Moderating Role

7/31/2019 Moderating Role

1/24

nternational Journal of Retail & Distribution Managementmerald Article: Moderating role of involvement in building a retail brand

ernhard Swoboda, Frank Haelsig, Hanna Schramm-Klein, Dirk Morschett

rticle information:

o cite this document: Bernhard Swoboda, Frank Haelsig, Hanna Schramm-Klein, Dirk Morschett, (2009),"Moderating role of

volvement in building a retail brand", International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 37 Iss: 11 pp. 952 - 974

rmanent link to this document:

p://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09590550910999370

ownloaded on: 14-05-2012

eferences: This document contains references to 99 other documents

o copy this document: [email protected]

his document has been downloaded 2548 times.

ccess to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by NORTHUMBRIA UNIVERSITY

r Authors:

you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service.

formation about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Additional help

r authors is available for Emerald subscribers. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

bout Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

ith over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in


2/24

Moderating role of involvementin building a retail brand

Bernhard SwobodaTrier University, Trier, Germany

Frank HaelsigSimon-Kucher & Partners, Koln, Germany

Hanna Schramm-KleinUniversity of Siegen, Siegen, Germany, and

Dirk MorschettUniversity of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to focus on one of the main antecedents of consumerbehaviour concerning its role in building a retail brand. It addresses how consumer involvementinfluences perception of retailer attributes, which affects customer-based retail brand equity whenconsidering retailers as brands.

Design/methodology/approach A model is developed that includes the impact of centraldimensions of the perception of retailer attributes, their effects on customer-based retail brand equityand the moderating role of consumer involvement. The empirical study is based on a sample of

3,000 consumers spread over five retail sectors (grocery, clothing, DIY, electronics and furniture).Findings Using multiple-group structural equation modelling, the intersectoral relevance ofinvolvement as a moderator in building a strong retail brand is demonstrated. In retailing, consumerinvolvement has a moderating effect on the influence of retailer attributes on retail brand equity.The direction of this influence differs, however, from one perceived retailer attribute to the next.Whereas the influence of price, communication and store design is greater on highly involvedconsumers than on those with low involvement, the influence of service and assortment is greater inconsumers with low involvement. Since consumers with a different level of involvement have adifferent perception of retailer attributes, this factor is relevant to retail branding.

Originality/value Understanding retailers as brands conceptually a basic model shows howto build retail brand equity using the dimensions of retailer marketing instruments, and this modelis stable enough to test different antecedents, including involvement for the first time in this context.The five sectors surveyed distinguish the study methodologically from those that focus only onone sector. Finally, the results show that the retailer attributes relevant to retail brand equity differbetween customers with high involvement and those with low involvement. This aspect mustbe considered in the preliminary stages of retail brand building.

Keywords Retailing, Brand equity, Brands, Consumer behaviour

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionWhile there certainly are many psychological effects on the relationship betweenthe objective reality of a retailer and the way in which consumers perceive it(Luomala, 2003), the present study concentrates on involvement as a moderating factor.Involvement is commonly acknowledged as being a key determinant in consumersshopping behaviour (including the choice of retail outlets; Steenkamp and Wedel, 1991).

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available atwww.emeraldinsight.com/0959-0552.htm

IJRDM37,11

952

Received 31 May 2008Revised 1 December 2008Accepted 27 April 2009

International Journal of Retail &Distribution ManagementVol. 37 No. 11, 2009

pp. 952-974q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0959-0552

DOI 10.1108/09590550910999370


3/24

The present study assumes that involvement also influences the building of a strongretail brand.

Branding can be especially important in retailing, given its highly competitivenature and its strong influence on patronage behaviour (Ailawadi and Keller, 2004;Hartman and Spiro, 2005). Thus, the increasingly widely used view of the retailer as abrand is one of the most important trends in retailing (Grewal et al., 2004). At the sametime, empirical studies regarding the retailer as a brand have only been pursued onrelatively rare occasions so far (Davies, 1992; Kent, 2003), while substantially moreresearch has been conducted on store image. We have applied the terminologicalunderstanding of, e.g. Ailawadi and Keller (2004), and do not equate retail brands with

private labels, store brands or retailer brands. Instead the retailer itself is seen as thebrand, e.g. Tesco, IKEA or Aldi.

The aim of the present study is to analyse how consumer involvement affects therelationship between the perception and evaluation of retailer attributes andcustomer-based retail brand equity, using multiple-group structural equationmodelling. While previous studies concentrate on single retail sectors and raise thequestion of whether the results can be generalised to cover other retailing sectors(grocery: Morschett et al., 2006; textiles: Birtwistle et al., 1999; Pappu and Quester, 2006;furniture: Groeppel-Klein et al., 1999), the present study does look at the relevanceof low-involvement and high-involvement consumers specific to the retail sector,but focuses mainly on the moderating role of involvement intersectorally.

Based on the present research on retailer attributes, their impact on customer-basedretail brand equity and the role of involvement in this relationship are conceptualised.Hypotheses address the relationship between perception of retailer attributes and retailbrand equity, focusing particularly on the moderating role of involvement.Methodology and results form part of the empirical study, which then leads to theoverall conclusions.

Conceptual framework, constructs and hypothesesConceptualisation of the perception of retailer attributesThis study investigates a broad spectrum of customer-perceived retailer activities thatcan be influenced actively by a firm. Only a few research studies have conducteda thorough investigation of the retail marketing mix with the aim of comparing specificattributes in terms of their relevance in building a strong retail brand (Kent, 2003;Miranda et al., 2005). Thus, the following argumentation has to consider the researchfindings on retailer/store image, but without discussing the terminology due to thelong history of changing conceptualisation (Hartman and Spiro, 2005).

In retailing research literature, consumers perception of a retailer or of theretailers activities as displayed in the retailer attributes can be considered closelyrelated to the store image construct (Morschett et al., 2005). Since the introductionof store image research (Martineau, 1958), researchers have devoted considerableattention to developing the idea that consumers hold images of particular storesin their minds (Berry, 1969; Kasulis and Lusch, 1981; Marks, 1976). As store imageresearch has performed a great deal of work in identifying the major facets of storeimage, many differentiating factors could be found, e.g. eight attributes or marketinginstruments in fashion retailing by Birtwistle et al. (1999), four by Teas (1994),six others by Barich and Srinivasan (1993) or Mazursky and Jacoby (1986)

Moderating roleof involvement

953


4/24

and different attributes by previous researchers (Lindquist, 1974/1975; Doyle andFenwick, 1974/1975; Fisk, 1961/1962).

The present study attempts to apply a broad catalogue in order to detect wide facetsof retailer attribute dimensions and their varying relevance when comparing differentconsumer segments based on low and high involvement. As in store image research,the retailer attributes in this paper are generally investigated without consideringwhether these attributes match. Unlike previous research, however, the authors arguethat the individual retailer attributes perceived cannot be regarded in isolation becausethey do interact with one another in the mind of the consumer (Marks, 1976). This is aplausible argument for consumer-based retailing studies (Bell et al., 1997).

Conceptualisation of customer-based retail brand equityThe literature contains a substantial number of different approaches toconceptualisation of brand equity (Aaker, 1991; Ye and van Raaij, 2004). Ailawadiand Keller (2004) point out that this conceptualisation is even more difficult for retailbrands due to the special requirement and complexity of retail brand equity. While theauthors generally agree with Kellers well-known conceptualisation of brand equity asbeing composed of brand awareness and brand image (Keller, 1993, p. 8), the presentstudy focuses on the latter because, for the largest retailers in a sector, variance inconsumers awareness is low and empirically, awareness is a prerequisite for image,so image and the resulting customer-based retail brand equity can only be measuredfor those retailers that are known to the consumer.

In branding literature, different types of brand associations are distinguished by

their level of abstraction. Keller classifies brand associations in three major categoriesof increasing abstraction: attributes, benefits and attitudes. Attitudes, i.e. summaryjudgments and overall evaluations, represent the most abstract and highest-level typeof brand association (Keller, 1993, p. 4, 2003, p. 596). According to most researchers,the well-researched attitude construct refers to an affect or a general evaluativereaction (Bagozzi, 1978). In the tri-component theory, there are three componentsassigned to attitudes (Bagozzi, 1978; Iniesta and Sanchez, 2002, p. 264): a cognitive one,capturing the consumers beliefs and knowledge, an affective one, reflecting feelingsand emotions, and a conative one, resulting in the behavioural intention or willingnessto develop an actual form of behaviour. To obtain a comprehensive view,the attitude-based conceptualisation of retail brand equity in the present studyincludes these three components. At the same time, attitude research suggests thatindicators of all three components converge to form a uni-dimensional attitude measure(Burnkrant and Page, 1982). The indicators employed in our study, which cover all

three components, are likeability (Lassar et al., 1995; Keller, 2003; Ye and van Raaij,2004), differentiation (Davies, 1992; Netemeyer et al., 2004), trustworthiness (Sheth andVenkatesan, 1968; Doyle, 1990) and customer loyalty (Beatty et al., 1988; Bloemerand de Ruyter, 1998; Iniesta and Sanchez, 2002; Oliver, 1999; Wallace et al., 2004)(with the two indicators commitment and willingness to recommend).

Conceptualisation of involvementThe concept of involvement that has evolved from sociological research wasintroduced to marketing by Krugmann (1965; see Mittal (1995, p. 664) for the diversityof terms). There are three schools of thought in involvement research:

IJRDM37,11

954


5/24

(1) In the salience of stimulus approach, involvement is expressed as the role of astimulus in individual behaviour. This approach is independent of theindividual motives or values of the consumer and relates solely to the stimulusand its characteristics (Petty et al., 1983).

(2) The enduring product involvement approach understands involvement as thesubjective and sustained importance of a stimulus that evolves as a result ofproximity to the central motives and values of the individual (for egoinvolvement, see Lastovicka and Gardner, 1979).

(3) The attention/processing strategies (state) approach integrates both viewpoints.

Mitchell (1979) understands involvement as a state of activation, motivation orinterest that occurs if a stimulus is particularly relevant for the individual orgenerates situation-related consequences. It is evoked by factors specific to theindividual, to the stimulus, or to the situation and reflects the willingness to actupon the stimulus cognitively or emotionally.

This combination of approaches leads to an understanding of involvement asa complex, non-observable construct that characterises a state of activation(particularly motivation) and of interest specific to an individual. This state isdetermined by external stimuli (e.g. retail store, situation) and by internalcircumstances (e.g. self-image, values). Since an individual is involved, emotionaland cognitive processes (e.g. absorption and processing of information) are affected(Kapferer and Laurent, 1985, p. 290; Lastovicka and Gardner, 1979, p. 53; Mitchell,1979, p. 194; Park et al., 2007, p. 127). Although the degree of involvement changes

constantly, many authors distinguish between the dichotomous occurrence of low andhigh involvement (Bloemer and de Ruyter, 1999; Flynn and Goldsmith, 1993; Gardneret al., 1978; Yi and Jeon, 2003), where a distinction can be made between situationalfactors, personal factors and object or stimulus factors (Muncy and Hunt, 1984, p. 193;Houston and Rothschild, 1978, p. 184).

Empirical research has verified that highly involved individuals seek outinformation actively and draw on more information than individuals with lowinvolvement (Craik and Lockhart, 1972; Maoz and Tybout, 2002; Park et al., 2007).With low involvement, more information consistent to pattern is retained than withhigh involvement, meaning that consistency of information provided is particularlyimportant with low involvement. As shown by Shao et al. (2004), appropriate dress byservice personnel influences purchasing behaviour, particularly for customers withlow involvement. In addition, people with low involvement frequently fall back on

central, salient characteristics/features of a schema, thus it is wise to communicate onlya small amount of information under low-involvement conditions.

We should point out that this study considers consumers individual involvement tobe a behavioural research construct, but not a specific product attribute, as is the casein some studies (Churchill and Surprenant, 1982; Gotlieb et al., 1992). These studiesrefer to high-involvement and low-involvement products. This is based on theassumption that certain products (due to their attributes or area of application) lead tohigh or low involvement, respectively, by every consumer. The authors consider this tobe a rather unrealistic approach and one that is questionable from the point of view ofbehavioural research, thus it is not pursued further.


955


6/24

In explaining the building of a retail brand, the link to consumer involvement is apromising one and it can be assumed that involvement influences perception of theretail brand. This assumption can be linked to the studies that show involvement tobe an antecedent of store choice (Steenkamp and Wedel, 1991) or studies on productbrand and retail store perception (Schramm-Klein et al., 2007). Studies on general brandloyalty show that high involvement is a sign of a strong emotional link to the brandconcerned, while a more half-hearted, routine choice of a brand is an indication of lowinvolvement. At the same time, the relevance of involvement is not universal.Berens et al. (2005, S. 44), for example, only demonstrateda limited moderating effect byinvolvement on the relationship between corporate brand and evaluation of a product.

Conceptual framework and hypothesesHaving provided a brief review of the literature and description of the authorsunderstanding of the constructs used, this section concludes by setting forth aconceptual framework (Figure 1).

General relationsWhen forming a general understanding, it is important to note that consumersare inclined to simplify when assessing effect and are thus unable to judge individual,objectively different properties of an object truly independently of one another, withthe result that the consumer tends rather to base his judgment on key information, forexample, as well as on irradiation effects. Thus, consumers perception of storeattributes can be divided into different central dimensions, and as pointed out,the individual dimensions cannot be regarded in isolation because they do interactwith one another in the mind of the consumer (Marks, 1976). Human cognitionand perception is an integrated process, which means that perception is not an isolatedprocess of specific senses, but an integrated assimilation of stimuli (Gerrig andZimbardo, 2004). It appears plausible, therefore, that perception of an individualretailer attribute irradiates onto other attributes (Bell et al., 1997; Swoboda et al., 2007).Thus, the authors assume that consumers perception of store attributes emerges fromdifferent central dimensions that are not independent of one other. While previousstudies that have identified relevant retailer attributes and central dimensions inspecific retail sectors have come to generally similar results across sectors, it remainsto be analysed whether the same dimensions apply to all retail sectors.

The results discussed from the literature (Oppewal and Timmermans, 1997) and theconceptualisation presented continue to allow the conclusion that evaluation of thecentral dimensions of retailer attributes has a positive influence on customer-based

Figure 1.Conceptual framework

Customer-based

retail brand equity

Objective

configuration of retailerattributes and features

H2

H1

Consumer

involvement

Perceived dimensionsof retailer attributes

IJRDM37,11

956


7/24

retail brand equity. In Malhotras (1983) threshold model of store choice, five salientcharacteristics that influence store choice are identified, namely service quality, varietyand selection, acceptable prices, convenience of location and physical facilities. Rinneand Swinyard (1995) or Mazursky and Jacoby (1986) also illustrate in their studies thatthe evaluations of these store attributes are not of equal importance.

Besides these quite rare comparisons of the effect of retailer attributes, the literaturealso provides analyses of individual retailer attributes that illustrate the importance ofthe specific attribute, usually considered in isolation and without making anycomparisons. These studies show that the evaluation of certain central dimensions,as for example the perceived service (quality), are found to be a significant predictor

of behavioural intentions and patronage behaviour, e.g. repeat purchase andrecommendation behaviour (Bitner, 1990). Woodside et al. (1989) showed in their studythat there is a significant association between the evaluation of service quality andre-purchase behaviour. Owing to space limitation, it is not possible to refer to all studiesthat have demonstrated the relevance of particular retailer attributes, usuallyconsidered in isolation and without comparing the strength of the effects (price: Binkleyand Bejnarowicz, 2003; assortment: Amine and Cadenat, 2003; advertising: Rajiv et al.,2002; store design: Turley and Chebat, 2002). Thus, the following two hypotheses areformulated:

H1a. The more positive the evaluation of the different dimensions of retailerattributes, the more positive customer-based retail brand equity is influenced.

H1b. The strength of this influence differs between the dimensions.

The moderating role of involvementAs pointed out, a distinctive feature of the study is its focus on the role of involvementin building a strong retail brand. In order to understand involvement, its ego, stimulusand situations components are to be viewed in terms of perception of retailingattributes and thus, their effect on retail brand equity. As shown, it can be assumedthat the higher the involvement of consumers, the greater their personalinterest/relevance and their emotional and cognitive commitment, which determinethe more complex and in-depth processing of information, as well as the more detailedelaboration processes by individuals. It was shown in many studies that highlyinvolved individuals seek out information actively and draw on more information thanindividuals with low involvement (Petty et al., 1983, p. 135; Bloemer and de Ruyter,1998, p. 502).

Transposed to the present question, involvement may not only influence individual

consumer perceptions of retail brand equity and of retailer attributes, but also affectthe influence of retailer attribute evaluation on attitudinal customer-based retail brandequity. Perception is a subjective, selective and individual process. Against thisbackground, involvement can be considered in the context surveyed as a moderatingvariable that influences the character and intensity of relationships betweenthe dimensions in the effect model (Darrow and Kahl, 1982, p. 35; Sharma et al.,1981, p. 291).

In principle, the literature assumes that involvement has a positive influence on theeffect relationships between two constructs. Involved consumers value the productmore, engage in more product-related activities, and have a better knowledge of product


957


8/24

attributes and prices (Bloch and Richins, 1983; Richins and Bloch, 1986). As consumerswith high involvement have a better knowledge of the current price level, they are moreattracted by a particularly favourable price-value ratio than consumers with lowinvolvement, who do not have this knowledge to such a large extent (Chandrashekaranand Grewal, 2003). Some other studies in retailing show that involvement has a positiveinfluence on the effect relationship of a model, for example on product brand perceptionor retail store perception and product brand loyalty (Schramm-Klein et al., 2007), but donot state which attributes are relevant here. As also highlighted, the influence ofinvolvement is not always evident. Suh and Yi (2006) demonstrate the differentlyoriented influence of involvement. In their study, involvement reduces the direct effects

of satisfaction on brand attitudes and loyalty, but it enhances the indirect effects ofadvertisement attitudes and corporate image. Other authors, however, highlight thepositive moderating effect of involvement. In an analysis of the effects of loyaltyprogrammes on value perception, programme loyalty and brand loyalty, Yi and Jeon(2003), for example, show that value perception of the loyalty programme influencesbrand loyalty both directly and indirectly through programme loyalty. Underlow-involvement conditions, there is no direct effect of value perception on brandloyalty. Thus, a largely positive influence is weakened by the moderating effect of lowinvolvement to the extent that this positive effect no longer exists.

Although there is no absolutely clear indication in this context as to what effectinvolvement has on specific attribute dimensions, we assume a positive effect of highinvolvement on an effect relationship based on the studies mentioned. In this respectand combined with the common differentiation of high- and low-involvementconsumers, it can be hypothesized that:

H2. The evaluation of the dimensions of retailer attributes influencescustomer-based retail brand equity more strongly when consumers arehighly involved than when they have low involvement.

MethodologySample characteristicsAn empirical study was conducted in one German city with face-to-face interviews and3,000 respondents (600 in grocery, clothing, DIY, electronics and furniture retailing).To ensure that the sample was representative of the population, quota sampling wasconducted, taking consideration of the statistical distribution of shoppers in Germanyin terms of their age and gender.

Each respondent was asked about one specific retail store. The stores used asstimuli in the study were chosen based on recall values for the specific retail brand in a

pre-test. In this pre-test, consumers were asked to list the retailers where a specificproduct group (e.g. groceries, clothing and furniture) could be purchased. It was alsoestablished that each respondent did his/her shopping at least occasionally in thisstore.

Since the study covered different retail sectors, it is important not only to test thevalidity of the constructs, but also to assure measurement invariance across thesesectors to be able to integrate the data and the resulting coefficients (Horn andMcArdle, 1992, p. 117). This procedure states that a measurement model must bechecked for invariance at three basic levels (configural, metric and scalar invariance),where each stage must be viewed as a prerequisite for the next stage. The results of

IJRDM37,11

958


9/24

the validity test and the test for configural, metric and scalar invariance (Steenkampand Baumgartner, 1998; van den Berg and Lance, 2000; Cheung and Rensvold, 2002)are included in Tables I and II.

Measurement and central dimensions of the perception of retailer attributesAs described before, perception of retailer attributes was measured with acomprehensive battery of items to cover a broad range of retailer attributes

Rotated component matrix items

Factor 1:

service

Factor 2:

value/price

Factor 3:

advertising

Factor 4:

assortment

Factor 5:

store designFriendly store employees 0.928Good service 0.871Competent store employees 0.771Appropriate prices 0.819Good price/value-ratio 0.801Constant prices 0.798Personally appealing advertising 20.866Good advertising 20.860Informative advertising 20.676Wide assortment/one-stop shopping 0.779Good quality of assortment 0.572 20.216Good product availability 0.112 0.522Pleasant shopping atmosphere 20.883Easy to find the way around 20.728Comfortable shopping atmosphere 0.174 20.541Eigenvalues 5.617 2.501 1.636 1.289 1.067Share of explained total variance (%) 31.20 13.90 9.10 7.10 5.60Average variance extracted (AVE) 0.744 0.620 0.652 0.506 0.593Quality of fit statistics of measurement model: GFI 0.964; AGFI 0.946; NFI 0.960; CFI 0.964;TLI 0.953; RMSEA 0.056

Invariance test for the scale across five retail sectors

ModelRMSEA(#0.08)

CFI($0.90)

TLI($0.90)

D-CFI(#0.01)

D-TLI(#0.05)

Configural invariance 0.027 0.960 0.948 Full metric invariance 0.028 0.952 0.943 0.008 0.005Full scalar invariance 0.037 0.907 0.902 0.053 0.046Final partial scalar invariance 0.027 0.950 0.941 0.001 0.007

Note: Factor analysis and invariance test

Table I.Construct validity of theperceived dimensions of

retailer attributes

Squared correlation of the dimensionsDimensions of retailerattributes

Average varianceextracted Service

Value/price Advertising Assortment

Storedesign

Service 0.744 0.028 0.073 0.232 0.454Value/price 0.620 0.028 0.104 0.104 0.025Advertising 0.652 0.073 0.104 0.124 0.149Assortment 0.506 0.232 0.104 0.124 0.356Store design 0.593 0.454 0.025 0.149 0.356

Note: Based on the total sample

Table II.Test of discriminant

validity of the perceiveddimensions of retailer

attributes


959


10/24

following, among others, Mazursky and Jacoby (1986) and Pan and Zinkhan (2006).To establish meaningful groups of items, the items were analysed (after extensiveexamination and following adjustment of the battery of items) by exploratory and(then) confirmatory factor analysis, using the split-half method as cross-validation(across all five sectors).

The following adjustments of the item battery had to be done (beginning with19 items): within the battery of items, the empirical research asked about theattractiveness of the private label products offered. The number of missing values(25 per cent) was too high, however, for this item to be analysed further. The authorsexplain this by the fact that the consumers only perceive the private label products byimplication, but often cannot differentiate them consciously from the other products.The number of missing values was also too high for the item appealing special offers.The location variable was eliminated due to the surprisingly very low indicatorreliability in the first calculation of a confirmatory factor analysis. The cleanlinessvariable did load highly, but not unambiguously, on two separate factors and thereforewas not considered.

Following the theoretical considerations that the underlying factor structuresare probably not independent of each other, an oblimin rotation was applied to the dataset, i.e. across all five retail sectors. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure ofsampling adequacy was 0.814 and the x2 of Bartletts test of sphericity was8,191.3 (sign. 0.000). Five factors were extracted that are easy to interpret from theloadings displayed (Table I).

To test this result further (and due to the rather heterogeneous results in prior store

image research), the reliability and validity of the scale and its dimensions wereevaluated. Confirmatory factor analysis was applied to the five latent constructsidentified in the exploratory factor analysis using the second half of the sample.

The model was calculated with AMOS 7.0, applying the maximum-likelihoodmethod (Kline, 1998). As shown in Figure 2 the overall fit measures indicate a good fitof the model to the empirical data. The expected interdependence between the latentconstructs is clearly visible in the path coefficients (Fornell and Larcker, 1981;see Table II for the detailed test for discriminant validity for the total sample). But eventhe highest coefficient, however, (between service and store design) still indicatesdiscriminant validity.

Thus, the five-dimensional structure for perception of retailer attributes isconfirmed by the data. In a last step, measurement invariance across the five retailsectors was also analysed successfully and partial scalar invariance wasdemonstrated; the values for D-CFI, D-TLI and RMSEA met the prescriptive

thresholds. Partial scalar invariance is the minimum requirement for using the samemodel in different retail sectors in order to draw general conclusions (Table I).

Measurement of customer-based retail brand equitySingle indicators that were used to capture attitudinal retail brand equity arelikeability, commitment, willingness to recommend, trustworthiness anddifferentiation. In view of its special importance, loyalty was measured using thetwo indicators commitment and customers willingness to recommend the retailer(Iniesta and Sanchez, 2002; Osman, 1993). It seems necessary to use multiple items

IJRDM37,11

960


11/24

for retail brand equity because it is abstract and cannot be measured by a single item(see for a detailed discussion on this aspect: Bergkvist and Rossiter (2007)).

Cronbachs coefficient alpha is used to assess reliability, and the adjusteditem-to-total correlation is high for all items. The KMO measure of sampling adequacywas 0.833 and the x2 of Bartletts test of sphericity was 3,047.4 (sign. 0.000).The results of the factor analysis are given in Table III.

The scale is internally consistent. Furthermore, the authors are able to illustrate partialscalar invariance for the scale, which means that it can be used for all five retail sectors.

When examining the nomological validity of retail brand equity, its ability topredict shoppers buying behaviour (measured by share of spending in the specificretail sector at the retailer analysed) was tested by evaluating the results of aregression analysis. With R2 of almost 0.4, the explanatory power is reasonably goodcompared to other studies.

Measurement of involvementValidated scales to measure involvement can be found in the literature, but these do notappear suitable for unrestricted use in connection with retail branding and they alsoencompass a huge number of indicators. Please refer, for example, to Kapferer andLaurent (1985), Ratchford (1986), Richins and Bloch (1986) and Zaichkowsky (1985) onvalidated scales, and to Jain and Srinivasan (1990, 15 indicators), McQuarrieand Munson (1986, 22 indicators), Slama and Tashchian (1985, 33 indicators) andZaichkowsky (1985, 20 indicators) for hugely comprehensive surveys.

This is contrasted by involvement measures based on single statements onenjoyable shopping or scales with only two indicators (Berens et al., 2005, S. 46).

Figure 2.Model and global fit

criteria for confirmatoryfactor analysis of the

perception items

Good service

Service

Value/price

Advertising

Assortment

Store design

Friendly store employees

Competent store employees

Good quality of assortment

Wide assortment/one-stop shopping

Good product availability12

1

3

Appropriate prices4

Good price/value-ratio5

Constant prices6

Good advertising7

Personally appealing advertising8

10

11

2

12.4

Easy to find the way around13

Comfortable shopping atmosphere14

6.2

1.1.1

2.1.1

11.41.4

13.53.5

14.54.5

4.2.2

5.2.2

8.3.3

10.40.4

7.3.3

1.1

2.1

11.4

13.5

14.5

4.2

5.2

8.3

10.4

7.3

3.1

Pleasant shopping atmosphere15 15.5

Informative advertising9 9.3

0.57

0.36

0.16

0.31

0.36

0.25

0.28

0.46

0.16

0.61

GFI:

AGFI:NFI:

TLI:CFI:

RMSEA:

0.964

0.9460.960

0.9530.964

0.056

Note: n=1,500 (split-half method)


961


12/24

In order to strike a balance and as conceptualised, ego, stimulus and situationalinvolvement were each measured using two indicators in an identical manner,

but adapted semantically to the retail sector concerned (Table IV).

Ego involvement was operationalised based on the indicators analysed by Mittal

(1995, p. 673) and by Neese and Taylor (1994, p. 68). The items for measuring stimulus

involvement are geared to the original four-item scale by Beatty and Talpade

(1994, p. 333), as well as the reduced three-item version by Flynn et al. (1996, p. 137).

Dimension Indicators/statements

Ego involvement Food stores and the products sold there are a great passion of mine.(Ego involvement I)Food stores and the products sold there rank highly in my life(Ego involvement II)

Stimulus involvement Food stores and the products sold there are very important to me(personally) (Stimulus involvement I)I am very interested in food stores and the products sold there(Stimulus involvement II)

Situational involvement When buying food, I consider very carefully which food store to go to(Situational involvement I)Thefood store I shop at means a great deal to me (Situationalinvolvement II)

Notes: The references to each specific sector in the six statements were adapted to the sectorconcerned in each case; the references to the indicator in each case is shown in brackets in the furtheranalysis

Table IV.Statements onmeasurement ofinvolvement

Factor loading (fromprincipal axis analysis)

Coefficient ofdetermination (fromconfirmatory factor

analysis)Likeability 0.790 0.782Differentiation 0.625 0.633Trustworthiness 0.756 0.755Commitment 0.765 0.763Willingness torecommend

0.569 0.574

Quality of fit statistics of measurement model: GFI

0.989; AGFI

0.966; NFI

0.983; CFI

0.984;TLI 0.969; RMSEA 0.074; AVE 0.509Invariance test for the retail brand equity scale across five retail sectors

ModelRMSEA(#0.08)

CFI($0.90)

TLI($0.90)

D-CFI(#0.01)

D-TLI(#0.05)

Configural invariance 0.035 0.982 0.965 Full metric invariance 0.035 0.970 0.964 0.012 0.001Final partial metricinvariance 0.034 0.975 0.967 0.007 0.002Full scalar invariance Initial scalarinvariance 0.034 0.921 0.935 0.061 0.030Final partial scalarinvariance 0.051 0.973 0.963 0.009 0.002

Table III.Construct validity ofcustomer-based retailbrand equity andinvariance test

IJRDM37,11

962


13/24

Situational involvement (purchase decision involvement) was measured using thescales developed by Mittal (1989, p. 152) and Ratchford (1986, p. 28). This six-item scalewas tested in a previous, unpublished study in the grocery retailing sector.

The exploratory factor analysis yielded one factor. Thus, the various facets ofinvolvement are included in the scale, but the result bears out those authors whoentertain some doubts about involvement being represented by three separate,selective factors and thus only pinpoint one factor.

The KMO value of 0.785 is satisfactory for the factor, as is a highly significantx2 value of 9,376.698 from the Bartlett test (df 15, p 0.000). On the other hand,further quality checks on the scale revealed too low reliability (0.210) for theSituational involvement II indicator, with the result that this indicator waseliminated in further analysis steps. As part of the subsequent, renewed exploratoryfactor analysis of the reduced involvement scale, a factor is again extracted, yieldinga somewhat better KMO value of 0.862 and an extremely significant x2 value of7,806.515 from the Bartlett test (df 10, p 0.000). Cronbachs alpha shows a value of0.862. The majority of the quality criteria in the following test stages display goodresults and exceed the minimum requirements by a wide margin in most cases(Table V).

Indicator reliability is slightly below the required level, and the RMSEA exceeds themaximum value very slightly. The configural invariance model and the morerestrictive full metric invariance model were fulfilled, but not the more complete scalarinvariance model (violation of the D-CFI value at 0.059). As a result, the scale had tobe tested for partial scalar invariance, with the residual values of those indicators

with the highest modification indices being determined successively. This procedure

Factor loading (fromprincipal axis

analysis)

Coefficient ofdetermination (fromconfirmatory factor

analysis)Ego involvement I 0.797 0.715Ego involvement II 0.868 0.877Stimulus involvement I 0.815 0.522Stimulus involvement II 0.709 0.352Situational involvement I 0.542 0.256Situational involvement II(removed)

Quality of fit statistics of measurement model: GFI 0.979; AGFI 0.920; NFI 0.979; CFI 0.979;TLI 0.948; RMSEA 0.116; AVE 0.556

Invariance test for the involvement scale across five retail sectors

ModelRMSEA(#0.08)

CFI($0.90)

TLI($0.90)

D-CFI(#0.01)

D-TLI(#0.05)

Configural invariance 0.059 0.972 0.930 Full metric invariance 0.049 0.965 0.951 0.007 ( 2)0.021Final partial metricinvariance

Full scalar invariance 0.062 0.913 0.906 0.059 0.024Initial scalar invariance Final partial scalarinvariance 0.054 0.961 0.928 0.011 0.002

Table V.Construct validity

of involvement andinvariance test


963


14/24

led to an improvement in the CFI value, and the difference compared to the basic modelwas reduced to 0.011, thus the required limiting value for D-CFI was only exceededvery slightly. This appears sufficient for the partial scalar invariance to be accepted.

Hypothesis testingAnalysis of the impact of retailer attributes on customer-based retail brand equityBased on the hypotheses and the results concerning the central dimensions ofperception of retailer attributes, the model has been tested with the full sample(Figure 3). It is possible to include the data from the five retail sectors becausemeasurement invariance between the sectors has been demonstrated for all constructs

in the model. The model analyses the impact of retailer attributes on retail brand equityfor the total sample, i.e. all five retailing sectors simultaneously, in order to revealeffects that occur across the retail sectors.

The global fit dimensions provide good values for the model and exceed therequired minimum standards. The structural model is suitable for analysingthe influence of perceived dimensions of retailer attributes on retail brand equity.The standardised path coefficients show a positive but different effect of eachdimension of retailer attributes on retail brand equity. As the squared multiplecorrelation (SMC) value show, the model explains the building of retail brand equityvery well. It is interesting to note that the result showing special relevance of service inbuilding a strong retail brand was clearly verified in a study by Oppewal andTimmermans (1997), which concludes that retailers themselves consider service to bethe dimension where they can stand out against their competitors with most positiveeffect. The considerable influence of price and store design, however, is also evident.

With regard to consumer service, the empirical results, which identify service as themost important antecedent of customer-based retail brand equity among alldimensions of retailer attributes, support the emphasis that customer service hasreceived in recent retail research (Bolton et al., 2007; Swoboda et al., 2007). The resultsalso demonstrate that the focus of previous studies on price only is not appropriate

Figure 3.Integrated model of theimpact of perceivedcentral dimensions ofretailer attributes on retailbrand equity (totalsample)

Service

Value/price

Advertising

Assortment

Store design

Retail brand

equity

11=0.320 **

21=0.287 **

31=0.159 **

41=0.100 **

51=0.237 **

11

21

31

41

51

Differentiation

Trustworthiness

Commitment

1

2

3

4

5

Likeability

Willingness to

recommend

GFI:

AGFI:

NFI:

TLI:

CFI:

RMSEA:

0.949

0.931

0.947

0.941

0.952

0.054

SMC= 0.607

n=3000

Notes: *p


15/24

in retailing. While it does not exert a dominant influence, it is nevertheless of almostequal importance as consumer service. Unlike the results of other studies (Koelemeijerand Oppewal, 1999; Stassen et al., 1999), evaluation of the assortment only has a minor,but still significant effect on retail brand equity and, indirectly, on purchasingbehaviour in this study. In many retail sectors, assortment may not provide retailerswith the opportunity to create distinctive retail brand equity because the customerperceives the assortment of retailers as being almost interchangeable. All in all, theseresults indicate support for H1a and H1b.

The role of involvementIn accordance with the hypothesis, the sample was divided into two groups in line withthe widely used dichotomous differentiation into low involvement and highinvolvement using the median of the involvement factor values (Gardner et al., 1978,p. 585; Jaccard and Wan, 1996, p. 49). One partial data set showed a greater level ofinvolvement and the other a lesser level. Thus, it is possible to compare the effectrelationships of the model between the low-involvement and high-involvementconsumer groups, for which a multi-group causal analysis was used, although amoderated regression analysis, for example, would also have been possible in this case.

First, Table VI shows the distribution of the two groups over the retail sectorsconcerned. Both involvement groups appear remarkably often in each sector. It isstriking, however, that the majority of consumers in the grocery retailing sector believethemselves that they have a high level of involvement. In DIY and electronics retailing,however, most consumers characterise their involvement as rather low.

H2, relating to the role of involvement on the effect of retailer attribute dimensionson retail brand equity, led to a comparison of the two consumer groups. The results ofmultiple-group structural equation modelling are shown in Table VII. Here, too, thevalues obtained for global fit criteria are good. Furthermore, the SMCs for retail brandequity show very high values in both partial samples. Thus, the model developedcan also be applied in the same way in these two consumer segments. In addition,all but one of the standardised estimators of structural equation coefficients aresignificant at the 0.1 per cent level; however the exception is at least still significant atthe 1 per cent level.

The table shows the hypothesized deviations in the importance of various retailmarketing instruments based on the regarding their influence on retail brand equity inthe two consumer segments. Thus, it can be concluded that consumer involvement inretailing has a moderating effect on the effect relationships, however this effect is notalways significantly positive in the way formulated in H2. The general formulated

H2 cannot be confirmed as being universally applicable because, for service andassortment, influence on retail brand equity is significantly higher for consumers withlow involvement than for highly involved consumers. These results are confirmedby the authors mentioned, who do not assume that involvement has a general effect,but call for this to be analysed in detail. For this reason, particular importance isattached to the following discussion on content of the findings.

Discussion and implicationsThe study shows in a general and stable model that evaluation of various dimensionsof retailer attributes influences consumer-based retail brand equity, and in what way.


965


16/24

Respondents

Grocery

Clothing

Electronics

DIY

Furniture

Total

Consumersegment

Total

%

Total

%

Total

%

Total

%

Tota

l

%

Total

%

Lowinvolvedconsumers

157

26.2

289

48.2

3

67

61.2

394

65.7

293

48.8

1,500

50.0

Highinvolvedconsumers

443

73.8

311

51.8

2

33

38.8

206

34.3

307

51.2

1,500

50.0

Table VI.Distribution of low andhigh involved consumersin the five retail sectors

IJRDM37,11

966


17/24

On the one hand, this creates an awareness in general of the relevance of storeattributes in building a strong retail brand, and on the other hand it is shown that notonly one, but also several instruments should be taken into account in explaining retailbrand equity. It was not the aim of the present study to break building of a retail branddown to the level of an individual sector or firm; the objective was rather to identifycommon dimensions of retailer attributes applying intersectorally and which have animpact on retail brand equity. Retailers service quality seems to be of highestimportance, but also the considerable influence of the price and store design have to behighlighted. It underlines the fact that the price, which is often the dominant factor inretailing, should not be overestimated for retailing in general and, in conformity withthe actual aims of several price leaders in various sectors in Germany, price should besupplemented by other attributes for positioning of a firm as a retail brand.

The main focus of the present study, however, was the role of involvement, which iswhy the most concrete implications were obtained in this respect. Here, too, themanagerial implications are first of all to create an awareness of the importance ofinvolvement, be this in their own sector (from the customers perspective) and above allto establish their own firm as a strong retail brand. As indicated, the studies conductedso far were only able to assume a difference in perception or in processing ofinformation by customers with low and high involvement. Based on H2, the followingdiscussion focuses on the perceived dimensions of retailer attributes. All in all, it can beconcluded that service and assortment have a greater effect on retail brand equity inthe customer group with low involvement and that price/value ratio, communicationand store design are the dimensions with a higher effect on retail brand equity for

consumers with high involvement. It has to be noted that these differences are notsignificant. The following explanations can be provided for the individual findingsbased on the preceding discussion of the results of other studies.

The influence of service is significantly greater for customers with low involvementthan for highly involved customers. There is a plausible reason for this: consumerswith high involvement are presumably informed on the product beforehand (Maoz andTybout, 2002; Park et al., 2007) and thus, do not have to rely entirely on service andadvice from sales personnel. In addition, other studies have shown that it is the salespersonnel and the perceived service quality they provide in sales situations with low

Consumer segment

Low-involvementconsumers(n 1,500)

High-involvementconsumers(n 1,500) x2-Difference

SMC (retail brand equity) 0.593 0.609g11 (Service! retail brand equity) 0.344 * * 0.272 * * 5,967 *

g21 (Value/price! retail brand equity) 0.262 * * 0.308 * * 3,301ns

g31 (Advertising! retail brand equity) 0.129 * * 0.173 * * 3,371ns

g41 (Assortment! retail brand equity) 0.164 * * 0.104 * 4,209 *

g51 (Store design! retail brand equity) 0.219 * * 0.257 * * 3,129ns

Notes: *p , 0.05; * *p , 0.01; ns, not significant; GFI 0.939; AGFI 0.920; NFI 0.932;TLI 0.926; CFI 0.944; RMSEA 0.037; x2-difference, the difference in parameters between thetwo groups is inferred from the difference in model fit when comparing a model with the parametersconstrained to be equal versus a model in which they are allowed to differ

Table VII.Influence of the perceived

dimensions of retailerattributes on retail brand

equity in differentconsumer segments

formed according to levelof involvement


967


18/24

involvement that have an important influence on evaluation of a retail firm. This caneven go to such lengths that the outward appearance of the personnel, as an indicatorof reliability and competence, influences purchasing behaviour (as demonstrated byShao et al., 2004); particularly for customers with low involvement.

Similar conclusions can be drawn for assortment, which has also been verified ashaving stronger effects in the consumer group with low involvement. On the otherhand, well-informed customers do not appear to require a particularly wide assortmentbecause they have already formed an opinion on the basis of the various informationthey have gathered and thus, do not need a particularly large selection. This finding,however, should certainly be subjected to future discussion.

Closely related to this topic is the considerable importance of store design forconsumers with high involvement. Based on the assumption that, due to their greaterinterest, these consumers have already gained an overview in the so-calledpre-purchase phase and formed an opinion, it is important for consumers with highinvolvement to be able to find their way around a store relatively quickly so that theycan locate the desired articles quickly and easily. On the other hand, consumers withhigh involvement are more receptive to stimuli and information from the storeenvironment. This would also be an exciting topic for more detailed investigation,bearing in mind the many studies on in-store management (Turley and Chebat, 2002).

The stronger effect relationship between price/value ratio and retail brand equityfound in consumers with high involvement can be explained without doubt by the factthat high-involvement customers have more precise information and conceptions andcan also assess the price/value ratio more objectively (i.e. whether a price reflects the

value of products) than consumers with low involvement. As mentioned before,involved consumers value the product more, engage in more product-related activitiesand have a better knowledge of product attributes and prices (Chandrashekaran andGrewal, 2003; Richins and Bloch, 1986). Thus, the high-involvement customers areinfluenced more easily by a positively perceived price/value ratio than customers withlow involvement, who may not even be directly aware that a price is attractive.

The greater importance of communication policy in relation to consumers with highinvolvement can be explained by the communication indicators of the respective retailfirm, the content of which is formulated in relatively concrete terms. If involvement ishigher, customers take more notice of the retail firms communications and can thusform an opinion more easily (Chandrashekaran and Grewal, 2003). On the other hand,customers with low involvement only perceive a firms communications subliminallyor to a limited extent because, for example, they are less interested in the retailer or theretail sector concerned and what it has to offer.

These types of consideration can be applied when building a retail brand. All in all,the results discussed show that consumer involvement has a moderating influence onthe effect relation between individual perception of retailer brand attributes and retailbrand equity, as was expected in view of the central role of involvement as anantecedent for consumer behaviour in general. At the same time, however, it wasshown for the first time for retailing in general that different attributes are relevant toretail brand equity, depending on the level of involvement.

Of course, the present study is limited in some aspects. A sector-specific view oreven an analysis specific to a particular firm would be more meaningful for itsmanagement and would also allow precise conclusions to be drawn for retailing sectors

IJRDM37,11

968


19/24

and individual firms. On the other hand, covering several sectors in the present studyenabled the authors to generalise their observations to a certain extent. It wasmethodologically important to check the constructs for measuring invariance acrossthe five retail sectors. Furthermore, the fact that the analysis was restricted to a singlecity has obvious disadvantages. Nevertheless, the main level of competition in retailingis still found locally or specific to a location.

References

Aaker, D. (1991), Managing Brand Equity, The Free Press, New York, NY.Ailawadi, K. and Keller, K. (2004), Understanding retail branding: conceptual insights and

research priorities, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 80 No. 4, pp. 331-42.

Amine, A. and Cadenat, S. (2003), Efficient retailer assortment: a consumer choice evaluationperspective, Journal of Retailing & Distribution Management, Vol. 31 No. 10, pp. 486-97.

Bagozzi, R.P. (1978), The construct validity of the affective, behavioural, and cognitivecomponents of attitude by analysis of covariance structures, Multivariate BehaviouralResearch, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 9-31.

Barich, H. and Srinivasan, V. (1993), Prioritizing marketing image goals under resourceconstraints, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 35, pp. 69-76.

Beatty, S.E. and Talpade, S. (1994), Adolescent influence in family decision making: areplication with extention, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 332-41.

Beatty, S.E., Kahle, L. and Homer, P. (1988), The involvement-commitment model: theory and

implications, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 149-67.Bell, J., Gilbert, D. and Lockwood, A. (1997), Service quality in food retailing operations: a

critical incident analysis, International Review of Retail, Distribution & ConsumerResearch, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 405-23.

Berens, G., van Riel, C.B.M. and van Bruggen, G.H. (2005), Corporate associations and consumerproduct responses: the moderating role of corporate brand dominance, Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 69 No. 3, pp. 35-48.

Bergkvist, L. and Rossiter, J.R. (2007), The predictive validity of multiple-item versussingle-item measures of the same constructs, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 44 No. 3,pp. 175-84.

Berry, L. (1969), The components of department store image: theoretical and empiricalanalysis, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 45, pp. 3-20.

Binkley, J.K. and Bejnarowicz, J. (2003), Consumer price awareness in food shopping: the case ofquantity surcharges, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 79 No. 1, pp. 27-35.

Birtwistle, G., Clarke, I. and Freathy, P. (1999), Store image in the UK fashion sector: consumerversus retailer perceptions, The International Review of Retail, Distribution & ConsumerResearch, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 1-16.

Bitner, M.J. (1990), Evaluating service encounters: the effects of physical surroundings andemployee response, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 69-82.

Bloch, P.H. and Richins, M.L. (1983), A theoretical model for the study of product importanceperceptions, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 69-81.

Bloemer, J. and de Ruyter, K. (1998), On the relationship between store image, store satisfactionand store loyalty, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 32 Nos 5/6, pp. 499-513.


969


20/24

Bloemer, J. and de Ruyter, K. (1999), Customer loyalty in high and low involvement servicesettings: the moderating impact of positive emotions, Journal of Marketing Management,Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 315-30.

Bolton, R., Grewal, D. and Levy, M. (2007), Six strategies for competing through service:an agenda for future research, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 83 No. 1, pp. 1-4.

Burnkrant, R.E. and Page, T. (1982), An examination of the convergent, discriminant, andpredictive validity of Fishbeins behavioural intention model, Journal of MarketingResearch, Vol. 19 No. 11, pp. 550-61.

Chandrashekaran, R. and Grewal, D. (2003), Assimilation of advertised reference prices:the moderating role of involvement, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 79 No. 1, pp. 53-62.

Cheung, G.W. and Rensvold, R.B. (2002), Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testingmeasurement invariance, Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 233-55.

Churchill, G.A. and Surprenant, C. (1982), An investigation into the determinants of customersatisfaction, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 64-73.

Craik, F.I.M. and Lockhart, R.S. (1972), Levels of processing: a framework for memory research,Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 671-84.

Darrow, A.L. and Kahl, D.R. (1982), A comparison of moderated regression techniquesconsidering strength of effect, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 35-47.

Davies, G. (1992), The two ways in which retailers can be brands, International Journal ofRetail & Distribution Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 24-34.

Doyle, P. (1990), Building successful brands: the strategic options, Journal of ConsumerMarketing, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 5-20.

Doyle, P. and Fenwick, I. (1974/1975), How store image affects shopping habits in grocery

chains, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 39-52.

Fisk, G. (1961/1962), A conceptual model for studying customer image, Journal of Retailing,Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 9-16.

Flynn, L.R. and Goldsmith, R.E. (1993), Application of the personal involvement inventory inmarketing, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 10, pp. 357-66.

Flynn, L.R., Goldsmith, R.E. and Eastman, J.K. (1996), Opinion leaders and opinion seekers:two new measurement scales, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 24 No. 2,pp. 137-47.

Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), Evaluating structural equitation models with unobservablevariables and measurement errors,Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.18 No. 2,pp.39-50.

Gardner, M.P., Mitchell, A.A. and Russo, J.E. (1978), Chronometric analysis: an introductionand application to low involvement perception of advertisements, in Hunt, H.K. (Ed.),Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 5, Association for Consumer Research, Ann Arbour,MI, pp. 581-9.

Gerrig, R. and Zimbardo, P. (2004), Psychology and Life, 17th ed., Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA.

Gotlieb, J.B., Schlachter, J.L. and St Louis, R.D. (1992), Consumer decision making, Psychology& Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 191-208.

Grewal, D., Levy, M. and Lehmann, D.R. (2004), Retail branding and customer loyalty:an overview, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 80 No. 4, pp. ix-xii.

Groeppel-Klein, A., Thelen, E. and Antretter, C. (1999), The impact of shopping motives on storeassessment, European Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 4, pp. 63-72.

Hartman, K. and Spiro, R. (2005), Recapturing store image in customer-based store equity:a construct conceptualisation, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58 No. 8, pp. 1112-20.

IJRDM37,11

970


21/24

Horn, J.L. and McArdle, J. (1992), A practical and theoretical guide to measurement invariancein aging research, Experimental Aging Research, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 117-44.

Houston, M. and Rothschild, M.C. (1978), Conceptual and methodological perspectives oninvolvement, in Jain, S.C. (Ed.), Research Frontiers in Marketing, Vol. 3, AmericanMarketing Association, Chicago, IL, pp. 184-7.

Iniesta, M.A. and Sanchez, M. (2002), Retail-consumer commitment and market segmentation,International Review of Retail, Distribution & Consumer Research, Vol.12 No. 3,pp.261-79.

Jaccard, J. and Wan, C.K. (1996), LISREL Approaches to Interaction Effects in MultipleRegression, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Jain, K. and Srinivasan, N. (1990), An empirical assessment of multiple operationalizations ofinvolvement, in Goldberg, M., Gorn, G. and Pollay, R. (Eds), Advances in ConsumerResearch, Vol. 17, Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 594-602.

Kapferer, J.-N. and Laurent, G. (1985), Consumers involvement profile: new empirical results,in Hirschman, E.C. and Holbrook, M.B. (Eds), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 12,Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 290-5.

Kasulis, J. and Lusch, R. (1981), Validating the retail store image concept, Journal of theAcademy of Marketing Science, Vol. 9, pp. 419-35.

Keller, K. (1993), Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity,Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 1-22.

Keller, K. (2003), Brand synthesis: the multidimensionality of brand knowledge, Journal ofConsumer Research, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 595-600.

Kent, T. (2003), 2D23D: management and design perspectives on retail branding, InternationalJournal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 31 Nos 2/3, pp. 131-42.

Kline, R.B. (1998), Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modelling, Guilford Press,New York, NY.

Koelemeijer, K. and Oppewal, H. (1999), Assessing the effects of assortment and ambience:a choice experimental approach, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 75 No. 3, pp. 319-45.

Krugmann, H.E. (1965), The measurement of advertising involvement, Public OpinionQuarterly, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 583-96.

Lassar, W., Mittal, B. and Sharma, A. (1995), Measuring customer-based brand equity, Journalof Consumer Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 11-19.

Lastovicka, J.L. and Gardner, D.M. (1979), Components of involvement, in Maloney, J.C.and Silverman, B. (Eds), Attitude Research Play for High Stakes, American MarketingAssociation, Chicago, IL, pp. 53-73.

Lindquist, J. (1974/1975), Meaning of image, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 29-38.

Luomala, H.T. (2003), Understanding how retail environments are perceived: a conceptualizationand a pilot study, International Review of Retail, Distribution & Consumer Research,Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 279-300.

McQuarrie, E.F. and Munson, M. (1986), The Zaichkowsky personal involvement inventory:modification and extension, in Anderson, P. and Wallendorf, M. (Eds), Advances inConsumer Research, Vol. 14, Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 36-40.

Malhotra, N. (1983), A threshold model of store choice, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 59 No. 2,pp. 3-21.

Maoz, E. and Tybout, A.M. (2002), The moderating role of involvement and differentiation in theevaluation of brand extensions, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 119-31.


971


22/24

Marks, R.B. (1976), Operationalizing the concept of store image, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 52No. 3, pp. 37-46.

Martineau, P. (1958), The personality of the retail store,Harvard Business Review, Vol. 36 No. 1,pp. 47-55.

Mazursky, D. and Jacoby, J. (1986), Exploring the development of store images, Journal ofRetailing, Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 145-65.

Miranda, M.J., Konya, L. and Havrila, I. (2005), Shoppers satisfaction levels are not the only keyto store loyalty, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 220-32.

Mitchell, A.A. (1979), Involvement: a potentially important mediator of consumer behaviour,in Wilkie, W. (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 6, Association of ConsumerResearch, Ann Arbor, MI, pp. 191-6.

Mittal, B. (1989), Measuring purchase-decision involvement, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 6No. 2, pp. 147-62.

Mittal, B. (1995), A comparative analysis of four scales of involvement, Psychology &Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 7, pp. 663-82.

Morschett, D., Swoboda, B. and Foscht, T. (2005), Perception of store attributes and overallattitude towards grocery retailers: the role of shopping motives, The International Reviewof Retail, Distribution & Consumer Research, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 423-47.

Morschett, D., Swoboda, B. and Schramm-Klein, H. (2006), Competitive strategies in retailing an investigation of the applicability of Porters framework for food retailers, Journal ofRetailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 275-87.

Muncy, J.A. and Hunt, S.D. (1984), Consumer involvement: definitional issues and researchdirections, in Kinnear, T.C. (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 11, Association

for Consumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 193-6.Neese, W.T. and Taylor, R.D. (1994), Verbal strategies for indirect comparative advertising,

Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 56-69.

Netemeyer, R.G., Krishnan, B., Pullig, C., Wang, G., Yagci, M., Dean, D., Ricks, J. and Wirth,F. (2004), Developing and validating measures of facets of customer-based brand equity,Journal of Business Research, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 209-24.

Oliver, R. (1999), Whence consumer loyalty?, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63 No. 4, pp. 33-44.

Oppewal, H. and Timmermans, T. (1997), Retailer self-perceived store image and competitiveposition, The International Review of Retail, Distribution & Consumer Research, Vol. 7No. 1, pp. 41-59.

Osman, Z. (1993), A conceptual model of retail image influences on loyalty patronagebehaviour, The International Review of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 21 No. 2,pp. 133-48.

Pan, Y. and Zinkhan, G.M. (2006), Determinants of retail patronage: a meta-analytical

perspective, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 82 No. 3, pp. 229-43.Pappu, R. and Quester, P. (2006), Does customers satisfaction lead to improves brand equity?

An empirical examination of two categories of retail brands, Journal of Product & BrandManagement, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 4-14.

Park, D.-H., Lee, J. and Han, I. (2007), The effect of on-line consumer reviews on consumerpurchasing intention: the moderating role of involvement, International Journal ofElectronic Commerce, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 125-48.

Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J.T. and Schumann, D. (1983), Central and peripheral routes to advertisingeffectiveness: the moderating role of involvement, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 10No. 2, pp. 135-46.

IJRDM37,11

972


23/24

Rajiv, S., Dutta, S. and Dhar, S.K. (2002), Asymmetric store positioning and promotionaladvertising strategies: theory and evidence, Marketing Science, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 74-96.

Ratchford, B. (1986), New insights about the FCB grid, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 27No. 4, pp. 24-38.

Richins, M.L. and Bloch, P.H. (1986), After the new wears off: the temporal context of productinvolvement, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 280-5.

Rinne, H. and Swinyard, W. (1995), Segmenting the discount store market: the domination of thedifficult discounter core, International Review of Retail, Distribution & ConsumerResearch, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 123-46.

Schramm-Klein, H., Swoboda, B. and Morschett, D. (2007), Relationship between retailenvironment and consumers product brand loyalty in vertical vs conventional retailchannels, AMA Summer Educators Conference Proceedings, Washington, DC, pp. 190-1.

Shao, C.Y., Baker, J. and Wagner, J.A. (2004), The effects of appropriateness of service contactpersonnel dress on customer expectation of service quality and purchase intention:the moderating influences of involvement and gender, Journal of Business Research,Vol. 57 No. 10, pp. 1164-76.

Sharma, S., Durand, R.M. and Gur-Arie, O. (1981), Identification and analysis of moderatorvariables, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 291-300.

Sheth, J. and Venkatesan, M. (1968), Risk-reduction processes in repetitive consumerbehaviour, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 307-11.

Slama, M.E. and Tashchian, A. (1985), Selected socio-economic and demographic characteristicsassociated with purchasing involvement, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 72-82.

Stassen, R., Mittelstaedt, J. and Mittelstaedt, R. (1999), Assortment overlap: its effect on

shopping patterns in a retail market when the distributions of prices and goods areknown, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 75 No. 3, pp. 371-86.

Steenkamp, J.-B. and Baumgartner, H. (1998), Assessing measurement invariance incross-national consumer research, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 78-90.

Steenkamp, J.-B. and Wedel, M. (1991), Segmenting retail markets on store image using aconsumer-based methodology, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 67 No. 3, pp. 300-20.

Suh, J.-C. and Yi, Y. (2006), When brand attitudes affect the customer satisfaction-loyaltyrelation: the moderating role of product involvement, Journal of Consumer Psychology,Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 145-55.

Swoboda, B., Haelsig, F., Morschett, D. and Schramm-Klein, H. (2007), An intersector analysis ofthe relevance of service in building a strong retail brand, Managing Service QualityJournal, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 428-48.

Teas, K. (1994), Retail services image measurement: an examination of the stability of anumerical comparative scale, International Review of Retail, Distribution & Consumer

Research, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 427-42.Turley, L. and Chebat, J.-C. (2002), Linking retail strategy, atmospheric design and shopping

behaviour, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 18 Nos 1/2, pp. 125-44.

van den Berg, R.J. and Lance, C.E. (2000), A review and synthesis of the measurementinvariance literature: suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizationalresearch, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 4-69.

Wallace, D.W., Giese, J.L. and Johnson, J.L. (2004), Customer retailer loyalty in the context ofmultiple channel strategies, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 80 No. 4, pp. 249-63.

Woodside, A., Frey, L. and Daly, R.T. (1989), Linking service quality, customer satisfaction, andbehavioral intention, Journal of Health Care Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 5-17.


973


24/24

Ye, G. and van Raaij, F.W. (2004), Brand equity: extending brand awareness and liking withsignal detection theory, Journal of Marketing Communications, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 95-114.

Yi, Y. and Jeon, H. (2003), Effects of loyalty programs on value perception, program loyalty,and brand loyalty, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science , Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 229-40.

Zaichkowsky, J.L. (1985), Measuring the involvement construct, Journal of Consumer Research,Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 341-52.

Further reading

Aaker, D. (1996), Building Strong Brands, The Free Press, New York, NY.

Corresponding authorBernhard Swoboda can be contacted at: [email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

IJRDM37,11

974

Documents

Moderating Role