Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 21 (2014) 407–414

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services

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

Linkages of retailer personality, perceived quality and purchase

intention with retailer loyalty: A study of Indian non-food retailing
Gopal Das n
International Management Institute, 2/4C Judges Court Road, Alipore, Kolkata 700027, India

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

Article history: The present study was an effort to explore the direct and indirect (through retailer perceived quality and
Received 17 August 2013 purchase intention) impacts of retailer personality on store loyalty. Questionnaire was used to collect
Received in revised form data using systematic sampling from non-food retail store shoppers of age 18 years and above in Kolkata,
4 November 2013
a metropolitan city of India. Multivariate data analysis techniques like structural equation modeling were
Accepted 5 November 2013
Available online 22 November 2013
used to analyze the data. Results supported both the direct and indirect impacts of retailer personality on
retailer equity. Interestingly, the extent of indirect impact of retailer personality on retailer loyalty is
Keywords: greater than direct impact. Arguably, this paper is the first to explore the linkages among retailer
Retailer personality personality, perceived quality, purchase intention and store loyalty. Academic and managerial implica-
Perceived quality
tions are further discussed.
Purchase intention
& 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Retailer loyalty
Non-food retailing
India

1. Introduction and denied to their competitors (Jacoby and Chestnut, 1978). Thus,
companies should emphasize on the factors that influence loyalty and
A portfolio of satisfied customers enhances economic, compe- their relative importance to build customer store loyalty (Ruiz-Molina
titive, and strategic advantages of a company (Yang and Peterson, and Gil-Saura, 2008). The present study follows this expanding stream
2004). Marketing researchers showed that satisfied customers of research. Its aim is to explore the direct and indirect (through
turn into loyal customers (e.g., Anderson et al., 1994). A loyal retailer perceived quality and purchase intention) impacts of retailer
customer enhances several marketing activities including reduces personality on retailer loyalty. Here ‘retailer’ means retail store.
in communication costs (Payne and Frow, 2005), creates a stable This study has been conducted in Indian non-food retailing
pool of customers (Oliver, 1997), increases the sales volume context. Kearney report (2012) marked Indian retail market as a
(Gwinner et al., 1998), and finally influences profitability of a high-potential market with accelerated growth of 15–20%
company (Zeithaml et al., 1996). expected over the next 5 years. Strong microeconomic conditions
Customer loyalty consists of both product loyalty and retailer including a 6–7% rise in GDP, higher disposal incomes and rapid
loyalty (Wallace et al., 2004). Product loyalty has been studied urbanization are the precursors favouring this growth in Indian
extensively (e.g., Jacoby and Chestnut, 1978; Oliver, 1997). However, retail environment (Kearney, 2012). The changing landscape in
little research has been conducted on retailer loyalty (Zentes et al., India has changed Indian customer' spending and shopping habits
2008). Building customer–retailer loyalty is a long-term process (Sengupta, 2008). The present scenario of Indian organized retail-
(Oliver, 1997). “Customer–retailer loyalty is of extreme interest to ing, particularly in non-food segment, is noteworthy (Halepete and
merchants, because high customer acquisition costs are difficult to Iyer, 2008). Due to increasing mass consumerism on account of
recoup without repeat purchasing” (Wallace et al., 2004, p. 249). This rising GDP, a high-growth rate, along with the increasing spending
is ironic, particularly with the advent of e-retailing, as increased power of Indians, the non-food retailing is turning out to be a
competition and minimal customer switching costs make customers highly profitable segment and has significant potential to grow in
increasingly difficult to retain (Srinivasan et al., 2002). Thus, the effort years to come (Economic Intelligence Unit, 2010). The rationalities
to build customer loyalty is a critical defensive marketing strategy for behind the selection of non-food retail store are as follows. For
retailers: the existing customer base is both retained for the retailers emerging economics, like India, both food and non-food products
have gained symbolic status. Consumers are aspired to convey
their symbolic status through food consumption. For example,
n
Tel.: þ 91 9836569837. purchase of branded rice (like Basmati rice) sometime carries
E-mail address: [email protected] symbolic status of a customer. However, when we look at both

0969-6989/$ - see front matter & 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2013.11.001
408 G. Das / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 21 (2014) 407–414

food and non-food products, the latter carry and reflect higher perceived quality is defined as “perception of the quality of the
symbolic content (i.e., brand personality) than the former (Zentes retailer as well as the (perception of) quality of products (goods or
et al., 2008; Goldsmith et al., 1990; Thompson and Chen, 1998; services) offered by retailers” (Pappu and Quester, 2006, p. 320).
Davis, 1985; Dichter, 1985). In addition, shopping for non-food
products such as accessories, clothes are a scope for self- 2.3. Purchase intention
expression par excellence (Buttle, 1992). Researchers have also
revealed the link between non-food product choice, personality, Purchase intention refers to the attempt to purchase a product
self-concept, and personal values (Goldsmith et al., 1990; or service (Dodds et al., 1991). Consumer purchase intention from
Thompson and Chen, 1998). Finally, non-food retail store is an a retail store is influenced by several external factors like product,
international phenomenon (Kotler et al., 2009) and is gaining brand, retailer, timing (Kotler, 2000). As shopping is often a
popularity day by day in India (Srivastava, 2008). This study would hedonic (i.e., pleasure) shopping experience (Babin et al., 1994),
help retailers to serve better, ensure profitability and sustainability the intentions might be directed towards actual purchasing pro-
in the emerging Indian retail market. ducts or services from the retailers (Luo et al., 2011). Consumers'’
The rest of the paper is structured as follows. We first provide a purchase intentions arise after consumers perceive utility and
theoretical background for the study, followed by hypotheses devel- value of a product or service (e.g., Dodds et al., 1991). Purchase
opment and conceptual framework. We then describe the methodol- intentions influences purchase behavior in terms of end result, i.e.,
ogy used for testing the hypotheses, discuss results, suggest theoretical actual purchase (e.g., Luo et al., 2011; Morrison, 1979).
and managerial implications of the study, and conclude the paper with
its limitations, and directions for future research. 2.4. Retailer loyalty

Defining loyalty has been challenging for researchers, because

2. Theoretical background
of imprecise and varying conceptualization of the construct
(Martin et al., 2009). However, keeping in view the contextual
2.1. Retailer personality
perspective of this study, we adopted Oliver's (1999) definition of
loyalty—“a deeply held commitment to re-buy or re-patronage a
Brand personality is a symbolic benefit of a brand (Möller and
preferred product/service consistently in the future, thereby caus-
Herm, 2013; Das et al., 2012b; Zentes et al., 2008; Aaker, 1997). Aaker
ing repetitive same-brand or same brand-set purchasing, despite
(1997) defined brand personality as “a set of human characteristics
situational influences and marketing efforts having the potential
associated with a brand” (p. 347). For instance, the personality of
to cause switching beahviour (p. 34). Study argued that although
“Absolut Vodka” is hip, cool and young (Aaker, 1997). After having
“frequent usage and satisfaction with a product or service are
been extensively applied for product brands for decades, brand
frequently associated with loyalty, they by themselves insuffi-
personality is now regularly discussed in retail branding context
ciently serve as the precursors to loyalty” (Luo et al., 2011, p. 2166).
(Möller and Herm, 2013; Das et al., 2012b; Ailawadi and Keller,
Customer's attitude towards a product or service (brand) including
2004, Willems et al., 2011; Zentes et al., 2008; Helgeson and
attitudinal preference and commitment has a greater influence on
Supphellen, 2004; d’Astous and Le´vesque, 2003). Here retail brand
forming loyalty (Jacoby and Chestnut, 1978). Studies suggest that
means ‘a retailer as a brand’ or ‘a retail store as a brand’ (Möller and
attitudes resulting from the presentation of a brand or store image
Herm, 2013; Ailawadi and Keller, 2004; Zentes et al., 2008; Das et al.,
directly contribute towards building loyalty (e.g., Chang and Tu,
2012a). Ailawadi and Keller (2004) argued that “branding and brand
2005; Koo, 2005; Yun and Good, 2007).
management principle can and should be applied to retail brands” (p.
Loyalty participates in developing and implementing numerous
340). Thus, like product brands, the attribution of human character-
marketing strategies (Jacoby and Chestnut, 1978). Customer loyalty
istics to retail brands is the logical proposition to the coining of the
generates a stable customer's pool for firms' products or services
term retail brand personality or retailer personality. Retail brand
(Oliver, 1997). Loyal customers participate in repeat purchase,
personality is conceptualized as “a consumer's perception of the
spread positive word of mouth and are willing to pay higher price
human personality traits attributed to a retail brand” (Das et al.,
(Zeithaml et al., 1996). Customer loyalty may increase business
2012a, p. 98). Retailer personality is a useful tool to position and
revenue and total customer market share (Luo et al., 2011). A small
differentiate retailers from their competitors (Ambroise et al., 2003;
change in customer retention rate may have large impact on retail
Merrilees and Miller, 2001). It is important to pursue the study of retail
earnings. Thus, the effort to maintain store loyalty is considered as
brand personality because consumers are likely to choose brands
a critical retailer strategy to retain existing customers and thus
whose personalities match their own (Wee, 2004; Kotler, 2003; Sirgy,
profitability is enhanced (Wallace et al., 2004).
1982; Kassarjian, 1971).

2.2. Retailer perceived quality 3. Hypothesis development and conceptual framework

Kotler (2000) defined quality as the totality of characteristics 3.1. Retailer personality and retailer perceived quality
and features of a product/service that bear on its ability to fulfill
stated/implied needs. Literature has found two forms of quality: Brand personality influences preference and usage, higher
objective and subjective (Huang, 2009). While the objective emotional ties to brand and trust (Siguaw et al., 1999). “Since
quality refers to the actual quality, the latter means the consumers' brand personality is the ‘soul’ of the brand and is derived from the
perception of quality (Kotler, 2000). According to Zeithaml (1988) brand's characteristics and marketing communications, it is an
perceived quality represents a consumer's judgments regarding important cue for consumers' perception of quality” (Ramaseshan
brands' overall superiority/excellence. Aaker (1991, p. 17) defined and Tsao, 2007). Thus, the link between brand personality and
perceived quality as “a brand association that is elevated to the perceived quality has been established. Although the link between
status of a brand asset (dimension)”. The perception regarding brand personality and perceived quality has been studied in
quality could be derived from products for product-market. How- product branding context (e.g., Ramaseshan and Tsao, 2007), no
ever, on the goods–services continuum (retail business), products study has explored the same in retail branding context. This gap
could be goods or services (Kotler et al., 2004). Thus, here retailer leads to propose the following hypothesis of this study.
 G. Das / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 21 (2014) 407–414 409

H1. Retailer personality positively influences retailer perceived attitude on a consumer's purchase decision (Gremler and Brown,
quality. 1996). Because, a customer “sees buying as fulfilling a need,
satisfying a preference and perhaps placing him/her in a better
3.2. Retailer personality and retailer loyalty position than before and in a way no other competing product or
service can as perceived through the marketing experience, the
Brand personality could be seen as a basis of making and strong favorable attitudes leading to purchase intention underlie
strengthening relationship between brand and human being (Aaker, an emotional attachment to the brand, product or service and
1996; Blackston, 1993). Brand personality creates feelings toward a develop into a commitment” (Luo et al., 2011, p. 2172). This
brand (Biel, 1993). Although the indirect impact of symbolic brand commitment shows a customer's loyalty. In addition, the theory
association has been extensively studied, a direct impact is rarely of reasoned action argues that intention to purchase a product/
investigated (Helgeson and Supphellen, 2004). A considerable number service or brand predicts actual purchase (Agarwal and Karahanna,
of studies found the direct link between brand personality and 2000; Luo et al., 2011) which may results in loyalty. Thus, purchase
consumer behavior (e.g., Möller and Herm, 2013; Das et al., 2012a; intention may boost loyalty (Luo et al., 2011). Although prior
Freling and Forbes, 2005; Hayes, 1999; Helgeson and Supphellen, studies (e.g., Luo et al., 2011) examined the impact of purchase
2004; Hieronimus, 2003). Several studies argued that brand person- intention on loyalty, the same is not explored in retail store
ality influences loyalty for product branding context (e.g., Hieronimus, context. This leads us to develop the next hypothesis of our study
2003). However, to the best of our knowledge, till date only one study as follows:
conducted by Zentes et al. (2008) statistically found the link between
H5. Purchase intention positively influences retailer loyalty.
retailer personality and store loyalty. Rosenthal and Rosnow (1984)
believe that it takes at least 15 studies to generalize a statistical result.
Thus, we develop the next hypothesis of our study as follows. 3.6. Retailer perceived quality and purchase intention

H2. Retailer personality positively influences retailer loyalty. In order to develop marketing strategies and forecast sales of
products/services, managers are interested in purchase intention
3.3. Retailer personality and purchase intention (Tsiotsou, 2005). Purchase intention is influenced by several other
factors. Perceived quality is one of them. Prior studies found a
Studies found that a consumer tends to support brands and positive link between perceived quality and purchase intentions
services whose personalities match his/her own (Das et al., 2012a; (e.g., Boulding et al., 1993; Parasuraman et al., 1996). Although,
Wee, 2004; Kotler, 2003; Fournier, 1994; Siguaw et al., 1999; Sirgy, prior studies found the link between perceived quality and
1982). Brand personality influences consumer preference towards purchase intention (e.g., Tsiotsou, 2005), in retail branding con-
a brand (Sirgy, 1982), develops stronger emotional ties (Biel, 1993), texts, no one has explored the same. This gaps leads us to develop
trust, and attachment with the brand (Fournier, 1998). Brand the next hypothesis of this study as follows:
personality positively influences purchase decision of a product
H6. Retailer perceived quality positively influences purchase
(Aaker, 1996; Blackston, 1993; Biel, 1993). Although, studies found
intention.
the link between brand personality and purchase intention in non-
retail branding context (e.g., Bouhlel et al., 2011), no one has Based on the foresaid hypotheses, the conceptual framework of
explored the same in retailing branding contexts. This void this study is presented in Fig. 1.
motivates us to develop the next hypothesis of this study.

H3. Retailer personality positively influences purchase intention. 4. Research methods

3.4. Retailer perceived quality and retailer loyalty 4.1. Retail store section

Sometimes quality of a product or service is more important to As we intended to conduct this study in non-food retail store
customers than the cost of acquiring that product or service context, we were careful in the selection of retail stores. We have
(Ranaweera and Neely, 2003). Therefore, companies should under- considered here both department stores, speciality store (non-food)
stand how customers evaluate quality and the basis on which they and fashion store. Speciality stores offer a narrow focus of unique
become loyal to companies (Kandampully, 1998). The superiority of merchandise for a specific taste (Ko and Kincade, 1997). For example,
product/service offered by companies depends on consumers' percep- Reebok is a non-food speciality store. Department retail store sell non-
tion (Lobo et al., 2007). Superior quality not only attracts new food items such as apparels and accessories along with household
customers, but also encourages repeat purchase and leads to loyalty goods and electronics (Frings, 1994; Anderson, 1993). For example,
(Parasuraman et al., 1994). However, despite the fact that providing Pantaloons is an Indian department retail store. Fashion store is
high quality services and gaining loyal customers has been regarded as
the key to success for any company (Vanniarajan and Gurunathan,
Retailer
2009). Although several studies explored the direct links between perceived
retailer perceived quality and retailer loyalty (e.g., Yoo et al., 2000), in quality

Indian retail branding context the same remains unexplored. This gap
H1 H4
motivated us to develop the next hypothesis of our study as follows:
Retailer H6
personality Retailerloyalty
H4. Retailer perceived quality positively influences retailer loyalty. H2

H3
3.5. Purchase intention and retailer loyalty H5
Purchase
intention
Consumers' positive attitude toward a product or service
influences his/her purchase intentions (Shim et al., 2001; Jacoby
and Chestnut, 1978). Study found positive impacts of emotion and Fig. 1. Conceptual framework of the study.
410 G. Das / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 21 (2014) 407–414

interpreted here as clothing and accessories specialist retailers. For to 5.37 and 0.89 to 1.04 respectively (Table 1). The mean scores and
example, Levi's store is a fashion retail store. standard deviations of retailer loyalty range from 5.01 to 5.26 and 1.11
to 1.21 respectively (Table 1). The same for retailer perceived quality
4.2. Measures range from 5.34 to 5.45 and 0.94 to 0.98 respectively. Finally, the mean
scores and standard deviations of purchase intention range from 5.22
Keeping in mind that the retailer personality varies from food to 5.28 and 1.01 to 1.05 respectively. The reliability statistics (Cronbach
to non-food format and culture to culture (Das et al., 2012b; alphas) of the four constructs are 0.862, 0.735, 0.947 and 0.750 for
Willems et al., 2011; Brengman and Willems, 2009), we were store personality, retailer perceived quality, purchase intention and
careful in adopting the constructs in our study context. Retailer store loyalty respectively.
personality was measured by adopting Das et al.'s (2012b) scale
which is the only scale developed for non-food retailing and
Indian contexts. The scale consists of five dimensions namely, 6. Hypothesis testing
sophistication, empathy, dependability, authenticity, and vibrancy.
These five dimensions comprise 26 items which were measured Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test the concep-
using a 7-point Liker type scale (1 ¼very uncharacteristic, 7 ¼very tual framework of this study (Fig. 1). Because, SEM performs simulta-
characteristic). For measuring retailer perceived quality and retai- neous estimation of multiple interrelated dependence relationships
ler loyalty, we have adopted the items developed by Pappu and incorporating the measurement error and thus is suitable for empirical
Quester (2006). Pappu and Quester (2006) developed and tested model building (Bollen and Long, 1993). A two-stage approach has
these two constructs in non-food retail branding context (Pappu been followed in SEM: estimating the measurement model and
and Quester, 2008). These two constructs comprise total 07 items estimating the structural model (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). How-
(retailer perceived quality—4; store loyalty—3) which were mea- ever, before running SEM, we checked the possible violations of model
sured with 7-point Likert type scale (1 ¼strongly disagree, assumptions: random and independent sample, sample size, linearity
7 ¼strongly agree). The purchase intention was measured with among variables, multivariate normality of the data (Hair et al., 2008).
two items, adopted from Summers et al. (2006) study, using the The design and execution of the study ensured the random and
7-point Likert-type scale (1 ¼strong disagree, 7 ¼strongly agree). independent sample. The sample size maintained the recommended
As the rest three constructs (i.e., retailer perceived quality, number of 150–400 (Hair et al., 2008). Standardised residuals plots
purchase intention and retailer loyalty) were not developed in and Q-plots were used to test linearity. The residuals fall within a
Indian context, before final use we checked their content/face generally random pattern and the residual line closely follows the
validity in our study context. The content validity was checked diagonal indicated no obvious non-linear relationship between the
with 15 respondents: 5 full marketing professors, 5 retailer man- relevant variables. Mardia's coefficient was used to evaluate multi-
agers and 5 experienced non-food retail store customers. variate normality (Mardia, 1970). As a rule of thumb, the coefficient
should lie within the range of 72.0 (Schumacker and Lomax, 1996).
4.3. Sample and data collection However, Mardia's coefficient suggested that the data did not follow
multivariate normality (Mardia's coefficient¼59.077; Critical
The population of this study was composed of all Indian non-food ratio¼ 26.294). Presence of outliers may lead to deviation of normality
retail shoppers of age 18 years and above. The sampling frame in the data (Byrne, 2010). Mahalanobis distance (Mahalanobis d-
consisted of residents of Kolkata, a metropolitan city of India. A mall squared in AMOS output) was used to detect outlier (Byrne, 2010).
intercept survey technique using systematic sampling (approaching Significant drops in Mahalanobis d-squared values in Case ♯176 and
every 15th mall leaving customer) was applied to collect data with 236 lead to detect them as outliers. After removing outliers, we ran
structured questionnaire from nine non-food retail stores: 5 depart- SEM again Mardia's coefficient value has reduced (Mardia's
ment stores (Shoppers Stop, Westside, Pantaloons, Baazar Kolkata and coefficient¼58.012; Critical ratio¼25.201), but did not suggest multi-
Citi mart) and 4 speciality and fashion stores (Reebok, Levi's, Spykar, variate normality. No more outlier was found. This violation of
VanHeusen) available in Kolkata. The questionnaire comprised ques- multivariate normality may lead to an overestimation of the chi-
tions related to the constructs needed for this study and demographic square test and underestimation of the fit indices (Byrne, 2010).
of the respondents (See Appendix for details of constructs). Data However, examination of histograms and Q-plots did not reflect the
collection was done during different times of the day and on different deviation of normality in the data. In addition, the potential problem
days of the week and the weekend to minimize periodicity and non- in structural equation modeling arising from failure to achieve multi-
coverage problems (Pappu and Quester, 2008). Out of the 393 variate normality was mitigated by the use of maximum likelihood
administered questionnaires, 365 were found usable for data analysis estimation (Ladhari, 2007; Hayes, 1999) which is claimed to be robust
based on outliers and incomplete questionnaires. The sample size to non-normality (e.g., Ladhari, 2007; Joreskog and Sorbom, 1993).
justified the recommended required number for running statistical Power analysis is also an important consideration in SEM analysis
analysis like factor analysis, structural equation modeling (see Hair since it can influence values of the test statistics, and modification
et al., 2008). indices (e.g., Browne and Cudeck, 1993). However, calculation of power
is complicated as it varies with several factors such as reliability of
variables, magnitude of error variances, number of manifest indicators
5. Data analysis and results per construct, magnitude of the covariances among variables, and the
estimation method used (e.g., Browne et al., 2002). As simple rule of
5.1. The same and descriptive statistics and reliability thumb, Barrett (2007) therefore suggested that a sample size of 150–
of the constructs 200 gives adequate power in the sample. Therefore, power in our
sample was deemed to be adequate for this analysis. The SEM was
The socio-demographic profile of the sample and descriptive performed using AMOS, version 18.
statistics of the constructs are represented in Table 1. Table 1 shows
that almost half of the respondents are female (52%); 39% respondents 6.1. Measurement model
are graduate; mean age of the respondents is 32 years and mean
monthly household income is USD$525.23. The mean scores and Measurement model depicts the link between the latent
standard deviations of retailer personality dimensions range from 5.05 variables and their observed measures (i.e., the CFA model)
 G. Das / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 21 (2014) 407–414 411

Table 1
The sample and descriptive statistics of the constructs.

The sample

Gender Male 48%

Female 52%

Education Secondary & higher secondary 27%

Graduate 39%
Post graduate 25%
Others (like M.Phil., Ph.D.) 9%

Occupation Housewife 30%

Employed (government/private/self) 52%
Businessman 12%
Others (like students) 6%

Age Mean age 32 Years

Monthly household income (MHI) Mean MHI $525.23

Mean Standard deviation

Descriptive statistics of the constructs

Retailer personality
Sophistication 5.35 1
Empathy 5.05 1.04
Dependability 5.14 0.89
Authenticity 5.33 0.96
Vibrancy 5.37 1.01

Retailer loyalty
L1a 5.26 1.21
L2a 5.01 1.11
L3a 5.06 1.2

Retailer perceived quality

PQ1a 5.43 0.96
PQ2a 5.38 0.98
PQ3a 5.34 0.94
PQ4a 5.45 0.97

Purchase intention
PI1a 5.28 1.05
PI2a 5.22 1.01

a
See Appendix for details of construct items.

(Byrne, 2010). It involves examining the loading of the observed 6.2. Test for alternative models
variables on the latent variables, and estimating indicators and
constructs validity. The measurement model validity depends on We tested three alternate models to examine the robustness of our
goodness-of-fit measures and specific evidence of construct valid- proposed structural model. In order to check these models, we run
ity (Hair et al., 2008). three different models with different linkages between constructs.
Goodness of model fit was initially assessed through the Chi- Model 1, consists of linkages between retailer personality (RP)-
square value ( χ2). However, as Chi-square test statistics are sensitive to retailer loyalty (RL), RP-purchase intention (PI), PI-RL and retailer
sample size and the model complexity, we considered relative Chi- perceived quality (RPQ)-PI. Model 2 consists of linkages between
square value (χ2/degree of freedom), other measures fit indices RP-RL, RP-RPQ, RPQ-RL and RPQ-PI. Model 3 consists of linkages
including NFI, RFI, IFI, TLI, CFI and RMSEA. The relative Chi-square between RP-RL, RP-RPQ, RPQ-RL, RP-PI, and PI-RL. However,
value of our proposed model (1.757) maintained the standard of less the fit indices results (model 1: NFI.834, RFI.832, IFI.879, TLI.898;
than 5 (Marsh and Hocevar, 1985). The rest fit indices, NFI (0.944), RFI model 2: NFI.896, RFI.892, IFI.867, TLI.845; model 3: NFI.887, RFI.854,
(0.928), IFI (0.975), TLI (0.968) and CFI (0.975) values maintained the IFI.867, TLI.878) of each model show that all the three alternate models
minimum standard of Z0.90 and the RMSEA (0.05) lied within the have poor fit compared to the proposed structural model.
range of 0.05 to 0.08 (Hair et al., 2008). Thus, the data fit the proposed
model of this study very well. 6.3. Structural model
All items loaded on their corresponding latent factors with signi-
ficant (p¼ 0.000) factor loadings Z0.70 (Hair et al., 2008) suggested The structural model, representing path analysis, depicts the links
strong convergent validity of the constructs used in this study. The among the latent variables (Byrne, 2010). The proposed structural
measurement model of our study exhibited strong psychometric model in this study depicts the linkages among RP, RPQ, RL, and PI.
properties with composite reliability ranges from 0.79 to 0.88 (recom- The linkages (as stated in H1–H6) were tested with Standardised
mended minimum level 0.70; Hair et al., 2008; Bagozzi and Yi, 1988) regression coefficients (β values), t-values and p-values (Table 2).
and average variance extracted (AVE) ranges from 0.51 to 0.57
(recommended minimum level 0.50; Hair et al., 2008; Fornell and
Larker, 1981). The values of AVE extracted from two standardised 7. Discussions
constructs were greater than the square of the correlation between the
two constructs (ranges from 0.001 to 0.403) indicating strong dis- The objective of this study was to explore the direct and
criminant validity of all constructs (Fornell and Larker, 1981). indirect (through retailer perceived quality and purchase
412 G. Das / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 21 (2014) 407–414

Table 2 importance of symbolic benefit of retail brand in influencing perceived

β Values, t-value and p-value of the path analysis. quality, purchase intention and loyalty. Marketers traditionally use
product pricing, brand name etc. to enhance perceived quality,
Hypothesis β Values t-Value p-Value Decision
purchase intention and loyalty (e.g., Zeithaml, 1988; Dodds et al.,
H1 (RPa-RPQa) 0.461 5.689 0 H1 accepted 1991). However, our study provides a new way to enhance these
H2 (RP-RLa) 0.309 4.273 0 H2 accepted constructs through brand personality in retail branding context.
H3 (RP-PIa) 0.118 4.45 0 H3 accepted Subsequently, the empirical evidence of this study revealed that
H4 (RPQ-RL) 0.124 4.503 0 H4 accepted
H5 (PI-RL) 0.317 4.537 0 H5 accepted
retailer perceived quality and purchase intention have positive impacts
H6 (RPQ-PI) 0.446 5.384 0 H6 accepted on retailer loyalty. The direct impact of retailer perceived quality on
purchase intention found to be positive in this study. All these linkages
a
RP ¼ retailer personality, RPQ ¼retailer perceived quality, RL¼ retailer loyalty, provide new insights to the retailing literature. Interestingly, our study
PI¼ purchase intention.
has also found the mediating roles of retailer perceived quality and
purchase intention in the relationship between retailer personality
intention) impacts of retailer personality on store loyalty. To and retailer loyalty. Our study also found that the extent of indirect
explore these impacts, six hypotheses have been developed and impacts (through perceived quality and purchase intention) of retailer
empirically tested. Results of this study (Table 2) revealed that personality on retailer loyalty is better than the direct impact. These
retailer personality has direct positive impacts on retailer per- outcomes established the importance of perceived quality and pur-
ceived quality (β¼ 0.461, t¼ 5.689, p ¼0.000), retailer loyalty chase intention in retaining customers. The marketing literature will
(β¼ 0.309, t¼4.537, p ¼0.000) and purchase intention (β¼ 0.118, be enriched upon enlisting these new and significant outcomes.
t¼4.450, p ¼0.000). Thus, hypotheses H1, H2 and H3 are accepted. Our study has also several managerial implications. This study
Through the acceptance of H1 we proved that the retail brand has found that the consumer perception about quality, purchase
personality positively influences consumers' perception towards intention and retailer loyalty are influenced by retailer personality.
quality of retailers. The result of H1 is in line with Ramaseshan and Literature reveals that retailer perceived quality, purchase inten-
Tsao's (2007) study. The result of H2 confirmed that retailer tion and store loyalty are influenced by several physical attributes
personality has positive impact on store loyalty and it is in line (like price, quality) of a brand. This study reveals how symbolic
with Zentes et al.'s (2008). The acceptance of H3 ensured that retail brand association (i.e., retailer personality) influences retai-
retailer personality has positive effect on consumer purchase ler perceived quality, purchase intention and store loyalty. Being
intention. The result of H3 is consistent with the study conducted symbolic benefit (brand personality) emotionally powerful
by Bouhlel et al. (2011). The results of our study (Table 2) also (Temporal, 2001; Upshaw, 1995), long term (Temporal, 2001),
revealed that retailer perceived quality (β¼0.124, t ¼4.503, and consistent (Temporal, 2001; LePla and Parker, 1999), the
p ¼0.000) and purchase intention (β¼ 0.317, t ¼4.537, p ¼0.000) results of this study would help retailer in developing and
have positive impacts on retailer loyalty. Thus, hypotheses H4 and implementing several marketing strategies which have long term
H5 are accepted. The last hypothesis (H6) of this study also and consistent impact on profitability of a company.
accepted (β¼0.446, t¼ 5.384, p¼ 0.000). Thus, our study has The linkages among retailer perceived quality, purchase inten-
proved that store loyalty is also positively influenced by perceived tion and retailer loyalty, found in this study would help retailers to
quality and purchase intention (H4 and H5). It has also confirmed investigate the roles of perceived quality and purchase intention in
that perceived quality has positive impact on purchase intention influencing store loyalty. The direct impact of retailer perceived
(H6). The results of H4, H5 and H6 are in lines with the studies quality on purchase intention has been found in this study.
conducted by Obeidat et al. (2012), Luo et al. (2011) and Previous studies had established this linkage for product branding
Parasuraman et al. (1996), Boulding et al. (1993) respectively. context. However, since the application of branding and brand
Our study has also found the indirect impacts of retailer person- management principles could vary from product brands to retail
ality on retailer loyalty mediating through retailer perceived brands (Ailawadi and Keller, 2004) and no prior study has
quality and purchase intention. Interestingly, results of our study investigated these linkages, the results could be seen as new and
showed that the extent of indirect impacts of retailer personality significant contribution in retailing literature. These results would
through retailer perceived quality (β¼0.416 þ0.124¼0.585) and help retailers in developing and implementing various strategies
purchase intention (β¼0.118þ 0.317 ¼0.435) are greater than the pertaining to customers' attraction, retention and loyalty which
direct impact (β¼0.309). Thus, our study has found the mediating will result in growth, profitability and sustainability of a company.
roles of retailer perceived quality and purchase intention in the Our study also explored the indirect impacts of retailer personality
relationship between retailer personality and retailer loyalty. We on retailer loyalty through retailer perceived quality and purchase
have also calculated the indirect impact of retailer personality on intention. Interestingly, we found that the indirect impact is stronger
retailer loyalty through retailer perceived quality and purchase than direct impact. This provides another significant input to the
intention. The extent of this indirect impact is larger (β¼1.224) retailers to develop and implement loyalty-related strategies. The
than the previous two indirect impacts (through retailer perceived results of this study revealed how retailer loyalty is directly influenced
quality, β¼0.585) and (through purchase intention, β¼0.435) by retailer personality and indirectly through retailer perceived quality
and purchase intention. So, the retailers would be benefited from our
resulting investigating the direct and indirect linkages between their
8. Theoretical and managerial implications personality and loyalty.
“Company and industry-level assessment of the service quality-
This study provides some significant contributions to the market- customer assessment link provides useful information to shareholders
ing theory. The empirical linkages among retailer personality, retailer on the viability of performance in the future……The identification of
perceived quality, purchase intention and retailer loyalty are significant service loyalty as a multi-dimensional construct may help corporate
outcomes to the retailing theory as no prior study has explored the decision makers in an accurate assessment of service quality”
same. This study has explored direct and indirect linkages of retailer (Bloemer et al., 1999, p. 1101). Thus, the results of this study enable
personality with retailer loyalty. This study confirmed the direct retailers to optimize resource allocation decision. Since, building and
positive impacts of retailer personality on retailer perceived quality, maintaining customer loyalty is very challenging, retailers should
retailer loyalty and purchase intention. Thus, our study establishes the know the factors and their extents in influencing loyalty. Perceived
 G. Das / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 21 (2014) 407–414 413

quality is found to take important roles in influencing purchase (iii) The store offers very reliable products (PQ3).
intention and loyalty. Marketing communication strategies such as (iv) The store offers products with excellent features (PQ4).
promotional activities and advertising messages should be designed so
that they emphasize retailer attributes and cues that will enhance
consumers' perceived quality toward retailers. External cues such as
Purchase intention (Summers et al., 2006)
price, product, brand name and objective quality information are
found to have positive associations with perceived product quality and
(i) I would like to buy some product from the retail store (PI1).
consumers' product evaluations (Rao and Monroe, 1989). Managers
(ii) I intend to purchase product from the retail store within the
can use these cues to enhance consumers' perceptions of retailer
next year (PI2).
quality.
The antecedents of purchase intention reported in this are retailer
personality and retailer perceived quality. So, retailers need to be
aware about the changes in the antecedents of purchase intention like References
retailer personality and perceived quality levels to be able to predict
consumer behavioral intention. Finally, retailer personality, retailer Aaker, D.A., 1991. Managing Brand Equity. The Free Press, New York, NY.
perceived quality and purchase intentions should be used to segmen- Aaker, D.A., 1996. Building Strong Brands. The Free Press, New York.
Aaker, J.L., 1997. Dimensions of brand personality. J. Mark. Res. 34 (3), 347–356.
tation the heterogeneous market into homogeneous groups, target the Ailawadi, K.L., Keller, K.L., 2004. Understanding retail branding: conceptual insights
most profitable customer segments and implement effective market- and research priorities. J. Retail. 80 (4), 331–342.
ing promotional strategies. Ambroise, L., Ferrandi, J.-M., Valette-Florence, P., Merunka, D., 2003. Première
application du baromètre de mesure de la personnalité de la marque à deux
enseignes françaises. In: Proceedings of the 6th Colloque Etienne Thil, La
Rochelle, France, CD-ROM.
9. Limitations and future scopes of study Anderson, E.W., Fornell, C., Lehmann, D.R., 1994. Customer satisfaction, market
share, and profitability; findings from Sweden. J. Mark. 58, 53–66.
Anderson, J.C., Gerbing, D.W., 1988. Structural modeling in practice: a review and
The present study has few limitations. First, our study involved recommended two-step approach. Psychol. Bull. 103 (3), 411–423.
only one category of retail segment i.e., non-food (department and Anderson, C.H., 1993. Retailing: Concepts, Strategy, and Information. West Publish-
non-food speciality/fashion stores) and conducted in only one city ing Company, St. Paul, MN.
Agarwal, R., Karahanna, E., 2000. Time files when you're having fun: cognitive
i.e., Kolkata, India. Therefore, further testing across other segments absorption and beliefs about information technology usage. MIS Q. 24 (4),
(like food—supermarkets) and regions/cultures is required to 665–694.
generalize these results. Sociodemographic variables influence Bagozzi, R.P., Yi, Y., 1988. On the evaluation of structural equation models. J. Acad.
Mark. Sci. 16 (1), 74–94.
several aspects of consumer behavior like customer attitude and
Barrett, P., 2007. Structural equation modeling: adjudging model fit. Personal.
store loyalty (Ruiz-Molina and Gil-Saura, 2008; Lee, 2007). So, how Individ. Differ. 42 (5), 815–824.
the hypotheses and conceptual model stated in this study differs Babin, B.J., Darden, W.R., Griffin, M., 1994. Work and/or fun—measuring hedonic
and utilitarian shopping value. J. Consum. Res. 20 (4), 644–656.
based on several sociodemographic variables, is a promising future
Biel, A.L., 1993. Converting image into equity. In: Aaker, D.A., Biel, A.L. (Eds.), Brand
research area. Finally, future study could incorporate retailer equity and Advertising. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdalle, NJ, pp. 67–82.
switching cost in our model as researchers (e.g., Jones et al., Blackston, M., 1993. Beyond brad personality: building brand relationship. In:
2000; Lee and Cunningham, 2001) found that the effect of these Aaker, D.A., Biel, A.L. (Eds.), Brand Equity and Advertising. Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 113–134.
variables on loyalty and, that it might vary between activity Bloemer, J., de Ruyter, K., Wetzels, M., 1999. Linking perceived service quality and
sectors (Ruyter et al., 1998; Ruiz-Molina and Gil-Saura, 2008). service loyalty: a multi-dimensional perspective. Eur. J. Mark. 33 (11–12),
1082–1106.
Bouhlel, O., Mzoughi, N., Hadiji, D., Slimane, I.C., 2011. Brand personality's influence
on the purchase intention: a mobile marketing case. Int. J. Bus. Manage. 6 (9),
Appendix. Constructs 210–227.
Bollen, K.A., Long, J.S., 1993. Testing Structural Equation Models. Sage, Newbury
Retailer (store) personality scale items (Das et al., 2012a) Park, CA.
Boulding, W., Karla, A., Staelin, R., Zeithaml, V.A., 1993. A dynamic process model of
service quality: from expectations to behavioral intentions. J. Mark. Res. 30,
Sophistication: Glamorous, trendy, elegant, trend setter, fash- 7–27.
ionable, classy, stylish, attractive and charming. Brengman, M., Willems, K., 2009. Determinants of fashion store personality. A
consumer perspective. J. Prod. Brand Manage. 18 (5), 346–355.
Empathy: Caring, considerate and friendly. Browne, M.W., Cudeck, R., 1993. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: Bollen,
Dependability: Hardworking, realistic, motivated, dutiful and K.A., Longs., J.S. (Eds.), Testing Structural Equation Models. Sage, Newbury Park,
punctual. CA, pp. 136–162.
Browne, M.W., MacCallum, R.C., Kim, C.T., Andersen, B.L., Glaser, R., 2002. When fit
Authenticity: Trustworthy, reliable, genuine and honest.
indices and residuals are incompatible. Psychol. Methods 7, 403–421.
Vibrancy: Bright, colorful, energetic, lively and cheerful. Buttle, F., 1992. Shopping motives constructionist perspective. Serv. Ind. J. 12 (3),
349–367.
Byrne, B.M., 2010. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS, second edition
Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, New York, London.
Retailer (store) loyalty scale items (Pappu and Quester, 2006) Chang, C., Tu, C., 2005. Exploring store image, customer satisfaction and customer
loyalty relationship: evidence from Taiwanese hypermarket industry. J. Am.
Acad. Bus. 7 (2), 197–202.
(i) I consider myself loyal to the store (L1). Das, G., Datta, B., Guin, K.K., 2012a. Impact of retailer personality on consumer-
(ii) I will not buy products from other retail stores, if I can buy the based retailer equity: an empirical study of retail brand. Asia Pac. J. Mark.
same item at the store (L2). Logist. 24 (4), 619–639.
Das, G., Datta, B., Guin, K.K., 2012b. From brands in general to retail brands: a
(iii) The store would be my first choice (L3). review and future agenda for future agenda for brand personality measure-
ment. Mark. Rev. 12 (1), 91–106.
Davis, F., 1985. Clothing and fashion as communication. In: Solomon, M. (Ed.), The
Psychology of Fashion. Lexington Book, Lexington, MA, pp. 15–28.
Retailer (store) perceived quality scale items (Pappu and Quester, d’Astous, A., Le´vesque, M., 2003. A scale for measuring store personality. Psychol.
2006) Mark. 20 (5), 455–469.
Dichter, E., 1985. Why we dress the way we do. In: Solomon, M. (Ed.), The
Psychology of Fashion. Lexington Book, Lexington, MA, pp. 29–38.
(i) The store offers products of very good quality (PQ1). Dodds, W.B., Monroe, K.B., Grewal, D., 1991. Effects of price, brand and store
(ii) The store offer products of consistent quality (PQ2). information on buyers' product evaluations. J. Mark. Res. 28 (3), 307–319.
414 G. Das / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 21 (2014) 407–414

Economic Intelligence Unit, 2010. Industry Report: Consumer Goods and Retail. Morrison, D.G., 1979. Purchase intentions and purchase behaviour. J. Mark. 43 (2),
Available from: 〈www.eiu.com/consumergoods〉 (accessed 05.07.13). 65–74.
Freling, T.H., Forbes, L.P., 2005. An examination of brand personality through Oliver, R.L., 1999. Whence customer buy. J. Mark. Res. 17 (4), 460–469.
methodological triangulation. J. Brand Manage. 13 (2), 56–65. Oliver, R.L., 1997. Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Customer. Mc Graw-
Frings, G.S., 1994. Fashion: From Concept to Consumer, fourth edition Prentice-Hall, Hill, London.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Obeidat, B.Y., Sweis, R.J., Zyod, D.S., Masa’deh, R., Alshurideh, M., 2012. The effect of
Fournier, S., 1994. A Consumer–Brand Relationship Framework for Strategic Brand perceived service quality on customer loyalty in internet service providers in
Management (Doctoral Dissertation), University of Florida. Jordan. J. Manage. Res. 4 (4), 224–242.
Fournier, S., 1998. Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in Payne, A., Frow, P., 2005. A strategic framework for customer relationship manage-
consumer research. J. Consum. Res. 24 (4), 343–373. ment. J. Mark. 69 (4), 167–176.
Fornell, C., Larker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobser- Pappu, R., Quester, P., 2006. A consumer-based method for retailer equity
vable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 18 (3), 39–50. measurement: results of an empirical study. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 13 (4),
Gwinner, K.P., Gremler, D.D., Bitner, M.J., 1998. Relational benefits in services 317–329.
industries: the customer's perspective. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 26 (2), 101–114. Pappu, R., Quester, P., 2008. Does brand equity vary between department stores and
Gremler, D.D., Brown, S.W., 1996. Service loyalty: its nature, importance and clothing stores? Results of an empirical investigation. J. Prod. Brand Manage. 17
implications. In: Edvardsson, B., Brown, S.W., Johnston, R., Scheuing, E.E. (7), 425–435.
(Eds.), Advancing Service Quality: A Global Perspective. International Service Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V., Berry, L., 1996. The behavioral consequences of
Quality Association, Jamaica, NY, pp. 171–180.
service quality. J. Mark. 60, 31–46.
Goldsmith, R.E., Heitmeyer, J.R., Goldsmith, E.B., 1990. Social values and being well
Parasuraman, A., Zeithanol, V.A., Berry, L.L., 1994. Reassessment of expectations as a
dressed: an exploratory study. Percept. Mot. Sk. 70 (3), 1010.
comparison standard in measuring service quality implications for further
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., 2008. Multivariate
research. J. Mark. 58 (1), 111–124.
Data Analysis, sixth edition Pearson Education, India.
Ruiz-Molina, M.-E., Gil-Saura, I., 2008. Perceived value, customer attitude and
Halepete, J., Iyer, K.V.S., 2008. Multidimensional investigation of apparel retailing in
loyalty in retailing. J. Retail Leisure Prop. 7 (4), 305–314.
India. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 36 (9),
Ramaseshan, B., Tsao, H.-Y., 2007. Moderating effects of the brand concept on the
676–688.
Helgeson, J.G., Supphellen, M., 2004. A conceptual and measurement comparison of relationship between brand personality and perceived quality. J. Brand Manage.
self-congruity and brand personality. Int. J. Mark. Res. 46 (1), 205–233. 14 (6), 458–466.
Huang, M.-H., 2009. Using service quality to enhance the perceived quality of store Rosenthal, R., Rosnow, R.L., 1984. Essentials of Behavioral Research: Methods and
brands. Total Qual. Manage. 20 (2), 241–252. Data Analysis. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York.
Hayes, J., 1999. Antecedents and Consequences of Brand Personality (Ph.D. Dis- Ranaweera, C., Neely, A., 2003. Some moderating effects on the service quality—
sertation), Mississippi State University. customer retention link. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manage. 23 (2), 230–248.
Hieronimus, F., 2003. Persö nlichkeitsorientiertes Markenmanagement. Frankfurt, Rao, A.R., Monroe, K.B., 1989. Effect of price, brand name, and store name on buyers.
M: Peter Lang. J. Mark. Res. 26 (3), 351–357.
Jacoby, J., Chestnut, R., 1978. Brand Loyalty: Measurement and Management. John Ruyter, K., Wetzels, M., Bloemer, J., 1998. On the relationship between perceived
Wiley and Sons, New York. service quality, service loyalty and switching costs. Int. J. Serv. Ind. Manage. 9
Joreskog, K.G., Sorbom, D., 1993. LISREL 8 User's Reference Guide. Scientific (5), 436–453.
Software, Mooreseville, IN. Shim, S., Eastlick, M.A., Lotz, S.I., Warrington, P., 2001. An online prepurchase
Jones, M.A., Mothersbaugh, D.L., Beatty, S.E., 2000. Switching barriers and repurch- intentions model: the role of intention on search. J. Retail. 77 (3), 394–416.
ase intentions in services. J. Retail. 76 (2), 259–274. Sirgy, M.J., 1982. Self-concept in consumer behavior: a critical review. J. Consum.
Kandampully, J., 1998. Service quality to service loyalty: a relationship which goes Res. 9 (3), 287–300.
beyond customer services. Total Qual. Manage. Bus. Excel. 9 (6), 431–443. Siguaw, J.A., Mattila, A., Austin, J.R., 1999. The brand-personality scale: an applica-
Kotler, P., 2003. Marketing Management, eleventh edition Pearson Education tion for restaurants (focus on food service). Cornell Hotel Restaur. Adm. Q. 40
(Singapore) Pte. Ltd., Delhi, India. (3), 48–55.
Kassarjian, H., 1971. Personality and consumer behavior: a review. J. Mark. Res. 8 Srinivasan, S.S., Anderson, R., Ponnavolu, K., 2002. Customer loyalty in e-commerce:
(4), 409–418. an exploration of its antecedents and consequences. J. Retail. 78 (1), 41–50.
Kotler, P., 2000. Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, Implementation, and Srivastava, R.K., 2008. Changing retail scene in India. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manage.
Control. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. 36 (9), 714–721.
Kotler, P., Brown, L., Adam, S., Armstrong, G., 2004. Marketing Management, sixth Sengupta, A., 2008. Emergence of modern Indian retail: an historical perspective.
edition Prentice-Hall, Frenches Forest, Australia. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manage. 36 (9), 689–700.
Kotler, P., Keller, K.L., Koshy, A., Jha, M., 2009. Marketing Management—A South Schumacker, R.E., Lomax, R.G., 1996. A Beginner's Guide to Structural Equation
Asian Perspective, thirteen edition Pearson Education, India. Modeling. Routledge, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
Kearney Report, 2012. Retail Global Expansion: A Portfolio Of Opportunities. Summers, T.A., Belleau, B.D., Xu, Y., 2006. Predicting purchase intention of a
Available from: 〈www.atkearney.com/index.php/Publications/retail-global-ex controversial luxury apparel product. J. Fash. Mark. Manage. 10 (4), 405–419.
pansion-a-portfolio-of-opportunities2011-global-retail-development-index. Thompson, K.E., Chen, Y.L., 1998. Retail store image: a means-end approach. J. Mark.
html〉 (accessed 25.03.13). Pract.: Appl. Mark. Sci. 4 (6), 161–173.
Koo, D., 2005. Inter-relationships among store images, store satisfaction, and store Temporal, P., 2001. Branding in Asia: The Creation, Development and Management
loyalty among Korea discount retail patrons. Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist. 15 (4), of Asian Brands for the Global Market. John Wiley & Sons (Asia) Pte Ltd,
42–71. Singapore.
Ko, E., Kincade, D.H., 1997. The impact of quick response technologies on retail store Tsiotsou, R., 2005. The role of perceived product quality and overall satisfaction on
attributes. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manage. 25 (2), 90–98.
purchase intentions. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 30 (2), 207–217.
Ladhari, R., 2007. The effect of consumption emotions on satisfaction and word-of-
Upshaw, L.B., 1995. Building Brand Identity: A Strategy for Success in a Hostile
mouth communication. Psychol. Mark. 24 (12), 1085–1108.
Marketplace. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
Luo, M.M., Chen, J.-S., Chin, R.K.H., Liu, C.-C., 2011. An examination of the effects of
Vanniarajan, T., Gurunathan, P., 2009. Service quality, customer satisfaction and
virtual experiential marketing on online customer intentions and loyalty. Serv.
behavioural, intention in rural banking. Invertis J. Manage. 1 (1), 13–26.
Ind. J. 31 (13), 2163–2191.
Wallace, David W., Joan, L.G., Jean L., Johnson, 2004. Customer retailer loyalty in the
Lobo, A., Maritz, A., Mehta, S., 2007. Enhancing Singapore travel agencies' customer
context of multiple channel strategies. J. Retail. 80 (4), 249–263.
loyalty: an empirical investigation of customers' behavioral intentions and
Willems, K., Swinner, G., Janssens, W., Brengman, M., 2011. Fashion store person-
zones of tolerance. Int. J. Tour. Res. 9, 485–495.
LePla, F.J., Parker, L.M., 1999. Integrated Branding: Becoming Brand-Driven Through ality: scale development and relation to self-congruity theory. J. Glob. Fash.
Companywide Action. Quorum Books, Westport, CT. Mark. 2 (2), 55–65.
Lee, B.C.Y., 2007. Consumer attitude toward virtual stores and its correlates. J. Retail. Wee, T.T.T., 2004. Extending human personality to brands: the stability factor. J.
Consum. Serv. 14 (3), 182–191. Brand Manage. 11 (4), 317–330.
Lee, M., Cunningham, L.F., 2001. A cost/benefit approach to understanding service Yang, Z., Peterson, R.T., 2004. Customer perceived value, satisfaction, and loyalty:
loyalty. J. Serv. Mark. 15 (2), 113–130. the role of switching costs. Psychol. Mark. 21, 10.
Martin, W.C., Ponder, N., Lueg, J.E., 2009. Price fairness perceptions and customer Yoo, B., Donthu, N., Lee, S., 2000. An examination of selected marketing mix
loyalty in a retail context. J. Bus. Res. 62 (6), 588–593. elements and brand equity. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 28 (2), 195–211.
Mardia, K.V., 1970. Measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis with applica- Yun, Z., Good, L.K., 2007. Developing customer loyalty from e-tail store image
tions. Biometrika 57 (3), 519–530. attributes. Managing Serv. Qual. 17 (1), 4–22.
Marsh, H.W., Hocevar, D., 1985. Application of confirmatory factor analysis to the Zentes, J., Morschett, D., Schramm-Klein, H., 2008. Brand personality of retailers—
study of self-concept: first- and higher-order factor models and their invariance an analysis of its applicability and its effect in store loyalty. Int. J. Rev. Retail
across groups. Psychol. Bull. 97 (3), 562–582. Distrib. Consum. Res. 18 (2), 167–184.
Merrilees, B., Miller, D., 2001. Superstore interactivity: a new self-service paradigm Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L., Parasuraman, A., 1996. The behavioral consequences of
of retail service? Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manage. 29 (8–9), 379–389. service quality. J. Mark. 60, 31–46.
Möller, J., Herm, S., 2013. Shaping Retail Brand Personality Perceptions by Bodily Zeithaml, V.A., 1988. Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-
Experiences. J. Retail. 89, 438–446. end model and synthesis of evidence. J. Mark. 52 (3), 2–22.