Page 87

THE EFFECT OF BRAND EXPERIENCE ON BRAND

RELATIONSHIP QUALITY
Hee Jung, Lee, Seoul National University
Myung Soo, Kang, Hansung University

ABSTRACT

It is very important for customers to have brand experiences in marketing practice. These
brand experiences affect consumer-brand relationship quality positively. Brand experience is
composed of four dimensions: sensory, affective, behavioral, and intellectual. These are evoked
by brand-related stimuli like brand design, communications and environments.
In this research, we investigate which brand experiences affect brand relationship
quality. Among four brand experience dimensions, we investigate affective and behavioral brand
experiences, because affective and behavioral dimensions have a decisive effect on the brand
attachment. According to this research, an affective brand experience affects brand trust and
brand commitment positively. A behavioral brand experience does not affect brand trust
meaningfully but positively affects brand commitment.
Also we examine brand trust-brand commitment relationship and brand relationship
quality-brand loyalty. Brand trust affects brand commitment positively and brand relationship
quality (trust, commitment) influences brand loyalty positively.
In this study, we suggest that not all brand experiences are effective to promote brand
relationship quality. According to the goal of a company or a brand, marketing managers should
implement brand experience strategies selectively. Also, it is important to choose a brand
experience activity that is well matched with the pursuing brand relationships. Through this
study, we suggest brand experiences are crucial for building a brand relationship and a brand
loyalty.

INTRODUCTION

In marketing practice, brand experience has attracted much attention(Brakus, Schmitt &
Zarantonello, 2009). It is important for marketing professionals to understand how customers
experience brands and how the brand experience affects marketing strategies for services and
products. Nowadays, customers are not satisfied with buying products for functional benefits.
Many researchers suggested that the pervasive influence of emotional response in product
consumption and shopping(Holbrook, Chestnut, Oliva & Greenleaf, 1984; Batra & Ray, 1986;
Westbrook, 1987; Batra & Holbrook, 1990; Cohen, 1990). Schmitt(1999) said consumers
increasingly make choices based on the experiential factor that the product offers. It has been

Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, Volume 16, Number 1, 2012

Page 88

suggested that an emotion-rich experience provides not only brand differentiation and consumer
loyalty but also sales increase and promotion of the brands(Morrison & Crane, 2007). It means
that brand experience can affect the customer-brand relationship.
Relationship Marketing has been studied by using Fournier(1998)’s conceptualization
of Brand relationship quality (BRQ). Brand relationship has arrived a new stage to be one of the
principal focus of research on consumers and brands(Aaker, Fournier & Brasel, 2004; Breivik &
Thorbjornsen, 2008; Chang & Chieng, 2006; Hass, 2007; Huber, Collhardt, Matthes & Vogel,
2009). Brand relationship quality is usually used to evaluate the relationship strength and the
depth of consumer-brand relationship(Xie & Heung, 2009). The advantage of studying brand
relationship is the ability to provide insights into the impact of brands on customers and their
needs (Breivik & Thorbjornsen, 2008; Fournier, 1998; Monga, 2002). But empirical studies that
deal with whether brand relationship quality could influence consumers’ purchase intentions
and behaviors are scant(Xie & Heung, 2009). Researches regarding the correlation between
consumers’ experiences of brands and brand relationship quality are also limited.
Therefore the purpose of this study is to examine how brand experience affects customer-
brand relationship quality. This could be a contribution for marketing managers to improve their
knowledge about the relationship between their brands and customers and to understand their
customers more accurately.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND PROPOSITION

Brand Experience

Brand experiences are “subjective, internal consumer responses(sensations, feelings,

and cognitions) and behavioral responses evoked by brand-related stimuli that are part of a
brand’s identity, packaging, design, environments and communications”(Brakus, Schmitt &
Zarantonello, 2009). Consumer and marketing research has shown that experiences happen when
consumers search for products, when they are shopping for products or receive services, and
when they consume products or services (Arnould, Price, & Zinkhan, 2002; Brakus, Schmitt, &
Zhang, 2008; Holbrook, 2000).
The types of brand experience are related with product, shopping and service, and
consumption experience. Product experiences occur when consumers interact with products
(Hoch 2002). First, the product experience happens directly when there is physical contact with
the product (Hoch & Ha, 1986) or indirectly when a product is presented virtually or in an
advertisement(Hoch & Ha, 1986; Kempf & Smith, 1998).
Second, shopping and service experiences happen when consumers interact with a
store’s physical environments, its policies and practices (Hui & Bateson, 1991; Kerin, Jain &
Howard, 1992). Thus, research in this area investigates how atmospheric variables and

Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, Volume 16, Number 1, 2012

 Page 89

salespeople affect the consumer’s experience (Arnold et al., 2005; Boulding et al., 1993; Jones,
1999; Ofir & Simonson, 2007).
Third, consumption experiences arise when consumers consume and use products. These
are multidimensional and contain hedonic dimensions, such as feelings, fun and
fantasies(Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982). Many interpretive studies about consumption
experiences have investigated hedonic goals that happen during and after the consumption such
as at concerts and sports games (Arnould & Price, 1993; Celsi, Rose, & Leigh, 1993; Holt, 1995;
Joy & Sherry, 2003).
Brand experiences vary in intensity and strength(Brakus, Schmitt & Zarantonello, 2009).
Also, brand experiences vary in valence. Customer can face positive or negative brand
experiences and short-lived or long-lasting brand experiences. Long lasting brand experiences,
stored in the customer’s memory, should affect customer loyalty and satisfaction(Oliver, 1997;
Reicheld, 1996). These kinds of brand experience are different from brand image and brand
association(Keller, 1993).
Brand experiences are different from other brand constructs. Attitudes are related
evaluations based on affective reactions or beliefs(Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Murphy & Zajonc,
1993). However, brand experiences include specific sensations, cognitions, and behavioral
responses caused by specific brand related stimuli (Brakus, Schmitt & Zarantonello, 2009).
Brand experiences also distinguish between affective and motivational notions like involvement
(Zaichkowsky, 1985) and customer delight (Oliver, Rust & Varki, 1997) because brand
experiences can take place when customers are not interested in or do not have a personal
connection with a brand. Finally, brand experiences are different from brand image and brand
associations(Keller, 1993). A typical construct of brand association is brand personality (Aaker,
1997). Brand personality is processed inferentially (Johar, Sengupta, & Aaker, 2005), but brand
experiences deal with actual sensations, cognitions, and behavioral responses.

Brand Experience Dimensions

Dimensions of brand experiences are studied in philosophy, cognitive science, and

experiential marketing and management (Brakus, Schmitt & Zarantonello, 2009). In the
experiential marketing and management area, Schmitt(1999) suggested five experiences : when
consumers sense, feel, think, act, and relate. These five experiences are related to Dewey’s
(1922, 1925) categorization, and Dube and Lebel’s (2003) pleasure construct. Based on these
researches, Brakus, Schmitt and Zarantonello(2009) developed four dimensions of brand
experience. These are composed of sensory, affective, intellectual, and behavioral dimensions. 1)
The sensory dimension means that brands can make strong visual impression on the customer.
Zarantonello and Schmitt(2010) said a sensory dimension is “visual, auditory, tactile, gustative,
and olfactory stimulations provided by a brand”. 2) The affective dimension means that brands

Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, Volume 16, Number 1, 2012

Page 90

induce feelings or sentiments. The affective dimension includes feelings produced by brands and
their emotional tie with consumers (Zarantonello & Schmitt, 2010). 3) The intellectual
dimension refer to brands’ ability of making customers think or feel curious. 4) The behavioral
dimension means when a customer uses a brand, it makes the customer physically active. The
behavioral dimension includes bodily experiences, lifestyles, and interaction with
brands(Zarantonello & Schmitt, 2010). According to brand experiences aroused and the intensity
of stimuli, results of brand experiences can be more or less powerful. Lee, Jeon and Yoon(2010)
suggested that affective and behavioral dimensions have a decisive effect on the brand
attachment. Based on Lee et al.(2010), we chose an affective dimension and a behavioral
dimension to investigate the relationship with brand relationship quality. Therefore, we
conceptualize brand experience with two dimensions : affective and behavioral.

Brand Relationship Quality

Fournier (1998) suggested that consumers perceive a brand as a behavioral entity. The
core proposition that the framework of consumer-brand relationships is built is the assumption
that consumers translate a brand’s behavior into trait language(Bengtsson, 2003). Brand
relationship has reached a new stage to be one of the principal focus of research on consumers
and brands (Aaker, Fournier & Brasel, 2004; Breivik & Thorbjornsen, 2008; Chang & Chieng,
2006; Hass, 2007; Huber, Collhardt, Matthes & Vogel, 2009). Brand relationship quality is
usually used to evaluate the relationship strength and the depth of consumer-brand
relationship(Xie & Heung, 2009). Consistent with previous studies (Aaker, Fournier, & Brasel,
2004; Hennig-Thurau, Gwinner, & Gremler, 2002), we apply a brand relationship quality
concept to identify the strength of the relationship. Generally, relationship quality plays a role of
reducing uncertainty, transaction cost and improving interaction efficiency, social need
fulfillment (Hennig-Thurau & Klee, 1997).
In early research of relationship quality, Hennig-Thurau and Klee (1997) suggested that
relationship quality is a concept related “salesperson’s ability to reduce perceived
uncertainty”(Crosby et al., 1990). They considered relationship quality consisted of two
dimensions, 1) trust in the salesperson and 2) satisfaction with the salesperson (Crosby et al.,
1990). Relationship Quality is described as a second-order construct consisting of trust,
commitment and social benefits (Gregoire, Tripp & Legoux, 2009). Trust means that consumers
have confidence that a brand is dependable and can be relied on. Commitment is the willingness
to maintain a relationship with a brand. Social benefits means that consumers perceive that brand
and have one-to-one close connections by means of the personalization and customization of
services. Hennig-Thurau and Klee (1997) said a product or service-related quality perception is a
component of the more complex construct relationship quality. Relationship quality consists of
the customer’s trust and commitment to the marketer.

Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, Volume 16, Number 1, 2012

 Page 91

Consumers who perceive a high level of relationship quality are more likely to take
offense if they have a negative incident with a brand. When a consumer feels good about their
relationship with a brand, a high level of commitment and loyalty results(Anderson & Sullivan,
1993; Mittal & Kamakura, 2001; Oliver, 1997). Horppu, Kuivalainen, Tarkiainen and
Ellonen(2008) suggested that a customer’s positive brand experiences can affect brand
cognition, commitment, purchase intentions and brand reputation. Relationship quality can serve
as a predictor variable for customer retention and purchase decision.
Based on these researches, we choose two components among three brand relationship
quality concepts : trust and commitment. Moorman et al.(1992) defined trust as the willingness
of general consumer to rely on the capability of the brand to carry out its stated function. Other
explanations of trust also stress the concept of reliance as decisive to the trust(Morgan & Hunt,
1994). According to Morgan and Hunt(1994), brand commitment is another key relational
variable that inspire the relevant partners in a relationship. Also brand commitment reduces
uncertainty and saves a customer the cost of seeking new relational exchanges with other brand.
In addition, we hypothesize that customers who have a high level of brand experience can have a
strong relationship with a brand.

H1 Brand experience affects a consumer’s brand relationship quality

positively.

H1-1 Affective brand experience affects a consumer’s brand trust positively.

H1-2 Behavioral brand experience affects a consumer’s brand trust positively.

H1-3 Affective brand experience affects a consumer’s brand commitment

positively.

H1-4 Behavioral brand experience affects a consumer’s brand commitment

positively.

Morgan and Hunt(1994) suggested that the commitment-trust theory. They theorized that
the existence of relationship commitment and trust is critical to successful relationship
marketing. We defined brand trust as the willingness of the general consumer to rely on the
capability of the brand to carry out its stated function (Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001). Brand
commitment is related to the loyalty of consumers towards a specific brand and is getting
increasing importance in consumer behavior (Martinand & Goodell, 1991). Delgodo-Ballester
and Munuera-Aleman(2001) suggested that brand trust acts a critical role as a variable that

Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, Volume 16, Number 1, 2012

Page 92

causes customer’s commitment. So brand trust could affect brand commitment and this allows
us to examine the following hypothesis.

H2 Brand trust affects brand commitment positively.

Brand trust is extremely important for increasing customers’ loyalty toward brands(Ha,
2004). Brand loyalty means consumers are satisfied with some brand, purchase the brand and
then repurchase the same brand continuously (Aaker, 1991). Therefore, brand loyalty can be
defined as the degree of consumer’s attachment to a specific brand. We consider that a
consumer’s brand attachment is composed of brand preference, brand favorableness and
purchase intention. Chaudhuri and Holbrook(2001) suggested that brand trust and brand
commitment affect brand loyalty positively. Based on these researches, we suggest following
hypothesis.

H3 Brand relationship quality affects brand loyalty positively.

H3-1 Brand relationship quality of trust affects brand loyalty positively.

H3-2 Brand relationship quality of commitment affects brand loyalty positively.

METHODS

174 samples were collected from universities throughout South Korea. After excluding
samples containing missing data, we were left with use 169 samples. In the final sample of 169
respondents, 53.3% were female, and 61.8% were between 20 and 29 years old.
We measured a brand experience using scales that Brakus, Schimitt and
Zarantonello(2009) suggested. And trust and commitment as brand relationship quality are
measured by scales that Gregoire, Tripp and Legoux(2009) used. We measured brand loyalty
with the degree of brand preference, brand favorableness and purchase intention which are
properly selected scales used by Aaker(1991) and Chaudhuri and Holbrook(2001)
We used structural equation modeling, which is a multivariate statistical technique for
structural theory. Also, we adopted measurement scales from previous researches. Table 1 shows
the exploratory factor analysis of measurement scales of Brand Experience Dimensions. Factor
analysis uses Varimax rotation. Brakus, Schmitt and Zarantonello(2009) suggested 12 items to
identify brand experience dimensions. However, according to the result of this factor analysis,
we can chose 5 items to identify two brand experience dimensions. Table 2 shows the reliability
and Brakus, Schmitt and Zarantonello(2009)’s construct validity of Brand Relationship Quality

Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, Volume 16, Number 1, 2012

 Page 93

measurement scales. Reliability indices are commonly used when they are over 0.6 (Palmatier,
Dant, Grewal, & Evans 2006).

Table 1: Brand Experience Exploratory Factor Analysis

Construct Item Affective Behavioral Reliability
This brand induces feelings and sentiments. .829
I do not have strong emotions for this brand.a .748 .674
Brand This brand is an emotional brand. .741
Experience I engage in physical actions and behaviors when I use this
.948
brand. .913
This brand results in bodily experiences. .944
a
Items are done reverse coding.

Table 2: Validity of Brand Relationship Quality Constructs

Construct Item C1 C2 C3 reliability
I felt that the firm was very dependable. .813
Brand trust I felt that the firm was of high integrity. .687 .829
I felt that the firm was of high integrity .810
I was very committed to my relationship with the service
.895
Brand firm.
.920
Commitment I put the efforts into maintaining this relationship. .820
I put the efforts into maintaining this relationship. .896
Brand Preference .863
Brand Loyalty Brand favorableness .872 .917
Purchase intention .796

RESULTS

Many goodness-of-fit-criteria can be used to assess an acceptable model fit. Among

them, the comparative fit index (CFI) and normed fit index (NFI) are preferred
measures(Bentler, 1992). We used Amos 18.0 to analyze the hypothesized model, and we
adopted a two-step model-building approach. The confirmatory factor models were tested prior
to testing the structural model, and then the maximum likelihood (ML) estimation method was
used.

Table 3: Confirmatory factor analysis fitness

Chi-square df GFI TLI AFGI NFI PNFI CFI IFI RMR RMSEA
Model 125.724
69 0.903 0.952 0.849 0.923 0.700 0.963 0.964 0.056 0.070
(p=0.000)

In this study, we examine model validity by using confirmatory factor analysis. Structural
model results are shown in Table 3. There are several commonly used goodness of fit indices in
structural equation model analysis : GFI, AGFI, RMR, and CFI. We used Amos 18.0 to examine

Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, Volume 16, Number 1, 2012

Page 94

the structural model test, and we adopted CFI, IFI, and TLI as adequate fit indices. CFI may
display little standard error with regard to sample size, IFI does not consider the sample size, and
TLI is related to degrees of freedom. A model is considered appropriate when its GFI, AGFI, and
CFI are greater than 0.9 and its RMR and RMSEA are between 0.05 and 0.08. All goodness of fit
indices of the model in this study was satisfactory : – χ2 = 125.724 (df = 69), GFI = 0.903, AGFI
= 0.849, RMR = 0.041, CFI = 0.963, RMSEA = 0.070. As a result, these fit indices are
appropriate for any sample size.
Figure 1 shows the results. After the hypothesis test, we can find that H1-1, H1-3, H1-4
and H2 and H3(H3-1, H3-2) are supported. But H1-2 is not supported. Table 4 shows the results
of the hypotheses tests.

Figure 1: Structural model test result

Note: *** p<0.001, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

Table 4: Test of Hypotheses

Regression Results of test
Hypotheses Path p-value
weight
H1 : Brand experience Æ brand relationship quality
H1-1 Affective brand experience Æ brand trust .674 .000 Supported
H1-2 Behavioral brand experience Æ brand trust -.807 .294 not supported
H1-3 Affective brand experience Æ brand commitment .296 .028 Supported
H1-4 Behavioral brand experience Æ brand commitment .154 .037 Supported
H2 H2 : Brand trust Æ brand commitment .499 .000 Supported
H3 : Brand relationship quality Æ brand loyalty
H3-1 Brand relationship quality of trust Æ brand loyalty .718 .000 Supported
H3-2 Brand relationship quality of commitment Æ brand loyalty .209 .014 Supported

Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, Volume 16, Number 1, 2012

 Page 95

DISCUSSION AND FUTURE RESEARCH

Brand experiences receive much attention from many marketing researchers.

Accordingly, we examine brand experience dimensions, and investigate the relation between
brand experience and brand relationship quality. Brand experience is composed of sensory,
affective, behavioral, and intellectual dimensions( Brakus, Schmitt & Zarantonello, 2009).
Brakus, Schmitt and Zarantonello(2009) examined whether brand experience affects customer
satisfaction and loyalty. In this research, they found brand experience affects consumer’s
satisfaction and loyalty and have a relationship with brand personality dimensions. However,
they did not examine the effect of each brand experience dimension on brand relationship
quality. Overall brand experience might affect a customer-brand relationship positively. But each
dimensions of brand experience may not affect a customer-brand relationship quality positively.
Therefore, we composed a model to find the effect of each dimension of brand experience on the
brand relationship qualities of trust and commitment.
According to this study, all kinds of brand experiences do not affect the brand
relationship quality construct. First of all, a customer who enjoys greater affective brand
experiences thinks that the brand is more trustful. That is, when customers feel brands are
affective, their relationships with brands are strengthened and they come to trust the brands. Also
when the customer enjoys greater affective and behavioral brand experiences, the brand’s
commitment level also highly increases.
However, a behavioral brand experience does not affect brand trust meaningfully.
According to Morgan and Hunt(1994), commitment is defined that an exchange partner believe
that a relationship with another. And they suggested that commitment is main to all the relational
exchanges between the firm and consumers. Moorman, Deshpande, and Zaltman(1993) defined
that trust is a willingness to rely on an trade partner in whom one has faith. However, Morgan
and Hunt(1994) demonstrated that the behavioral intention of “willingness” is unnecessary.
“Willingness to rely” should be rather viewed as an outcome of trust, because behavioral
intention is best viewed as outcome of attitude(Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). According to these
researches, we think that a behavioral brand experience may be related outcome of attitude. This
could explains that a behavioral brand experience affects brand commitment, not brand trust.
Because a behavioral brand experience leads customers into behavioral and physical responses,
brand trust may be less related to the behavioral brand experience. Future researches are needed
to explore this issue further.
Secondly, the brand trust affects the brand commitment positively. And we also find that
brand relationship quality affects brand loyalty positively. High levels of trust and commitment
give a positive influence on the brand preference, the brand favorableness, and a purchase
intension. Therefore we can bring to a conclusion that some kinds of brand experiences can
affect brand relationship quality and consumer’s brand loyalty eventually.

Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, Volume 16, Number 1, 2012

Page 96

In this study, we suggest that not all brand experiences are effective to promote brand
relationship quality. According to the goal of a company or a brand, marketing managers should
implement brand experience strategies. Also, it is important to choose a brand experience
activity that is well-matched with the pursuing brand relationship quality and brand loyalty.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This research was financially supported by Hansung University.

REFERENCES

Aaker D. (1991). Managing brand equity : Capitalizing on the value of a brand name. New York : The Free Press.
Aaker J.L. (1997). Dimension of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(August), 347–56.
Aaker J., S. Fournier & S. Brasel (2004). When Good Brands Do Bad. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), 1-16.
Anderson E.W. & M.W. Sullivan (1993). The antecedents and consequences of customer satisfaction for firms.
Marketing Science, 12(2), 125–143.
Arnold M.J., K.E. Reynolds, N. Ponder & J.E. Lueg (2005). Customer delight in a retail context: Investigating
delightful and terrible shopping experiences. Journal of Business Research, 58(8), 1132–45.
Arnould E.J. & L.L. Price (1993). River magic: Extraordinary experience and the extended service. Journal of
Consumer Research, 20(June), 24–45.
Arnould E.J., L.L. Price & G.L. Zinkhan (2002). Consumers, 2d ed. New York: McGraw-Hill/Richard D. Irwin.
Batra, R. & M.B. Holbrook (1990). Developing a typology of affective responses to advertising: A test of validity
and reliability. Psy chology and Marketing, 7, 11-25.
Batra R. & M.L. Ray (1986). Affective responses mediating acceptance of advertising. Journal of Consumer
Research, 13, 234-49.
Bengtsson A. (2003). Towards a critique of brand relationships. Advances in Consumer Research, 30, 154-154.
Bentler P.M. (1992). On the fit of models to covariances and methodology to the bulletin. Psychological Bulletin,
112(3), 400-404.
Boulding W., A. Kalra, R. Staelin & V. Zeithaml (1993). A dynamic process model of service quality: From
expectations to behavioral intentions. Journal of Marketing Research, 30(February), 7–27.
Brakus J., B. Schmitt & S. Zhang (2008). Experiential attributes and consumer judgments in Handbook on Brand
and Experience Management, Bernd H. Schmitt and David Rogers, eds. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
Brakus J.J., B.H. Schmitt & L. Zarantonello (2009). Brand experience : What is it? How is it measured? Does it
affect loyalty?. Journal of Marketing, 73, 52-68.
Breivik E. & H. Thorbjornsen (2008). Consumer brand relationships: An investigation of two alternative models.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(4), 443-72.
Celsi R.L., R.L. Rose & T. Leigh (1993). An exploration of high-risk leisure consumption through skydiving.
Journal of Consumer Research, 20(June), 1–23.
Chaudhuri A. & M.B. Holbrook (2001). The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand performance
: The role of brand loyalty. Journal of Marketing, 65(2), 81-93.
Chang P.L. & M.H. Chieng (2006). Building consumer-brand relationship: A cross-cultural experiential view.
Psychology & Marketing, 23(11), 927-59.
Cohen, J.B. (1990). Attitude, affect and consumer behavior, in Affect and Social Behavior, B. S. Moore and A. M.
Isen, eds., Cambridge University Press, New York. 152–206.

Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, Volume 16, Number 1, 2012

 Page 97

Crosby L.A., K.R. Evans & D. Cowles (1990). Relationship quality in services selling: An interpersonal influence
perspective. Journal of Marketing, 54, 68–81.
Delgodo-Ballester E. & J.L. Munuera-Aleman (2001). Brand trust in the context of consumer loyalty. European
Journal of Marketing, 35, 1238-58.
Dewey J. (1922). Human nature and conduct. New York: The Modern Library.
Dewey J. (1925). Experience and nature, rev.ed. New York: Dover.
Dubé L. & J.L. LeBel (2003). The content and structure of laypeople’s concept of pleasure. Cognition and Emotion,
17(2), 263–95.
Fishbein M. & I. Ajzen (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research.
Reading,MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fournier S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in consumer research. Journal of
Consumer Research, 24(4), 343-73.
Grégoire Y., M.T. Thomas & R. Legoux (2009). When customer love turns into lasting hate : The effects of
relationship strength and time on customer revenge and avoidance. Journal of Marketing, 73(6), 18-32.
Ha H.Y (2004). Factors influencing consumer perceptions of brand trust online. Journal of Product and Brand
Management, 13(5), 329-342.
Haas S.M. (2007). Evaluating brand relationships in the context of brand communities. School of Saint Louis
University in Partial.
Hennig-Thurau T. & A. Klee (1997). The impact of customer satisfaction and relationship quality on consumer
retention : A critical reassessment and model development. Psychology and Marketing, 14(8), 737-64.
Hennig-Thurau T., K.P. Gwinner & D.D. Gremler (2002). Understanding relationship marketing outcomes. Journal
of Service Research, 4(3), 230-47.
Hoch S.J. (2002). Product Experience Is Seductive. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(December), 448–54.
Hoch S.J. & Y.W. Ha (1986). Consumer learning: Advertising and the ambiguity of product experience. Journal of
Consumer Research, 13(September), 221–33.
Holbrook M.B., R.W. Chestnut, T.A. Oliva & E.A. Greenleaf (1984). Play as a consumption experience : The roles
of emotions, performance, and personality in the enjoyment of games. Journal of Consumer Research,
11(2), 728-39.
Holbrook M.B. (2000). The millennial consumer in the texts of our times: Experience and entertainment. Journal
of Macromarketing, 20(2), 178–92.
Holbrook M.B. & E.C. Hirschman (1982). The experiential aspects of consumption: Consumer fantasies, feelings,
and fun. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(September), 132–40.
Holt D.B. (1995). How consumers consume: A typology of consumption practices. Journal of Consumer Research,
22(June), 1–16.
Horppu M., O. Kuivalainen, A. Tarkiainen & H.K. Ellonen (2008). Online satisfaction, trust and loyalty and the
impact of the offline parent brand. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 17(6), 403-13.
Huber F., K. Vollhardt, I. Matthes & J. Vogel (2009). Brand misconduct: Consequences on consumer brand
relationship. Journal of Business Research. 11, 1113-1120.
Hui M.K. & J.E.G. Bateson (1991). Perceived control and the effects of crowding and consumer choice on the
service experience. Journal of Consumer Research, 18(September), 174–84.
Johar G., J. Sengupta & J. Aaker (2005). Two roads to updating brand personality impressions: Trait versus
evaluative inferencing. Journal of Marketing Research, 42(November), 458–69.
Jones M.A. (1999). Entertaining shopping experiences: An exploratory investigation. Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, 6(3), 129–39.
Joy, A. & Jr.J.F. Sherry (2003). Speaking of art as embodied imagination: A multisensory approach to
understanding aesthetic experience. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(September), 259–82.

Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, Volume 16, Number 1, 2012

Page 98

Keller K.L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing,
57(January),1–22.
Kempf D.S. & R.E. Smith (1998). Consumer processing of product trial and the influence of prior advertising: A
structural modeling approach. Journal of Marketing Research, 35(August), 325–38.
Kerin R.A., A. Jain & D.J. Howard (1992). Store shopping experience and consumer price–quality–value
perceptions. Journal of Retailing, 68(4), 376–97.
Lee J.E., J.E. Jeon & J.Y. Yoon (2010). Does brand experience affect consumer’s emotional attachments?. Korean
Journal of Marketing, 12(2), 53-81.
Martinand L.C. & P.N. Goodell (1991). Historical, descriptive and strategic perspectives on the construct of product
commitment. European Journal of Marketing, 25, 53-60.
Mittal V. & W.A. Kamakura (2001). Satisfaction, repurchase intent and repurchase behavior : Investigating the
moderating effect of customer characteristics. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(1), 131-42.
Monga A.B. (2002). Brand as a relationship partner: Gender differences in perspective. Advances in Consumer
Research, 29, 36-41.
Moorman C., G. Zaltman & R. Deshpande (1992). Relationship between providers and users of market research :
The dynamics of trust within and between organizations. Journal of Marketing Research, 29, 314-28.
Moorman C., R. Deshpande & G. Zaltman (1993). Factors affecting trust in market research relationships. Journal
of Marketing, 57, 81-101.
Morgan R.M. & S.D. Hunt (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing,
58(3), 20-38.
Morrison S. & F. Crane (2007). Building the service brand by creating and managing an emotional brand
experience, Journal of Brand Management, 14(5), 410-21.
Murphy S.T. & R.B. Zajonc (1993). Affect, cognition and awareness: Affective priming with optimal and
suboptimal stimulus exposures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(5), 723–39.
Ofir C. & I. Simonson (2007). The effect of stating expectations on consumer satisfaction and shopping experience.
Journal of Marketing Research, 44(February), 164–74.
Oliver R.L. (1997). Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on the consumer. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Oliver R.L., R.T. Rust & S. Varki (1997). Customer delight: foundations, findings, and managerial insight. Journal
of Retailing, 73(3), 311–36.
Palmatier R.W., R.P. Dant, D. Grewal & K.R. Evans (2006). Factors influencing the effectiveness of relationship
marketing : A meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing, 70(October), 136-53.
Reicheld F. (1996). The loyalty effect: The hidden force behind growth, profits, and lasting value. Boston: Harvard
Business School Press.
Petty R. & J. Krosnick (1995), Attitude strength: antecedents and consequences, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Schmitt B.H. (1999). Experiential marketing: How to get customers to sense, feel, think, act, relate to your company
and brands. New York: The Free Press.
Westbrook, R.A. (1987). Product/consumption-based affective responses and postpurchase processes. Journal of
Marketing Research, 24, 258-70.
Xie D.D.H. & V.C.S. Heung (2009). The effects of brand relationship quality on hotel consumers’ responses to
service failure. International Journal of Business Research, 10(4), 120-125.
Zaichkowsky J.L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(3), 341–52.
Zarantonello L. & B.H. Schmitt (2010). Using the brand experience scale to profile consumers and predict consumer
behaviour. Journal of Brand Management, 17(February), 532-40.

Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, Volume 16, Number 1, 2012

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.