Examining The Moderating Role of Personality Traits in The Relationship Between Brand Trust and Brand Loyalty

Examining the moderating role of personality
traits in the relationship between brand trust

and brand loyalty
Choukri Menidjel
Abou Bekr Belkaid, Tlemcen, Algeria
Abderrezzak Benhabib
Department of Economics, Laboratory MECAS Tlemcen University, Tlemcan, Algeria, and
Anil Bilgihan
Department of Marketing, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida, USA
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this empirical study is to investigate both the relationships among brand satisfaction, trust and loyalty and the moderating
effects of personality traits, namely, consumer innovativeness, variety-seeking and relationship proneness, in the context of fast-moving consumer
goods.
Design/methodology/approach – Data were collected using a survey of 443 consumers. Structural equation modeling, specifically partial least
squares regression, was used to test the theoretical model.
Findings – The findings indicate that brand loyalty is the most affected (both directly and indirectly) by satisfaction through the mediation of brand
trust in both product categories studied. Moreover, variety-seeking behavior negatively moderates the relationship between brand trust and brand
loyalty for fruit juices.
Research limitations/implications – This research was conducted in the context of fast-moving consumer goods within a limited geographical
region. Future research could apply this model to different contexts and countries.
Practical implications – Companies that produce fast-moving consumer goods are advised to consider the important role of satisfaction in the
generation of trust, which leads to brand loyalty.
Originality/value – This study proposes and tests a theoretical model that is more comprehensive than the models used in previous studies because
it investigates the relationships among satisfaction, trust, loyalty and personality traits. It is the first attempt to examine the moderating effects of
consumer innovativeness, variety-seeking and relationship proneness on the relationship between brand trust and loyalty.
Keywords Partial least squares, Trust, Brand loyalty, Personality traits, Consumer satisfaction
Paper type Research paper
Introduction Trust is essential to building and maintaining long-term

relationships (Rousseau et al., 1998). As one of the most
The key objective of marketers is not only to satisfy customers
relevant antecedents of stable and collaborative relationships,
(Hess and Story, 2005) but also to develop and maintain
trust is a significant factor in determining customer loyalty and
enduring relationships with them (Elbedweihy et al., 2016).
is highly correlated with customer satisfaction (Lin and Wang,
Customer loyalty, which is central to marketing scholarship
2006). Previous research emphasizes the importance of
(Kandampully et al., 2015; Toufaily et al., 2013), is among the
understanding the nature of the relationship between
most important assets for a brand. The creation and
consumers and brands (Fournier, 1998). Similar to
maintenance of customer loyalty help brands develop
interpersonal relationships, specific characteristics of the two
long-term, mutually beneficial relationships with their
parties involved are important determinants of the nature of
customers (Pan et al., 2012). Loyal customers exhibit brand
the relationship. Several notable studies indicate that
attachment and commitment and are not attracted to
customer characteristics moderate the relationship between
competitors’ offerings; they are also willing to pay more. Thus,
satisfaction and behavioral outcomes (Baumann et al., 2005;
it is important for brands to have loyal customers
(Kandampully et al., 2015).
The authors would like to thank the editor and the three anonymous
reviewers for providing constructive comments. Choukri Menidjel would
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on like to thank Mourad Benabadji for providing help and inspiration.
Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/1061-0421.htm No external funding was received for this work.
Received 3 May 2016

Journal of Product & Brand Management Revised 11 October 2016
26/6 (2017) 631–649 19 March 2017
© Emerald Publishing Limited [ISSN 1061-0421] 23 March 2017
[DOI 10.1108/JPBM-05-2016-1163] Accepted 9 April 2017
631
Relationship between brand trust and brand loyalty Journal of Product & Brand Management
Choukri Menidjel, Abderrezzak Benhabib and Anil Bilgihan Volume 26 · Number 6 · 2017 · 631–649
Cooil et al., 2007; Henrique and de Matos, 2015; Homburg important to better explain the relationships between brand
and Giering, 2001; Mägi, 2003). Even if customers are satisfaction, brand trust and brand loyalty.
satisfied with a product’s performance and implicitly trust the The contribution of this study is threefold. First, this work
brand, relationships do not always form (Hess and Story, introduces and tests a model that investigates the nature of the
2005). Relationship formation is moderated by customer relationship among satisfaction, trust, loyalty and personality
attributes. In particular, personality traits are expected to traits; this model is more comprehensive than the models used
influence the relationship between brand trust and brand in previous studies. Second, this study is considered the first
loyalty because evidence indicates a nonlinear relationship attempt to examine the moderating effects of consumer
between personality characteristics and behavior (Perrewé and innovativeness, variety-seeking and relationship proneness on
Spector, 2002). Interestingly, Bove and Mitzifiris (2007) the relationship between brand trust and brand loyalty; thus,
suggest that personality traits do not directly affect trust and this study contributes to the existing literature by addressing
commitment; they call for future research to investigate the an important phenomenon. Third, this study empirically tests
potential interactive effects. the research model across two product categories, soft drinks
Personality traits have been investigated as antecedents of and fruit juices, and the findings may be applied to other
trust and loyalty (Bove and Mitzifiris, 2007; Lin, 2010). product categories. Previous research has tested potential
However, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, no research moderators in the durable goods context (Homburg and
has investigated personality traits as moderators of the Giering, 2001). The current research investigates a
relationship between these two constructs. Based on the comprehensive loyalty model in the fast-moving consumer
identification of this research gap, the present study aims to goods context. Fast-moving consumer goods are rapidly sold
investigate both the relationships between brand satisfaction, at relatively low cost. Because they are purchased more
brand trust and brand loyalty and the moderating role of frequently, customer loyalty is important in this context
personality traits. The moderating effects of personality traits (Dupre and Gruen, 2004). The subsequent section of this
have been empirically tested and validated by Adjei and Clark study presents the theoretical framework and hypotheses,
(2010), who suggest that the effect of relationship quality (i.e. followed by a description of the research methods and results.
relationship satisfaction, trust and commitment) on behavioral The paper concludes with a general discussion, managerial
loyalty is moderated by personality traits (i.e. consumer implications, limitations and directions for future research.
innovativeness, variety-seeking and relationship proneness).
Thus, the current study attempts to bridge this research gap Theoretical framework and hypothesis
and contribute to the existing literature by examining the development
moderating effects of personality traits – that is consumer
innovativeness, variety-seeking and relationship proneness – Brand loyalty
on the relationship between brand trust and brand loyalty. A substantial number of studies in the consumer– brand
If the findings indicate that personality traits exert an relationship literature have addressed brand loyalty (Dwivedi
important impact on this relationship, then marketers and et al., 2015; Ferreira and Coelho, 2015; Fetscherin et al.,
practitioners may need to segment their customers based on 2014; Lin et al., 2017; Lu and Xu, 2015; Marticotte et al.,
personality traits and offer them different benefits. In 2016; Molinillo et al., 2017; Odoom, 2016; Ruane and
summary, given the importance of customer loyalty, Wallace, 2015; Rubio et al., 2015; Su and Tong, 2015).
developing a brand marketing strategy that creates loyalty is Brands attempt to meet customer needs by providing special
important. Satisfaction (Sharifi and Esfidani, 2014) and trust and competitive benefits, which increase their loyalty (Quester
(Rousseau et al., 1998) are the key components of this and Lim, 2003). Brand loyalty is conceptualized and
relationship. However, it is important to consider that trust measured through two perspectives, that is, attitudinal and
and satisfaction are related to customer perceptions of value behavioral loyalty (Jacoby and Kyner, 1973). Behavioral
(Alejandro et al., 2011), which are moderated by personality loyalty refers to repeated purchases of the same brand,
traits. For example, variety-seeking behaviors cause whereas attitudinal loyalty refers to consumer intentions to
consumers to try different brands even though they may be continue to purchase the same brand (Pappu et al., 2005).
satisfied with a certain brand (Homburg and Giering, 2001). These two perspectives have been widely used by many
Variety-seeking is not only a psychological trait but also a researchers in the marketing literature (Hemsley-Brown and
relevant market characteristic that affects brand performance Alnawas, 2016). Thus, this study incorporates both attitudinal
(Berné et al., 2001). Furthermore, relationship proneness, a and behavioral aspects to measure brand loyalty.
personality trait that reflects a consumer’s relatively stable and
conscious tendency to engage in relationships with brands Relationship between brand satisfaction and brand
(Bloemer et al., 2003), is another personality trait relevant to loyalty
marketing research. Finally, consumer innovativeness, which Brand satisfaction, which is determined by comparing what
is the tendency to buy new products more often and more the consumer needs and expects from a brand and what he/she
quickly than other individuals (Midgley and Dowling, 1978), actually receives from the brand, is considered a key factor in
is expected to moderate customer loyalty. To date, the the development and maintenance of brand loyalty (Eskafi
moderating effects of the previously described personality et al., 2013; Wu et al., 2012). Consumers are satisfied when
traits have not been tested in a comprehensive model that also their perceptions of products or services meet their
includes trust as a potential mediator. Against this backdrop, expectations (Bloemer and Odekerken-Schroder, 2002;
developing a model that integrates potential moderators is Fandos-Roig et al., 2009).
632
Several definitions of customer satisfaction have been predictor of customer loyalty. Furthermore, the positive
proposed (Kim et al., 2007). The most widely accepted relationship between brand trust and brand loyalty is
definition of satisfaction is that of Oliver (1981, p. 27), who supported by Laroche et al. (2012). Moreover, studies indicate
defines it as “the summary psychological state resulting when the that trust mediates the relationship between satisfaction and
emotion surrounding disconfirmed expectations is coupled with the customer loyalty (Chen and Phou, 2013; Chen, 2012;
consumer’s prior feelings about the consumption experience”. Shin et al., 2013). Castañeda (2011) indicates that trust is an
Accordingly, Oliver (1981) indicates that consumers may important factor in explaining the relationship between
experience three situations after trying a specific product or satisfaction and loyalty. Thus, the following hypothesis is
brand: presented:
1 positive disconfirmation, which occurs when consumers
believe that what they receive from the product or brand H2. Satisfaction has an indirect positive influence on loyalty
exceeds their expectations; through trust.
2 negative disconfirmation, which occurs when consumers
feel that what they receive from the product or brand falls Moderating effects of personality traits
below their expectations; and Observations focused on the relationships among trust,
3 confirmation, which occurs when consumers’ satisfaction and loyalty have emphasized the importance of
expectations match their perceptions of the brand. potential moderators (Aydin et al., 2005; Fang et al., 2014; Jin
et al., 2013; Schirmer et al., 2016; Veloutsou, 2015). Building
Thus, both positive disconfirmation and confirmation lead to customer loyalty depends on various factors (Reinartz et al.,
satisfaction, whereas negative disconfirmation leads to 2004). The personality traits of consumers, such as their
dissatisfaction. The direct and positive relationship between personal innovativeness, variety-seeking behaviors and
satisfaction and loyalty has been suggested by several studies relationship proneness, may affect the performance of
(Cheng et al., 2015; Herrera and Blanco, 2011; Kim et al., relationship marketing activities. Schiffman et al. (2013, p.
2015; Murray and Kline, 2015; Sharma, 2017; Yoo and Park, 110) define personality as “those inner psychological
2016). Moreover, if customers perceive that a company fulfills characteristics that both determine and reflect how an individual
the agreed conditions, they will feel satisfied and believe that responds to the environment”. Consumer personality is
this behavior will also continue in the future. Accordingly, considered one of the most important variables in the
their likelihood of developing a relationship with the company marketing literature because of its fundamental role in
will increase. The alternative brands in the market will explaining and understanding consumer behavior. A review of
simultaneously be less attractive. Therefore, satisfaction the consumer– brand relationship literature indicates that the
becomes a mechanism through which the customer personality traits of consumer innovativeness, variety-seeking
differentiates between companies and what they provide (Gounaris and Stathakopoulos, 2004; Ramirez and
(Casaló et al., 2008). Based on the arguments, the following Goldsmith, 2009) and relationship proneness have the
hypothesis is proposed: greatest influences on consumer relationships. This study
focuses on these personality traits as moderators of the trust–
H1. Satisfaction has a direct positive influence on loyalty. loyalty relationship. A brief discussion of each of the three
traits is subsequently provided.
Brand trust as a mediator of the satisfaction–loyalty
relationship Consumer innovativeness
The importance of trust has been proposed by many Consumer innovativeness is a key topic that has received
researchers in the marketing literature (Kesharwani and Bisht, substantial attention from marketing researchers (Bartels and
2012; Loureiro et al., 2014; Yannopoulou et al., 2011). Reinders, 2011; Hur et al., 2012; Kahn, 1998). As an
Researchers and practitioners have recognized the difficulty of important variable in marketing research, innovativeness is the
precisely defining the term trust; however, they agree on its predisposition to buy new and different products and brands
importance for customer relationships (Cowles, 1997). rather than remain with previous choices and consumer
Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001, p. 82) define brand trust as patterns (Roehrich, 2004). Consumer innovativeness is one of
“the willingness of the average consumer to rely on the ability of the three personality traits considered in this study.
brand to perform its stated function”. Brand trust is often Innovativeness is an innate trait in every consumer; however,
regarded as a main determinant of brand loyalty (Gómez and it appears at different levels for each individual (Hirschman,
Rubio, 2010) because it plays a critical role in building 1980). Some consumers have a strong tendency for
long-term relationships between consumers and their innovativeness, whereas other consumers have a lower
preferred brands (Bianchi et al., 2014). Several studies have tendency (Midgley and Dowling, 1978). Consumers who are
empirically demonstrated a strong and positive relationship highly innovative exhibit high rates of adoption of new
between satisfaction and trust, as well as between trust and products (Adjei and Clark, 2010; Foxall, 1995). The
customer loyalty (Kassim and Abdullah, 2010; Yap et al., consumer innovativeness trait may help marketers distinguish
2012). Liang and Wang (2007) indicate that customer innovators from non-innovators (Midgley and Dowling,
satisfaction is a good predictor of trust. In a 1978) and early adopters from late adopters (Xie, 2008).
business-to-business (B2B) context, Ramaseshan et al. (2013) Previous studies have focused on two types of consumer
suggest that trust has a strong positive impact on customer innovativeness: global innovativeness and domain-specific
loyalty. This result is consistent with the findings of Phan and innovativeness (Chao et al., 2013; Hirunyawipada and
Ghantous (2013), who suggest that brand trust is a strong Paswan, 2006; Kaushik and Rahman, 2014). Global or innate
633
innovativeness is defined as “the degree to which an individual frequently been investigated in the product category domain.
makes innovation decisions independently of the communicated Similarly, this study investigates the effect of consumer
experience of others” (Midgley and Dowling, 1978, p. 235), relationship proneness in the context of fast-moving consumer
whereas domain-specific innovativeness is defined as “the goods, that is soft drinks and fruit juices. Based on the
predisposition to learn about and adopt new products in a specific previously described arguments, relationship proneness is
domain” (Goldsmith and Hofacker, 1991, p. 219). In general, expected to moderate the relationship between brand trust
researchers support the use of domain-specific innovativeness and brand loyalty.
to measure consumer innovativeness (Kaushik and Rahman, The direct link between personality traits and relationship
2014). variables, such as satisfaction, trust, commitment and loyalty,
is the subject of numerous studies (Odekerken-Schröder et al.,
Variety-seeking 2003; Parish and Holloway, 2010; Vázquez-Carrasco and
The concept of variety-seeking has been widely investigated in Foxall, 2006). However, few empirical studies have addressed
marketing research (Desai and Trivedi, 2014; Kahn, 1998; the moderating effect of consumer personality on both the
Tuu and Olsen, 2013), particularly within the domain of relationship between perceived relationship investment and
consumer goods, especially supermarket goods (Kahn, 1995). relationship quality (satisfaction, trust and commitment) (De
The basic notion behind this concept is that under specific
Wulf et al., 2001) and the relationships among satisfaction,
conditions, individuals need variety in their lives (Homburg
image, value, credibility and loyalty (Hansen et al., 2013;
and Giering, 2001). The marketing literature has recently
Homburg and Giering, 2001). Moreover, to the best of the
affirmed the important role of variety-seeking in explaining
authors’ knowledge, no research has explicitly investigated the
consumer behavior (Hoyer and Ridgway, 1984), and this
concept is considered a key determinant of exploratory moderating effects of personality traits on the relationship
purchase behavior (Van Trijp et al., 1996). According to Bigné between brand trust and brand loyalty. Adjei and Clark
et al. (2009) and Hoyer and Ridgway (1984), variety-seeking (2010) suggest that the link between relationship quality (i.e.
is conceptualized as the desire to try new products or new satisfaction, trust and commitment) and behavioral loyalty is
brands or to switch among familiar products or brands. moderated by personality traits. More specifically, both
Woratschek and Horbel (2006) report that although consumer innovativeness and variety-seeking negatively
variety-seekers are not loyal customers, they contribute to interact with relationship quality. In contrast, relationship
improving brand reputation through positive word of mouth. proneness has a positive influence on the link between
Many marketing studies have been conducted to clarify the relationship quality and behavioral loyalty. Based on previous
nature of variety-seeking behavior. McAlister and Pessemier evidence, the effect of brand trust on brand loyalty is expected
(1982) distinguish two types of variety-seeking: direct and to be moderated by consumer innovativeness, variety-seeking
derived variety-seeking behavior. Direct variety-seeking and relationship proneness (Figure 1), which leads to the
behavior is an internal desire that motivates individuals to seek following three hypotheses:
change or novelty, whereas derived variety-seeking behavior is
the outcome of an individual’s exposure to external H3. Consumer innovativeness has a negative moderating
motivations, such as promotions. Homburg and Giering effect on the relationship between brand trust and
(2001) indicate that variety-seeking is intrinsically motivated, brand loyalty.
which indicates that variety-seekers switch from one brand to
another brand because of intrinsic motivation (a desire for H4. Variety-seeking has a negative moderating effect on the
variety). However, several consumer behavior studies have relationship between brand trust and brand loyalty.
focused on the behavioral side of variety-seeking instead of the
psychological side. To address this research gap, the current H5. Relationship proneness has a positive moderating effect
study focuses on variety-seeking behavior as a personality trait. on the relationship between brand trust and brand
loyalty.
Relationship proneness
Relationship proneness is a consumer’s tendency to engage in
a long-term relationship with a specific brand (De Wulf et al.,
2001). Consumer relationship proneness is considered a
Figure 1 Conceptual framework
personality trait (Odekerken-Schröder et al., 2003). A
relationship-prone consumer is more likely to develop and
CI
maintain a successful relationship with a specific product or Trust
brand (De Wulf et al., 2001). Most relationship-prone H3: b2
VS
consumers are proactive when they feel that the brand exerts RP
a H4: b3
efforts to develop relationships (Bloemer and b1
H2: SėTėL = ab1 H5: b4
Odekerken-Schroder, 2002). Adjei and Clark (2010) note that
relationship-prone consumers do not seek ordinary
Satisfaction Loyalty
relationships with firms or brands; instead, they seek to H1: c’
substantially strengthen these relationships by increasing their
CI: Consumer Innovativeness
purchasing levels. In addition, Bloemer et al. (2003) indicate VS: Variety-Seeking
that the personality trait of relationship proneness has RP: Relationship Proneness
634
Methods The final questionnaire was categorized into three major

sections. The first section briefly introduced the purpose of the
Sample and data collection study. The participants were instructed to complete the
The data were collected through a self-administered questionnaire, were promised that it would take no longer
questionnaire between November 2014 and March 2015 in than 15 min of their time, and were thanked for their
Tlemcen, a city of 950,000 inhabitants in the northwestern participation. Details regarding the authors were also
region of Algeria. The sampling frame of the study included all provided. The second section included 27 items related to the
consumers 15 years and older. The participants were real six research constructs, namely, satisfaction, trust, loyalty,
consumers who reported their consumption experiences consumer innovativeness, variety-seeking and relationship
within fast-moving consumer goods, that is, soft drinks and proneness. All research variables were measured using
fruit juices. These two categories were selected because they multiple-item scales adopted from previous studies, with only
are frequently purchased and because most consumers are minor changes to the wording to tailor them to the target
familiar with the brands. Soft drinks and fruit juices are context. The participants were instructed to first rank the
accessible in nearly every city, town and village, as well as ships three brands described in each product category in order of
and aircraft (Ashurst, 2016), which creates a suitable context preference. They were subsequently instructed to answer the
to investigate fast-moving consumer goods. Soft drinks and same 27 items for each of the two product categories using a
fruit juices appear to belong to similar product categories; five-point Likert-type scale that ranged from “⫹2” (strongly
however, they are competitors at a higher level. Companies agree) to “-2” (strongly disagree). The final section assessed
use several different brands for each category; within each demographic information, such as gender, age, marital status,
category, brands compete heavily (Olsen et al., 2013) because education and quantity consumed. The demographic
their choice criteria, preferences and consumer profiles are questions were provided at the end of the questionnaire to
different. Therefore, an examination of the model across these ensure that the participants completed the other questions
two product categories is important. These two categories (i.e. before completing private or personal questions (Rowley,
soft drinks and fruit juices) are represented by several brands 2014). Prior to the distribution of the questionnaires, a pretest
in the consumer goods market (Narayana and Markin, 1975). was conducted with 30 participants in December 2014 to test
A short survey was conducted in November 2014 to and revise the questionnaire, improve the scale items and
determine the common brands that consumers most often reduce item ambiguity (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Following the
considered buying[1]. The questionnaire included two pretest, two questions were added, and the wording of specific
sections. The first section contained two items repeated for items was improved. When the questionnaire was finalized,
each of the two product categories. These items were adapted potential participants were randomly approached in shopping
from Narayana and Markin (1975) to measure the awareness streets, asked to participate in a brief survey if they drank soft
set and the evoked set[2]. A sample of 50 participants was drinks and fruit juices, and informed that the purpose of the
instructed to list: survey was to understand their attitudes and behaviors toward
● the names of all brands of which they were aware; and both product categories. Individuals who agreed to participate
● the names of brands that they considered buying. were instructed to rank the three brands described in the
questionnaire for each product category from 1 to 3 according
The second section of the questionnaire comprised
to their preferences and then to answer the questions with
demographic questions. The results indicated that the number
respect to their first-ranked brand. The participants were
of brands of which consumers were aware ranged from 3 to 12 requested to select one of the three brands for two reasons.
and 1-8 for soft drinks and fruit juices, respectively. Similarly, First, these brands are popular and available in the Algerian
the number of brands that consumers considered buying markets, enabling researchers to identify a sufficient number
ranged from 1 to 6 for both product categories (an average of of participants and thereby improving the response rate.
2.68 and 2.04 for soft drinks and fruit juices, respectively). Second, these brands are frequently purchased, and the use of
Wilkie and Farris (1975) indicate that for some product frequently purchased brands as stimuli is relatively common in
categories, the average size of the evoked set could be only two the literature, as loyalty is a predicted variable (Chinomona,
or three brands. Thus, this study adopted the three top brands 2016; Haryanto et al., 2016). To minimize common method
included in the evoked set for each product category (Table I). bias concerns, the participants were told that their responses
would be kept anonymous, were assured that there were no
Table I List of the three brands selected in each product category right or wrong answers and were encouraged to answer the
Brand Percentage (N ⴝ 50) questions accurately (Podsakoff et al., 2003). After completing
the questionnaire, each participant received a small gift, which
Soft drinks motivated them to respond and improved the response rate.
Coca-Cola 58
Five hundred thirty-seven questionnaires were distributed
Pepsi 50
to participants during the period between January and March
L’exquiseL’exquise 42
2015. Four hundred forty-three valid questionnaires were
Fruit juices collected, and 94 questionnaires were excluded because of
Ramy 66 missing important data, which resulted in a response rate of
Ifruit 30 82.49 per cent. To ensure that the sample was representative
Rouiba 18 of the general population in the city, participants were selected
with respect to demographic characteristics, that is gender and
635
age, in accordance with census data published in the Algeria scale was adapted from Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001). A
National Statistics Office (ONS, 2008). As suggested by Hair five-item scale was adapted from Goldsmith and Hofacker
et al. (2010), the minimum sample size required for structural (1991) to measure consumer innovativeness, whereas the
equation modeling (SEM) is 200; thus, the sample size used in variety-seeking construct was measured using seven items
this study was satisfactory. In addition, this study tested for adapted from Adjei and Clark (2010) and Manning et al.
non-response bias by comparing the demographic (1995). The relationship proneness construct was measured
characteristics of the sample (gender, age, marital status, using three items adapted from De Wulf et al. (2001)
education and quantity consumed) and the six research (Appendix). All items were measured using a 5-point
constructs (satisfaction, trust, loyalty, consumer Likert-type scale that ranged from “⫹2” (strongly agree) to
innovativeness, variety-seeking and relationship proneness) “-2” (strongly disagree). This study controlled for gender, age,
between early (n ⫽ 243) and late (n ⫽ 200) respondents marital status, education and quantity consumed.
(Armstrong and Overton, 1977). The results indicated that
there was no statistically significant difference in the means of Data analysis and results
the variables, with the exception of education ( p ⫽ 0.03),
SEM is one of the most commonly used methods in marketing
between the early and late respondents; thus, non-response
research (Baumgartner and Homburg, 1996; Chin et al.,
bias was not a serious problem in this study. The original
2008; Martínez-López et al., 2013), particularly for the
version of the questionnaire was prepared in English,
estimation of causal models and hypotheses (Ringle et al.,
translated into Arabic and French, and back-translated into
2013). SEM enables researchers to simultaneously test a set of
English. Table II presents the demographic characteristics of
interrelated hypotheses by estimating the relationships
the sample. An analysis of variance was conducted between
between multiple independent and dependent variables in a
soft drinks and fruit juices to determine whether the research
structural model (Gefen and Straub, 2000). Researchers have
constructs significantly differ across the two groups. The
distinguished between two major types of SEM:
results indicate that two of the six constructs (i.e. satisfaction
covariance-based SEM (CB-SEM), developed by Jöreskog
and trust) are significantly different between the two groups
(1978), and partial least squares SEM (PLS-SEM), developed
( p ⬍ 0.05).
by Wold (1974, 1980). Although CB-SEM and PLS-SEM are
different methods with different advantages, they are
Measures considered complementary statistical methods (Hair et al.,
The satisfaction construct was measured using four items 2012a; Sarstedt et al., 2014a). According to Hair et al. (2012a,
adapted from Kuikka and Laukkanen (2012). Four items were p. 312), CB-SEM is:
adapted from previous studies (Becerra and Badrinarayanan,
2013; Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001; Kuikka and [. . .] a confirmatory approach that focuses on the model’s theoretically
established relationships and aims at minimizing the difference between the
Laukkanen, 2012; Ruparelia et al., 2010) to measure the trust model-implied covariance matrix and the sample covariance matrix.
construct. To measure the brand loyalty construct, a four-item
In contrast to CB-SEM, PLS-SEM is viewed as “a
prediction-oriented variance-based approach that focuses on
Table II Demographic characteristics of the sample endogenous target constructs in the model and aims at maximizing
their explained variance (i.e. their R2 value)” (Hair et al., 2012a,
Characteristic Category Percentage (n ⴝ 443)
p. 312).
Gender Female 49.0 CB-SEM is considered a common traditional approach to
Male 51.0 estimate empirical research models; however, the
Age 15-25 37.2 popularity of the PLS-SEM approach has recently
26-35 26.6 increased in many disciplines, including (international)
36-45 19.2 marketing (Hair et al., 2012c; Henseler et al., 2009;
46-55 11.7 Reinartz et al., 2009), operations management (Peng and
56-65 4.7 Lai, 2012), group and organization research (Sosik et al.,
66 or older 0.5 2009), family business research (Sarstedt et al., 2014b),
Marital status Single 54.2 accounting (Lee et al., 2011), strategic human resource
Married 43.6 management (Becker et al., 2012), information systems
Other 2.3 (Chin et al., 2003; Ringle et al., 2012), strategic
Education Primary 3.6 management (Hair et al., 2012b; Hulland, 1999) and
Middle 9.3 tourism (do Valle and Assaker, 2016).
Secondary 14.7
Most researchers and practitioners are more familiar with
CB-SEM than PLS-SEM, which indicates that they must
University 71.6
justify their choice of PLS-SEM over CB-SEM (Chin,
Other 0.9
2010). Hair et al. (2011) indicate that researchers must
Quantity consumed per day choose between CB-SEM and PLS-SEM depending on
Soft drinks (%) Fruit juices(%) their study objectives. Therefore, this study focuses on the
1 glass or less 62.1 39.5 choice of PLS-SEM over CB-SEM for the following
Between 2 glasses and 1 L 35.2 54.0 reasons. First, the current data do not follow normal
More than 1 L 2.7 6.5 distributions. The skewness and kurtosis values fell outside
the recommended range from ⫺1 to 1 (Hair et al., 2014a).
636
In contrast to CB-SEM, PLS-SEM is a distribution-free Measurement model

assumption (Hair et al., 2012b; Hair et al., 2014b; Peng and This study examined the reliability and validity of the
Lai, 2012; Reinartz et al., 2009). Second, compared with measurement model (Chin, 2010; Hair et al., 2011).
CB-SEM, PLS-SEM performs better with complex models According to Hair et al. (2011), reliability and validity may be
(Chin et al., 2008; Lee et al., 2011), which include latent evaluated using four common criteria: individual item
constructs with a large number of indicators and complex reliability, construct reliability, convergent validity and
relationships. Third, PLS-SEM is the preferred approach discriminant validity. First, individual reflective item reliability
for research objectives to predict endogenous latent was evaluated by assessing the item loadings of the constructs.
variables (Chin and Dibbern, 2010; Hair et al., 2011; Sosik As a general rule, item loadings should be greater than the
et al., 2009), which is consistent with the study objective. recommended threshold of 0.7. Although most items exhibit
Finally, PLS-SEM has received substantial attention from loadings higher than 0.7, some items exhibit loadings between
marketing researchers in recent years (Rezaei, 2015; Wilden 0.44 and 0.7 (Table III). While this result may appear
and Gudergan, 2015). Based on this review, PLS-SEM problematic, Chin (2010) indicates that items with loadings of
appears to be the appropriate approach for this research. 0.5 or 0.6 can be acceptable under certain circumstances.
SmartPLS software (Ringle et al., 2005) was used in this Hulland (1999) reports that items with loadings less than 0.4
study to assess the measurement and structural models should be removed from the scales; however, in the current
(Anderson and Gerbing, 1988; Hulland, 1999). study, all items exhibit loadings higher than 0.4. Second, the
Table III Individual item reliability-individual item loadingsa, construct reliability and convergent validity coefficients
Soft drinks Fruit juices
Latent dimension Load CR AVE Load CR AVE
Satisfaction 0.896 0.683 0.930 0.769
S1 0.851 0.889
S2 0.859 0.871
S3 0.849 0.895
S4 0.743 0.851
Trust 0.923 0.750 0.929 0.766
T1 0.860 0.803
T2 0.847 0.905
T3 0.893 0.906
T4 0.864 0.882
Loyalty 0.854 0.595 0.884 0.657
L1 0.786 0.732
L2 0.742 0.873
L3 0.761 0.838
L4 0.796 0.793
Consumer innovativeness 0.846 0.533 0.862 0.570
CI1 0.835 0.585
CI2 0.589 0.923
CI3 0.507 0.846
CI4 0.880 0.863
CI5 0.768 0.444
Variety-seeking 0.921 0.627 0.920 0.623
VS1 0.765 0.765
VS2 0.771 0.744
VS3 0.860 0.804
VS4 0.748 0.809
VS5 0.801 0.778
VS6 0.763 0.826
VS7 0.826 0.795
Relationship proneness 0.893 0.736 0.907 0.766
RP1 0.853 0.908
RP2 0.904 0.821
RP3 0.813 0.895
Notes: Load: Loading; CR: Composite Reliability; AVE: Average Variance Extracted; a All loadings are significant at p ⬍ 0.001 (based on t(4999), two-
tailed test)
637
composite reliability (CR) was used to evaluate the construct (1988), the difference between the variance explained for the
reliability. The CRs for satisfaction, trust, loyalty, consumer main effects model and the interaction effects model may be
innovativeness, variety-seeking and relationship proneness used to determine the strength of the moderating effects (f2 ⫽
exceeded the minimum threshold of 0.7. Third, the average [R2 (Interaction effects model) – R2 (Main effects model)] 47
variance extracted (AVE) proposed by Fornell and Larcker [1 – R2 (Interaction effects model)]). Furthermore, effect sizes
(1981) was used to assess the convergent validity. The AVE of 0.02, 0.15 and 0.35 are small, medium and large,
for all constructs exceeded the minimum threshold of 0.5. respectively (Cohen, 1988). The redundancy (Q2), however,
Finally, the assessment of discriminant validity is a common is “an indicator of the model’s predictive relevance” (Hair et al.,
practical tool used in marketing (Dwivedi, 2015; Tournois, 2014a, p. 178). Q2 values greater than zero indicate that the
2015). Discriminant validity is used “to test whether a construct endogenous constructs have satisfactory predictive relevance.
is truly distinct from other constructs” (Xiong et al., 2015, p. 65). Goodness of fit (GoF) is proposed as a new criterion for PLS
Previous studies have primarily focused on the use of two (Tenenhaus et al., 2005) to assess how well the data fit the
traditional approaches – the Fornell-Larcker criterion and the research model. GoF is calculated as the geometric mean of
examination of cross-loadings – to evaluate discriminant the average communality (measurement model) and the
validity (Hair et al., 2011; Henseler et al., 2009). average R2 value (structural model), as described in Table V.
In a Monte Carlo simulation study, Henseler et al. (2015) GoF values equal to 0.1, 0.25 and 0.36 are considered small,
report that the Fornell-Larcker criterion and the examination medium and large, respectively (Wetzels et al., 2009).
of cross-loadings cannot help researchers detect a lack of To test the mediating effects, this research used the
discriminant validity in their measures. The authors propose a bootstrapping procedure and determined whether the indirect
novel approach, the heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) ratio of effect of satisfaction on loyalty via trust is significant. In this
correlations, to identify a lack of discriminant validity. case, the indirect effect of satisfaction on loyalty could be
Furthermore, they compare the HTMT criteria to the considered the product of a and b or ab, as presented in Figure
Fornell-Larcker criterion and the examination of 2 (Preacher and Hayes, 2004, 2008). The variance accounted
cross-loadings in marketing. Their findings indicate that the for (VAF ⫽ Indirect effect (ab)/Indirect effect (ab) ⫹ Direct
HTMT criteria are superior to traditional approaches used to effect (c’)) was calculated to assess the size of the mediating
identify a lack of discriminant validity. Consequently, the effect (Hair et al., 2014a). According to Hair et al. (2014a),
authors strongly recommend the use of the HTMT criteria to VAF values ⬍ 20 per cent, 20 per cent ⬍ VAF ⬍ 80 per cent
assess discriminant validity in PLS-SEM. This suggestion is and VAF ⬎ 80 per cent correspond to no mediation, partial
consistent with the work of Voorhees et al. (2015), who also mediation and full mediation, respectively. With respect to the
recommend the use of the HTMT technique with the moderating effects, the product indicator approach was
maximum threshold of 0.85 to evaluate discriminant validity. implemented in this study (Chin et al., 2003; Henseler and
Henseler et al. (2015) report that discriminant validity can Chin, 2010; Henseler and Fassott, 2010). Chin et al. (2003, p.
be evaluated in two ways using the HTMT criteria. First, the 211) propose that:
HTMT is used as a criterion by means of HTMT0.85 and In formulating and testing for interaction effects using PLS, one needs to
HTMT0.90. Second, the HTMT is used as a statistical test by follow a hierarchical process similar to that used in multiple regression in
means of HTMTinference. Accordingly, the HTMT criterion which one compares the results of two models (i.e. one with and one without
the interaction construct).
and HTMTinference were used in this study to examine the
discriminant validity. As indicated in Table IV, the values Thus, this study followed a hierarchical process to examine the
between the square brackets are different from 1, according to moderating effects of consumer innovativeness,
HTMTinference, and the values marked in bold are lower than variety-seeking and relationship proneness on the trust–loyalty
0.85 and 0.90, according to HTMT0.85 and HTMT0.90, link. As indicated in Table V, model 1 represents the main
respectively. As a result, discriminant validity is established for effects without the moderating variables. Model 2
both models in this study, according to HTMT0.85, incorporates both the main effects and moderating variables.
HTMT0.90 and HTMTinference.
The data were also assessed for common method bias using
Soft drinks
Harman’s single-factor test (Podsakoff et al., 2003). The
Table V presents the estimates of the path coefficients and the
results showed that the maximum variance explained by the
explained variances (R2) of the structural model. Model 1
single factor was 28.659 per cent, which indicates that no
indicates that satisfaction explains 46.2 per cent of the
single factor accounted for the majority of the variance. Thus,
variance in trust, whereas both satisfaction and trust explain
common method bias was not a significant problem in this
43.9 per cent of the variance in loyalty. The R2 values of 0.462
study.
and 0.439 may be considered weak to moderate. The study
results indicate that satisfaction (c’ ⫽ 0.278, t ⫽ 5.039, p ⬍
Structural model 0.001) and trust (b1⫽ 0.442, t ⫽ 8.332, p ⬍ 0.001) have
After assessment of the measurement model, the evaluation of significant effects on loyalty; thus, H1 is supported. In
the structural model should be the next step. Therefore, the addition, satisfaction significantly impacts trust (a ⫽ 0.680, t
variance explained (R2), path coefficient, effect size (f 2) and ⫽ 21.904, p ⬍ 0.001). The effect of trust on loyalty appears to
predictive relevance (Q2) were used to assess the structural be greater than the effect of satisfaction on loyalty. As the
model (Hair et al., 2011). A bootstrapping procedure (5000 levels of satisfaction and trust increase, customers are likely to
samples) was applied in this study to estimate, using t-values, be loyal to soft drink brands. Therefore, these constructs play
the significance of the path coefficients. According to Cohen an important role in the enhancement and development of
638
Table IV Discriminant validity coefficients
Construct Mean SD CA S T L CI VS RP
Soft Satisfaction 1.102 0.063 0.845
drinks Trust 0.680 0.033 0.889 0.776 [0.717;0.828]
Relationship between brand trust and brand loyalty
Choukri Menidjel, Abderrezzak Benhabib and Anil Bilgihan
Loyalty 0.600 0.215 0.774 0.706 [0.639;0.768] 0.743 [0.683;0.801]

Consumer innovativeness ⫺0.604 0.096 0.822 0.116 [0.025;0.207] 0.106 [0.012;0.197] 0.207 [0.108;0.302]
Variety-seeking ⫺0.554 0.069 0.902 0.146 [0.058;0.231] 0.141 [0.052;0.225] 0.201 [0.107;0.294] 0.709 [0.649;0.769]
Relationship proneness 0.247 0.068 0.819 0.428 [0.335;0.514] 0.502 [0.419;0.582] 0.568 [0.483;0.651] 0.115 [0.018;0.206] 0.291 [0.201;0.380]
639
Fruit Satisfaction 1.287 0.070 0.900
juices Trust 1.185 0.059 0.900 0.712 [0.642;0.779]
Loyalty 0.860 0.223 0.825 0.816 [0.768;0.861] 0.791 [0.737;0.844]
Consumer innovativeness ⫺0.500 0.066 0.838 0.091 [0.072;0.177] 0.081 [0.064;0.173] 0.166 [0.121;0.253]
Variety-seeking ⫺0.083 0.037 0.899 0.127 [0.071;0.223] 0.090 [0.057;0.177] 0.229 [0.144;0.321] 0.739 [0.681;0.794]
Relationship proneness 0.440 0.102 0.846 0.465 [0.382;0.545] 0.525 [0.445;0.603] 0.699 [0.626;0.768] 0.249 [0.176;0.341] 0.251 [0.155;0.346]
Notes: SD: Standard Deviation; CA: Cronbach’s Alpha; For adequate discriminant validity, the values between the square brackets should be different from 1, according to the HTMT (heterotrait-
monotrait ratio of correlations)inference, and the values marked in italics should be less than 0.85 and 0.90, according to the HTMT0.85 and HTMT0.90, respectively
Volume 26 · Number 6 · 2017 · 631–649
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Table V Structural model Figure 2 Structural model

Relationship Model 1 Model 2
H1: c
Satisfaction Loyalty
Soft drinks Direct effect
ⴱⴱⴱ ⴱⴱⴱ
H1: Satisfaction ¡ Loyalty ⫽ c’ 0.278 0.246
Satisfaction ¡ Trust ⫽ a 0.680ⴱⴱⴱ 0.680ⴱⴱⴱ (a)
Trust ¡ Loyalty ⫽ b1 0.442ⴱⴱⴱ 0.352ⴱⴱⴱ
Gender ¡ Loyalty 0.023ns
Trust
Age ¡ Loyalty ⫺0.030ns
Marital status ¡ Loyalty 0.092ⴱ
Education ¡ Loyalty ⫺0.013ns a b1
Quantity consumed ¡ Loyalty 0.002ns H2: SėTėL = ab1
Interaction effect
H3: CI ⫻ Trust ¡ Loyalty ⫽ b2 ⫺0.055ns Satisfaction
H1: c’
Loyalty
H4: VS ⫻ Trust ¡ Loyalty ⫽ b3 0.027ns
H5: RP x Trust ¡ Loyalty ⫽ b4 0.021ns (b)
R2
Loyalty 0.439 0.498
Trust
Trust 0.462 0.462
Average R2 0.480
Average communality 0.633 a b1
GoFa 0.551 H2: SėTėL = ab1
Fruit juices Direct effect
H1: Satisfaction ¡ Loyalty ⫽ c’ 0.459ⴱⴱⴱ 0.385ⴱⴱⴱ Satisfaction
H1: c’
Loyalty
Satisfaction ¡ Trust ⫽ a 0.642ⴱⴱⴱ 0.642ⴱⴱⴱ
Trust ¡ Loyalty ⫽ b1 0.387ⴱⴱⴱ 0.312ⴱⴱⴱ H3: b2
CI*Trust Control variables
Gender ¡ Loyalty 0.017ns • Gender
H4: b3
Age ¡ Loyalty 0.023ns CI: Consumer • Age
VS*Trust • Marital status
Marital status ¡ Loyalty 0.001ns Innovativeness H5: b4
VS: Variety-Seeking • Education
Education ¡ Loyalty 0.009ns RP: Relationship RP*Trust
• Quantity
consumed
Quantity consumed ¡ Loyalty ⫺0.031ns Proneness
Interaction effect (c)

H3: CI x Trust ¡ Loyalty ⫽ b2 0.033ns
H4: VS ⫻ Trust ¡ Loyalty ⫽ b3 ⫺0.113ⴱⴱ Notes: Model A. Total effect; Model B. Mediating effect;
H5: RP x Trust ¡ Loyalty ⫽ b4 0.027ns Model C. Mediating and moderating effects
R2
Loyalty 0.588 0.666
effect of satisfaction on loyalty via trust (ab1 ⫽ 0.238, t ⫽
Trust 0.412 0.412 6.429, p ⬍ 0.001). Satisfaction has a direct and statistically
Average R2 0.539 significant effect on loyalty when trust is not included as a
Average communality 0.670 mediator (c ⫽ 0.489, t ⫽ 11.703, p ⬍ 0.001). When trust is
GoFa 0.600 subsequently included as a mediating variable, the direct effect
Notes: CI: Consumer Innovativeness; VS: Variety-Seeking; RP: Relation- of satisfaction on loyalty decreases but remains significant
ship Proneness; a GoF ⫽ 公Communality ⫻ R2; ⴱⴱⴱ p ⬍ 0.001; ⴱⴱ p ⬍ (c’ ⫽ 0.251, t ⫽ 4.683, p ⬍ 0.001). The VAF, however, has a
0.01; ⴱ p ⬍ 0.05; nsnot significant (based on t(4999), one-tailed test) value of 0.457, which indicates partial mediation. Thus, it may
be concluded that trust has a partial mediating effect on the
relationship between satisfaction and loyalty, which supports
loyalty. The Q2 values indicate that the endogenous constructs H2. This conclusion suggests that high consumer satisfaction
of the main effects model (Q2trust ⫽ 0.342 ⬎ 0; Q2loyalty ⫽ leads to greater trust and that high trust leads to high customer
0.252 ⬎ 0) and the interaction effects model (Q2trust ⫽ loyalty. These results emphasize the important role of trust in
0.342 ⬎ 0; Q2loyalty ⫽ 0.280 ⬎ 0) have acceptable predictive explaining the nature of the relationship between satisfaction
relevance. The GoF value of 0.551 indicates a good fit of the and consumer loyalty. Model 2 tests the moderating effects of
full model, that is the interaction effects model, to the research consumer innovativeness, variety-seeking and relationship
data. With respect to the control variables, the results suggest proneness on the relationship between trust and loyalty. The
that gender, age, education and quantity consumed do not R2 value for loyalty is 0.498. The results indicate that the
have a significant effect on loyalty, whereas marital status moderating effects of consumer innovativeness (b2 ⫽ -0.055,
significantly affects loyalty (Table V). In addition, this study t ⫽ 1.082, n.s.), variety-seeking (b3 ⫽ 0.027, t ⫽ 0.490, n.s.)
demonstrates the mediating effect of trust on the relationship and relationship proneness (b4 ⫽ 0.021, t ⫽ 0.288, n.s.) on the
between satisfaction and loyalty. Therefore, to evaluate the relationship between trust and loyalty are not significant.
mediating effect of trust, Table VI shows a significant indirect Thus, H3, H4 and H5 are not supported. These findings
640
Table VI Mediating effects

Trust
Direct effect Indirect effect Total effect VAF (%)
ⴱⴱⴱ ⴱⴱⴱ ⴱⴱⴱ
Soft drinks Satisfaction ¡ Loyalty 0.251 0.238 0.489 45.68
Fruit juices Satisfaction ¡ Loyalty 0.403ⴱⴱⴱ 0.191ⴱⴱⴱ 0.594ⴱⴱⴱ 32.15
ⴱⴱⴱ
Notes: VAF: Variance accounted for; p ⬍ 0.001.
suggest that trust, regardless of the three personality traits, variety-seeking tend to remain and develop long-term
plays a vital role in explaining the relationship between relationships with the same brands (familiar brands). In
satisfaction and loyalty. Therefore, the enhancement of contrast, consumer innovativeness (b2 ⫽ 0.033, t ⫽ 0.944,
customer satisfaction leads to an increase in trust, which leads n.s.) and relationship proneness (b4 ⫽ 0.027, t ⫽ 0.949, n.s.)
to improvements in customer loyalty. have no moderating effects on the relationship between trust
and loyalty, which indicates that these variables are not
Fruit juices moderators of the trust–loyalty relationship. These results
As indicated in Table V, model 1 shows that trust and loyalty thus indicate that H4 is supported, whereas H3 and H5 are not
present R2 values of 0.412 and 0.588, respectively; thus, supported. The subsequent section discusses the managerial
satisfaction explains 41.2 per cent of the variance in trust, implications of these findings and concludes with limitations
whereas both satisfaction and trust explain 58.8 per cent of the and suggestions for future research.
variance in loyalty. R2 values of 0.412 and 0.588 are
considered weak to moderate and moderate to substantial,
Discussion and conclusions
respectively. Satisfaction was found to have a significant
positive effect on trust (a ⫽ 0.642, t ⫽ 15.833, p ⬍ 0.001) and General discussion
loyalty (c’ ⫽ 0.459, t ⫽ 9.896, p ⬍ 0.001), which supports H1. Most previous studies have neglected the moderating effects of
This result indicates that consumers with a higher level of personality traits on the relationship between satisfaction and
satisfaction exhibit greater trust in and loyalty to fruit juice loyalty. The aims of this study were to investigate the
brands. Trust has a significant positive effect on loyalty (b1 ⫽ mediating role of brand trust in the relationship between
0.387, t ⫽ 8.676, p ⬍ 0.001), which suggests that a higher brand satisfaction and brand loyalty and to examine the
level of trust leads to a higher level of customer loyalty. moderating effects of consumer innovativeness,
Customer satisfaction has a stronger influence on customer variety-seeking and relationship proneness on the relationship
loyalty than trust does. Thus, it appears that satisfaction and between brand trust and brand loyalty in the context of
trust are key factors that influence customer loyalty. The Q2 fast-moving consumer goods. Consistent with previous
values indicate that the endogenous constructs of the main studies, the findings of the two structural models confirm that
effects model (Q2trust ⫽ 0.312 ⬎ 0; Q2loyalty ⫽ 0.383 ⬎ 0) and consumer satisfaction significantly influences trust (Giovanis,
the interaction effects model (Q2trust ⫽ 0.312 ⬎ 0; Q2loyalty ⫽ 2016; Horppu et al., 2008; Lee et al., 2015; Paulssen et al.,
0.425 ⬎ 0) have acceptable predictive relevance. To evaluate 2014), that there is a significant positive link between trust and
the GoF of the structural model, the GoF value of 0.600 loyalty (Belaid and Behi, 2011; Lee and Jee, 2016; Mishra
indicates a good model fit with the research data (Table V). In et al., 2014; So et al., 2016; Veloutsou, 2015) and that
addition, the control variables (gender, age, marital status, satisfaction has a direct positive influence on loyalty (Çifci
education and quantity consumed) have nonsignificant effects et al., 2016; Drennan et al., 2015; Elsäßer and Wirtz, 2017;
on loyalty, as shown in Table V. H2 predicts that the Fatma et al., 2016; Khan et al., 2016; Popp and Woratschek,
relationship between satisfaction and loyalty is mediated by 2017). In addition, the mediating role of trust between
trust. As shown in Table VI, satisfaction has a significant satisfaction and loyalty is confirmed and consistent with the
indirect effect on loyalty via trust (ab1 ⫽ 0.191, t ⫽ 5.873, p ⬍ findings of Bove and Mitzifiris (2007). The strengths of the
0.001), and the VAF has a value of 0.321. These results relationships among satisfaction, trust and loyalty differ across
indicate that trust has a significant partial mediating effect on the two categories. The relationships between satisfaction and
the relationship between satisfaction and loyalty. Therefore, trust and between trust and loyalty are stronger for soft drinks
H2 is supported. Thus, satisfied consumers have a certain level than for fruit juices, whereas the relationship between
of trust that increases their loyalty to fruit juice brands. Model satisfaction and loyalty is stronger for fruit juices than for soft
2 tests the moderating effects of consumer innovativeness, drinks. In addition, the moderating effect of variety-seeking is
variety-seeking and relationship proneness. The R2 value of significant for fruit juices but not for soft drinks, perhaps
loyalty increased slightly from 0.657 to 0.666 following the because consumer perceptions of the characteristics of the
introduction of the moderating variables. Therefore, the product category differ across product categories (Van Trijp
moderating effect size presents a value of 0.027, which is et al., 1996). In contrast, the findings provide limited evidence
considered small. The results indicate that variety-seeking has of the moderating effects of consumer personality traits on the
a negative moderating effect on the relationship between trust relationship between trust and loyalty, as personality traits
and loyalty, with a path coefficient of ⫺0.113 (t ⫽ 3.070, p ⬍ may not play a decisive role in a low-involvement context.
0.01). More specifically, the influence of trust on loyalty Kassarjian (1981) indicates that product involvement may
decreases when variety-seeking increases. One potential interact with personality traits. When involvement is high,
explanation for this result is that consumers with a low level of personality traits appear to provide a significant explanation
641
for the consumer’s relationship with a brand in the retail consumer goods within a limited geographical region in
context (Odekerken-Schröder et al., 2003). In this study, Algeria, which may affect the generalizability of these findings.
consumers may have had little involvement because of the low Future research could apply this model to different contexts
price and lack of perceived importance of the product and countries. Moreover, the order of the questions may have
categories (Bove and Mitzifiris, 2007). Thus, contexts of low affected the respondents’ answers. Future research may be
involvement may not be sufficient to investigate the conducted to determine whether changes in the order of
moderating effects of consumer personality traits. Based on questions affect the study outcomes. Furthermore, this study
this discussion, the authors recommend the consideration of considers two antecedents of customer loyalty (i.e. satisfaction
consumer innovativeness, variety-seeking and relationship and trust). Future research could include other variables, such
proneness in high-involvement contexts. as commitment and attachment. Because current research
The findings of this study contribute to the current body of does not separate attitudinal and behavioral loyalty but rather
knowledge in the context of fast-moving consumer goods in addresses loyalty as a single construct, future research could
several ways. The results provide a better understanding of the examine the effect of satisfaction and trust on the two
determinants of brand loyalty. Satisfaction and trust are key components of loyalty. This study focuses on examining the
drivers of brand loyalty. Specifically, this study provides strong moderating effects of consumer innovativeness, variety-
evidence of the importance of trust as a mediator of the seeking and relationship proneness on the link between trust
relationship between satisfaction and loyalty. The results for and loyalty. Future research could examine the moderating
the interaction effect indicate that the strength of the trust– effects of these personality traits on both the relationship
loyalty relationship depends only on the level of between satisfaction and trust and that between satisfaction
variety-seeking for fruit juices. This finding may corroborate and loyalty. The use of consumer innovativeness,
the results of Bove and Mitzifiris (2007), who report that variety-seeking and relationship proneness as moderators may
personality traits do not appear to influence consumer trust or not be sufficient to understand the relationship between trust
consumer commitment in a low-involvement product and loyalty (e.g. for soft drinks). Future research could use
category context. Further research could replicate these other moderating variables, such as involvement and the
results across other product categories with different levels of length of the relationship, to provide a more comprehensive
involvement. understanding of the trust–loyalty relationship. Whereas this
research controls for gender, age, marital status, education
Managerial implications and quantity consumed, future research could include
This study has several implications for marketing managers. additional control variables, such as brand familiarity, brand
The findings indicate that satisfaction has direct and indirect attitudes, brand switching and involvement. Finally, this study
positive effects on customer loyalty through the mediation of focuses only on low-involvement products (i.e. soft drinks and
trust across both product categories. The relationship between fruit juices). Future research could also include
satisfaction and loyalty is better explained when trust is high-involvement products, such as sportswear clothing and
considered as a mediating variable. Thus, companies that cosmetics.
produce fast-moving consumer goods, such as soft drinks and
fruit juices, should consider the important role of satisfaction Notes
in the generation of trust, which subsequently leads to loyalty. 1 Frequently purchased brands were selected for this study
Such companies should invest in satisfaction programs to because personality traits may not be relevant to situations
increase consumer trust in their brands, thereby building that feature higher levels of impulse buying. Kollat and
brand loyalty. Gaining satisfaction, trust and loyalty is an Willett (1967) indicate that products (brands) with high
effective strategy for companies to build long-term purchase frequencies tend to have a relatively low
relationships with customers and create a sustained percentage of impulse purchases.
competitive advantage. In addition, the findings suggest that
2 The awareness set is a set of brands available on the
variety-seeking negatively moderates the positive relationship
market of which the consumer is aware; this set includes
between brand trust and brand loyalty for fruit juices. The
both the brands that the consumer would consider buying,
strength of the relationship between brand trust and brand
typically referred to as a consideration set or evoked set,
loyalty depends on the level of variety-seeking; this finding
and the brands that the consumer would not consider
suggests that if the level of variety-seeking increases, the
buying (Brown and Wildt, 1992; Roberts and Lattin,
strength of the relationship will decrease. Moreover,
1991). According to Brown and Wildt (1992) and Roberts
consumers who have a high level of variety-seeking tend to
and Lattin (1991), the purchase decision depends on the
switch between brands (Hoyer and Ridgway, 1984). They also
brands included in the evoked set.
tend to obtain information regarding new products and brands
(Manning et al., 1995). Therefore, companies should
frequently provide new brands and products as well as References
information regarding new brands to satisfy the need for Adjei, M.T. and Clark, M.N. (2010), “Relationship
variety and prevent switching behavior. marketing in A B2C context: the moderating role of
personality traits”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Limitations and future research Services, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 73-79.
This study has several limitations that should be noted. This Alejandro, T.B., Souza, D.V., Boles, J.S., Ribeiro, Á.H.P. and
research was conducted in the context of fast-moving Monteiro, P.R.R. (2011), “The outcome of company and
642
account manager relationship quality on loyalty, empirical study in a hairdresser’s context”, Journal of
relationship value and performance”, Industrial Marketing Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 231-240.
Management, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 36-43. Bove, L. and Mitzifiris, B. (2007), “Personality traits and the
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural process of store loyalty in a transactional prone context”,
equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 507-519.
two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, Brown, J.J. and Wildt, A.R. (1992), “Consideration set
pp. 411-423. measurement”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Armstrong, J.S. and Overton, T.S. (1977), “Estimating Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 235-243.
nonresponse bias in mail surveys”, Journal of Marketing Casaló, L.V., Flavián, C. and Guinalíu, M. (2008), “The role
Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 396-402. of satisfaction and website usability in developing customer
Ashurst, P.R. (2016), Chemistry and Technology of Soft Drinks loyalty and positive word-of-mouth in the e-banking
and Fruit Juices, John Wiley & Sons. services”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 26
Aydin, S., Özer, G. and Arasil, Ö. (2005), “Customer loyalty No. 6, pp. 399-417.
and the effect of switching costs as a moderator variable: a Castañeda, J.A. (2011), “Relationship between customer
case in the Turkish mobile phone market”, Marketing satisfaction and loyalty on the internet”, Journal of Business
Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 89-103. and Psychology, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 371-383.
Bartels, J. and Reinders, M.J. (2011), “Consumer Chao, C.W., Reid, M. and Mavondo, F. (2013), “Global
innovativeness and its correlates: a propositional inventory consumer innovativeness and consumer electronic product
for future research”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 64 adoption”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics,
No. 6, pp. 601-609. Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 614-630.
Baumann, C., Burton, S. and Elliott, G. (2005), Chaudhuri, A. and Holbrook, M.B. (2001), “The chain of
“Determinants of customer loyalty and share of wallet in effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand
retail banking”, Journal of Financial Services Marketing, performance: the role of brand loyalty”, Journal of
Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 231-248. Marketing, Vol. 65 No. 2, pp. 81-93.
Baumgartner, H. and Homburg, C. (1996), “Applications of
Chen, C.F. and Phou, S. (2013), “A closer look at
structural equation modeling in marketing and consumer
destination: image, personality, relationship and loyalty”,
research: a review”, International Journal of Research in
Tourism Management, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 269-278.
Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 139-161.
Chen, S.C. (2012), “The customer satisfaction–loyalty
Becerra, E. and Badrinarayanan, V. (2013), “The influence of
relation in an interactive e-service setting: the mediators”,
brand trust and brand identification on brand evangelism”,
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 19 No. 2,
Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 22 Nos 5/6,
pp. 202-210.
pp. 371-383.
Cheng, Q., Fang, L. and Chen, H. (2015), “Visitors’ brand
Becker, J.M., Klein, K. and Wetzels, M. (2012), “Hierarchical
loyalty to a historical and cultural theme park: a case study
latent variable models in PLS-SEM: guidelines for using
of Hangzhou Songcheng, China”, Current Issues in Tourism,
reflective-formative type models”, Long Range Planning,
Vol. 19 No. 9, pp. 861-868.
Vol. 45 Nos 5/6, pp. 359-394.
Belaid, S. and Behi, A. (2011), “The role of attachment in Chin, W.W. (2010), “How to write up and report PLS
building consumer-brand relationships: an empirical analyses”, in Esposito, V.V., Chin, W.W., Henseler, J. and
investigation in the utilitarian consumption context”, Wang, H. (Eds), Handbook of Partial Least Squares: Concepts,
Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 20 No. 1, Methods and Applications, Springer, Berlin, pp. 655-690.
pp. 37-47. Chin, W.W. and Dibbern, J. (2010), “An introduction to a
Berné, C., Múgica, J.M. and Yagüe, M.J. (2001), “The effect permutation based procedure for multi-group PLS analysis:
of variety-seeking on customer retention in services”, results of tests of differences on simulated data and a cross
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 8 No. 6, cultural analysis of the sourcing of information system
pp. 335-345. services between Germany and the USA”, in Esposito,
Bianchi, C., Drennan, J. and Proud, B. (2014), “Antecedents V.V., Chin, W.W., Henseler, J. and Wang, H. (Eds),
of consumer brand loyalty in the Australian wine industry”, Handbook of Partial Least Squares: Concepts, Methods and
Journal of Wine Research, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 91-104. Applications, Springer, Berlin, pp. 171-193.
Bigné, J., Sánchez, I. and Andreu, L. (2009), “The role of Chin, W.W., Marcolin, B.L. and Newsted, P.R. (2003), “A
variety seeking in short and long run revisit intentions in partial least squares latent variable modeling approach for
holiday destinations”, International Journal of Culture, measuring interaction effects: results from a monte carlo
Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 103-115. simulation study and an electronic-mail emotion/adoption
Bloemer, J. and Odekerken-Schroder, G. (2002), “Store study”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 14 No. 2,
satisfaction and store loyalty explained by customer-and pp. 189-217.
store-related factors”, Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Chin, W.W., Peterson, R.A. and Brown, S.P. (2008),
Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, Vol. 15 No. 1, “Structural equation modeling in marketing: some practical
pp. 68-80. reminders”, The Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice,
Bloemer, J., Odekerken-Schröder, G. and Kestens, L. (2003), Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 287-298.
“The impact of need for social affiliation and consumer Chinomona, R. (2016), “Brand communication, brand image
relationship proneness on behavioural intentions: an and brand trust as antecedents of brand loyalty in Gauteng
643
Province of South Africa”, African Journal of Economic and management”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 19
Management Studies, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 124-139. No. 4, pp. 737-748.
Çifci, S., Ekinci, Y., Whyatt, G., Japutra, A., Molinillo, S. and Fandos-Roig, J.C., García, J.S. and Tena, M.Á. (2009),
Siala, H. (2016), “A cross validation of consumer-based “Perceived value and customer loyalty in financial services”,
brand equity models: driving customer equity in retail The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 775-789.
brands”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 9, Fang, Y., Qureshi, I., Sun, H., McCole, P., Ramsey, E. and
pp. 3740-3747. Lim, K.H. (2014), “Trust, satisfaction, and online
Cohen, J. (1988), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral repurchase intention: the moderating role of perceived
Sciences, 2nd ed., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, effectiveness of e-commerce institutional mechanisms”,
NJ. MIS Quarterly, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 407-427.
Cooil, B., Keiningham, T.L., Aksoy, L. and Hsu, M. (2007), Fatma, M., Khan, I. and Rahman, Z. (2016), “How does
“A longitudinal analysis of customer satisfaction and share corporate association influence consumer brand loyalty?
of wallet: investigating the moderating effect of customer Mediating role of brand identification”, Journal of Product &
characteristics”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 71 No. 1, Brand Management, Vol. 25 No. 7, pp. 629-641.
pp. 67-83. Ferreira, A.G. and Coelho, F.J. (2015), “Product
Cowles, D.L. (1997), “The role of trust in customer involvement, price perceptions, and brand loyalty”, Journal
relationships: asking the right questions”, Management of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 24 No. 4,
Decision, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 273-282. pp. 349-364.
De Wulf, K.D., Odekerken-Schröder, G. and Iacobucci, D. Fetscherin, M., Boulanger, M., Gonçalves Filho, C. and
(2001), “Investments in consumer relationships: a Souki, G.Q. (2014), “The effect of product category on
cross-country and cross-industry exploration”, Journal of consumer brand relationships, Journal of Product & Brand
Marketing, Vol. 65 No. 4, pp. 33-50. Management, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 78-89.
Desai, K.K. and Trivedi, M. (2014), “Do consumer Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural
perceptions matter in measuring choice variety and variety equation models with unobservable variables and
seeking?”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 67 No. 1, measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18
pp. 2786-2792. No. 1, pp. 39-50.
do Valle, P.O. and Assaker, G. (2016), “Using partial least Fournier, S. (1998), “Consumers and their brands:
squares structural equation modeling in tourism research: a developing relationship theory in consumer research”,
review of past research and recommendations for future Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 343-373.
applications”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 55 No. 6, Foxall, G.R. (1995), “Cognitive styles of consumer
pp. 695-708. initiators”, Technovation, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 269-288.
Drennan, J., Bianchi, C., Cacho-Elizondo, S., Louriero, S., Gefen, D. and Straub, D.W. (2000), “The relative importance
Guibert, N. and Proud, W. (2015), “Examining the role of of perceived ease of use in IS adoption: a study of
wine brand love on brand loyalty: a multi-country e-commerce adoption”, Journal of the Association for
comparison”, International Journal of Hospitality Information Systems, Vol. 1 No. 8, pp. 1-28.
Management, Vol. 49, pp. 47-55. Giovanis, A. (2016), “Consumer-brand relationships’
Dupre, K. and Gruen, T.W. (2004), “The use of category development in the mobile internet market: evidence from
management practices to obtain a sustainable competitive an extended relationship commitment paradigm”, Journal of
advantage in the fast-moving-consumer-goods industry”, Product & Brand Management, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 568-585.
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 7, Goldsmith, R.E. and Hofacker, C.F. (1991), “Measuring
pp. 444-459. consumer innovativeness”, Journal of the Academy of
Dwivedi, A. (2015), “A higher-order model of consumer Marketing Science, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 209-221.
brand engagement and its impact on loyalty intentions”, Gómez, M. and Rubio, N. (2010), “Re-thinking the
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 24 No. 1, relationship between store brand attitude and store brand
pp. 100-109. loyalty: a simultaneous approach”, The International Review
Dwivedi, A., Johnson, L.W. and McDonald, R.E. (2015), of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, Vol. 20 No. 5,
“Celebrity endorsement, self-brand connection and pp. 515-534.
consumer-based brand equity”, Journal of Product & Brand Gounaris, S. and Stathakopoulos, V. (2004), “Antecedents
Management, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 449-461. and consequences of brand loyalty: an empirical study”,
Elbedweihy, A.M., Jayawardhena, C., Elsharnouby, M.H. Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 283-306.
and Elsharnouby, T.H. (2016), “Customer relationship Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E.
building: the role of brand attractiveness and consumer– (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed., Pearson
brand identification”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
No. 8, pp. 2901-2910. Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2011), “PLS-SEM:
Elsäßer, M. and Wirtz, B.W. (2017), “Rational and emotional indeed a silver bullet”, The Journal of Marketing Theory and
factors of customer satisfaction and brand loyalty in a Practice, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 139-152.
business-to-business setting”, Journal of Business & Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2012a), “Partial
Industrial Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 138-152. least squares: the better approach to structural equation
Eskafi, M., Hosseini, S. and Yazd, A. (2013), “The value of modeling?”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 45 Nos 5/6,
telecom subscribers and customer relationship pp. 312-319.
644
Hair, J.F., Sarstedt, M., Pieper, T.M. and Ringle, C.M. Hess, J. and Story, J. (2005), “Trust-based commitment:
(2012b), “The use of partial least squares structural multidimensional consumer-brand relationships”, Journal of
equation modeling in strategic management research: a Consumer Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 313-322.
review of past practices and recommendations for future Hirschman, E.C. (1980), “Innovativeness, novelty seeking,
applications”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 45 Nos 5/6, and consumer creativity”, Journal of Consumer Research,
pp. 320-340. Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 283-295.
Hair, J.F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M. and Mena, J.A. Hirunyawipada, T. and Paswan, A.K. (2006), “Consumer
(2012c), “An assessment of the use of partial least squares innovativeness and perceived risk: implications for high
structural equation modeling in marketing research”, technology product adoption”, Journal of Consumer
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 40 No. 3, Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 182-198.
pp. 414-433. Homburg, C. and Giering, A. (2001), “Personal
Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. characteristics as moderators of the relationship between
(2014a), A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural customer satisfaction and loyalty? An empirical analysis”,
Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), 1st ed., Sage, Thousand Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 43-66.
Oaks, CA. Horppu, M., Kuivalainen, O., Tarkiainen, A. and Ellonen,
Hair, J.F., Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L. and Kuppelwieser, V.G. H.K. (2008), “Online satisfaction, trust and loyalty, and the
(2014b), “Partial least squares structural equation modeling impact of the offline parent brand”, Journal of Product &
(PLS-SEM)”, European Business Review, Vol. 26 No. 2, Brand Management, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 403-413.
pp. 106-121. Hoyer, W.D. and Ridgway, N.M. (1984), “Variety seeking as
Hansen, H., Samuelsen, B. and Sallis, J. (2013), “The an explanation for exploratory purchase behavior: a
moderating effects of need for cognition on drivers of theoretical model”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 11
customer loyalty”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 114-119.
No. 8, pp. 1157-1176. Hulland, J. (1999), “Use of partial least squares (PLS) in
Haryanto, J.O., Moutinho, L. and Coelho, A. (2016), “Is strategic management research: a review of four recent
brand loyalty really present in the children’s market? A studies”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 20 No. 2,
comparative study from Indonesia, Portugal, and Brazil”, pp. 195-204.
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 10, pp. 4020-4032. Hur, W.M., Yoo, J.J. and Chung, T.L. (2012), “The
Hemsley-Brown, J. and Alnawas, I. (2016), “Service quality consumption values and consumer innovativeness on
and brand loyalty: the mediation effect of brand passion, convergence products”, Industrial Management & Data
brand affection and self-brand connection”, International Systems, Vol. 112 No. 5, pp. 688-706.
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 28 Jacoby, J. and Kyner, D.B. (1973), “Brand loyalty vs. repeat
No. 12, pp. 2771-2794. purchasing behavior”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 10
Henrique, J.L. and de Matos, C.A. (2015), “The influence of No. 1, pp. 1-9.
personal values and demographic variables on customer Jin, N., Line, N.D. and Goh, B. (2013), “Experiential value,
loyalty in the banking industry”, International Journal of relationship quality, and customer loyalty in full-service
Bank Marketing, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 571-587. restaurants: The moderating role of gender”, Journal of
Henseler, J. and Chin, W.W. (2010), “A comparison of Hospitality Marketing & Management, Vol. 22 No. 7,
approaches for the analysis of interaction effects between pp. 679-700.
latent variables using partial least squares path modeling”, Jöreskog, K.G. (1978), “Structural analysis of covariance and
Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, correlation matrices”, Psychometrika, Vol. 43 No. 4,
Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 82-109. pp. 443-477.
Henseler, J. and Fassott, G. (2010), “Testing moderating Kahn, B.E. (1995), “Consumer variety-seeking among goods
effects in PLS path models: an illustration of available and services”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
procedures”, in Vinzi, V.E., Chin, W.W., Henseler, J. and Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 139-148.
Wang, H. (Eds), Handbook of Partial Least Squares: Concepts, Kahn, B.E. (1998), “Dynamic relationships with customers:
Methods and Applications, Springer, Berlin, pp. 713-735. high-variety strategies”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sinkovics, R.R. (2009), “The Science, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 45-53.
use of partial least squares path modeling in international Kandampully, J., Zhang, T. and Bilgihan, A. (2015),
marketing”, in Sinkovics, R.R. and Ghauri, P.N. (Eds), “Customer loyalty: a review and future directions with a
New Challenges to International Marketing (Advances in special focus on the hospitality industry”, International
International Marketing), Vol. 20, Emerald Group Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 27
Publishing, Bingley, pp. 277-319. No. 3, pp. 379-414.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2015), “A new Kassarjian, H.H. (1981), “Low involvement: a second look”,
criterion for assessing discriminant validity in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 31-34.
variance-based structural equation modeling”, Journal of the Kassim, N. and Abdullah, N. (2010), “The effect of perceived
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 115-135. service quality dimensions on customer satisfaction, trust,
Herrera, C. and Blanco, C. (2011), “Consequences of and loyalty in e-commerce settings”, Asia Pacific Journal of
consumer trust in PDO food products: the role of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 351-371.
familiarity”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Kaushik, A.K. and Rahman, Z. (2014), “Perspectives and
Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 282-296. dimensions of consumer innovativeness: a literature review
645
and future agenda”, Journal of International Consumer Loureiro, S., Miranda, F. and Breazeale, M. (2014), “Who
Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 239-263. needs delight?”, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 25
Kesharwani, A. and Bisht, S. (2012), “The impact of trust and No. 1, pp. 101-124.
perceived risk on internet banking adoption in India”, Lu, J. and Xu, Y. (2015), “Chinese young consumers’ brand
International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 30 No. 4, loyalty toward sportswear products: a perspective of
pp. 303-322. self-congruity”, Journal of Product & Brand Management,
Khan, I., Rahman, Z. and Fatma, M. (2016), “The role of Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 365-376.
customer brand engagement and brand experience in online McAlister, L. and Pessemier, E. (1982), “Variety seeking
banking”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 34 behavior: an interdisciplinary review”, Journal of Consumer
No. 7, pp. 1025-1041. Research, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 311-322.
Kim, J.W., Lee, F. and Suh, Y.G. (2015), “Satisfaction and Mägi, A.W. (2003), “Share of wallet in retailing: the effects of
loyalty from shopping mall experience and brand customer satisfaction, loyalty cards and shopper
personality”, Services Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 1, characteristics”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 79 No. 2,
pp. 62-76. pp. 97-106.
Kim, W.G., Lee, S. and Lee, H.Y. (2007), “Co-branding and Manning, K.C., Bearden, W.O. and Madden, T.J. (1995),
brand loyalty”, Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & “Consumer innovativeness and the adoption process”,
Tourism, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 1-23. Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 329-345.
Kollat, D.T. and Willett, R.P. (1967), “Customer impulse Marticotte, F., Arcand, M. and Baudry, D. (2016), “The
purchasing behavior”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 4 impact of brand evangelism on oppositional referrals
No. 1, pp. 21-31. towards a rival brand”, Journal of Product & Brand
Kuikka, A. and Laukkanen, T. (2012), “Brand loyalty and the Management, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 538-549.
role of hedonic value”, Journal of Product & Brand Martínez-López, F.J., Gázquez-Abad, J.C. and Sousa,
Management, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 529-537. C.M.P. (2013), “Structural equation modelling in
Laroche, M., Habibi, M.R., Richard, M.O. and marketing and business research”, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 47 Nos 1/2, pp. 115-152.
Sankaranarayanan, R. (2012), “The effects of social media
Midgley, D.F. and Dowling, G.R. (1978), “Innovativeness:
based brand communities on brand community markers,
the concept and its measurement”, Journal of Consumer
value creation practices, brand trust and brand loyalty”,
Research, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 229-242.
Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 28 No. 5,
Mishra, A., Dash, S.B. and Cyr, D. (2014), “Linking user
pp. 1755-1767.
experience and consumer-based brand equity: the
Lee, D., Moon, J., Kim, Y.J. and Yi, M.Y. (2015),
moderating role of consumer expertise and lifestyle”,
“Antecedents and consequences of mobile phone usability:
Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 23 Nos 4/5,
Linking simplicity and interactivity to satisfaction, trust,
pp. 333-348.
and brand loyalty”, Information & Management, Vol. 52
Molinillo, S., Japutra, A., Nguyen, B. and Chen, C.H.S.
No. 3, pp. 295-304.
(2017), “Responsible brands vs. active brands? An
Lee, H.J. and Jee, Y. (2016), “The impacts of brand asset of
examination of brand personality on brand awareness,
domestic screen golf playing systems upon brand trust and brand trust, and brand loyalty”, Marketing Intelligence &
brand loyalty”, International Journal of Sports Marketing and Planning, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 166-179.
Sponsorship, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 320-332. Murray, A. and Kline, C. (2015), “Rural tourism and the craft
Lee, L., Petter, S., Fayard, D. and Robinson, S. (2011), “On beer experience: factors influencing brand loyalty in rural
the use of partial least squares path modeling in accounting North Carolina, USA”, Journal of Sustainable Tourism,
research”, International Journal of Accounting Information Vol. 23 Nos 8/9, pp. 1198-1216.
Systems, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 305-328. Narayana, C.L. and Markin, R.J. (1975), “Consumer
Liang, C.J. and Wang, W.H. (2007), “The behavioral behavior and product performance: an alternative
sequence of information education services industry in conceptualization”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 39 No. 4,
Taiwan: relationship bonding tactics, relationship quality pp. 1-6.
and behavioral loyalty”, Measuring Business Excellence, Odekerken-Schröder, G., De Wulf, K. and Schumacher, P.
Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 62-74. (2003), “Strengthening outcomes of retailer-consumer
Lin, H.H. and Wang, Y.S. (2006), “An examination of the relationships: the dual impact of relationship marketing
determinants of customer loyalty in mobile commerce tactics and consumer personality”, Journal of Business
contexts”, Information & Management, Vol. 43 No. 3, Research, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 177-190.
pp. 271-282. Odoom, R. (2016), “Brand marketing programs and
Lin, J., Lobo, A. and Leckie, C. (2017), “The role of benefits consumer loyalty – evidence from mobile phone users in an
and transparency in shaping consumers’ green perceived emerging market”, Journal of Product & Brand Management,
value, self-brand connection and brand loyalty”, Journal of Vol. 25 No. 7, pp. 651-662.
Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 35, pp. 133-141. Oliver, R.L. (1981), “Measurement and evaluation of
Lin, L.Y. (2010), “The relationship of consumer personality satisfaction processes in retail settings”, Journal of Retailing,
trait, brand personality and brand loyalty: an empirical Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 25-48.
study of toys and video games buyers”, Journal of Product & Olsen, S., Tudoran, A., Brunsø, K. and Verbeke, W. (2013),
Brand Management, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 4-17. “Extending the prevalent consumer loyalty modelling: the
646
role of habit strength”, European Journal of Marketing, measurement and impact on performance”, Journal of
Vol. 47 Nos 1/2, pp. 303-323. Marketing Research, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 293-305.
ONS (2008), Office National des Statistiques, available at: www. Reinartz, W., Haenlein, M. and Henseler, J. (2009), “An
ons.dz empirical comparison of the efficacy of covariance-based
Pan, Y., Sheng, S. and Xie, F.T. (2012), “Antecedents of and variance-based SEM”, International Journal of Research
customer loyalty: an empirical synthesis and in Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 332-344.
reexamination”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Rezaei, S. (2015), “Segmenting consumer decision-making
Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 150-158. styles (CDMS) toward marketing practice: a partial least
Pappu, R., Quester, P.G. and Cooksey, R.W. (2005), squares (PLS) path modeling approach”, Journal of Retailing
“Consumer-based brand equity: improving the and Consumer Services, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 1-15.
measurement – empirical evidence”, Journal of Product & Ringle, C.M., Wende, S. and Will, A. (2005), SmartPLS 2.0
Brand Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 143-154. (Beta), University of Hamburg, Hamburg, available at:
Parish, J. and Holloway, B. (2010), “Consumer relationship www.smartpls.de
proneness: a reexamination and extension across service Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M. and Straub, D.W. (2012), “A
exchanges”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 1, critical look at the use of PLS-SEM in MIS quarterly”, MIS
pp. 61-73. Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 3-14.
Paulssen, M., Roulet, R. and Wilke, S. (2014), “Risk as Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M., Schlittgen, R. and Taylor, C.R.
moderator of the trust-loyalty relationship”, European (2013), “PLS path modeling and evolutionary
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 48 Nos 5/6, pp. 964-981. segmentation”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66 No. 9,
Peng, D.X. and Lai, F. (2012), “Using partial least squares in pp. 1318-1324.
operations management research: a practical guideline and Roberts, J.H. and Lattin, J.M. (1991), “Development and
summary of past research”, Journal of Operations testing of a model of consideration set composition”,
Management, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 467-480. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 429-440.
Perrewé, P.L. and Spector, P.E. (2002), “Personality research Roehrich, G. (2004), “Consumer innovativeness: Concepts
in the organizational sciences”, in Ferris, G.R. (Ed.),
and measurements”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 57
Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, JAI
No. 6, pp. 671-677.
Press, Elsevier Science, Oxford, pp. 1-63.
Rousseau, D.M., Sitkin, S.B., Burt, R.S. and Camerer, C.
Phan, K. and Ghantous, N. (2013), “Managing brand
(1998), “Not so different after all: a cross-discipline view of
associations to drive customers’ trust and loyalty in
trust”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 3,
Vietnamese banking”, International Journal of Bank
pp. 393-404.
Marketing, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 456-480.
Rowley, J. (2014), “Designing and using research
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff,
questionnaires”, Management Research Review, Vol. 37
N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in behavioral
No. 3, pp. 308-330.
research: a critical review of the literature and
Ruane, L. and Wallace, E. (2015), “Brand tribalism and
recommended remedies”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
self-expressive brands: social influences and brand
Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Popp, B. and Woratschek, H. (2017), “Consumers’ outcomes”, Journal of Product & Brand Management,
relationships with brands and brand communities: the Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 333-348.
multifaceted roles of identification and satisfaction”, Journal Rubio, N., Oubiña, J. and Gómez-Suárez, M. (2015),
of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 35, pp. 46-56. “Understanding brand loyalty of the store brand’s customer
Preacher, K.J. and Hayes, A.F. (2004), “SPSS and SAS base”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 24
procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple No. 7, pp. 679-692.
mediation models”, Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, Ruparelia, N., White, L. and Hughes, K. (2010), “Drivers of
& Computers, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 717-731. brand trust in internet retailing”, Journal of Product & Brand
Preacher, K.J. and Hayes, A.F. (2008), “Asymptotic and Management, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 250-260.
resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M. and Hair, J.F. (2014a),
effects in multiple mediator models”, Behavior Research “PLS-SEM: looking back and moving forward”, Long
Methods, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 879-891. Range Planning, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 132-137.
Quester, P. and Lim, A. (2003), “Product involvement/brand Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M., Smith, D., Reams, R. and Hair,
loyalty: is there a link?”, Journal of Product & Brand J.F. (2014b), “Partial least squares structural equation
Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 22-38. modeling (PLS-SEM): a useful tool for family business
Ramaseshan, B., Rabbanee, F.K. and Hui, L. (2013), “Effects researchers”, Journal of Family Business Strategy, Vol. 5
of customer equity drivers on customer loyalty in B2B No. 1, pp. 105-115.
context”, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 28 Schiffman, L., O’Cass, A., Paladino, A. and Carlson, J.
No. 4, pp. 335-346. (2013), Consumer Behavior, 6th ed., Pearson Higher
Ramirez, E. and Goldsmith, R.E. (2009), “Some antecedents Education AU, Australia.
of price sensitivity”, The Journal of Marketing Theory and Schirmer, N., Ringle, C.M., Gudergan, S.P. and Feistel,
Practice, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 199-214. M.S.G. (2016), “The link between customer satisfaction
Reinartz, W., Krafft, M. and Hoyer, W.D. (2004), “The and loyalty: the moderating role of customer
customer relationship management process: Its characteristics”, Journal of Strategic Marketing, pp. 1-20.
647
Sharifi, S.S. and Esfidani, M.R. (2014), “The impacts of effect of brand relationships”, Journal of Consumer
relationship marketing on cognitive dissonance, satisfaction, Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 405-421.
and loyalty: the mediating role of trust and cognitive Voorhees, C.M., Brady, M.K., Calantone, R. and Ramirez, E.
dissonance”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution (2015), “Discriminant validity testing in marketing: an
Management, Vol. 42 No. 6, pp. 553-575. analysis, causes for concern, and proposed remedies”,
Sharma, V.K. (2017), “Patient satisfaction and brand loyalty Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 44 No. 1,
in healthcare organizations in India”, Journal of Asia pp. 119-134.
Business Studies, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 73-87. Wetzels, M., Oderkerken-Schröder, G. and van Oppen, C.
Shin, J.I., Chung, K.H., Oh, J.S. and Lee, C.W. (2013), “The (2009), “Using PLS path modeling for assessing
effect of site quality on repurchase intention in internet hierarchical construct models: guidelines and empirical
shopping through mediating variables: the case of university illustration”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 177-195.
students in South Korea”, International Journal of
Wilden, R. and Gudergan, S.P. (2015), “The impact of
Information Management, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 453-463.
dynamic capabilities on operational marketing and
So, K.K.F., King, C., Sparks, B.A. and Wang, Y. (2016),
technological capabilities: investigating the role of
“The role of customer engagement in building consumer
environmental turbulence”, Journal of the Academy of
loyalty to tourism brands”, Journal of Travel Research,
Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 64-78. Marketing Science, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 181-199.
Sosik, J.J., Kahai, S.S. and Piovoso, M.J. (2009), “Silver Wilkie, W.L. and Farris, P.W. (1975), “Comparison
bullet or voodoo statistics? A primer for using the partial advertising: problems and potential”, Journal of Marketing,
least squares data analytic technique in group and Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 7-15.
organization research”, Group & Organization Management, Wold, H. (1974), “Causal flows with latent variables: partings
Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 5-36. of ways in the light of NIPALS modelling”, European
Su, J. and Tong, X. (2015), “Brand personality and brand Economic Review, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 67-86.
equity: evidence from the sportswear industry”, Journal of Wold, H. (1980), “Model construction and evaluation when
Product & Brand Management, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 124-133. theoretical knowledge is scarce”, in Kmenta, J. and Ramsey,
Tenenhaus, M., Vinzi, V.E., Chatelin, Y.M. and Lauro, C. J.B. (Eds), Evaluation of Econometric Models, Academic
(2005), “PLS path modeling”, Computational Statistics & Press, New York, NY, pp. 47-74.
Data Analysis, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 159-205. Woratschek, H. and Horbel, C. (2006), “Are variety-seekers
Toufaily, E., Ricard, L. and Perrien, J. (2013), “Customer bad customers? An analysis of the role of recommendations
loyalty to a commercial website: Descriptive meta-analysis in the service profit chain”, Journal of Relationship
of the empirical literature and proposal of an integrative Marketing, Vol. 4 Nos 3/4, pp. 43-57.
model”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66 No. 9, Wu, X., Zhou, H. and Wu, D. (2012), “Commitment,
pp. 1436-1447. satisfaction, and customer loyalty: a theoretical explanation
Tournois, L. (2015), “Does the value manufacturers (brands) of the ‘satisfaction trap’”, The Service Industries Journal,
create translate into enhanced reputation? A multi-sector Vol. 32 No. 11, pp. 1759-1774.
examination of the value–satisfaction–loyalty–reputation Xie, Y. (2008), “Consumer innovativeness and consumer
chain”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 26
acceptance of brand extensions”, Journal of Product & Brand
No. 1, pp. 83-96.
Management, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 235-243.
Tuu, H. and Olsen, S.O. (2013), “Consideration set size,
Xiong, B., Skitmore, M. and Xia, B. (2015), “A critical review
variety seeking and the satisfaction-repurchase loyalty
of structural equation modeling applications in construction
relationship at a product category level”, Asia Pacific Journal
research”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 49, pp. 59-70.
of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 590-613.
Van Trijp, H.C.M.V., Hoyer, W.D. and Inman, J.J. (1996), Yannopoulou, N., Koronis, E. and Elliott, R. (2011), “Media
“Why switch? Product category-level explanations for true amplification of a brand crisis and its affect on brand trust”,
variety-seeking behavior”, Journal of Marketing Research, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 27 Nos 5/6,
Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 281-292. pp. 530-546.
Vázquez-Carrasco, R. and Foxall, G.R. (2006), “Influence of Yap, B., Ramayah, T. and Shahidan, W. (2012), “Satisfaction
personality traits on satisfaction, perception of relational and trust on customer loyalty: a PLS approach”, Business
benefits, and loyalty in a personal service context”, Journal Strategy Series, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 154-167.
of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 13 No. 3, Yoo, J. and Park, M. (2016), “The effects of e-mass
pp. 205-219. customization on consumer perceived value, satisfaction,
Veloutsou, C. (2015), “Brand evaluation, satisfaction and and loyalty toward luxury brands”, Journal of Business
trust as predictors of brand loyalty: the mediator-moderator Research, Vol. 69 No. 12, pp. 5775-5784.
648
Appendix
Table AI Construct measurement

Construct Measurement item Source
Brand satisfaction I am pleased with this brand Kuikka and Laukkanen (2012)
I am happy with this brand
I am contented with this brand
Overall, I am satisfied with this brand
Brand trust I trust this brand Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001)
I rely on this brand
This is an honest brand
This brand is safe
Brand loyalty I am committed to this brand Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001)
I would be willing to pay a higher price for this brand over other brands
I will buy this brand the next time I buy [product name]
I intend to keep purchasing this brand
Consumer In general, I am among the first in my circle of friends to buy a new brand of Goldsmith and Hofacker (1991)
innovativeness [product name] when it appears
If I heard that a new brand of [product name] was available in the store, I would be
interested enough to buy it
I will buy a new brand of [product name], even if I have not heard/tried it yet
In general, I am the first in my circle of friends to know the brands of the latest
[product name]
I like to buy new brands of [product name] before other people do
Variety-seeking I take advantage of the first available opportunity to find out about new and Manning et al. (1995) and
different brands Adjei and Clark (2010)
I like to go to places where I will be exposed to information about new brands
When I go shopping, I find myself spending a lot of time checking out new brands
I am continually seeking new brands
I frequently look for new brands
I like magazines that introduce new brands
I seek out situations in which I will be exposed to new and different sources of
brand information
Relationship proneness Generally, I am someone who likes to be a regular customer of a brand De Wulf et al. (2001)
Generally, I am someone who wants to be a steady customer of the same brand
Generally, I am someone who is willing to “to go the extra mile” to buy the same
brand
Note: Items are ordered on a five-point Likert scale that ranges from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”
About the authors University of Delaware as well as Bachelor of Science

degree from Computer Technology and Information
Choukri Menidjel is a PhD candidate in Marketing and a
Systems from Bilkent University. Prior to joining Florida
member of Laboratory MECAS, Faculty of Economics and
Atlantic University, Dr Bilgihan served as an assistant
Management, Abou Bekr Belkaid University, Tlemcen,
Algeria. His research interests include brand management and professor at the Ohio State University. He has several
relationship marketing. Choukri Menidjel is the academic publications in the areas of e-commerce and
corresponding author and can be contacted at: Information Systems and he is the co-author of Hospitality
choukrimenidjel@gmail.com Information Technology: Learning How to Use it. He
published his research in prestigious journals including
Abderrezzak Benhabib (MPhil England, PhD France) is a Information & Management, Computers in Human Behavior,
professor of Marketing and Managerial Economics, Director International Journal of Information Management, Electronic
of Laboratory MECAS and former Dean of the Faculty of Research Commerce and Applications, Tourism Management,
Economics and Management, Abou Bekr Belkaid University, IJCHM among others. He is the recipient of several awards
Tlemcen, Algeria. His research interests focus on marketing, including Cisco Extensive Research Award, Warren Lloyd
strategy, management, banking, managerial economics and Holtzman Excellence in Research Award, Emerald
poverty analysis.
Citations of Excellence Award, Highly Commended Award
Dr Anil Bilgihan received his PhD from University of winner of the 2013 Emerald/EFMD Outstanding Doctoral
Central Florida in 2012. He also holds a Master of Science Research Awards in the Hospitality Management category,
degree in hospitality information management from Rosen College Outstanding Dissertation award.
649

Examining The Moderating Role of Personality Traits in The Relationship Between Brand Trust and Brand Loyalty

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Examining The Moderating Role of Personality Traits in The Relationship Between Brand Trust and Brand Loyalty

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Examining The Moderating Role of Personality Traits in The Relationship Between Brand Trust and Brand Loyalty

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Examining the moderating role of personality

traits in the relationship between brand trust

Introduction Trust is essential to building and maintaining long-term

Received 3 May 2016

Methods The final questionnaire was categorized into three major

In contrast to CB-SEM, PLS-SEM is a distribution-free Measurement model

Loyalty 0.600 0.215 0.774 0.706 [0.639;0.768] 0.743 [0.683;0.801]

Table V Structural model Figure 2 Structural model

Interaction effect (c)

Table VI Mediating effects

Table AI Construct measurement

About the authors University of Delaware as well as Bachelor of Science

You might also like