Abstract
Purpose
The aim of this study is to examine how brand trust moderates the effect of brand experience on brand loyalty mediated by brand love in the context of Korean smartphone users. The authors examine the relationships focused on Apple iPhone and Samsung Galaxy phone.
Design/methodology/approach
The authors designed the conceptual model based on theoretical and empirical background. The authors collected data using a self-administered structured questionnaire through an online research company. The authors tested the hypotheses using a structural equation modeling in AMOS and PROCESS macro model number 8 based on 598 Korean smartphone users.
Findings
The authors found that brand experiences affect brand love, and brand love affects brand loyalty. The authors found that brand experiences affect brand loyalty directly, and brand love mediated the relationship between brand experiences and brand loyalty. The authors found that brand trust had a moderating effect between brand experiences and brand love but had no moderating effect between brand experiences and brand loyalty. Finally, the authors found that brand trust has a moderated mediation role between brand experiences, brand love and brand loyalty.
Originality/value
This is the first study to examine the moderated mediation role of brand trust in the relationship between brand experiences, brand love and brand loyalty focused on Apple iPhone and Samsung Galaxy phone users in the Korean context.
Keywords
Citation
Bae, B.R. and Kim, S.-E. (2023), "Effect of brand experiences on brand loyalty mediated by brand love: the moderated mediation role of brand trust", Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 35 No. 10, pp. 2412-2430. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJML-03-2022-0203
Publisher
:Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2023, Emerald Publishing Limited
Introduction
According to recent data, the average person spends 3 h and 15 min on their phone each day (Exploding Topics, 2022). Consumers experience many things while using their smartphone brands. Through this brand experience, consumers have feelings of love for a specific brand and have loyalty to that brand (Albert and Merunka, 2013; Bagozzi et al., 2017; Brakus et al., 2009; Carroll and Ahuvia, 2006; Coleman, 2018; Huang, 2017; Mostafa and Kasamani, 2021; Pan et al., 2012). In the smartphone industry, brand love and loyalty can be influenced by a variety of factors, including the hardware and design of the phone, the software and features it offers, and the level of customer support provided by the brand. Brands that consistently deliver high-quality products and offer excellent customer service are more likely to foster brand love and loyalty among their customers. In the context of smartphone brands, the brand experience and brand love that a customer has can be influenced by a variety of factors (Christino et al., 2020). For example, a customer may have a positive brand experience with a smartphone brand if they find the brand’s phones to be reliable, easy to use and aesthetically pleasing. On the other hand, if a customer has had negative experiences with a brand’s phones (e.g. frequent malfunctions, poor customer service), they may have a negative brand experience and be less likely to have brand love for the brand. Among the smartphone brands, iPhone and Galaxy are the top two brands in the global market (Counterpoint, 2022). As competition in the smartphone market intensifies, Apple and Samsung are attempting to increase their brand loyalty. To increase brand loyalty, it is necessary to provide customers with a favorable experience related to the brand they use. In that context, Apple iPhone and Samsung Galaxy are striving to create memorable customer experiences. An example of a customer experience associated with a smartphone brand is a sensory experience (e.g. the color of my smartphone is attractive). It is critical to understand which brand experience factors are the determinants of brand loyalty. Marketing scholars have recognized that consumers wish to buy brands that provide memorable experiences (Brakus et al., 2009; Coleman, 2018). It is necessary to understand which factors affect brand love and brand loyalty among the factors that consumers experience while using smartphones. In this context, the brand experience construct has received much attention from marketing scholars (Andreini et al., 2018; Brakus et al., 2009; Ding and Tseng, 2015; Huang, 2017; Sahin et al., 2011).
Attaining a high level of customer loyalty is critical to achieving firm performance (Griffin, 2002). Brand loyalty affects a company’s performance in terms of market share and profits (Griffin, 2002; Watson et al., 2015). Marketing scholars have proposed and tested various constructs, including brand attachment (Mostafa and Kasamani, 2021; Park et al., 2010; Thomson et al., 2005), brand commitment (Burmann and Zeplin, 2005; Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001), brand experience (Brakus et al., 2009; Iglesias et al., 2011), brand love (Albert and Merunka, 2013; Albert et al., 2009; Batra et al., 2012) and brand trust (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001; Delgado-Ballester and Munuera-Aleman, 2001), which can affect brand loyalty. All these constructs would be categorized as a consumer–brand relationship (Fournier, 1998). According to consumer–brand relationship theory, the stronger the consumer–brand relationship, the greater the brand loyalty. Among these constructs, this study focuses on the relationships between brand experience, brand trust and brand love, with the potential to affect brand loyalty in two best-selling smartphone brands (i.e. iPhone and Galaxy) in Korea. Also, we seek to examine whether the relationship between brand experience, brand trust, brand love and brand loyalty differs between these two brands.
Brand trust is an essential predictor of customer loyalty (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001; Pan et al., 2012; Zhang et al., 2020). Prior research on brand trust has mainly focused on the direct or indirect effect of brand loyalty (Delgado-Ballester and Munuera-Aleman, 2001; Wang, 2002). The role of brand trust in developing brand loyalty has been debated. Some scholars have maintained that brand trust directly affects brand loyalty (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001; Pan et al., 2012). In contrast, others have asserted that mediating variables are required to develop brand loyalty (Matzler et al., 2008; Yasin and Shamim, 2013). Research on the moderating role of brand trust in the relationships between brand experience, brand love and brand loyalty is scarce in the brand management literature (cf., Kim and Jones, 2009). Kim and Jones (2009) investigated the moderating role of brand trust by focusing on online shopping. In that respect, there is a research gap between the prior study and this study. Therefore, it is necessary to fill the research gap. We guess this is because most researchers viewed brand trust as a direct factor for brand love and brand loyalty. However, we expect that brand trust plays a moderating role in the relationship between them. We predict that the greater the brand trust, the greater the relationships between brand experience and brand love. Investigating this relationship is meaningful because it clarifies the relationship between brand experience, brand love and brand loyalty. Brand trust leads to brand loyalty because trust creates exchange relationships that are highly valued (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001). If customers have more trust in the brand, their brand loyalty will increase. We propose that brand trust plays a moderating role in the relationship between brand experience, brand love and brand loyalty. We expect that the higher the brand trust, the stronger the relationship between them. One of the purposes of this study is to examine how brand trust moderates the effect of brand experience on brand loyalty mediated by brand love in the context of Korean smartphone users.
This study contributes to the extant brand management literature by addressing the following research issues. First, we seek to examine the brand experience and brand love in terms of multidimensional constructs. We conceptualize the brand experience as composed of four dimensions (i.e. sensory, affective, intellectual and behavioral). We conceptualize brand love as composed of two dimensions (i.e. intimacy and passion). Multidimensional constructs are theoretically more fruitful than individual dimensions (Edwards, 2001; Law and Wong, 1999). Two views have been proposed regarding multidimensional constructs: factor view and composite views (Edwards, 2001; Law and Wong, 1999; Law et al., 1998). A factor view is similar with the superordinate construct proposed by Edwards (2001). This study conceptualizes brand experience and brand love as a factor view because the relationship between these constructs and their dimensions revealed different manifestations of multidimensional constructs. A few studies related to brand experience and brand love have been conducted from a multidimensional perspective (Santos and Schlesinger, 2021; Singh et al., 2021). Singh et al. (2021) studied brand experience from a multidimensional construct. Santos and Schlesinger (2021) studied brand experience and brand love as multidimensional constructs.
Second, prior research on the role of brand trust in the relationship between brand experience and brand loyalty mainly focused on brand trust as an independent variable or mediator of brand loyalty (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001; Delgado-Ballester and Munuera-Aleman, 2001). However, this study seeks to examine how brand trust moderates the effect of brand experience on brand loyalty, mediated by brand love. By examining the moderating role of brand trust in the relationship between brand experience, brand love and brand loyalty, we confirm that brand trust can be a moderator of brand loyalty. Finally, there is limited research on the antecedents and consequences of brand love. By addressing the role of brand love as a mediator in a conceptual framework, this study aims to highlight the importance of brand love in developing brand loyalty. In the remainder of the paper, we review key concepts from the brand management literature to build our conceptual framework of the brand experience on brand loyalty. Next, we present the research methodology and data analysis. Finally, the study concludes by discussing the theoretical and managerial implications, limitations and areas for future research.
Literature review and hypotheses development
The effect of brand experience on brand love
Brakus et al. (2009, p. 53) conceptualized brand experience as “subjective, internal consumer responses (sensations, feelings and cognitions) and behavioral responses evoked by brand-related stimuli that are part of a brand’s design and identity, packaging, communications, and environments.” In addition, Brakus et al. (2009) classified the brand experience into four dimensions: sensory, affective, intellectual and behavioral. The sensory brand experience is the visual, auditory, olfactory, gustatory and tactile stimulation provided by the brand (Andreini et al., 2018). Affective brand experiences are feelings and sentiments induced by the brand. Intellectual brand experience refers to the brand’s ability to make customers think (Bapat and Thanigan, 2016). Behavioral brand experience includes bodily experiences, lifestyles and brand interactions (Bapat and Thanigan, 2016; Zarantonello and Schmitt, 2010). Carroll and Ahuvia (2006, p. 81) defined brand love as “the degree of passionate emotional attachment a satisfied consumer has for a particular trade name.” Batra et al. (2012) conceptualized brand love as a higher-order construct composed of three first-order factors: self-brand integration, passion-driven behaviors and positive emotional connection. Albert et al. (2009) conceptualized brand love as a second-order construct composed of two first-order factors: affection and passion. We conceptualize brand love as a higher-order construct composed of two first-order factors: intimacy and passion. This conceptualization is consistent with Sarkar et al. (2012). Sarkar et al. (2012) conceptualized brand love as intimacy and passion. The intimacy dimension refers to the extent to which consumers attach degrees to the brand. The passion dimension refers to the extent to which consumers’ sense of “rightness” about the relationship includes a strong desire for the brand (Batra et al., 2012). As consumer experience products or services, they develop favorable or unfavorable emotions toward the brand. Customers who are satisfied with the brand experience will increase their love for the brand (Albert et al., 2009; Batra et al., 2012; Brakus et al., 2009; Joshi and Garg, 2021; Iglesias et al., 2011; Roy et al., 2013). Positive brand experiences encourage consumers to attach to a brand and develop positive love toward that brand (Safeer et al., 2021; Singh et al., 2021). Based on these arguments, we expect that experience stimulated by a brand affects brand love. Thus, we propose H1 as follows:
Brand experience has a positive effect on brand love.
The effect of brand experience on brand loyalty
We define brand loyalty as a consumer’s preference for a specific brand and the repurchase of the same brand, despite the circumstances and marketing efforts to induce conversion behavior (Aaker, 1996; Oliver, 1999). Brand loyalty consists of behavioral and attitudinal loyalty (Odin et al., 2001; Oliver, 1999; Watson et al., 2015). Behavioral loyalty captures consumers who repeatedly purchase the same brand (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001). Attitudinal loyalty includes consumers’ psychological commitment to the brand (Odin et al., 2001). Among these two components, this study focuses on behavioral loyalty.
Since positive brand experiences lead to pleasurable outcomes, we expect consumers to repeat these positive experiences. In other words, positive brand experiences affect consumer brand loyalty. Consumers with favorable brand experiences are more likely to repurchase a brand, recommend it to others and be less likely to buy an alternative brand (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001; Oliver, 1999). Francisco-Maffezzolli et al. (2014) found no direct relationship between brand experience and brand loyalty for perfume and bath soap brands. Iglesias et al. (2011) studied the relationship between brand experience, brand loyalty and affective commitment for car, laptop and sneaker brands. They found that brand experience did not affect brand loyalty directly. They revealed that affective commitment mediates the role between brand experience and brand loyalty. Ong et al. (2018) showed that brand experience affects brand loyalty in the context of Malaysian restaurant brands. As described above, prior research on the direct relationship between brand experience and brand loyalty shows conflicting results. If brands deliver an excellent experience to consumers, brand loyalty can be built (Brakus et al., 2009; Iglesias et al., 2011; Ong et al., 2018). We predict a positive relationship between brand experience and brand loyalty. Based on this theoretical and empirical background, we hypothesize H2 as follows:
Brand experience has a positive effect on brand loyalty.
The effect of brand love on brand loyalty
Consumers prefer to purchase brands that they love. Loyalty to the brand is determined by the degree of emotional commitment of a consumer to a specific brand (Bagozzi et al., 2017; Park et al., 2010). Subsequently, brand love stimulates brand loyalty (Kazmi and Khalique, 2019). Kazmi and Khalique (2019) found that brand love is positively related to brand loyalty based on empirical results from Pakistani cosmetics brands. Carroll and Ahuvia (2006) found that brand love is positively related to brand loyalty. Bergkvist and Bech-Larsen (2010) showed that brand love affects brand loyalty through two survey-based studies that focused on the iPod and Panadol brands. Based on this theoretical and empirical background, we hypothesize H3 as follows:
Brand love has a positive effect on brand loyalty.
The mediating role of brand love
As discussed previously, brand experience leads to brand love, which, in turn, leads to brand loyalty. Thus, we propose the mediating role of brand love in the relationship between brand experience and brand loyalty (Roy et al., 2013; Trivedi and Sama, 2021; Yim et al., 2008). Huang (2017) studied the mediating role of brand love in the relationship between brand experience and loyalty. He classified brand experience into sensory, intellectual, and behavioral experiences and brand loyalty into behavioral and attitudinal loyalty. He tested the mediation effect of brand love and found that it has a full mediation role in the behavioral experience, behavioral loyalty and attitudinal loyalty. Kazmi and Khalique (2019) found a mediating effect in the link between brand experience and brand loyalty through brand love for Pakistani cosmetic brands. Roy et al. (2013) proposed a theoretical framework for the antecedents and consequences of brand love. They suggested that brand love has a mediating role in the link between brand experience and loyalty, although they did not test the relationship. Francisco-Maffezzolli et al. (2014) examined the mediating effect of brand relationship quality on the relationship between brand experience and loyalty, focusing on perfume and bath soap consumers. They found that brand experience had no direct effect on loyalty, however, when mediated by love/passion, the effect was significant. Santos and Schlesinger (2021) found that brand love mediates the relationship between brand experience and loyalty. Based on this theoretical and empirical background, H4 is proposed as follows:
Brand love mediates the positive relationship between brand experience and brand loyalty.
The moderating role of brand trust
Brand trust is critical in determining consumer–brand relationships. If consumers have more trust in a brand, the perceived risks associated with purchasing the brand will decrease (Wang, 2002). If consumers perceive the brand to be more reliable, the perceived risk associated with purchasing the brand will decrease. Brand trust is defined as “the willingness of the average consumer to rely on the ability of the brand to perform its stated function” (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001, p. 82). This study examines the moderating role of brand trust in the relationship between brand experience and brand love. This study also investigates the moderating role of brand trust in the relationship between brand experience and brand loyalty. Brand trust is gradually built on consumers’ experiences with the brand. Most studies on the relationship between brand trust and brand love have focused on brand trust as a direct effect of brand love (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001; Joshi and Garg, 2021; Pande and Gupta, 2019; Zhang et al., 2020). Urban et al. (2000) argue that trust not only builds consumer-brand relationships, but it also stimulates brand loyalty. This study assumes that brand trust plays a moderating role in the relationship between brand experience and brand loyalty. This is because the effect of brand experience on brand loyalty varies depending on the level of brand trust. We expect that the greater the brand trust, the stronger the relationship between brand experience and brand loyalty. Therefore, we propose H5 as follows:
Brand trust moderates the effect of brand experience on brand loyalty, such that this effect is stronger for higher levels of brand trust.
Garg et al. (2016) provide insights into the moderating role of brand trust in the relationship of brand experience to brand love. Customers develop emotional and cognitive feelings toward the brand based on their brand experience. Consumers’ trust in a brand depends on brand attributes such as brand reliability and confidence. Consumers trust those brands which have provided a pleasant experience in the past. Thus, consumers may develop a sustainable relationship with the brand. Brand trust reflects the credibility of the branded product and motivates consumers to make regular purchases (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001). Therefore, consumers develop an affinity with branded products that offer a pleasant and memorable experience (Bairrada et al., 2018; Park et al., 2010). Based on this theoretical and empirical background, we propose H6 as follows:
Brand trust moderates the effect of brand experience on brand love, such that this effect is stronger for higher levels of brand trust.
The moderated mediation role of brand trust
Assuming brand trust moderates the association between brand experience and brand love, it is also likely that brand trust will conditionally influence the strength of the indirect relationship between brand experience and brand loyalty – thereby demonstrating a pattern of moderated mediation between the study variables, as depicted in Figure 1. We predict a weak (strong) relationship between brand experience and brand loyalty when brand trust is low (high). As a result, we propose H7 as follows:
The mediating effect of brand experience on brand loyalty through brand love is moderated by brand trust, such that this effect is stronger for higher levels of brand trust.
We develop a conceptual framework, as shown in Figure 1, based on the previously mentioned empirical and theoretical background.
Research methodology
Data collection and sample
To test the hypotheses proposed in the conceptual model, we collected data using a structured questionnaire through a convenience sampling technique in May 2021. This study focused on smartphone brand users in the Korean context. Since the smartphone is a product we use every day, it was judged that it is most suitable for research on brand experience, so the smartphone was selected as a research object. We asked them to respond only to those who use Samsung Galaxy Phones and Apple iPhones. As of 2021, Apple iPhone and Samsung Galaxy smartphones are among the top two brands in Korea. Approximately 63% of consumers use Samsung Galaxy phones, and about 20% use Apple iPhones (Gallup Korea, 2021). We collected data through a self-administered survey conducted by an online research company. The online research company reached 616 respondents. Among the respondents who answered the questionnaires, 18 cases were removed because of outlier testing. Finally, 598 respondents were included in the data analysis. Of the sample, 49.7% were iPhone users (n = 297), and 50.3% were Galaxy users (n = 301). The mean age of the sample was 37 years, and 48.7% were women (n = 291). Occupation of the sample covered 26% students (n = 154), 21% employees (n = 124) and 16% self-employment (n = 94). The residential area of the sample was distributed throughout the country.
Measures
Except for the demographic variables, all constructs were measured using a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). The existing scales were adapted for each construct. The measurement items are shown in Appendix 1. Brand experience was measured using Brakus et al.’s (2009) scale, which is composed of four dimensions: sensory, affective, intellectual and behavioral. The sensory experience was measured using four items (e.g. “The color of my smartphone brand is cool”). The affective experience was measured using four items (e.g. “I feel happy when using my smartphone brand”). The behavioral experience was measured using three items (e.g. “My smartphone brand is suitable for my lifestyle”). The intellectual experience was measured using four items (e.g. “My smartphone brand stimulates my intellectual curiosity”). The scale developed by Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001) was used to measure brand trust with four items (e.g. “I trust this brand”). Brand love was measured using the scales of Batra et al. (2012), Carroll and Ahuvia (2006), and Sarkar et al. (2012) which comprises two dimensions: intimacy and passion. The intimacy dimension was measured using four items (e.g. “I feel affection for my smartphone brand”). The passion dimension was measured using four items (e.g. “I am obsessed with my smartphone brand”). Brand loyalty was measured using Chaudhuri and Holbrook’s (2001) scale, which is composed of four items (e.g. “I will continue to purchase my smartphone brand”).
Data analysis and results
Measurement model analysis
We employed structural equation modeling implemented in Amos to assess the psychometric properties of the constructs. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was employed to assess the discriminant and convergent validity of all eight constructs (brand experience indicated by four dimensions [i.e. sensory brand experience, affective brand experience, behavioral brand experience and intellectual brand experience], brand trust, brand love indicated by two dimensions [i.e. intimacy and passion] and behavioral brand loyalty). The measurement model showed an acceptable fit to the data (χ2/df = 3.287, CFI = 0.934, TLI = 0.924, RMSEA = 0.074, SRMR = 0.04). The factors had an average variance extracted (AVE) above 0.50, and construct reliability (CR) above 0.70, demonstrating convergent validity (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). The factor loadings in the CFA, Cronbach’s alpha, AVE and CR for each construct are presented in Table 1, and the correlation coefficients of paired constructs are presented in Table 2. We employed the HTMT approach to further assess the discriminant validity using SmartPLS 3.3 (Henseler et al., 2015; Voorhees et al., 2016). The HTMT ratios are presented in Table 2. The results met the HTMT[.85] criteria, except between affective and behavioral experience, providing support for discriminant validity.
Common method variance check
As we collected self-reported measures from the respondents, common method variance (CMV) may be a concern. To check for a potential common method bias, we applied two statistical approaches. First, our CFA showed that the eight-factor model fit significantly better than the one-factor model, indicating no significant CMV (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Single-factor model of all constructs yielded a χ2 = 6236.7, df = 434 compared with χ2 = 1740.5, df = 406 for the eight-factor measurement model. Since the one-factor model was significantly worse than the measurement model (Δχ2 = 4496.2, Δdf = 28, p < 0.001), CMV is not a serious threat to this study. Second, CMV is modeled by specifying factor loadings from the ULMC (unmeasured latent method construct) which has no unique indicators of its own for all substantive items suspected of CMV contamination (Richardson et al., 2009). The inclusion of ULMC resulted in a model with a slightly improved fit to the data (Δχ2(32) = 534.917, p < 0.001, ΔRMSEA = 0.013, ΔCFI = 0.025 and ΔTLI = 0.025). Although the overall chi-square statistics are significant, other fit indices yielded a slight improvement, suggesting that the method effects are insignificant (Richardson et al., 2009). The results of both statistical analyses revealed that common method bias was not a substantial concern.
Hypothesis testing
It is important to clarify the nature of the relationships between multidimensional constructs and their dimensions (Edwards, 2001, p. 145). Two types of higher-order constructs are common (Edwards, 2001; Law et al., 1998; Law and Wong, 1999). If the relationship flows from the construct to its dimensions, it is termed a superordinate construct. For the aggregate construct, causality flows from lower-level constructs to higher-order factors. We conceptualize brand experience and brand love as superordinate constructs because these two constructs cause their dimensions. Prior research on brand experience and brand love conceptualized them as unidimensional rather than multidimensional (Safeer et al., 2021). Although this approach benefits from testing each unidimensional effect, it is limited in its ability to analyze higher-order factors. Therefore, to overcome this limitation, this research seeks to analyze the brand experience and brand love as high-order constructs (e.g. Singh et al., 2021). We test hypotheses H1, H2, H3 and H4 as second-order factor models based on the superordinate view.
To test hypotheses H1, H2, H3 and H4, we performed structural equation modeling using Amos. The results show that all the direct effects of brand experience and brand love on brand loyalty are statistically significant (see Table 3). The brand experience was positively associated with brand love (b = 1.501, p < 0.001). Therefore, H1 was supported. Brand love was positively associated with brand loyalty (b = 0.382, p < 0.001). Therefore, H2 was supported. The brand experience was positively associated with brand loyalty (b = 0.868, p < 0.001). Therefore, H3 was supported. To examine the indirect effect of brand experience on brand loyalty through brand love, we used the bootstrapping method (2,000 re-samples, non-parametric bootstrap) in Amos. The indirect effect of brand experience on brand loyalty via brand love was significant (b = 0.574, p < 0.01, 95% CI [0.162, 1.094]). Therefore, H4 was supported.
To test H5, H6 and H7, we performed moderated mediation analysis using the regression bootstrapping method with 5,000 samples and a 95% bias-corrected confidence interval (CI) in PROCESS 4.0 (Model 8) developed by Hayes (2018). To test H5, H6 and H7, we summed the scores of the relevant items and mean-centered to form overall indices of all constructs (Nyadzayo and Khajehzadeh, 2016). We present the conditional process analysis results in Table 4.
Moderating effect of brand trust on the relationship between brand experience and brand loyalty is not statistically significant (b = 0.001, SE = 0.002, t = 0.582, p = 0.561). Therefore, H5 was not supported. More specifically, the conditional direct effect at the low level of brand trust (M-1SD) (b = 0.127, SE = 0.019, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.090, 0.164]), at the medium level of brand trust (M) (b = 0.132, SE = 0.017, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.099, 0.165]) and at the high level of brand trust (M+1SD) (b = 0.137, SE = 0.019, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.100, 0.173]). Moderating effect of brand trust on the relationship between brand experience and brand love is statistically significant (b = 0.009, SE = 0.003, t = 2.736, p = 0.006). Therefore, H6 was supported. We present this moderating effect graphically in Figure 2.
The index of moderated mediation was significant (index = 0.002, SE = 0.001, 95% CI [0.0001, 0.003]), therefore, H7 was supported. The index of moderated mediation quantifies the effect that a moderator has on a mediated relationship (Hayes, 2015, 2018). This result indicates that brand trust moderates the mediating effect of brand love on the relationship between brand experience and brand loyalty (see Table 4). More specifically, the conditional indirect effect at the low level of brand trust (M-1SD) was significant (b = 0.071, SE = 0.031, 95% CI [0.046, 0.097]), at the medium level of brand trust (M) was significant (b = 0.077, SE = 0.014, 95% CI [0.049, 0.105]) and at the high level of brand trust (M+1SD) was significant (b = 0.083, SE = 0.016, 95% CI [0.053, 0.114]). This result indicates that the greater the brand trust, the greater the mediating effect (Hayes, 2015, 2018).
Additional analysis
We performed two additional analyses to examine the relationship between brand experience and brand love. First, we analyzed the effect of brand experience on brand love from a unidimensional perspective. Batra et al. (2012) maintained that it would be more fruitful to analyze the individual components of brand love separately if the research purpose is to understand all the elements available for increasing brand love. In line with their assertion, we analyzed the relationships between brand experience, brand love and brand loyalty based on individual components. The results are presented in Appendix 2. The behavioral experiences did not affect intimacy among the four brand experience factors. Behavioral and sensory factors did not affect passion among the four brand-experience factors. Intimacy and passion affected brand loyalty. We also analyzed the relationships based on the two smartphone users by multi-group analysis. The results showed that there were no statistical differences between the two groups (see Appendix 3).
Second, we performed a multi-group analysis to compare the parameters between the two groups in terms of a multidimensional perspective (Kline, 2016). The results in Appendix 4 indicate that the influence of brand experience on brand love was found to be significantly greater for iPhone users than for Galaxy users (biPhone = 1.919, βiPhone = 0.941, bGalaxy = 1.390, βGalaxy = 0.902, t = −2.215). The influence of brand love on brand loyalty was found to be significantly greater for Galaxy users than for iPhone users (biPhone = −0.220, βiPhone = −0.201, bGalaxy = 0.647, βGalaxy = 0.611, t = 3.192). The influence of brand experience on brand loyalty was found to be significantly greater for iPhone users than for Galaxy users (biPhone = 2.173, βiPhone = 0.974, bGalaxy = 0.488, βGalaxy = 0.299, t = −2.944). In conclusion, the influence of brand experience on brand love and brand loyalty was found to be greater for iPhone users than for Galaxy users.
Discussion and conclusion
Consumers experience their smartphone brand in their daily lives. The more consumers experience their brand favorably, the more they love it, thus leading to brand loyalty. This study investigates the role of brand love and brand trust in the link between brand experience and brand loyalty. Specifically, this study focuses on the moderating role of brand trust and mediating role of brand love in the relationship between brand experience and brand loyalty. We seek to examine these effects in the context of Korean consumers’ top two smartphone brands (i.e. iPhone and Galaxy). The main findings of this study are as follows.
First, brand experience positively affected brand love, suggesting that the more favorable the brand experience of consumers is, the more the brand love will be. This result was consistent with the findings of Sarkar et al. (2012), Brakus et al. (2009), and Roy et al. (2013). Second, brand experience positively affected brand loyalty, implying that consumers’ positive brand experiences increase their loyalty to the brand. This result was consistent with the findings of Brakus et al. (2009), Iglesias et al. (2011), and Ong et al. (2018). Third, brand loves positively affected brand loyalty, revealing that consumers’ positive brand love enhances their loyalty to the brand. This result is consistent with the findings of Batra et al. (2012), Bergkvist and Bech-Larsen (2010), Carroll and Ahuvia (2006), and Huang (2017). Fourth, brand love mediated the relationship between brand experience and brand loyalty, suggesting that brand love plays a partial mediating role in the relationship between brand experience and brand loyalty. This result is consistent with the findings of Huang (2017), Kazmi and Khalique (2019), and Roy et al. (2013). Fifth, brand trust moderated the relationship between brand experience and brand love. This result indicates that a higher level of brand trust results in a stronger relationship between brand experience and brand love. Sixth, it was found that sensory, affective and intellectual experience factors affected intimacy, and affective and intellectual factors affected passion. Among these factors, affective experience emerged as the most important dimension in influencing intimacy and passion. Intimacy and passion affected brand loyalty, respectively. Among passion and intimacy elements, passion is a more important factor than intimacy in determining brand loyalty. Seventh, this study shows that brand trust moderates the mediating effect of brand love in the relationship between brand experience and brand loyalty. This finding is unique in the brand management literature, and we expect this finding contributes to the brand management literature. Previous studies on the role of brand trust have focused on the determinants of brand loyalty and brand love. Finally, we compared the parameters between two smartphone brand users. The results indicate that the effect of brand experience on brand love was significantly stronger for iPhone users than for Galaxy users. The effect of brand love on brand loyalty was significantly stronger for Galaxy users than for iPhone users. The effect of brand experience on brand loyalty was significantly stronger for iPhone users than for Galaxy users.
Theoretical and managerial implications
This study makes several theoretical implications for the brand management literature. First, prior research on brand experience, brand love, brand trust and brand loyalty has conceptualized brand trust as an independent variable of brand loyalty. However, this study conceptualizes brand trust as a moderating variable in the relationship between brand experience, brand love and brand loyalty. The results show that brand trust moderates the relationship between brand experience and brand love. That is, the greater the brand trust, the stronger the relationship between brand experience and brand love. Therefore, this study has theoretical implications in that brand trust moderates the relationship between brand experience and brand love. Second, this study conceptualizes brand experience and brand love as high-order factors. Existing studies on these concepts have been conceptualized from a first-order factor perspective. This study provides theoretical implications that brand experience and brand love can act as a higher-order factors. Third, this study provides theoretical implications that brand trust plays a moderated mediating role in the relationship between brand experience, brand love and brand loyalty. It was found that the greater the brand trust, the greater the relationship between brand experience, brand love and brand loyalty.
This study has significant managerial implications. First, this study reveals that the effect of brand experience on brand love was stronger for iPhone users than for Galaxy users. Apple lovers do not see Apple as a mere product, but as a creative person who makes their life convenient and enjoyable. This is the difference between Samsung Galaxy and Apple iPhone (MacInnis et al., 2016). Therefore, Samsung should strive to enhance customers’ brand experiences and brand love. To do this, we suggest two main points. (1) From a design point of view, aesthetic pleasure should be given to the customer. (2) From a functional point of view, it is necessary to solve various difficulties of customers. When these two elements are in place, the brand will be loved by customers. Second, this study reveals that the effect of brand love on brand loyalty was greater for Galaxy users than for iPhone users. This result can be affected by consumer ethnocentrism. In other words, customers want to repurchase Samsung Galaxy produced by a Korean company in the future. It has been a fact for several years that consumer loyalty to Apple iPhone in the US is higher than that of Galaxy and other brands of smartphones. According to a Morgan Stanley survey in May (2017), 92% of US consumers said they would repurchase an Apple iPhone within a year, surpassing Samsung’s 77% and LG’s 59%. In other words, loyalty to the iPhone is higher than to other smartphones. Third, the effect of brand experience on brand loyalty was greater for iPhone users than for Galaxy users. Therefore, Samsung should strive to provide a more favorable brand experience to customers. In sum, Samsung should effort to provide a more favorable brand experience and brand love than Apple. To achieve this, Samsung managers need to provide various sources of brand experience, such as events, campaigns and storytelling (Khan and Rahman, 2015).
Limitations and future research
This study focuses on two best-selling smartphone brands (i.e. iPhone and Galaxy) in a Korean context. A limitation of this study is that it focuses only on the smartphone product category. The results of this study were obtained from Korean smartphone users. Therefore, the results may vary depending on the country or product category, which necessitates expanding this research to other countries or product categories. Galaxy is produced by Samsung, a representative Korean company. Korean consumers’ ethnocentrism may affect the results among the constructs (Shimp and Sharma, 1987; Steenkamp et al., 2003; Sun et al., 2021). Sun et al. (2021) found that domestic smartphone brands affect directly brand equity, but foreign brands did not. Therefore, it is necessary to research expanding the country. The effects of brand experience dimensions (i.e. sensory, affective, intellectual and behavioral) on brand love may depend on the type of product or service offered (Huaman-Ramirez and Merunka, 2019). Therefore, it is necessary to research expanding the product category.
We modeled the brand experience as the sole predictor of brand love and brand loyalty. Other variables, such as brand characteristics (e.g. quality level), may affect brand love. In addition to brand trust, other variables, such as consumer variables (e.g. personality traits) and relationship attributes (e.g. relationship length), may act as moderating variables, which calls for investigation in future research.
Figures
Figure 1
Conceptual framework
Figure 2
Moderating effects of brand trust on the relationship between brand experience and brand love
Measurement model
| Construct | Items | Mean | SD | Factor loading | Cronbach’s α | CR | AVE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sensory experience | Sens1 | 5.36 | 1.13 | 0.817 | 0.907 | 0.909 | 0.716 |
| Sens2 | 5.54 | 1.10 | 0.927 | ||||
| Sens3 | 5.53 | 1.07 | 0.861 | ||||
| Sens4 | 5.47 | 1.09 | 0.771 | ||||
| Affective experience | Affe1 | 5.31 | 1.08 | 0.851 | 0.906 | 0.910 | 0.716 |
| Affe2 | 5.11 | 1.12 | 0.862 | ||||
| Affe3 | 4.63 | 1.28 | 0.789 | ||||
| Affe4 | 5.09 | 1.16 | 0.880 | ||||
| Behavioral experience | Beha1 | 5.19 | 1.17 | 0.849 | 0.882 | 0.884 | 0.717 |
| Beha2 | 4.93 | 1.20 | 0.840 | ||||
| Beha3 | 5.34 | 1.07 | 0.848 | ||||
| Intellectual experience | Inte1 | 4.84 | 1.28 | 0.856 | 0.891 | 0.894 | 0.679 |
| Inte2 | 4.57 | 1.32 | 0.852 | ||||
| Inte3 | 4.96 | 1.35 | 0.814 | ||||
| Inte4 | 4.66 | 1.45 | 0.772 | ||||
| Intimacy | Inti1 | 4.50 | 1.29 | 0.863 | 0.945 | 0.943 | 0.805 |
| Inti2 | 4.43 | 1.28 | 0.869 | ||||
| Inti3 | 4.89 | 1.23 | 0.937 | ||||
| Inti4 | 4.95 | 1.19 | 0.918 | ||||
| Passion | Pass1 | 4.60 | 1.40 | 0.856 | 0.941 | 0.943 | 0.804 |
| Pass2 | 4.92 | 1.31 | 0.912 | ||||
| Pass3 | 5.04 | 1.33 | 0.938 | ||||
| Pass4 | 5.10 | 1.34 | 0.879 | ||||
| Brand trust | Trus1 | 5.14 | 1.29 | 0.920 | 0.924 | 0.938 | 0.792 |
| Trus2 | 5.39 | 1.31 | 0.932 | ||||
| Trus3 | 4.70 | 1.55 | 0.841 | ||||
| Trus4 | 4.86 | 1.56 | 0.863 | ||||
| Brand loyalty | Loya1 | 5.33 | 1.20 | 0.915 | 0.958 | 0.960 | 0.856 |
| Loya2 | 5.14 | 1.29 | 0.935 | ||||
| Loya3 | 5.05 | 1.30 | 0.928 | ||||
| Loya4 | 5.30 | 1.24 | 0.913 |
Note(s): CR = composite reliability, AVE = average variance extracted
Fornell-Larcker criterion and HTMT
| Construct | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Sensory | 0.846 | 0.730 | 0.702 | 0.561 | 0.534 | 0.656 | 0.607 | 0.781 |
| 2. Affective | 0.719 | 0.846 | 0.875 | 0.781 | 0.777 | 0.845 | 0.749 | 0.744 |
| 3. Behavioral | 0.688 | 0.868 | 0.847 | 0.757 | 0.729 | 0.793 | 0.756 | 0.784 |
| 4. Intellectual | 0.528 | 0.749 | 0.749 | 0.824 | 0.791 | 0.815 | 0.704 | 0.698 |
| 5. Intimacy | 0.506 | 0.760 | 0.746 | 0.765 | 0.897 | 0.840 | 0.764 | 0.703 |
| 6. Passion | 0.627 | 0.825 | 0.786 | 0.768 | 0.859 | 0.897 | 0.794 | 0.764 |
| 7. Brand trust | 0.580 | 0.740 | 0.752 | 0.671 | 0.760 | 0.780 | 0.890 | 0.793 |
| 8. Brand loyalty | 0.572 | 0.737 | 0.782 | 0.672 | 0.720 | 0.772 | 0.775 | 0.925 |
Note(s): The italicized diagonal value is the square root of AVE. Below the diagonal elements are the correlation values between the constructs. Above the diagonal elements are the HTMT values
Results of direct effect (H1, H2, H3) and indirect effect (H4)
| Path: hypothesis | b | β | SE |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brand experience → Brand love: H1 | 1.501*** | 0.929 | 0.100 |
| Brand love → Brand loyalty: H2 | 0.382*** | 0.349 | 0.122 |
| Brand experience → Brand loyalty: H3 | 0.868*** | 0.490 | 0.202 |
| Brand experience → Brand love → Brand loyalty: H4 | 0.574** | 95% CI [0.162, 1.094] | |
Note(s): b = Unstandardized estimate, β = Standardized estimate, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001
| b | SE | t | p | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mediator (brand love) | ||||
| Brand experience | 0.441 | 0.017 | 25.593 | <0.001 |
| Brand trust | 0.456 | 0.060 | 7.548 | <0.001 |
| Brand experience × brand trust: H6 | 0.009 | 0.003 | 2.736 | 0.006 |
| Dependent variable (brand loyalty) | ||||
| Brand experience | 0.132 | 0.017 | 7.886 | <0.001 |
| Brand trust | 0.220 | 0.042 | 5.216 | <0.001 |
| Brand love | 0.174 | 0.027 | 6.341 | <0.001 |
| Brand experience × brand trust: H5 | 0.001 | 0.002 | 0.582 | 0.561 |
| b | BootSE | BootLLCI | BootULCI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conditional direct effect | ||||
| M−1SD (−3.848) | 0.127 | 0.019 | 0.090 | 0.164 |
| M (0.000) | 0.132 | 0.017 | 0.099 | 0.165 |
| M+1SD (3.848) | 0.137 | 0.019 | 0.100 | 0.173 |
| Conditional indirect effect | ||||
| M−1SD (−3.848) | 0.071 | 0.013 | 0.046 | 0.097 |
| M (0.000) | 0.077 | 0.014 | 0.049 | 0.105 |
| M+1SD (3.848) | 0.083 | 0.016 | 0.053 | 0.114 |
| Index of moderated mediation: H7 | Index: 0.002 | 0.001 | 0.0001 | 0.0032 |
Measures
| Construct | Items | Description | Sources | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brand experience | Sensory experience | Sens1 | The color of my smartphone is cool | Brakus et al. (2009) |
| Sens2 | I like the design of my smartphone | |||
| Sens3 | I like the shape of my smartphone | |||
| Sens4 | The material of my smartphone feels good | |||
| Affective experience | Affe1 | I enjoy using my smartphone brand | ||
| Affe2 | I am happy to use my smartphone brand | |||
| Affe3 | I was moved by my smartphone brand | |||
| Affe4 | It feels good to use my smartphone brand | |||
| Behavioral experience | Beha1 | My smartphone brand fits my lifestyle | ||
| Beha2 | My smartphone brand drives positive behavior | |||
| Beha3 | My smartphone brand is easy to use | |||
| Intellectual experience | Inte1 | My smartphone brand stimulates my intellectual curiosity | ||
| Inte2 | My smartphone brand makes me think | |||
| Inte3 | After using my smartphone brand, I learned something new | |||
| Inte4 | When I see an advertisement for my smartphone brand, I think about it | |||
| Brand love | Intimacy | Inti1 | I feel affection for my smartphone brand | Batra et al. (2012), Carroll and Ahuvia (2006),Sarkar et al. (2012) |
| Inti2 | I feel the warmth of my smartphone brand | |||
| Inti3 | I love my smartphone brand | |||
| Inti4 | My smartphone brand feels familiar | |||
| Passion | Pass1 | I am obsessed with my smartphone brand | ||
| Pass2 | I feel attracted to my smartphone brand | |||
| Pass3 | My smartphone brand delights me | |||
| Pass4 | My smartphone brand is what I want | |||
| Brand loyalty | Loya1 | I will continue to purchase my smartphone brand | Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001) | |
| Loya2 | I will recommend my smartphone brand to others | |||
| Loya3 | I want to introduce my smartphone brand to others | |||
| Loya4 | I will speak favorably of my smartphone brand to others | |||
| Brand trust | Trus1 | I trust my smartphone brand | Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001) | |
| Trus2 | I can rely on my smartphone brand | |||
| Trus3 | My smartphone brand does not disappoint me | |||
| Trus4 | I have confidence in my smartphone brand | |||
Results of unidimensional analysis
| Path | Unstand estimates | Stand estimates | SE | t-value | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sensory experience → Intimacy | −0.140 | −0.105 | 0.056 | −2.518 | 0.012* |
| Affective experience → Intimacy | 0.508 | 0.463 | 0.087 | 5.830 | *** |
| Behavioral experience → Intimacy | 0.101 | 0.081 | 0.093 | 1.092 | 0.275 |
| Intellectual experience → Intimacy | 0.442 | 0.446 | 0.051 | 8.609 | *** |
| Sensory experience → Passion | 0.081 | 0.057 | 0.053 | 1.538 | 0.124 |
| Affective experience → Passion | 0.546 | 0.465 | 0.084 | 6.520 | *** |
| Behavioral experience → Passion | 0.096 | 0.072 | 0.088 | 1.081 | 0.280 |
| Intellectual experience → Passion | 0.398 | 0.376 | 0.049 | 8.163 | *** |
| Intimacy → Brand loyalty | 0.218 | 0.227 | 0.045 | 4.853 | *** |
| Passion → Brand loyalty | 0.543 | 0.602 | 0.045 | 12.165 | *** |
Note(s): *p < 0.05
Results of parameter comparison between two smartphone brand users
| Path | iPhone (n = 297) | Galaxy (n = 301) | Parameter comparison † |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sensory experience → Intimacy | −0.255 (0.070)** | 0.531 (0.856) | 0.916 |
| Affective experience → Intimacy | 0.677 (0.114)** | −11.169 (11.169) | −1.067 |
| Behavioral experience → Intimacy | 0.192 (0.116) | 11.165 (10.491) | 1.046 |
| Intellectual experience → Intimacy | 0.325 (0.070)** | 1.453 (1.132) | 0.994 |
| Sensory experience → Passion | 0.008 (0.064) | 1.651 (6.240) | 0.263 |
| Affective experience → Passion | 0.795 (0.111)*** | −39.684 (134.440) | −0.301 |
| Behavioral experience → Passion | 0.136 (0.108) | 38.349 (127.281) | 0.300 |
| Intellectual experience → Passion | 0.212 (0.064)** | 3.921 (11.828) | 0.314 |
| Intimacy → Brand loyalty | 0.090 (0.071) | 0.197 (0.088)** | 0.937 |
| Passion → Brand loyalty | 0.607 (0.074)*** | 0.626 (0.086)*** | 0.169 |
Note(s): Standard errors are given in parentheses. † Parameter comparison means critical ratios for differences between parameters. More than ±1.96 means the two parameters are statistically significant differences between them at the α = 0.05 level. **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001
Results of parameter comparison between two smartphone brand users
| Path | iPhone (n = 297) | Galaxy (n = 301) | Parameter comparison † |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brand experience → Brand love | b = 1.919(0.206), β = 0.941, t = 9.317 | b = 1.390(0.121), β = 0.902, t = 11.464 | −2.215* |
| Brand love → Brand loyalty | b = −0.220(0.248), β = −0.201, t = −0.889 | b = 0.647(0.112), β = 0.611, t = 5.791 | 3.192** |
| Brand experience → Brand loyalty | b = 2.173(0.547), β = 0.974, t = 3.976 | b = 0.488(0.170), β = 0.299, t = 2.879 | −2.944** |
Note(s): Standard errors are given in parentheses. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, b = unstandardized estimate, β = standardized estimate, † Parameter comparison means critical ratios for differences between parameters. More than ±1.96 means the two parameters are statistically significant differences between them at the α = 0.05 level
References
Aaker, D.A. (1996), “Measuring brand equity across products and markets”, California Management Review, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 102-120.
Albert, N. and Merunka, D. (2013), “The role of brand love in consumer-brand relationship”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 258-266.
Albert, N., Merunka, D. and Valette-Florence, P. (2009), The Feeling of Love toward a Brand: Concept and Measurement, ACR North American Advances, McGill, A.L. and Shavitt, S., Duluth, M.N. Vol. 36, pp. 300-307.
Andreini, D., Pedeliento, G., Zarantonello, L. and Solerio, C. (2018), “A renaissance of brand experience: advancing the concept through a multiperspective analysis”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 91, pp. 123-133.
Bagozzi, R.P., Batra, R. and Ahuvia, A. (2017), “Brand love: development and validation of a practical scale”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Bairrada, C.M., Coelho, F. and Coelho, A. (2018), “Antecedents and outcomes of brand love: utilitarian and symbolic brand qualities”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52 Nos 3/4, pp. 656-682.
Bapat, D. and Thanigan, J. (2016), “Exploring relationship among brand experience dimensions, brand evaluation and brand loyalty”, Global Business Review, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 1357-1372.
Batra, R., Ahuvia, A. and Bagozzi, R.P. (2012), “Brand love”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 76 No. 1, pp. 1-16.
Bergkvist, A. and Bech-Larsen, T. (2010), “Two studies of consequences and actionable antecedents of brand love”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 17, pp. 504-518.
Brakus, J.J., Schmitt, B.H. and Zarantonello, L. (2009), “Brand experience: what is it, how is it measured? Does it affect loyalty?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 73 No. 3, pp. 52-68.
Burmann, C. and Zeplin, S. (2005), “Building brand commitment: a behavioural approach to internal brand management”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 12, pp. 279-300.
Carroll, B.A. and Ahuvia, A.C. (2006), “Some antecedents and outcomes of brand love”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 17, pp. 79-89.
Chaudhuri, A. and Holbrook, M.B. (2001), “The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand performance: the role of brand loyalty”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 65 No. 2, pp. 81-93.
Christino, J., Silva, T., Moura, L.R. and Fonseca, L.H. (2020), “Antecedents and consequents of brand love in the smartphone market: an extended study of the Impact of switching cost”, Journal of Promotion Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 1-21.
Coleman, D. (2018), Building Brand Experiences: A Practical Guide to Retaining Brand Relevance, Kogan Page, New York, NY.
Counterpoint (2022), “Counterpoint quarterly report”, available at: https://www.counterpointresearch.com/ko/counterpoint-quarterly-reports/
Delgado-Ballester, E. and Munuera-Aleman, J.L. (2001), “Brand trust in the context of consumer loyalty”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 Nos 11/12, pp. 1238-1258.
Ding, C.G. and Tseng, T.H. (2015), “On the relationships among brand experience, hedonic emotions, and brand equity”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 17 Nos 7/8, pp. 994-1015.
Edwards, J.R. (2001), “Multidimensional constructs in organizational behavioral research: an integrative analytical framework”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 144-192.
Exploding Topics (2022), “Time spent using smartphones (2022 statistics)”, available at: https://explodingtopics.com/blog/smartphone-usage-stats
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Fournier, S. (1998), “Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in consumer research”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24 March, pp. 343-371.
Francisco-Maffezzolli, E.C., Semprebon, E. and Prado, P.H.M. (2014), “Construing loyalty through brand experience: the mediating role of brand relationship quality”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 446-458.
Gallup Korea (2021), “2012-2021 smartphone usage rate & brand”, available at: https://www.gallup.co.kr/etc/searchReport.asp
Garg, R., Mukherjee, J., Biswas, S. and Kataria, A. (2016), “An investigation into the concept of brand love and its proximal and distal covariates”, Journal of Relationship Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 135-153.
Griffin, J. (2002), Customer Loyalty: How to Earn it, How to Keep it, Jossey-Bass, New York, NY.
Hayes, A.F. (2015), “An index and test of linear moderated mediation”, Multivariate Behavioral Research, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
Hayes, A.F. (2018), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach, 2nd ed., Guilford Press, New York, NY.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2015), “A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 115-135.
Huaman-Ramirez, R. and Merunka, D. (2019), “Brand experience effects on brand attachment: the role of brand trust, age, and income”, European Business Review, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 610-645.
Huang, C.C. (2017), “The impacts of brand experiences on brand loyalty: mediators of brand love and trust”, Management Decision, Vol. 55 No. 5, pp. 915-934.
Iglesias, O., Singh, J.J. and Batista-Foguet, J.M. (2011), “The role of brand experience and affective commitment in determining brand loyalty”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 18 No. 8, pp. 570-582.
Joshi, R. and Garg, P. (2021), “Role of brand experience in shaping brand love”, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 259-272.
Kazmi, S.H.A. and Khalique, M. (2019), “Brand experience and mediating roles of brand love, brand prestige and brand trust”, Market Forces, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 78-98.
Khan, I. and Rahman, Z. (2015), “Brand experience formation mechanism and its possible outcomes: a theoretical framework”, The Marketing Review, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 239-259.
Kim, S. and Jones, C. (2009), “Online shopping and moderating role of offline brand trust”, Direct Marketing: An International Journal, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 282-300.
Kline, R.B. (2016), Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, The Guilford Press, New York, NY.
Law, K.S. and Wong, C.S. (1999), “Multidimensional constructs in structural equation analysis: an illustration using the job perception and job satisfaction constructs”, Journal of Management, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 143-160.
Law, K.S., Wong, C.S. and Mobley, W.H. (1998), “Toward a taxonomy of multidimensional constructs”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 741-755.
MacInnis, D.J., Park, C.W., Eisingerich, A.B. and Weiss, A.M. (2016), Brand Administration: Building a Business People Love, Wiley, New York, NY.
Matzler, K., Grabner-Krauter, S. and Bidmon, S. (2008), “Risk aversion and brand loyalty: the mediating role of brand trust and brand affect”, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 154-162.
Morgan Stanley (2017), “Sustainable signals: new data from the individual investor”, available at: https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/apple-stock-price-morgan-stanley-note-2017-5-1002022779?miRedirects=1
Mostafa, R.B. and Kasamani, T. (2021), “Brand experience and brand loyalty: is it a matter of emotions?”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 1033-1051.
Nyadzayo, M.W. and Khajehzadeh, S. (2016), “The antecedents of customer loyalty: a moderated mediation model of customer relationship management quality and brand image”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 30, pp. 262-270.
Odin, Y., Odin, N. and Valette-Floence (2001), “Conceptual and operational aspects of brand loyalty: an empirical investigation”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 53 No. 2, pp. 75-84.
Oliver, R.L. (1999), “Whence consumer loyalty”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63 No. 1, pp. 33-44.
Ong, C.H., Lee, H.W. and Ramayah, T. (2018), “Impact of brand experience on loyalty”, Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, Vol. 27 No. 7, pp. 755-774.
Pan, Y., Sheng, S. and Xie, F.T. (2012), “Antecedents of customer loyalty: an empirical synthesis and reexamination”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 150-158.
Pande, S. and Gupta, K.P. (2019), “Does brand experience impacts brand love: the role of brand trust”, SAMVAD: SIBM Pune Research Journal, Vol. 18, pp. 73-78.
Park, C.W., MacInnis, D.J., Priester, J., Eisingerich, A.B. and Iacobucci, D. (2010), “Brand attachment and brand attitude strength: conceptual and empirical differentiation of two critical brand equity drivers”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 74 No. 6, pp. 1-17.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, N.P. and Lee, J.Y. (2003), “Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Richardson, H.A., Simmering, M.J. and Sturman, M.C. (2009), “A tale of three perspectives: examining post hoc statistical techniques for detection and correction of common method variance”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 762-800.
Roy, S.K., Eshghi, A. and Sarkar, A. (2013), “Antecedents and consequences of brand love”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 325-332.
Safeer, A.A., He, Y. and Abrar, M. (2021), “The influence of brand experience on brand authenticity and brand love: an empirical study from Asian consumers’ perspective”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 33 No. 5, pp. 1123-1138.
Sahin, A., Zehir, C. and Kitapci, H. (2011), “The effects of brand experiences, trust and satisfaction on building brand loyalty: an empirical research on global brands”, Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 24, pp. 1288-1301.
Santos, M. and Schlesinger, W. (2021), “When love matters: experience and brand love as antecedents of loyalty and willingness to pay a premium price in streaming services”, Spanish Journal of Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 374-391.
Sarkar, A., Ponnam, A. and Murthy, B.K. (2012), “Understanding and measuring romantic brand love”, Journal of Customer Behavior, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 325-348.
Shimp, T.A. and Sharma, S. (1987), “Consumer ethnocentrism: construction and validation of the CETSCALE”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 280-289.
Singh, D., Bajpai, N. and Kulshreshtha, K. (2021), “Brand experience-brand love relationship for Indian hypermarket brands: the moderating role of customer personality traits”, Journal of Relationship Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 20-41.
Steenkamp, J.B.E.M., Batra, R. and Alden, D.L. (2003), “How perceived brand globalness creates brand value”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 53-65.
Sun, Y., Gonzalez-Jimenez, H. and Wang, S. (2021), “Examining the relationships between e-WOM, consumer ethnocentrism and brand equity”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 130, pp. 564-573.
Thomson, M., MacInnis, D.J. and Park, C.W. (2005), “The ties that bind: measuring the strength of consumers’ emotional attachments to brands”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 15, pp. 77-91.
Trivedi, J. and Sama, R. (2021), “Determinants of consumer loyalty towards celebrity-owned restaurants: the mediating role of brand love”, Journal of Consumer Behavior, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 748-761.
Urban, G.L., Sultan, F. and Qualls, W.J. (2000), “Placing trust at the center of your internet strategy”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 42 Fall, pp. 39-48.
Voorhees, C.M., Brady, M.K., Calantone, R. and Ramirez, E. (2016), “Discriminant validity testing in marketing: an analysis, causes for concern, and proposed remedies”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 119-134.
Wang, G. (2002), “Attitudinal correlates of brand commitment: an empirical study”, Journal of Relationship Marketing, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 57-75.
Watson, G.F., Beck, J.T., Henderson, C.M. and Palmatier, R.W. (2015), “Building, measuring, and profiting from customer loyalty”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 43 No. 6, pp. 790-825.
Yasin, M. and Shamim, A. (2013), “Brand love: mediating role in purchase intentions and word-of-mouth”, Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 101-109.
Yim, C.K., Tse, D.K. and Chan, K.W. (2008), “Strengthening customer loyalty through intimacy and passion: roles of customer-firm affection and customer-staff relationships in services”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 45 No. 6, pp. 741-756.
Zarantonello, L. and Schmitt, B.H. (2010), “Using the brand experience scale to profile consumers and predict consumer behaviour”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 17, pp. 532-540.
Zhang, S., Peng, M.Y.P., Peng, Y., Zhang, Y., Ren, G. and Chen, C.C. (2020), “Expressive brand relationship, brand love, and brand loyalty for tablet PCs: building a sustainable brand”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 11, pp. 1-10.