Upload
others
View
5
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Jurnal EKSEKUTIF Volume 7 No. 3 Desember 2010
609
THE EFFECT OF ATTITUDINAL LOYALTY TOWARDS
BEHAVIORAL LOYALTY OF LIFEBUOY BAR SOAP CONSUMERS
IN SURABAYA
Iwan Soebioto
STIE IBMT Surabaya
Abstract : Brand that manages to bring a meaning impression on consumers are more likely to win a special
attention. In addition, consumers have a greater tendency to choose brands that gives them both pleasure
and utility value. The purpose of this research is to find out the stronger indicator of attitudinal loyalty and
the effect of attitudinal loyalty towards behavioral loyalty. This research is using confirmatory analysis in
which the aim to confirm the relationship between variables. Questionnaires were then distributed to people
who had used Lifebuoy bar soap for a maximum of past 6 months. Purposive sampling will be used in order
to provide a more realistic and reliable data. After collecting the data needed, SPSS 13.0 and AMOS 5.0 will
be used to aid in the interpretation of the result and findings. In addition, secondary data were also acquired
through the use of internet and finding related journals. In the findings, it is found out that the one who made
purchasing decision in buying Lifebuoy bar soap are female and they have an income of less than Rp.
1.000.000. As a result, it is discovered that brand affect is the stronger indicator of attitudinal loyalty of
Lifebuoy bar soap users in Surabaya. To add on, there is a positive relationship that attitude does lead to
behavioral loyalty.
Keywords: Brand Affect, Brand Trust, Attitudinal Loyalty, Behavioral Loyalty, Purposive sampling,
Confirmatory research, Lifebuoy
INTRODUCTION
In Indonesia, the cosmetics and toiletries market is predicted to grow more than
34 percent by 2011, according to Euromonitor (www.euromonitor.com). One of the key
drivers: an emerging consumer concern over appearance. For example, sales of anti-aging
products increased in value by more than 27 percent in 2006, and are expected to increase
by a total of 145 percent by 2011. (http://findarticles.com/p/articles /mi_m3374). In 2007,
the value growth was underpinned by improved purchasing power of consumers, a flurry
of new product launches, manufacturers’ advertising and promotional campaigns, and
increased product awareness. As economic conditions in the country saw stronger,
consumers demonstrated growing interest in products previously perceived as less
essential, such as fragrances, grooming products. It is predicted that in 2008, the cosmetic
Jurnal EKSEKUTIF Volume 7 No. 3 Desember 2010
610
and toiletries industry will grow at around 20%-40%.
(http://www.swa.co.id/sekunder/kolom/pemasaran/).
Essential toiletries products, namely hair care, bath and shower products and oral
hygiene, accounted for the bulk to cosmetics and toiletries value sales in Indonesia over the
review period. Indonesian consumers generally regard these products as basic necessities,
and thus the consumer bases, and the frequency of consumption, are huge in comparison
with less essential products. As demand for these products was already considered
saturated, manufacturers came up with product innovations such as new formulations with
value-added benefits, and novel packaging designs and formats to spice up growth and win
share.
In 2007, multinationals companies such as PT. Unilever Indonesia Tbk and
Procter and Gamble Home Products Indonesia continued to lead the way due to strong
brand images and huge marketing budgets. In addition, many Indonesian consumers tend
to prefer foreign brands, as these are generally considered to be of higher quality, and also
more reliable than offerings from domestic players. In light of the growing popularity of
cheaper local brands, there was a move by multinationals to prevent share loss by offering
cheaper products through price discounts and value-for-money offerings by bundling
products with free gifts and offering buy-one-get-one-free deal. Several multinationals also
widened their distribution coverage to reach traditional independent grocers.
One of PT. Unilever Indonesia’s oldest brands, Lifebuoy, has been sold in
countries across the world since the 1890’s. Throughout its history Lifebuoy soap has been
affordable to everyone, helping people to live with greater freedom from health problems.
In Indonesia, Lifebuoy has been well known for its brand's core promise of protection and
a commitment to support life through unbeatable protection. This brand image has been
formed for years in Indonesia.
In the aspect of the promotion strategy, Lifebuoy focuses on dimension of
sympathy and socially responsible, which proves efficient in driving its sales. For instance,
in Indonesia, Lifebuoy has been linked with a different but equally important healthcare
campaign. During the country’s economic crisis in the late 1990s, a substantial part of the
public healthcare infrastructure was affected due to lack of funding. As a result, some
20,000 health centers closed down. UNICEF, supported by sponsorship of $200,000 from
Unilever Indonesia, reopened 900 health centers in a pilot project. During 2000 the
Jurnal EKSEKUTIF Volume 7 No. 3 Desember 2010
611
company provided Lifebuoy branded healthcare leaflets, public service advertisements and
free samples of soap. (http://www. unilever.com)
Behavior has an effect towards purchasing decision. If they have a positive
behavior towards the brand, there is likelihood that consumers will purchase the same
brand over and over again. To conclude, Lifebuoy is still able to exist up till today is
because consumers have a positive behavior towards Lifebuoy, thus there is continuous
demand of the product. Evaluating this relation, thus this research will be focused on the
factor that influences the behavioral loyalty of consumers.
THEORY
Brand
Brands act as a distinctive factor that distinguishes one product from the other.
For example, consumers are no longer buying soap but choosing brands in the market i.e,
Lux, Biore, Lifebuoy and Dettol. Consumer sensitivity is the sensitivity. Producers of the
various soap brands can provide a detailed explanation on the differences of the brands.
Consumers see the differences in the package, logo, colour, even the shape of fonts used by
the brands. This is called consumer sensitivity. Thus, it is vital for producers to manage
their brand to make their products a success in the market. A highly, professionally
managed brand will attract customers, drive and stimulate them to buy, and even to buy
repeatedly.
Aaker (1991) states that brand should be considered as a soul. This statement
suggests that brands should not be viewed as a product or service, but as an organization,
person, or symbol that distinguishes them.
Brand Equity
Kotler and Armstrong (2004) define the meaning of brand equity as the positive
differential effect that knowing the brand name has on customer response to the product or
service. A similar definition by Aaker (1991) states that brand equity can be seen as the
outcome of putting together a brand’s values, responsibilities and resources with the
symbol and/or name. A brand’s responsibilities and resources, which are very important
for brand equity, may change in different situations. To see the changing factors more
easily, they can be divided into five classes (Aaker, 1991):
Jurnal EKSEKUTIF Volume 7 No. 3 Desember 2010
612
Brand Loyalty: People are bound to a brand which decreases the weakness to other
brands’ movement
Name awareness: A known brand has more chance to be selected and bought before
an unknown brand, just because of reliability and familiarity to the recognized brand.
Perceived quality: How a brand’s quality is seen by the customers. Good quality can
also mean higher price and a better gross margin.
Brand association: A symbol or character that symbolizes a specific brand.
Other proprietary bran assets: Something that discerns a specific brand from others:
patents, trademarks, etc.
These five factors are categories of brand equity and to add on, brand equity
provides value both to the company and the customers. Brand equity assets provide value
to the customers in the way that the assets can help them to interpret process and store
great quantities of information about products and brands. They also help the customers in
the buying decision in terms of perceived quality and familiarity with the brand.
Brand Loyalty
Brand loyalty has been defined in the literature as a repeat purchase that is a result
of a preference, attitude or market share. These differences in view are reflected in the
behaviouralist or cognitive schools of thought. In addition, more recent research has
introduced the affective component as an explicit element of brand loyalty, thus making
brand loyalty tri-partite construct containing affective, cognitive and behavioral aspects.
These three elements can be summarized as consisting of two key dimensions: attitudinal
and behavioral loyalty (Baldinger and Rubinson 1996). Attitude captures the affective and
cognitive aspects of brand loyalty, such as brand preference and commitment (Gremler and
Brown 1998). In contrast, behavioral brand loyalty is reflected in the observed repurchase
of a brand from a number of available brands (Ehrenberg 1988).
Aaker (1991) sees brand loyalty is categorized in 5 different levels and thus
grouping customers accordingly into a loyalty pyramid.
Jurnal EKSEKUTIF Volume 7 No. 3 Desember 2010
613
Figure 1 The loyalty Pyramid
Source: Aaker, David A. (1991)
Behavioral Loyalty
Behavioral loyalty is defined as consumers' repeat purchasing of a brand, which is
revealed through patterns of continued patronage and actual spending behaviors
(Hammond et al., 1996. (Uncles et al. 1998) reviews that there are several advantages such
as greater cost-effectiveness of retaining new customers compared with acquiring new
ones and the lower servicing costs for loyal consumers.
The measures for behavioral loyalty include purchasing frequency (i.e., Liljander
and Strandvik, 1993), proportion of purchases (i.e., Backman and Crompton, 1991),
purchase sequence (i.e., Kahn, Kalwani, and Morrison, 1986).
Attitudinal Loyalty
Attitudinal loyalty is an attitudinal predisposition consisting of commitment to a
brand and intention to repurchase the brand (Mellens et al., 1996). Attitudinal loyalty
focuses on the cognitive basis of loyalty and isolates purchases driven by a strong attitude
from purchases due to situational constraints. Brand loyalty for firms is therefore likely to
be characterized by the formation of attitudinal loyalty, which will be followed by the
display of behavioral loyalty.
Attitudinal loyalty is mainly operationalised as customer loyalty in terms of
customer preferences to a brand measured by: involvement (Patterson et al., 1997);
advocacy to others, referring to intention by word-of-mouth (WOM) and willingness to
Jurnal EKSEKUTIF Volume 7 No. 3 Desember 2010
614
recommend a brand (i.e., Zeithaml, Berry and Parasuraman, 1996); and tendency to resist
switching to an alternate brand (i.e., Crosby and Taylor, 1993), willingness to pay a
premium (Jacoby and Chestnut, 1978) and repeat purchase intention (i.e., Cronin and
Taylor, 1992).
Brand Trust
Brand trust refers to the consumer’s belief that the purchase of the brand is a safe
thing to do and not associated with risk (Chaudhuri and Holbrook 2001). (Chaudhuri &
Holbrook, 2001) further states that Brand trust will determine brand loyalty or consumer
commitment towards the brand because trust is potential in creating highly valued The
trust towards the brand will influence the intention to continue purchasing (attitudinal
loyalty) and stimulate the high attitudinal loyalty.
Components, which may seem distinct theoretically, may be detailed by
conceiving trust as a three-dimensional construct. Taking into account consumer interests
concurs with the idea of reciprocity, a fundamental factor in the paradigm of exchange,
defined as the moral obligation to give something in return for the good one has received
(Benevolence) (Smith-Ring and Van de Ven, 1992). Differentiating between the
presumption of capability and the presumption of honesty also makes it possible to
distinguish two sources of trust, one stemming from technical skills (Credibility) and the
other stemming from ethical proficiency (Integrity) (Landowski, 1989).
Brand Affect
“Brand affect is defined as a brand’s potential to elicit a positive emotional
response in the average consumer as a result of its use” (Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001).
In the relation between consumer loyalty and commitment, Dick & Basu (1994)
found that there is a relationship between loyalty and positive affect accepted by the
consumers. It is emphasized that brand loyalty will be even better if the brand is placed in a
positive emotional mood/affect. Brand affect uses indicators such as utilitarian and hedonic
value (Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001), quality and uniqueness (Keller, 2001).
Theoretical Framework
In this research, the will be using 4 latent variables and 15 observed variables.
Observed variables are the variables that are actually measured, such as manifested
performance on a particular test or the answers to specific item on a questionnaire.
Jurnal EKSEKUTIF Volume 7 No. 3 Desember 2010
615
Based on the theories stated above and its link towards the problem background,
the study proposed these hypotheses:
H1: The higher the benevolence, the higher is the brand trust of consumer towards
Lifebuoy bar soap
H2: The higher the credibility, the higher is the brand trust of consumer towards Lifebuoy
bar soap
H3: The higher the integrity, the higher is the brand trust of consumer towards Lifebuoy
bar soap
H4: The higher the utilitarianism, the higher the brand affect of consumer towards
Lifebuoy bar soap
H5: The higher the hedonism, the higher the brand affect of consumer towards Lifebuoy
bar soap
H6: The higher the uniqueness, the higher the brand affect of consumer towards Lifebuoy
bar soap
H7: The higher the quality, the higher the brand affect of consumer towards Lifebuoy bar
soap
H8: The higher the involvement, the higher the attitudinal loyalty of consumer towards
Lifebuoy bar soap
H9: The higher willingness to recommend, the higher the attitudinal loyalty of consumer
towards Lifebuoy bar soap
H10: The higher the resistance to switch, the higher the attitudinal loyalty of consumer
towards Lifebuoy bar soap
H11: The higher the willingness to pay a premium, the higher the attitudinal loyalty of
consumer towards Lifebuoy bar soap
H12: The higher the repurchase intention, the higher the attitudinal loyalty of consumer
towards Lifebuoy bar soap
H13: The higher the purchasing frequency, the higher the behavior loyalty of consumer
towards Lifebuoy bar soap
H14: The higher the proportion of purchase, the higher the behavior loyalty of consumer
towards Lifebuoy bar soap
H15: The higher the purchasing sequence, the higher the behavior loyalty of consumer
towards Lifebuoy bar soap
Jurnal EKSEKUTIF Volume 7 No. 3 Desember 2010
616
H16: The higher the brand trust, the higher the attitudinal loyalty of consumer towards
Lifebuoy bar soap
H17: The higher the brand affect, the higher the attitudinal loyalty of consumer towards
Lifebuoy bar soap
H18: The higher the attitudinal loyalty, the higher the behavior loyalty of consumer
towards Lifebuoy bar soap
RESEARCH METHODS
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) is used in this research paper, in which
several variables will be collected and tested in the form of hypothesis to find out which
variables that has a relationship with each other. It is a technique used to verify the factor
structure of a set of observed variables. The area of research is done in Surabaya only.
The questionnaires will be distributed to people who have used Lifebuoy in
Surabaya. Due to limited time of this study, the respondent must have used Lifebuoy
within a previous of 6 months period. To add on, the population must be the people who
make the purchasing decision in buying Lifebuoy bar soap. The segment will be the
working class people.
In this study, the research will use non probability purposive sampling. (Sekaran,
2003) mentioned that in non-probability sampling designs, the elements in the population
do not have any probabilities attached to their being chosen as sample subjects. In order to
be able to do a proper SEM analysis, Ferdinand (2006) states that the sample that is needed
to be analyzed is five times the total number of indicators. However, there is a need to add
an additional twenty – five respondents because the program, called AMOS 5, will need a
minimum data of 100 respondents if it is to be analyzed.
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
Company Profile
Unilever in Indonesia was established on 5th December 1933 as Lever’s
Zeepfabrieken NV in Batavia. The company’s name was later changed to PT Unilever
Indonesia Tbk. The company listed 15% of its shares on the Jakarta Stock Exchange and
Surabaya Stock Exchange following the approval from the Chairman of Capital Market
Supervisory Board (Bapepam) No.SI-009/PM/E/1981 on 16th November 1981. Unilever
Jurnal EKSEKUTIF Volume 7 No. 3 Desember 2010
617
Indonesia operates modern production facilities in two industrial areas. The Personal Care
and Toilet Soap plants are located in Rungkut, an industrial zone in Surabaya, East Java
occupying a land of 8.5 hectares. Whilst the NSD, Food, Liquid, Ice Cream and Home
Care factories are in Jababeka, Cikarang, West Java spreading in a total of 40 hectares of
land. Overall, PT. Unilever Indonesia is divided into three main divisions, which are Home
Care & Hygiene, Personal Care and Food & Ice cream.
Data Analysis and Result
After conducting the survey and methodology, analyzing of data given by
respondents will be carried out. To add on, the result of validity and reliability test will be
further discussed in this chapter as well.
Age
After collecting all of the data, the results shows that found out that the majority
of the respondents is between 18 – 25 years old, taking a 42% of the whole sample.
Secondly, the respondents that are between 26 – 35 years old are 36%, while 13% of the
sample consists of respondents in the age range of 36 – 45 years old. Moreover, 6% of the
respondents are between 46 – 55 years old. Lastly, the respondents that are 55 years old
and above stood at 3%.
Gender
After analyzing the gender classification of the respondents, the result shows that
from the 100 respondents that are using Lifebuoy, 68% of them are females, while the
other 32% of the respondents are male. This chart shows that female dominates the
respondents. In addition, it shows that it is female who tends to make the purchasing
decisions in buying daily needs.
Monthly Expense
After analyzing the Monthly Expense classification of the respondents, the result
shows that from the figure above, it is clear that majority of the people spend less than Rp.
1,000,000 a month (68%). For the respondents that spent Rp. 1,000,000 to Rp. 3,000,000,
they took up 31%. Last of all, 1% of the respondents had a monthly expense of Rp.
3,000,000 to Rp. 5,000,000.
Jurnal EKSEKUTIF Volume 7 No. 3 Desember 2010
618
Occupation
After analyzing the Monthly Expense classification of the respondents, the result
shows that the majority of the respondents were employees, taking up 69%. This shows
that most of the people who purchase Lifebuoy bar soap are employees. On the other hand,
15% of the respondents were students, followed by housewives at 10%. And lastly, 6%
claimed that they are business people.
Last Purchase
After analyzing the Last Purchase classification of the respondents, the result
shows that In the distribution of last purchase, 69% of the respondents stated that they
purchased Lifebuoy bar soap within less than a month. This is a strong indicator that they
are still able to answer the questions more accurately. For the respondents who bought
Lifebuoy bar soap within 1 month – 3 months, the data stood at 24%, and lastly, for the
respondents that bought Lifebuoy bar soap at 4 months – 6 months is 7%.
Validity Test
Validity test is conducted to measure the validity of the question that is given out
to 100 respondents.
Table 1. Validity Summary
Scale Mean
Validity Mean if Scale Corrected Item- Cronbach's
Item Variance if Total Alpha if Item
Deleted Item Deleted Correlation Deleted
Ben1 56.3300 63.658 0.255 0.911 YES
Ben2 55.9800 64.020 0.462 0.904 YES
Cred 55.9700 63.565 0.434 0.904 YES
Inter1 55.9400 64.340 0.420 0.904 YES
Inter2 56.0900 63.477 0.517 0.903 YES
Util 55.8600 63.172 0.479 0.903 YES
Hedo1 55.9700 62.696 0.515 0.902 YES
Hedo2 56.1800 61.280 0.632 0.900 YES
Hedo3 56.3100 59.974 0.614 0.900 YES
Uniq 56.0100 64.778 0.271 0.908 YES
Qual 56.0900 63.658 0.517 0.903 YES
Invol 56.1400 59.253 0.738 0.897 YES
Jurnal EKSEKUTIF Volume 7 No. 3 Desember 2010
619
\
Table 2 Validity Summary
Testing the validity of the data is very influential and vital in ensuring an accurate
research. To find the validity of the indicators, the Correlated Item – Total Correlation of
the respective indicators have to be higher than 0.195 (with N=100, r ≥ 0.195). As seen
from the two tables above, the 100 questionnaires that were given out were all valid, with
none being excluded. And to add on, all of the indicators have the value of higher than
0.195; this means that they are all valid.
Reliability Test
A good data have to be not only valid, but it must be reliable as well. The table
above shows that the Cronbach’s Alpa has a value of 0.906. The reliability test for each
variable can be considered reliable if the Cronbach Alpa is higher than 0.75. The closer
Cronbach’s Alpha ( ) is to 1, the higher the internal consistency of reliability. Thus, it can
Reco1 56.2900 61.137 0.657 0.899 YES
Reco2 56.1700 62.102 0.519 0.902 YES
Switch 56.3500 58.735 0.719 0.897 YES
Prem 56.4900 59.808 0.699 0.898 YES
Repur1 56.3000 58.798 0.708 0.897 YES
Repur2 56.0500 61.462 0.604 0.900 YES
Freq 56.0800 60.721 0.678 0.899 YES
Prop 56.2300 60.846 0.592 0.900 YES
Sequ 56.3700 61.872 0.362 0.909 YES
Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
0.906 21
N %
Valid 100 100.0
Excluded(a) 0 0.0
Total 100 100.0
Case Processing Summary
Cases
N %
Valid 100 100.0
Excluded(a) 0 0.0
Total 100 100.0
Case Processing Summary
Cases
Table 3. Reliability Table
Jurnal EKSEKUTIF Volume 7 No. 3 Desember 2010
620
be concluded that the data shown is reliable. This basically means that other people who
will fill in the questionnaire will also have a tendency to elicit the same response, as high
as 90.6%.
To sum up, by having a valid data, it means that the data is reliable enough to be
used further for the research.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Brand Trust
Brand Trust
Ben e1.40
Cred e2.55
Inter e3
.64
Using the program AMOS 5.0 and 5% of significance level, the result are as
shown. To test the hypothesis, the table output from AMOS above shows that all of the
three indicators, benevolence, credibility and integrity have significant effect to brand trust.
The indicators of brand trust have a P value of less than 0.05, thus it can be concluded that
they have a significant effect to brand trust. To sum up, the hypothesize of benevolence,
credibility and integrity to brand trust is therefore accepted
.
Estimate S.E. C.R. P Label
Ben <--- Brand Trust 1.000
Cred <--- Brand Trust 1.367 .594 2.301 .021
Inter <--- Brand Trust 1.156 .551 2.100 .036
Figure 2 Confirmatory Factor
Analysis Model of Brand
Trust
Table 4. Regression Weights of Brand Trust
Jurnal EKSEKUTIF Volume 7 No. 3 Desember 2010
621
Brand Affect
Brand Affect
Util e1.60
Hedo e2.77
Uniq e3.40
Qual e4
.59
Estimate S.E. C.R. P Label
Util <--- Brand Affect 1.000
Hedo <--- Brand Affect 1.160 .278 4.165 ***
Uniq <--- Brand Affect .710 .232 3.062 .002
Qual <--- Brand Affect .824 .200 4.113 ***
Using the program AMOS 5.0 and 5% of significance level, the result are as
shown. To test the hypothesis, the table output from AMOS above shows that all of the
four indicators, utilitarian, hedonism, uniqueness and quality have significant effect to
brand affect. The indicators of brand affect have a P value of less than 0.05, thus it can be
concluded that they have a significant effect to brand affect. To sum up, the hypothesize of
utilitarian, hedonism, uniqueness and quality to brand affect is therefore accepted.
Figure 3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Model of Brand Trust
Table 5. Regression Weights of
Brand Affect
Jurnal EKSEKUTIF Volume 7 No. 3 Desember 2010
622
Attitudinal Loyalty
Using the program AMOS 5.0 and 5% of significance level, the result are as
shown. To test the hypothesis, the table output from AMOS above shows that all of the
five indicators, involvement, willingness to recommend, willingness to switch, willingness
to pay a premium price and repurchase intention have significant effect to attitudinal
loyalty. The indicators of attitudinal loyalty have a P value of less than 0.05, thus it can be
concluded that they have a significant effect to attitudinal loyalty. To sum up, the
hypothesize of involvement, willingness to recommend, willngn willingness to switch,
willingness to pay a premium price and repurchase intention to attittudinal loyalty is
therefore accepted.
Behavioral Loyalty
Behavioral Loyalty
Freq e1.77
Prop e2.92
Sequ e3
.61
Estimate S.E. C.R. P Label
Util <--- Brand Affect 1.000
Hedo <--- Brand Affect 1.160 .278 4.165 ***
Uniq <--- Brand Affect .710 .232 3.062 .002
Qual <--- Brand Affect .824 .200 4.113 ***
Figure 4 Confirmatory Factor
Analysis Model of Attitudinal Affect
Attitudinal Loyalty
Invol e1
.72Reco e2.63
Switch e3.88
Prem e4
.87
Repur e5
.82
Table 6. Regression Weights of
Brand Affect
Figure 5 Confirmatory Factor
Analysis Model of Behavioral Loyalty
Jurnal EKSEKUTIF Volume 7 No. 3 Desember 2010
623
Using the program AMOS 5.0 and 5% of significance level, the result are as
shown. To test the hypothesis, the table output from AMOS above shows that all of the
three indicators, purchase frequency, proportion of purchase and purchase sequence have
significant effect to behavioral loyalty. The indicators of behavioral loyalty have a P value
of less than 0.05, thus it can be concluded that they have a significant effect to behavioral
loyalty. To sum up, the hypothesize of purchase frequency, proportion of purchase and
purchase sequence to behavioral loyalty is therefore accepted.
All Variables
Using the program AMOS 5.0, it is find out that using the significance level of 5%, all of
the P value of the various variables and indicators are all below the value of 0.05. Therefore, all of
them are valid.
Estimate S.E. C.R. P Label
Freq <--- Behavioral Loyalty 1.000
Prop <--- Behavioral Loyalty 1.327 .204 6.497 ***
Sequ <--- Behavioral Loyalty 1.131 .190 5.942 ***
Table 7. Regression Weights of
Behaviorall Loyalty
Brand Trust
Brand Affect
Behavioral Loyalty
Attitudinal LoyaltyInterE3
.63
Cred
E2.54
Ben
E1
.42
Freq
E15
Prop
E14
Sequ
E13
Qual
E7
Uniq
E6
HedoE5
.91
UtilE4.51
Invol E12
.74
RecoE11
.63
Switch
E10
.83
Prem
E9
Repur
E8
z1
z2
.84 .57
.82
.52.35
.82
.29
.73
.70
.84
Figure 6 Confirmatory Factor Analysis Model of All
Variables
Jurnal EKSEKUTIF Volume 7 No. 3 Desember 2010
624
From the table above, it can be analyzed that all of the variables are significant,
which means that they are correlated somehow. For brand trust, the strongest indicator is
integrity, valued at 0.630. This means that this indicator plays an important role in making
Lifebuoy to become a brand that consumer can trust. The second strongest indicator of
Estimate S.E. C.R. P Label
Attitudinal Loyalty <--- Brand Affect 1.490 .343 4.347 ***
Attitudinal Loyalty <--- Brand Trust .550 .253 2.173 .030
Behavioral Loyalty <--- Attitudinal Loyalty .716 .124 5.800 ***
Inter <--- Brand Trust 1.000
Cred <--- Brand Trust 1.178 .457 2.578 .010
Ben <--- Brand Trust .931 .380 2.450 .014
Freq <--- Behavioral Loyalty 1.000
Prop <--- Behavioral Loyalty 1.111 .137 8.130 ***
Sequ <--- Behavioral Loyalty .979 .176 5.573 ***
Qual <--- Brand Affect 1.000
Uniq <--- Brand Affect .869 .298 2.916 .004
Hedo <--- Brand Affect 1.910 .399 4.793 ***
Util <--- Brand Affect 1.171 .302 3.878 ***
Invol <--- Attitudinal Loyalty 1.000
Reco <--- Attitudinal Loyalty .670 .110 6.107 ***
Switch <--- Attitudinal Loyalty 1.203 .146 8.229 ***
Prem <--- Attitudinal Loyalty 1.078 .132 8.139 ***
Repur <--- Attitudinal Loyalty .955 .118 8.118 ***
Estimate
Attitudinal Loyalty <--- Brand Affect .732
Attitudinal Loyalty <--- Brand Trust .285
Behavioral Loyalty <--- Attitudinal Loyalty .699
Inter <--- Brand Trust .630
Cred <--- Brand Trust .540
Ben <--- Brand Trust .421
Qual <--- Brand Affect .516
Uniq <--- Brand Affect .348
Hedo <--- Brand Affect .910
Util <--- Brand Affect .508
Invol <--- Attitudinal Loyalty .742
Reco <--- Attitudinal Loyalty .627
Switch <--- Attitudinal Loyalty .830
Prem <--- Attitudinal Loyalty .821
Freq <--- Behavioral Loyalty .838
Prop <--- Behavioral Loyalty .841
Sequ <--- Behavioral Loyalty .568
Repur <--- Attitudinal Loyalty .819
Table 8. Regression Weights of All Variables
Table 9. Standardized Regression Weights of All
Variables
Jurnal EKSEKUTIF Volume 7 No. 3 Desember 2010
625
brand trust is credibility, having an estimate of 0.540. The weakest indicator is
benevolence. The result of 0.421.
For brand affect, it can be seen from the table that hedonic is the strongest and the
most influential indicator, valued at 0.910. This can be interpreted that when a consumer
buys a bar soap. The second indicator is quality, with a value of 0.516. The third indicator
is utilitarian, with a value of 0.508. The fourth and last indicator is uniqueness, with a
value of 0.348.
For attitudinal loyalty, it can be seen from the table above that willingness to
switch is the strongest and most influential indicator of attitudinal loyalty. With a value of
0.830, this shows that the more they are loyal, the less willing are them to switch to other
brands offering the same benefits. The second strongest indicator is willingness to pay a
premium price with a value of 0.821. The third indicator is repurchase intention, with a
value of 0.819. The next indicator is involvement, with a value of 0.742. The last and
weakest indicator is willingness to recommend, with a value of 0.627.
For behavioral loyalty, the strongest indicator is the proportion of purchase, with
the value of 0.841. This portrays that when a consumer is loyal to a brand in terms of
behavior, they tend to purchase a bigger portion of their favourite brand over others. The
second indicator is purchase frequency, with a value of 0.838. The last and weakest
indicator of behavioral loyalty is purchase sequence, with the value of 0.568.
For the next section, the correlation between the latent variables is explained and
analyzed. From the Table 8, it shows that all of the hypothesize of brand affect and brand
trust to attitudinal loyalty and attitudinal to behavioral is accepted. Looking from table 9, it
can be seen that brand affect plays a bigger part in driving attitudinal loyalty of consumers
using Lifebuoy bar soap. With a value of 0.732, To add on, the trust that Lifebuoy can
provide is still considered weak in driving consumer to be more loyal in terms of attitude.
With the value of 0.285, consumer still do not trust Lifebuoy to a certain extent.
Lastly, the table above also shows that there is a strong indication that attitude
drives the behavior of consumers. With the value of 0.699, it depicts that attitude of
consumers after using Lifebuoy can lead to behavioral action such as a bigger proportion
of purchase and a tendency to frequently purchasing Lifebuoy bar soap
Jurnal EKSEKUTIF Volume 7 No. 3 Desember 2010
626
CONCLUSION
The empirical finding suggests the following:
1. Attitudinal loyalty does have an effect to behavioral loyalty of consumers using
Lifebuoy bar soap. In this research paper, it gives a value of 0.699 which shows that
there is a positive relationship between attitudinal and behavioral loyalty. In other
words, with a person that has an attitudinal loyalty; it will be followed by his/her
behavioral actions. This result is the same as a statement made by Ajzen and Fishbein,
1991, where it states that attitudes predict subsequent behavior.
2. Brand affect has a greater influence that make consumer loyal in terms of their
attitudinal loyalty. Shown in the previous chapter, the value of 0.732 means that in the
eyes of the respondents, brand affect are important compared to brand trust. Indicators
such as hedonic value and quality play a bigger role in driving brand affect.
3. Brand trust, has a value of 0.285 proves that trust that Lifebuoy try to emphasize on
the consumer is still not yet the driving factor of attitudinal loyalty. Consumer
attitudes’ towards Lifebuoy bar soap is still not yet driven by the trust that they have in
Lifebuoy.
REFERENCE
A. S. C. Ehrenberg 1988, Repeat-Buying: Facts, Theory and Application, London: Charles
Griffin & Company Ltd.
Aaker, David A. 1991, Managing Brand Equity Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand
Name”, The Free Press, New York
Aaker, David A., V. Kumar, George S, Day 2007, Marketing Research 9th Edition, John
Wiley and Sons Inc
Ajzen Icek, Martin Fishbein, (1991), The theory of planned behavior. Org Behavior
Human Decision Processes, p. 179-211
Assael, Henry (1992), Consumer Behavior and Market Action 4th Edition, Boston,
Massachusetts
Jurnal EKSEKUTIF Volume 7 No. 3 Desember 2010
627
Augusty Ferdinand 2006, Metode Penelitian Manajemen, 2nd Edition, Badan Penerbit
Universitas Diponegoro
Babin, B. J., Darden, W. R., Griffin, M. (1994), Work and/or fun: Measuring hedonic and
utilitarian shopping value, Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 644-656
Backman, C. W., Crompton, J. L. 1991, The usefulness of selected variables for predicting
activity loyalty, Leisure Sciences 13, 205-220
Baier, A. C. 1986, Trust and antitrust, Ethics, p. 231-260
Bainbridge, Jane 1997, Who Wins the National Trust? Marketing, October 23th, 21-23.
Baldinger, A. L, and J Rubinson 1996, Brand Loyalty: The link between attitude and
behavior. Journal of Advertising Research, (November/December) 22-34
Belk, Russel W., Melanie Wallendorf and Jr. John F. Sherry 1989, "The Sacred and the
Profane in Consumer Behavior: Theodicy on the Odyssey," Journal of Consumer
Research, 16 (June), p.1-38
Bettman, J.R. 1979, “An Information Processing Theory of Consumer Choice”, Addison-
Weslep Reading, Massachusetts
Chaudhuri, Arjun & Holbrook, Morris B. 2001, “The Chain of Effect from Brand Trust
and Brand Affect to Brand Performance: The role of Brand Loyalty”, Journal of Marketing
Vol.65, p. 81-93
Cronin, J. J., Taylor, S. A. 1992, "Measuring service quality: a re-examination and
extension”, Journal of Marketing 56, 55-68
Crosby, L. A., Taylor, J. R. 1983, Psychological commitment and its effects on post-
decision Evaluations and preferences satiability among voters, Journal of Consumer
Research 9, 413-431
Dick, A. S. and Basu, K. 1994, Customer Loyalty: Toward an Integrated Conceptual
Framework, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22, p.99-113
Jurnal EKSEKUTIF Volume 7 No. 3 Desember 2010
628
East, Robert, Wendy Lomax, Sarah Todd, Phil Gendall, Janet Hoek, & Deborah Perkins
1999, Customer Loyalty across Time and Space, European Marketing Academy
Conference, Berlin
Eric Maiwald 2004, Fundamental of Network Security, McGraw-Hill Professional, p. 100
Gremler, D.D, and S.W Brown 1998, “Service loyalty: Antecedents, Components and
Outcomes.” Pp. 165-166 in American Marketing Association
Hammond Kathy, East Robert, Ehrenberg Andrew S.C 1996, Buying more and buying
longer: Concepts and Applications of Consumer Loyalty, London: London Business
School
Hirschman, E., Holbrook, M. B. 1982, Hedonic consumption: emerging concepts, methods
and propositions, Journal of Marketing, 46, p.92-101
Keller, Kevin Lane 2001, Building Customer – Based Brand Equity, Marketing
Management, p.15-19
Kotler, Philip and Armstrong, Gary (2004), Principles of Marketing 10th Edition, Pearson
Prentice Hall
Malhotra Naresh K.; Marketing Research. 1999.. An Applied Orientation; Prentice-Hall,
Inc., New Jersey, 3rd edition.
Malhotra, Naresh K. 1996, Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation 2nd Edition,
Georgia Institute of Technology, Prentice Hall International
Oliver, Richard L. 1999, Whence Customer Loyalty, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63, p. 33-
44
Patterson Paul G. Johnson Lester W, Spreng Richard A. 1997, “Modeling the determinants
of customer satisfaction for business-to-business professional services”, Academic Mark
Science