Identifying the psychological process/path to consumer brand loyalty is a focal issue in marketing research (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001, Harris and Goode, 2004, Oliver, 1999 and Woodside and Walser, 2007). Extant literature presents several perspectives on this issue (Harris and Goode, 2004). These studies frequently propose differing central or pivot constructs, including trust (Morgan and Hunt, 1994), customer satisfaction (Garbarino and Johnson, 1999 and Oliver, 1999), and perceived value (Sirdeshmukh et al., 2002 and Sweeney and Soutar, 2001) to brand loyalty. An integrated approach is emerging that incorporates these constructs into holistic conceptualizations (Garbarino and Johnson, 1999 and Harris and Goode, 2004). To date the literature pays insufficient attention to social identification antecedents (e.g., brand identity and brand identification) to brand loyalty and has not yet incorporated them into traditional frameworks.
Recent studies suggest that a social identity perspective could be insightful in describing the relationship between a company and stakeholders (Ahearne et al., 2005, Bhattacharya and Sen, 2003 and Mukherjee and He, 2008). A social identity perspective advocates the study of consumers' identity motives, specifically self-expression, self-enhancement, and self-esteem in developing meaningful relationships with companies and brands (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2003 and Escalas, 2004). Recent studies accumulate evidence on the effects of brand identity and identification on loyalty (He and Li, 2010 and Marin et al., 2009). However, scant research is available on integrating social identity variables with social exchange variables in explaining brand loyalty. Since both social identification processes (Rindfleisch et al., 2009) and interpretations of service dynamics (e.g., value, satisfaction, and trust) (Harris and Goode, 2004) contribute to consumers' psychological processes, incorporating both processes into a broader conceptualization of brand loyalty formation seems intuitively logical.
This research offers an integrated framework to bridge this gap. Specially, this research contributes to the literature in the following ways. First, this research confirms the pivotal role of brand identification in the process of brand loyalty development and stresses the mediation effect of brand identification on the effects of brand identity on the path to brand loyalty. Second, this research suggests that social identification perspective of brand loyalty can integrate with other perspectives (e.g., perceived value, trust, and satisfaction) in explaining brand loyalty. Furthermore, this research provides initial evidence on the slightly differential paths to brand loyalty due to the product natures of the focal brands.
This research conducts two empirical studies to test the social identity model and an integrated model of the path to brand loyalty. Study 1 uses a sample of skincare consumers to test the effect of brand identity on brand loyalty. Study 1 finds that brand identity does not only have direct and indirect effects on perceived value, customer satisfaction and brand trust, but also have significant indirect effects on brand loyalty via its effect on perceived value, customer satisfaction and brand trust. Study 2 confirms the effects of brand identity.
Study 2 expands the brand identity model by incorporating the pivotal construct of brand identification along the path from brand identity to brand loyalty. Study 2 supports the pivotal role of brand identification by finding (1) brand identification does not only have direct and indirect effects on perceived value, customer satisfaction and brand trust, but also has significant indirect effects on brand loyalty; (2) brand identification mediates the effect of brand identity on perceived value, customer satisfaction, brand trust and brand loyalty.
3.1. Theoretical implications
This research makes a number of contributions to the literature of brand loyalty. First, the research is the first one that confirms the presence of significant direct and indirect effects of both brand identity and brand identification on traditional antecedents of brand loyalty (i.e., perceived value, satisfaction and trust). Recently social identity approach is receiving increasing attention for consumer loyalty (Ahearne et al., 2005 and Mukherjee and He, 2008).
Customers, as non-formal members of a company, can also develop strong attachment and identification with the company and its brands (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2003 and He and Li, 2010). Indeed, prior studies suggest that consumer–company/brand (C–C/B) identification is a relationship marketing model of emerging importance (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2003). To date, empirical research on C–C/B identification is insufficient. The present research addresses this gap by examining the effects of brand identity and identification on brand loyalty.
Second, the research suggests that social identification perspective of brand loyalty can integrate with other perspectives to model the consumer psychological path to brand loyalty. This paper demonstrates this by developing and testing a more general model that integrates social identity and social exchange perspectives of brand loyalty. One important stream of research on customer–brand relationship is delineating the path to brand loyalty (Breivik and Thorbjørnsen, 2008, Escalas and Bettman, 2003, Fournier, 1998 and Rindfleisch et al., 2009).
Consumers commit relational market behavior for various personal, social and institutional reasons (Dick and Basu, 1994 and Sheth and Parvatiyar, 1995). Extant literature focuses on the economic and social exchange relationship between customers and brands (Csikszentmihalyi, 2000 and Sweeney and Soutar, 2001). In this line of research, constructs, such as perceived value (Sweeney and Soutar, 2001 and Zeithaml, 1988), and trust & commitment (Garbarino and Johnson, 1999, Gruen et al., 2000 and Morgan and Hunt, 1994) receive much attention as central indicators and predictors of strong customer relationship. More recently, the literature accords attention to integrating the roles of different constructs: such as trust, satisfaction, and perceived value (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 200; Harris and Goode, 2004 and Suh and Yi, 2006) to brand loyalty. And the second emerging research focuses the social identification process (Ahearne et al., 2005, Bhattacharya and Sen, 2003 and He and Li, 2010). This research incorporates different perspectives of brand loyalty into a more general framework that stresses the antecedent role of brand identity and identification. By doing so, this research expands prior research on social identity perspective of brand loyalty through incorporating the mediation effects of social exchange variables (e.g., perceived value and trust).
Third, this research confirms the pivotal role of brand identification in the process of brand loyalty development and stresses the mediation effect of brand identification on the effects of brand identity on the path to brand loyalty. Although brand identity itself can exert a significant effect on the path to brand loyalty, brand identification partially mediates its effect. Study 2 supported this effect.
The present research suggests a number of additional interesting theoretical insights. First, the study finds that both brand identity and brand identification can be significant antecedent to (not just brand loyalty) perceived value, satisfaction and trust. The extant literature focuses on the direct effects of brand identity and identification on brand loyalty, but largely ignores the immediate effects of brand identity/identification on value/satisfaction/trust. These immediate effects can stem from the subjective and biased evaluation and judgment of in-group objects due to social identification process.
Similarly out-group discrimination could also be applicable here, since customers with stronger brand identification are also likely to develop negative biased attitude towards the focal brand's competing brands. Second, this research also contributes to the debate on the relationship between trust and customer satisfaction. The extant literature does not offer a definite answer to the issue. This research suggests that the exact relationship between trust and customer satisfaction could depend on the customer tenure (the brand experience). This research suggests that customer satisfaction tends to precede trust for existing customers.
3.2. Managerial implications
The significant positive effects of both brand identity and identification suggest that companies should invest on brand identity and consumer identification. Instead of merely communicating brands for the purpose of brand awareness, brand investment should focus on according strong ‘identity’ meaning to consumers, so that it facilitates consumer search for consumer–brand bond.
This research notices that the effects of brand identity and identification go through some consumer psychological states, such as perceived value, brand satisfaction, and brand trust. Such results reinforce the importance of building strong brand identity and consumer identification, since a brand with a strong identity does not only affect brand loyalty through social identification process but also enhances consumer perception of social exchange relationships. Thus brand managers should not only integrate their rational social exchange investment, but also investment on customer social interaction. Brand community can be a viable tool for building strong brand identity and consumer identification.
3.3. Limitations and future research
This research has several limitations that suggest promising avenues for future research. First, although the research makes some effort to enhance the generalizability of the models by applying it to two different sectors (mobile phone and skincare); the findings should still be interpreted within these two contexts. To enhance further the generalizability of these models, future study should apply them to other products, for example luxury brands and service brands. Second, the research examines only brand identity and identification as the antecedent variables, future research should examine the antecedents of brand identity and identification. Third, the literature proposes other outcomes of brand identity and identification, such as brand championship, word of mouth, resistance to negative information and support of marketing activities. Future research should aim to find empirical evidence for these effects, and other effects, such as the effect of brand identification on brand extension.
