An empirical investigation of the relationship between product involvement and brand commitment

Warrington, Patti; Shim, Soyeon

doi:10.1002/1520-6793(200009)17:9<761::aid-mar2>3.0.co;2-9

Cited by 236 publications

(189 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

161

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This is also referred to as -positive repeat buying‖ versus nochoice situations (Arantola, 2000). Therefore, brand commitment reflects the degree to which a brand is -firmly entrenched as the only acceptable choice within a product class‖ (Traylor, 1981), whereas brand loyalty can be considered as a way to simplify decision-making (Warrington & Shim, 2000). For the same reason, when looking at the links between both constructs, some authors have discussed the fact that brand commitment implies brand loyalty, but not vice versa (Quester & Lim, 2003;Traylor, 1981).…”

Section: Brand Loyalty: Behavioural and Attitudinal Constructmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Brand loyalty has often been discussed regarding two approaches: the behavioural and attitudinal approach (Sung & Campbell, 2007;Warrington & Shim, 2000;Yi & La, 2004).…”

Section: Brand Loyalty: Behavioural and Attitudinal Constructmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Traditionally, brand loyalty is referred to as a behavioural construct that is defined and measured by repeated purchase of a single brand over time (Warrington & Shim, 2000;Yi & Jeon, 2003), On this basis, some research has taken into consideration the construct of brand commitment instead of brand loyalty (Traylor, 1981) underlining brand loyalty's inability, in its traditional definition, to distinguish between purchase behaviour attributable to convenience and commitment (Yi & Jeon, 2003). This is also referred to as -positive repeat buying‖ versus nochoice situations (Arantola, 2000).…”

Section: Brand Loyalty: Behavioural and Attitudinal Constructmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Even though most of the authors agree on the fact that loyalty includes repeated purchase of a single brand over time (Warrington & Shim, 2000;Yi & Jeon, 2003), some go further than this definition. Oliver (2010), for instance, defines loyalty as a -deeply held commitment to rebuy or re-patronize a preferred product/service consistently in the future, thereby causing repetitive same-brand or same brand-set purchasing [...]- (Oliver, 2010, p.432).…”

Section: Brand Loyaltymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Marketing Communications Management

Copley¹

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Brand Loyalty: Behavioural and Attitudinal Constructmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Brand loyalty has often been discussed regarding two approaches: the behavioural and attitudinal approach (Sung & Campbell, 2007;Warrington & Shim, 2000;Yi & La, 2004).…”

Section: Brand Loyalty: Behavioural and Attitudinal Constructmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Brand Loyalty: Behavioural and Attitudinal Constructmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Brand Loyaltymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Marketing Communications Management

Copley¹

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Brand commitment may be defined as the level to which a brand may be entrenched in the mind of a consumer as being the only worthy acceptable selection in a particular product class (Warrington & Shim, 2000). Brand commitment can be also viewed as the behavioural intention (implicit or explicit) to continue a relationship with a brand.…”

Section: Brand Commitmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of vertical brand extensions on consumer-brand relationships in South Africa

Muroyiwa

Abratt

Mingione

2017

SAJBM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this research is to evaluate the impact of the introduction of vertical brand extensions on Consumer-Brand Relationships (CBRs) in the mobile phone market. In particular, we aim at exploring the effect vertical brand extensions that luxury and functional brands have on consumers' perceptions, as well as the effect the extensions will have on CBRs. This study pursues a quantitative approach, developing and testing four hypotheses on the influence vertical brand extensions have on four CBR-related constructs, namely brand attachment, brand trust, brand commitment and brand identification. The elicited context is the South African market and the selected brands are Apple, to represent luxury brands, and Samsung, representative of functional brands. Results only partially confirm previous research on vertical brand extension. Supporting previous studies, a vertical step-down extension has been found to have a stronger negative impact on brand commitment for the luxury brand than for the functional one. However, findings disconfirm the literature in revealing a stronger negative impact on the functional brand than the luxury brand and a positive effect on the brand attachment of both brands, especially the functional brand.

show abstract

Satisfaction in the context of customer co‐production: A behavioral involvement perspective

Hunt

Geiger-Oneto

Varca

2012

J of Consumer Behaviour

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Consumers increasingly subscribe to community-supported agriculture (CSA) programs as an alternative retail channel for fresh produce. Compared with supermarket retailers, CSAs are built around an ethos of community rather than efficiency and economies of scale; and CSA programs demand far greater customer co-production than supermarket retailers. For instance, CSA members (customers) assume responsibilities for physical distribution, market timing, and financial risk taking-activities that, for customers of traditional supermarkets, are assumed by the retailer or other market intermediaries. Service-dominant logic suggests that such co-production activities provide value for consumers. And the expanding demand for CSA programs anecdotally supports the notion that consumers find value in co-producing fresh produce. However, whether or not co-production leads to greater satisfaction with a product category remains largely untested. We draw on community theory to test if engagement in co-production activities leads to satisfaction with a product category. By examining product satisfaction, we test an outcome of co-production that is consumer-centric. Results from an exploratory field study suggest that two types of value co-creation-commitment to co-production and behavioral involvement in product-related activities-are positively correlated with product satisfaction. Our results support the notion that value co-creation provides value for consumers. Interestingly, these findings are antithetical to studies that suggest service convenience constitutes non-monetary value for consumers. Our study suggests that the community theory is a viable theoretical frame for consumer research on co-production. Further, our findings suggest that consumer research into the co-creation of value should incorporate measures of product satisfaction and draw on behavioral as opposed to exclusively attitudinal assessments of co-production activities.

show abstract

An empirical investigation of the relationship between product involvement and brand commitment

Cited by 236 publications

References 36 publications

Marketing Communications Management

Marketing Communications Management

The effect of vertical brand extensions on consumer-brand relationships in South Africa

Satisfaction in the context of customer co‐production: A behavioral involvement perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About