Does Consumers' Personal Reciprocity Affect Future Purchase Intentions

This article was downloaded by: [Bournemouth University]On: 09 July 2015, At: 10:38Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: 5 Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG

Journal of Marketing ManagementPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjmm20

Does consumers' personal reciprocityaffect future purchase intentions?Wei-ping Wu , T. S. Chan & Heng Hwa LauPublished online: 01 Feb 2010.

To cite this article: Wei-ping Wu , T. S. Chan & Heng Hwa Lau (2008) Does consumers' personalreciprocity affect future purchase intentions?, Journal of Marketing Management, 24:3-4, 345-360,DOI: 10.1362/026725708X306130

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1362/026725708X306130

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

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

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

INTRODUCTION

This study investigates the mediating role of a consumers personal reciprocity in the relationships between brand trust, brand loyalty and product familiarity, and future

JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT, 2008, Vol. 24, No. 3-4, pp. 345-360ISSN0267-257X print /ISSN1472-1376 online Westburn Publishers Ltd. doi: 10.1362/026725708X306130

Does consumers personal reciprocity affect future purchase intentions?1

Wei-ping Wu, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong*T. S. Chan, Lingnan University, Hong KongHeng Hwa Lau, Casino Lisboa, Macau

Abstract In this study, we examine the mediating role of a consumers personal reciprocity in the relationships between brand trust, brand loyalty and product familiarity, and future purchase intentions. Data from 308 printer users in Hong Kong reveals that a consumers personal reciprocity partially mediates the relationships between brand trust and brand loyalty, and future purchase intentions. The theoretical implication is that personal reciprocity not only enhances consumers future purchase intentions but also provides an alternative path linking brand trust and brand loyalty to consumers future purchase intentions. The managerial implication is that by capitalising on a consumers personal reciprocity in the context of consumer-firm relationships, firms can improve their performance in retaining existing customers.

Keywords Personal reciprocity, Brand trust, Brand loyalty, Product familiarity, Future purchase intentions.

JOURNAL OF

MARKETINGMANAGEMENT

*Correspondence details and biographies for the authors are located at the end of the article.

1 An earlier version of the paper was published in the conference proceedings of Chinese Management: Sublimiation of Indigenised Research Work (Yau, O.H.M., eds.), Unit for Chinese Management Development, City University of Hong Kong, 2006.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [B

ourn

emou

th Un

iversi

ty] at

10:38

09 Ju

ly 20

15

Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 24

purchase intentions. For the purpose of this study, drawing on Morales (2005), we define personal reciprocity as a consumers conscious tendency to engage in a reciprocal and mutually beneficial relationship with a brand provider. Bagozzi (1995) argued that reciprocity is embedded in consumer-firm relationships. Fournier et al. (1998) reiterated that there should be a balance between giving and receiving in a good consumer-firm relationship. In the Chinese context, reciprocity happens to be one of the key Chinese social norms rooted deeply in traditional yet still prevailing Chinese cultural values. Therefore, the study of how personal reciprocity might be able to have an impact on a consumer-firm relationship in the Chinese context is intended not only to enrich the existing literature but also to inform practices. With the theoretical advancements at the domain of consumer-brand relationships (Fournier 1998; Fournier and Yao 1997), an important research stream that explores the relationships between brand trust, brand loyalty, and their related outcomes is emerging. For example, Chauduri and Holbrook (2001, 2002) investigated the chain of effects that run from brand trust to brand loyalty through to brand outcome. Delgado-Ballster and Munuera-Alemn (2001) studied the relationship between brand trust and brand loyalty. These studies have undoubtedly enriched our understanding of the links between brand trust and brand loyalty and their respective impact on future purchase intentions.

The relationship between a brand and a consumer may dissolute (Fajer and Schouten 1995; Perrin-Martinenq 2004) since there are factors such as after-sales service, speed of repairs and product quality that might lure loyal customers to switch to competitive brands (Deighton et al. 1994; Lin et al. 2000). Surprisingly, hardly any systematic empirical investigation has been published that examines how a consumers personal reciprocity may be leveraged to mediate the relationships between brand trust, brand loyalty, product familiarity and future purchase intentions of the same brand.

The central premise of the current study is that a consumers personal reciprocity plays an important mediating role in extending the positive effects of brand trust, brand loyalty and product category familiarity to future purchase intentions. Davies and Chun (2003) suggested that a consumer-brand partnership is a reciprocal one. In a recent study, Morales (2005) argued that consumers demonstrate personal reciprocity by rewarding firms for effort directed towards them individually. Schultz and Bailey (2000) called for the development of reciprocity as a theory base on which to build customer relationships. Not surprisingly, reciprocity has been treated as one of the key theoretical pinnacles of a conceptual framework of resource investment and customer-loyalty (Morais et al. 2004).

We posit that to translate brand trust and brand loyalty into future purchase intentions of the same brand, personal reciprocity plays an important mediating role. Similarly, to attract potential consumers who are familiar with a product category but have yet to patronise a particular brand of that category, personal reciprocity plays a crucial bridging link. In this paper, we highlight the underlying importance of personal reciprocity in consumer-firm relationships.

The objective of this study is to develop and test a model of a consumers personal reciprocity by integrating the literature of brand trust, brand loyalty, product familiarity and reciprocity in the explanation of future purchase intentions. More specifically, we demonstrate that there is an alternative path that links brand trust and brand loyalty to future purchase intentions through the mediator, personal reciprocity. The findings will help firms to design more effective relationship marketing practices by specifically targeting those existing reciprocity-minded customers who already have

JMM346

Dow

nloa

ded

by [B

ourn

emou

th Un

iversi

ty] at

10:38

09 Ju

ly 20

15

Wu, Chan and Lau Does consumers personal reciprocity affect future purchase intentions? 347

trust in and are loyal to their brands. In addition, we explore a possible link between product familiarity, a consumers personal reciprocity and future purchase intentions. The investigation of this possible link is equally important, as we will be able to demonstrate for the first time whether a consumers personal reciprocity mediates the relationship between product familiarity and future purchase intentions. The findings will be of great significance to practicing managers in their formulation and implementation of relationship marketing strategies. By capitalising on a potential consumers reciprocal proneness, firms may be able to attract those potential customers who are familiar with a product category but have yet to patronise a particular brand of that category.

CONCEPTURAL BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES

Brand loyalty and brand trust

Sheth and Parvatiyar (1995) argued that although direct contact between consumers and marketers is unlikely, consumers develop a relationship with a product or a brand. They contend that brand loyalty is one of the primary measurements of the relationship that consumers develop with a firms products and symbols. Brand loyalty encompasses both behavioural and attitudinal components (Aaker 1991; Assael 1998; Oliver 1999). Behavioural (or purchase) loyalty consists of repeated purchases of the brand, whereas attitudinal brand loyalty includes a degree of dispositional commitment in terms of a unique value that is associated with the brand. For the purpose of this study, we are only interested in attitudinal brand loyalty.

Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001) argued that although brands themselves may not be capable of trust, brands have the response potential to elicit trust from consumers. They define brand trust as the willingness of the average consumer to rely on the ability of the brand to perform its stated function. Along a similar line, Delgado-Ballester and Munuera-Alemn (2001) regarded brand trust as a feeling of security held by the consumer that the brand will meet their consumption expectations.

Recently, a new stream of research has emerged that explores the antecedents and consequences of brand trust and brand loyalty at the consumer-brand domain. For example, Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001) examined two aspects of brand loyalty purchase loyalty and attitudinal loyalty as linking variables in a chain of effects that runs from brand trust and brand affect to brand performance (market share and relative price). Delgado-Ballester and Munuera-Alemn (2001) investigated the link from overall satisfaction to brand trust, to commitment, and to price tolerance. These studies have obviously furthered our understanding of the relationship between brand trust and brand loyalty. However, we are not aware of any studies that examine the role of consumers personal reciprocity in mediating the relationships between brand trust and future purchase intentions and between brand loyalty and future purchase intentions.

Product familiarity

Product familiarity has long been an important issue in consumer research. Studies have been conducted to investigate the role of product familiarity in learning new information (Johnson and Russo, 1984) and information acquisition (Simonson et al. 1988), in choice and matching judgments (Coupey et al. 1998), in post-purchase responses, and in customer satisfaction, repurchase intentions, and word-of-mouth

Dow

nloa

ded

by [B

ourn

emou

th Un

iversi

ty] at

10:38

09 Ju

ly 20

15


intentions (Sderlund 2002). Consumers who are highly familiar with a particular product category may patronise any firms that provide such products. Nevertheless, little is known about how the effects of product familiarity may be extended to future purchase intentions through the mediation of consumers personal reciprocity. We posit that consumers who are familiar with a product category can be attracted to patronise a particular brand through the mediation of consumers personal reciprocity, since people seem to have an innate desire to repay favours (Regan 1971).

Reciprocity and the Chinese context

Norm of reciprocity (Gouldner 1960) has been widely held as a universal principle (Morales 2005). Reciprocity is regarded as one of the key ingredients that can cement a lasting long-term consumer-firm relationship (Fournier et al. 1998). Bagozzi (1995) argued that the phenomenon of reciprocity is present in consumer-firm relationships. Others such as Schultz and Bailey (2000) and Morais et al. (2004) used reciprocity as a theoretical base for building their respective theories of brand loyalty and customers loyalty. Schultz and Bailey (2000) argued that people seek a reciprocal relationship with the sellers from whom they purchase products and services. In a recent study, Morales (2005) argued that consumers demonstrate personal reciprocity by rewarding firms for effort directed towards them individually. By providing firms with their personal data such as personal preferences, consumers expect reciprocation in such benefits as club membership and new product information. Reciprocity is also implicitly embedded in the resource theory in the context of customer-provider relationships. De Wulf et al. (2001) regarded the concept of reciprocity as an appropriate framework of thought for building the conceptual model of investments in consumer relationships. Furthermore, reciprocity as an aspect of social capital was found to significantly influence buyer decisions in embedded markets (Frenzen and Davis 1990).

Westwood et al. (2004) argued that reciprocity is a universal social phenomenon, but is subject to cultural variation in its manifestation in actual social relationships and exchanges. In the Chinese context, the concept of reciprocity, incorporated into the dominant social ethic by Confucian scholars, has been a social norm in social relationships and exchanges for hundreds of years. At the heart of Chinese culture is a concern for harmony and a fundamental relationship orientation (Westwood et al. 2004). Reciprocity is deeply embedded in Chinese social relations. To maintain social harmony, there are reciprocal obligations expected of all the parties in a social relationship. According to Chen and Chen (2004), reciprocity takes on some distinctive Chinese characteristics. Firstly, reciprocity of favour exchanges is the most pervasive rule guiding Chinese social and economic interactions. Secondly, the Chinese reciprocity emphasises a long-term orientation. Thirdly, what is reciprocated must indeed be of great value to the receivers. Finally, it is the unequal exchange in which both sides will practise trying to do more, improving with every new effort, in a system of escalating favours. Studies have shown that gift-purchasing and gift-giving behaviours are deeply rooted in this social norm of reciprocity in the Chinese cultural context (Yau et al 1999; Joy 2001). Norm of reciprocity is vividly reflected in a Chinese word, Renqin. It means person A can deliver a favour to person B. By accepting the offer, person B owes Renqin to person A and is obliged to pay back the debt of gratitude to person A in due course. Renqin was found to be an important factor for Chinese consumers to accept the concept and practices of relationship marketing (Luk et al. 1999).

Figure 1 shows our conceptual framework, which depicts the chain of effects from

JMM348

Dow

nloa

ded

by [B

ourn

emou

th Un

iversi

ty] at

10:38

09 Ju

ly 20

15


brand trust, brand loyalty, and product familiarity, to consumers personal reciprocity, and then to future purchase intentions. In an optimal situation of consumer-firm relationships, reciprocation of investments is expected of each other. Customers believe that resources they are investing in the seller are being reciprocated in an equitable fashion and satisfaction with the transaction generates and supports an ongoing relation between exchange partners (Dorsh and Carlson 1996). We expect that consumers personal reciprocity will play a partial mediating role in the relationships between brand trust and brand loyalty and future purchase intentions. This is because brand trust and brand loyalty have both been found to be positively related to purchase intentions in the existing literature (Garbarina and Johnson, 1999; Morgan and Hunt 1994). However, to advance the existing literature, we contend that an alternative path exists, linking both brand trust and brand loyalty to future purchase intentions via consumers personal reciprocity. Consumers who display brand trust and brand loyalty are more likely to engage in a reciprocal and mutually beneficial relationship with the brand provider. By willingly disclosing their personal information to the firm, consumers expect the firm to reciprocate with better products or services and other related benefits such as product information updates. Consequently, they are more likely to repeatedly patronise the same brand. In another word, reciprocity acts as the mediating channel that extends effects of both brand trust and brand loyalty onto future repeat intentions. In addition, we argue that the relationship between product familiarity and future purchase intention is fully mediated by consumers personal reciprocity. Those potential customers who are familiar with a product category can be attracted to purchase a particular brand through the mediation of personal reciprocity. For the purpose of this study, we define personal reciprocity as a consumers conscious tendency to engage in a reciprocal and mutually beneficial relationship with a brand provider.

Brand trust and personal reciprocity

Drawing on the aforementioned definitions of Delgado-Ballester and Munuera-Alemn (2001) and of Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001), we define brand trust as an average consumers confidence in and reliance on a brand to perform its stated function. Trust gives the customer confidence in the equity and reliability of the service or product that is offered by a firm (Garbarino and Johnson 1999), and gives

BrandLoyalty

ProductFamiliarity

BrandTrust

FuturePurchaseIntention

PersonalReciprocity

H1

H2

H3

H4

FIGURE 1 The hypothesised conceptual model

Dow

nloa

ded

by [B

ourn

emou

th Un

iversi

ty] at

10:38

09 Ju

ly 20

15

confidence in the credibility of the firm (Macintosh and Lockshin 1997). Before committing resources to a retailer, a customer must have some measure of assurance that the retailer will make the necessary reparations (Dorsch and Carlston 1996). Trust, clearly, is one such measure of assurance since it can effectively check opportunistic behaviour which is one of the key causes of transaction costs (Bendapudi and Berry 1997). Therefore, consumers who have confidence in a brand are often ready to engage in a reciprocal relationship with the provider of the brand by disclosing their personal information since they are confident that their favours will not be taken for granted and the providers will not misuse their personal information. Moreover, they also expect that their favours would be reciprocated with such benefits as a sense of security, reliable quality products, and related services. Brand trust can obviously enhance a consumers conscious tendency to reciprocate with the provider. Hence, we offer our first hypothesis.

H1 Brand trust is positively related to a consumers personal reciprocity.

Brand loyalty and personal reciprocity

We define brand loyalty as an emotional or psychological attachment to a brand within a product class (Fournier 1998). Moorman et al. (1993) suggested that customers who are committed to a relationship might have a greater propensity to act in a manner that is consistent with that commitment. Committed customers are more willing to cooperate with their product providers (Garbarino and Johnson 1999). As a result, they will be more forthcoming with their personal information and will disclose this information to the firm of their committed brand. In return, they expect the firm to reciprocate the favour by providing them with various benefits. Loyal customers are confident that the brand provider will compensate their investments in the relationship. In other words, loyal consumers are more likely to reciprocate the benefits offered by the brand provider by giving their personal information as an input. We therefore argue that customers who are loyal to a brand may have a greater willingness to engage in a reciprocal and mutually beneficial relationship with the brand provider.

H2 Brand loyalty is positively related to a consumers personal reciprocity.

Product familiarity and personal reciprocity

Product familiarity is defined here as a consumers familiarity with a particular product category. The existing literature suggests two seemingly contradictory alternatives concerning the relationship between product familiarity and information search. Firstly, customers who are more familiar with a certain product category tend to be more active in searching for new product information to update their knowledge of that product category (Richins and Root-Shaffer 1988; Johnson and Russo 1984). Secondly, consumers who are more familiar with a product limit their information search (Johnson and Russo 1984). But, both of the two alternatives suggest a positive relationship between product familiarity and consumers personal reciprocity. On the one hand, to make the right choices in future, customers not only need to store information in their memory, but also need to update that information from time to time. On the other hand, they have the need to reduce their choice set, as the search for information can be costly and time consuming. To reduce expensive search costs, these consumers are more likely to narrow down their choice set (Sheth and Parvatiyar 1995). In a world of information explosion, consumers are usually ready

Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 24JMM350

Dow

nloa

ded

by [B

ourn

emou

th Un

iversi

ty] at

10:38

09 Ju

ly 20

15

to accept relationship marketing practices that offer them information at a minimum cost. Consequently, to get necessary information for future decision making and, at the same time, to reduce the cost of obtaining the information, those consumers who are familiar with a product category usually have greater conscious tendency to engage in a reciprocal and mutually beneficial relationship with the chosen brand providers. Hence, we hypothesise that

H3 Product familiarity is positively related to a consumers personal reciprocity.

Personal reciprocity and future purchase intentions

A consumers personal reciprocity measures a consumers conscious tendency to engage in reciprocal and mutually beneficial relationships with firms. The reciprocal and mutual benefits provide a solid foundation for both the maintenance and further development of a long-term consumer-firm relationship. By disclosing their personal information such as name, address, and personal preference, consumers assist the firm to design and produce better quality and tailor-made products. In return, customers expect to receive better products and other related benefits. This significantly reduces both the perceived risk and uncertainty of the customer by staying with the same firm (Stern et al. 1998), and the related opportunity costs. Reciprocation can make consumers feel it is more beneficial to patronise the same brand repeatedly since their favours given to the firm are rewarded with such benefits as better personalised services and products. The norm of reciprocity serves as a compensatory mechanism for maintaining customer-retailer relationships (Dorsch and Calson 1996). Under such a compensatory mechanism, when customers perceive that they have been helped, they tend to feel indebted and may feel compelled to provide pay back. We therefore offer the following hypothesis,

H4 A consumers personal reciprocity is positively related to future purchase intentions.

METHODOLOGY

Sampling and data collection

The sampling frame is printer owners in Hong Kong. Chinese culture is well known to be relationship rich and oriented toward the long term (Hofstede 1991). Hong Kong, therefore, provides a supportive cultural context for studying the issues that are related to consumer-firm relationships. In addition, most of the existing studies on consumer relationship proneness have been conducted in Western countries. Empirical investigation in a non-Western context can help test the generalisability of the theories that come from the West. Hong Kong, as a former British colony, has a political, legal, and economic system that is comparable to those of Western economies such as the UK and the USA, and thus other contextual interferences are minimised. We decided to conduct empirical tests within a particular product category, as it is considered appropriate to study issues such as brand trust and brand loyalty within a single product category (Delgado-Ballester and Munuera-Alemn 2001; Warrington and Shim 2000). In the selection of a product category, we conducted two focus group interviews with 11 university students in each group. Each interviewee was asked to suggest the product category with which they were most familiar. The product categories that were most frequently identified by the interviewees were printers, mobile phones, clothing, and cosmetics. The female interviewees had a

351Wu, Chan and Lau Does consumers personal reciprocity affect future purchase intentions?

Dow

nloa

ded

by [B

ourn

emou

th Un

iversi

ty] at

10:38

09 Ju

ly 20

15

better knowledge of the product categories of clothing and cosmetics. To minimise the potential bias between the male and female respondents, only mobile phones and printers were retained for the next phase of the selection exercise. Based on the two selection criteria that there was a relatively similar product category familiarity between female and male respondents and that the respondents were eligible to respond to the questions that were related to relationship marketing practices for the chosen product category, printers turned out to be the most suitable product category for this study.

The telephone numbers of 1,500 households were generated randomly from the Hong Kong Residential Telephone Directory. To overcome inherent problems of sampling from the telephone directory, a technique of random digit dialling (RDD) was used (Frey 1989), by employing a computer programme that generates listings of random numbers. According to the research on Home Computers and Networking in Hong Kong that was carried out by the Telecommunications Research Project of the Centre of Asian Studies at the University of Hong Kong, most of the computer users in Hong Kong are below 45. Therefore, only printer owners below the age of 45 were interviewed, as printers are peripheral computer products, and limiting the respondents to those below the age of 45 provided a more representative sample of qualified informants who had experience and knowledge of printers. During each phone call, after an explanation of the nature and purpose of the research, the interview started with the eligible member (printer owner) in the household. If there were two or more eligible members in a household, then we chose the respondent randomly. Three hundred and eight questionnaires were collected, giving a response rate of 20%.

Of the respondents, 55.8% were male and 44.2% female. Their ages ranged from 17 to 45, with 22.7 % being aged between 17 and 20, 36.4% between 21 and 25, 18.2% between 26 and 30, 12.3% between 31 and 35, and 0.4% between 36 and 45. Twenty-eight percent of the respondents had a monthly income of HK$0-5,000, 23.6% had an income of HK$5,001-10,000, 37.7% had an income of HK$10,001-20,000, and 10.9% had an income of HK$20,001-85,000. In terms of educational level, 0.7% of the respondents had a primary school education, 32% had a high school education, 4.6% had a diploma, 18.3% had a university degree or higher, and 44.4% did not want to specify their educational level.

Reliability and validity

A structured questionnaire was used to reduce the potential problems of fatigue and time pressure during a telephone interview so that respondents would find it easier to answer the questions and would not perceive the interview to be time-consuming (Aaker and Day 1990). This made it easier for the interviewer to record the data during the interviews, and minimised the chance of interviewer bias. A back-translation technique was used so as to ensure the accuracy of the questionnaire items, as the interviews were conducted in Chinese. Reliability tests were carried out to ensure that the scales in the questionnaire produced consistent results for the variables. The results indicated that the Cronbachs alpha of all of the constructs was above 0.78, which shows there is a satisfactorily high reliability of the scales. Furthermore, to test the validity of all of the measures used, both discriminant and convergent validity tests were conducted.

Convergent validity is concerned with whether multiple measures of the same construct are in agreement. According to Anderson and Gerbing (1988), convergent validity can be tested with a measurement model by examining whether the estimated

Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 24JMM352

Dow

nloa

ded

by [B

ourn

emou

th Un

iversi

ty] at

10:38

09 Ju

ly 20

15

pattern coefficient of each indicator on its posited underlying construct is significant. To test the convergent validity of the measurement model, a confirmatory factor analysis was conducted, which resulted in a satisfactory model (2 =230.709, [IFI] =0.918, normal fit index [NFI] = 0.895, and comparative fit index [CFI] = 0.916). Thus, convergent validity was achieved. Discriminant validity was also achieved by conducting Chi-square difference tests, whereby correlations between pairs of constructs were freely estimated and then constrained to one. In each instance, a significant lower chi-square in the base model was obtained, indicating satisfactory discriminant validity (Jreskog 1971).

Independent variables

Brand trust (a = .87). The brand trust scale was adapted from those used in Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001) and Delgado-Ballester and Munuera-Aleman (2001). There are three items on the brand trust scale rated on a 7-point Likert scale that ranges from 1, strongly disagree, to 7, strongly agree. The items include I rely on this brand, This brand is trustworthy, and The quality of this brand is very good.

Brand loyalty (a = .86). The brand loyalty scale consists of three items, such as, I have a strong sense of loyalty to this brand, I am proud of being the owner of this brand, and I like this brand. The items were adapted from Garbarino and Johnson (1999).

Product familiarity (a = 0.81). The product familiarity scale was developed from a detailed consultation of the relevant literature such as Coupey et al. (1998) and Grewal et al. (1998). The scale consists of two items. They are How knowledgeable are you about printers? rated on a 7-point Likert scale that ranged from 1 not knowledgeable at all to 7 very knowledgeable, and Please rate how familiar you are with printers rated on a 7-point Likert scale that ranged from 1 extremely unfamiliar to 7 extremely familiar).

Dependent variable

Future purchase intentions (a = 0.78). This scale comprises the two items, Are you willing to repurchase the products of this brand in the future? and Are you willing to give first consideration to this brand for future purchases? rated on a 7-point Likert scale that ranges from 1 not at all willing to 7 extremely willing. The two items were developed from Fournier (1998) and Garbarino and Johnson (1999). This is designed to assess how willing the respondent (owner of a printer) is to repurchase the same brand printer.

Mediating variable

Personal reciprocity (a = 0.81). The scale was adapted from the measures that were used in Stone and Woodcock (1995) and in Ambler et al. (1999), and are rated on a 7-point Likert scale that ranges from 1 strongly disagree to 7 strongly agree. The items are I hope that the provider of this brand can offer me some individualised products/services, I am willing to give my personal information to the provider of this brand so that I can be better served, and I am willing to cooperate with the provider of this brand. This scale is designed to capture a consumers reciprocal needs with the provider of a brand.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [B

ourn

emou

th Un

iversi

ty] at

10:38

09 Ju

ly 20

15


ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

The hypothesised structural equation model was tested using AMOS 4.0 (Arbuckle 1999). The covariance matrices are provided in Table 2, and the results are shown in Figure 2. The hypothesised model has a reasonable goodness-of-fit (2 = 230.709, p = 0.000, incremental fit index [IFI] = 0.918, comparative fit index [CFI] = 0.916, normed fit index [NFI] = 0.895 and RMSEA


consumer personal reciprocity are not redundant, we estimated three competing models by conducting nested-models comparison tests (Table 1). In the nested-model 1, we estimated a model wherein we dropped a hypothesised path from brand trust to personal reciprocity, while retaining all other relationships. As expected, this model is an inferior model in terms of goodness of fit (IFI = .910, NFI = .888, and CFI = .911) when compared with the mediating model in Figure 2. Then, we estimated another model wherein we dropped two hypothesised paths from brand trust to personal reciprocity and from brand loyalty to reciprocity while retaining all other relationships. Similarly, this model resulted in an inferior fit with 2 =40.912 (p


loyalty to personal reciprocity and product familiarity to personal reciprocity). Again, the direct model turned out to be an inferior model (NFI=0.874, IFI=.896, and CFI=.898) when compared with the mediating model. Hence, the results of nested model comparison tests indicate that the mediating model is a superior model and the mediating role of personal reciprocity in the relationships between brand trust and future purchase intentions and between brand loyalty and future purchase intentions is not redundant.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

We set out to explore the mediating role of a consumers personal reciprocity in the relationships between brand trust, brand loyalty, and product familiarity and future purchase intentions in the context of product category of printers. The study builds on the recent theoretical and empirical advancements in the literature of consumer-brand relationships, brand trust, and brand loyalty (Chauhuri and Holbrook 2001; Delgado-Ballester and Munuera-Alemn 2001; Fournier 1998). The findings largely support our underlying contention that personal reciprocity provides an alternative path linking brand trust and brand loyalty to future purchase intentions.

Our results show that both brand trust and brand loyalty have a positive impact on future purchase intentions, either directly or indirectly, through personal reciprocity. The findings support the existing argument that trusting and committed customers are more likely to repurchase from the same firm (Chaudhuri and Holbrook 2001; Morgan and Hunt 1994). More significantly, it reveals that an alternative path exists linking brand trust and brand loyalty to future purchase intentions via personal reciprocity.

The findings have some interesting managerial implications. As personal reciprocity can be leveraged to connect both brand trust and brand loyalty with future purchase intentions, it is advisable that firms should design marketing strategies that promote customers reciprocity. They should target those existing customers who have confidence in and are committed to their brands. Through reciprocal relationships with trusting and committed customers, firms can prevent them from being poached

JMM356

FIGURE 3 The final model with significant parameters

Note: x2 =233.307, IFI=0.918, CFI=0.916, NFI=0.894, RMSEA


by competitors more effectively. Nevertheless, the hypothesised relationship between product familiarity and

personal reciprocity turned out to be non-significant. The possible explanation for this non-significance is that those customers who are familiar with the product category of printers have yet to patronise a particular brand. Therefore, it is less likely that they have the reciprocal intentions with a particular brand without any prior experience of patronising the brand.

Although every care has been taken with this study, some inherent problems remain. First, the data were collected from printer users only. Although the focus on a particular product category is a widely accepted practice in the study of consumer-firm relationships, this might affect the potential generalisability of the results, and caution should be employed when applying the results to other related consumer product markets. Second, over 50% of the respondents were aged between 18 and 25, and the findings of this study predominantly represent this age group, even though this reflects the reality of the demographic of printer users in Hong Kong. In addition, as this is one of the first studies to use personal reciprocity as a mediating variable in the relationships between brand trust, brand loyalty, product familiarity, and future purchase intentions, we have kept the model relatively simple and straightforward and have left out some variables that might have similar effects either as dependent or independent variables. However, such a sacrifice at the early stage of model development and testing should be generally considered acceptable.

For future studies, more antecedents and outcomes of personal reciprocity could be identified and studied. For example, antecedents such as relationship benefits, shared values, and communication effectiveness could be added to the model. With respect to the outcomes, more relevant variables, such as the consumers propensity to leave, cooperation, and overall satisfaction could be incorporated into the model. Furthermore, it might be fruitful for future research to investigate the moderating role of personal reciprocity in the relationships between brand trust, brand loyalty, and brand outcomes. For example, personal reciprocity may play a moderating role in the relationship between brand trust and overall satisfaction. Finally, for the purpose of cross-validation, a comparative study could be conducted to investigate the differences and similarities in the roles of personal reciprocity in different cultural contexts, such as the US, Japan, and China.

In conclusion, this study represents one of the first attempts to investigate the mediating role of personal reciprocity in the relationships between brand trust, brand loyalty, product familiarity, and future purchase intentions. The findings have largely supported our theoretical prediction that personal reciprocity provides an alternative path linking brand trust and brand loyalty to future purchase intentions.

REFERENCES

Aaker, D. A. and Day, G S. (1990), Marketing Research, New York: John Wiley & Sons.Aaker, D.A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand Name, New

York, NY: Free Press. Ambler, T., Styles, C. and Wang, X. (1999), The Effect of Channel Relationships and Guanxi

on the Performance of Inter-province Export Ventures in the Peoples Republic of China, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 75-87.

Anderson, J. C. and Gerbing, D. W. (1988), Structural Modelling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-step Approach, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103, No. 3, pp. 411-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [B

ourn

emou

th Un

iversi

ty] at

10:38

09 Ju

ly 20

15


423. Arbuckle, J. L. (1999), Amos 4.0 Users Guide, Small Waters Corporation.Assal, H. (1998), Consumer Behaviour and Marketing Action, Cincinnati, OH: South-

Western. Bagozzi, R. P. (1995), Reflections on Relationship Marketing in Consumer Markets, Journal

of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 272-277. Bendapudi, N. and Berry, L. L. (1997), Customers Motivations for Maintaining Relationships

with Service Providers, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 73, No. 1, pp. 15-37.Chaudhuri, A. and Holbrook, M. B. (2001), The Chain of Effects from Brand Trust and

Brand Affect to Brand Performance: The Role of Brand Loyalty, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 65, No. 2, pp. 81-93.

Chaudhuri, A. and Holbrook, M. B. (2002), Product-class Effects on Brand Commitment and Brand Outcomes: the Role of Brand Trust and Brand Affect, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 33-58.

Chen, X. P. and Chen, C. C. (2004), On the Intricacies of the Chinese Guanxi: A Process Model of Guanxi Development, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 305-324.

Coulter, R. A., Price, L. L. and Feick, L. (2003), Rethinking the Origins of Involvement and Brand Commitment: Insights from Postsocialist Central Europe, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 151-169.

Coupey, E., Irwin, J. R. and Payne, J. W. (1998), Product Category Familiarity and Preference Construction, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 459-468.

Davies, G. and Chun, R. (2003), The Use of Metaphor in the Exploration of the Brand Concept, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 19, No. 1-2, pp. 45-71.

Deighton, J., Henderson, C. M. and Neslin, S. A. (1994), The Effects of Advertising on Brand Switching and Repeat Purchasing, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 28-43.

Delgado-Ballester, E. and Munuera-Alemn, J. L. (2001), Brand Trust in the Context of Consumer Loyalty, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35, No. 11/12, pp. 1238-1258.

De Wulf, K., Odekerken-Schrder, G. and Iacobucci, D. (2001), Investments in Consumer Relationships: A Cross-country and Cross-industry Exploration, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 65, No. 4, pp. 33-50.

Dorsch, M. J. and Carlson, L. (1996), A Transaction Approach to Understandingand Managing Customer Equity, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 35, No. 3, pp. 253-264.

Fajer, M. T. and Schouten, J. W. (1995), Breakdown and Dissolution of Person-brand Relationships, Advanced in Consumer Research, Vol. 12, pp. 663-667.

Fournier, S. (1998), Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 343-373.

Fournier, S., Dobscha, S. and Mick, D. G. (1998), Preventing the Premature Death of Relationship Marketing, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 76, No. 1, pp. 42-51.

Fournier, S. and Yao, J. L. (1997), Reviving Brand Loyalty: A Reconceptualization within the Framework of Consumer-brand Relationships, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 14, No. 5, pp. 451-472.

Frenzen, J. K. and Davis, H. L. (1990), Purchasing Behaviours in Embedded Markets, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 1-12.

Frey, J. H. (1989), Survey Research by Telephone, Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Second Edition. Garbarino, E. and Johnson, M. S. (1999), The Different Roles of Satisfaction, Trust, and

Commitment in Customer Relationships, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63, No. 2, pp. 70-87.

Gouldner, A. W. (1960), The Norm of Reciprocity: A Preliminary Statement, American Sociological Review, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 161-78.

Grewal, D., Krishnan, R., Baker, J. and Borin, N. (1998), The Effect of Store Name, Brand Name and Price Discounts on Consumers Evaluations and Purchase Intentions, Journal of

JMM358

Dow

nloa

ded

by [B

ourn

emou

th Un

iversi

ty] at

10:38

09 Ju

ly 20

15


Retailing, Vol. 74, No. 3, pp. 331-352.Hofstede, G. (1991), Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, London: McGraw-

Hill. Johnson, E. J. and Russo, J. E. (1984), Product Familiarity and Learning New Information,

Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 542-551. Joy, A. (2001), Gift Giving in Hong Kong and the Continuum of Social Ties, Journal of

Consumer Research, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp. 239-256.Jreskog, K. G. (1971), Statistical Analysis of Congeneric Tests, Psychometrika, Vol. 36, No.

2, pp. 109-133. Lin, C., Wu, W-Y. and Wang, Z-F. (2000), A Study of Market Structure: Brand Loyalty and

Brand Switching Behaviour for Durable Household Appliance, International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 42, No. 3, pp. 277-300.

Luk, S. T. K., Fullgrabe, L. and Li, S. C. Y. (1999), Managing Direct Selling Activities in China: A Cultural Explanation, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 45, No. 3, pp. 257-266.

Macintosh, G. and Lockshin L. S. (1997), Retail Relationships and Store Loyalty: A Multi-level Perspective, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 14, No. 5, pp. 487-497.

Miller, N. J. (2002), Contributions of Social Capital Theory in Predicting Rural Community Inshopping behaviour, Journal of Social-Economics, Vol. 30, No. 6, pp. 475-493.

Moorman, C., Deshpand, R. and Zaltman, G. (1993), Factors Affecting Trust in Market Relationships, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, No. 1, pp. 81-101.

Morais, D. B., Dorsch, M. J. and Backman, S. J. (2004), Can Tourism Providers Buy their Customers Loyalty? Examining the Influence of Customer-provider Investments on Loyalty, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 42, No. 3, pp. 235-243.

Morales, A.C. (2005), Giving Firms an E for Effort: Consumer Responses to High-effort Firms, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 806-812.

Morgan, R. M. and Hunt, S. D. (1994), The Commitment-trust Theory of Relationship Marketing, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, No. 3, pp. 20-38.

Oliver, R. L. (1999), Whence Consumer Loyalty?, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63 [Special Issue], pp. 33-44.

Perrin-Martinenq, D. (2004), The Role of Brand Development on the Dissolution of the Relationship between the Consumer and the Brand, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 20, No. 9-10, pp. 1001-1023.

Regan, D. T. (1971), Effects of a Favour and Liking on Compliance, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 7, No. 6, pp. 627-39.

Richins, M. L. and Root-Shaffer, T. (1988), The Role of Involvement and Opinion Leadership in Consumer Word-of-mouth: An Implicit Model Made Explicit, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 15, pp. 32-36.

Schultz, D. E. and Bailey, S. (2000), Customer/brand Loyalty in an Interactive Marketplace, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 40, No. 3 (May/June), pp. 41-52.

Sheth, J. N. and Parvatiyar, A. (1995), Relationship Marketing in Consumer Markets: Antecedents and Consequence, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 255-271.

Simonson, I., Huber, J. and Payne, J. (1988), The Relationship between Prior Brand Knowledge and Information Acquisition Order, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 566-578.

Sderland, M. (2002), Customer Familiarity and its Effects on Satisfaction and Behavioural Intentions, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 19, No. 10, pp. 861-879.

Stern, B. B., Thompson, C. J. and Arnold E. J. (1998), Narrative Analysis of a Marketing Relationship: the Consumers Perspective, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 195-214.

Stone, M. and Woodcock, N (1995), Relationship marketing, London: Kogan Page. University of Hong Kong (1999), Home Computers and Networking in Hong Kong,

Telecommunications Research Project, Centre of Asian Studies, University of Hong Kong.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [B

ourn

emou

th Un

iversi

ty] at

10:38

09 Ju

ly 20

15


Warrington, P. and Shim, S. (2000), An Empirical Investigation of the Relationship between Product Involvement and Brand Commitment, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 17, No. 9, pp. 761-782.

Westwood, R., Chan, A. and Linstead, S. (2004), Theorizing Chinese People Employment Relations Comparatively: Exchange, Reciprocity and the Moral Economy, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 365-389.

Yau, O. H. M., Chan, T. S. and Lau, K. F. (1999). Influence of Chinese Cultural Values on Consumer Behaviour: a Proposed Model of Gift-purchasing Behaviour in Hong Kong, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 97-116.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS AND CORRESPONDENCE

Wei-ping Wu is an Associate Professor at the Department of Marketing, Hong Kong Baptist University. He graduated with a PhD degree from University of Ulster, United Kingdom. His current research interests are interorganisatonal business networks, internationalisation and performance, and relationship marketing. He has published in such journals as Journal of International Business Studies, Journal of Management Studies, International Journal of Human Resource Management and Asia Pacific Journal of Management.

Corresponding Author: Wei-ping Wu Ph.D., Associate Professor, Department of Marketing, School of Business, Hong Kong Baptist University, Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong.

T +852 3411 5209 F +852 3411 5586

E [email protected]

T. S. Chan earned his D.B.A. degree at Indiana University; he is the Shun Hing Chair Professor of Marketing and Associate Vice President at Lingnan University, Hong Kong. His current research interests include comparative consumer behaviour and management localisation issues.

T. S. Chan, DBA, Professor, Department of Marketing and International Business, Lingnan University, 8 Castle Peak Road, Hong Kong.

T +852 2616 8302 F +852 2467 3049

E [email protected]

Heng Hwa Lau earned his MPhil degree from Lingnan University, Hong Kong. He works as a manager at the Operations Department of Casino Lisboa, Macau.

Heng Hwa Lau, Operations Department, Casino Lisboa, Lisboa Road, Macau.

T +853 6612 1065 F +853 2856 2932

E [email protected]

JMM360

Dow

nloa

ded

by [B

ourn

emou

th Un

iversi

ty] at

10:38

09 Ju

ly 20

15

Documents

Does Consumers' Personal Reciprocity Affect Future Purchase Intentions