is increasing by m-shopping. A more interesting thing is that orders made by two or more devices, are larger than e.g.
smartphone-only orders, so this implicate their is difference in influence of mobile devices on purchases (Wang et al., 2016). Furthermore, the research of Kim et al. (2017) mentioned also a difference between orders made with a mobile phone or via a computer/laptop.
This research mentioned that more than fifty percent of mobile owners, used mobile phones for purchasing products. Introducing and increasing of smartphone apps are most
responsible for using more and more mobile phones for purchasing.
Smartphone apps can in general be seen as the mobile versions of online sites and companies usually design apps similar to their online sites (Bang et al. 2013). Still, there exist big differences between smartphones and computers. Goh, Chu, and Wu (2015) suggested also that information search behaviors with mobile phones differs from computer search behaviors.
So, literature suggests there exist some positive influence of the use of mobile devices on customer behaviour and possibly also on the loyalty of customers, reffering to a gap in the literature (Kannan, 2017). Furthermore, existing literature suggests that there is a significant difference between online shopping on a computer and shopping with a mobile phone. The most recent research about brand experience recognized personal devices not as a moderator (Ladeira et al., 2018), so it is interesting to investigate. However, several studies showed that mobile devices positively influence consumer behavior, specifically leads to more engagement and loyalty (e.g. Al Dmour, 2014; Thakur, 2016). The suggested positive relation between personal devices and loyalty and the increasing influence of personal devices on consumer behavior leads to the following hypothesis;
H2a Personal devices positively affects customer brand loyalty for both product types H2b Personal devices positively affects customer brand loyalty for hedonic products H2c Personal devices positively affects customer brand loyalty for utilitarian products
H3a Personal devices positively moderates the relation between brand experience
and customer brand loyalty for both product types
H3b Personal devices positively moderates the relation between brand experience
H3c Personal devices positively moderates the relation between brand experience
and customer brand loyalty for utilitarian products
2.4 Conceptual model
Figuur 1. research model
3. Methodology
3.1 Overall design
The aim of this study is to broaden the academic knowledge about the influence of the use of personal devices. To link the relation between brand experience and customer brand loyalty for the two different product types (hedonic/utilitarian) a deductive research approach is used. For this study, an online survey is used.
Brand experience
Affective
Sensory
Behavioural
Intellectual
Customer’s brand loyalty
WOM
RPIN
WPM
Personal devices Laptop Mobile Phone moderator Independent variable Dependent variable H1 H2 H3 Hedonistic/Utilitarian
This method is chosen because the efficiency and the probabilty of errors is relative low, and gives therefore the most representative data. Furthermore, the quantitative approach is useful for this study because this study test for a (new) phenomenom related to existing literature (Newman and Benz, 1998).
The survey is filled out only online as stated, because the expected response rate is higher for online surveys than for surveys on paper (Nulty, 2008). Secondly, the target group are also people who are active online and known by the digital world, so online surveys increased the chance to reach the desired participants. Furthermore, there will be two scenarios for a clear distinction between the product types, the hedonic scenario and the utilitarian scenario. For the hedonic scenario is chosen for an holiday and for the utilitarian scenario a mobile/ electronic device as product. For a reliable research, we need at least 20 participants per scenario to have a representative sample (Van Voorhis & Morgan, 2007). Therefore the survey link is shared on social media and via personal links to direct family, friends and work.
The applicants are not randomly selected, due to the limited available time. Despite the (partial) select sample, the validity is ensured as much as possible. The survey is filled in by diverse applicants with different demographic attributes. Furthermore, only consumers who are active online or sometimes buy something online are part of this study. So, the results are maybe not generalizable for the whole population, but to a certain level, the results are probably generalizable for the part that is active online. Additionally, the online survey allows studying the relations and variables and using enough respondents in a short time, which is crucial for this study.
Each participant filled in the survey voluntarily and individually via the link on social media or the personal link. The sample population is mostly limited to consumers which search and buy products online, because the survey is conducted online.
Finally, using a survey for gathering data has both strenghts and limitations. Quantitive data coming from a survey gathered large numbers of respondents randomly selected for
inclusion, in this study 100 respondents. Must be said that the results can not be generalized to the whole Dutch population.Therefore the findings of this study can only be generalised to a certain level and therefore the process is well-designed and the sample is representative as much as possible.
Furthermore, quantitative approaches such as surveys are best used to answer what, when and who questions, data may not robust enough to explain how and why something happen or occur. In this study a ‘to what extent question’ is used and not a ‘why’ question, so a survey can best answer that question. Furthermore, data can be very consistent, precise and reliable, because the data is anonymous. Finally, the data is relative easy to analyse since it is quantitative and devided into different concepts, and thus relative easy to observe what kind of effects exist between specific variables.
3.2 Participants
The survey conducted in Dutch, therefore all participants in this research are Dutch. Furthermore, a sample has been drawn from the specific population in order to be able to generalize the results to a certain level. Once again, the results can not be generalized to the whole Dutch population because the sample is selected and not representative to do that, but it does probably to a limited group. However, the statistics and demographics of the participants are given below.
The sample consist of 105 respondents of which 100 are completed. The five respondents who did not complete the survey where excluded from the analysis.
Overall, the population of the sample is distributed almost equally if you look at the male/female ratio (respectively 45% and 55%). Furthermore, the youngest and oldest
Most respondents are doing or have completed a HBO or MBO study (respectively 35% and 32%). A little percentage of the sample has only a high school completed (12%) or doing or have completed an university study.
The last questions in the survey were referred to the demographics. The participants were asked about their gender, age and education to reduce the probability of a skewed result. For example more students filled in the survey and create a misconception. Also to avoid any bias related to the results, this question were asked in the last part of the survey. So, the following demographics were conducted;
- Gender: Male/female - Age: open question
- Education: High School; MBO; HBO; University; other
Furthermore, by using other control variables, there is tested if the sample is known with personal devices, apps, internet etcetera. In summary in which extent the respondent are known with the digital trends. Descriptives shows that there are difference in gender, means for example that males and females differ in education, age and internet usage.
However, there are 45 male respondents and 55 female respondents, respectively 45 and 55 percent. The average age of the male respondents is 27,76 years (SD= 11,42). The average of the female respondents is 36,56 years (SD= 15,804) and is considerably higher than the male respondents. Most of the male repsondents doing or have completed a HBO education. The most female respondents are doing or have completed a MBO education, so differs from the male respondents. The average internet usage of the male and female respondents do not differ considerably, respectively 4,76 hours (SD=3,755) and 4,18 hours (SD=2,632).
Generally, both male and female respondents in the survey do have a payment app. The male respondents do have considerably more company apps on their phone than female, respectively 5,25 apps (SD=6,827) and 3,60 apps (SD=5,006).
Finally, the male respondents do use their laptop more than the female resondents. On average, male respondents use their laptop more times a day, on the other hand female do on average use their laptop once per day. The use of mobile phones is for both males and females almost equal, each hour.
There can be concluded that there are some differences between the male and female respondents in this study. Especially the age, education, company apps and laptop usage differ considerably and can influence the results. This is a possible reason for a explorative analysis.
3.3 Sampling procedure
As said earlier in the methodology section, participants are randomly selected and
participation is voluntarily. Participant are approached via social media where the range of possible participants is very high because of the diversity and also because of the fact that family and friends shared the survey link for a bigger and more representative sample. Additionally there is send an anonymous link to several people (e.g. work, family and friends). So, there is a selected sample, but the range of possible participants is big enough en spread across the whole population. Thus, the chance of a diverse sample has been made as large as possible, and the statistics in the participant section confirmed the diversity of the sample.
3.4 Measures
The measures in this research are based on previous studies. The questions in the survey come especially from one recent study, the study of Ong et al. (2018). The research of Ong et al. (2018) is used for the most question because the questions in that research are based on prior studies such as Brakus et al. (2009) and Srinivasan et al. (2002). For the variables brand experience and customer brand loyalty, the questions are based on the research of Ong et al. (2018) and Nysveen et al. (2013).
Furthermore, for the moderator personal devices, no study has been used for measurement, because that moderator is the added value of this research . The moderator is therefore measured by self-created questions in this study.
For brand experience and purchase customer brand loyalty a 6-point Likert scale (totally disagree- totally agree) is used because prior research suggests that is the best scale for measuring these variables and is supported by several other researches (Ong et al., 2018). The 6-point likert scale is used instead of the 7-point likert scale for two reasons. Firstly, to reduce the bias of answering by simply selection, specifically the neutral point (Garland, 1991). Secondly, responses with even possible options has been reported to provide higher validity and reliability (Coelho & Esteves, 2007). To be consistent, the moderator is also measured with a 6-point Likert scale.
3.4.1 Brand experience
Brand experience is described as total sum of subjective, internal responses of consumers such as sensations, feelings and cognitions, and behavioral responses evoked by brand-related activities such as brand’s identity and communications (Brakus et al., 2009, p. 53).
In this research, brand experience has been measured according to several items used in the research of Ong et al. (2018). They used questions to measure brand experience, based on the four-factor model of Brakus et al. (2009). In this research four questions are used and represents all the dimensions to create a complete picture; behavioural, intellectual,
behavioural and affective. Additionally, an extra question is added from the research of Nysveen et al. (2013). This question represents the relational dimension. This item is added because it is according to Nysveen et al. (2013) affecting customers and with the new digital world this dimension is more and more influence the consumers. Furthermore, this
dimension is also measured, to be consistent with the other dimensions, with a 6-point likert scale.
So, the brand experience variable is measured by five items and is based on several studies as mentioned with the same measure scale. An example of one item is; The organization / brand has made a positive impression.
3.4.2 Customer brand loyalty
Customer brand loyalty is developed and described as a concept that contains the three components of Word-of-Mouth (WOM), Willingness to pay more (WPM) and Repurchase intention (RPIN), so both behavioural and attitudinal aspects’ (Ong et al., 2018).
In this research, customer brand loyalty is measured by several items based on the research of Ong et al. (2018). For each component of customer brand loyalty (WOM, WPM and RPIN), two questions are used. So there are six items that measures the variable
customer brand loyalty. Also other studies such as the studies of Srinivasan et al. (2002) and Brakus et al. (2009) used comparable items. The study of Ong et al. (2018) combines this items from prior studies and create therefore a new variable name; customer brand loyalty, used in this research.
All of the items are measured on a 6-point Likert scale, the same way as brand experience. An example of one of the six items used for the measurement of customer brand experience; I will continue to buy my devices at this organization / brand in the future, what brand my
friends / family have.
3.4.3 Personal devices
This moderater variable is the added value of this research. Therefore the measurements (the items) are not specifically based on previous research. To do a reliable measurement, effects of two proved devices on customer behaviour are used from the research of Kim et al. (2017) and Goh et al. (2015); the smartphone and computer/laptop.
These two devices are the most impactfull devices on consumer behaviour and are mostly used in daily life (Kim et al., 2017; Goh et al., 2015). Furthermore, smarthphones and laptops are the two (electronic) devices which people mostly used and create the most engagement with consumers (Thakur, 2016). To further measure this moderator suggested by e.g. Kannan (2017), seven items are used to measure the impact and mutual effects of personal devices, for example; I mainly use my smartphone for this.
To be consistent to the other variables, the items of this variable are also measured with a 6-point likert scale from totally disagree to totally agree. Two items are measured with other values, the use of smartphones and laptops. These two items are scaled from once per week to more times per hour. Despite the fact that two items have different values, the values mean almost the same and have the same likert scale.
3.4.4 Different product types
According to the discussed literature, different products have a different influence on customer behavior. Therefore, a distinction is made by creating two scenarios, one for a hedonic product and one for an utilitarian product. This distinction is made based on the research of Baker et al. (2014). Firstly, hedonic products are products that are more for pleasure and luxury. Secondly, utilitarian are products that are more ‘useful’ and ‘needed’.
Product chosen for the two scenarios;
- Hedonic product; a holiday, this not a daily product but more for pleasure and for most people more luxury.
- Utilitarian product; an electronic or mobile device (e.g. smartphone/laptop), these devices became one of the most daily used devices, people needed them and is
3.5 Data analysis
The data will be analysed using statistical software (SPSS). Before doing any regression, the variables were checked for their reliability and correlations were analyzed. The interpretation of Cronbach’s alpha were used to check the reliabilities of the scales. After checking the reliability, the variables with the same items (scales) as in the reliablity test were used for the regression part.
But first, the correlations are calculated in SPSS with the option bivariate correlations and given in table 1. After calculating the correlations, to check the supposed relations described in the hypotheses a regression is necessary.
First, the main effects of brand experience (independent variable) and personal devices (moderator) on customer brand loyalty (dependent variable) is measured. Then, the interaction effect of brand experience and personal device on customer brand loyalty is measured.
After the regressions, an One-Way ANOVA was runned to check if there exist any relation between e.g. gender and the variables in the research model. However, before the analysis, the descriptives were checked for potential outliers and errors in the data.
3.6 Data preparation
The survey was started by 105 participants and completed by 100 participants. Data from the digital questionnaires was transferred to SPSS. Firstly, the data were checked for errors or missing data. Only five participants did not complete the survey and were excluded from further analysis. Furthermore, an analysis for outliers has been conducted. Only for the variables internet usage and company apps there were potential outliers. These potential outliers where checked if they actually does have influence on the whole dataset. Only one oultier for internet usage where corrected because that data was impossible.
Participants were asked what their internet usage is per day (in hours). One participant answered with 26 hours. That is impossible since a day has only 24 hours. Therefore this answer has been corrected with a normal value. Furthermore, there were founded no extreme values, errors or missing data that influences the data considerably.
In order to be able to run any analysis on the data, data were labeled and grouped in new clear variables for the hedonic and utilitarian scenario. All variables got a label and in order to run analysis on brand experience, customer brand loyalty and personal devices, new variables where created: brand experience hedonic, loyalty hedonic, devices hedonic, brand experience utilitarian, loyalty utilitarian and devices utilitarian.
For the regression part, there were also created new variables; mean-centered variables for brand experience and personal devices. Finally, there were variables created for the interaction effect.
4. Results
The data analysis of the survey is discussed in this section. We started with the reliability test, correlations, and with hypotheses testing (regressions). Finally, there is ran an ANOVA- analysis. There were six models tested, two for the hedonic scenario, two for the utilitarian scenario and two for the total model.
4.1 Reliability
Before the analysis of the variables, the variables were checked for reliability.
The Cronbach’s alphas for the hedonic scenario were as follow; brand experience 0.766, customer brand loyalty 0.802 and personal devices 0.234. Only for the moderator personal devices Cronbach’s alpha was lower than 0.7. Because of the lower alpha, two items were deleted and excluded. Because of the removal of two items, the alpha went up significantly. The new alpha were 0.649, still lower than 0.7, but still reasonable since it is above .6 (George & Mallery, 2003) so used for further analysis.
For the utilitarian scenario the Cronbach’s alpha’s were as follows; brand experience 0.822, customer brand loyalty 0.874 and personal devices 0.441. Identically to the hedonic scenario, the same items were deleted and the alpha went up significantly to 0.670. The variable personal devices had a lower same as in the hedonic scenario, but is still reasonable since it is above .6 and used for further analysis.
4.2 Correlations
For the correlation analysis a (bivariate) Pearson test was runned and a table with all
correlations was conducted and shown in table 1. Each variable, so also variables which not included in the research model (e.g. gender and education) are included in the correlation analysis. Furthermore, the mean and standaard deviation are given and on the diagonal Cronbach’s alpha for the variables in the research model.
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1. Brand Experience Hedonic 4.347 .679 (.766) 2. Brand Experience Utilitarian 4.277 .766 .139 (.822) 3. Loyalty Hedonic 3.690 .845 .614** .148 (.802) 4. Loyalty Utilitarian 3.855 .966 .093 .788** .291** (.874) 5. Personal Devices Hedonic 4.514 .962 .046 .152 -.111 .013 (.649) 6. Personal Devices Utilitarian 4.426 .872 -.071 .164 -.067 .057 .616** (.670) 7. Company apps 4.340 5.921 .007 .066 -.025 -.087 .174 .109 8. Internet usage 4.440 3.182 -.053 -.079 -.050 .050 -.188 -.164 -.023 9. Payment app 1.190 .394 .078 -.053 .012 -.130 -.090 -.091 -.167 -.236* 10. Mobile Usage 5.340 .977 .-215* .118 -.091 .115 .500** .559** .147 -.084 -.143 11. Laptop Usage 3.210 1.653 -.088 .036 -.190 -.100 .563** .651** .219* -.143 .016 .281** 12. Gender 1.550 .500 .241* .003 .300** .122 -.237* -.237* -.139 .090 .079 -.159 -.386** 13. Age 32.600 14.615 .142 -.117 .170 -.157 -.226* -.116 .006 -.334** .292* -.249* .043 .301** 14. Education 2.680 1.004 -.090 -.116 -.043 -.048 .224* .153 .155 .184 -.126 .050 .236* -.301** -.253*
Note: * P<.0.5 l ** P< 0.01, correlations are on the diagonal
In the hedonic scenario, there is indicated a significant positive correlation between brand experience and customer brand loyalty ( r = 0.614, p < .01), and this correlation suggests there is a relation between brand experience and customer brand experience. Additionally, according to the literature, there is a relation between brand experience and loyalty, so this correlations supports partially the literature. Also in the utilitarian scenario, the correlation between brand experience and customer brand loyalty is significant ( r = 0.788, p < .01) and supports the literature on that point.
According to the theory, personal devices have a positive influence on loyalty, because the consumer is more engaged with the respective brand or organization. So, hypothesis 2a, 2b and 2c are about this positive relation. Table 1 shows that personal devices by a hedonic product is negative correlated with loyalty hedonic ( r = - .111, p = .271) but is not significant. However, this partially contradicts the literature , which
Also table 1 shows that the correlation between personal devices by utilitarian products is not significant correlated with loyalty ( r = 0.057, p = .571), so on this poinr it contradicts the literature partially. However, only looking at the correlations can not supports or reject any hypothesis, that can be said after the regressions in the next part.
4.3 Regressions
In this section, the results of the regressions are discussed. To create a clear view about the results, the results of the regressions are given in two tables with each two models. In the first table, the results of the hedonic scenario are given and in the second table the results of the utilitarian scenario. Finally, in the third table, the results of the total model, includes the two scenarios, are given.
4.3.1 Hedonic scenario
The hypotheses 1b, 2b and 3b are related to a hedonic scenario and are analysed separately from the utilitarian scenario. The first hypothesis suggests there is a mainly positive relation between brand experience and customer brand loyalty. The second hypothesis is about the positive influence of personal devices on customer brand loyalty. The third hypothesis is based on the literature that suggests that devices influence consumer behaviour and the way you get and stay loyal with/ or experience a brand/organization. So, according to the literature part in this research, there is a possible moderation effect of personal devices on the relation between brand experience and customer brand loyalty. Because consumer more and more engage with brands through electronic devices such as mobile phones and laptops.
The hypothesis are tested and the resutls are given below in table 2. There are two models, one with the main effects and one including the interaction effect. The models are
statistically significant, respectively F = 31.937 (p < .01) and F = 21.896 (p < .01) and predicts respectively 38.85% and 38.8% of the variance.
The regression showed that brand experience positive affect customer brand loyalty and this result is significant (B = .621, p < .01). So, this supports the first hypothesis about the hedonic product and is in line with the existing theory. Furthermore, table 2 shows also a not significant effect of personal devices on customer brand loyal and do not supports the second hypothesis and the literature (B = -0.123, p = .80).
Despite the fact that there is no direct effect of personal devices on customer brand loyalty, there is still a little chance there exist a moderation effect. In table 2, model 2 shows that there is no moderation effect, as expected from model 1, of personal devices on the relation of brand experience and customer brand experience (B = .110, p = .225) and consequently not supports the third hypothesis and expectations.
Table 2. Regression Hedonic Customer brand loyalty (DV)
Model 1 Model 2 Beta (Unstandardized) SE Sig. Beta (unstandardized) SE Sig. BE .772** .098 .000 .284 .411 .491 PD -.123 .069 .080 -.590 .389 .133
BE*PD (interaction effect) .110 .090 .225
R2 .3885 .3880
Note: Dependent variable is customer brand loyalty, N=100, **p<.01, *p<.05 BE= Brand Experience, PD= Personal Devices R2=Adjusted
4.3.2 Utilitarian scenario
The hypotheses 1c, 2c and 3c are related to the utilitarian scenario and were analysed separately from the hedonic scenario. The first hypothesis suggests there is a mainly positive relation between brand experience and customer brand loyalty. The second hypothesis is about the positive influence of personal devices on customer brand loyalty. The third hypothesis is based on the literature that suggests that devices influence consumer behaviour and the way you get and stay loyal with/ or experience a brand/organization. So, according to the theory there is a possible moderated effect of personal devices on the relation between brand experience and customer brand loyalty.
The hypothesis are tested and the resutls are given below in table 3. There are two models, one with the main effects and one including the interaction effect. The models are statistically significant, respectively F = 81.157 (p < .01) and F = 53.931 (p < .01) and predicts respectively 61,8% and 61.6% of the variance.
The regression showed that brand experience positive affect customer brand loyalty and this result is significant (B = 1.009, p < .01). So, this supports the first hypothesis about the utilitarian product and supports the existing theory. Furthermore, table 3 shows also a not significant effect of personal devices on customer brand loyal and consequently not supports the second hypothesis and the literature (B= -0.082, p = .243).
Despite the fact that there is no direct effect of personal devices on customer brand loyalty, there is still a little chance there exist a moderation effect. In table 3, model 2 shows that there is no moderation effect, as expected from model 1, of personal devices on the relation of brand experience and customer brand experience (B = -0.059, p = .513) and not supports the third hypothesis and expectations.
Table 3. Regression Utilitarian Customer brand loyalty (DV)
Model 1 Model 2 Beta (Unstandardized) SE Sig. Beta (unstandardized) SE Sig. BE 1.009** .079 .000 1.288** .433 .004 PD -.082 .070 .243 .151 .362 .677
BE*PD (interaction effect) -.059 .091 .513
R2 .6180 .6160
4.3.3 Total model
The hypotheses 1a, 2a and 3a are related to the total model, includes both the hedonic and utilitarian scenario. The first hypothesis suggests there is a mainly positive relation between brand experience and customer brand loyalty. The second hypothesis is about the positive influence of personal devices on customer brand loyalty. The third hypothesis is based on the literature that suggests that devices influence consumer behaviour and the way you get and stay loyal or experience a brand/organization.
So, according to the theory there is a possible moderated effect of personal devices on the relation between brand experience and customer brand loyalty.
The hypothesis are tested and the resutls are given below in table 4. There are two models, one with the main effects and one including the interaction effect. The models are statistically significant, respectively F= 45.601 (p < .01) and F = 30.647 (p < .01) and predicts respectively 47.4% and 47.3% of the variance.
Note: Dependent variable is customer brand loyalty, N=100, **p<.01, *p<.05 BE= Brand Experience, PD= Personal Devices R2=Adjusted
The regression showed that brand experience positive affect customer brand loyalty and this result is significant (B = .934, p < .01). So, this supports the first hypothesis about the main relation between brand experience and customer brand loyalty and supports the existing theory. Furthermore, table 4 shows also a not significant effect of personal devices on
customer brand loyal and does not supports the second hypothesis and the literature (B = -.101, p = .122).
Despite the fact that there is no direct effect of personal devices on customer brand loyalty, there is still a little chance there exist a moderation effect. In table 4, model 2 shows that there is no moderation effect, as expected from model 1, of personal devices on the relation of brand experience and customer brand experience (B = .112, p = .355) and not supports the third hypothesis and expectations from the literature.
Table 4. Regression Total Customer brand loyalty (DV)
Model 1 Model 2 Beta (Unstandardized) SE Sig. Beta (unstandardized) SE Sig. BE .934** .098 .000 .919** .099 .000 PD -.101 .065 .122 -.082 .068 .232
BE*PD (interaction effect) .112 .120 .355
R2 .474 .473
So, all the hypothesis are tested and only the first hypotheses (1a,1b and 1c) are completely supported by the regression models. The other hypothesis are not supported and thus rejected. Concluding that the new generated moderator, personal devices, in this study is not supported as a moderator.
Note: Dependent variable is customer brand loyalty, N=100, **p<.01, *p<.05 BE= Brand Experience, PD= Personal Devices R2 =Adjusted
4.4 One-Way ANOVA
After discussing the results of the analysis, there seems to be a relation between gender and a number of variables, concluding of the significant correlations in table 1. Additionally, the description of the participants in the method part gave also different statistics for both groups.Therefore, an extra test is conducted to check if there is a difference in variances of gender, and additionally if there exist a significant difference. However, the most important findings in the correlation part are the significant relations between gender and all the variables of the hedonic scenario and the moderator in the utilitarian scenario. Besides the check if there is a difference between male and female for the two separate scenario’s, there is also an One-Way test runned for the whole model. However, the One-Way ANOVA test can be used because the four assumptions for this test are met; normality, homogeneity, independency and the levels of the variables.
Levene’s test is runned to evaluate if there exist differences in variances between male and female for all variables in the research model. However, Levene’s Test showed that the assumption of homegeneity of variances for the three variables in the hedonic scenario are tenable; brand experience (F = .347, p = .557), customer brand loyalty (F = .654, p = .421) and personal devices (F = .002, p = .961).
For the utilitarian scenario, Levene’s Test showed that two variables are tenable (the assumption), but one variable was not found tenable; brand experience (F = .777, p = .380), customer brand loyalty (F = 1.104, p = .296) and personal devices (F = 4.382, p < .05). Also according to Welch and Brown-Forsythe the male and female group are different (p < .05). For the total model, Levene’s Test showed that the assumption of homogeneity of variances is tenable; brand experience (F=.134, p=.715), customer brand loyalty (F = .634, p = .426) and personal devices (F = 1.317, p = .254).
In the hedonic scenario, ANOVA showed that the two groups (male/female) differ
significantly for all the variables; brand experience F(1, 98) = 6.042, p < .05; customer brand loyalty F(1, 98) = 9.707, p < .001; personal devices F(1, 98) = 5.820, p < .05. Secondly, in the utilitarian scenario the two groups differ significantly for personal devices; brand
experience F(1, 98) = .01, p = .976; customer brand experience F(1, 98) = 1.469, p = .228; personal devices F(1, 75.978) = 5.834, p < .05. Finally, for the total model, ANOVA shows significant differences between the two groups for both customer brand loyalty and personal devices; brand experience F(1, 98) = 2.318, p = .131; customer brand loyalty F(1, 98) = 6.798, p < .05; personal devices F(1, 98) = 7.310, p < .01.
After Levene’s Test and the ANOVA test, it can be concluded that there are significant differences between the male and female group for the most variables in the research model. In the hedonic scenario the two groups (male/female) differ significantly. In the utiltarian scenario the two groups differ significantly for the moderator personal devices. Finally, for the total model, the two groups differ significantly for both customer brand loyalty and personal devices. In summary, there can be suggested that the type of gender differ for the most variables and do influence the results.
5. Discussion
The literature review explained the trend and the impact of the digital age. Consumers are more and more powerfull and have access to all information, so creating loyal relations is more challenging. Therefore creating a positive brand experience is more important. Companies can get engage with customers and deliver a great experience, before another company does it. To study the effect of personal devices on the behavior of customers, this study conducted a questionnaire. This effect was studied for two types of products and the effect on the total model is analyzed.
However, first the data results will be discussed from which theoretical and managerial implications will be drawn. Finally, the limitations of this study will be discussed and several suggestions for future research are given.
5.1 Discussion of the results
Many recent studies have studied and proved the effect of brand experience on customer loyalty (e.g. Brakus et al, 2009; Ladeira et al., 2018, Ong et al., 2018). According to many studies and articles, mobile-shopping more and more influences customers and customers using mobile devices for buying products more frequently (e.g. Al Dmour, 2013; Wang et al., 2018; Kim et al., 2017). However, fewer studies have studied the effect of personal devices on consumer behavior, specifically on the relation between brand experience and customer loyalty (Kannan, 2017). This study have studied this gap in the literature according to Kannan (2017). The main effect of brand experience on customer brand loyalty is proved and support by this study, and supports prior studies. On the other hand, the possible
moderation effect of personal devices is not supported by this study. Furthermore, according to the results, there is no difference between the hedonic and utilitarian product and
contradicts the literature.
This study does succesfully prove that a positive brand experience is positive related to customer brand loyalty. The effect is both for the utilitarian and hedonic scenario
significant and also for the total model, suggests there is a general effect independent of the product type. This supports many prior studies such as Brakus et al. (2009) that suggest that generally a positive brand experience leads to more customer loyalty, and a more recent study of Ong et al. (2018), which also concludes that a positive experience will lead to greater loyalty.
According to prior research, mobile devices have an effect on consumer behavior, specifically leads to more engagement (Thakur, 2016). Furthermore, more customer engagement leads to more loyalty, suggests that mobile devices is positive related to customer loyalty. In this study, the suggested positive relation between mobile devices and customer loyalty is not supported and contradicts the theory of Thakur (2016). In this study, mobile devices is formulated as personal devices and customer loyalty is formulated as customer brand loyalty, but means the same. However, the results also showed there is no moderation effect of personal devices. This result contradicts prior research about the influence of mobile-shopping on customer behavior (e.g. Al Dmour et al., 2013; Thakur, 2016; Wang et al., 2006).
Finally, prior research suggested that there is a difference between hedonic and utiltarian products (Baker et al., 2014). In this study, there is not found a difference between the hedonic and the utilitarian product, the results for both scenario’s were not significant. This contradicts the research of Baker et al. (2014) in this case.
5.2 Managerial and theoretical implications
This study covered a missing gap in the literature. The effect of personal devices on the relation between brand experience and customer brand loyalty was not studied before.
This study compared the effect of personal devices for two types of products; a hedonic product and utilitarian product. For both product types it is proven that personal devices do not have a significant effect on either loyalty and on the relation between brand experience and customer brand loyalty. Consequently, despite the digital age and the fact that
customers more and more searching and buying products online (via a mobile device), personal devices do not significantly affect consumer behavior in this study.
The second theoretical contribution is that this study analyzed the main effect between brand experience and loyalty. According to previous studies, a positive brand experience will finally lead to more loyal relations with customers. The results of the survey showed a positive significant relation between brand experience and loyalty. So, this confirms also for the chosen products the importance of a positive brand experience.
There are several managerial implications. Firstly, this study emphasized once again the importance of a positive brand experience. Managers need to know that providing a positive experience to the customer, also for the two products in this study and the digital age, will lead to more profits. However, the focus should be more on experiences than on profits itself.
The second implication for managers is that personal devices themselves is not affecting the customer significantly. When there is a positive experience, a personal device do not
strenghten or weaken the relation with a possible loyal relationship. However, a
smarthphone or laptop are nowadays commonly used devices to make purchases, but managers should not focus on personal devices but on the experience to the consumer.
5.3 Limitations and future research
This research has several limitations and recommendations for future research. Firstly, this study looks only at two different products. It is therefore limited to one hedonic product and one utilitarian product and can not be generalized to other product types. The second limitation is about the created moderator in this study. This moderator, personal devices, is never measured before and perhaps therefore not be found significant. This can affect the results despite the fact that the moderator includes the two most impactfull devices to the customer. The last and probably the most important limation is about the influence of gender in this research.
Concluding from the participants and Anova parts, the male and female respondents differ considerably. This can finally affect the results and gives a distorted picture.
Despite the several limitations, this research is well designed as much as possible, and therefore applicable to a certain level. In the method section, the design and
construction is explained more extensive. Furthermore, the limitations of this study gives an opportunity for future research. Firstly, this study can be repeated but with other products. Secondly, future research can study the effect for seperately male and females for creating a more specific view of the effects. Thirdly, future research can test the effect of personal devices with the same measurement or with another measurement, to look that there would be an effect or confirms this research.
6. Conclusion
A literature review and survey were used to answer the proposed research question in this study; In wich extent does personal devices affect the behavior of customers? The literature review showed the importance of a positive brand experience with several advantages. A positive brand experience has a positive effect on customer loyalty.
Prior research suggests there is some effect of mobile devices on consumer devices.
However, the research on mobile-shopping is scarce. Moreover, no research has been done on a possible moderation effect of personal devices.
The results of the survey did not support the possible moderation effect of personal devices. Furthermore, the survey showed a significant positive relation between brand experience and customer brand loyalty and supports prior research. Another important finding was that there is no difference between the two different product type hedonic and utilitarian.
Important takeaways from this study are the importance of a positive brand experience, also in this digital world. Future research can study for which group (gender) brand experience is more important and create loyal relations more easier. Furthermore, future research can reply this research for other products (e.g. types) or with another measurement for the moderator to investigate if personal devices do have any influence.
7. References
Al Dmour, H., Alshurideh, M., & Shishan, F. (2014). The influence of mobile application quality and attributes on the continuance intention of mobile shopping. Life Science
Journal, 11(10), 172-181.
Baker, B. J., Fang, Z., & Luo, X. (2014). Hour-by-hour sales impact of mobile advertising.
Available at SSRN.
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(3), 52-68.
Calder, B. J., Malthouse, E. C., & Schaedel, U. (2009). An experimental study of the relationship between online engagement and advertising effectiveness. Journal of
interactive marketing, 23(4), 321-331.
Coelho, P. S., & Esteves, S. P. (2007). The choice between a five-point and a ten-point scale in the framework of customer satisfaction measurement. International Journal
of Market Research, 49(3), 313-339.
Cronin Jr, J. J., Brady, M. K., & Hult, G. T. M. (2000). Assessing the effects of quality, value, and customer satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service
environments. Journal of retailing, 76(2), 193-218.
Daley, B., Morgan, R., & Van Voorhis, K. (2007). Pre-Trial Proceedings in Patent
Infringement Actions: A Comparison Among Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America. AIPLA QJ, 35, 113.
Deloitte. (2016, September 14). Deloitte study: Digital influence redefines the customer experience. Retrieved April 21, 2018, from
https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/pages/about-deloitte/articles/press-releases/deloitte-study-digital-influence-redefines-customer-experience.html
de Oliveira Santini, F., Ladeira, W. J., Sampaio, C. H., & Pinto, D. C. (2018). The brand experience extended model: a meta-analysis. Journal of Brand Management, 1-17.
Field, A. (2009). Logistic regression. Discovering statistics using SPSS, 264, 315.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to
theory and research.
Forsido, M. 2012. Brand loyalty in Smartphone (Doctoral dissertation, Master Thesis Uppsala Universitet, Sweden).
Garland, R. (1991). The mid-point on a rating scale: Is it desirable. Marketing bulletin, 2(1), 66-70.
George, D., & Mallery, M. (2003). Using SPSS for Windows step by step: a simple guide and reference.
Gilovich, T., Kumar, A., & Jampol, L. (2015). A wonderful life: Experiential consumption and the pursuit of happiness. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25(1), 152-165.
Ha, H. Y., & Perks, H. (2005). Effects of consumer perceptions of brand experience on the web: Brand familiarity, satisfaction and brand trust. Journal of Consumer Behaviour,
Iglesias, O., J.J. Singh, and J.M. Batista-Foguet. 2011. The role of brand experience and affective commitment in determining brand loyalty. Journal of Brand Management 18 (8): 570–582.
Jacoby, J., & Chestnut, R. W. (1978). Brand loyalty: Measurement and management. John Wiley & Sons Incorporated.
Kannan, P. K. (2017). Digital marketing: A framework, review and research agenda. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 34(1), 22-45.
Kim, M., Kim, J., Choi, J., & Trivedi, M. (2017). Mobile Shopping Through Applications: Understanding Application Possession and Mobile Purchase. Journal of Interactive
Marketing, 39, 55-68.
Kotler, P., & Keller, K. L. (2003). Marketing Management: international edition. Printice Hall.
New Jersey.
Kumar, V., Dalla Pozza, I., & Ganesh, J. (2013). Revisiting the satisfaction–loyalty
relationship: empirical generalizations and directions for future research. Journal of
Retailing, 89(3), 246-262.
Kumar, V., & Pansari, A. (2016). Competitive advantage through engagement. Journal of Marketing Research, 53(4), 497-514.
Lin, H. H., & Wang, Y. S. (2006). An examination of the determinants of customer loyalty in mobile commerce contexts. Information & management, 43(3), 271-282.
Murphy, S. T., & Zajonc, R. B. (1993). Affect, cognition, and awareness: affective priming with optimal and suboptimal stimulus exposures. Journal of personality and social
psychology, 64(5), 723.
Newman, I., & Benz, C. R. (1998). Qualitative-quantitative research methodology: Exploring
the interactive continuum. SIU Press.
Nulty, D. D. (2008). The adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys: what can be done?. Assessment & evaluation in higher education, 33(3), 301-314.
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.
Oliver, R.L. (1999) Whence consumer loyalty, Journal of Marketing 63 (special issue), 33–44.
Ong, C. H., Lee, H. W., & Ramayah, T. (2018). Impact of brand experience on loyalty.
Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 1-20.
Park, J., & Stoel, L. (2005). Effect of brand familiarity, experience and information on online apparel purchase. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 33(2), 148-160.
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.
