Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 21

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0566.

htm

Extending the prevalent consumer loyalty modelling: the role of habit strength
Svein Ottar Olsen
Troms Business School, University of Troms, Troms, Norway

Consumer loyalty modelling 303


Received 8 June 2010 Revised 20 February 2011 Accepted 6 May 2011

Ana Alina Tudoran and Karen Bruns


Aarhus School of Business and Social Sciences, Aarhus University, Denmark, and

Wim Verbeke
Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
Abstract
Purpose This study aims to address the role of habit strength in explaining loyalty behaviour. Design/methodology/approach The study uses 2,063 consumers data from a survey in Denmark and Spain, and multigroup structural equation modelling to analyse the data. The paper describes an approach employing the psychological meanings of the habit construct, such as automaticity, lack of awareness or very little conscious deliberation. Findings The ndings suggest that when habits start to develop and gain strength, less planning is involved, and that the loyalty behaviour sequence mainly occurs guided by automaticity and inertia. A new model with habit strength as a mediator between satisfaction and loyalty behaviour provides a substantial increase in explained variance in loyalty behaviour over the traditional model with intention as a mediator. Originality/value This study contributes to the existent literature by providing an extension of the prevalent consumer loyalty theorizing by integrating the concept of habit strength and by generating new knowledge concerning the conscious/strategic and unconscious/automatic nature of consumer loyalty. The study derives managerial implications on how to facilitate habit formation and how to inuence habit-based versus intention-based loyalty behaviour. The external validity of this study is assured by nationwide representative samples in two countries. Keywords Intention, Habit strength, Loyalty, Structural equation modelling, Food, Consumer behaviour, Customer loyalty Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction Research on marketing argues that strategies to gain consumer loyalty and to prevent consumers from switching to a competitive product are essential business questions today (Reinartz et al., 2005). The need to understand what drives consumer loyalty has spawned a number of publications examining the determinants and mediators of consumer loyalty behaviour (Ball et al., 2004; Chiou and Droge, 2006; Evanschitzky and Wunderlich, 2006; Gustafsson et al., 2005; Yi and La, 2004).
This work was performed within the EU FP6 Integrated Project SEAFOODplus, contract no. FOOD-CT-2004-506359. The nancing of the work by the European Union is gratefully acknowledged. The rst two authors contributed equally to this study.
European Journal of Marketing Vol. 47 No. 1/2, 2013 pp. 303-323 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0309-0566 DOI 10.1108/03090561311285565

EJM 47,1/2

304

Past research on the psychological process that drives loyalty behaviour has mainly focused on the deliberate or goal-directedness intentions mechanism (Oliver, 1999; Pritchard et al., 1999). For example, Olivers (1999) model assumes that product loyalty is the outcome of active planning, which starts with episodes of positive cognition and affect towards a product or brand, and ends with a strong commitment (intention) directed towards repeatedly purchasing the same product/brand. While plausible in the case of less frequent behaviours or in the initial stages of product adoption, this assumption may not be applicable to continued behaviours or behaviours characterised by frequent purchases (such as food and drink purchasing and consumption), as it ignores the fact that frequently performed behaviours in stable contexts become habitual and thus automatic over time (Limayem et al., 2007; Ouellette and Wood, 1998). As argued by Webb and Sheeran (2006) and others, when behaviour is performed in stable contexts and for low-involvement and frequent purchases, consumers behaviour can be initiated and executed without needing the persons conscious intent and guidance (Webb and Sheeran, 2006, p. 261). Consumers tend to buy the same brands of products across different shopping episodes, the same amount at a given retail store across repeat visits, and consume similar types of foods in a meal across days (Wood and Neal, 2009). Habits but not intention hide the most common form of repeat purchase or repeat consumption (Triandis, 1980). Habits develop and gain strength by satisfactory repetition, and over time become automatic, so that repeated behaviour can occur without awareness and self-instruction (Wood and Neal, 2009). Therefore, ignoring the habit-persistence effects may systematically overestimate the intentional product/brand loyalty (Seetharaman, 2004). The overall objective of this work is to investigate the key role of habit strength in loyalty behaviour in the context of food consumption behaviour. More specically, the objectives are: . to introduce the most prevalent consumer loyalty model in the eld of marketing (Oliver, 1999), highlighting its strengths and shortcomings, and to extend the current theorizing on loyalty by integrating the notion of habit strength as a mediator between cumulative satisfaction and loyalty behaviour; and, respectively . to test this extended model empirically and compare its predictive ability with the original model in the eld of food consumption. No explicit study to the authors knowledge takes this approach. A few studies asserting the role of habit in loyalty behaviour present four major shortcomings. First, these studies lack a properly rigorous argument and substantiated theoretical base (Limayem et al., 2007). Second, there is a lack of precision in relation to conceptualisation and measurement of the habit notion. The habit construct is typically conceived as past behavioural frequency or consecutive product purchase ( Jolley et al., 2006; Ouellette and Wood, 1998; Seetharaman, 2004). The majority of studies omit the key aspects of habit, such as automaticity, lack of awareness or very little conscious deliberation (Verplanken and Orbell, 2003). Third, most of the previous studies do not include actual behaviour in their models to test it empirically. For instance, Tramow (2000) analyses the relationship between habit and intention to behave as a proxy for actual behaviour, suggesting that future research should examine these effects for actual behaviour. Fourth, habit is usually considered to be a

negative construct both in daily life, e.g. referred to in a context of bad habits or addiction (Lindblad and Lyttkens, 2002), as well as in some parts of the loyalty literature (Dick and Basu, 1994). The reason for this is the assumption that habit or inertia is something passive, convenient, a non-conscious form of retention associated with spurious loyalty and different from true loyalty as an active, planned and conscious component of decision-making processes (Dick and Basu, 1994). However, habit can be a positive trait or outcome for consumers and businesses. People develop habits for convenience in order to save cognitive effort and time (Wood and Neal, 2009), which is not negative per se. Without habits, people would be doomed to plan, guide consciously and monitor every action (Neal et al., 2006). Buying a brand or product or going to a particular restaurant out of habit may be a consequence of satised actions over time (Triandis, 1980). On the other hand, the reason why individuals perform active planning, compare and evaluate may be because they lack skills and knowledge of the product or because they became less satised over time and continue to consider and evaluate additional alternatives. Thus, buying, consuming or using a brand or product out of habit may be something businesses want to encourage, even though over time it is less driven by active planning and a decision to act. Overall, the present study aims to address these limitations. The study contributes to the marketing literature and practice by: . providing an extension of the prevailing consumer loyalty theorizing by integrating the concept of habit strength into the traditional Olivers (1999) model; . by generating new knowledge concerning the conscious/strategic and unconscious/automatic nature of consumer loyalty behaviour; and . by proposing managerial implications or guidelines on how to enable habit formation and how to inuence habit-based versus intention-based loyalty behaviour. The external validity of this study is strengthened by the use of two representative samples of consumers in two countries with different food consumption cultures (Denmark and Spain). 2. Overview of the framework Olivers (1999) hierarchical model of loyalty seeks to explain consumers behaviour to repurchase or repatronize a preferred product/service consistently over time (Oliver, 1999). Olivers model positively relates satisfaction to loyalty behaviour through the mediator role of intention. This perspective is in accordance with the traditional attitude-intention-behaviour approach in social psychology (Ajzen, 1991), suggesting that intention is the main causal mechanism behind the enactment of behaviour. In the marketing literature, most studies rely on hierarchical mediation through intention to predict consumer loyalty behaviour (Chiou and Droge, 2006; Evanschitzky and Wunderlich, 2006; Han et al., 2008). However, Olivers model cannot account for the possibility that long-practised behaviour may no longer be under motivational conscious control, but rather inuenced by antecedents other than intention. To overcome this limitation and improve the explanatory power of the model further, we incorporate the habit-strength construct as an alternative less conscious automatic cause explaining loyalty behaviour. In developing our study, we begin with a brief

Consumer loyalty modelling 305

EJM 47,1/2

discussion of the fundamental concepts. Next, we turn to discuss Olivers model (Model 1 in Figure 1) and the proposed model (Model 2 in Figure 1) in more detail. 2.1 Satisfaction Satisfaction is the consumers fullment response and the degree to which the level of fullment is pleasurable (Oliver, 1999). Satisfaction is a key to building and retaining a loyal base of long-term consumers (Limayem et al., 2007). For satisfaction to affect loyalty behaviour, consumers should experience frequent or cumulative satisfaction episodes (Oliver, 1999). Repeated satisfaction with a product, service or brand becomes aggregated over time and forms consumer cumulative global satisfaction with the product, service or brand (Johnson et al., 1995). 2.2 Loyalty intentions Loyalty intention is a deeply held commitment to repurchase a specic product, service or brand (Oliver, 1999). Intention captures different motivational factors that inuence human behaviour (Eagly and Chaiken, 1993). According to Ajzen (1991), intention is an indicator of how hard people are willing to try how much effort they are planning to exert to perform the behaviour. Loyalty intention is often used as a substitute for loyalty behaviour or as the ultimate dependent variable in satisfaction-loyalty studies (exceptions include, e.g. Gustafsson et al., 2005; Seiders et al., 2005). Mittal and Kamakura (2001) question this practice and argue that intention and behaviour are different constructs. 2.3 Loyalty behaviour Loyalty behaviour is the consumers tendency to patronize a product, revealed through behaviour (action) that can be measured and that impacts directly on sales (Worthington et al., 2010). Businesses pursue loyalty behaviour because such behaviour in consumers can secure protability and long-term sustainability (Reinartz et al., 2005). Marketing literature denes and measures loyalty behaviour as the self-reported frequency of purchases/consumption over time (Gustafsson et al., 2005; Pritchard et al., 1999; Yi and

306

Figure 1. A conceptual framework for examining the mediating role of habit strength on the satisfaction-loyalty relation

La, 2004) or the relative amount of purchases over time (Heskett, 2002). This is also the common practice among market players, who consider that an action of repeated purchase of the same product signals consumer loyalty (e.g. Ball et al., 2004). 2.4 Habit strength as routine Habits are most easily envisaged as simple routine behaviours, such as eating a meal between ve and six oclock every workday. Triandis (1980) denes habit as situation-behaviour sequences that are, or have become, automatic, so that they occur without self-instruction. The most recent denitions of habit associate habit with a repeated behaviour that has gained automatic qualities and that is performed under relatively stable conditions with a minimal focus of attention (Ouellette and Wood, 1998). For instance, Verplanken and Aarts (1999) describe habits as learned sequences of acts that have become automatic responses to specic cues, and are functional in obtaining certain goals or end states. Overall, it is inferred that, although repetition is a necessary condition for habits to develop, the dening feature of a habit is automaticity. A major problem in earlier studies of habitual behaviour is that habit is usually measured as behavioural frequency, such as: How many times during the past year/month/week did you buy/use/eat . . .? (Ouellette and Wood, 1998). However, as pointed out, repeated behaviour need not necessarily involve habituation (Ajzen, 2002). For instance, how many tries does it take to form a habit? To use the frequency of past behaviour as a proxy for habit strength, and to test its effect on future behaviour, is to use circular logic. If habit strength is dened as the tendency of past behaviour to exert a unique affect on subsequent behaviour, then one cannot empirically demonstrate situations in which someone has a strong habit to act and resist (Jaccard and Blanton, 2005). As the concept of habit is strongly rooted in behaviourist approaches to learning theory, most studies of the development of habits take a mechanistic perspective of habitual behaviour (Verplanken and Orbell, 2003). This approach makes no references to internal psychological states or mental processes in explaining, dening or operationalizing the construct. Likewise, most studies show any discriminant validity of habit measures with a scale measuring behavioural frequency as loyalty behaviour. In effect, the two constructs overlap greatly in the marketing literature. In an attempt to address these limitations and to improve the content validity of the habit construct, some researchers recommend using a cognitive measure of habit strength. Verplanken and Orbell (2003) present a generic 12-item measure, namely the Self-Report Habit Index (SRHI). This scale, or facets of this scale, have recently been used to assess different individuals habits, including eating habits (Honkanen et al., 2005). Although the scale includes several facets, such as frequency, routine, automaticity and identity, here we focus only on the part covering routine and automaticity. These aspects are in accordance with the formal denitions of habit, discussed earlier in this study, and are accepted as an important criterion for habit strength (Ajzen, 2002). In addition, we include an item covering repetition over time in accordance with our discussion of the meaning of habit as repeated behaviour (Ajzen, 2002) and with the repetition and practising of a skill in a given context (Ouellette and Wood, 1998). 2.5 Olivers model and the proposed model The marketing literature offers relatively few theoretical models explaining consumers loyalty behaviour. The most widely cited model is undoubtedly Olivers

Consumer loyalty modelling 307

EJM 47,1/2

308

(1999) model. Oliver proposes a temporal approach to loyalty behaviour formation and argues that consumers go through different phases from cognitive loyalty and affective loyalty (satisfaction) through loyalty intention (commitment) before being committed to loyalty behaviour. Hence, loyalty intention acts as mediator between satisfaction and loyalty behaviour. Different empirical studies on consumer loyalty are conceptually built on Olivers loyalty model (Chiou and Droge, 2006; Evanschitzky and Wunderlich, 2006; Han et al., 2008). A limitation of Olivers model is that it does not explain consumers loyalty behaviour once loyalty behaviour has been installed and for frequently performed behaviours in stable environments. The model implicitly entails every single initiation of behaviour being directly preceded by deliberative intentions regarding the course of action. However, many actions are simply resumptions of activities that individuals started some time before, and forming the underlying intention is therefore unnecessary in most situations (Wilson et al., 2000). Consistent with modern psychological theories (Wilson et al., 2000), the attitude behaviour link may not necessarily depend on planned, explicit attitudes. Rather, individuals may act based on the automatic, implicit attitudes that are stored in their memory. Automatic behaviour occurs when the attitudes towards the behaviour are easily accessed and retrieved from the memory and evidence exists that attitudes are highly accessible under habitual behaviours (Verplanken and Aarts, 1999). In an attempt to ll this gap, the present study proposes habit strength as a mediating variable between satisfaction and loyalty behaviour. We further present more arguments on how habits are developed though repeated performance and positive affect (satisfaction) in stable contexts. Triandiss (1980) theory of interpersonal behaviour states that behaviour is a function of intentions, facilitating conditions and habit strength. While novel behaviours are primarily determined by intentions, repeated behaviours are primarily determined by habit. Habits form slowly in stable contexts where the behaviour is frequently practised (daily to several times a week) (Ouellette and Wood, 1998). According to Wood and Neal (2009), habit formation is originally an intention-dependent process where goals provide the initial outcome-oriented impetus for response repetition. During the process of habit formation, individuals gradually learn the associations between the behaviour and the characteristics of the context in which the behaviour is performed (Wood and Neal, 2009). Once habits are formed, perception of contexts governs the associated behaviour without awareness of the underlying goal-directed intentions (Verplanken and Wood, 2006). Recognizing that habits may originate in goal pursuit (intention-dependent), some scholars argue that habits are a form of goal-dependent automaticity which emerge when context activates a goal (Verplanken and Aarts, 1999), whereas other researchers argue that habit context-response associations are completely independent of goals (Wood and Neal, 2009). Habits also may arise when cues in the performance context are associated with positive affect (i.e. satised repetitions) over time (Triandis, 1980). In this case, contexts trigger habit formation as they signal opportunities to obtain the rewarding experience (Wood and Neal, 2009). Research on the neurotransmitter systems in the brain has shown that the context reliably associated with positive response outcome can promote habit performance (Wood and Neal, 2009). Additional evidence from the marketing

literature has shown a signicant correlation between affect or satisfaction and perceived habit strength in the area of recycling behaviour (Knussen et al., 2004), fruit consumption behaviour (De Bruijn et al., 2007) and information-systems-related behaviour (Limayem et al., 2007). Similarly, in the present study, we position cumulative satisfaction as a driver of habit strength based on the consumers positive experience with the consumption of the product. In summary, Olivers model (Model 1, Figure 1) relies primarily on the deliberate or goal-directedness intentions mechanism to explain customer loyalty behaviour (as measured by the frequency of behaviour). The extended model (Model 2, Figure 1) proposes a mediating effect of habit (habit strength) in the relationship between satisfaction and loyalty behaviour. Consistent with previous arguments, as the habits develop and gain strength through satisfactory execution of the behaviour, the loyalty behaviour is less likely to depend on a rational statement (loyalty intentions) and mainly depends on the automaticity of habit. 3. Methodology 3.1 Focus on product category loyalty Traditionally scholars have associated consumer loyalty exclusively with brands (Chiou and Droge, 2006; Evanschitzky and Wunderlich, 2006; Oliver, 1999). Recent studies (Nijssen et al., 2003; Pritchard et al., 1999) have associated loyalty also with product categories, services, stores, persons or geographic region. Evidence suggests that consumers decision-making and loyalty may form at different levels of the product hierarchy from product categories to brands. For example, when deciding what to have for dinner, consumers choose among multiple food categories, classes, or types of products before reaching decisions among brands. In addition, some product categories lack strong brands (e.g. fresh fruits, unprocessed meat and fresh seafood are mostly sold unbranded). Product category loyalty is similar to brand loyalty because the same rules that govern brand competition may also be applied to product category competition. For example, sh competes with meat and butter competes with margarine as much as Coca-Cola competes with Pepsi and other soft drink brands. This study deals with consumer loyalty towards a product category (Chad et al., 2005) and in particular consumers loyalty towards the consumption of sh as the main meal protein in an in-home context. 3.2 Sample Two representative household samples from Denmark (DK) (n 1110) and Spain (SP) (n 953) form the basis of the present analysis. The two-sample analysis was aimed to provide conceptual and statistical support for the investigated approach and to verify whether specic parameters of the models are (in)variant across the countries. The countries were selected based on expected differences in sh consumption. Spain ranks as one of the highest consumers of sh in Europe (approximately 42 kg/capita/year cf. FAOSTAT, 2006). Denmark in turn presents a relatively low level of total sh consumption in Europe (approximately 24 kg/capita/year cf. FAOSTAT, 2006). The eldwork and pre-testing were sub-contracted to local market research agencies. Households were selected randomly. In each household, the person mainly responsible for food shopping and cooking was elected as the respondent. This procedure inuenced the distribution of gender in favour of females (77 per cent of the

Consumer loyalty modelling 309

EJM 47,1/2

total number of respondents). Otherwise, the samples were representative of the different countries, in terms of basic socio-demographics such as age, education, town size and region. 3.3 Measures Pilot interviews were conducted in order to pre-test the questionnaire. Only small revisions were necessary. The respondents were clearly informed that this study focused on sh as a product category, and not on shellsh or other seafood products. All the questions were framed with regard to consuming sh as the main meal/dinner in their home environment, in accordance with the principle of compatibility (Ajzen, 1991) and with the notion that habit is performed in relatively stable contexts (Ouellette and Wood, 1998). Satisfaction was measured by three seven-point semantic-differential items: When eating sh for the main meal/dinner at home: I feel bad-good, unsatised-satised, unpleasant-pleasant. This scale is frequently used to assess consumer satisfaction (Limayem et al., 2007; Seiders et al., 2005). Intended loyalty was assessed with three indicators: Please indicate how likely it is that you expect/plan/want to eat sh at home for your main course/dinner in the near future? These items are frequently used to measure intention as a reective construct within the expectancy-value theory (Armitage and Conner, 2001), and have been adapted to the loyalty literature in different ways (Evanschitzky and Wunderlich, 2006). The respondents were given the opportunity to mark their intention on a scale from one very unlikely to seven very likely. Habit strength was measured by three items from the self-report index of habit strength scale (Verplanken and Orbell, 2003). We reduced the number of items because some items in the original scale covered other dimensions, such as frequency and identity. Thus, our scale of habit strength focused on measures to assess lack of awareness/consciousness, and was measured by three seven-point semantic-differential items: Eating sh as a main course/dinner at home is something: I have been doing for a long time (a routine); I have no need to think about doing; I do without thinking too much (automatically). Finally, loyalty behaviour was measured by one item, How often do you eat sh as a main course/dinner at home?, which was to be answered on a nine-point frequency scale ranging from never to every day or almost every day. Self-reporting behavioural frequency in cross-sectional surveys serves as a good proxy for actual consumption (Pritchard et al., 1999; Yi and La, 2004). 4. Analysis and results 4.1 Analytical procedures The analyses include an examination of the reliability and validity of the constructs by estimating a conrmatory factor analysis (CFA) model individually for each model and each sample. Next, we apply structural equation modelling to test the proposed Model 1 and Model 2 for each individual sample. The traditional chi-square t test is reported; however, because it has been recognised as an inappropriate test for a large sample size (Byrne, 2001), six other indices, considered to be robust indicators of model t, are included: the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Normed Fit Index (NFI), Relative Fit Index (RFI), Incremental Fit Index (IFI), Tucker Lewis Index (TLI) and Root Mean Square

310

Error of Approximation (RMSEA). An acceptable model t is indicated by CFI, NFI, RFI, IFI and TLI values exceeding 0.90 and RMSEA values below 0.08 (Byrne, 2001). 4.2 Construct reliability and validity CFA was estimated as a preliminary step to conrm the factor structure and to provide an initial test of reliability and validity of the factors (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). We ran a CFA for each of the two models (Model 1 and Model 2). However, for space reasons, only the results for Model 2 (including all the constructs) are shown in Table I. On the basis of the model t indices the CFA model appeared to t the data adequately. Without exception, every individual item loading on the predicted constructs was highly signicant with values ranging from 0.71 to 0.98, hereby providing evidence of the items convergent validity (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). The reliability coefcients (Cronbach alpha, composite reliability and variance extracted) were satisfactory, ranging from 0.72 to 0.95. The intercorrelations between the constructs are displayed in Table II. All the correlations appeared to be signicant and below 0.70, attesting to discriminant validity. Furthermore, to conrm the discriminant validity,
Country Construct/item Satisfaction Feel bad/Feel good Unsatised/Satised Unpleasant/Pleasant Loyalty intentions Plan Expect Want (desire) Habit strength I have been doing for a long time I have no need to think about doing I do without thinking (automatically) Loyalty behaviour How often did you eat sh at home? Model t statistics x2 df p-value CFI NFI TLI RMSEA Denmarka a CR Spainb a

Consumer loyalty modelling 311

Loading 0.81 0.94 0.91

VE

Loading 0.90 0.90 0.85

CR

VE

0.847 0.907 0.767

0.918 0.948 0.859

0.935 0.958 0.885 0.93 0.96 0.85 0.809 0.886 0.723 0.75 0.84 0.78 0.71 0.74 0.87 0.98 0.98 0.95

0.977 0.985 0.957

0.814 0.889 0.729

1.00 (xed) 175.24 30 0.000 0.98 0.98 0.96 0.06

1.00 (xed) 141.81 30 0.000 0.99 0.98 0.97 0.06

Notes: an 1,110; bn 953; a Alpha Cronbach; CR Composite Reliability; VE Variance extracted

Table I. Results of the CFA, country-specic analysis

EJM 47,1/2

312

the procedure recommended by Bagozzi et al. (1991) was followed. A series of one-factor and two-factor conrmatory models was run for each pair of constructs in the study, and a chi-square difference test was then conducted. The results revealed that, for all the pairs of constructs, the two-factor solution was better than the one-factor solution (p , 0:01). Overall, the data show that the measures of the proposed constructs achieve high reliability and sufcient convergent and discriminant validity across the two individual CFA models. 4.3 Common method bias As common method bias may have confounding effects on the observed relationships between the predictor and the criterion variables, particularly when data are self-reported (a single source), we estimated next the single-common-method factor approach, devised by Podsakoff et al. (2003), to check whether a common method bias is present. The measurement model was estimated with a single-method rst-order factor added to the indicators of the four variables. It should be noted that the measurement properties (t indices), under the common method factor model, slightly improved in comparison with the basic model (CFI 0:996 vs 0.980; NFI 0:996 vs 0.979; RMSEA 0:053 vs 0.061). However, the correlation estimates between the variables remained almost unchanged between the two models. On the basis of this analysis, common method bias appeared not to be an issue in this research. 4.4 Estimation of the proposed models The following step in the analysis was to estimate the two proposed structural models. We carried out the estimation following a hierarchical process. First, consistent with Olivers model, we tested Model 1 to determine the effect of satisfaction and the mediating role of loyalty intention on loyalty behaviour. Then we introduced the variable habit strength as a mediator in the relationship between satisfaction and loyalty behaviour (Model 2). On the other hand, to verify the mediating effect of the proposed variables, i.e. loyalty intention and habit strength, a number of conditions must hold (Baron and Kenny, 1986): . Satisfaction should have a signicant effect on loyalty intentions and habit strength. . Loyalty intentions and habit strength should have a signicant effect on loyalty behaviour (these rst two conditions are examined in Model A).
Denmarka Li H 4.31 (2.30) 0.36 0.46 4.59 (1.81) 0.54 Spainb Lb 5.16 (1.82) S 5.85 (1.25) 0.39 0.65 0.43 Li 4.22 (2.10) 0.39 0.31 H 5.41 (1.40) 0.56 Lb 6.75 (1.29)

Variable/country Mean Std dev. Satisfaction (S) Loyalty intentions (Li) Habit strength (H) Loyalty behaviour (Lb)
a b

S 5.82 (1.34) 0.39 0.49 0.44

Table II. Construct estimated means, standard deviations and correlations

Notes: n 1,110; n 953; Correlation coefcients are given in the non-diagonal elements

. .

Satisfaction should have a signicant direct effect on loyalty behaviour (Model B). The direct effect of satisfaction on loyalty behaviour should become smaller in absolute value when the path between the mediators (loyalty intentions and habit strength) and loyalty behaviour is opened (Model C).

Consumer loyalty modelling 313

4.4.1 Loyalty intentions as a mediator towards loyalty behaviour. Table III shows that the conditions are present for the existence of a clear mediating effect of loyalty intentions (Oliver, 1999). According to Model A, the relationships satisfaction loyalty intentions and, respectively, loyalty intentions-loyalty behaviour are signicant for both samples. The direct effects of satisfaction on loyalty behaviour are signicant in Model B, while they decrease in Model C, where the relation between loyalty intentions and loyalty behaviour is admitted. An additional Sobel test (Sobel, 1982) conrms the signicance of the mediation effect of loyalty intentions on loyalty behaviour (Model 1 conrmed). 4.4.2 Habit strength as an alternative route towards loyalty behaviour. In discussing the habit-strength construct, we provided a theoretical basis for positioning habit strength as a mediating variable similar to the loyalty intentions in the traditional cognitive-based hierarchy. Table III (Model 2) reports the results of the estimation of the three models after introducing habit strength as an alternative mediating variable between satisfaction and loyalty behaviour. First, Model D, the model reecting the rst condition in the mediating role of habit strength, was tested. Looking at the results of the estimation, it can be conrmed that satisfaction is signicantly correlated with habit strength, and in the expected direction, while habit strength itself has a positive and signicant effect on the loyalty behaviour. Satisfaction acts indirectly on loyalty behaviour through habit strength. It appears that the rst condition for habit strength to exert a mediating effect in the loyalty process is fullled. Model E presents a signicant chi-square statistic and goodness-of-t indicators that are slightly worse than those of Model D. Moreover, since the difference between the chi-square values of the two models (Dx 2(0)DK 61.21 and Dx 2(0) SP 98.98) is signicant and Model Ds explanation is clearly better, we deduce that the mediating-effect model (Model D: satisfaction-habit strength-loyalty behaviour) is superior to the direct-effect one (Model E: satisfaction-loyalty behaviour). Next, Model F (combining the effect of satisfaction with the mediating effect of loyalty intentions and habit strength) was compared with Model D. Of the two models, Model F presents the best goodness-of-t indicators and the differences in the chi-square statistic are signicant (Dx 2(1)DK 29.38 and Dx 2(1)SP 4.14). By transitivity, if Model D is better than Model E and Model F is better than Model D, than Model F is better than Model E. Hence Model F is the model that best ts the data, and hence the one that best represents the loyalty behaviour process. We note that the effect of habit strength on loyalty behaviour is greater that the effect of loyalty intentions on loyalty behaviour in each of the two samples. This nding is especially notable given that the countries examined differ considerably on the sh consumption and habit dimensions. On the other hand, in Spain, the inclusion of the mediating effect of habit strength almost cancels out the direct effect of satisfaction on loyalty behaviour (b 0:09; t 1:96). In Denmark, in turn, satisfaction affects the loyalty behaviour through loyalty intentions and habit strength (mediation), although it continues to have a signicant direct effect as well.

314

EJM 47,1/2

Relationships (12.44) (16.72) (14.86) (13.84) (14.75) (32) 359.19 0.96 0.96 0.93 0.10 0.16 0.26 0.30 (12.79) (3.83) (17.00) (14.32) (12) 106.11 0.99 0.99 0.98 0.05 0.17 0.43 0.33 (32) 0.40 0.45 197.26 0.97 0.97 0.93 0.11 0.16 0.20 (12.66) (13.56) 0.41 0.43 55.17 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.06 0.17 0.18 (13) 35.82 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.05 0.16 0.20 0.40 0.15 0.36 (12.46) (4.44) (10.64) 0.41 0.11 0.66 0.52 (13) 64.03 0.99 0.99 0.98 0.06 0.15 0.29 (12) 297.98 0.96 0.96 0.94 0.09 0.17 0.27 0.37 (32) (12.82) 0.39 0.35 0.30 (12.29) (11.88) (9.94) 0.41 0.30 0.43 0.52 (12.89) (11.24) 0.41 0.34 0.32 0.51 (12.86) (11.42) (10.49) (14.40)

Denmark a S-Li Li Lb S- Lb S H H Lb Model t: x 2 (df) CFI NFI TLI RMSEA R2 Li R2 H R2 Lb Spain b S-Li Li Lb S- Lb S H H Lb Model t: x 2 (df) CFI NFI TLI RMSEA R2 Li R2 H R2 Lb (13) (12.52) (9.41) 0.41 0.13 0.39 0.66 205.09 0.98 0.98 0.96 0.08 0.17 0.44 0.21 (12.80) (4.04) (11.42) (17.16) (32) (13)

Notes: an 1,110; n 953; Satisfaction (S), Loyalty intentions (Li), Habit strength (H), Loyalty behaviour (Lb)

Table III. Results of Model 1 and Model 2 Model 1 Model B Model C Model D Model 2 Model E Model F 0.40 0.27 0.18 0.50 0.33 268.60 0.97 0.97 0.94 0.07 0.16 0.25 0.41 0.41 0.10 0.09 0.65 0.46 101.97 0.99 0.99 0.98 0.05 0.17 0.43 0.39 (12.81) (9.30) (5.24) (14.25) (9.75) (31) (12.79) (3.13) (1.96) (16.84) (9.95) (31)

Model A

0.39 0.47

162.53 0.97 0.97 0.94 0.10 0.15 0.22

0.41 0.30

145.13 0.98 0.98 0.96 0.10 0.16 0.09

Finally, in line with Byrne (2001) and Steenkamp and Baumgartner (1998), we compared the value of coefcients between countries in a multi-group cross-country analysis[1]. A constrained model, in which the structural relationships were xed between country samples, was rst estimated. Next, the constrained structural model was compared with an unconstrained model in which all the relationships were set free between the two samples. The differences in the chi-square values between the models determine whether the variable country acts as a moderating variable; that is, a signicant decrease in the chi-square from the constrained model to the unconstrained model implies that the country variable has a signicant inuence on the structural relationship (Byrne, 2001). The results (Table IV) show signicant differences between the two countries. For the relationships that were moderated, the paths from loyalty intention to loyalty behaviour and from satisfaction to loyalty behaviour were consistently higher for Denmark than for Spain. Specically, the coefcient from loyalty intentions to loyalty behaviour was more than twice as strong for the Danish consumers than for the Spanish ones (0.26, p 0:000 versus 0.10, p 0:01). As regards the path between satisfaction and loyalty behaviour, it was signicantly weaker for the Spanish sample (0.09, p 0:05). In turn, the link from habit strength to loyalty behaviour was consistently higher for Spain (0.48, p 0:000) than for Denmark (0.35, p 0:000). 5. Discussion Loyalty behaviour has guided marketing research for many years. Olivers (1999) model proposes a model of loyalty behaviour formation that infers that individuals intentions are a full mediator between satisfaction and loyalty behaviour. However, the question of the present work is whether the course of action associated with consumer loyalty is always planned and mediated by loyalty intentions or whether an alternative route exists between satisfaction and loyalty. We have introduced and tested an extended model in an attempt to delineate two distinct phenomena explaining loyalty behaviour. Although variants of these approaches exist in the literature, there is a lack of studies that integrate the two phenomena and discuss the implications of this extended model (Limayem et al., 2007). Taking Olivers model as a starting point, individuals settled intentions mediate the satisfaction-loyalty behaviour in the initial stage of product adoption and in later behaviour maintenance associated with unstable contexts (Ajzen, 2002). However, in
Multi-group comparisonsc

Consumer loyalty modelling 315

Relationship/country Satisfaction-Loyalty intentions (b1) Loyalty intentions-Loyalty behaviour (b2) Satisfaction-Loyalty behaviour (b3) Satisfaction-Habit strength (b4) Habit strength-Loyalty behaviour (b5)

Denmarka 0.41 0.26 0.17 0.49 0.35 (23.40) * * (12.33) * * (7.04) * * (26.13) * * (11.19) * *

Spainb

0.43 (23.40) * * DK * * SP * * 0.10 (3.55) * DK * * . SP * * 0.07 (1.62)ns DK * * . SPns 0.67 (26.13) * * DK * SP * * 0.48 (10.48) * * DK * * , SP * * Table IV. Results of Model 2 cross-country comparisons

Notes: a n 1110; bn 953; cComparisons across countries were made based on unstandardised coefcients; nsNot signicant; *Signicant at p 0:01; * * Signicant at p , 0:001; Model t: x2 577:25; df 114; p 0:000; CFI 0:98; NFI 0:98; RFI 0:96; IFI 0:98; TLI 0:97; RMSEA 0:04; Standardised regression coefcients are reported; t-values in parentheses

EJM 47,1/2

316

later behaviour performed frequently in stable contexts, consumer behaviour is automatic and less guided by plans and deliberations, which are represented by the formation of intentions. Once habit starts to develop and gain strength through satisfactory execution of the behaviour, the satisfaction-action loyalty sequence may occur automatically, through habit strength and thus less guided by behavioural intention. The results from our study in a food consumption in-home context corroborate previous arguments. Habit strength has proved to be a relevant mediator in the two samples analysed, regardless of their differences in habits of sh consumption. The only difference across countries was registered in the magnitude of the coefcient estimators. For more habituated individuals in sh consumption (Spanish sh consumers who are among the heaviest sh consumers in Europe), behavioural intention was a weaker antecedent of loyalty behaviour when compared with less habituated individuals (Danish sh consumers whose sh consumption is only half the one as observed in Spain). That is, consistent with the conceptual argument, Spanish consumers, as the high sh consumption country, were more likely to undertake less planned and more intuitive or inertia-based responses with regard to the buying or consumption of the involved product category. The inclusion of a cognitive measure of habit strength in Olivers model led to a notable increase in the explanatory power of the proposed model from 0.29 to 0.41 in Denmark, and from 0.20 to 0.39 in Spain, respectively. Based on the Cohen f2 effect size measure for hierarchical multiple regression, the habit strength had an effect size of 0.203 in Denmark and respectively 0.311 in Spain, which represents a medium effect in both samples (Cohen and Cohen, 1983). The model in which habit is proposed to mediate the link between cumulative satisfaction and loyalty behaviour possesses a signicantly higher explanatory power than the traditional model. The overall ndings of this research have shown that for the sh consumption behaviour in an in-home context, habit strength can have a stronger effect on loyalty behaviour than loyalty intentions. Consumers intentions were found to be signicant but relatively weaker in mediating consumer satisfaction in each sample. The individual country analysis produced a similar pattern of results, hereby providing validation of the ndings. Overall the current study provides evidence of the appropriateness of a model of loyalty behaviour that distinguishes between intentions and an automatic process outside conscious intentions. 6. Managerial implications In view of this discussion and with regard to studying the role of habits in understanding and managing consumer loyalty in the context of food marketing, the results suggest several implications. The dominant approach of consumer loyalty behaviour in a business-to-consumer context has been to see loyalty behaviour as a planned, conscious process based on consumer intentions, deliberation and commitment towards the product category or brand (Oliver, 1999). While we do not inquire into the mediating effect of intention on loyalty behaviour, we argue that in some circumstances (such as later behaviour performed in stable environments and behaviours characterised by frequent purchases, relatively little involvement and intense competition due to the availability of many substitutes across product category such as food products), this effect is partially or almost entirely suppressed by

habituation (Limayem et al., 2007). The fact that intention is not the only antecedent of behaviour loyalty conrms the previous ndings by Mittal and Kamakura (2001) and others showing poor correlation between intention and behaviour loyalty. Therefore, this study advocates that scholars evaluating food consumption behaviour and practitioners in food marketing and other fast-moving consumer goods should conceive consumers loyalty behaviour as an action governed by two distinctive phenomena: intentions when referring to loyalty behaviour formation and habits when evaluating loyalty behaviour persistence. Intention-loyalty consumers act from their intention, which is a product of cognitive deliberation, planning and commitment, while habit-loyalty consumers act from their habit in a less-planned, more inertial or automatic mode. In a highly competitive market with low-differentiated products of comparable quality and satisfying similar needs or goals, businesses are keenly interested in strategies designed to strengthen consumer loyalty for an incumbent product or product category, or to break consumers loyalty to competing products and product categories. Based on this study, and considering different scenarios, specic strategies for managing different types of product category loyalty through marketing activities can be built, that focus either on inuencing consumer motivation through intention loyalty or by inuencing their habits. In general and consistent with the previous literature, managing consumer loyalty towards low frequency-of-purchase product categories (such as, various categories of consumer durables) requires the fostering and maintaining of attribute beliefs about the product and product category as well as satisfactory experience with the product to intention loyalty formation and further loyalty behaviour maintenance. Intention-based loyalty formation can be accomplished by focusing on information-based communications that encourage consumers to evaluate and balance the benets and costs (exclusive value) of the incumbent product and commit consumers to choice. In this traditional scenario, consumer goal-directedness intention mechanisms play a mediating role in consumer loyalty formation. By contrast, for product categories characterised by high frequency-of-purchase (as in this study), managing consumer loyalty requires additional strategies. First, building consumer loyalty in the initial phases of product adoption for frequently purchased products (such as various categories of food products) initially requires the fostering of awareness and attribute beliefs about the product and product category and satisfactory experience with the product. In that sense, actions have usually focused on information-based communications about the product and satisfactory episodes with the product in order to strengthen the beliefs and affect (satisfaction) associated with the product consumption or usage (Webb and Sheeran, 2006). For instance, linked to our empirical case, the fostering of beliefs about the health qualities of sh and continuous satisfaction with the sh products should be positively correlated with individuals intentions to adopt the sh category in their daily consumption. In this scenario, consumer intention plays a mediating role in consumer loyalty formation. Second, maintaining consumer loyalty for a product in circumstances characterised by high purchase frequency (consumables) and intense competition can be obtained by fostering habit-based loyalty based on stable contexts, cumulative satisfaction and frequent performance. The habits of purchase or consumption that consumers form

Consumer loyalty modelling 317

EJM 47,1/2

318

over time (inertia) are a natural phenomenon that happens to a product or product category. Consumers fall into such a state of inertia because the cognitive effort required while buying the product is minimal when compared with a novel alternative that requires self-control resources. Thus, in a stable context and for frequent behaviours marketing strategies should focus on inciting consumers to develop quickly the habit of using the desired product (Limayem et al., 2007). Specic actions to fostering habit formation for sh consumption may include cumulative satisfaction and repeat purchase of the sh products in stable contexts in order to create associations in the memory between the features of the environment and the product in question (for instance, a sh stand positioned every Saturday at the supermarket entrance in order to create a habit in a stable buying context, ready sh dinners to create a consumption habit and coupons and bonuses to encourage frequent purchasing). Marketers should pay more attention to actions focused on developing consumers habit of purchasing and consuming the product, as consumers are often acting automatically and are more likely to maintain their old behaviours (habits) given the demands of everyday life such as time pressure, cognitive load and regulatory depletion (Wood and Neal, 2009). Additionally, by locking-in consumers into the habit of consuming an incumbent product category, businesses may prevent loyalty behaviour formation for a competitive product category. Hence, the habit-based strategy complements the intention-based strategy in which sh marketers want to prevent consumer loyalty for another product category (e.g. turkey meat) by communicating the exclusive nutritive value of sh when compared to the meat category and thus fostering loyalty formation based on logical thinking and comparisons. Finally, businesses may be interested in strategies designed to break consumer habit-based loyalty for an incumbent product category characterised by high purchase frequency (e.g. meat). While it can be benecial to promote the benets of the targeted product category (sh), this is not always sufcient to offset consumers behaviour. Habits are deeply embedded in consumers minds and less sensitive to (new) information (Verplanken and Wood, 2006). Consequently, traditional information-based interventions communicating the benets of the sh product category may be less effective in breaking the old habits. In order to inuence the choice of habitual-loyal consumers for a competitive product category (such as sh), the companies should consider changing the context that activates the existing habits for an incumbent product (i.e. meat) and thus automatically directing habit performance (Wood and Neal, 2009). For example, changing the physical surroundings in which consumers purchase habitually (e.g. product placement on the shelf, store displays, introducing a similar packaging design) may change the consumer choice of products. Changing the context breaks the purchasing habit by suppressing the link between the context and the incumbent product in the memory (Wood and Neal, 2009). An in-store experiment for instance showed that consumers are signicantly less likely to purchase potato chips if they are placed on top and bottom shelves than if they are placed on the middle shelf (Sigurdsson et al., 2009). With regard to the physical context, it is important to note that it might be extremely difcult to change (particularly when retailers exert considerable inuence on the way the products are located on shelves and in stores). However, a closer co-operation between producers and retailers (Fornari et al., 2009) may break consumers habits for specic

products and product categories. Persuasive interventions based on information about the benets of an alternative product would be less effective for habit-loyalty consumers without breaking the context or the physical surrounding link (Verplanken and Wood, 2006). This is because, for frequent behaviours, a signicant portion of purchasers or consumers fall into such a state of inertia that the cognitive activity they engage in while buying is minimal, and consumers do not consider the expected benets and costs of changing the current product for a rival alternative (Limayem et al., 2007; Verplanken and Aarts, 1999). In support of this idea, a meta-analysis of different interventions designed to change individuals behaviour through different information-based strategies (persuasive communication, social encouragement, social pressure, social support and information regarding behaviour and outcome) revealed corresponding changes in behaviour only for intentional-based behaviour but not for habitual-based behaviour (Webb and Sheeran, 2006). In summary, the current results convey that approaches to identifying loyal consumers or customers should focus on both intention and habit-dependent views of loyalty. If understanding the nature of habit and differentiating between a controlled and a less-controlled dimension of loyalty behaviour were to be implemented successfully in business settings, this could be of value for preventing, strengthening or breaking the old habits and loyalty to an incumbent product category or brand. 7. Limitations and further research The present study faces some limitations. The study employs cross-sectional data; therefore, causal effects can only be inferred. Although the authors based their arguments on Jaccard and Blanton (2005), according to whom, for stable behaviours, cross-sectional data can be as informative as longitudinal data, prospective longitudinal studies are recommended to verify and validate the present ndings. Second, this study did not directly assess real action (factual behaviour); rather, the authors built their hypotheses on individuals self-reported opinions about their past behaviour. Optimistic biases might have affected participants responses, because of the prevailing recommendations to increase sh consumption for its nutritional and health benets. Therefore, a future research agenda requires replications involving new marketing objects (brands, stores, services), other product categories that have more negative connotations and higher loyalty ratings (such as snacks, confectionery, fast foods) or various categories of consumer durables. New studies also require a combination of different methodologies (quantitative and qualitative) and more objective methods of data collection (experiments and neuroimaging techniques) to understand and capture consumers habits and loyalty behaviour in different contexts (in-home vs out-of-home, own country vs abroad). Qualitative designs, such as focus groups, in-depth interviews or observations at the point of purchase, or a combination of these, could be an approachable challenge for future research. For example, it would be benecial to combine verbal protocols with direct observation in order to study consumers decision-making process in stable and unstable buying and consumption contexts, or for relative new and current incumbent products with the same level of satisfaction. These qualitative techniques combined with more advanced neuroimaging techniques on consumer sub-conscious action (Jonides, 2004) could help to determine the real drivers of consumer loyalty behaviour.

Consumer loyalty modelling 319

EJM 47,1/2

320

Note 1. The invariance of the measurement model (i.e. factor loadings) was initially assessed. Although the chi-square difference between the unconstrained model and the constrained model (xed loadings across groups) was statistically signicant (delta chi-square 74:7; p , 0:01), the TLI indicated a negligible change in t (delta TLI , 0:001). The metric invariance between the two groups was therefore accepted (Byrne, 2001). The constrained model was used in the subsequent structural invariance analysis (Steenkamp and Baumgartner, 1998).

References Ajzen, I. (1991), The theory of planned behaviour, Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 179-211. Ajzen, I. (2002), Perceived behavioural control, self-efcacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behaviour, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 665-83. Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-23. Armitage, C.J. and Conner, M. (2001), Efcacy of the theory of planned behaviour: a meta-analytic review, British Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 471-99. Bagozzi, R.P., Yi, Y. and Phillips, L.W. (1991), Assessing construct validity in organizational research, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 421-58. Ball, D., Coelho, P.S. and Machas, A. (2004), The role of communication and trust in explaining customer loyalty: an extension to the ECSI model, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 38 Nos 9/10, pp. 1272-93. Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-82. Byrne, B.M. (2001), Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ. Chad, W., MacDonald, S., Lingras, P. and Adams, A. (2005), Relationship between product based loyalty and clustering based on supermarket visits and spending patterns, International Journal of Computer Science & Applications, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 85-100. Chiou, J.-S. and Droge, C. (2006), Service quality, trust, specic asset investment and expertise: direct versus indirect effects in a satisfaction-loyalty framework, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 1-15. Cohen, J. and Cohen, P. (1983), Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ. De Bruijn, G.-J., Kremers, S.P.J., De Vet, E., De Nooijer, J., Van Mechelen, V. and Brug, J. (2007), Does habit strength moderate the intention-behaviour relationship in the theory of planned behaviour? The case of fruit consumption, Psychology and Health, Vol. 22 No. 8, pp. 899-916. Dick, A.S. and Basu, K. (1994), Customer loyalty: toward an integrated conceptual framework, Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 99-113. Eagly, A. and Chaiken, S. (1993), The Psychology of Attitudes, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Fort Worth, TX. Evanschitzky, H. and Wunderlich, M. (2006), An examination of moderator effects in the four-stage loyalty model, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 1-16.

FAOSTAT (2006), Food and Agriculture Organization statistical database, United Nations, available at: http://faostat.fao.org/default.aspx (accessed 5 November 2009). Fornari, D., Grandi, S. and Fornari, E. (2009), The role of management of product innovation in retailer assortment: evidence from the Italian FMCG market, The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 29-43. Gustafsson, A., Johnson, M.D. and Roos, I. (2005), The effects of customer satisfaction, relationship commitment dimensions and triggers on customer retention, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 69 No. 4, pp. 210-8. Han, X., Kwortnik, R.J. Jr and Wang, C. (2008), Service loyalty: an integrative model and examination across service contexts, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 22-42. Heskett, J.L. (2002), Beyond customer loyalty, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 355-7. Honkanen, P., Olsen, S.O. and Verplanken, B. (2005), Intention to consume seafood: the importance of habit strength, Appetite, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 161-8. Jaccard, J. and Blanton, H. (2005), The origins and structure of behaviour: conceptualizing n, D., Johnson, B.T. and Zanna, M.P. (Eds), behaviour in attitude research, in Albarrac Handbook of Attitudes and Attitude Change, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 125-72. Johnson, M.D., Anderson, E.W. and Fornell, C. (1995), Rational and adaptive performance expectations in a customer satisfaction framework, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 128-40. Jolley, B., Mizerski, R. and Olaru, D. (2006), How habit and satisfaction affects player retention for online gambling, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 59 No. 6, pp. 770-7. Jonides, J. (2004), How does practice makes perfect?, Nature Neuroscience, Vol. 7, pp. 75-9. Knussen, C., Yule, F., MacKenzie, J. and Wells, M. (2004), An analysis of intentions to recycle household waste: the roles of past behaviour, perceived habit, and perceived lack of facilities, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 237-46. Limayem, M., Hirt, S.G. and Cheung, C.M.K. (2007), How habit limits the predictive power of intention: the case of information systems continuance, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 705-37. Lindblad, E. and Lyttkens, C.H. (2002), Habits versus choice: the process of decision-making in health related behaviour, Social Science & Medicine, Vol. 55, pp. 451-65. Mittal, V. and Kamakura, W.A. (2001), Satisfaction, repurchase intent, and repurchase behavior: investigating the moderating effect of customer characteristics, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 131-42. Neal, D.T., Wood, W. and Quinn, J.M. (2006), Habits: a repeat performance, Current Directions in Psychological Science, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 198-202. Nijssen, E., Singh, J., Sirdeshmukh, D. and Holzmueller, H. (2003), Investigating industry context effects in consumer-rm relationships: preliminary results from a dispositional approach, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 46-60. Oliver, R.L. (1999), Whence customer loyalty?, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63, pp. 33-44. Ouellette, J. and Wood, W. (1998), Habit and intention in everyday life: the multiple processes by which past behaviour predicts future behaviour, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 124 No. 1, pp. 54-74. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), Common method biases in behavioural research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.

Consumer loyalty modelling 321

EJM 47,1/2

322

Pritchard, M.P., Havitz, M.E. and Howard, D.R. (1999), Analyzing the commitment-loyalty link in service context, Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 333-48. Reinartz, W., Thomas, J.S. and Kumar, V. (2005), Balancing acquisition and retention resources to maximize customer protability, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 69 No. 1, pp. 63-79. Seetharaman, P.B. (2004), Modeling multiple sources of state dependence in random utility models: a distributed lag approach, Marketing Science, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 263-71. Seiders, K., Voss, G.B., Grewal, D. and Godfrey, A.L. (2005), Do satised customers buy more? Examining moderating inuences in a retailing context, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 69 No. 4, pp. 26-43. Sigurdsson, V., Saevarsson, H. and Foxall, G. (2009), Brand placement and consumer choice: an in-store experiment, Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, Vol. 42, pp. 741-5. Sobel, M.E. (1982), Asymptotic condence intervals for indirect effects in structural equations models, in Leinhart, S. (Ed.), Sociological Methodology, San Francisco, CA, pp. 290-312. Steenkamp, J.-B.E.M. and Baumgartner, H. (1998), Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 78-90. Tramow, D. (2000), Habit as both a direct cause of intention to use a condom and as a moderator of the attitude-intention and subjective norm-intention relations, Psychology and Health, No. 15, pp. 383-93. Triandis, H.C. (1980), Values, attitudes and interpersonal behaviour, in Howe, H.E. and Page, M.M. (Eds), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: Beliefs, Attitudes and Values, Vol. 27, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NE, pp. 195-259. Verplanken, B. and Aarts, H. (1999), Habit, attitude, and planned behaviour: is habit an empty construct or an interesting case of automaticity?, European Review of Social Psychology, Vol. 10, pp. 101-34. Verplanken, B. and Orbell, S. (2003), Reections on past behaviour: a self-report index of habit strength, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 1313-30. Verplanken, B. and Wood, W. (2006), Interventions to break and create consumer habits, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 90-103. Webb, T.L. and Sheeran, P. (2006), Does changing behavioral intentions engender behavior change? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 132 No. 2, pp. 249-68. Wilson, T.D., Lindsey, S. and Schooler, T.Y. (2000), A model of dual attitudes, Psychological Review, Vol. 107 No. 1, pp. 101-26. Wood, W. and Neal, D.T. (2009), The habitual consumer, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 19, pp. 579-92. rtel, C. (2010), A tri-dimensional approach for Worthington, S., Russell-Bennett, R. and Ha auditing brand loyalty, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 17, pp. 243-53. Yi, Y. and La, S. (2004), What inuences the relationship between customer satisfaction and repurchase intention? Investigating the effects of adjusted expectations and customer loyalty, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 351-73.

About the authors Professor Svein Ottar Olsen has carried out research in consumer behaviour and marketing research with focus on consumer psychology and consumption behaviour. Professor Olsen has published articles in leading marketing and international business journals in the area of perceived quality, consumer satisfaction and loyalty, survey methodology in international

research, and use of marketing information. Svein Ottar Olsen is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: sveinoo@nfh.uit.no Dr Ana Alina Tudoran has carried out research and published articles in international and national business journals in the area of brand equity, perceived quality, consumer satisfaction and the role of information on consumer behaviour. Dr Tudorans current research interests are in the area of behavioural economics and quantitative methods. Dr Karen Bruns has carried out research on consumer behaviour and she is author of numerous scientic publications on marketing and consumer behaviour in relation to food. In particular Dr Bruns has researched food-related lifestyles across Europe, and has worked with the implementation of results in food companies. Dr Wim Verbeke has carried out research on consumer attitudes, perceptions and acceptance of agricultural and food production technologies and products. In particular, Dr Verbeke is author of numerous scientic publications on the impact of information, food labelling and the role of individual characteristics and individual difference variables on food consumption decisions.

Consumer loyalty modelling 323

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi