Two Essays on the Link Between Consumer-Brand Relationships and Customer Brand Loyalty

Western University Scholarship@Western

Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository

5-17-2018 11:15 AM

Two Essays on the Link between Consumer-Brand Relationships and Customer Brand Loyalty

Mansur Khamitov The University of Western Ontario

Supervisor Thomson, Matthew The University of Western Ontario

Graduate Program in Business A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the equirr ements for the degree in Doctor of Philosophy © Mansur Khamitov 2018

Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd

Part of the Marketing Commons

Recommended Citation Khamitov, Mansur, "Two Essays on the Link between Consumer-Brand Relationships and Customer Brand Loyalty" (2018). Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository. 5375. https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd/5375

This Dissertation/Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Western. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Western. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Abstract

Customer brand loyalty is one of the most important concepts to consumer researchers and marketing practitioners. A considerable amount of research over the last 20 years documents that different consumer-brand relationship constructs, such as those characterized by attachment, identification, brand love, self-brand connection and trust, are positive predictors of customer brand loyalty. However, there is little consensus on what consumer-brand relationship constructs are superior predictors of loyalty and under what conditions each type performs relatively better.

To advance understanding of how well different consumer-brand relationship constructs drive customer brand loyalty and to help companies improve the effectiveness of their relationship- building investments, I conduct a meta-analysis of the link between three categories of consumer-brand relationship constructs and customer brand loyalty in Essay 1. The analysis of

304 elasticities from 143 studies reported in 127 publications over 21 years (n = 179,395 across

35 countries) reveals that the aggregate brand relationship elasticity is .404. More importantly, my results demonstrate under what conditions various consumer-brand relationship constructs increase customer brand loyalty. For example, while elasticities are generally highest for affect- based brand relationships and when customer brand loyalty is operationalized in attitudinal (vs. behavioral), absolute (vs. relative) or retrospective (vs. prospective) terms, identity-based brand relationship elasticities are higher for estimates using behavioral loyalty, retrospective loyalty or non-student consumers, and trust-based brand relationship elasticities are higher among

American consumers. Essay 2 focuses on theory by developing an explanatory framework for

Essay 1’s meta-analysis results. Specifically, I proceed to link individual brand relationship elasticities with a wide array of country-level cultural and institutional moderating factors to

better understand the magnitude of the elasticities identified in the Essay 1 meta-analysis. In other words, this Essay adopts an explanatory perspective on why certain consumer-brand relationship constructs drive customer brand loyalty best in some country and institutional contexts but not others. Drawing on these findings, I advance implications for managers and scholars and provide avenues for future research.

Keywords: Consumer-Brand Relationship, Customer Brand Loyalty, Brand Relationship

Elasticity, Meta-Analysis, Empirical Generalizations, Country Differences, Culture, Institutional

Moderators.

Acknowledgments

First, I would like to express my most sincere gratitude to my advisor, Matthew

Thomson. Thank you, Matt, for being my everyday source of guidance and support and for making my experience as a doctoral student truly memorable (and reading the wordy emails I have a habit of writing). I appreciate your relentless ability to provide invaluable mentorship from day 1 of my doctoral journey, push the boundaries of my thinking, and inspire me for excellence as a researcher. You introduced me not just how to do research, but also how to enjoy the process of doing it. You are the kind of advisor I aspire to become and my hope is that I can inspire my students as much as you have inspired me.

I would also like to thank the rest of my dissertation committee, Xin (Shane) Wang and

June Cotte, for their valuable feedback and guidance throughout the various stages of my dissertation as well as their contribution to my development as a scholar. I thank Shane for challenging me from the early stages of my PhD program to be the best scholar I am capable of being. Your work ethic and charisma sets an example for everyone in the department, and it has been a privilege to have had you as a mentor and friend for all these years. June, thank you for your mentorship, and for generously giving your time and energy to enhance my work. Also, thanks for showing me how to rock at this profession while being a cool person. I have sincerely appreciated having you as a role model in our program and department; you show us all how to combine professional excellence with fun, joy, and kindness.

Finally, a special thank you to my family and loved ones. I am fortunate to have the most incredible parents (Aidar Khamitov and Galina Khamitova) and am truly grateful for your enduring support throughout my program. I would not have been able to make it to this point

iii

without all of the love and support you have given me. Thank you also to my wonderful family

(Dilara, Ramir, and Ramina) for always believing in me and affirming that this is where I should be, especially during the harder moments. To Dilara, thank you for always being my rock and such a wonderfully caring and supportive person. I feel so fortunate to have met you. Your unwavering support, compassion, and empathy are truly appreciated. Last but not the least, thank you the Almighty, for being a pillar of strength through some of my toughest times.

Table of Contents

Abstract...... i

Acknowledgments...... iii

Table of Contents...... v

List of Tables...... viii

List of Figures...... ix

List of Appendices...... x

1 Introduction...... 1

1.1 Interpersonal Relationship Theory and Its Application to the Field of Consumer-Brand

Relationships...... 2

1.2 Various Consumer-Brand Relationship Constructs and Customer Brand Loyalty.. 3

1.3 Research Questions...... 5

1.4 Preview of Dissertation Essays...... 7

Essay 1...... 9

2 Study 1...... 9

2.1 Relationship to Other Prior Meta-Analyses in the Domain...... 11

2.2 Theory and Conceptual Framework...... 12

2.2.1 Primarily Affect-Based Brand Relationships...... 14

2.2.2 Primarily Identity-Based Brand Relationships...... 15

2.2.3 Primarily Trust-Based Brand Relationships...... 18

2.2.4 Linking Brand Relationship Constructs and Customer Brand Loyalty...... 20

2.2.5 Statistical Moderators of Brand Relationship Elasticity...... 20

2.3 Data and Methodology...... 22

2.3.1 Data sample, criteria for inclusion, and coding...... 22

2.3.2 Control Variables...... 25

2.3.3 Meta-Analytic Estimation Model Specification and Procedure...... 26

2.3.4 Robustness Checks...... 31

2.4 Results...... 32

2.4.1 Univariate Analysis of Brand Relationship Elasticity...... 32

2.4.2 Hierarchical Linear Model Estimation Results...... 36

2.5 General Discussion...... 38

2.5.1 Academic Contributions...... 38

2.5.2 Managerial Implications...... 40

2.5.3 Limitations and Future Research Directions...... 42

Essay 2...... 45

3 Study 2...... 45

3.1 Theory and Conceptual Framework...... 47

3.1.1 Indulgence versus Restraint...... 49

3.1.2 Individualism versus Collectivism...... 50

3.1.3 Masculinity versus Femininity...... 52

3.1.4 High Power Distance versus Low Power Distance...... 54

3.1.5 High Economic Globalization versus Low Economic Globalization...... 56

3.1.6 High vs. Low Voice and Accountability...... 57

3.1.7 High Level of Urbanization versus Low Level of Urbanization...... 59

3.2 Method...... 61

3.3 Results...... 63

3.3.1 Univariate Analysis of Brand Relationship Elasticity...... 63

3.3.2 Hierarchical Linear Model Moderating Results...... 65

3.4 Discussion...... 69

4 Study 3...... 70

4.1 Method...... 71

4.2 Results...... 72

4.3 Discussion...... 79

4.4 General Discussion...... 81

4.5 Theoretical Contributions...... 83

4.6 Practical Implications...... 85

4.7 Future Research Directions...... 86

5 Final Thoughts and Directions for Future Research...... 88

References...... 94

Appendices...... 117

Curriculum Vitae...... 212

vii

List of Tables

Table 1: Study 1 Elasticity Transformation Equations...... 23

Table 2: Study 1 Factors Included in the Meta-Analysis, Explanations, and Coding

Scheme...... 28

Table 3: Study 1 Estimation of HLM Results...... 34

Table 4: Study 1 Estimation Results of HLM Interaction Effects...... 36

Table 5: Study 2 Country-Level Factors Included in the Dataset, Definitions, and Range.. 64

Table 6: Study 2 Estimation Results of HLM Moderation Effects...... 67

Table 7: Study 3 Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Moderators...... 74

Table 8: Study 3 Estimation Results of Consumer Survey Moderation Effects on Attitudinal

Loyalty...... 76

Table 9: Study 3 Estimation Results of Consumer Survey Moderation Effects on Behavioral

Loyalty...... 76

viii

List of Figures

Figure 1: Study 1 Conceptual Framework of Current Meta-Analysis...... 13

Figure 2: Study 1 Frequency Distribution of Brand Relationship Elasticities...... 33

Figure 3: Study 2 Conceptual Framework of Current Research...... 48

Figure 4: Study 2 Frequency Distribution of Brand Relationship Elasticities...... 65

List of Appendices

Appendix A Theme 1: Study 1 Elasticities Included in the Meta-Analysis...... 117

Appendix A Theme 2: Study 1 Number of Elasticities over Time...... 136

Appendix A Theme 3: Study 1 Additional Robustness Checks...... 137

Appendix A Theme 4: Study 1 Alternative Estimation of HLM Results...... 138

Appendix A Theme 5: Study 1 Additional References...... 143

Appendix B Theme 1: Study 2 Elasticities Included in the Analysis...... 151

Appendix B Theme 2: Study 2 Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Moderators..... 188

Appendix B Theme 3: Study 2 Additional References...... 189

Appendix C Theme 1: Study 3 Main Measures...... 205

Appendix C Theme 2: Study 3 Distribution Histograms for Moderators...... 207

Appendix C Theme 3: Study 3 Estimation Results of Consumer Survey Moderation Effects

Using Log Transformed Moderators...... 211

Introduction

The consumer-brand relationship field originated in 1992 when Max Blackston pioneered the domain of consumer-brand relationships when he noted that “The concept of a relationship with a brand is neither novel nor outrageous. It is readily understandable as an analogue between brand and consumer - of that complex of cognitive, affective, and behavioral processes which constitute a relationship between two people” (Blackston 1992, p. 80). Blackston’s central thesis is that consumer-brand interactions start to qualify as a relationship only when both consumers' attitudes and behaviors toward brands and brands’ attitudes and behaviors toward consumers are manifest and interact with each other. In this and other writing (1992, 1993, 2000), Blackston fueled theorizing on the agentic and interactive nature of the consumer-brand dyad (Aaker and

Fournier 1995; Fournier 1994, 1998). Most notably, Fournier (1994, 1998) refined Blackston’s key theses and described a set of socially construed consumer-brand dyads that were analogous to interpersonal dyads. In her seminal work, Fournier proposed a formal framework for understanding and interpreting the domain of a consumer-brand relationship, which she defined as a “voluntary or imposed interdependence between a person and a brand, characterized by a unique history of interactions and an anticipation of future occurrences, that is intended to facilitate socio-emotional and instrumental goals of the participants, and that involves some type of consolidating bond” (Fournier, 1994, p. 108). Using this definition, Fournier’s work served to validate the consumer-brand relationship field through reports of consumers’ firsthand experience with the brands they used in their daily lives.

The purpose of this introductory chapter is to provide an overview of the development and motivation for my research questions for my dissertation. Consistent with prior work, I define the domain of consumer-brand relationships as a field that examines the ties or bonds

between a consumer and a brand. I first review how the study of consumer-brand relationships has been developed from and enriched by interpersonal relationship theory, and discuss parallels and similarities between consumer-brand and interpersonal relationship domains. I then outline various constructs central to the consumer-brand relationships literature and their importance as drivers of customer brand loyalty. I conclude this section with a discussion about my dissertation’s research questions and a preview of key findings in my studies.

Interpersonal Relationship Theory and Its Application to the Field of Consumer-Brand

Relationships

There is a tradition in the field of consumer-brand relationships of adapting or applying interpersonal theories (e.g., attachment; Thomson, MacInnis, and Park 2005), concepts (e.g., personality; Aaker 1997) and typologies (e.g., best friendships; Fournier 1998) in order to understand how consumers relate to brands. Most notably, Fournier adopted a role-based metaphorical approach that drew largely from theories and concepts from the domain of interpersonal relationships to view, interpret and examine consumer-brand dyads (Lakoff and

Johnson 1980). It is integral to the consumer brand-relationship literature that both the consumer and the brand comprise parties within a socially-construed bond that holds a number of similarities to that of an interpersonal bond (Fournier, 1998). These interpersonal relationship parallels have been used by consumer-brand relationship scholars largely as a metaphor or starting point for theory-building, and a considerable amount of research has emerged in favor of the applicability of interpersonal relationship concepts and theories to the domain.

For example, there are similarities between how consumers relate to brand and interpersonal partners with respect to personality traits (Aaker 1997), relationship norms

(Aggarwal 2004; Aggarwal and Law 2005), emotional responses (Thomson et al. 2005), and relationships investment (Park et al. 2010), all of which have roots in the interpersonal domain.

Indeed, consumers may assign personality traits to brands (Aaker 1997), feel transgressions in contexts like customer service failure (Gregoire et al. 2010; Gregoire, Tripp, and Legoux 2009), use relationship norms to guide their behavior towards and evaluations of brands (Aggarwal

2004), and even consider customer disloyalty toward some brands as an act of cheating (Goode,

Khamitov, and Thomson 2015). Relatedly, much as interpersonal partners do (Brewer and

Gardner 1996; Elliot and Reis 2003), brands can fulfill needs for self-definition (Arnett, German, and Hunt 2003; Breivik and Thorbjornsen 2008) or inspire feelings of security and comfort

(Dunn and Hoegg 2014; Kessous, Roux, and Chandon 2015). Recent evidence even suggests that like interpersonal relationships, consumer relationships with brands can help alleviate physical and psychological pain (Reimann et al. 2017). The prevailing view in the literature is that a consumer-brand bond parallels an interpersonal bond when people acting on behalf of the brand

(e.g., brand managers) give it a voice and personality (Aaker and Fournier 1995; Fournier 1998), promoting the perception that the brand is an active, reciprocating relationship partner.

Marketing actions of the brand managers taken on behalf of the brand are thus interpreted as the brand initiating its own actions, implying that the brand possesses agency. There is significant amount of evidence premised on or consistent with this view (e.g., Aaker, Fournier, and Brasel

2004; Aggarwal 2004; Fiske, Malone, and Kervyn 2012). Ultimately, research in this domain contends that brands can fulfill the interactive role of a relationship partner and thereby inspire a relationship with a consumer.

Various Consumer-Brand Relationship Constructs and Customer Brand Loyalty

Expanding upon Fournier’s (1994, 1998) seminal work, much of the focus in the consumer-brand relationships literature has been on identifying the various consumer-brand relationship constructs. Such consumer-brand relationship constructs have been called different things, including brand attachment (Thomson, MacInnis, and Park 2005), brand love (Batra,

Ahuvia, and Bagozzi 2012), self-brand connection (Escalas and Bettman 2003), and brand identification (Stokburger-Sauer, Ratneshwar, and Sen 2012). Whether it be an attachment, a love, or an identification, consumers often form multi-faceted relationships with brands that they use in their daily lives. These consumer-brand relationship constructs have been conceptualized many ways but are united in that scholars examine these constructs through translating interpersonal relationship concepts and theories into the branding domain (Fournier 1998; Miller,

Fournier, and Allen 2012). Over the last 20 years, there has been a proliferation of such consumer-brand relationship constructs that each speak to important qualities of consumers’ relationships with brands; the most common constructs are brand attachment (Thomson,

MacInnis, and Park 2005), brand love (Batra, Ahuvia, and Bagozzi 2012), self-brand connection

(Escalas and Bettman 2003), brand identification (Stokburger-Sauer, Ratneshwar, and Sen 2012) and brand trust (Magnoni and Roux 2012). A preliminary keyword search on Google Scholar suggests that around 77% of papers in the domain of consumer-brand relationships appear to rely on one or more of these five consumer-brand relationship constructs.

In turn, these consumer-brand relationship constructs have become popular among marketing practitioners (Halloran 2014) and have been extensively explored as predictors of different operationalizations of customer brand loyalty (Batra, Ahuvia, and Bagozzi 2012;

Carroll and Ahuvia 2006; Chaudhuri and Holbrook 2001, 2002; Delgado-Ballester and Munuera-

Alemán 2001; Einwiller et al. 2006; Homburg, Wieseke, and Hoyer 2009; Magnoni and Roux

2012; Mazodier and Merunka 2012; Park et al. 2010; Sen et al. 2015; Sirdeshmukh, Singh, and

Sabol 2002; Stokburger-Sauer, Ratneshwar, and Sen 2012; Thomson, MacInnis, and Park 2005).

For instance, brand attachment has been linked to a brand’s purchase share (Park et al. 2010) and commitment (Thomson et al. 2005). Similarly, brand identification has been demonstrated to impact future customer brand loyalty (Homburg et al. 2009) and behavioral intentions (Einwiller et al. 2006). Finally, brand trust emerges as an important predictor of repurchase intentions

(Mazodier and Merunka 2012) and commitment (Magnoni and Roux 2012). Consumer-brand relationship constructs can hence be portrayed as invaluable assets that develop and solidify customer brand loyalty, which I treat broadly as constancy of the consumer’s brand preference that manifests over time on attitudinal and behavioral levels (Day 1969; Guest 1944, 1955;

Jacoby 1971; Jacoby and Kyner 1973; Oliver 1999).

Research Questions

Given the importance of consumer-brand relationship constructs as a customer brand loyalty-solidifying mechanism, it is not surprising that brand and marketing managers want to know what consumer-brand relationship constructs to invest in to maximize customer brand loyalty, and what performs best and when. Thus, the overarching research question of my dissertation is “What is the ‘right consumer-brand relationship construct’ to build on?” For example, in light of differing tactical objectives linked to solidifying customer brand loyalty

(e.g., improving repeat purchase vs. attitudinal customer brand loyalty), it is unclear which consumer-brand relationship construct is the superior driver of customer brand loyalty. Similarly, given companies operate in different countries, each with varying cultures and institutions, it is not clear which consumer-brand relationship construct is the best to pursue in driving customer

brand loyalty. It is practically important to address this knowledge gap, to answer the question

‘which consumer-brand relationship construct should one focus on to encourage customer brand loyalty?’ Marketers invest billions into fostering relationships with consumers in the absence of a solid understanding of their actions (Avery, Fournier, and Wittenbraker 2014). Theoretically speaking, while there is a general understanding that all consumer-brand relationship constructs are positively associated with customer brand loyalty, there is no clear consensus regarding what consumer-brand relationship construct is the most effective driver of customer brand loyalty, and even more critically, under what specific circumstances and settings. For example, while

Bergkvist and Bech-Larsen (2010) contemplate brand love while Hudson et al. (2016) examine brand trust, both document nearly identical strengths for the link to customer brand loyalty.

Clearly, as a field we do not yet know the answer to this important question.

In response, in this dissertation I systematically document the relative effectiveness of each consumer-brand relationship construct in predicting customer brand loyalty, and examine how effectively each drives customer brand loyalty across a variety of cultural and institutional settings. This leads me to focus on the following three research questions in my dissertation:

Research question 1. How strong are the links between various consumer-brand

relationship constructs and customer brand loyalty and what are the differences in their

relative strength?

Research question 2. How and when does the effectiveness of various consumer-brand

relationship constructs in predicting customer brand loyalty change as a function of

varying consumer, brand, and methodological characteristics?

Research question 3. What are the cultural and institutional moderators of the

relationship between various consumer-brand relationship constructs and customer

brand loyalty?

Preview of Dissertation Essays

This dissertation features two essays that aim to understand the effectiveness and complexity of the link between various consumer-brand relationship constructs and customer brand loyalty. The three research questions above represent the guiding roadmap for this work.

Essay 1 systematically explores the link between various consumer-brand relationship constructs and customer brand loyalty to understand how well various consumer-brand relationship constructs drive customer brand loyalty. I conduct a meta-analysis of the link between three consumer-brand relationship constructs and customer brand loyalty. The analysis of 304 effect sizes from 143 studies reported in 127 publications over 21 years (n = 179,395 across 35 countries) reveals that all three consumer-brand relationship constructs positively drive customer brand loyalty. More importantly, my results demonstrate under what characteristics various consumer-brand relationship constructs increase customer brand loyalty. For example, the links between consumer-brand relationship constructs and customer brand loyalty are generally highest for affect-based consumer-brand relationship constructs and when customer brand loyalty is operationalized in attitudinal (vs. behavioral), absolute (vs. relative) or retrospective

(vs. prospective) terms. Additionally, identity-based consumer-brand relationship constructs are stronger predictors of customer brand loyalty when such loyalty is measured behaviorally, retrospectively, or among non-student consumers, while trust-based consumer-brand relationship

constructs are better drivers of American consumers’ customer brand loyalty. These findings extend the field’s knowledge base by quantifying the link between various consumer-brand relationship constructs and customer brand loyalty as well as demonstrating how the magnitude of this link predictably changes as a function of important consumer, brand, relationship, and methodological characteristics.

In Essay 2 I examine consumer-brand relationship constructs across a wide range of country-level cultural and institutional variables to understand the strength of the link between various consumer-brand relationship constructs and customer brand loyalty documented in the

Essay 1 meta-analysis. Put differently, Essay 2 explains why various consumer-brand relationship constructs predict customer brand loyalty better in certain cultural and institutional contexts. Specifically, I look at how seven variables moderate the relationship between various consumer-brand relationship constructs (CBR) and customer brand loyalty. The results contribute to the field of consumer-brand relationships by identifying how, when and why various consumer-brand relationship constructs impact customer brand loyalty more strongly in some cultural and institutional contexts than others. Drawing on these findings, both essays advance implications for managers and scholars and provide avenues for future research.

Essay 1: Focusing on Research Questions 1 and 2

Study 1

How Well Do Consumer-Brand Relationships Drive Customer Brand Loyalty?

Generalizations from a Meta-Analysis of Brand Relationship Elasticities

Customer brand loyalty is one of the foundational concepts of both marketing scholarship and practice. Rooted in the work of psychologist Lester Guest who defined brand loyalty as the

“constancy of preference for commercial brands of various products over a period of years in the life of the individual” (Guest 1944, p. 17), customer brand loyalty is associated with many benefits to the firm such as increasing market share, repeat purchase, cash flows and profits

(Chaudhuri and Holbrook 2001; Homburg, Wieseke, and Hoyer 2009; Morgan and Rego 2009;

Raj 1985; Watson et al. 2015; Wernerfelt 1991).

In the last two decades, research also documents how consumer-brand relationships are a powerful mechanism in building customer brand loyalty. In large part fueled by Fournier (1998), marketing academics advanced various concepts to reflect the types of ties that develop between consumers and brands, such as brand attachment (Park et al. 2010), emotional attachment

(Thomson, MacInnis and Park 2005), self-brand connection (Escalas and Bettman 2003) and brand love (Batra, Ahuvia and Bagozzi 2012). A reliable result at the intersection of the two literatures is that these various conceptualizations of consumer-brand relationships are positive predictors of customer brand loyalty (Mazodier and Merunka 2012; Homburg et al.

2009). However, there is little consensus on what types of brand relationships are superior

predictors of loyalty and under what conditions different types are relatively better. For example, research focused on the same type of brand relationship (e.g., attachment) has revealed relatively small (= .09; Goode, Khamitov and Thomson 2015), medium (= .30; Thomson 2006) and large

(= .64; Hudson et al. 2016) estimates of the path to brand loyalty. At the same time, research on different types of brand relationships (i.e., love, identification and trust) has documented nearly equally powerful paths to brand loyalty (Bergkvist and Bech-Larsen 2010; He, Li and Harris

2012; Hudson et al. 2016). Thus there is no general consensus in the literature about what types of brand relationships are least and most effective at producing loyal consumers.

There is also a lack of clarity among consumer researchers. At a recent conference, I surveyed 42 branding experts, comprised of mostly academics but also including several senior brand managers, asking how effective each of affect-based (e.g., brand love), identity-based

(e.g., self-brand connection), and trust-based brand relationships are at driving customer brand loyalty. In response, 21% thought affect-based relationships are best, 24% thought identity-based relationships are superior, 31% thought trust-based relationships are most promising, and 24% thought two or more approaches are equivalent. Thus I observe neither the literature nor its key stakeholders agree on which conceptualization of brand relationships is most effective at eliciting customer brand loyalty. This gap must be addressed or companies will continue to spend billions in marketing dollars to encourage consumer-brand relationships without a good understanding of their activities (Avery, Fournier, and Wittenbraker 2014).

In response, I turn to meta-analysis, a method that has gained popularity among consumer researchers in the face of systematizing variability (Raudenbush 2009) both across

(Scheibehenne, Greifeneder, and Todd 2010; van Laer et al. 2014) and within papers (Jhang and

Lynch 2015; McShane and Böckenholt 2017). Specifically, I conduct a meta-analysis of the link

between brand relationships and customer brand loyalty. My approach permits me to draw precise and credible generalizations (Rosenthal and DiMatteo 2001), in part by including an array of moderator variables that have often not been explicitly considered in previous studies such as brand and sample characteristics.

In my meta-analysis, I focus on ‘brand relationship elasticity’, which captures the link between a particular brand relationship and customer brand loyalty and reflects on average how much a 1% change in the strength of a brand relationship is associated with a % change in customer brand loyalty. There are a number of advantages to using elasticities compared to other estimates of effect size. Specifically, because elasticities are dimensionless and unit free, they permit easy comparison across studies and contexts; because they are expressed in terms of percentages rather than standard deviations, elasticities are intuitive and more easily interpreted; and because a range of papers on brand loyalty have employed elasticities to gauge the effectiveness of advertising, price, word-of-mouth, personal selling and online product reviews

(Albers, Mantrala, and Sridhar 2010; Assmus, Farley, and Lehmann 1984; Bijmolt, van Heerde, and Pieters 2005; Floyd et al. 2014; Tellis 1988; You, Vadakkepatt, and Joshi 2015), reporting elasticities enables readers to compare across marketing tactics too.

Relationship to Other Prior Meta-Analyses in the Domain

To date, two major meta-analysis have been completed in the domain. First, Watson et al.

(2015) account for how four predictors (e.g., trust, incentives) directly impact loyalty and indirectly impact word-of-mouth and performance. Their results show, for example, that the average path between trust and loyalty is positive and significant (γ = .38, p< .01). However, with a sizable portion of their dataset drawn from papers in business-to-business markets and

only 15% of their included studies focusing on brands as the target of loyalty (vs. firms, salespeople), there are considerable differences from my consumer-brand relationship lens.

However, their paper importantly underscores the need to empirically account for different types of loyalty (e.g., behavioral vs. attitudinal; forward-looking vs. backward-looking), an approach that I carry forward to my analysis.

Second, Palmatier et al. (2006) conduct an ambitious meta-analysis of which customer- focused variables (e.g., dependence on a seller), seller-focused variables (e.g., seller expertise) and dyadic characteristics (e.g., conflict) impact a range of outcomes (e.g., customer loyalty, cooperation) mediated by four relational variables (e.g., trust, relationship quality). They document, for example, that the estimate between trust and customer loyalty is positive and significant (r =.54, 95%ile CI = .52, .55). Similar to the first meta-analysis, their manuscript does not focus on brand relationships but contemplates both B2C and B2B literatures, does not consider most of my focal variables (e.g., love, self-brand connection) and is therefore mostly silent with respect to my research questions. However, their approach strongly suggests the need to include a range of moderators, as their results are considerably context-dependent.

Theory and Conceptual Framework

Over the last two decades, the marketing literature has advanced a wealth of brand relationship constructs that can be categorized as generally affect-based (brand love and attachment), identity-based (self-brand connection and identification), and trust-based (brand trust). A preliminary keyword search on Google Scholar suggests that approximately 77% of all consumer-brand relationship papers reflect some combination of these categories. In fact, I

employ these three categories not only because doing so is theoretically supported, but also because it considerably smoothes the exposition and simplifies the statistical analysis (e.g., issues of power, reduced number of interactions, creates relatively balanced sample sizes).

Importantly, my robustness checks confirm that none of my key results depend on the choice to employ these categories (versus the various constructs that form the categories). Still, it is important to recognize that I am not arguing that these categories are mutually exclusive, and acknowledge that they may overlap. For example, while below I categorize highly self-brand connected (SBC) relationships as ‘identity-based’, some academics have suggested that SBC is an indicator of attachment (Park et al. 2010), which I categorize as primarily ‘affect-based’.

Indeed, as might be expected in a large literature, there are inconsistencies, but my analyses confirm that the results are robust even accounting for such inconsistencies1 and categories.

Further, because few papers in my sample simultaneously consider more than one brand relationship construct, it is unlikely that multicollinearity is a concern. Next, I review the main consumer-brand relationship constructs and explain how and why I categorized them.

FIGURE 1: Conceptual Framework of Current Meta-Analysis

1 For example, I use a dummy to capture the use of the Park et al. (2010) measure vs. other attachment measures (Appendix A). The dummy is not significant.

Primarily Affect-Based Brand Relationships

Brand attachment: Attachment is an “emotion-laden target-specific bond between a person and a specific brand” (Thomson et al. 2005, p. 78). Several measures of attachment have been advanced. For example, Thomson et al. (2005) proposed an emotional metric reflecting as consumer’s feelings of affection, passion, and connection towards a brand. Similarly, Park and colleagues (2010) proposed that attachment can be captured using brand-self connection and brand prominence. The former reflects the consumer-brand bond that is emotional in nature but cognitive in its representation, while the latter represents the salience of the affective and cognitive connection between the consumer and the brand.

Brand love. Though early branding work (e.g., Ahuvia 1993; Shimp and Madden 1988) introduced love into the relational domain by examining how consumers interact with particular objects, brand love as a construct was first developed by Carroll and Ahuvia (2006) who defined it as the “degree of passionate emotional attachment a satisfied consumer has for a particular trade name” (p. 81). There are three main measures of brand love. First, Carroll and Ahuvia

(2006) developed a measure of brand love whose core features are passion for and attachment to the brand, favorable evaluations of and emotions toward the brand, and other manifestations of

love for the brand. This initial metric has been largely surpassed by a new one (Batra et al. 2012) that construes brand love as a mental prototype that goes beyond self-brand connection and brand attachment to also include additional features such as anticipated separation distress and long-term relationship. The third metric (Albert, Merunka, and Valette-Florence 2009) suggests brand love is comprised of two factors - affection and passion. The first reflects the duration of a brand relationship and the proximity between the brand and the consumer, while the second represents the delight consumers experience in using or possessing the brand.

Linking brand attachment to brand love. Brand attachment and brand love exhibit substantive conceptual similarities. For example, Carroll and Ahuvia define brand love in terms of “passionate emotional attachment” (Carroll and Ahuvia 2006, p. 81) while elsewhere, feelings of attachment are construed as a critical component of brand love (e.g., Batra et al. 2012). In fact, both brand attachment and brand love are primarily affective constructs reflecting intense emotional bonds (Albert et al. 2009; Carroll and Ahuvia 2006; Thomson et al. 2005), which deems them conceptually similar (Moussa 2015). The two constructs are measured in similar fashions too. For example, affection and passion are explicitly assessed with respect to both brand attachment (e.g., Thomson et al. 2005) and brand love (e.g., Albert et al. 2009). It is thus not surprising that extent research has documented strong empirical links between the two. For example, two recent papers assessing both constructs report significant positive correlations

(e.g., r = .66, p < .001, Hudson et al. 2016; r = .76, p < .001, Loureiro, Kaufmann, and Vrontis

2012). Thus, due to conceptual, measurement and statistical overlap, I categorize both brand attachment and brand love in the same ‘affect-based brand relationships’ category.

Primarily Identity-Based Brand Relationships

Self-brand connection: The origins of this concept can be traced to Escalas and Bettman who define it as “the extent to which individuals have incorporated brands into their self- concepts” (Escalas and Bettman 2003, p. 340), with consumers using brands to express who they are or who they aspire to be (Escalas 2004). Their scale is comprised of seven items, with sample items including “this brand reflects who I am” and “I (can) use this brand to communicate who I am to other people”.

Brand identification. The development of the brand identification concept is largely attributed to work by Bhattacharya, Rao, and Glynn (1995) who, drawing from organizational and social psychological literatures, advanced the concept of customer-organizational identification and a new measure by adapting items from Mael and Ashforth (1992).

Bhattacharya et al. (1995) followed with work on the nature of consumer-company identification as an identity-based bond while Bergami and Bagozzi (2000) developed a measure of organizational identification and Bhattacharya and Sen (2003) published a conceptual piece on nomological network around consumer-company identification. More recent work defines brand identification as “a consumer's perceived state of oneness with a brand” (Stokburger-Sauer,

Ratneshwar, and Sen 2012, p. 407) and argues that such brands are typically used by consumers for identity building purposes. Their measure of brand identification reflects consumers’ sense of belonging to and identification with the brand as well as the brand’s perceived capacity to embody the consumer’s beliefs. A different way to capture brand identification includes IOS- type (inclusion of other in self) measures that assess the extent to which the brand is incorporated into the consumer’s self (e.g., Reimann et al. 2012).

Linking self-brand connection to brand identification. Self-brand connection and brand identification have important conceptual similarities. For instance, definitions of both concepts

focus on the ideas of ‘oneness’ and brand-self overlap (Belk 1988; Escalas and Bettman 2003;

Stokburger-Sauer et al. 2012). To the extent that an individual has incorporated the brand into her self-concept, she should by definition also be relatively high on perceived state of oneness with the brand. This conceptual overlap has been acknowledged by several researchers. Most notably, Stokburger-Sauer et al. (2012) explicitly noted that brand identification is conceptually related to the construct of self-brand connection (p. 407) in that both capture a brand’s role in allowing consumers to articulate their identities. Measurement similarities between the two constructs exist too. For instance, some studies (e.g., Albert, Merunka, and Valette-Florence

2013; Sen et al. 2015) have treated brand identification and self-brand connection almost interchangeably by, for example, conceptualizing about brand identification but measuring it using self-brand connection items. There is also some limited statistical support to categorize the two constructs together: in a brand survey of undergraduate students (Sen et al. 2015), respondents filled out measures of self-brand connection and brand identification. The results of a principal components factor analysis revealed that items for each loaded onto a single factor.

Thus due to a range of similarities, I classify self-brand connection and brand identification together.

Distinguishing affect-based from identity-based brand relationships. Primarily affect- based brand relationships (i.e., brand attachment and brand love) are relatively dissimilar from primarily identity-based brand relationships (i.e., self-brand connection and brand identification).

While both brand attachment and love represent largely affective constructs typically implicating an intense emotional bond with a brand (Albert et al. 2009; Carrol and Ahuvia 2006; Thomson et al. 2005), self-brand connection and brand identification are more focused on integration of the brand into the self-concept (Bhattacharya and Sen 2003; Escalas and Bettman 2003; Escalas

2004; Stokburger-Sauer et al. 2012). In addition, they are relatively dissimilar in terms of measurement. For example, typical core indicators of brand attachment and love are affection and passion, while most common indicators of self-brand connection and brand identification are the brand’s capacity to embody the consumer’s beliefs and provide personal meaning. The former measurement approach lies more centrally in the realm of emotions while the latter is grounded much more in the realm of cognitions. Finally, there is statistical evidence to support separate categories. For example, Sen and colleagues (2015) report that a composite of brand identification and self-brand connection is moderately correlated with a measure of brand attachment (r = .50, p < .01) but that each loads onto separate factors. Similarly, Carlson and

Donavan (2013) found brand identification and brand attachment to be moderately correlated (r

= .43, p < .05) but independent factors.

Primarily Trust-Based Brand Relationships

Brand trust. The notion of brand trust was introduced by Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001,

2002) who built on earlier marketing work in inter- and intra-organizational contexts (Moorman,

Zaltman, and Desphande 1992; Morgan and Hunt 1994) and empirically validated the first measure of brand trust, which they define 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).

Core features include consumers’ belief that the brand is honest and safe, as well as subjective feelings of reliance on the brand. Brand trust has been examined in other ways too, with

Delgado-Ballester and Munuera-Alemán (2001) suggesting brand trust is “a feeling of security held by the consumer that the brand will meet his/her consumption expectations” (p. 1242).

While both views contemplate consumers’ belief in brand characteristics and brand-related

subjective feelings, the latter view focuses somewhat more on the ideas of certainty and confidence in the brand.

Distinguishing trust-based brand relationships from both affect-based and identity-based brand relationships. Trust-based brand relationships focus predominantly on the ideas of reliability, certainty and confidence surrounding a brand’s ability to deliver benefits, not the brand’s affect-invoking or identity-building capacities. That is, while affect-based brand relationships are largely grounded in the realm of emotions, trust-based brand relationship strength measures typically tap into the more “calculative” realm of cognitions (Chaudhuri and

Holbrook 2001). Also, unlike identity-based brand relationships that reflect consumers’ expressions of self, brand trust predominantly contemplates safety, reliability, and uncertainty reduction (Chaudhuri and Holbrook 2001; Delgado-Ballester and Munuera-Alemán 2001).

Statistically, there is support to construct three categories. For example, Magnoni and

Roux (2012) find brand trust is modestly correlated with brand attachment (r = .43, p < .001) but that each represent distinct factors. Others document a moderate correlation between brand trust and both brand love (r = .41, p < .001) and attachment (r = .37, p < .001; Loureiro et al. 2012).

Tsiotsou (2013) finds a weak correlation between trust and attachment to the same brands (r =

.14, p < .05). Similarly, researchers document non-significant (e.g., r = .17, p = NS; Pentina,

Zhang, and Basmanova 2013), weak (e.g., r = .25, p < .05; Loureiro et al. 2012) or moderate

(e.g., r = .50, p < .001; Magnoni and Roux 2012; and r = .58, p < .05; Tsiotsou 2013) correlations between measures of brand trust and brand-self connection. Taken together, this evidence suggests each of the trust-, identity- and affect-based brand relationships represent separable categories, which I carry forward.

Linking Brand Relationship Constructs and Customer Brand Loyalty

The review thus far documents that consumers form brand relationships that can be primarily affective-based, identity-based, or trust-based. Extensive evidence suggests each in turn is an effective means of creating or reinforcing customer brand loyalty (Batra et al. 2012;

Carroll and Ahuvia 2006; Chaudhuri and Holbrook 2001, 2002; Delgado-Ballester and Munuera-

Alemán 2001; Magnoni and Roux 2012; Sen et al. 2015; Stokburger-Sauer et al. 2012; Thomson et al. 2005) where loyalty generally reflects the degree to which a person consistently demonstrates a preference for the same brand within a product or service category. For example, attachment predicts a brand’s purchase share (Park et al. 2010), identification predicts future customer brand loyalty (Homburg et al. 2009) and behavioral intentions (Einwiller et al. 2006), and trust predicts repurchase intentions (Mazodier and Merunka 2012). Because of their positive impact on customer brand loyalty, all three types of brand relationships can thus be construed as brand loyalty drivers. Even so, uncertainty remains: extant research shows high variability in brand relationship elasticities, even where studies focus on the same context or conceptual approach. For example, using data from car owners, Loureiro et al. (2012) find that only affect- based and identity-based relationships are significantly associated with customer brand loyalty;

Ashworth et al. (2009) find that only trust-based and identity-based brand relationships drive repeat purchase; and Marzocchi et al. (2013) show that only affect-based and trust-based brand relationships generate attitudinal customer brand loyalty.

Statistical Moderators of Brand Relationship Elasticity

A major objective of meta-analysis is to quantify the overall relationship between key variables, which in my case is the linkage between brand relationships and customer brand

loyalty. As explained earlier, considerable variation exists in the associated brand relationship elasticities, which implies the presence of moderator variables (Hunter and Schmidt 1990). As a result, meta-analysis can also be used to test the boundaries implied by such moderators, which I identified through a careful reading of prior studies. I then coded these studies based on characteristics that were either explicit or implicit in them. Thus, my meta-analysis moves beyond a summary of extant empirical work and examines how different moderators influence brand relationship elasticities.

My primary focus with moderators is capturing key differences in characteristics of customer brand loyalty (cf. Watson et al. 2015). First, loyalty has been assessed attitudinally

(i.e., indicating loyal attitudes toward brands; e.g., Thomson 2006) while others use behavioral measures (i.e., reporting actual behaviors; e.g., Park et al. 2010). Thus, I look at moderation based on attitudinal vs. behavioral operationalizations of customer brand loyalty. Second, prior work operationalizes loyalty in absolute terms (i.e., without any reference to other brands; e.g.,

Tsai 2011) or in relative terms (i.e., at least partially in reference to other brands; e.g., Lam,

Ahearne, and Schillewaert 2012). Thus, I consider the potential moderating role of absolute vs. relative operationalizations of customer brand loyalty. Third, customer brand loyalty can be construed either retrospectively (i.e., reporting past/backward-looking loyalty; e.g., Sen et al.

2015) or prospectively (i.e., indicating future/forward-looking loyalty; e.g., Algesheimer,

Dholakia, and Herrmann 2005). Accordingly, I examine the moderating role of retrospective vs. prospective operationalizations of customer brand loyalty. In consumer behavior research, a moderator is typically a conceptual moderator that is orthogonal to both independent and a dependent variables. Here, I use the term to mean statistical moderator, that technically reflects different operationalizations of customer brand loyalty. Modelling them as such allows me to

conduct a single statistical test to assess the magnitude of brand relationship elasticities under different customer brand loyalty characteristics. This approach is also consistent with how some other published meta-analyses (Chernev, Böckenholt, and Goodman 2015; Spangenberg et al.

2016; van Laer et al. 2014) label and treat various operationalizations or measures of their DVs as important moderating factors.

Data and Methodology

Data sample, criteria for inclusion, and coding

To generate my database, I undertook a search of all relevant literature that touched on the linkage between consumer brand relationships and customer brand loyalty. I initially identified relevant papers through a search of multiple electronic databases, such as ProQuest,

Google Scholar, PsycINFO, ABI/Inform, Business Source Complete, Web of Science, JSTOR, and Science Direct using keywords (e.g., brand relationship, brand attachment, brand love, self- brand connection etc… and combinations of these terms) related to customer brand loyalty and the focal antecedents. I also manually searched all available issues of Journal of Marketing,

Journal of Marketing Research, Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer

Psychology, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, and Journal of Brand Management.

For inclusion in my meta-analysis, I retained articles published in a journal that appeared on the Financial Times (i.e., FT 50) or UT Dallas’ Research Rankings list or rated in the

Academic Journal Guide (Chartered Association of Business Schools 2015) as a 2 or higher (out of 4*). I used this 2+ criteria to ensure a broad range of publication outlets while maintaining quality control. In addition, other criteria for inclusion required that (1) a study measured one or

more brand relationships using a multi-item scale, (2) the study included a measure that was interpretable as customer brand loyalty (e.g., attitudinal loyalty, behavioral loyalty, “mixed” loyalty, etc…), and (3) the study presented empirical consumer-level responses (typically based on survey and/or experimental data). Finally, the results had to enable the unambiguous estimation of brand relationship elasticities linking one or more pairs of variables of interest or report other statistical information from which I could calculate elasticities (table 1) using transformations based on the formulas from You et al. (2015) and Gemmill, Costa-Font, and

McGuire (2007).

TABLE 1: Elasticity Transformation Equations

Regression specification Statistical model Elasticity equation Log-log ln(y) = α+βln(x)+Ɛ β Log-level ln(y) = α+βx+Ɛ βx̄ Level-log y = α+βln(x)+Ɛ β (1/ȳ) Note: These are types of regression specifications used in brand relationship research. Here, x refers to brand relationship, and y refers to customer brand loyalty.

When I identified an article, I examined the reference lists to find further studies. In addition, I used Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar to search the citations of the included articles. The approach I used is in line with recommendations of several meta-analysis methodological pieces (Hunter and Schmidt 1990; Rosenthal 1979) as well as published meta- analyses (e.g., Carlson et al. 2009; Scheibehenne et al. 2010; van Laer et al. 2014). When necessary, I also emailed researchers asking for additional details or clarifications about their published works.

Using studies found from October 1995 (following what can be construed as the establishment of the brand relationship field by Susan Fournier in 1994) through August 2015, including articles in press at that time, my final database consists of 304 brand relationship

elasticities from 143 studies reported in 127 publications based on data from 179,395 respondents (Appendix A). The samples were drawn from 35 countries. The number of studies included in this meta-analysis is comparable to those from meta-analyses in the branding and customer loyalty contexts (e.g., 126 studies from Watson et al. 2015). The minimum and maximum number of brand relationship elasticities reported in a single study is 1 and 16, respectively. As the maximum number of elasticities in a single study (16) accounts for approximately 5% (16 out of 304) of the total effects, this indicates that a single study does not provide an excessive number of elasticities. I was unable to calculate effect sizes for 15 studies due to insufficient information provided either in the paper or in follow-up correspondence, which is why I excluded them. I excluded studies that examined customer brand loyalty in a purely business-to-business domain (such as brand loyalty of manufacturing companies) or those containing only theoretical estimates (e.g., econometrics models).

I prepared a protocol specifying the information to be pulled out from each study to reduce error (Rubera and Kirca 2012; Stock 1994). I manually derived the effects and moderators using agreed-on definitions, criteria and information provided in each study. There were very few judgment calls, and in those limited instances I discussed and resolved them with my dissertation chair (Zablah et al. 2012). I subsequently adjusted each of the effect size estimates for measurement error by dividing the effect size estimate by the square root of the product of the reliabilities of the two focal constructs (Hunter and Schmidt 2004; see Table 1). In cases where researchers employed observed customer brand loyalty metrics (e.g., actual repeat purchase), I made an assumption of a reliability of .8 which represents a more conservative approach in line with other published meta-analyses (e.g., Dalton et al. 2003). The assumption of a reliability of .8 means that I adjusted each of the effect size estimates using these metrics for

measurement error (inherent in any empirical examination) by 20%. In the context of meta- analyses this is an important correction as it ensures that effect sizes are estimated realistically and are less likely to be inflated. When researchers failed to provide reliability coefficients in a study, or utilized a single-item survey-based dependent measure of customer brand loyalty, I employed the mean reliability for that construct throughout all other studies to account for measurement reliability (Hunter and Schmidt 2004).

Control Variables

I identified a series of control variables corresponding to brand, sample, consumer, journal and methodological characteristics (Table 2 contains details about the variables and coding.) Because work in the domain moved from a narrow focus on product and service brands into other types such as human brands (e.g., Thomson 2006), place brands (e.g., Debenedetti,

Oppewal, and Arsel 2014) and team brands (Ross, James, and Vargas 2006), I controlled for brand type. I assessed whether the focal brand in each study was self-selected by consumers or provided by researchers, as well as whether the focal brand was a ‘favorite’ (vs neutral or occasionally used brand, etc.). I controlled for gender (Monga 2002), age (Jahn, Gaus, and

Kiessling 2012) and whether respondents were students. At the sample level, I accounted for geographic setting (i.e., region of origin of the primary study; Hudson et al. 2016; Lam et al.

2012; Pentina et al. 2013) and source of the sample (i.e., lab vs. field vs. other; Aaker, Fournier, and Brasel 2004; Thomson 2006). Finally, I controlled for study method (survey vs. otherwise;

Eisend and Stokburger-Sauer 2013), year of data collection (Babić Rosario et al. 2016), and journal type (marketing vs. non-marketing; Kumar, Sharma, and Gupta 2017; Rubera and Kirca

2012) using Harzing’s (2015) classification. Besides controlling for the aforementioned characteristics in my model, my purpose was to provide a more nuanced understanding of

conditions under which certain brand relationship elasticities are the strongest. In order to do so,

I explicitly assessed how the effectiveness of brand relationship elasticities varies across these brand, sample, consumer, journal and methodological characteristics.

Meta-Analytic Estimation Model Specification and Procedure

Within the framework of meta-analysis, data are characterized by a nested or hierarchical structure (i.e., subjects nested within studies; Denson and Seltzer 2011), deeming traditional regression approaches such as ordinary least squares improper as nested data structures may result in heteroskedasticity in the errors (Krasnikov and Jayachandran 2008). Therefore, to account for within-study error correlations between brand relationship elasticities, I conduct the meta-analysis with hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) in line with Bijmolt and Pieters (2001) and You and colleagues (2015).

I estimate the intraclass correlation coefficients () for my model, which quantifies the proportion of within-study variance to that of total variance (Raudenbush and Bryk 2001;

Snijders and Bosker 1994). In my model, the within-study variance component is significant and equal to .039, and the between-studies variance component is significant and equal to .012.

Hence, the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)  is .234 (.012/[.012 + .039]), meaning that approximately 23.4% of the variance in brand relationship elasticities is accounted for by studies in my model, leaving 76.6% of the variance in brand relationship elasticities accounted by individual subjects. When an ICC value is lower than .05, it generally means there is no need to conduct an analysis for hierarchical data because the nested structure is not justified and using it would typically not enhance the statistical model’s performance (Bliese, 2000). Because my ICC

(.234) is higher than this common cut-off, performing HLM is suitable in this context

(Raudenbush and Bryk 2001).

In line with prior meta-analyses in marketing (e.g., Rubera and Kirca 2012; You et al.

2015), I estimate the model employing the maximum likelihood estimation method as it produces robust, efficient, and consistent estimates (Hox 2002; Singer and Willet 2003). I estimate the specific model as follows:

Level 1: Yij = β0j + βj × Xij + eij, and

Level 2: βj = g0 + mj,

where Yij is the ith brand relationship elasticity from study j, β0 is the intercept for the jth study,

βj is the parameter estimate of the influencing factors for the jth study, eij is random error attributable to ith elasticity in study j, g0 is overall intercept, and mj is the study-level residual error term. The Level 1 equation describes the influence of the brand relationship, loyalty, journal, brand, sample, consumer, and methodological characteristics previously hypothesized on brand relationship elasticity, which differ at a study level, while the Level 2 equation describes the impact of study characteristics on the intercept and slopes in the Level 1 equation. In other words, the measurement of an individual elasticity is at Level 1 (unit of analysis) while the measurement of the study from which an elasticity is derived is Level 2 (clusters of units).

TABLE 2: Factors Included in the Meta-Analysis, Explanations, and Coding Scheme

Category Variable Explanation Coding Scheme

Brand Relationship Characteristics Identity-based Relationship based on incorporation of a brand into self-concept or on perceived state of oneness with a Base: Not identity-based (0) brand, typically captured by self-brand connection or brand identification constructs Identity-based: (1)

Trust-based Relationship based on reliance on the ability of a brand to perform its stated function typically captured by Base: Not trust-based (0) brand trust construct Trust-based: (1)

Affect-based Relationship based on emotion-laden target-specific bond with a brand or on passionate emotional Base: Not affect-based (0) attachment for a brand, typically captured by brand attachment or brand love constructs Affect-based: (1)

Loyalty Characteristics Attitudinal and mixed Reported loyalty taps into loyal attitudes and evaluations of a brand or its combination with behavioral Base: Attitudinal and mixed (0) vs. Behavioral loyalty Behavioral: (1) Reported loyalty taps solely into actual brand loyal behaviors (i.e., repeat purchase)

Absolute vs. Relative and Loyalty is reported without any reference to other brand (in isolation) Base: Absolute (0) mixed Loyalty is reported at least partially in reference to other brands Relative and mixed: (1)

Prospective and mixed Future (forward looking) or mixed loyalty is reported Base: Prospective and mixed (0) vs. Retrospective Past (backward looking) loyalty is reported Retrospective: (1)

Measured before Loyalty in the original study measured before brand relationship scales Base: Measured before (0) vs. Otherwise Loyalty in the original study measured either after brand relationship scales or randomized Otherwise: (1)

Journal Characteristics Marketing Outlet of the original study has a mainly marketing focus Base: Marketing (0) vs. Non-marketing Outlet of the original study does not have a mainly marketing focus Non-marketing: (1)

Brand Characteristics Self-selected Focal brand’s nomination is self-selected by consumers Base: Self-selected (0) vs. Provided Focal brand’s nomination is provided by researchers Provided: (1)

Favorite Elicited focal brand is a favorite brand for consumers Base: Favorite (0) vs. Otherwise Elicited focal brand is not a favorite brand for consumers (neutral brand, occasionally used brand, etc.) Otherwise: (1)

Product brand Focal brand is a physical entity (a good) for which the exchange/use primarily concerns the tangible form Base: Not product brand (0) Product brand: (1) Service brand Focal brand is an intangible entity (a marketplace activity) for which the exchange/use primarily concerns Base: Not service brand (0) the intangible form Service brand: (1)

Store brand Focal brand is a specific retailer (outlet) Base: Not store brand (0) Store brand: (1) Team brand Focal brand is an entity comprised of persons with different skills to work toward a goal as defined by the Base: Not team brand (0) team manager Team brand: (1)

Human brand Focal brand is a well-known persona who is the subject of marketing communications efforts Base: Not human brand (0) Human brand: (1) Mixed brand Focal brand (s) has/have multiple categories (product and service, etc.) Base: Not mixed brand (0) Mixed brand: (1) Place brand Focal brand is a commercial or non-commercial environment (location) consisting of physical venue Base: Not place brand (0) properties and the social and psychological processes that occur within its boundaries Place brand: (1)

Sample Characteristics Lab Sample of the original study collected in the lab context Base: Not lab (0) Lab: (1) Field Sample of the original study collected in the field context Base: Not field (0) Field: (1) Other Sample of the original study collected in the other context (online, mail, etc.) Base: Not other (0) Other: (1) Asia Sample of the original study originates from Asia Base: Not Asia (0) Asia: (1) Australia/Oceania Sample of the original study originates from Australia/Oceania Base: Not Australia/Oceania (0) Australia/Oceania: (1) Europe Sample of the original study originates from Europe Base: Not Europe (0) Europe: (1) Mixed Sample of the original study originates from multiple geographic settings (Europe and America, etc.) Base: Not mixed (0) Mixed: (1) America Sample of the original study originates from America Base: Not America (0) America: (1) Consumer Characteristics Students Sample of the original study primarily consists of students Base: Students (0) vs. Non-students Sample of the original study primarily consists of non-students Non-students: (1)

Age Average age of the original sample in years Continuous

Gender Percentage of female respondents in the original sample Continuous

Methodological and Data Characteristics Survey vs. Otherwise Method of the original study is survey Base: Survey (0) Method of the original study is non-survey (experiment, etc.) Otherwise: (1)

Year of data collection 1992 Data for the original study were collected in 1992 Base: Not 1992 (0) Year of data collection 1992: (1) Year of data collection 1994 Data for the original study were collected in 1994 Base: Not 1994 (0)

Year of data collection 1994: (1) Year of data collection 1998 Data for the original study were collected in 1998 Base: Not 1998 (0) Year of data collection 1998: (1) Year of data collection 1999 Data for the original study were collected in 1999 Base: Not 1999 (0) Year of data collection 1999: (1) Year of data collection 2000 Data for the original study were collected in 2000 Base: Not 2000 (0) Year of data collection 2000: (1) Year of data collection 2001 Data for the original study were collected in 2001 Base: Not 2001 (0) Year of data collection 1992: (1) Year of data collection 2002 Data for the original study were collected in 2002 Base: Not 2002 (0) Year of data collection 2002: (1) Year of data collection 2003 Data for the original study were collected in 2003 Base: Not 2003 (0) Year of data collection 2003: (1) Year of data collection 2005 Data for the original study were collected in 2005 Base: Not 2005 (0) Year of data collection 2005: (1) Year of data collection 2006 Data for the original study were collected in 2006 Base: Not 2006 (0) Year of data collection 2006: (1) Year of data collection 2007 Data for the original study were collected in 2007 Base: Not 2007 (0) Year of data collection 2007: (1) Year of data collection 2008 Data for the original study were collected in 2008 Base: Not 2008 (0) Year of data collection 2008: (1) Year of data collection 2009 Data for the original study were collected in 2009 Base: Not 2009 (0) Year of data collection 2009: (1) Year of data collection 2010 Data for the original study were collected in 2010 Base: Not 2010 (0) Year of data collection 2010: (1) Year of data collection 2011 Data for the original study were collected in 2011 Base: Not 2011 (0) Year of data collection 2011: (1) Year of data collection 2012 Data for the original study were collected in 2012 Base: Not 2012 (0) Year of data collection 2012: (1) Year of data collection 2013 Data for the original study were collected in 2013 Base: Not 2013 (0) Year of data collection 2013: (1) Year of data collection 2014 Data for the original study were collected in 2014 Base: Not 2014 (0) Year of data collection 2014: (1)

Robustness Checks

I performed several checks to ensure the robustness of the results. First, I checked for multicollinearity by inspecting the variance inflation factors (VIF), condition indices and bivariate correlations. All but one of the variance inflation factors are lower than 8 (average VIF

= 3.37, median VIF = 2.30) and all condition indices are less than 20, suggesting only moderate levels of multicollinearity. However, because several combinations of variables in the model exist with a bivariate correlation greater than |.50|, I conducted sensitivity analyses by omitting each of the affected variables one at a time (Bijmolt et al. 2005). This does not alter the substantive results regarding other variables, indicating that the degree of multicollinearity is unlikely to affect the findings (details of these results are available on request). Therefore, I retain all variables in the model (Bijmolt et al. 2005).

Regarding missing values, I tackled the problem as follows. The missing values in my database only occur within three variables in the model (loyalty measured before vs. otherwise, age, gender). For these missing values (112, 165, and 68 observations, respectively, from a total of 304), I used the mean of my sample as a missing value imputation. To verify the stability of my results, I rerun the model excluding these 112, 165, and 68 cases. Moreover, I use an alternative missing value imputation, i.e., using the median instead of the mean. Excluding these observations from the analyses, as well as using an alternative missing value imputation, leads to the same substantive results.

Additionally, I conducted an analysis to check the robustness of my findings to potential outlier bias. The scree plot building on Huffcutt and Arthur’s (1995) sample-adjusted meta- analytic deviancy statistic suggests one obvious outlier and two potential outliers in my data set.

Thus, following Geyskens et al. (2009) and Chang and Taylor (2016), I compare the results of

the full data set with the results of the reduced data sets that exclude the one apparent outlier and the three outliers (i.e., one apparent outlier plus two potential outliers). The findings for the reduced data sets consistently support the same conclusions as those for the full data set. I report a series of additional robustness checks, as well as my approaches to dealing with publication bias in Appendix A.

Finally, I conducted a sensitivity analysis using an alternative model specification with five individual brand relationships constructs instead of 3 brand relationship categories. The fact that results using 5 brand relationships (attachment, love, identification, self-brand connection, and trust) show the same substantive findings as the findings using 3 categories of brand relationships further supports my adopted categorization and robustness of my model (Appendix

A). In summary, my checks confirm the stability of my model and results.

Results

Univariate Analysis of Brand Relationship Elasticity

In Figure 2, I present the frequency distributions of brand relationship elasticity estimates in the database. There are 304 brand relationship elasticities with magnitudes ranging from -.10 to .90. As I expected, 98% of these estimates are positive such that there were only 7 reported negative brand relationship elasticities. The overall sample weighted mean brand relationship elasticity in my meta-analysis is .404 (Mdn = .380, SD = .195). The 95% bootstrapped confidence interval around the mean brand relationship elasticity ranges from .40 to .41, which provides further evidence that brand relationship and customer brand loyalty are significantly and positively related. This finding is not dependent on any single elasticity; that is, the summary

effect did not change when any one elasticity estimate was removed from analysis. Furthermore, as shown in Figure 2, the distribution of brand relationship elasticities seems closer to normal.

FIGURE 2: Frequency Distribution of Brand Relationship Elasticities

50 46 45 45 43 39 40 40

35 32 30

25 23 20

20 Frequency 15 9 10 7 5

0 < 0 0 to .1 .1 to .2 .2 to .3 .3 to .4 .4 to .5 .5 to .6 .6 to .7 .7 to .8 .8 to .9 Brand Relationship Elasticity

Note: Appendix A reports how these Brand Relationship Elasticities are distributed over time.

Utilizing the HLM model, I analyze the effect of various factors that may drive brand relationship elasticity.

TABLE 3: Estimation of HLM Results

Variable Estimate SE DF t-value p-value Constant .436 .212 88.3 2.06 .043 Brand Relationship Elasticities Identity-based -.074 .029 273 -2.51 .013 Trust-based -.073 .029 267 -2.49 .013 Affect-based 0 Moderator Variables Loyalty characteristics attitudinal and mixed vs. behavioral -.231 .043 281 -5.31 <.001 absolute vs. relative and mixed -.075 .025 302 -2.96 .003 prospective and mixed vs. retrospective .058 .029 290 2.01 .046 measured before vs. otherwise -.077 .039 283 -1.99 .048 Control Variables Journal characteristics marketing vs. non-marketing -.064 .037 150 -1.74 .083 Brand characteristics self-selected vs. provided -.008 .037 171 -.21 .836 favorite vs. otherwise -.017 .038 185 -.45 .654 product brand .1 .064 155 1.56 .121 service brand .043 .073 158 .58 .560 store brand .135 .072 159 1.87 .063 team brand .043 .113 127 .38 .702 human brand .117 .112 185 1.05 .297 mixed brand .112 .071 158 1.57 .117 place brand 0 Sample characteristics lab -.116 .089 250 -1.3 .196 field -.065 .048 177 -1.36 .177 other 0 Asia -.010 .051 196 -.20 .843 Australia and Oceania -.049 .058 190 -.85 .396 Europe -.045 .043 163 -1.06 .290 mixed -.040 .085 65.7 -.47 .641 America 0 Consumer characteristics students vs. non-students -.025 .074 252 -.34 .732 age .001 .003 151 .36 .719 gender .001 .001 197 .69 .490 Methodological characteristics survey vs. otherwise .035 .052 162 .67 .502 year of data collection 1994a .229 .225 88.7 1.02 .312 year of data collection 1998 .202 .244 85.5 .83 .409 year of data collection 1999 .018 .224 84.2 .08 .937

year of data collection 2000 -.028 .271 107 -.10 .919 year of data collection 2001 .149 .234 85.9 .64 .525 year of data collection 2002 .308 .243 98.6 1.27 .209 year of data collection 2003 .048 .220 85.5 .22 .828 year of data collection 2005 .120 .231 95.2 .52 .603 year of data collection 2006 .225 .217 84.2 1.04 .302 year of data collection 2007 .231 .22 86.6 1.05 .298 year of data collection 2008 .070 .218 81.2 .32 .749 year of data collection 2009 .209 .216 83.6 .97 .335 year of data collection 2010 .066 .216 85.1 .30 .762 year of data collection 2011 .215 .217 86.2 .99 .327 year of data collection 2012 .151 .211 80.3 .71 .478 year of data collection 2013 .079 .273 123 .29 .772 year of data collection 2014 -.060 .234 88 -.26 .797 year of data collection 1992 0 a No data exists for 1993, 1995-1997 and 2004. b Variables where estimates are zero serve as base/reference for their respective categories (e.g., both identity-based and trust-based estimates are compared to affect-based ones).

TABLE 4: Estimation Results of HLM Interaction Effects

Variable Estimate SE DF t-value p-value

Brand Relationship Elasticities x Loyalty Characteristics (affect-based x behavioral) vs. (identity-based x behavioral) .151 .073 245 2.05 .041 (affect-based x behavioral) vs. (trust-based x behavioral) .145 .078 216 1.85 .065 (affect-based x retrospective) vs. (identity-based x retrospective) .110 .056 246 1.96 .051 Brand Relationship Elasticities x Brand Characteristics (affect-based x self-selected) vs. (trust-based x self-selected) .101 .059 278 1.69 .092 (affect-based x favorite) vs. (trust-based x favorite) .155 .057 269 2.70 .007 (affect-based x team brand) vs. (trust-based x team brand) -.498 .230 219 -2.17 .031 (affect-based x team brand) vs. (identity-based x team brand) -.440 .221 249 -1.99 .048 (identity-based x place brand) vs. (trust-based x place brand) -.255 .126 173 -2.02 .045 Brand Relationship Elasticities x Sample Characteristics (affect-based x lab) vs. (identity-based x lab) -.232 .088 279 -2.62 .009 (affect-based x America) vs. (trust-based x America) .136 .067 303 2.03 .043 Brand Relationship Elasticities x Consumer Characteristics (affect-based x non-students) vs. (identity-based x non-students) .243 .079 276 3.09 .002 (identity-based) x (age) .008 .004 245 1.85 .065

a Interaction terms that appear first serve as base/reference terms for successive comparisons (e.g., identity-based x behavioral loyalty interaction term estimates are compared to affect-based x behavioral loyalty ones).

Hierarchical Linear Model Estimation Results

Which brand relationship elasticity is more effective? Tables 3 and 4 present the findings

of the HLM meta-analytic regression. I used three fit statistics to confirm model fit: (1) Akaike

information criterion (AIC) statistic, (2) Bayesian information criterion (BIC) statistic, and (2)

deviance (–2 log-likelihood ratio). The final brand relationship elasticity model (model with

factors: AIC = -119; BIC = -86; deviance = -141) possesses a better fit than the null brand

relationship elasticity model (intercept-only model: AIC = -54; BIC = -45; deviance = -60).

In terms of how to interpret the results, it is important to note that the affect-based brand

relationship elasticity appears as the base or reference category. Thus any  that is positive

should be interpreted as relatively stronger than the affect-based brand relationship elasticity,

while any negative  indicates an elasticity that is relatively weaker than affect-based brand

relationship elasticity. Overall, I find that compared to affect-based brand relationships,both

identity-based ( = -.074, p < .05) and trust-based ( = -.073, p < .05) brand relationships are weaker drivers of customer brand loyalty. This implies that while all three categories of brand relationships lead to customer brand loyalty, investing in affect-based brand relationships is likely to be relatively more effective. The magnitude of difference between identity-based and trust-based brand relationship elasticities is not statistically significant ( = -.001, p = .975), suggesting that identity-based and trust-based brand relationships are equally effective at increasing customer brand loyalty.

Furthermore, the significant Cochran’s Q-test of homogeneity (Q (303) = 6850.74, p <

.001) and the high scale-free index of homogeneity I2 confirm a substantial amount of heterogeneity, implying that the variability of the elasticities is greater than would be anticipated from subject-level sampling error alone (Borenstein et al. 2009). Overall, the results of the HLM model confirm that brand relattionships significantly affect customer brand loyalty and thus provide preliminary support for my conceptual framework, but the direction, size, and statistical significance of the average effects differ between the influencing factors, confirming the need for a moderator analysis.

Which statistical moderators influence brand relationship elasticity? I find support for the moderating role of three customer brand loyalty characteristics. Specifically, I observe that brand relationship elasticities estimated for behavioral loyalty are lower ( = -.231, p < .001) than those estimated for attitudinal and mixed loyalty. Second, I find that elasticities estimated using relative and mixed loyalty are lower ( = -.075, p < .01) than elasticities estimated using absolute loyalty. Finally, brand relationship elasticities are relatively stronger when loyalty is operationalized retrospectively ( = .058, p < .05). That is, brand relationships impact customer

brand loyalty more when loyalty is operationalized attitudinally, retrospectively, or in absolute terms.

Which control variables influence brand relationship elasticity? I find that brand relationships interact with several control variables. Although affect-based brand relationship elasticities are highest in the overall sample, other elasticities are greater under certain conditions. Compared to the affect-based brand relationship elasticity, the identity-based brand relationship elasticity is higher for estimates using behavioral loyalty ( = .151, p < .05), non- student consumers ( = .243, p < .01), and retrospective loyalty ( = .110, p = .051). For place brands, the identity-based brand relationship elasticity ( = .255, p < .05) estimate is greater than for the trust-based brand relationship elasticity. With the trust-based brand relationship elasticity,

I find that it is higher than affect-based brand relationship elasticity for favorite brands ( = .155, p < .01) and among American consumers ( = .136, p < .05). This suggests that investing in identity-based brand relationships is warranted with place brands and when customer brand loyalty is operationalized behaviorally, retrospectively, and among non-student consumers, whereas investing in trust-based brand relationships is advisable in the context of favorite brands and among American consumers. Overall, these results imply that affect-, identity-, and trust- based brand relationship elasticities vary considerably across loyalty, brand, sample, and consumer characteristics.

General Discussion

Academic Contributions

In the last 20 years, many studies have advanced our understanding of brand relationships. While research has demonstrated that brand relationships lead to customer brand loyalty, most studies rely on a single sample and/or context and thus have not investigated characteristics and factors that moderate the effectiveness of those relationships as a marketing instrument. In addition, there has been no consensus on which brand relationship constructs are most effective in driving customer brand loyalty. The current study is the first to systematically examine the generalized impact of brand relationships on customer brand loyalty across a large body of literature (304 elasticities from 143 studies) and to detail the differential effects of three different brand relationships, while also accounting for a large number of explicit or implicit factors. In doing so, I advance the literature on consumer-brand relationships in several ways.

First, I respond to recent calls for integrating brand relationship research and moving beyond the experimental paradigm (Alvarez and Fournier 2016) by synthesizing extant research on the brand relationship-customer brand loyalty link with an eye to reducing some of the “complexity of

[the] brand-relationship space” (Fournier, 2009, p. 5). My investigation allows me to supplement the understanding of brand-level factors such as brand personality (Eisend and Stokburger-Sauer

2013) with a nuanced understanding of brand relationship-level factors. Second, I move beyond the simple quantification of an aggregate brand relationship elasticity to analyze three key brand relationship categories, which leads to the insight that affect-based brand relationships are most strongly linked to customer brand loyalty. This finding is useful on its own, but is nuanced by the fact that the identity-based brand relationship elasticity is higher when it comes to behavioral and retrospective loyalty as well as non-student consumers, while the trust-based brand relationship elasticity dominates for favorite brands and among American consumers.

The insights from my meta-analysis have implications for brand relationship researchers.

With more than two-thirds of the 143 studies in my sample published in the last decade, there has been a rapid rise in academic interest in examining brand relationship elasticities. That brand relationship elasticities are higher if customer brand loyalty is measured attitudinally, retrospectively, and in absolute terms suggests that it is vital to explicitly specify which definition of customer brand loyalty is used, reinforcing the findings of Watson et al. (2015).

That is, customer brand loyalty should be decomposed into attitudinal versus behavioral, absolute versus relative and prospective versus retrospective components. Failing to account for such differences could generate misleading results in future research by, for example, exaggerating or masking the efficacy of brand relationship-building efforts. To some extent, my findings may be reassuring for marketing researchers, because several factors pertaining to the sample and methodological characteristics (i.e., geographic setting, source of the sample, study method, and year of data collection) do not have a significant effect on brand relationship elasticity estimates, thereby giving researchers flexibility in this space. Finally, because the alternative model specification using 5 individual brand relationship constructs instead of 3 categories provides substantively similar results, there is circumstantial support to suggest that brand attachment/brand love and brand identification/self-brand connection may be tapping identical domains. Beyond this shared predictive validity, future research may systematically investigate whether the field would benefit from essentially treating these two conceptual pairings as the same idea.

Managerial Implications

If the first three waves were brand as object, idea, and experience, the next wave

will be brand as relationships” (Bonchek and France, 2016, p. 1).

Reflected in part by my examination of different moderators and control variables, my results may be instructive to managers who aspire to better focus their marketing tactics. In fact, marketing departments are routinely under pressure to show the value of their marketing spending (Verhoef and Leeflang 2009). My meta-analysis confirms that brand relationships are a practical tool to boost customer brand loyalty: the mean elasticity is equal to .40, which is on par with elasticities of some other marketing instruments such as electronic word-of-mouth (.24 and

.42; You et al. 2015), personal selling (.31 and .75; Albers et al. 2010), or advertising (.12 and

.24; Sethuraman, Tellis, and Briesch 2011). This result can be translated to mean that brand relationships are a practical tool to boost customer brand loyalty.

The absence of significant effects for geographic setting dummies (e.g., Asia, Austalia and Oceania, America…) on brand relationship elasticities provides an argument that brand relationship strategies can be approached relatively similarly worldwide. Similarly, there is no evidence to suggest that the mean effect has changed systematically in the last 23 years. This strongly implies that marketers should include brand relationships in their long-term strategic decisions. Under certain conditions, the strength of this link may be even stronger. For example, investing in identity-based brand relationships is advisable in the context of promoting places and venues. As a whole, brand relationship management may be improved by undertaking a more fine-grained approach in which managers match brand relationships to the specific objectives at hand. For example, if one is interested in driving behavioral customer brand loyalty, a focus on primarily identity-based relationships should be pursued.

Limitations and Future Research Directions

This study has limitations that reflect possible avenues for further research. First, the factors I examine are restricted to variables for which sufficient primary data is available and while I made efforts to be exhaustive in my literature review, I may have overlooked data.

Therefore, my framework should be treated as a summary of the most commonly studied factors related to the brand relationship elasticity, not an exhaustive list. In fact, while I think I am focusing on the five most prevalent consumer-brand relationship constructs, I acknowledge that I have omitted several, mostly due to ambiguity about where such constructs fall in a branding nomological network. For example, I set aside brand commitment because I viewed it as possibly confounded with brand loyalty, and I ignore brand involvement because I viewed it as too closely aligned with the attitudinal dimension of customer brand loyalty. Finally, I do not consider satisfaction, which is typically more focused on consumer-firm interaction in the context of expectations/disconfirmation than on the quality of the consumer’s relationship with a specific brand.

Additionally, substantial parts my data come from United States and relate to consumer electronics, packaged goods, and the automotive industry. However, I encourage researchers to enlarge the scope of brand relationship elasticity research in terms of more diverse market settings. For the purposes of generating a maximum impact (e.g., Farley, Lehmann, and Mann

1998), I hope that future studies (1) are from African, South American, or Asian settings; (2) use a longitudinal design; (3) or include different brand relationships in the same model. Second, most brand relationship studies use a narrow set of metrics to capture customer brand loyalty such as loyal attitudes toward and evaluations of brands. Consequently, I suggest that researchers

consider different customer brand loyalty operationalizations that capture formats other than self- reported attitudes and evaluations (e.g., scanner data with actual repurchase history, physiological response measures). Third, like any other meta-analysis, my study relies on partially subjective data coding – indeed, meta-analysts are always constrained in their ability to derive variables because of the often-limited description of research in primary articles. Thus, I provide the meta-analytic coding scheme to make my decisions transparent.

A related issue is that the brand relationship elasticities found in the original studies may be somewhat positively biased due to oversampling of successful brands; brands that fail to establish relationships with consumers may have exited the market and would thus not be reflected in my database. I also know that I was unable to include elasticities from all available brand relationship studies because some of them did not provide enough information. I follow

Albers (2012) and Edeling and Fischer (2016) in recommending that authors report dimensionless elasticities in addition to unstandardized regression coefficients. Including these statistics will enable synthesis across studies and consolidation of empirical findings and, in turn, generate cumulative knowledge development within the brand relationship field. Finally, in line with recommendations by Palmatier et al. (2006), I encourage scholars to use multiple brand relationship metrics to map the different aspects of brand relationships, as single metrics are unlikely to fully capture the essence or depth of brand relationships. This is particularly important because I identified that in most studies, the emphasis is on only one or few causal linkages with different definitions for constructs and variables. It also underscores a need to consolidate definitions and measures of the various brand relationship concepts being investigated in future studies.

Lastly, my findings and insights are constrained by the quantity and quality of the underlying data. Most papers contemplate only one type of brand relationship and propose it directly impacts brand loyalty. As a result of this conceptualizing, I have available to me the coefficients that form the foundation of my meta-analysis. However, research also suggests that some of these brand relationships (e.g., self-brand connection) work in part indirectly through other constructs such as love (e.g., Loureiro et al. 2012). Simply put, while such interactions may be theoretically supported, I am constrained in dealing with the issue here. That is, there is insufficient empirical work to reflect this theorizing (e.g., self-brand connection leads directly to loyalty vs. self-brand connection leads to loyalty through love) and until such data is published, there is simply no way statistically to deal with this concern in meta-analysis.

Essay 2: Focusing on Research Question 3

Study 2

Brand Relationships, Cultures, and Institutions: The Role of Country-Level

Differences on the Impact of Consumer-Brand Relationships on Customer Brand Loyalty

Using a meta-analysis, Essay 1 focused on quantifying the link between different consumer-brand relationships and customer brand loyalty. Essay 2 concentrates on theory by developing an explanatory framework for Essay 1’s results. Specifically, I proceed to link individual brand relationship elasticities with a wide array of country-level cultural and institutional factors to better understand the magnitude of the elasticities identified in Essay 1. In other words, this work adopts an explanatory perspective on why certain consumer-brand relationships drive loyalty better in some cultural and institutional contexts than others.

Essay 2 has a key difference compared to Essay 1. While Essay 1 used three theoretically-supported categories of consumer-brand relationships (affect-based, identity-based, trust-based), Essay 2 employs the five discrete relationship constructs (e.g., attachment, love) underlying these categories (importantly Essay 1 results replicate using the five discrete relationship constructs). There are several reasons for the change. First, in presenting this research to different academic audiences, there were a few expressions of discomfort with using three categories as opposed to five discrete constructs. In Study 1 where there was relatively less data, using three categories was convenient to retain power, but given that much more data has become available in the interim, there is no more pressure to retain them from a statistical point

of view. Helpfully, the addition of more data also helps to create more balanced sample sizes across the five brand relationship constructs.

While researchers of consumer-brand relationships have started to propose and empirically examine possible theoretical mechanisms behind the brand relationships - customer brand loyalty link (e.g., impression management, feelings of security inspired by the brand; Sen et al. 2015), there is not much known about the cultural and institutional settings that mediate these links. After all, “most social acts have to be understood in their setting, and lose meaning if isolated. No error in thinking about social facts is more serious than the failure to see their place and function” (Asch 1952, p. 61). Specifically, I look at how seven variables moderate the relationship between consumer-brand relationship (CBR) constructs and customer brand loyalty.

For example, I show that the positive influence of trust-based brand relationships on customer brand loyalty is stronger in feminine than masculine cultures, and that the positive impact of identification-based relationships on loyalty is more pronounced in countries that are lower on voice and accountability.

My approach of tying meta-analysis to country-level factors is novel to the consumer- brand relationship literature. I aim to make several contributions. First, this essay will help to identify what particular brand relationships drive loyalty most effectively under which cultural and institutional setting (Eisingerich and Rubera 2010) by helping to gauge the direction and magnitude of the moderating influence of such settings. Second, the essay will contribute to the literature by responding to a call for explicating how broader contexts influence brand relationships (Fournier 2009), which I do by examining the role of cultural and institutional contexts. Third, I contribute to the work on cross-cultural consumer behavior and cross-cultural research in general (Al Omoush, Yaseen, and Alma’aitah 2012; Hofstede and Bond 1984; Lam,

Lee, and Mizerski 2009) by nuancing our understanding of the differential influence of cultural dimensions on the link between consumer-brand relationships and customer brand loyalty as well as documenting the importance of such influence in the context of relationships consumers establish with brands.

Below, I review literature on the proposed moderators of the CBR – loyalty link and formulate my hypotheses regarding their moderating influence. I then report the findings of two studies designed to examine the hypotheses and conclude by discussing this essay’s contributions, practical implications, and possible avenues for future research.

Theory and Conceptual Framework

Over the last four decades, cross-cultural and institutional research has advanced a wealth of constructs that capture country-level differences. Various marketing meta-analyses have also used some of these constructs in contexts such as personal selling (Albers, Mantrala, and Sridhar

2010) and new product development (Chang and Taylor 2016) to underscore the general idea that the context is important, and generate insights with respect to meta-analytical results. For example, Chang and Taylor (2016) find that the benefits of customer participation on new product development performance are greater in emerging than in developed countries and

Albers et al. (2010) establish that personal selling elasticity estimates are higher from studies conducted in European countries than from those conducted in the United States.

I adopt a similar approach by focusing on seven concepts as potential moderators of the brand relationships - customer brand loyalty link. In so doing, I build a theoretical case for how

and why each construct helps to explain the results of the meta-analysis and show that the focal meta-analytic links operate dissimilarly across different countries.

There are two main reasons behind why I focus on these seven country-level variables and not others. First, from a practical perspective, there had to be data available. For example, I was initially interested in examining the moderating effect of a country’s competitiveness on the

CBRs-Customer Brand Loyalty link, but the corresponding Competitiveness Index (World

Economic Forum 2017) did not match the time frame of the dataset. Given the large size of my meta-anlaytical dataset and the fact it spans so many countries and years, there were serious limits on what moderators could even be contemplated as candidates for inclusion. Second, even when data was available, I had to be able to develop a clear theoretical rationale for its inclusion.

For example, there was data on corruption (Kaufmann and Kraay 2017) and long-term versus short-term orientation (Hofstede 2017), but I was never able to identify compelling theoretical reasons for how either could operate as moderators and therefore set them aside.

FIGURE 3: Conceptual Framework of Current Research

Next, I review those country-level cultural and institutional constructs and explain how and why they are likely to impact the focal link between particular brand relationships and customer brand loyalty. Some of my theoretical predictions are about the links from all brand relationships to loyalty, while some others are only about certain links from a specific brand relationship to loyalty.

Indulgence versus Restraint

At its core, indulgence stands for a culture that “enables relatively free gratification of basic and natural human drives related to enjoying life and having fun” (Hofstede 2011, p. 15).

At the opposite end of the spectrum, restraint characterizes a culture that contains and censors gratification of drives and controls them via enforcement of rigid social norms. This cultural dimension - rooted in the literature on happiness – distinguishes between societies with higher

(i.e., indulgent) versus lower (i.e., restrained) percentage of people declaring themselves very happy, higher (indulgent) versus lower (restrained) importance of leisure, and stronger

(indulgent) versus weaker (restrained) likelihood to remember positive emotions (Hofstede

2011).

I expect that brand relationships will generally be stronger and better predictors of brand loyalty in restrained cultures than in indulgent cultures. In the former, people are used to purchasing something only if it is strongly needed (de Mooij 2015). Compare this to consumers in indulgent countries who pursue gratification freely (Hofstede 2017), buying products and brands lavishly and broadly because it feels good (Krautz and Hoffmann 2017). Because restrained consumers buy only very limited number of products that they need very strongly, their purchases are comparatively rare and important in their lives and thus more prone to being

subject to the formation of consumer-brand relationshps. Conversely, where indulgence rules - where purchasing is subject to impulsivity, variety-seeking and brand switching (Krautz and

Hoffmann 2017) - brand relationships are less likely to emerge. Hence, on average brand relationships with the products restrained consumers buy are likely to be stronger (and more meaningful) than brand relationships of indulgent consumers.

There is some preliminary evidence in the consumer-brand relationship literature in favor of this prediction: first, the link between a type of brand relationship (consumer-brand identification) and behavioral loyalty is stronger ( = .53 vs. .38 and  = .41 vs. .36) in a country which scores relatively low on indulgence (Romania) than a country scoring relatively high on indulgence (Sweden; Hofstede 2017) (Lam, Ahearne, Schillewaert 2012). Relatedly, restraining oneself is known to strengthen the positive effect of brand relationship tenure on repurchase intention (Krautz and Hoffmann 2017), which has strong parallels to the brand relationship - customer brand loyalty link examined here. At the same time, indulgent consumers do not tend to develop strong loyalties to specific brands (Krautz and Hoffmann 2017), hence establishing a strong brand relationship will likely be ineffective in driving loyalty in such contexts as loyalties are not very likely to be established in the first place. As a result, I suggest that across all five types of CBRs examined here, the effects on loyalty will be generally stronger in more restrained cultures, leading formally to:

H1: The positive influence of different brand relationships on customer brand loyalty is

stronger in restrained versus indulgent cultures.

Individualism versus Collectivism

Individualism is a desire for a loosely-knit societal structure in which people are assumed to provide primarily for themselves and their immediate family members (Hofstede 2017).

Conversely, collectivism is a preference for a society “in which people from birth onwards are integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups, often extended families that continue protecting them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty” (Hofstede 2011, p. 11). This cultural dimension positions societies on a common space ranging from individuals’ self-image being construed in terms of

“I” (i.e., individualistic) versus “We” (i.e., collectivistic) (Hofstede 2011).

Collectivist (vs. individualist) cultures are more oriented toward long term relationships and toward the ‘other’ (Hofstede 2017; Lalwani, Shavitt, and Johnson 2006). This is true both in interpersonal (Hofstede 2017) and consumption domains (de Mooij 2015; Han and Shavitt 1994) where the role of ‘other” is played by products and brands, which if connected to by consumers is laced with special meaning and has social implications. Collectivism is linked to the tendency to make purchasing decisions based on relationships and relationship quality (de Mooij and

Hofstede 2010; Ozdemir and Hewett 2010). For example, de Mooij and Hofstede (2010) say that in collectivistic societies it is critical to first establish a relationship between seller and buyer, and Ozdemir and Hewett (2010) find that collectivism enhances the importance of relationship quality in driving customers’ behavioral intentions. Based on related work in the branding domain, it has been consistently argued and demonstrated that CBRs are superior drivers of customer brand loyalty (Batra, Ahuvia, and Bagozzi 2012; Chaudhuri and Holbrook 2001; Park et al. 2010; Sen et al. 2015). This linkage in conjunction with the prior work on collectivism and individualism suggests that in more collectivist societies, the CBR-loyalty link should be even stronger. Where there is a strong cultural influence on building and maintaining relationships –

that is, in collectivist cultures – brand relationships generally are likely to be stronger, more long lasting and more of a strategic asset in driving customer brand loyalty.

There is some support in the consumer-brand relationship literature to bolster this claim.

First, consumers in collectivist societies tend to develop stronger brand commitment in response to certain relational constructs (e.g., brand’s customer orientation) than consumers in individualist societies (Eisingerich and Rubera 2010). Somewhat similarly, individualism negatively moderates the link between self-brand congruity and visit intention such that for people from rather individualistic countries the effect of self-brand congruity on visit intention is not as strong as for people from rather collectivistic countries (Matzler et al. 2016). Therefore, I predict that:

H2: The positive influence of different brand relationships on customer brand loyalty is

stronger in collectivist than individualist cultures.

Masculinity versus Femininity

Masculinity can be defined as a societal preference for “achievement, heroism, assertiveness, and material success”, while its counterpart femininity reflects a desire for

“relationships, modesty, caring for the weak and quality of life” (Hofstede 1985, p. 348).

Whereas masculine cultures tend to be rather competitive, feminine cultures lean more toward being consensus-driven (Hofstede 2011), which is in part why masculine versus feminine societies are sometimes referred to “tough versus tender” cultures (Hofstede 2017). For example, in masculine (e.g., Slovakia) cultures “tough” values related to assertiveness, success, and competitiveness dominate “tender” values pertaining to nurturance, service, and solidarity,

whereas the opposite is true in feminine (e.g., South Korea) cultures (Doney, Cannon, and

Mullen 1998).

I propose that this dimension is important with respect to a subset of the consumer-brand relationships I examine, specifically those that relate to trust. In the context of feminine cultures, trustors eagerly acknowledge other parties as trusted and dependable sources. That is, feminine societies anticipate individuals and organizations to be dedicated and helpful and, therefore, trustworthy (Doney et al. 1998). As feminine societies seem to be particularly conducive and attentive to trust in their interactions with institutions, firms that establish a trust-based brand relationship and hence meet the trustworthiness expectations should be disproportionately rewarded by customer loyalty. Feminine cultures (for instance Chile) also stand for a preference for modesty, concern for the weak, consensus, benevolence, and collaboration (Buchan, Croson, and Solnick 2008; Gordon 1976; Hofstede 2017). Because societies that value collaboration put a special emphasis on trust (Berg, Dickhaut, and McCabe 1995), trust-based brand relationships should have evolved to be particularly central and important in such environments.

On the other hand, masculine cultures are characterized by societal preference for

“achievement, competitiveness, assertiveness, and material success” (Hofstede 1985, p. 348), meaning that masculinity is less conducive to breeding trust (Hammond 2010) and hence the strong trusting connections between individuals and brands are less likely to emerge in such environment and in turn translate into lasting brand loyalty.

Turning to the consumer-brand relationship literature there is circumstantial evidence to support a similar logic: specifically the link between a type of brand relationship (involvement) and brand commitment is stronger in countries that score relatively low on masculinity than countries which exhibit relatively high masculinity (Broderick 2007). Even though involvement

is not the same as any of my focal consumer-brand relationship constructs, it does represent an affinity between between a consumer and a brand, and has a parallel logic to what I am hypothesizing. Accordingly, my hypothesis is:

H3: The positive influence of trust-based brand relationship on customer brand loyalty is

stronger in feminine than masculine cultures.

High Power Distance versus Low Power Distance

Power distance reflects “the extent to which the members of a society accept that power in institutions and organizations is distributed unequally” (Hofstede 1985, p. 347). Varying levels of this dimension can be best understood based on how lack of equality among individuals is managed by a society. While individuals in high power distance cultures consent to a hierarchical status quo whereby everyone has their own place and no additional justification is required, individuals in lower power distance cultures attempt to make the allocation of power equitable and require justification for power inequalities (Hofstede 2011, 2017).

I argue that this dimension is important with respect to a subset of the CBRs I investigate, namely those that are about identity (i.e., brand identification and self-brand connection). Brand identification and self-brand connection exhibit critical conceptual similarities. For instance, while Escalas and Bettman (2003, p. 340) defined self-brand connection as “the extent to which individuals have incorporated brands into their self-concepts,” Stokburger-Sauer, Ratneshwar, and Sen (2012, p. 407) defined consumer-brand identification as “a consumer's perceived state of oneness with a brand” but acknowledge that both constructs converge on their enabling individuals to highlight their identities (p. 407). Apart from their conceptual similarities, the

concepts statistically overlap too. For instance, some studies (e.g., Albert, Merunka, and Valette-

Florence 2013) construe them as interchangeable, using items from the self-brand connection measure to assess the construct of brand identification. Others note that the self-brand connection and brand identification items loaded onto a single factor (e.g., Sen et al. 2015). This evidence suggests that both concepts are linked to identity and may therefore behave similarly.

Putting the power distance dimension in the context of brand relationships, extant research suggests that brands that enable identity signalling are preferred more among consumers with high power-distance beliefs than among those with low power distance beliefs (Kim and

Zhang 2014). Further, in high power distance societies, brands are pursued as an effective means of symbolic self-expression (Wallström, Steyn, and Pitt 2010), signalling who consumers are, their status, or who they aspire to be. There is other work that potentially informs this idea: Roth

(1995) finds that brand identity constructs effectively impact brand outcomes in the contexts of high power distance, which I interpret to be support for this notion that brands are especially important at signalling/self-expression in high power distance societies.

There is some initial support for this prediction in the consumer-brand relationship field.

Specifically, consumers in high power distance societies tend to develop stronger brand commitment in response to certain relational constructs (e.g., brand’s customer orientation) compared to consumers in low power distance societies (Eisingerich and Rubera 2010). This is consistent with my prediction that brand relationships should be more effective drivers of customer brand loyalty in high power distance cultures than low power distance ones. Thus, I hypothesize that:

H4: The positive influence of self-brand connection-based and identification-based brand

relationships on customer brand loyalty is stronger in cultures that are high on power

distance than in those that are low on power distance.

High Economic Globalization versus Low Economic Globalization

Economic globalization stands for “long distance flows of goods, capital and services as well as information and perceptions that accompany market exchanges” (Gygli, Haelg, and

Sturm 2018, p. 5). This economic dimension of globalization tends to be construed as having two broad elements: trade globalization and financial globalization. The main focus of trade globalization is the dispersion of the exchange of goods and services over long distances, such that the more globally oriented a country’s export and import structure are, the stronger the trade globalization (Dreher 2006; Gygli et al. 2018). The major emphasis of financial globalization is on capital flows and stocks of foreign assets and liabilities, such that the more capital flows and stocks of foreign assets and liabilities a country attracts, the stronger the financial globalization

(Gygli et al. 2018).

I propose that this dimension is important with respect to a subset of consumer-brand relationships, specifically those that relate to identity, because brands are likely to be particularly important self-expression tools in the context of globalization. It has been argued that brands are an important vehicle of globalization, as well as a powerful metaphor for comprehending market agents and their actions in the contemporary process of identity construction (Askegaard 2006).

Notably, the identity-construction capacity of brands and their associated power to shape attitudes seems to be particularly effective in the less economically globalized contexts (Izberk-

Bilgin 2012). Here, brands seem to represent unusually effective vehicles for self-expression

both at the individual and collective levels. This is evident in the fact that consumers in such contexts both choose and reject brands as a means of expressing their social or communal selves

(Izberk-Bilgin 2012), and that brands in these weakly globalized economies are comparatively rare and enable upward social mobility (Truitt 2008). Taken together this means that brands are likely to be unusually effective vehicles for self-expression in such contexts.

In contrast, in highly globalized economies characterized by concentration of economic flows (Gygli et al. 2018), the maturity reached by the economic sector dilutes the significant impact that brand relationships can have on customer brand loyalty. In other words, in contexts with extensive globalization and competition, it is highly complicated and challenging to influence individuals’ attitude and loyalty toward brands (Banytė, Jokšaitė, Virvilaitė 2007) because of market maturity and saturation. Related, studies have found that the link between brand identity metrics and loyalty is weaker for more globalized brands versus less globalized ones (Xie, Batra, and Peng, 2015), yielding further support for the likely effectiveness of identity-based brand relationships in driving customer brand loyalty in weakly globalized environments. Overall, identity-based brand relationships may be particularly effective in low economic globalization contexts. Therefore, I predict that:

H5: The positive influence of self-brand connection-based and identification-based brand

relationships on customer brand loyalty is stronger in countries that are low on economic

globalization than in those that are high on economic globalization.

High vs. Low Voice and Accountability

Voice and accountability captures “perceptions of the extent to which a country’s citizens are able to participate in selecting their government, as well as freedom of expression, association, and media” (Kaufmann, Kraay, and Mastruzzi 2010, p. 3). At its core the notion of voice and accountability represents the process by which governments are chosen, overseen, and changed (Kaufmann, Kraay, and Mastruzzi 2010). Individuals from countries that are high on this dimension have a say in electing their governments, assemble and express themselves freely, and enjoy free press, whereas the opposite is true for people from low voice and accountability countries.

I posit that the voice and accountability dimension is important with respect to a subset of

CBRs, specifically those that deal with identity (i.e., brand identification and self-brand connection). This is because I argue that limiting people’s ability to express and voice themselves on a societal level can have a substantive influence on identity-based consumer-brand relationships such that this restraint may enhance consumers’ desire for expressing themselves by means of brands. As products and brands can play the role of an unrestricted means of expressing oneself when alternative channels are shut down (such as the case with low voice and accountability countries), limiting a consumer’s capacity to express herself through social or political avenues can naturally increase her predisposition for self-expressive brands (Ma,

Hamilton, and Chernev 2012). This logic is very much in line with the notion of compensatory consumption. According to this logic, brands (and consumers’ relationships with them) can offer the unique capacity to compensate for the lack of freedom of expression and voice consumers are craving in the civil domain, with substantial levels of freedom in the consumption domain.

Further support for this account comes from the psychological literature (Lewin 1951) arguing that when the means of attaining an objective or satisfying a need are restrained, individuals

often exhibit a rebound effect, where the restraint results in a consequent boost of need-relevant action. Applied to my context, this suggests that when the means of satisfying a need for freedom of expression and voice are restrained, this will lead to a consequent drive to satisfy this need that is potentially met by brands.

There is preliminary work in the consumer-brand relationship literature linking identity- based brand relationships with voice and accountability. In a survey of 555 active members of the two largest Xbox online communities in Brazil, de Almeida and colleagues (2014) documented that social identification fully mediates the effects of expressive freedom - considered to be a key aspect of voice and accountability dimension - on brand loyalty. This supports my argument about the particularly important role of identification with respect to voice and accountability dimension. Accordingly, my hypothesis is that:

H6: The positive influence of self-brand connection-based and identification-based brand

relationships on customer brand loyalty is stronger in countries that are low on voice and

accountability than in those that are high on voice and accountability.

High Level of Urbanization versus Low Level of Urbanization

Level of urbanization generally reflects the extent to which people live in cities (World

Bank 2017). It is typically contrasted with the notion of ruralisation, with these two constructs positioned at the opposite ends of the spectrum. The main focus of the level of urbanization construct has to do with city population dynamics; the more people reside in urban areas as a percentage of all areas, the higher the level of urbanization.

I propose that this dimension is important with respect to a subset of consumer-brand relationships, specifically those that relate to identity. There are three main reasons behind this logic. First, some published work in the inter-country consumer-brand relationship literature alludes to the importance of identity relationships in weakly urbanized areas: specifically the links between consumer-brand identification and behavioral loyalty is stronger ( = .53 vs. .43 and  = .41 vs. .26) in a country that has a relatively low index of urbanization (Romania; World

Bank 2017) than in a country that has relatively high index of urbanization (Belgium; World

Bank 2017) (Lam et al. 2012).

Second, it is possible to build an argument on a theoretical basis of within- or intra- country literatures. For instance, extant literature suggests that rural consumers purchase more domestic products than urban consumers do (Delong et al. 2004). “Buy American” is very popular in rural areas in the US, meaning the bonds they make with brands are self-expressive and tied to patriotism, the perception that a loyal consumer is thus helping one’s community and supporting one’s in-group. It has also been argued that urban individuals are less patriotic than their rural counterparts (Ganzel 2009). As rural consumers buy more domestic products compared to urban consumers, and as consumption of domestic products is typically associated with pursuit of identity-related goals (Lantz and Loeb 1996), fostering an identity-based relationship with the brand is likely to be more effective driver of loyalty in the rural than urban context.

Third, prior work in the domain argues that consumers from urban areas tend to be less reliant on the name of the brand as an extrinsic cue (Sebri and Zaccour 2017), implying that they may put relatively less emphasis on brand image. Conversely, rural consumers are more effectively persuaded by brand image-building efforts compared to urban consumers (Malik

2014). Urban markets also tend to be more crowded and competitive, meaning in urbanized contexts, more brand acquisitions will be made for utilitarian and functional reasons related to essentials, necessity, and basics (Sebri and Zaccour 2017). Such (urban) consumers have many avenues to signal their identity other than by buying brands (e.g., acquiring experiences, self- expression through extensive social networks, etc.) which may not necessarily the case with rural consumers for whom opportunities to express themselves may be a little more limited. This is not to say that brands are not important vehicles of self-expression in highly urban areas, but only that their identity-conveying capacity may not drive loyalty as effectively in urban areas as it can in rural areas. Hence, I anticipate that:

H7: The positive influence of self-brand connection-based and identification-based brand

relationship on customer brand loyalty is stronger in countries that exhibit low level of

urbanization than those that exhibit high level of urbanization.

Method

I conducted data collection for Essay 2 in two stages. For the meta-analytic part of the dataset, I started with the effect sizes from Essay 1’s dataset, and their associated statistics and descriptors (sample size, year of data collection, type of brand relationship examined) and carried them over to the Essay 2 dataset. Next, utilizing the identical inclusion criteria, procedure, and coding as in Essay 1, I expanded the meta-analytic dataset by adding more effect sizes, as more data had become available following the end of data collection for Essay 1 in

August 2015. Using studies found from October 1995 through November 2017, including

articles in press at that time, my final database consists of 581 brand relationship elasticities from

286 studies reported in 253 publications based on data from 347,124 respondents (Appendix B).

The samples were drawn from 46 countries. In the dataset, I examine five different relationship constructs: brand attachment, brand love, self-brand connection, brand identification, and brand trust. The incorporation of additional data also ensures that I avoid issues associated with power and generate fairly balanced sample sizes for each of the five brand relationship types.

For the country-level moderators in the dataset, I started with the meta-analysis data, and for every observation, I added information (i.e., numerical values) about the hypothesized moderators that corresponds to the year of data collection and country of that observation. In many cases, it was possible to determine the specific year of data collection from the source articles; in other cases, it was not, in which case I used the mean difference between year of publication and year of data collection in my sample as a missing value imputation. This approach enables to maintain the match between the specific time period and geographic setting of the meta-analysis data, and the corresponding period and setting of the moderators data.

Specifically, the moderators were obtained from Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions Insights platform that assigns scores to individual countries on cultural dimensions of interest (indulgence vs. restraint, individualism vs. collectivism, masculinity vs. femininity, power distance; Hofstede

2017), KOF Globalization Index (economic globalization; Gygli et al. 2018), Urban Population data (World Bank 2017), and Worldwide Governance Indicators (voice and accountability;

Kaufmann and Kraay 2017). Table 5 contains additional details about the country-level variables and interpretation.

Overall, I examine the proposed moderating effects on a combined dataset employing a multilevel modelling approach. Specifically, in order to account for within-study error

correlations among the effect sizes (i.e., brand relationship elasticities), I conduct the analysis using two-level hierarchical linear model (HLM) with the maximum likelihood estimation method. The Level 1 equation encompasses the moderating influence of the hypothesized country-level characteristics on brand relationship elasticity, which vary at a study level.

The Level 2 equation accounts for the impact of the empirical study from which the data originates on the intercept and slopes in the Level 1 equation. I assessed the effect of each of the new moderators in the model one at a time (in line with Albers et al. 2010; Bijmolt, van Heerde, and Pieters 2005). Hence, the possibility that some of these country-level moderators are likely correlated (e.g., globalization and urbanization) does not represent a statistical issue as their effects were tested separately.

Results

Univariate Analysis of Brand Relationship Elasticity

In Figure 4, I provide the frequency distributions of effect sizes (i.e., brand relationship elasticities) in the expanded meta-analytic database used in Essay 1. The data contains 581 brand relationship elasticity estimates that range from -.23 to .98. Of these effects, 98% are positive with only 14 studies yielding negative elasticities. The sample weighted mean brand relationship elasticity in the meta-analytic database equals to .437 (Mdn = .439, SD = .213, 95% CI .43, .44).

This weighted mean is not dependent on any particular effect size, meaning that the overall effect remains unchanged when any single effect size is excluded from analysis. Moreover, as demonstrated in Figure 4, the distribution of effect sizes approximates normality. Using the

HLM model, I next assess the hypothesized impact of country-level moderators on the link

TABLE 5: Country-Level Factors Included in the Dataset, Definitions, and Range

Country-Level Variable Definition Range

Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions Indulgence vs. Restraint Indulgence stands for a society that allows relatively free gratification of basic and natural human drives 0 (High restraint) – 100 (High related to enjoying life and having fun. Restraint stands for a society that suppresses gratification of needs and indulgence) regulates it by means of strict social norms.

Individualism vs. The high side of this dimension, called Individualism, can be defined as a preference for a loosely-knit social 0 (High collectivism) - 100 (High Collectivism framework in which individuals are expected to take care of only themselves and their immediate families. Its individualism) opposite, Collectivism, represents a preference for a tightly-knit framework in society in which individuals can expect their relatives or members of a particular ingroup to look after them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty. A society’s position on this dimension is reflected in whether people’s self-image is defined in terms of “I” or “we.”

Masculinity vs. Femininity The Masculinity side of this dimension represents a preference in society for achievement, heroism, 0 (High femininity) – 100 (High assertiveness, and material rewards for success. Society at large is more competitive. Its opposite, Femininity, masculinity) stands for a preference for cooperation, modesty, caring for the weak and quality of life. Society at large is more consensus-oriented. In the business context Masculinity versus Femininity is sometimes also related to as “tough versus tender” cultures.

High power distance vs. Low This dimension expresses the degree to which the less powerful members of a society accept and expect that 0 (Low power distance) – 100 power distance power is distributed unequally. The fundamental issue here is how a society handles inequalities among (High power distance) people. People in societies exhibiting a large degree of Power Distance accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place and which needs no further justification. In societies with low Power Distance, people strive to equalise the distribution of power and demand justification for inequalities of power.

KOF Globalization Index High economic globalization Economic globalization is characterized as long distance flows of goods, capital and services as well as 0 (Low economic globalization) – vs. Low economic information and perceptions that accompany market exchanges. Broadly speaking, economic globalization has 100 (High economic globalization) globalization two dimensions: trade globalization and financial globalization.

Worldwide Governance Indicators High voice and accountability Voice and Accountability captures perceptions of the extent to which a country's citizens are able to participate -3 (Low voice and accountability) - vs. Low voice and in selecting their government, as well as freedom of expression, freedom of association, and a free media. +3 (High voice and accountability) accountability

Urban Population High level of urbanization vs. Urban population refers to the extent to which people live in urban areas as defined by national statistical 0 (Low level of urbanization) – Low level of urbanization offices. 100 (High level of urbanization)

FIGURE 4: Frequency Distribution of Brand Relationship Elasticities

between different brand relationships and customer brand loyalty.

Hierarchical Linear Model Moderating Results

Indulgence vs. Restraint. H1 proposes that the positive influence of brand relationships on customer brand loyalty is stronger in restrained than indulgent cultures. The results of the HLM model (See Table 6) indicate that the indulgence versus restraint dimension indeed moderates the impact of brand relationships on customer brand loyalty, such that the positive effect of four different brand relationships on customer brand loyalty is more prominent in restrained cultures compared to indulgent ones (βtrust = -.21, p < .007; βlove = -.39, p < .008; βidentification = -.32, p <

.001; βself-brand connection = -.30, p < .002). The moderating effect for brand attachment-brand loyalty link, although directional, did not reach statistical significance (βattachment = -.12, p = .188). These findings suggest that H1 is largely supported.

TABLE 6: Estimation Results of HLM Moderation Effects

Trust Love Attachment Identification SBC β t-value p- β t-value p- β t-value p- β t-value p- β t-value p- value value value value value Indulgence vs. Restraint -.21 -2.72 .007 -.39 -2.77 .008 -.12 -1.33 .188 -.32 -4.26 .001 -.30 -3.14 .002 Individualism vs. Collectivism -.24 -3.75 .001 -.40 -3.06 .004 -.11 -1.46 .162 -.24 -3.46 .001 -.38 -3.80 .001 Masculinity vs. Femininity -.24 -3.60 .001 .08 .64 .528 -.21 -1.96 .053 -.11 -1.49 .138 .10 1.22 .224 High vs. Low power distance .21 2.55 .011 .07 .59 .556 .06 .58 .560 .20 3.44 .001 .29 2.54 .013 High vs. Low economic .04 .46 .647 -.18 -1.23 .229 .08 .90 .370 -.17 -2.59 .012 -.05 -.48 .634 globalization High vs. Low voice and .003 .04 .966 -.28 -2.00 .054 .19 1.94 .056 -.27 -3.46 .001 -.12 -1.32 .189 accountability High vs. Low level of -.05 -.69 .489 .02 -.11 .916 -.12 -1.28 .203 -.18 -3.07 .003 .02 .13 .899 urbanization

Individualism vs. Collectivism. H2 predicts that the positive influence of brand relationships on customer brand loyalty is stronger in collectivist than individualist cultures. In line with the hypothesized effect, the findings reveal a significant moderating influence of the individualism versus collectivism factor on the link between brand relationships and customer brand loyalty. That is, the positive impact of four out of five brand relationships on loyalty is higher in collectivist cultures compared to individualist cultures (βtrust = -.24, p < .001; βlove = -.40, p < .004; βidentification = -.24, p < .001; βself-brand connection = -.38, p < .001), with no statistically significant differences emerging for brand attachment (βattachment = -.11, p = .162). These results parallel the findings for indulgence versus restraint and largely support H2.

Masculinity vs. Femininity. H3 proposed that the positive influence of trust-based brand relationships on customer brand loyalty is stronger in feminine than masculine cultures. The analysis indicates that masculinity versus femininity does exert power over the linkage between brand trust and customer-brand loyalty in the expected direction. Namely, in feminine societies the impact of brand trust on loyalty is stronger and positive than in masculine societies (βtrust = -

.24, p < .001). This provides support for H3.

High power distance vs. Low power distance. As specified in H4, I expect the positive influence of self-brand connection-based and identification-based brand relationships on customer brand loyalty to be stronger in cultures higher on power distance. Lending support to this theoretical account, in cultures that are high (low) on power distance dimension, the positive effect of self-brand connection-based and identification-based relationship loyalty is stronger

(weaker) (βself-brand connection = .29, p < .013; βidentification = .20, p < .001). Thus, H4 is supported.

Although not hypothesized, I also found another moderating effect, such that the positive influence of trust-based brand relationship on customer brand loyalty is higher in magnitude in

cultures that are high on power distance, compared to the corresponding influence in low power distance cultures (βtrust = .21, p < .011).

High economic globalization vs. Low economic globalization. H5 stated that the positive influence of self-brand connection-based and identification-based brand relationships on customer brand loyalty is stronger in countries that are low on economic globalization, than in those that are high on economic globalization. The findings of the HLM model confirm the differential impact of economic globalization levels on the focal link between identification- based brand relationship and customer brand loyalty. Specifically, compared to countries that are high on economic globalization, countries that are low on this dimension exhibit stronger positive influence of brand identification on loyalty (βidentification = -.17, p < .012). This result was obtained uniquely for identification-based brand relationships, and did not replicate for self- brand connection-based relationship (βself-brand connection = -.05, p = .634), thus providing only partial support for H5.

High voice and accountability vs. Low voice and accountability. H6 posited that the positive influence of self-brand connection-based and identification-based brand relationships on customer brand loyalty is more pronounced in low voice and accountability societies than in high voice and accountability ones. The results demonstrate that the level of voice and accountability has a moderating impact on how well identification-based brand relationships drive customer brand loyalty. That is, in countries characterized by low voice and accountability, the positive effect of brand identification on loyalty is stronger, compared to the similar effect in high voice and accountability countries (βidentification = -.27, p < .001). Contrary to my predictions, a similar moderating influence did not emerge for self-brand connection-based brand relationship (βself- brand connection = -.12, p = .189). Hence, H6 is only partially supported.

High level of urbanization vs. Low level of urbanization. H7 suggests that the positive impact of self-brand connection-based and identification-based brand relationships on customer brand loyalty is stronger in countries that exhibit low level of urbanization, than in those that have high level of urbanization. The HLM model sought to examine these predicted effects, and the findings lend partial support for the moderating impact of level of urbanization. Paralleling the results obtained with economic globalization and voice and accountability variables, compared to countries that possess high level of urbanization, countries that feature low level exhibit stronger positive influence of brand identification on loyalty (βidentification = -.18, p < .003) but not self-brand connection on loyalty (βself-brand connection = .02, p = .899). Therefore, H7 is supported partially.

Discussion

Study 2 assesses the moderating influence of seven country-level cultural and institutional variables on the link between different brand relationships and customer brand loyalty. I find that the positive impact of brand relationships on loyalty is more powerful in restrained (vs. indulgent) and collectivist (vs. individualist) cultures and that trust-based brand relationship translates into customer brand loyalty more effectively in feminine than masculine cultures. Additionally, the study documented that the positive influence of brand identification- based relationship on loyalty is stronger in countries that are high (vs. low) on power distance, low (vs. high) on economic globalization, voice and accountability, and level of urbanization.

While I expected to find the moderating role of economic globalization, voice and accountability, and level of urbanization on the link between self-brand connection-based

relationships and loyalty, the results came out non-significant. There are at least two different reasons why this may be the case. First, measurement and sampling errors exist in each study, and they both can generate fluctuations in estimates (Connors et al. 2016; Stanley and Spence

2014). Notably, sampling error seems to be linearly associated with the heterogeneity of the population from which samples are derived (Suen and Ary 1989) and the meta-analysis data population is more heterogeneous than typical Mturk and/or undergraduate samples typically used in such studies. This fact might have caused this study’s failure to obtain a significant effect. Second, it is also possible that despite the fact that brand identification and self-brand connection possess critical conceptual similarities and exhibit substantial measurement overlap, brand identification and self-brand connection may be tapping different domains. This is a conclusion reached in a recent review paper that demonstrated that brand identification and self- brand connection do not seem to have the same affective qualities and occupy surprisingly distal conceptual space (see Albert and Thomson 2018).

Study 3

Thus far I have introduced country-level cultural and institutional variables and demonstrated how they impact the link between various brand relationships and customer brand loyalty. Study 3 undertakes a conceptual replication of meta-analysis results from Study 2.

Specifically, I conduct a consumer survey to examine if variation in Study 2 moderators as an individual difference characteristic will impact the strength of CBR-loyalty links within a single sample (Amazon’s Mechanical Turk). Although the data for this study comes from Mturk only, there should be enough variation and heterogeneity (Goodman, Cryder, and Cheema 2013;

Goodman and Paolacci 2017; Paolacci and Chandler 2014) along each of the moderator dimensions (as consumers even within the same sample may exhibit very different cultural and institutional beliefs/preferences) that it should approximate similar theoretical effects as in Study

2. Since I aimed to recruit a large sample, there should naturally be a considerable amount of variance. There are two main benefits of doing this study. First, it may enhance the generalizability of findings thanks to using a different sample and method compared to Study 2.

Second, it allows to further probe moderating effects not supported in Study 2 and see if Study 3 can potentially reconcile them.

Method

504 participants (57% female, Mage = 32 years) were recruited via Amazon’s Mechanical

Turk in exchange for a nominal fee. Participants first answered adapted multi-item moderator measures of indulgence versus restraint (α = .72; Al Omoush et al. 2012; Beugelsdijk, Maseland, and van Hoorn 2015), individualism versus collectivism (α = .72; Erdem, Swait, and Valenzuela

2006; Lam et al. 2009), masculinity versus femininity (α = .82; Al Omoush et al. 2012; Lam et al. 2009), power distance (α = .71; Al Omoush et al. 2012; Erdem et al. 2006), perceived economic globalization (α = .71), voice and accountability (α = .86), and where in the urban versus rural continuum they live (α = .89). The items for the latter three measures were directly derived from definitions of their respective constructs because no existing self-report measures of these constructs were available in the literature at the time the study was conducted. See

Appendix C for scale items across key measures.

Participants then completed a brand relationship elicitation task (Goode, Khamitov, and

Thomson 2015) in which they were asked to nominate “the one brand in the whole world that means the most to you.” I adopted these instructions to ensure that the nominated brands would represent strong and existing brand relationships, which is in line with the overarching focus of this essay on strong and positive consumer-brand relationships (e.g., brand love, brand identification). After successfully completing the brand elicitation task (I only retained respondents who fulfilled this task), participants were asked to respond to a series of brand- related measures. I assessed five focal brand relationship types: trust (α = .79; Chaudhuri and

Holbrook 2001), attachment (α = .92; Thomson, MacInnis, and Park 2005), love (α = .76;

Bagozzi, Batra, and Ahuvia 2017), identification (α = .93; Stokburger-Sauer et al. 2012), and self-brand connection (α = .93; Escalas 2004; Escalas and Bettman 2003). That is, participants completed all measures of consumer-brand relationships with respect to the single brand they nominated. Finally, participants completed attitudinal (α = .84; Chaudhuri and Holbrook 2001;

Yoo and Donthu 2001) and behavioral customer brand loyalty scales (α = .71; Park et al. 2010) as well as reported their age and gender. The meta-analysis data in Study 2 captures customer brand loyalty in two ways: attitudinal loyalty and behavioral loyalty. Although my hypothesis did not differentiate between attitudinal and behavioral loyalty, I measure both here to provide converging evidence.

Results

Correlations among the measures of moderators as well as their means and standard deviations appear in Table 7. Low to moderate correlations among these moderators rules out a

concern that I need to somehow test or account for multicollinearity among these variables. The measures of central tendency suggest that on average my Mturkers are suburban, quite indulgent, and report moderate levels of perceived voice and accountability and economic globalization

(Table 7). On average they fall in the middle of the individualism vs. collectivism spectrum and are relatively low on masculinity and power distance. It is important to note that in my data collection for this study I did not restrict my sample to only consumers from any one country.

Although Mturk is known to be a semi-global panel, substantial number of Mturkers come from the USA (Goodman, Cryder, and Cheema 2013; Goodman and Paolacci 2017; Paolacci and

Chandler 2014). However in this study I did not ask which country participants came from.

I conducted conditional process analyses to test whether the brand relationship - customer brand loyalty link is moderated by individual difference characteristics in line with those predicted by H1-7. In contrast to Study 2 that exhibited multi-level data structure, Study 3 data originate from the same level/unit of analysis (i.e., the individual consumer) and hence only require a standard moderation approach. I used the PROCESS macro (Model 1; Hayes 2013), using a bootstrap procedure (5,000 draws) to construct bias-corrected confidence intervals. No covariates were used in any analyses. Overall, results from these analyses (Table 8, 9) provide limited support for the hypothesized effects.

TABLE 7: Descriptive Statistics and Correlations in Study 3

Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

1. Indulgence vs. Restraint 6.10 .90 −

2. Individualism vs. Collectivism 3.48 .94 -.16*** −

3. Masculinity vs. Femininity 2.59 1.05 -.10* -.03 −

4. Power distance 2.73 1.01 -.18*** -.05 .53*** −

5. Perceived economic 4.59 .95 .16*** -.15*** .25*** .15*** − globalization 6. Voice and accountability 4.20 1.13 .04 -.13** .07 .06 .37*** −

7. Urban residence 4.67 1.61 .01 .001 .04 .02 .11** .004 −

8. Trust 5.50 1.14 .15** -.14** .09* .10* .22*** .11* .07 −

9. Love 5.00 1.04 .15*** -.14** .12* .08 .25*** .02 .12** .59*** −

10. Attachment 4.78 1.35 .05 -.10* .18*** .12** .13** .03 .12** .47*** .65*** −

11. Identification 4.28 1.60 .06 -.14** .21*** .18*** .22*** .03 .11* .55*** .80*** .68*** −

12. SBC 4.21 1.51 .08 -.18*** .17*** .15*** .23*** .04 .15*** .53*** .77*** .62*** .87*** −

13. Attitudinal loyalty 5.39 1.23 .16*** -.15*** .07 .04 .21*** .07 .03 .58*** .67*** .49*** .62*** .58*** −

14. Behavioral loyalty 58.3 24.0 .01 .02 -.04 -.04 -.01 -.02 -.07 .26*** .18*** .10* .13** .11* .41*** −

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Indulgence vs. Restraint. First, the indirect effect of the highest-order interaction (brand relationship type × indulgence vs. restraint) was not significant for either attitudinal and behavioral customer brand loyalty. To probe this further, I broke down the model by examining the indirect effect of brand relationships on behavioral brand loyalty, conditional upon reported scores on indulgence versus restraint dimension. As hypothesized, for consumers who are relatively low on indulgence, brand attachment and brand identification results show a significant positive indirect effect (Battachment = 2.68, SE = 1.17, 95% CI = .37, 4.98; Bidentification =

2.64, SE = 1.00, 95% CI = .67, 4.61). That is, for consumers who score relatively low on indulgence, brand attachment and brand identification lead to increased behavioral brand loyalty.

In contrast, for consumers who are relatively high on indulgence the indirect effect was mitigated

(Battachment = 1.05, SE = 1.06, 95% CI = -1.03, 3.14; Bidentification = 1.49, SE = .91, 95% CI = -.30,

3.28). Specifically, for consumers who score relatively high on indulgence, brand attachment and brand identification do not lead to enhanced behavioral brand loyalty. None of the other conditional indirect effects paralleled these results. Of note, this can likely be attributed to the fact that I encountered a restriction of range/ceiling effect with low variance on this variable

(log-transforming this as well as masculinity vs. femininity variables to approximate normality and re-running the analyses did not result into any changes, Appendix C). In fact, most respondents scored very high on indulgence, suggesting that respondents who I label “relatively low on indulgence” are qualitatively still quite high on indulgence.

TABLE 8: Estimation Results of Consumer Survey Moderation Effects

DV: Attitudinal Loyalty Trust Love Attachment Identification SBC B F- p- B F- p- B F- p- B F- p- B F- p- value value value value value value value value value value Indulgence vs. Restraint -.065 2.144 .144 -.017 .171 .679 .001 .001 .992 -.032 1.130 .288 -.031 .847 .358 Individualism vs. Collectivism .038 .751 .387 .082 4.197 .041 .011 .083 .773 .036 1.834 .176 .024 .700 .403 Masculinity vs. Femininity .014 .115 .734 -.042 1.261 .262 -.027 .652 .420 -.003 .009 .923 -.021 .561 .454 Power distance -.013 .115 .734 -.042 1.502 .221 .021 .431 .512 .009 .152 .697 -.020 .592 .442 Perceived economic -.032 .694 .405 -.055 2.493 .115 .004 .009 .924 -.050 3.433 .065 -.082 8.075 .005 globalization Voice and accountability -.036 1.176 .279 -.023 .586 .444 -.013 .214 .644 -.008 .136 .712 -.001 .002 .965 Urban residence .080 11.04 .001 .010 .151 .698 .044 3.956 .047 -.019 1.290 .257 -.007 .154 .695

TABLE 9: Estimation Results of Consumer Survey Moderation Effects

DV: Behavioral Loyalty Trust Love Attachment Identification SBC B F- p- B F- p- B F- p- B F- p- B F- p- value value value value value value value value value value Indulgence vs. Restraint -1.367 1.746 .187 -1.062 .980 .323 -.899 1.058 .304 -.634 .710 .400 .048 .004 .953 Individualism vs. Collectivism .722 .491 .484 1.952 3.553 .060 1.089 1.744 .187 1.163 3.223 .073 1.085 2.466 .117 Masculinity vs. Femininity .180 .036 .850 -.517 .286 .593 -1.281 2.920 .088 -.624 .936 .334 -.756 1.260 .262 Power distance .405 .202 .653 .801 .801 .371 -.595 .686 .408 .189 .103 .749 .090 .021 .886 Perceived economic -.912 1.064 .303 -1.106 1.499 .221 -1.104 1.741 .188 -.846 1.616 .204 -.988 2.052 .153 globalization Voice and accountability -.379 .247 .620 -.128 .026 .871 -.422 .453 .501 -.126 .055 .814 -.081 .020 .887 Urban residence .616 1.193 .275 -.457 .492 .483 .549 1.291 .256 -.682 2.869 .091 -.219 .276 .600

Individualism vs. Collectivism. In terms of the moderating role of individualism versus collectivism dimension, the results revealed seemingly conflicting evidence with respect to Study

2’s findings. Specifically, the indirect effect of the highest-order interaction (brand love × individualism vs. collectivism) was significant and positive on attitudinal and marginally significant on behavioral customer brand loyalty (Tables 8, 9), suggesting that the effect of brand love on loyalty becomes stronger as consumers’ individualism scores rise. I revisit this issue in the General Discussion section.

Masculinity vs. Femininity. Regarding the masculinity versus femininity individual characteristic, although the hypothesized indirect effect of the highest-order interaction (brand trust × masculinity vs. femininity) was not significant on both attitudinal and behavioral customer brand loyalty, I conducted follow-up floodlight analyses (Spiller et al. 2013) to probe the effect of brand trust on each of the dependent variables across all levels of the masculinity versus femininity dimension. In line with the findings from Study 2, a significant Johnson-

Neyman region can be seen for lower levels of masculinity (< 2.93) in which brand trust emerges a significant predictor of behavioral brand loyalty. However, at higher levels of masculinity (>

2.93) the effect dissipates and becomes non-significant, providing directional support for the moderating impact of masculinity versus femininity variable. This pattern did not replicate with attitudinal brand loyalty.

Power distance. The indirect effect of the highest-order interaction (identity-based brand relationships × power distance) was not significant for either attitudinal and behavioral customer brand loyalty (Table 8, 9). The indirect effects of brand identification and self-brand connection on loyalty were not conditional upon reported scores on power distance.

Perceived economic globalization. With respect to perceived economic globalization, the predicted indirect effects of the highest-order interaction (brand identification × perceived economic globalization) and (self-brand connection × perceived economic globalization) were negative and marginally significant (identification) and significant (sbc), respectively. This suggests that the effect of identity-based brand relationships on attitudinal customer brand loyalty becomes stronger as perceived economic globalization decreases. Although the indirect effect of the highest-order interaction on behavioral customer brand loyalty did not turn out to be significant, I again probed this further by assessing the indirect effect of brand identification and self-brand connection on loyalty conditional upon perceived economic globalization. In line with my predictions, for consumers who perceive their environment to be relatively low on economic globalization, brand identification and self-brand connection yield significant positive indirect effects (Bidentification = 2.94, SE = .93, 95% CI = 1.12, 4.76; Bself-brand connection = 2.67, SE = .95,

95% CI = .80, 4.54). That is, for consumers who report low economic globalization scores, both identity-based brand relationships lead to enhanced behavioral brand loyalty. In contrast, for consumers who are relatively high on perceived economic globalization the indirect effect is eliminated (Bidentifcation = 1.32, SE = .94, 95% CI = -.53, 3.18; Bself-brand connection = .79, SE = 1.02,

95% CI = -1.21, 2.78). Specifically, for individuals who score relatively high on economic globalization, the effect of brand identification and self-brand connection on behavioral brand loyalty ceases to operate.

Voice and accountability. The indirect effect of the highest-order interaction (identity- based brand relationships × voice and accountability) emerged as non-significant for both attitudinal and behavioral customer brand loyalty (Table 8, 9). The indirect effects of brand

identification and self-brand connection on loyalty was not dependent upon voice and accountability scores.

Urban residence. Lastly, no moderating effects of urban residence were documented on the link between identity-based brand relationships and attitudinal customer brand loyalty.

However, when it comes to behavioral customer brand loyalty the effects were in line with the logic of Study 2. I started with estimating the predicted indirect effects of the highest-order interaction (brand identification × urban residence) and (self-brand connection × urban residence) which turned out to be negative and marginally significant (identification) and non- significant (sbc), respectively. To probe these effects deeper, I proceeded with examining the indirect effect of brand identification and self-brand connection on behavioral brand loyalty conditional upon extent to which consumers perceive to reside in urban area. As hypothesized, for consumers whose residence is relatively non-urban, both identity-based brand relationships generate a significant positive indirect effect (Bidentification = 3.32, SE = .96, 95% CI = 1.43, 5.21;

Bself-brand connection = 2.24, SE = .99, 95% CI = .30, 4.17). In other words, for individuals who tend to reside in relatively less urban areas, brand identification and self-brand connection result in improved behavioral brand loyalty. In contrast, among consumers who tend to reside in relatively more urban areas the indirect effect ceased to exist (Bidentification = 1.11, SE = .91, 95%

CI = -.67, 2.90; Bself-brand connection = 1.53, SE = .98, 95% CI = -.40, 3.46), suggesting that for such individuals identity-based brand relationships do not translate into increased behavioral loyalty.

Discussion

Study 3 continues to investigate the moderating role of seven cultural and institutional factors in influencing the linkage between various brand relationships and customer brand loyalty. I find that the indirect effects of the highest-order interactions (brand relationship type × seven cultural and institutional variables) on loyalty were not significant in virtually all cases.

However, certain indirect effects of brand relationships on behavioral brand loyalty emerged to be conditional upon reported scores on the cultural and institutional variables in line with findings of Study 2. For instance, for consumers who are relatively low (vs. high) on indulgence, brand attachment and brand identification result in improved behavioral brand loyalty.

Additionally, among consumers who report lower (vs. higher) levels of masculinity, brand trust emerges a significant predictor of behavioral brand loyalty. Finally, for individuals who perceive their environment to be relatively low (high) on economic globalization and whose residence is relatively non-urban (vs. urban), brand identification and self-brand connection translate into enhanced behavioral loyalty.

Still the issue remains that very few hypotheses were supported. There are at least two different reasons why this may be the case. First, Study 3 captured moderators as an individual difference characteristic. Hence, it is possible that there are certain systematic differences between looking at cultural and institutional dimensions at the country level (Study 2) versus at the individual consumer level (Study 3). For example, moderators in Study 3 were assessed within a single sample (Mturk), hinting at the possible existence of an important distinction between examining cultural and institutional factors within a broad range of countries (Study 2) versus within a specific sample (Study 3). Dramatically different correlations among these moderators in Studies 2 vs. 3 also speak to this potential difference. Although I thought that this approach was valid because I had a lot of variance within scores for each of the moderators in the

sample, focusing on a single sample might have prevented me from detecting significant effects.

For instance, it might have interfered with my ability to document significant findings (e.g., moderating role of power distance on identification-loyalty and self-brand connection-loyalty links) by restricting my sample to consumers that exhibit different cultural and institutional beliefs/preferences but at the same time originate from a single sample (i.e., MTurk), thus restricting variance. While it is not possible to directly compare summary statistics between study 2 and 3, I speculate that perhaps Study 2 data was assocated with greater variance than

Study 3, where the relative standard deviations on each of the moderator variables were between

14.6% and 64.2% of the mean. Taken together, the design of this study might have been improved by systematically taking into account and better aligning contexts of Studies 2 and 3.

One way to do this would have been to conduct the consumer survey with individuals from a broad range of countries and samples (as opposed to a single Mturk sample) that differ on the focal cultural and institutional dimensions which would likely have offered a better fit with the context of Study 2.

General Discussion

Drawing on consumer-brand relationship, loyalty, and cross-cultural literatures, two studies examined how country-level cultural and institutional factors moderate the effectiveness of different brand relationships in influencing customer brand loyalty. Using a combination of meta-analytic and publicly available secondary data, Study 2 found that the positive influence of brand relationships on customer brand loyalty is stronger in restrained (vs. indulgent) and collectivist (vs. individualist) cultures and that trust-based brand relationship drives customer

brand loyalty better in feminine than masculine cultures. Additionally, the study demonstrated that the positive impact of brand identification-based relationships on loyalty is stronger in societies that are high (vs. low) on power distance, low (vs. high) on economic globalization, low

(vs. high) on voice and accountability, and low (vs. high) on level of urbanization. Overall Study

2 produces convergent evidence testifying to the robustness of the phenomenon and lending credence to my theorizing. Study 3 concluded my empirical enquiry with a follow-up consumer survey that assessed the moderating impact of the variables from Study 2 as individual different characteristics and provided partial support for their role in influencing the link between individual consumers’ brand relationships and two dimensions of customer brand loyalty.

Taken together, I find consistent evidence for the moderating role of many country-level cultural and institutional factors. In particular some of the most robust and consistent effects that were supported across both studies are those related to masculinity versus femininity, economic globalization, and urbanization. I find mixed evidence in favor of the moderating impact of some other cultural and institutional dimensions such as power distance and voice and accountability, with seemingly differing results between two studies. Understanding and reconciling these potential differences represents an important avenue for future research. Nevertheless, there are three main reasons why one should give more confidence in Study 2’s results and pay less attention to weak findings of Study 3. The primary focus and evolution of my studies started with country-level cultural and institutional differences, which is more closely aligned with the cross-country method and setting adopted in Study 2 as opposed to Study 3 that focused on a single sample (MTurk). Besides, Study 2’s approach of including and contemplating 46 countries seems to be superior because of its power to incorporate richness of a diverse set of cultural and institutional settings thanks to the sheer number of countries included. Specifically, a massive

data set of 340,000+ consumers (Study 2) seems to offer a more credible way to generating insights compared to data coming from ≈500 consumers (Study 3, which may not have been a large enough sample size to detect interaction effects), particularly in the context of cross- country studies. Third, in contrast to measures used in Study 3, each of the moderator measures in Study 2 is highly validated. That is, moderator measures from Study 2 have been thoroughly developed and substantively validated over a period of years and studies, which is why more confidence should be attributed to Study 2’s findings compared to those of Study 3.

Theoretical Contributions

The findings of this work contribute to at least two literatures. First of all, the results of this paper speak directly to the literature on consumer-brand relationships and customer brand loyalty. Specifically, I respond to recent calls from brand relationship scholars to accurately gauge the functioning and importance of brand relationships while looking at the “broader context of the consumer’s life” (Fournier 2009, p. 5) which I do by systematically examining the impact of cultural and institutional contexts on brand relationships-customer brand loyalty link.

Understanding such contextual environmental variables is important because although we know from the extant literature that many brand relationships are strong and positive predictors of customer brand loyalty (Batra et al. 2012; Chaudhuri and Holbrook 2001; Park et al. 2010), the field offers scant theoretical insights into factors that make those relationships relatively more or less effective drivers of loyalty comparatively speaking and the magnitude of such influence. In other words, while the literature on consumer-brand relationships has heavily examined and underscored the importance of brand relationships - customer brand loyalty link, we possess scant knowledge regarding country-level cultural and institutional settings that allow this link to

operate. Speaking to this, my work provides an explanatory perspective on the variables that enable particular brand relationships drive customer brand loyalty most effectively in some cultural and institutional contexts but not others. To the best of my knowledge to date no similar study – tying meta-analysis to cultural and institutional factors – features in the consumer-brand relationship literature.

Additionally, my results have a potential to inform the literature on cross-cultural consumer behavior and cross-cultural research in general. One of the key implications is that understanding and examining cross-cultural factors as potential moderators appears critical not only in cross-cultural research (Hofstede and Bond 1984) or cross-cultural consumer behavior research (Al Omoush et al. 2012; Lam et al. 2009) but also in the context of relationships consumer develop with brands. The fact that certain brand relationships drive customer brand loyalty better or worse depending on specific country-level cultural dimensions reinforces the findings of Eisingerich and Rubera (2010), suggesting that it is vital for cross-cultural concepts and theories to be somehow taken into account or at the very least thoroughly examined by brand relationship scholars when designing and executing their studies. My investigation suggests that about a third of all extant brand relationship studies that drive branding theory development and practice are US samples (Appendix B) that tend to be highly individualistic. If one focuses solely on those samples to provide insights to researchers and marketers worldwide, one might falsely conclude that CBRs are not very effective in driving customer brand loyalty, but taking culture into account conveys a more complicated story. Importantly, my approach of integrating meta- analytic and secondary data enables me to capture richness of a variety of cultural contexts

(across 46 countries) as opposed to some other more indirect approaches in the international and cross-cultural marketing literature such as relying on a single country as a proxy for particular

cultural dimensions (e.g., Eisingerich and Rubera 2010). Taken together, the findings of the current work also suggest that at least applied to the branding context, it is not only purely cultural dimensions (e.g., individualism vs. collectivism) that matter; other variables such as institutional ones (e.g., voice and accountability) also exert potentially strong moderating influence.

Practical Implications

The results of the current work offer several managerial insights. First and foremost, the my findings suggest that it may be critical to approach selection and fostering of brand relationships differentially based on the types of cultures and institutional contexts brand and marketing managers operate in and tailor their approach accordingly. For example, investing in identification-based brand relationship is advisable in high power distance cultures, in societies with low levels of economic globalization, voice, and accountability, as well as countries with low urban population percentage. As a whole, brand loyalty building efforts may be optimized by adopting a refined approach whereby brand and marketing managers match brand relationships to the specific cultural and institutional contexts in question. For instance, if one is interested in driving customer brand loyalty in low masculinity cultures, an emphasis on trust- based brand relationship should be made, perhaps by communicating how the brand is associated with the notions of credibility, confidence, and reliability. As another example, if one aims to leverage customer brand loyalty in low voice and accountability institutional settings (e.g.,

Cambodia, China, Egypt), an effort to establish identification-based brand relationship should be made, perhaps by speaking to how the brand conveys who consumers and/or who they aspire to be. At the same time, investing into building identification-based brand relationship is not

optimal or advisable in high voice and accountability institutional settings (e.g., Norway,

Sweden, Netherlands). Obviously marketers cannot change underlying cultural and institutional dimensions as they wish but what they can do is alter their brand relationship building strategies across different societies and markets and make more informed marketing communication choices taking into account those cultural and institutional differences. This also potentially speaks to segmentation and targeting efforts, for instance by suggesting that it may be necessary for marketers to communicate with rural consumers differently than their urban counterparts.

Future Research Directions

The current research opens up several different avenues for future research. For example, recall that Essay 1 results suggest that trust is a particularly strong predictor of brand loyalty among U.S. consumers; Essay 2 results suggest that this effect is likely to be even stronger among the less masculine part of the American society. Indeed, the results of the recent Gallup poll indicate that the confidence of American consumers in their institutions such as big businesses and corporations is historically low (Norman 2016), suggesting that if brands are nevertheless able to bridge this confidence gap by building a strong and trustworthy bonds with their consumers, such brands are likely to be disproportionately rewarded by customer loyalty.

Future research may systematically investigate the links between brand trust, masculinity/femininity, and customer brand loyalty.

While the results of Study 3 parallel the findings of Study 2 in many ways, several notable discrepancies emerged between the two. Most notably, individualism versus collectivism dimension seemed to yield divergent results. Whereas brand love was a more effective driver of loyalty in collectivistic than individualistic cultures in Study 2, the effect seemed to flip in Study

3. One possible reason for these seemingly conflicting findings is that there is a different

“dynamic” and potentially process occurring at the country level compared to what is going on at the individual consumer level. Put it differently, a possible rationale may lie behind the difference in the level of measurement/unit of analysis between Study 2 and the follow-up consumer survey (Study 3). This logic would be consistent with work by Eisingerich and Rubera

(2010), who find in their consumer survey the moderating effect of individualism versus collectivism consistent with the direction of my Study 3 results but inconsistent with the findings of my Study 2. This underscores a need to reconcile these seemingly conflicting results in future studies.

Final Thoughts and Directions for Future Research

Consumers form strong relationships with brands (Fournier, 1998). In other words, consumers do not simply use or interact with brands, some are actually “engaging in a rich, complex, ever-changing relationship, and they will stay loyal, resisting marketing gimmicks from competitors and influencing others to try the brand they love” (Halloran 2014, p. 1). Hence, it should come as no surprise that a key to effective loyalty building resides in establishing and sustaining robust, intense, and authentic relationships between consumers and brands (Halloran

2014, p. 14).

Extant branding research has extensively explored the topics of strong consumer-brand relationships and customer brand loyalty (Batra et al. 2012; Carroll and Ahuvia 2006; Chaudhuri and Holbrook 2001, 2002; Delgado-Ballester and Munuera-Alemán 2001; Einwiller et al. 2006;

Fournier and Yao 1997; Magnoni and Roux 2012; Mazodier and Merunka 2012; Park et al.

2010; Sen et al. 2015; Stokburger-Sauer et al. 2012; Thomson et al. 2005). However, the literature has largely overlooked the relative effectiveness of different consumer-brand relationships in driving customer brand loyalty, as well as conditions that impact such effectiveness. In response, the primary objective of this dissertation is to systematically examine the link between various consumer-brand relationships and customer brand loyalty and how this link is impacted by a variety of consumer, brand, relationship, and methodological characteristics

(Essay 1) as well as cultural and institutional contexts (Essay 2).

Essay 1 provides a framework for systematic understanding of the effectiveness of consumer-brand relationships as a customer-brand loyalty tactic. It starts to address the gap regarding what types of brand relationships are superior predictors of customer brand loyalty and under what conditions each type performs relatively better. Essay 1 does so using a meta-

analysis of data from 179,395 consumers across 35 countries. Essay 2 continues in a similar trajectory with an expanded data set that incorporates cultural and institutional dimensions. As a whole, this dissertation stands to make three main contributions. First, this work quantifies the average link between consumer-brand relationships and customer brand loyalty, and identifies which of three types of consumer-brand relationships (i.e., primarily affect-based vs. identity- based vs. trust-based) are relatively better at boosting loyalty. This also allows me to shed light on convergence and divergence among various brand relationship strength metrics and their downstream consequences. Thus, I also contribute to the branding domain by systematically evaluating consumer-brand relationship metrics in the context of customer brand loyalty.

Second, I identify a series of variables (i.e., consumer, brand, relationship, and methodological characteristics) that moderate these effects, providing theoretically important information about when and where each brand relationship type appears to be relatively more effective, which also implies a series of actionable recommendations for marketing managers. Finally, this dissertation documents a series of country-level cultural and institutional variables (e.g., indulgence vs. restraint, voice and accountability) that exert a moderating influence on the CBR-loyalty link, providing an explanatory perspective on how and why particular consumer-brand relationships promote loyalty better in some cultural and institutional contexts than others.

Managerially, my investigation shows marketers how to better facilitate customer brand loyalty and thus invest financial resources more wisely by providing them insights on what type of relationship to focus and under what circumstances. Ultimately, the results of this research enable marketers to employ resources both more effectively and efficiently.

There are several notable limitations associated with this research. First, in Essay 2 the consumer survey shows very little consistency with the results of the meta-analysis. Many

hypotheses were not supported in the former study and some of those that were did not yield strong effects. There can be multiple reasons for this, but the most likely rationale lies in the fact that the study was conducted with consumers from a single sample (MTurk). Even though I did not limit my sample to solely consumers from any single country and though Mturk is known to be a semi-global panel, there is a possibility based on extant research (Goodman, Cryder, and

Cheema 2013; Goodman and Paolacci 2017; Paolacci and Chandler 2014) that a good number of

Mturk workers originate from the USA. Although I posited that variation in Study 2 moderators as an individual difference characteristic should impact the strength of CBR-loyalty link, a single sample setting may not have been very conducive to finding the moderating effects of these cultural and institutional variables because of potential lack of cultural and institutional heterogeneity. For example, in terms of these differences in heterogeneity, whereas Study 2 standard deviations as a percentage of the mean for voice and accountability and indulgence versus restraint measures were 64.2%voiceaccountability and 28.5%indulgencerestraint, relevant scores in

Study 3 were 26.9%voiceaccountability and 14.8%indulgencerestraint, respectively. This seems to suggest that there was much greater variance on cultural and institutional dimensions in Study 2 than

Study 3. To address this limitation, future work aiming to assess the moderating role of cultural and institutional factors should conduct consumer surveys across multiple different samples and countries (e.g., utilizing TurkPrime) to produce sufficient variance along many dimensions.

Second, although Essay 2 hypothesized substantively similar effects for self-brand connection based and identification-based brand relationships, the results revealed a differing pattern. Namely, while the positive influence of brand identification-based relationships on customer brand loyalty turned out to be stronger in societies that are high (vs. low) on power distance, low (vs. high) on economic globalization, low (vs. high) on voice and accountability,

and low (vs. high) on level of urbanization, similar moderating effects did not emerge for self- brand connection based relationships. This underscores the possibility that brand identification and self-brand connection may exhibit some systematic differences in their explanatory/ predictive capacity (even though the findings of Essay 1 suggested they operate similarly). The fact that I documented divergence between identification and self-brand connection results reinforces the recent findings of Albert and Thomson (2018, figure 4), suggesting that self-brand connection and brand identification, despite some conceptual similarities, are actually not that similar. Future research is encouraged to systematically reconcile these seemingly divergent patterns of results.

There are several other potential avenues for future research that this work opens up. For example, the present studies focused on five major consumer-brand relationship types: brand attachment, brand love, self-brand connection, brand identification, and brand trust. As alluded to in Essay 1, approximately three-fourths of consumer-brand relationship papers represent some combination of these constructs. Nevertheless, there is a substantial number of other theoretically interesting consumer-brand relationships in the field, including, but not limited to brand experience (Brakus, Schmitt, and Zarantonello 2009), consumer brand engagement (Hollebeek

2011; Hollebeek, Glynn, and Brodie 2014), consumer-brand relational authenticity (Ilicic and

Webster 2014), brand relationship quality (Breivik and Thorbjørnsen 2008; Fournier 1994; Smit,

Bronner, and Tolboom 2007), brand tribalism (Taute and Sierra 2014; Veloutsou and Moutinho

2009) and other less positively valenced constructs such as brand flings (Alvarez and Fournier

2012) or adversarial brand relationships (Miller et al. 2012; Rotman, Khamitov, and Connors

2018). A potentially interesting direction for future research is to explore the effectiveness of these relational constructs in driving customer brand loyalty and their relative predictive power.

Additionally, future work is encouraged to go beyond customer brand loyalty and investigate the impact of different consumer-brand relationships on other theoretically and managerially relevant outcome measures. As alluded to before, customer brand loyalty can be construed as one of the most fundamental dependent variables in the marketing and branding literatures. However, a variety of other complementary variables exist that also tap into the domain of favorable outcomes, namely word-of-mouth, willingness to pay a premium, sales, market share, and measures of objective financial performance (e.g., return on investments, return on assets, profitability, stock market performance). Future research can systematically explore the link between various brand relationships and these important outcome variables.

Furthermore, future studies may examine the role of alternative moderators of the CBR- loyalty link. Given the naturally limited scope of any research, I had to make some theoretically derived choices as to which moderators to explore. At the same time, it is possible that there are other important cultural (e.g., uncertainty avoidance) and institutional (e.g., political risk) moderators that can have a substantive influence on the link between particular consumer-brand relationships and customer brand loyalty. For instance, one can speculate that as the level of uncertainty avoidance and risk increases, so does the effectiveness of trust-based relationship in driving customer brand loyalty because of the unique capacity of trust to bridge and mitigate uncertainty and risk (Chaudhuri and Holbrook 2001; Doney and Cannon 1997; Moorman,

Zaltman, and Deshpande 1992; Morgan and Hunt 1994). Moderators like these ones present future research opportunities.

In sum, my work provides a novel and systematic way to explore the effectiveness and richness of the link between consumer-brand relationships and customer brand loyalty. In doing so, this dissertation advances implications for consumer-brand relationship, loyalty, cross-

country and -cultural scholars as well as marketing and brand managers. After all, “establishing a relationship with consumers is a game changer for brands” (Halloran 2014, p. 19). I conclude by hoping this work will help spur interest in how people relate to brands and downstream consequences of such relationships.

References Aaker, Jennifer L. (1997), “Dimensions of Brand Personality,” Journal of Marketing Research,

34 (3), 347-56.

Aaker, Jennifer and Susan Fournier (1995), “A Brand as a Character, a Partner and a Person:

Three Perspectives on the Question of Brand Personality,” in Advances in Consumer

Research, Vol. 22, ed. Frank R. Kardes and Mita Sujan, Provo, UT: Association for

Consumer Research, 391-95.

Aaker, Jennifer, Susan Fournier, and Adam Brasel (2004), “When Good Brands Do Bad,”

Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (1), 1-16.

Aggarwal, Pankaj (2004), “The Effects of Brand Relationship Norms on Consumer Attitudes and

Behavior,” Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (1), 87-101.

Aggarwal, Pankaj and Sharmistha Law (2005), “Role of Relationship Norms in Processing

Brand Information,” Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (3), 453-64.

Ahuvia, Aaron C. (1993), “I Love It! Towards a Unifying Theory of Love across Diverse Love

Objects,” unpublished dissertation, Department of Marketing, Northwestern University,

Evanston, IL.

Al Omoush, Khaled Saleh, Saad Ghaleb Yaseen, and Mohammad Atwah Alma’aitah (2012),

“The Impact of Arab Cultural Values on Online Social Networking: The Case of

Facebook,” Computers in Human Behavior, 28 (6), 2387-99.

Albers, Sönke (2012), “Optimizable and Implementable Aggregate Response Modeling for

Marketing Decision Support,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 29 (2),

111-22.

Albers, Sönke, Murali K. Mantrala, and Shrihari Sridhar (2010), “Personal Selling Elasticities: A

Meta-Analysis,” Journal of Marketing Research, 47 (5), 840-53.

Albert, Noel, Dwight Merunka, and Pierre Valette-Florence (2009), “The Feeling of Love

Toward a Brand: Concept and Measurement,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol.

36, ed. Ann L. McGill and Sharon Shavitt, Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer

Research, 300-07.

Albert, Noel, Dwight Merunka, and Pierre Valette-Florence (2013), “Brand Passion: Antecedents

and Consequences,” Journal of Business Research, 66 (7), 904-09.

Albert, Noel and Matthew Thomson (2018), “A Synthesis of the Consumer-Brand Relationship

Domain: Using Text Mining to Track Research Streams, Describe their Emotional

Associations and Identify Future Research Priorities,” Journal of the Association

for Consumer Research, forthcoming.

Algesheimer, René, Utpal M. Dholakia, and Andreas Herrmann (2005), “The Social Influence of

Brand Community: Evidence from European Car Clubs,” Journal of Marketing, 69 (3),

19-34.

Alvarez, Claudio and Susan Fournier (2012), “When Great Brand Relationships Are Not Made

to Last” in Consumer-Brand Relationships: Theory and Practice, ed. Susan Fournier,

Michael Breazeale, and Marc Fetscherin, London, UK: Routledge, 74-96.

Alvarez, Claudio and Susan Fournier (2016), “Consumers’ Relationships with Brands,” Current

Opinion in Psychology, 10 (August), 129-35.

Arnett, Dennis B., Steve D. German, and Shelby D. Hunt (2003), “The Identity Salience Model

of Relationship Marketing Success: The Case of Nonprofit Marketing,” Journal of

Marketing, 67 (2), 89-105.

Asch, Solomon E. (1952), Social Psychology, New York, NY: Prentice-Hall.

Ashworth, Laurence, Peter Dacin, and Matthew Thomson (2009), “Why on Earth Do Consumers

Have Relationships with Marketers: Toward Understanding the Functions of Brand

Relationships,” in Handbook of Brand Relationships, ed. Deborah J. MacInnis, C. Whan

Park, and Joseph R. Priester, Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 65-81.

Askegaard, Søren (2006), “Brands as a Global Ideoscape,” in Brand Culture, ed. Jonathan

Schroeder and Miriam Salzer-Mörling, London, UK: Routledge, 91-102.

Assmus, Gert, John U. Farley, and Donald R. Lehmann (1984), “How Advertising Affects Sales:

Meta-Analysis of Econometric Results,” Journal of Marketing Research, 21 (1), 65-74.

Avery, Jill, Susan Fournier, and John Wittenbraker (2014), “Unlock the Mysteries of Your

Customer Relationships,” Harvard Business Review, 92 (7/8), 72-81.

Babić Rosario, Ana, Francesca Sotgiu, Kristine De Valck, and Tammo H.A. Bijmolt (2016),

“The Effect of Electronic Word of Mouth on Sales: A Meta-Analytic Review of Platform,

Product, and Metric Factors,” Journal of Marketing Research, 53 (3), 297-318.

Bagozzi, Richard P., Rajeev Batra, and Aaron Ahuvia (2017), “Brand Love: Development and

Validation of a Practical Scale,” Marketing Letters, 28 (1), 1-14.

Banytė, Jūratė, Eglė Jokšaitė, and Regina Virvilaitė (2007), “Relationship of Consumer Attitude

and Brand: Emotional Aspect,” Engineering Economics, 2 (52), 65-77.

Batra, Rajeev, Aaron Ahuvia, and Richard P. Bagozzi (2012), “Brand Love,” Journal of

Marketing, 76 (2), 1-16.

Belk, Russell W. (1988), “Possessions and the Extended Self,” Journal of Consumer Research,

15 (2), 139-68.

Berg, Joyce, John Dickhaut, and Kevin McCabe (1995), “Trust, Reciprocity, and Social

History,” Games and Economic Behavior, 10 (1), 122-42.

Bergami, Massimo, and Richard P. Bagozzi (2000), “Self-Categorization, Affective

Commitment and Group Self-Esteem as Distinct Aspects of Social Identity in the

Organization,” British Journal of Social Psychology, 39 (4), 555-77.

Bergkvist, Lars and Tino Bech-Larsen (2010), “Two Studies of Consequences and Actionable

Antecedents of Brand Love,” Journal of Brand Management, 17 (7), 504-18.

Beugelsdijk, Sjoerd, Robbert Maseland, and André van Hoorn (2015), “Are Scores on Hofstede's

Dimensions of National Culture Stable over Time? A Cohort Analysis,” Global Strategy

Journal, 5 (3), 223-40.

Bhattacharya, C. B., Hayagreeva Rao, and Mary Ann Glynn (1995), “Understanding the Bond of

Identification: An Investigation of Its Correlates among Art Museum Members,” Journal

of Marketing, 59 (4), 46-57.

Bhattacharya, C. B., and Sankar Sen (2003), “Consumer-Company Identification: A Framework

for Understanding Consumers’ Relationships with Companies,” Journal of Marketing, 67

(2), 76-88.

Bijmolt, Tammo H.A., Harald J. van Heerde, and Rik G.M. Pieters (2005), “New Empirical

Generalizations on the Determinants of Price Elasticity,” Journal of Marketing Research,

42 (2), 141-56.

Bijmolt, Tammo H.A. and Rik G.M. Pieters (2001), “Meta-Analysis in Marketing When Studies

Contain Multiple Measurements,” Marketing Letters, 12 (2), 157-69.

Blackston, Max (1992), “Observations: Building Brand Equity by Managing the Brand's

Relationships,” Journal of Advertising Research, 32 (3), 79-83.

Blackston, Max (1993), “Beyond Brand Personality: Building Brand Relationships”, in Brand

Equity and Advertising: Advertising's Role in Building Strong Brands, ed. David A.

Aaker and Alexander L. Biel, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 113-24.

Blackston, Max (2000), “Observations: Building Brand Equity by Managing the Brand's

Relationships”, Journal of Advertising Research, 40 (6), 101-05.

Bliese, Paul D. (2000), “Within-Group Agreement, Non-Independence, and Reliability:

Implications for Data Aggregation and Analysis,” in Multilevel Theory, Research, and

Methods in Organizations: Foundations, Extensions, and New Directions, ed. Katherine

J. Klein and Steve W. J. Kozlowski, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 349-81.

Bonchek, Mark and Cara France (2016), “Build Your Brand as a Relationship,” Retrieved

February 1, 2017 from https://hbr.org/2016/05/build-your-brand-as-a-relationship.

Borenstein, Michael, Larry V. Hedges, Julian P.T. Higgins, and Hannah R. Rothstein (2009),

Introduction to Meta-Analysis. Cornwall, UK: John Wiley & Sons.

Brakus, J. Joško, Bernd H. Schmitt, and Lia Zarantonello (2009), “Brand Experience: What Is It?

How Is It Measured? Does It Affect Loyalty?” Journal of Marketing, 73 (3), 52-68.

Breivik, Einar and Helge Thorbjørnsen (2008), “Consumer Brand Relationships: An

Investigation of Two Alternative Models,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,

36 (4), 443-72.

Brewer, Marilynn B. and Wendi Gardner (1996), “Who Is This “We”? Levels of Collective

Identity and Self Representations,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71 (1),

83-93.

Broderick, Amanda J. (2007), “A Cross-National Study of the Individual and National-Cultural

Nomological Network of Consumer Involvement,” Psychology and Marketing, 24 (4),

343-74.

Buchan, Nancy R., Rachel T. A. Croson, and Sara Solnick (2008), “Trust and Gender: An

Examination of Behavior and Beliefs in the Investment Game,” Journal of Economic

Behavior and Organization, 68 (3-4), 466-76.

Carlson, Brad D. and D. Todd Donavan (2013), “Human Brands in Sport: Athlete Brand

Personality and Identification,” Journal of Sport Management, 27 (3), 193-206.

Carlson, Jay P., Leslie H. Vincent, David M. Hardesty, and William O. Bearden (2009),

“Objective and Subjective Knowledge Relationships: A Quantitative Analysis of

Consumer Research Findings,” Journal of Consumer Research, 35 (5), 864-76.

Carroll, Barbara A. and Aaron C. Ahuvia (2006), “Some Antecedents and Outcomes of Brand

Love,” Marketing Letters, 17 (2), 79-89.

Chang, Woojung and Steven A. Taylor (2016), “The Effectiveness of Customer Participation in

New Product Development: A Meta-Analysis,” Journal of Marketing, 80 (1), 47-64.

Chartered Association of Business Schools (2015), “Academic Journal Guide 2015,” Retrieved

August 01, 2015 from http://charteredabs.org/academic-journal-guide-2015/

Chaudhuri, Arjun and Morris 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.

Chaudhuri, Arjun and Morris B. Holbrook (2002), “Product-Class Effects on Brand Commitment

and Brand Outcomes: The Role of Brand Trust and Brand Affect,” Journal of Brand

Management, 10 (1), 33-58.

Chernev, Alexander, Ulf Böckenholt, and Joseph Goodman (2015), “Choice Overload: A

Conceptual Review and Meta-Analysis,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25 (2), 333-

58.

Connors, Scott, Mansur Khamitov, Sarah Moroz, Lorne Campbell, and Claire Henderson (2016),

“Time, Money, and Happiness: Does Putting a Price on Time Affect Our Ability to Smell

the Roses?” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 67, 60-64.

Dalton, Dan R., Catherine M. Daily, S. T. Certo, and Rungpen Roengpitya (2003), “Meta‐

Analyses of Financial Performance and Equity: Fusion or Confusion?” Academy of

Management Journal, 46 (1), 13-26.

Day, George S. (1969), “A Two-Dimensional Concept of Brand Loyalty,” Journal of

Advertising Research, 9 (3), 29-35.

Debenedetti, Alain, Harmen Oppewal, and Zeynep Arsel (2014), “Place Attachment in

Commercial Settings: A Gift Economy Perspective,” Journal of Consumer Research, 40

(5), 904-23.

Delgado-Ballester, Elena and José Luis Munuera-Alemán (2001), “Brand Trust in the Context of

Consumer Loyalty,” European Journal of Marketing, 35 (11/12), 1238-58.

Delong, Marilyn, Mingxin Bao, Juanjuan Wu, Huang Chao, Meng Li (2004), “Perception of US

Branded Apparel in Shanghai,” Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 8 (2),

141-53.

Denson, Nida and Michael H. Seltzer (2011), “Meta-Analysis in Higher Education: An

Illustrative Example Using Hierarchical Linear Modeling,” Research in Higher

Education, 52 (3), 215-44.

De Almeida, Stefânia Ordovás, Utpal M. Dholakia, José Mauro C. Hernandez, and José Afonso

Mazzon (2014), “The Mixed Effects of Participant Diversity and Expressive Freedom in

Online Peer-to-Peer Problem Solving Communities,” Journal of Interactive Marketing,

28 (3), 196-209.

De Mooij, Marieke (2015), “Cross-Cultural Research in International Marketing: Clearing up

100

Some of the Confusion,” International Marketing Review, 32 (6), 646-62.

De Mooij, Marieke and Geert Hofstede (2010), “The Hofstede Model: Applications to Global

Branding and Advertising Strategy and Research,” International Journal of Advertising,

29 (1), 85-110.

Doney, Patricia M. and Joseph P. Cannon (1997), “An Examination of the Nature of Trust in

Buyer-Seller Relationships,” Journal of Marketing, 61 (2), 35-51.

Doney, Patricia M., Joseph P. Cannon, and Michael R. Mullen (1998), “Understanding the

Influence of National Culture on the Development of Trust,” Academy of Management

Review, 23 (3), 601-20.

Dreher, Axel (2006), “Does Globalization Affect Growth: Evidence from a New Index of

Globalization,” Applied Economics, 38 (10), 1091-110.

Dunn, Lea and JoAndrea Hoegg (2014), “The Impact of Fear on Emotional Brand Attachment,”

Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (1), 152-68.

Edeling, Alexander and Marc Fischer (2016), “Marketing’s Impact on Firm Value:

Generalizations from a Meta-Analysis,” Journal of Marketing Research, 53 (4), 515-34.

Einwiller, Sabine A., Alexander Fedorikhin, Allison R. Johnson, and Michael A. Kamins (2006),

“Enough is Enough! When Identification No Longer Prevents Negative Corporate

Associations,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34 (2), 185-94.

Eisend, Martin and Nicola E. Stokburger-Sauer (2013), “Brand Personality: A Meta-Analytic

Review of Antecedents and Consequences,” Marketing Letters, 24 (3), 205-16.

Eisingerich, Andreas B. and Gaia Rubera (2010), “Drivers of Brand Commitment: A Cross-

National Investigation,” Journal of International Marketing, 18 (2), 64-79.

Elliot, Andrew J. and Harry T. Reis (2003), “Attachment and Exploration in Adulthood,”

101

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85 (2), 317-31.

Erdem, Tülin, Joffre Swait, and Ana Valenzuela (2006), “Brands as Signals: A Cross-Country

Validation Study,” Journal of Marketing, 70 (1), 34-49.

Escalas, Jennifer Edson (2004), “Narrative Processing: Building Consumer Connections to

Brands,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14 (1-2), 168-80.

Escalas, Jennifer Edson, and James R. Bettman (2003), “You Are What They Eat: The Influence

of Reference Groups on Consumers’ Connections to Brands,” Journal of Consumer

Psychology, 13 (3), 339-48.

Farley, John U., Donald R. Lehmann, and Lane H. Mann (1998), “Designing the Next Study for

Maximum Impact,” Journal of Marketing Research, 35 (4), 496-501.

Fiske, Susan T., Chris Malone, and Nicolas Kervyn (2012), “Brands as Intentional Agents: Our

Response to Commentaries,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22 (2), 205-07.

Floyd, Kristopher, Ryan Freling, Saad Alhoqail, Hyun Young Cho, and Traci Freling (2014),

“How Online Product Reviews Affect Retail Sales: A Meta-Analysis,” Journal of

Retailing, 90 (2), 217–32.

Fournier, Susan (1994), “A Consumer-Brand Relationship Framework for Strategic Brand

Management,” unpublished dissertation, Department of Marketing, College of Business

Administration, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.

Fournier, Susan (1998), “Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in

Consumer Research,” Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (4), 343-73.

Fournier, Susan and Julie L. Yao (1997), “Reviving Brand Loyalty: A Reconceptualization

within the Framework of Consumer-Brand Relationships,” International Journal of

Research in Marketing, 14 (5), 451-72.

102

Fournier, Susan (2009), “Lessons Learned about Consumers’ Relationships with their Brands,”

in Handbook of Brand Relationships, ed. Deborah J. MacInnis, C. Whan Park, and

Joseph R. Priester, Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 5-23.

Ganzel, Bill (2009), “Rural America Supplies More Recruits to the Military,” Retrieved

February 19, 2018 from https://livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe70s/life_07.html.

Gemmill, Marin C., Joan Costa-Font, and Alistair McGuire (2007), “In Search of a Corrected

Prescription Drug Elasticity Estimate: A Meta-Regression Approach,” Health Economics,

16 (6), 627-43.

Geyskens, Inge, Rekha Krishnan, Jan-Benedict E.M. Steenkamp, and Paulo V. Cunha (2009), “A

Review and Evaluation of Meta-Analysis Practices in Management Research,” Journal of

Management, 35 (2), 393-419.

Goode, Miranda, Mansur Khamitov, and Matthew Thomson (2015), “Dyads, Triads and

Consumer Treachery: When Interpersonal Connections Guard Against Brand Cheating,”

in Strong Brands, Strong Relationships, ed. Susan Fournier, Michael Breazeale, and Jill

Avery, London, UK: Routledge/Taylor and Francis Group, 216-32.

Goodman, Joseph K., Cynthia E. Cryder, and Amar Cheema (2013), “Data Collection in a Flat

World: The Strengths and Weaknesses of Mechanical Turk Samples,” Journal of

Behavioral Decision Making, 26 (3), 213-24.

Goodman Joseph K. and Gabriele Paolacci (2017), “Crowdsourcing Consumer Research,”

Journal of Consumer Research, 44 (1), 196-210.

Gordon, Leonard V. (1976), Survey of Interpersonal Values: Revised Manual, Chicago, IL:

Science Research Associates.

Grégoire, Yany, Daniel Laufer, and Thomas M. Tripp (2010), “A Comprehensive Model of

103

Customer Direct and Indirect Revenge: Understanding the Effects of Perceived Greed

and Customer Power,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38 (6), 738-58.

Grégoire, Yany, Thomas M. Tripp, and Renaud 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.

Guest, Lester (1944), “A Study of Brand Loyalty,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 28 (1), 16-27.

Guest, Lester (1955), “Brand Loyalty – Twelve Years Later,” Journal of Applied Psychology,

39 (6), 405-8.

Gygli, Savina, Florian Haelg, and Jan-Egbert Sturm (2018), “The KOF Globalisation Index –

Revisited,” Retrieved January 22, 2018 from https://www.ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz

/special-interest/dual/kof-dam/documents/Globalization/2018/KOF_Globalisation_

Index_Revisited.pdf

Halloran, Tim (2014), “The Eight Phases of Brand Love,” Harvard Business Review, February

11, Retrieved September 30, 2015 from https://hbr.org/2014/02/the-eight-phases-of-

brand-love/.

Hammond, Wisdom Powell (2010), “Psychosocial Correlates of Medical Mistrust Among

African American Men,” American Journal of Community Psychology, 45 (1-2), 87-106.

Han, Sang-pil and Sharon Shavitt (1994), “Persuasion and Culture: Advertising Appeals in

Individualistic and Collectivistic Societies,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,

30 (4), 326-50.

Hayes, Andrew F. (2013), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process

Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach, New York, NY: Guilford Press.

He, Hongwei, Yan Li, and Lloyd Harris (2012), “Social Identity Perspective on Brand Loyalty,”

104

Journal of Business Research, 65 (5), 648-57.

Hofstede, Geert (1985), “The Interaction between National and Organizational Value Systems,”

Journal of Management Studies, 22 (4), 347-57.

Hofstede, Geert (2011), “Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context,” Online

Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2 (1), 1-26.

Hofstede, Geert (2017), “National Culture,” Retrieved December 1, 2017 from

https://www.hofstede-insights.com/models/national-culture/.

Hofstede, Geert and Michael H. Bond (1984), “Hofstede's Culture Dimensions: An Independent

Validation Using Rokeach's Value Survey,” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 15

(4), 417-33.

Hollebeek, Linda D. (2011), “Demystifying Customer Brand Engagement: Exploring the Loyalty

Nexus,” Journal of Marketing Management, 27 (7-8), 785-807.

Hollebeek, Linda D., Mark S. Glynn, and Roderick J. Brodie (2014), “Consumer Brand

Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development and Validation,”

Journal of Interactive Marketing, 28 (2), 149-65.

Homburg, Christian, Jan Wieseke, and Wayne D. Hoyer (2009), “Social Identity and the Service-

Profit Chain,” Journal of Marketing, 73 (2), 38-54.

Hox, Joop J. (2002), Multilevel Analysis: Techniques and Application. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.

Hudson, Simon, Li Huang, Martin S. Roth, and Thomas J. Madden (2016), “The Influence of

Social Media Interactions on Consumer-Brand Relationships: A Three-Country Study of

Brand Perceptions and Marketing Behaviors,” International Journal of Research in

Marketing, 33 (1), 27-41.

105

Huffcutt, Allen I. and Winfred Arthur (1995), “Development of a New Outlier Statistic for Meta-

Analytic Data,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 80 (2), 327-34.

Hunter, John E. and Frank L. Schmidt (1990), Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and

Bias in Research Findings, Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Hunter, John E. and Frank L. Schmidt (2004), Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and

Bias in Research Findings. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Ilicic, Jasmina and Cynthia M Webster (2014), “Investigating Consumer-Brand Relational

Authenticity,” Journal of Brand Management, 21 (4), 342-63.

Izberk-Bilgin, Elif (2012), “Infidel Brands: Unveiling Alternative Meanings of Global Brands at

the Nexus of Globalization, Consumer Culture, and Islamism,” Journal of Consumer

Research, 39 (4), 663-87.

Jacoby, Jacob (1971), “A Model of Multi-Brand Loyalty,” Journal of Advertising Research,

11 (3), 25-31.

Jacoby, Jacob and David B. Kyner (1973), “Brand Loyalty vs. Repeat Purchasing Behavior,”

Journal of Marketing Research, 10 (1), 1-9.

Jahn, Steffen, Hansjoerg Gaus, and Tina Kiessling (2012), “Trust, Commitment, and Older

Women: Exploring Brand Attachment Differences in the Elderly Segment,” Psychology

and Marketing, 29 (6), 445-57.

Jhang, Ji Hoon and John G. Lynch Jr. (2015), “Pardon the Interruption: Goal Proximity,

Perceived Spare Time, and Impatience,” Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (5), 1267-83.

Kaufmann, Daniel and Aart Kraay (2017), “Worldwide Governance Indicators,” Retrieved

December 1, 2017 from https://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/worldwide-governance-

indicators.

106

Kaufmann, Daniel, Aart Kraay, and Massimo Mastruzzi (2010), “The Worldwide Governance

Indicators: Methodology and Analytical Issues,” World Bank Policy Research Working

Paper No. 5430, Retrieved February 6, 2018 from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/

Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID1682130_code468680.pdf?abstractid=1682130&mirid=1.

Kessous, Aurélie, Elyette Roux, and Jean-Louis Chandon (2015), “Consumer-Brand

Relationships: A Contrast of Nostalgic and Non-Nostalgic Brands,” Psychology and

Marketing, 32 (2), 187-202.

Kim, Youngseon and Yinlong Zhang (2014), “The Impact of Power-Distance Belief on

Consumers’ Preference for Status Brands,” Journal of Global Marketing, 27 (1), 13-29.

Krasnikov, Alexander and Satish Jayachandran (2008), “The Relative Impact of Marketing,

Research-and-Development, and Operations Capabilities on Firm Performance,” Journal

of Marketing, 72 (4), 1-11.

Krautz, Carolin and Stefan Hoffmann (2017), “The Tenure-Based Customer Retention Model: A

Cross-Cultural Validation,” Journal of International Marketing, 25 (3), 83-106.

Kumar, V., Amalesh Sharma, and Shaphali Gupta (2017), “Accessing the Influence of Strategic

Marketing Research on Generating Impact: Moderating Roles of Models, Journals, and

Estimation Approaches,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45 (2), 164-85.

Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson (1980), Metaphors We Live By, Chicago, IL: University of

Chicago Press.

Lalwani, Ashok K., Sharon Shavitt, and Timothy Johnson (2006), “What Is the Relation

Between Cultural Orientation and Socially Desirable Responding?” Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 90 (1), 165-78.

Lam, Desmond, Alvin Lee, and Richard Mizerski (2009), “The Effects of Cultural Values in

107

Word-of-Mouth Communication,” Journal of International Marketing, 17 (3), 55-70.

Lam, Son K., Michael Ahearne, and Niels Schillewaert (2012), “A Multinational Examination of

the Symbolic-Instrumental Framework of Consumer-Brand Identification,” Journal of

International Business Studies, 43 (3), 306-31.

Lantz, Garold and Sandra Loeb (1996), “Country of Origin and Ethnocentrism: An Analysis of

Canadian and American Preferences Using Social Identity Theory,” in Advances in

Consumer Research, Vol. 23, ed. Kim P. Corfman and John G. Lynch, Provo, UT:

Association for Consumer Research, 374-78.

Lewin, Kurt (1951), Field Theory in Social Science: Selected Theoretical Papers (ed. Dorwin

Cartwright), Oxford, UK: Harper and Brothers.

Loureiro, Sandra Maria Correia, Hans Ruediger Kaufmann, and Demetris Vrontis (2012),

“Brand Emotional Connection and Loyalty,” Journal of Brand Management, 20 (1), 13-

27.

Ma, Jingjing, Ryan Hamilton, and Alexander Chernev (2012), “The Unexpressed Self: The

Impact of Restricting Freedom of Self-Expression on Brand Preferences,” in Advances in

Consumer Research, Vol. 40, ed. Zeynep Gürhan-Canli, Cele Otnes, and Rui (Juliet)

Zhu, Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research, 95-100.

Mael, Fred and Blake E. Ashforth (1992), “Alumni and Their Alma Mater: A Partial Test of the

Reformulated Model of Organizational Identification,” Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 13 (2), 103-23.

Magnoni, Fanny and Elyette Roux (2012), “The Impact of Step-Down Line Extension on

Consumer-Brand Relationships: A Risky Strategy for Luxury Brands,” Journal of Brand

Management, 19 (7), 595-608.

108

Malik, Garima (2014), “Comparative Analysis of Celebrity Endorsements on Rural and Urban

Areas with Reference to FMCG Sector,” Pacific Business Review International, 7 (1),

105-14.

Marzocchi, Gianluca, Gabriele Morandin, and Massimo Bergami (2013), “Brand Communities:

Loyal to the Community or the Brand?” European Journal of Marketing, 47 (1/2), 93-

114.

Matzler, Kurt, Andreas Strobl, Nicola Stokburger-Sauer, Artur Bobovnicky, and Florian Bauer

(2016), “Brand Personality and Culture: The Role of Cultural Differences on the Impact

of Brand Personality Perceptions on Tourists' Visit Intentions,” Tourism Management,

52, 507-20.

Mazodier, Marc and Dwight Merunka (2012), “Achieving Brand Loyalty through Sponsorship:

The Role of Fit and Self-Congruity,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40

(6), 807-20.

McShane, Blakeley B. and Ulf Böckenholt (2017), “Single-Paper Meta-Analysis: Benefits for

Study Summary, Theory Testing, and Replicability,” Journal of Consumer Research, 43

(6), 1048-63.

Miller, Felicia, Susan Fournier, and Chris Allen (2012), “Exploring Relationship Analogues in

the Brand Space,” in Consumer-Brand Relationships: Theory and Practice, ed. Susan

Fournier, Michael Breazeale, and Marc Fetscherin, London, UK: Routledge, 30-56.

Monga, Alokparna Basu (2002), “Brand as a Relationship Partner: Gender Differences in

Perspectives,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 29, ed. Susan M. Broniarczyk

and Kent Nakamoto, Valdosta, GA: Association for Consumer Research, 36-41.

Moorman, Christine, Gerald Zaltman, and Rohit Deshpande (1992), “Relationships between

109

Providers and Users of Market Research: The Dynamics of Trust within and between

Organizations,” Journal of Marketing Research, 29 (3), 314-28.

Morgan, Neil A. and Lopo L. Rego (2009), “Brand Portfolio Strategy and Firm Performance,”

Journal of Marketing, 73 (1), 59-74.

Morgan, Robert M. and Shelby D. Hunt (1994), “The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship

Marketing,” Journal of Marketing, 58 (3), 20-38.

Moussa, Salim (2015), “I May Be a Twin but I’m One of a Kind: Are Brand Attachment and

Brand Love Different Names for the Same Construct?” Qualitative Market Research:

An International Journal, 18 (1), 69-85.

Norman, Jim (2016), “Americans' Confidence in Institutions Stays Low,” Retrieved January 26,

2018 from http://news.gallup.com/poll/192581/americans-confidence-institutions-stays-

low.aspx.

Oliver, Richard L. (1999), “Whence Consumer Loyalty?” Journal of Marketing, 63 (Special

Issue), 33-44.

Ozdemir, V. Emre and Kelly Hewett (2010), “The Effect of Collectivism on the Importance of

Relationship Quality and Service Quality for Behavioral Intentions: A Cross-National

and Cross-Contextual Analysis,” Journal of International Marketing, 18 (1), 41-62.

Palmatier, Robert W., Rajiv P. Dant, Dhruv Grewal, and Kenneth R. Evans (2006), “Factors

Influencing the Effectiveness of Relationship Marketing: A Meta-Analysis,” Journal of

Marketing, 70 (4), 136-53.

Paolacci, Gabriele and Jesse Chandler (2014), “Inside the Turk: Understanding Mechanical Turk

as a Participant Pool,” Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23 (3), 184-88.

Park, C. Whan, Deborah J. MacInnis, Joseph Priester, Andreas B. Eisingerich, and Dawn

110

Iacobucci (2010), “Brand Attachment and Brand Attitude Strength: Conceptual and

Empirical Differentiation of Two Critical Brand Equity Drivers,” Journal of Marketing,

74 (6), 1-17.

Pentina, Iryna, Lixuan Zhang, and Oksana Basmanova (2013), “Antecedents and Consequences

of Trust in a Social Media Brand: A Cross-Cultural Study of Twitter,” Computers in

Human Behavior, 29 (4), 1546-55.

Raj, S. P. (1985), “Striking a Balance between Brand “Popularity” and Brand Loyalty,” Journal

of Marketing, 49 (1), 53-59.

Raudenbush, Stephen W. (2009), “Analyzing Effect Sizes: Random-Effects Models,” in The

Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis, ed. Harris Cooper, Larry V. Hedges,

and Jeffrey C. Valentine, New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation, 295-315.

Raudenbush, Stephen W. and Anthony S. Bryk (2001), Hierarchical Linear Models:

Applications and Data Analysis Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Reimann, Martin, Raquel Castano, Judith Zaichkowsky, and Antoine Bechara (2012), “How We

Relate to Brands: Psychological and Neurophysiological Insights into Consumer-Brand

Relationships,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22 (1), 128-42.

Reimann, Martin, Sandra Nunez, and Raquel Castano (2017), “Brand-Aid”, Journal of

Consumer Research, 44 (3), 673-91.

Rosenthal, Robert (1979), “The File Drawer Problem and Tolerance for Null Results,”

Psychological Bulletin, 86 (3), 638-41.

Rosenthal, Robert and M. Robin DiMatteo (2001), “Meta-Analysis: Recent Developments in

Quantitative Methods for Literature Reviews,” Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 59-82.

Ross, Stephen D., Jeffrey D. James, and Patrick Vargas (2006), “Development of a Scale to

111

Measure Team Brand Associations in Professional Sport,” Journal of Sport Management,

20 (2), 260-79.

Roth, Martin S. (1995), “The Effects of Culture and Socioeconomics on the Performance of

Global Brand Image Strategies,” Journal of Marketing Research, 32 (2), 163-75.

Rotman, Jeff D., Mansur Khamitov, and Scott Connors (2018), “Lie, Cheat, and Steal: How

Harmful Brands Motivate Consumers to Act Unethically,” Journal of Consumer

Psychology, forthcoming.

Rubera, Gaia and Ahmet H. Kirca (2012), “Firm Innovativeness and Its Performance Outcomes:

A Meta-Analytic Review and Theoretical Integration,” Journal of Marketing, 76 (3), 130-

47.

Scheibehenne, Benjamin, Rainer Greifeneder, and Peter M. Todd (2010), “Can There Ever Be

Too Many Options? A Meta‐Analytic Review of Choice Overload,” Journal of Consumer

Research, 37 (3), 409-25.

Sebri, Mouna and Georges Zaccour (2017), “Cross-Country Differences in Private-Label

Success: An Exploratory Approach,” Journal of Business Research, 80, 116-26.

Sen, Sankar, Allison R. Johnson, C. B. Bhattacharya, and Juan Wang (2015), “Identification

and Attachment in Consumer-Brand Relationships,” in Brand Meaning Management

(Review of Marketing Research, Vol. 12), ed. Deborah J. Macinnis and C. Whan Park,

Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 151-74.

Sethuraman, Raj, Gerard J. Tellis, and Richard A. Briesch (2011), “How Well Does Advertising

Work? Generalizations from Meta-Analysis of Brand Advertising Elasticities,” Journal

of Marketing Research, 48 (3), 457-71.

Shimp, Terence A. and Thomas J. Madden (1988), “Consumer-Object Relations: A Conceptual

112

Framework Based Analogously on Sternberg’s Triangular Theory of Love,” in Advances

in Consumer Research, Vol. 15, ed. Michael J. Houston, Provo, UT: Association for

Consumer Research, 163-68.

Singer, Judith D. and John B. Willett (2003), Applied Longitudinal Data Analysis. New York:

Oxford University Press.

Sirdeshmukh, Deepak, Jagdip Singh, and Barry Sabol (2002), “Consumer Trust, Value, and

Loyalty in Relational Exchanges,” Journal of Marketing, 66 (1), 15-37.

Smit, Edith, Fred Bronner, and Maarten Tolboom (2007), “Brand Relationship Quality and Its

Value for Personal Contact,” Journal of Business Research, 60 (6), 627-33.

Snijders, Tom A.B. and Roel J. Bosker (1994), “Modeled Variance in Two-Level Models,”

Sociological Methods and Research, 22 (3), 342-63.

Spangenberg, Eric R., Ioannis Kareklas, Berna Devezer, and David E. Sprott (2016), “A Meta-

Analytic Synthesis of the Question-Behavior Effect,” Journal of Consumer Psychology,

26 (3), 441-58.

Spiller, Stephen, Gavan Fitzsimons, John Lynch, and Gary McClelland (2013), “Spotlights,

Floodlights, and the Magic Number Zero: Simple Effects Tests in Moderated Regression,

Journal of Marketing Research, 50 (2), 277-88.

Stanley, David J. and Jeffrey R. Spence (2014), “Expectations for Replications: Are Yours

Realistic?” Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9 (3), 305-18.

Stock, William A. (1994), “Systematic Coding for Research Synthesis,” in The Handbook of

Research Synthesis, ed. Harris Cooper and Larry V. Hedges, New York, NY: Russell

Sage Foundation, 231-44.

Stokburger-Sauer, Nicola, S. Ratneshwar, and Sankar Sen (2012), “Drivers of Consumer-Brand

113

Identification,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 29 (4), 406-18.

Suen, Hoi K. and Donald Ary (1989), Analyzing Quantitative Behavioral Observation Data,

New York, N.Y.: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Taute, Harry A. and Jeremy Sierra (2014), “Brand Tribalism: An Anthropological Perspective,”

Journal of Product and Brand Management, 23 (1), 2-15.

Tellis, Gerard J. (1988), “The Price Elasticity of Selective Demand: A Meta-Analysis of

Econometric Models of Sales,” Journal of Marketing Research, 25 (4), 331-41.

Thomson, Matthew (2006), “Human Brands: Investigating Antecedents to Consumers' Strong

Attachments to Celebrities,” Journal of Marketing, 70 (3), 104-19.

Thomson, Matthew, Deborah MacInnis, and C. Whan Park (2005), “The Ties that Bind:

Measuring the Strength of Consumer’s Emotional Attachments to Brands,” Journal of

Consumer Psychology, 15 (1), 77-91.

Truitt, Allison (2008), “On the Back of a Motorbike: Middle-Class Mobility in Ho Chi Minh

City, Vietnam,” American Ethnologist, 35 (1), 3-19.

Tsai, Shu‐Pei (2011), “Strategic Relationship Management and Service Brand Marketing,”

European Journal of Marketing, 45 (7/8), 1194-213.

Tsiotsou, Rodoula H. (2013), “Sport Team Loyalty: Integrating Relationship Marketing and a

Hierarchy of Effects,” Journal of Services Marketing, 27 (6), 458-71.

Van Laer, Tom, Ko de Ruyter, Luca M. Visconti, and Martin Wetzels (2014), “The Extended

Transportation-Imagery Model: A Meta-Analysis of the Antecedents and Consequences

of Consumers’ Narrative Transportation,” Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (5), 797-

817.

Veloutsou, Cleopatra and Luiz Moutinho (2009), “Brand Relationships through Brand

114

Reputation and Brand Tribalism,” Journal of Business Research, 62 (3), 314-22.

Verhoef, Peter C. and Peter S.H. Leeflang (2009), “Understanding the Marketing Department's

Influence Within the Firm,” Journal of Marketing, 73 (2), 14–37.

Wallström, Åsa, Peter Steyn, and Leyland Pitt (2010), “Expressing Herself through Brands: A

Comparative Study of Women in Six Asia-Pacific Nations,” Journal of Brand

Management, 18 (3), 228-37.

Watson, George F. IV, Joshua T. Beck, Conor M. Henderson, and Robert W. Palmatier (2015),

“Building, Measuring, and Profiting from Customer Loyalty,” Journal of the Academy of

Marketing Science, 43 (6), 790-825.

Wernerfelt, Birger (1991), “Brand Loyalty and Market Equilibrium,” Marketing Science, 10 (3),

229-45.

World Bank (2017), “Urban Population (% of total),” Retrieved December 1, 2017 from

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.URB.TOTL.IN.ZS.

World Economic Forum (2017), “The Global Competitiveness Report 2017-2018,” Retrieved

March 10, 2018 from https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-global-competitiveness-

report-2017-2018.

Xie, Yi, Rajeev Batra, and Siqing Peng (2015), “An Extended Model of Preference Formation

Between Global and Local Brands: The Roles of Identity Expressiveness, Trust, and

Affect,” Journal of International Marketing, 23 (1), 50-71.

Yoo, Boonghee and Naveen Donthu (2001), “Developing and Validating a Multidimensional

Consumer-Based Brand Equity Scale,” Journal of Business Research, 52 (1), 1-14.

You, Ya, Gautham G. Vadakkepatt, and Amit M. Joshi (2015), “A Meta-Analysis of Electronic

Word-of-Mouth Elasticity,” Journal of Marketing, 79 (2), 19-39.

115

Zablah, Alex R., George R. Franke, Tom J. Brown, and Darrell E. Bartholomew (2012), “How

and When Does Customer Orientation Influence Frontline Employee Job Outcomes? A

Meta-Analytic Evaluation,” Journal of Marketing, 76 (3), 21-40.

116

Appendix A Theme 1. Elasticities Included in the Meta-Analysis

Brand Author(s) and Year Publication Outlet Volume, Study Industry/Context Geographic Sample Brand Relationship Issue, No Setting Size Relationship Elasticity No Pages Elasticity Examined 1. The Service 32, 8, 55 Grocery retailing Agudo, Crespo, del Bosque (2012) Industries Journal 1323-41 (Supermarkets) Spain 445 Trust-based 2. Journal of Marketing 42, 1, 96- 65 Agustin, Singh (2005) Research 108 Clothing retailing USA 246 Trust-based 3. Journal of Marketing 42, 1, 96- 64 Agustin, Singh (2005) Research 108 Airlines USA 113 Trust-based 4. Albert, Merunka, Valette-Florence Advances in 126 (2009) Consumer Research 36, 300-07 Not limited France 825 Affect-based 5. Albert, Merunka, Valette-Florence Advances in 126 (2009) Consumer Research 36, 300-07 Not limited France 825 Affect-based 6. Albert, Merunka, Valette-Florence Journal of Business 66, 7, 904- 122 (2013) Research 09 Not limited France 1505 Trust-based 7. Albert, Merunka, Valette-Florence Journal of Business 66, 7, 904- 122 (2013) Research 09 Not limited France 1505 Identity-based 8. Albert, Merunka, Valette-Florence Journal of Business 66, 7, 904- 122 (2013) Research 09 Not limited France 1505 Affect-based 9. Aldas-Manzano, Ruiz-Mafe, Sanz-Blas, The Service 31, 7, 74 Lassala-Navarré (2011) Industries Journal 1165-90 Financial services Spain 254 Trust-based 10. Algesheimer, Dholakia, Herrmann 69, 3, 19- 50 Germany, (2005) Journal of Marketing 34 Automotive Industry Switzerland, Austria 529 Identity-based 11. Algesheimer, Dholakia, Herrmann 69, 3, 19- 50 Germany, (2005) Journal of Marketing 34 Automotive Industry Switzerland, Austria 529 Identity-based 12. Journal of Marketing 19, 2, 221- 66 E-retailing (E- Anderson, Swaminathan (2011) Theory and Practice 34 commerce) USA 851 Trust-based 13. Handbook of Brand 36 Ashworth, Dacin, Thomson (2009) Relationships 82-106 Not limited Canada 515 Affect-based 14. Handbook of Brand 36 Ashworth, Dacin, Thomson (2009) Relationships 82-106 Not limited Canada 515 Affect-based 15. Handbook of Brand 36 Ashworth, Dacin, Thomson (2009) Relationships 82-106 Not limited Canada 515 Identity-based 16. Handbook of Brand 36 Ashworth, Dacin, Thomson (2009) Relationships 82-106 Not limited Canada 515 Identity-based

117

17. Handbook of Brand 36 Ashworth, Dacin, Thomson (2009) Relationships 82-106 Not limited Canada 515 Trust-based 18. Handbook of Brand 36 Ashworth, Dacin, Thomson (2009) Relationships 82-106 Not limited Canada 515 Affect-based 19. Handbook of Brand 36 Ashworth, Dacin, Thomson (2009) Relationships 82-106 Not limited Canada 515 Identity-based 20. Handbook of Brand 36 Ashworth, Dacin, Thomson (2009) Relationships 82-106 Not limited Canada 515 Trust-based 21. Handbook of Brand 36 Ashworth, Dacin, Thomson (2009) Relationships 82-106 Not limited Canada 515 Trust-based 22. European Journal of 46, 11/12, 73 Consumer packaged Aurier, de Lanauze (2012) Marketing 1602-27 goods, Accessories France 404 Trust-based 23. European Journal of 39, 7/8, 89 Aydin, Özer (2005) Marketing 910-25 Telecommunications Turkey 1662 Trust-based 24. Bagozzi, Batra, Ahuvia (2017) Marketing Letters 28, 1, 1-14 3 Clothing retailing USA 308 Affect-based 25. 69, 4, 133- 109 Bart, Shankar, Sultan, Urban (2005) Journal of Marketing 52 A variety of websites USA 6831 Trust-based 26. Batra, Ahuvia, Bagozzi (2012) Journal of Marketing 76, 2, 1-16 4 Consumer electronics USA 187 Affect-based 27. Batra, Ahuvia, Bagozzi (2012) Journal of Marketing 76, 2, 1-16 4 Consumer electronics USA 187 Affect-based 28. Journal of Marketing 23, 1, 38- 121 A variety of retail Beatty, Givan, Franke, Reynolds (2015) Theory and Practice 56 stores USA 257 Identity-based 29. Journal of Marketing 23, 1, 38- 121 A variety of retail Beatty, Givan, Franke, Reynolds (2015) Theory and Practice 56 stores USA 257 Identity-based 30. Journal of Brand 17, 7, 504- 101 Consumer packaged Bergkvist, Bech-Larsen (2010) Management 18 goods Australia 135 Identity-based 31. Journal of Brand 17, 7, 504- 7 Consumer packaged Bergkvist, Bech-Larsen (2010) Management 18 goods Australia 158 Identity-based 32. Journal of Brand 17, 7, 504- 101 Consumer packaged Bergkvist, Bech-Larsen (2010) Management 18 goods Australia 135 Identity-based 33. Journal of Brand 17, 7, 504- 7 Consumer packaged Bergkvist, Bech-Larsen (2010) Management 18 goods Australia 158 Identity-based 34. Journal of Brand 17, 7, 504- 7 Consumer packaged Bergkvist, Bech-Larsen (2010) Management 18 goods Australia 158 Identity-based 35. Journal of Brand 17, 7, 504- 101 Consumer packaged Bergkvist, Bech-Larsen (2010) Management 18 goods Australia 135 Affect-based 36. Journal of Brand 17, 7, 504- 101 Consumer packaged Bergkvist, Bech-Larsen (2010) Management 18 goods Australia 135 Identity-based 37. Journal of Brand 17, 7, 504- 101 Consumer packaged Bergkvist, Bech-Larsen (2010) Management 18 goods Australia 135 Affect-based

118

38. Journal of Brand 17, 7, 504- 7 Consumer packaged Bergkvist, Bech-Larsen (2010) Management 18 goods Australia 158 Affect-based 39. Journal of Brand 17, 7, 504- 7 Consumer packaged Bergkvist, Bech-Larsen (2010) Management 18 goods Australia 158 Affect-based 40. Journal of Brand 17, 7, 504- 7 Consumer packaged Bergkvist, Bech-Larsen (2010) Management 18 goods Australia 158 Affect-based 41. Journal of Brand 17, 7, 504- 101 Consumer packaged Bergkvist, Bech-Larsen (2010) Management 18 goods Australia 135 Affect-based 42. 59, 4, 46- 110 Bhattacharya, Rao, Glynn (1995) Journal of Marketing 57 Art USA 238 Identity-based 43. 59, 4, 46- 110 Bhattacharya, Rao, Glynn (1995) Journal of Marketing 57 Art USA 238 Identity-based 44. 59, 4, 46- 110 Bhattacharya, Rao, Glynn (1995) Journal of Marketing 57 Art USA 238 Identity-based 45. 59, 4, 46- 110 Bhattacharya, Rao, Glynn (1995) Journal of Marketing 57 Art USA 238 Identity-based 46. Journal of the 24 Academy of 43, 2, 200- Brocato, Baker, Voorhees (2015) Marketing Science 20 Entertainment USA 196 Identity-based 47. Journal of the 102 Academy of 43, 2, 200- Brocato, Baker, Voorhees (2015) Marketing Science 20 Hospitality industry USA 907 Affect-based 48. Journal of the 24 Academy of 43, 2, 200- Brocato, Baker, Voorhees (2015) Marketing Science 20 Entertainment USA 196 Affect-based 49. Journal of the 24 Academy of 43, 2, 200- Brocato, Baker, Voorhees (2015) Marketing Science 20 Entertainment USA 196 Identity-based 50. Journal of the 102 Academy of 43, 2, 200- Brocato, Baker, Voorhees (2015) Marketing Science 20 Hospitality industry USA 907 Identity-based 51. Journal of the 24 Academy of 43, 2, 200- Brocato, Baker, Voorhees (2015) Marketing Science 20 Entertainment USA 196 Affect-based 52. Journal of Business 62, 3, 345- 72 Brodie, Whittome, Brush (2009) Research 55 Airlines New Zealand 552 Trust-based 53. Journal of Sport 26, 6, 463- 81 Carlson, O’Cass (2012) Management 78 Sport industry Australia 414 Trust-based

119

54. 17, 2, 79- 5 Consumer packaged Carroll, Ahuvia (2006) Marketing Letters 89 goods USA 334 Identity-based 55. 17, 2, 79- 5 Consumer packaged Carroll, Ahuvia (2006) Marketing Letters 89 goods USA 334 Affect-based 56. Journal of Business 94 Grocery retailing Castaldo, Perrini, Misani, Tencati (2009) Ethics 84, 1, 1-15 (Supermarkets) Italy 400 Trust-based 57. 65, 2, 81- 90 A variety of product Chaudhuri, Holbrook (2001) Journal of Marketing 93 categories USA 4380 Trust-based 58. 65, 2, 81- 90 A variety of product Chaudhuri, Holbrook (2001) Journal of Marketing 93 categories USA 4380 Trust-based 59. Journal of Brand 10, 1, 33- 82 A variety of product Chaudhuri, Holbrook (2002) Management 58 categories USA 4110 Trust-based 60. The Service 29, 1, 59- 93 Chen, Mau (2009) Industries Journal 74 Financial services Taiwan 215 Trust-based 61. Annals of Tourism 51, 1, 59- 45 Chen, Peng, Hung (2015) Research 63 Tourism Taiwan 102 Identity-based 62. Annals of Tourism 51, 1, 59- 45 Chen, Peng, Hung (2015) Research 63 Tourism Taiwan 102 Identity-based 63. International Journal 98 of Electronic 14, 1, 147- E-retailing (E- Chen, Zhang, Xu (2009) Commerce 71 commerce) China 389 Trust-based 64. Journal of the 86 Academy of 34, 4, 613- Chiou, Droge (2006) Marketing Science 27 Cosmetics industry USA 300 Trust-based 65. Journal of the 86 Academy of 34, 4, 613- Chiou, Droge (2006) Marketing Science 27 Cosmetics industry USA 300 Trust-based 66. Psychology and 32, 1, 28- 8 Cho, Fiore, Russell (2015) Marketing 48 Clothing retailing USA 2373 Affect-based 67. Psychology and 32, 1, 28- 8 Cho, Fiore, Russell (2015) Marketing 48 Clothing retailing USA 2373 Affect-based 68. Journal of Product 34 Innovation 32, 2, 233- Choi, Ko, Kim, Mattila (2015) Management 42 Sport industry South Korea 207 Affect-based 69. Journal of 141 Management 24, 4, 47- E-retailing (E- Cyr (2008) Information Systems 72 commerce) Canada 230 Trust-based

120

70. Journal of 79 Management 24, 4, 47- E-retailing (E- Cyr (2008) Information Systems 72 commerce) Germany 118 Trust-based 71. Journal of 103 Management 24, 4, 47- E-retailing (E- Cyr (2008) Information Systems 72 commerce) China 223 Trust-based 72. Delgado‐Ballester, Munuera‐Alemán European Journal of 35, 11/12, 57 Consumer packaged (2001) Marketing 1238-58 goods, Healthcare Spain 173 Trust-based 73. Journal of Business 142, 3, 119 Beverage industry, Deng, Xu (2017) Ethics 515-26 Tobacco industry China 338 Identity-based 74. Journal of Business 142, 3, 119 Beverage industry, Deng, Xu (2017) Ethics 515-26 Tobacco industry China 338 Identity-based 75. Psychology and 32, 6, 611- 125 Donavan, Janda, Maxham (2015) Marketing 23 Automotive industry USA 1193 Identity-based 76. International Journal 35, 3, 486- 116 Dwivedi, Johnson, McDonald (2016) of Advertising 503 Telecommunications India 535 Identity-based 77. International Journal 35, 3, 486- 116 Dwivedi, Johnson, McDonald (2016) of Advertising 503 Telecommunications India 535 Trust-based 78. Journal of the 128 Einwiller, Fedorikhin, Johnson, Kamins Academy of 34, 2, 185- (2006) Marketing Science 94 Financial services USA 210 Identity-based 79. Journal of Business 66, 6, 711- 48 Ekinci, Sirakaya-Turk, Preciado (2013) Research 18 Hospitality industry Turkey 361 Identity-based 80. Consumer-Brand 2 Relationships: Fetscherin, Dato-On (2012) Theory and Practice 151-64 Automotive Industry USA 180 Affect-based 81. Strong Brands, 19 Goode, Khamitov, Thomson (2015) Strong Relationships 216-32 Not limited Canada 175 Affect-based 82. Strong Brands, 19 Goode, Khamitov, Thomson (2015) Strong Relationships 216-32 Not limited Canada 175 Affect-based 83. Strong Brands, 20 Goode, Khamitov, Thomson (2015) Strong Relationships 216-32 Not limited USA 292 Affect-based 84. Strong Brands, 19 Goode, Khamitov, Thomson (2015) Strong Relationships 216-32 Not limited Canada 175 Affect-based 85. Strong Brands, 19 Goode, Khamitov, Thomson (2015) Strong Relationships 216-32 Not limited Canada 175 Affect-based 86. Strong Brands, 20 Goode, Khamitov, Thomson (2015) Strong Relationships 216-32 Not limited USA 292 Affect-based

121

87. Strong Brands, 19 Goode, Khamitov, Thomson (2015) Strong Relationships 216-32 Not limited Canada 175 Affect-based 88. Strong Brands, 19 Goode, Khamitov, Thomson (2015) Strong Relationships 216-32 Not limited Canada 175 Affect-based 89. Strong Brands, 20 Goode, Khamitov, Thomson (2015) Strong Relationships 216-32 Not limited USA 292 Affect-based 90. Strong Brands, 20 Goode, Khamitov, Thomson (2015) Strong Relationships 216-32 Not limited USA 292 Affect-based 91. Strong Brands, 20 Goode, Khamitov, Thomson (2015) Strong Relationships 216-32 Not limited USA 292 Affect-based 92. Strong Brands, 20 Goode, Khamitov, Thomson (2015) Strong Relationships 216-32 Not limited USA 292 Affect-based 93. Strong Brands, 19 Goode, Khamitov, Thomson (2015) Strong Relationships 216-32 Not limited Canada 175 Affect-based 94. Strong Brands, 20 Goode, Khamitov, Thomson (2015) Strong Relationships 216-32 Not limited USA 292 Affect-based 95. Strong Brands, 19 Goode, Khamitov, Thomson (2015) Strong Relationships 216-32 Not limited Canada 175 Affect-based 96. Strong Brands, 20 Goode, Khamitov, Thomson (2015) Strong Relationships 216-32 Not limited USA 292 Affect-based 97. Journal of Service 20, 3, 290- 52 Grocery retailing Guenzi, Johnson, Castaldo (2009) Management 316 (Supermarkets) Italy 393 Trust-based 98. Journal of Service 20, 3, 290- 52 Grocery retailing Guenzi, Johnson, Castaldo (2009) Management 316 (Supermarkets) Italy 393 Trust-based 99. Journal of Brand 137 A variety of product Guido, Peluso (2015) Management 22, 1, 1-19 categories Italy 951 Identity-based 100. Psychology and 29, 5, 350- 97 Hansen (2012) Marketing 64 Financial services Denmark 1155 Trust-based 101. Psychology and 29, 5, 350- 97 Hansen (2012) Marketing 64 Financial services Denmark 817 Trust-based 102. Journal of Consumer 13, 6, 442- 99 Hansen (2014) Behavior 52 Financial services Denmark 757 Trust-based 103. Journal of Consumer 13, 6, 442- 97 Hansen (2014) Behavior 52 Financial services Denmark 1155 Trust-based 104. 80, 2, 139- 104 E-retailing (E- Harris, Goode (2004) Journal of Retailing 58 commerce) United Kingdom 294 Trust-based 105. 80, 2, 139- 105 E-retailing (E- Harris, Goode (2004) Journal of Retailing 58 commerce) United Kingdom 204 Trust-based

122

106. European Journal of 49, 3/4, 80 Haryanto, Silva, Moutinho (2015) Marketing 372-97 Restaurant industry Malaysia 230 Trust-based 107. Journal of Business 100, 4, 41 He, Li (2011) Ethics 673-88 Telecommunications Taiwan 268 Identity-based 108. Journal of Business 65, 5, 648- 87 He, Li, Harris (2012) Research 57 Consumer electronics Taiwan 199 Trust-based 109. Journal of Business 65, 5, 648- 88 He, Li, Harris (2012) Research 57 Cosmetics industry Taiwan 201 Identity-based 110. Journal of Business 65, 5, 648- 88 He, Li, Harris (2012) Research 57 Cosmetics industry Taiwan 201 Trust-based 111. 15 Consumer packaged goods, Automotive Advances in industry, Hem, Iversen (2003) Consumer Research 30, 72-79 Telecommunications Norway 701 Identity-based 112. Journal of Interactive 28, 2, 149- 135 Hollebeek, Glynn, Brodie (2014) Marketing 65 Social media New Zealand 556 Identity-based 113. 73, 2, 38- 47 Homburg, Wieseke, Hoyer (2009) Journal of Marketing 54 Hospitality Industry Germany 597 Identity-based 114. Journal of Travel 51, 1, 81- 53 Hsu, Oh, Assaf (2012) Research 93 Hospitality industry China 1346 Trust-based 115. Journal of Travel 51, 1, 81- 53 Hsu, Oh, Assaf (2012) Research 93 Hospitality industry China 1346 Trust-based 116. European Journal of 49, 7/8, 76 Huang, Phau (2015) Marketing 1234-55 Entertainment Australia 1135 Affect-based 117. European Journal of 49, 7/8, 28 Huang, Phau (2015) Marketing 1234-55 Entertainment Taiwan 736 Affect-based 118. International Journal 139 of Research in 33, 1, 27- Hudson, Huang, Roth, Madden (2016) Marketing 41 Consumer electronics USA 207 Identity-based 119. International Journal 140 of Research in 33, 1, 27- Hudson, Huang, Roth, Madden (2016) Marketing 41 Automotive industry USA 281 Identity-based 120. International Journal 138 of Research in 33, 1, 27- France, United Hudson, Huang, Roth, Madden (2016) Marketing 41 Sport Industry Kingdom, USA 533 Affect-based 121. International Journal 138 of Research in 33, 1, 27- France, United Hudson, Huang, Roth, Madden (2016) Marketing 41 Sport Industry Kingdom, USA 533 Identity-based

123

122. International Journal 140 of Research in 33, 1, 27- Hudson, Huang, Roth, Madden (2016) Marketing 41 Automotive industry USA 281 Affect-based 123. International Journal 138 of Research in 33, 1, 27- France, United Hudson, Huang, Roth, Madden (2016) Marketing 41 Sport Industry Kingdom, USA 533 Trust-based 124. International Journal 138 of Research in 33, 1, 27- France, United Hudson, Huang, Roth, Madden (2016) Marketing 41 Sport Industry Kingdom, USA 533 Affect-based 125. Journal of Brand 21, 7/8, 18 Hung (2014) Management 594-614 Automotive industry Taiwan 280 Affect-based 126. Journal of Brand 21, 7/8, 18 Hung (2014) Management 594-614 Automotive industry Taiwan 280 Identity-based 127. Journal of Brand 21, 4, 342- 29 Ilicic, Webster (2014) Management 63 Accessories Australia 309 Trust-based 128. Journal of Brand 21, 4, 342- 29 Ilicic, Webster (2014) Management 63 Accessories Australia 309 Trust-based 129. Journal of Brand 21, 4, 342- 108 Financial services, Ilicic, Webster (2014) Management 63 Consumer electronics Australia 342 Affect-based 130. Psychology and 29, 6, 445- 16 Jahn, Gaus, Kiessling (2012) Marketing 57 Beverage industry Germany 341 Identity-based 131. Psychology and 29, 6, 445- 16 Jahn, Gaus, Kiessling (2012) Marketing 57 Beverage industry Germany 341 Trust-based 132. Journal of Business 68, 2, 464- 42 Kang, Brashear Alejandro, Groza (2015) Research 71 Not limited USA 573 Identity-based 133. Journal of Business 68, 2, 464- 42 Kang, Brashear Alejandro, Groza (2015) Research 71 Not limited USA 573 Identity-based 134. Journal of Services 28, 5, 361- 60 Kharouf, Lund, Sekhon (2014) Marketing 73 Hospitality industry United Kingdom 420 Trust-based 135. Journal of Services 28, 5, 361- 60 Kharouf, Lund, Sekhon (2014) Marketing 73 Hospitality industry United Kingdom 420 Trust-based 136. Psychology and 29, 4, 257- 75 E-retailing (E- Kim, Gupta (2012) Marketing 69 commerce) South Korea 367 Trust-based 137. Journal of Business 61, 1, 75- 56 Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kang (2008) Research 82 Healthcare South Korea 532 Trust-based 138. Kressmann, Sirgy, Herrmann, Huber, Journal of Business 59, 9, 955- 123 Huber, Lee (2006) Research 64 Automotive industry Germany 600 Identity-based 139. Computers in Human 114 E-retailing (E- Kudeshia, Sikdar, Mittal (2016) Behavior 54, 257-70 commerce) India 172 Affect-based

124

140. Computers in Human 114 E-retailing (E- Kudeshia, Sikdar, Mittal (2016) Behavior 54, 257-70 commerce) India 139 Affect-based 141. 107 Belgium, Netherlands, France, United Kingdom, Beverage industry, Germany, Spain, Sport industry, Italy, Sweden, Consumer Denmark, electronics, Switzerland, Journal of Restaurant industry, Slovakia, Turkey, International 43, 3, 306- E-retailing (E- Romania, Poland, Lam, Ahearne, Schillewaert (2012) Business Studies 31 commerce) USA 5919 Identity-based 142. 107 Belgium, Netherlands, France, United Kingdom, Beverage industry, Germany, Spain, Sport industry, Italy, Sweden, Consumer Denmark, electronics, Switzerland, Journal of Restaurant industry, Slovakia, Turkey, International 43, 3, 306- E-retailing (E- Romania, Poland, Lam, Ahearne, Schillewaert (2012) Business Studies 31 commerce) USA 5919 Identity-based 143. Journal of Interactive 28, 1, 26- 17 Lam, Shankar (2014) Marketing 42 Consumer electronics Singapore 514 Trust-based 144. Journal of Interactive 28, 1, 26- 17 Lam, Shankar (2014) Marketing 42 Consumer electronics Singapore 514 Trust-based 145. Journal of Interactive 28, 1, 26- 17 Lam, Shankar (2014) Marketing 42 Consumer electronics Singapore 514 Affect-based 146. Journal of Interactive 28, 1, 26- 17 Lam, Shankar (2014) Marketing 42 Consumer electronics Singapore 514 Trust-based 147. Journal of Interactive 28, 1, 26- 17 Lam, Shankar (2014) Marketing 42 Consumer electronics Singapore 514 Trust-based 148. Journal of Interactive 28, 1, 26- 17 Lam, Shankar (2014) Marketing 42 Consumer electronics Singapore 514 Affect-based 149. Laroche, Habibi, Richard, Computers in Human 28, 5, 91 A variety of product Sankaranarayanan (2012) Behavior 1755-67 categories Canada 441 Trust-based 150. Journal of Business 65, 11, 43 Lee, Park, Rapert, Newman (2012) Research 1558-64 Not limited South Korea 218 Identity-based

125

151. Leonidou, Kvasova, Leonidou, Chari Journal of Business 112, 3, 61 (2013) Ethics 397-415 Not limited Cyprus 387 Trust-based 152. 68, 4, 16- 113 Grocery retailing Lichtenstein, Drumwright, Braig (2004) Journal of Marketing 32 (Supermarkets) USA 508 Identity-based 153. 68, 4, 16- 113 Grocery retailing Lichtenstein, Drumwright, Braig (2004) Journal of Marketing 32 (Supermarkets) USA 508 Identity-based 154. Lobschat, Zinnbauer, Pallas, 46, 1/2, 100 Joachimsthaler (2013) Long Range Planning 125-48 Automotive industry USA 304 Trust-based 155. Psychology and 32, 7, 751- 23 Loroz, Braig (2015) Marketing 63 Celebrities USA 138 Trust-based 156. Psychology and 32, 7, 751- 23 Loroz, Braig (2015) Marketing 63 Celebrities USA 138 Affect-based 157. Psychology and 32, 7, 751- 23 Loroz, Braig (2015) Marketing 63 Celebrities USA 138 Trust-based 158. Psychology and 32, 7, 751- 23 Loroz, Braig (2015) Marketing 63 Celebrities USA 138 Trust-based 159. Psychology and 32, 7, 751- 23 Loroz, Braig (2015) Marketing 63 Celebrities USA 138 Affect-based 160. Psychology and 32, 7, 751- 23 Loroz, Braig (2015) Marketing 63 Celebrities USA 138 Affect-based 161. Journal of Brand 20, 1, 13- 1 Loureiro, Kaufmann, Vrontis (2012) Management 27 Automotive Industry Portugal 329 Trust-based 162. Journal of Brand 20, 1, 13- 1 Loureiro, Kaufmann, Vrontis (2012) Management 27 Automotive Industry Portugal 329 Trust-based 163. Journal of Brand 20, 1, 13- 1 Loureiro, Kaufmann, Vrontis (2012) Management 27 Automotive Industry Portugal 329 Affect-based 164. Journal of Brand 20, 1, 13- 1 Loureiro, Kaufmann, Vrontis (2012) Management 27 Automotive Industry Portugal 329 Affect-based 165. Journal of Brand 20, 1, 13- 1 Loureiro, Kaufmann, Vrontis (2012) Management 27 Automotive Industry Portugal 329 Identity-based 166. Journal of Brand 20, 1, 13- 1 Loureiro, Kaufmann, Vrontis (2012) Management 27 Automotive Industry Portugal 329 Identity-based 167. Journal of Brand 20, 1, 13- 1 Loureiro, Kaufmann, Vrontis (2012) Management 27 Automotive Industry Portugal 329 Affect-based 168. Journal of Brand 20, 1, 13- 1 Loureiro, Kaufmann, Vrontis (2012) Management 27 Automotive Industry Portugal 329 Affect-based 169. 27, 4, 661- 30 Consumer packaged Love, Staton, Rotman (2016) Marketing Letters 74 goods USA 205 Affect-based

126

170. International Journal 84 of Research in 14, 5, 487- A variety of retail Macintosh, Lockshin (1997) Marketing 97 stores Australia 308 Trust-based 171. International Journal 84 of Research in 14, 5, 487- A variety of retail Macintosh, Lockshin (1997) Marketing 97 stores Australia 308 Trust-based 172. Journal of Brand 19, 7, 595- 13 Magnoni, Roux (2012) Management 608 Automotive Industry France 154 Identity-based 173. Journal of Brand 19, 7, 595- 13 Magnoni, Roux (2012) Management 608 Automotive Industry France 154 Trust-based 174. Journal of Brand 19, 7, 595- 13 Magnoni, Roux (2012) Management 608 Automotive Industry France 154 Affect-based 175. Journal of Business 84, 1, 65- 49 Marin, Ruiz, Rubio (2009) Ethics 78 Financial services Spain 400 Identity-based 176. European Journal of 47, 1/2, 38 Marzocchi, Morandin, Bergami (2013) Marketing 93-114 Automotive industry Italy 256 Identity-based 177. European Journal of 47, 1/2, 38 Marzocchi, Morandin, Bergami (2013) Marketing 93-114 Automotive industry Italy 256 Trust-based 178. Matzler, Pichler, Füller, Mooradian Journal of Marketing 27, 9/10, 31 (2011) Management 874-90 Automotive Industry Austria 662 Affect-based 179. Matzler, Pichler, Füller, Mooradian Journal of Marketing 27, 9/10, 31 (2011) Management 874-90 Automotive Industry Austria 662 Trust-based 180. Journal of the 54 Sport Industry, Academy of 40, 6, 807- Consumer Mazodier, Merunka (2012) Marketing Science 20 Electronics France 449 Trust-based 181. 10 Consumer Journal of Brand 21, 3, 254- electronics, Kitchen Millán, Díaz (2014) Management 72 appliances Spain 450 Identity-based 182. 83 Consumer Miquel-Romero, Caplliure-Giner, Journal of Business 67, 5, 667- electronics, Kitchen Adame-Sánchez (2014) Research 72 appliances Spain 434 Trust-based 183. 83 Consumer Miquel-Romero, Caplliure-Giner, Journal of Business 67, 5, 667- electronics, Kitchen Adame-Sánchez (2014) Research 72 appliances Spain 434 Trust-based 184. International 32, 5, 518- 117 Moon, Lee, Oh (2015) Marketing Review 39 Consumer electronics USA 141 Identity-based 185. International 32, 5, 518- 142 Moon, Lee, Oh (2015) Marketing Review 39 Consumer electronics South Korea 199 Identity-based

127

186. International 32, 5, 518- 117 Moon, Lee, Oh (2015) Marketing Review 39 Consumer electronics USA 141 Identity-based 187. International 32, 5, 518- 142 Moon, Lee, Oh (2015) Marketing Review 39 Consumer electronics South Korea 199 Identity-based 188. Annals of Tourism 38, 3, 39 Nam, Ekinci, Whyatt (2011) Research 1009-30 Hospitality industry United Kingdom 378 Identity-based 189. Journal of Services 28, 6, 484- 77 A variety of retail Nguyen, Klaus, Simkin (2014) Marketing 97 services United Kingdom 443 Trust-based 190. Journal of 62 International 17, 1, 91- Nijssen, van Herk (2009) Marketing 115 Financial services Germany 160 Trust-based 191. Nyffenegger, Krohmer, Hoyer, Malär Journal of Service 18, 1, 90- 127 (2015) Research 106 Airlines Switzerland 631 Trust-based 192. Nyffenegger, Krohmer, Hoyer, Malär Journal of Service 18, 1, 90- 127 (2015) Research 106 Airlines Switzerland 631 Identity-based 193. Nyffenegger, Krohmer, Hoyer, Malär Journal of Service 18, 1, 90- 127 (2015) Research 106 Airlines Switzerland 631 Affect-based 194. Nyffenegger, Krohmer, Hoyer, Malär Journal of Service 18, 1, 90- 127 (2015) Research 106 Airlines Switzerland 631 Affect-based 195. Nyffenegger, Krohmer, Hoyer, Malär Journal of Service 18, 1, 90- 127 (2015) Research 106 Airlines Switzerland 631 Affect-based 196. Nyffenegger, Krohmer, Hoyer, Malär Journal of Service 18, 1, 90- 127 (2015) Research 106 Airlines Switzerland 631 Trust-based 197. Nyffenegger, Krohmer, Hoyer, Malär Journal of Service 18, 1, 90- 127 (2015) Research 106 Airlines Switzerland 631 Identity-based 198. Nyffenegger, Krohmer, Hoyer, Malär Journal of Service 18, 1, 90- 127 (2015) Research 106 Airlines Switzerland 631 Identity-based 199. Nyffenegger, Krohmer, Hoyer, Malär Journal of Service 18, 1, 90- 127 (2015) Research 106 Airlines Switzerland 631 Trust-based 200. Nyffenegger, Krohmer, Hoyer, Malär Journal of Service 18, 1, 90- 127 (2015) Research 106 Airlines Switzerland 631 Affect-based 201. Nyffenegger, Krohmer, Hoyer, Malär Journal of Service 18, 1, 90- 127 (2015) Research 106 Airlines Switzerland 631 Affect-based 202. Nyffenegger, Krohmer, Hoyer, Malär Journal of Service 18, 1, 90- 127 (2015) Research 106 Airlines Switzerland 631 Affect-based 203. Nyffenegger, Krohmer, Hoyer, Malär Journal of Service 18, 1, 90- 127 (2015) Research 106 Airlines Switzerland 631 Identity-based 204. Nyffenegger, Krohmer, Hoyer, Malär Journal of Service 18, 1, 90- 127 (2015) Research 106 Airlines Switzerland 631 Affect-based

128

205. Nyffenegger, Krohmer, Hoyer, Malär Journal of Service 18, 1, 90- 127 (2015) Research 106 Airlines Switzerland 631 Trust-based 206. Nyffenegger, Krohmer, Hoyer, Malär Journal of Service 18, 1, 90- 127 (2015) Research 106 Airlines Switzerland 631 Affect-based 207. Journal of Business 63, 11, 33 Orth, Limon, Rose (2010) Research 1202-08 Beverage industry USA 319 Affect-based 208. Park, MacInnis, Priester, Eisingerich, 112 Iacobucci (2010) Journal of Marketing 74, 6, 1-17 Financial services Europe 697 Affect-based 209. Park, MacInnis, Priester, Eisingerich, 112 Iacobucci (2010) Journal of Marketing 74, 6, 1-17 Financial services Europe 697 Affect-based 210. Park, MacInnis, Priester, Eisingerich, 111 Iacobucci (2010) Journal of Marketing 74, 6, 1-17 Sport Industry USA 141 Affect-based 211. Park, MacInnis, Priester, Eisingerich, 111 Iacobucci (2010) Journal of Marketing 74, 6, 1-17 Sport Industry USA 141 Affect-based 212. Park, MacInnis, Priester, Eisingerich, 111 Iacobucci (2010) Journal of Marketing 74, 6, 1-17 Sport Industry USA 141 Affect-based 213. Park, MacInnis, Priester, Eisingerich, 112 Iacobucci (2010) Journal of Marketing 74, 6, 1-17 Financial services Europe 697 Affect-based 214. Handbook of Brand 106 Park, Priester, MacInnis, Wan (2009) Relationships 327-41 Consumer electronics USA 280 Affect-based 215. Handbook of Brand 106 Park, Priester, MacInnis, Wan (2009) Relationships 327-41 Consumer electronics USA 280 Affect-based 216. European Journal of 48, 5/6, 85 Paulssen, Roulet, Wilke (2014) Marketing 964-81 Automotive Industry Switzerland 503 Trust-based 217. Journal of Brand 20, 8, 656- 21 Consumer packaged Pauwels-Delassus, Descotes (2013) Management 69 goods France 300 Trust-based 218. International Journal 124 of Electronic 17, 3, 63- Pentina, Gammoh, Zhang, Mallin (2013) Commerce 86 Social media USA 284 Identity-based 219. International Journal 124 of Electronic 17, 3, 63- Pentina, Gammoh, Zhang, Mallin (2013) Commerce 86 A variety of brands USA 200 Identity-based 220. International Journal 124 of Electronic 17, 3, 63- Pentina, Gammoh, Zhang, Mallin (2013) Commerce 86 A variety of brands USA 84 Identity-based 221. Computers in Human 29, 4, 143 Pentina, Zhang, Basmanova (2013) Behavior 1546-55 Social media USA 184 Identity-based 222. Computers in Human 29, 4, 133 Pentina, Zhang, Basmanova (2013) Behavior 1546-55 Social media Ukraine 125 Identity-based

129

223. Computers in Human 29, 4, 133 Pentina, Zhang, Basmanova (2013) Behavior 1546-55 A variety of brands Ukraine 125 Identity-based 224. Computers in Human 29, 4, 133 Pentina, Zhang, Basmanova (2013) Behavior 1546-55 Social media Ukraine 125 Trust-based 225. Computers in Human 29, 4, 143 Pentina, Zhang, Basmanova (2013) Behavior 1546-55 A variety of brands USA 184 Identity-based 226. Computers in Human 29, 4, 143 Pentina, Zhang, Basmanova (2013) Behavior 1546-55 Social media USA 184 Trust-based 227. Journal of Business 129, 3, 37 Pérez, del Bosque (2015a) Ethics 571-84 Financial services Spain 1124 Identity-based 228. Journal of Services 29, 1, 15- 40 Pérez, del Bosque (2015b) Marketing 25 Financial services Spain 648 Identity-based 229. Journal of Services 29, 1, 15- 40 Pérez, del Bosque (2015b) Marketing 25 Financial services Spain 476 Identity-based 230. International Journal 69 of Electronic 14, 4, 127- E-retailing (E- Pizzutti, Fernandes (2010) Commerce 60 commerce) Brazil 3206 Trust-based 231. Journal of Marketing 29, 3/4, 58 Grocery retailing Rafiq, Fulford, Lu (2013) Management 494-517 (Supermarkets) United Kingdom 491 Trust-based 232. 22 Restaurant industry, Consumer Journal of Brand 21, 7/8, electronics, Beverage Ramaseshan, Stein (2014) Management 664-83 industry Australia 300 Affect-based 233. 22 Restaurant industry, Consumer Journal of Brand 21, 7/8, electronics, Beverage Ramaseshan, Stein (2014) Management 664-83 industry Australia 300 Trust-based 234. 22 Restaurant industry, Consumer Journal of Brand 21, 7/8, electronics, Beverage Ramaseshan, Stein (2014) Management 664-83 industry Australia 300 Trust-based 235. 22 Restaurant industry, Consumer Journal of Brand 21, 7/8, electronics, Beverage Ramaseshan, Stein (2014) Management 664-83 industry Australia 300 Affect-based 236. 22 Restaurant industry, Consumer Journal of Brand 21, 7/8, electronics, Beverage Ramaseshan, Stein (2014) Management 664-83 industry Australia 300 Affect-based

130

237. 22 Restaurant industry, Consumer Journal of Brand 21, 7/8, electronics, Beverage Ramaseshan, Stein (2014) Management 664-83 industry Australia 300 Trust-based 238. Journal of Business 68, 11, 118 Randhawa, Calantone, Voorhees (2015) Research 2395-403 Accessories USA 296 Identity-based 239. Journal of Consumer 14 Rindfleisch, Burroughs, Wong (2009) Research 36, 1, 1-16 Not limited USA 314 Identity-based 240. Journal of Consumer 14 Rindfleisch, Burroughs, Wong (2009) Research 36, 1, 1-16 Not limited USA 314 Identity-based 241. Journal of Strategic 21, 3, 260- 63 Roy (2013) Marketing 76 Telecommunications India 582 Trust-based 242. Journal of Service 13, 2, 216- 72 Sajtos, Brodie, Whittome (2010) Research 29 Airlines New Zealand 552 Trust-based 243. Journal of Interactive 23, 3, 247- 96 Sanchez-Franco (2009) Marketing 58 Financial services Spain 456 Trust-based 244. The Service 34, 5, 455- 78 E-retailing (E- Sanz-Blasa, Ruiz-Maféa, Perez (2014) Industries Journal 75 commerce) Mexico 230 Trust-based 245. Sen, Johnson, Bhattacharya, Wang Review of Marketing 27 (2015) Research 12, 151-74 Not limited Canada 268 Identity-based 246. Sen, Johnson, Bhattacharya, Wang Review of Marketing 27 (2015) Research 12, 151-74 Not limited Canada 268 Affect-based 247. Journal of Business 111, 4, 68 Consumer packaged Singh, Iglesias, Batista-Foguet (2012) Ethics 541-49 goods Spain 16108 Trust-based 248. 66, 1, 15- 64 Sirdeshmukh, Singh, Sabol (2002) Journal of Marketing 37 Airlines USA 113 Trust-based 249. 66, 1, 15- 65 Sirdeshmukh, Singh, Sabol (2002) Journal of Marketing 37 Clothing retailing USA 246 Trust-based 250. Journal of the 132 Sirgy, Grewal, Mangleburg, Park, Chon, Academy of 25, 3, 229- Claiborne, Johar, Berkman (1997) Marketing Science 41 Higher education USA 252 Identity-based 251. Journal of the 130 Sirgy, Grewal, Mangleburg, Park, Chon, Academy of 25, 3, 229- A variety of product Claiborne, Johar, Berkman (1997) Marketing Science 41 categories USA 428 Identity-based 252. Journal of the 131 Sirgy, Grewal, Mangleburg, Park, Chon, Academy of 25, 3, 229- Claiborne, Johar, Berkman (1997) Marketing Science 41 Financial services USA 320 Identity-based

131

253. Journal of the 129 Sirgy, Grewal, Mangleburg, Park, Chon, Academy of 25, 3, 229- Claiborne, Johar, Berkman (1997) Marketing Science 41 Clothing retailing USA 229 Identity-based 254. Journal of the 132 Sirgy, Grewal, Mangleburg, Park, Chon, Academy of 25, 3, 229- Claiborne, Johar, Berkman (1997) Marketing Science 41 Higher education USA 252 Identity-based 255. Journal of the 131 Sirgy, Grewal, Mangleburg, Park, Chon, Academy of 25, 3, 229- Claiborne, Johar, Berkman (1997) Marketing Science 41 Financial services USA 320 Identity-based 256. Journal of the 130 Sirgy, Grewal, Mangleburg, Park, Chon, Academy of 25, 3, 229- A variety of product Claiborne, Johar, Berkman (1997) Marketing Science 41 categories USA 428 Identity-based 257. Journal of the 129 Sirgy, Grewal, Mangleburg, Park, Chon, Academy of 25, 3, 229- Claiborne, Johar, Berkman (1997) Marketing Science 41 Clothing retailing USA 229 Identity-based 258. Journal of Travel 55, 1, 64- 136 Hospitality industry, So, King, Sparks, Wang (2014) Research 78 Airlines Australia 496 Trust-based 259. Journal of Travel 55, 1, 64- 136 Hospitality industry, So, King, Sparks, Wang (2014) Research 78 Airlines Australia 496 Identity-based 260. 44 Beverage industry, Sport Industry, Consumer International Journal Electronics, Grocery Stokburger-Sauer, Ratneshwar, Sen of Research in 29, 4, 406- Retailing (2012) Marketing 18 (Supermarkets) Germany 781 Identity-based 261. 44 Beverage industry, Sport Industry, Consumer International Journal Electronics, Grocery Stokburger-Sauer, Ratneshwar, Sen of Research in 29, 4, 406- Retailing (2012) Marketing 18 (Supermarkets) Germany 781 Identity-based 262. The Service 30, 9, 59 General retailing Sun, Lin (2010) Industries Journal 1439-55 (Department Stores) Taiwan 383 Trust-based 263. 70 Clothing retailing, Accessories, Psychology and 27, 7, 639- Consumer packaged Sung, Kim (2010) Marketing 61 goods USA 646 Trust-based 264. Journal of Business 67, 11, 95 Consumer packaged Thompson, Newman, Liu (2014) Research 2437-46 goods China 316 Trust-based

132

265. 70, 3, 104- 26 Thomson (2006) Journal of Marketing 19 Celebrities USA 164 Trust-based 266. 70, 3, 104- 26 Thomson (2006) Journal of Marketing 19 Celebrities USA 164 Affect-based 267. 70, 3, 104- 26 Thomson (2006) Journal of Marketing 19 Celebrities USA 164 Affect-based 268. 70, 3, 104- 26 Thomson (2006) Journal of Marketing 19 Celebrities USA 164 Trust-based 269. Journal of Consumer 15, 1, 77- 35 Thomson, MacInnis, Park (2005) Psychology 91 Not limited USA 179 Affect-based 270. 6 Canada, USA, Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, European Journal of 45, 7/8, A variety of service Hong Kong, Tsai (2011) Marketing 1194-213 industries Australia 2481 Identity-based 271. 6 Canada, USA, Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, European Journal of 45, 7/8, A variety of service Hong Kong, Tsai (2011) Marketing 1194-213 industries Australia 2481 Trust-based 272. 6 Canada, USA, Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, European Journal of 45, 7/8, A variety of service Hong Kong, Tsai (2011) Marketing 1194-213 industries Australia 2481 Affect-based 273. Journal of Services 27, 6, 458- 32 Tsiotsou (2013) Marketing 71 Sport Industry Greece 287 Trust-based 274. Journal of Services 27, 6, 458- 32 Tsiotsou (2013) Marketing 71 Sport Industry Greece 287 Identity-based 275. Journal of Services 27, 6, 458- 32 Tsiotsou (2013) Marketing 71 Sport Industry Greece 287 Affect-based 276. Vlachos, Theotokis, Pramatari, European Journal of 44, 9/10, 12 Grocery retailing Vrechopoulos (2010) Marketing 1478-99 (Supermarkets) Greece 163 Trust-based 277. Vlachos, Theotokis, Pramatari, European Journal of 44, 9/10, 12 Grocery retailing Vrechopoulos (2010) Marketing 1478-99 (Supermarkets) Greece 163 Identity-based 278. Vlachos, Theotokis, Pramatari, European Journal of 44, 9/10, 12 Grocery retailing Vrechopoulos (2010) Marketing 1478-99 (Supermarkets) Greece 163 Affect-based 279. Wallace, Buil, de Chernatony, Hogan Journal of 54, 1, 92- 9 (2014) Advertising Research 109 Not limited Ireland 438 Identity-based

133

280. Wallace, Buil, de Chernatony, Hogan Journal of 54, 1, 92- 9 (2014) Advertising Research 109 Not limited Ireland 438 Identity-based 281. Wallace, Buil, de Chernatony, Hogan Journal of 54, 1, 92- 9 (2014) Advertising Research 109 Not limited Ireland 438 Affect-based 282. British Journal of 20, 2, 187- 71 Walsh, Mitchell, Jackson, Beatty (2009) Management 203 Public utilities Germany 511 Trust-based 283. Journal of the 120 Academy of 44, 3, 397- Wolter, Cronin (2016) Marketing Science 413 Not limited USA 628 Identity-based 284. Journal of the 120 Academy of 44, 3, 397- Wolter, Cronin (2016) Marketing Science 413 Not limited USA 628 Identity-based 285. Journal of the 120 Academy of 44, 3, 397- Wolter, Cronin (2016) Marketing Science 413 Not limited USA 628 Identity-based 286. Journal of the 120 Academy of 44, 3, 397- Wolter, Cronin (2016) Marketing Science 413 Not limited USA 628 Identity-based 287. Journal of Marketing 24, 3/4, 67 Wu, Chan, Lau (2008) Management 345-60 Consumer electronics Hong Kong 308 Trust-based 288. Journal of Marketing 24, 3/4, 67 Wu, Chan, Lau (2008) Management 345-60 Consumer electronics Hong Kong 308 Trust-based 289. Journal of Sport 26, 2, 177- 51 Wu, Tsai, Hung (2012) Management 91 Sport Industry Taiwan 217 Trust-based 290. Journal of Sport 26, 2, 177- 51 Wu, Tsai, Hung (2012) Management 91 Sport Industry Taiwan 217 Identity-based 291. Journal of Sport 26, 2, 177- 51 Wu, Tsai, Hung (2012) Management 91 Sport Industry Taiwan 217 Identity-based 292. Journal of Sport 26, 2, 177- 51 Wu, Tsai, Hung (2012) Management 91 Sport Industry Taiwan 217 Trust-based 293. journal of 115 International 23, 1, 50- Xie, Batra, Peng (2015) Marketing 71 Consumer electronics China 287 Trust-based 294. journal of 115 International 23, 1, 50- Xie, Batra, Peng (2015) Marketing 71 Consumer electronics China 287 Identity-based 295. Decision Support 55, 3, 669- 46 E-retailing (E- Yoo, Sanders, Moon (2013) Systems 78 commerce) South Korea 257 Identity-based

134

296. Yoshida, Gordon, Nakazawa, Biscaia Journal of Sport 28, 4, 399- 134 (2014) Management 417 Sport Industry Japan 472 Identity-based 297. Yoshida, Gordon, Nakazawa, Biscaia Journal of Sport 28, 4, 399- 134 (2014) Management 417 Sport Industry Japan 472 Identity-based 298. Yoshida, Gordon, Nakazawa, Biscaia Journal of Sport 28, 4, 399- 134 (2014) Management 417 Sport Industry Japan 472 Identity-based 299. Yoshida, Gordon, Nakazawa, Biscaia Journal of Sport 28, 4, 399- 134 (2014) Management 417 Sport Industry Japan 472 Identity-based 300. Computers in Human 44, 1, 357- 11 Zhang, Benyoucef, Zhao (2015) Behavior 68 Consumer electronics China 424 Trust-based 301. Computers in Human 44, 1, 357- 11 Zhang, Benyoucef, Zhao (2015) Behavior 68 Consumer electronics China 424 Identity-based 302. Journal of Service 11, 2, 161- 92 Clothing retailing, Zhang, Bloemer (2008) Research 78 Financial services Netherlands 1037 Trust-based 303. Journal of Business 65, 7, 890- 25 Zhou, Zhang, Su, Zhou (2012) Research 95 Automotive Industry China 437 Identity-based 304. Journal of Business 65, 7, 890- 25 Zhou, Zhang, Su, Zhou (2012) Research 95 Automotive Industry China 437 Affect-based

135

Appendix A Theme 2. Number of Elasticities over Time

80 75

40 37

Frequency 29 30 28 28 23

20 16 17 12 10 10 7 7 4 3 3 1 2 2 0 1992 1994 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Year of Data Collection in Primary Studies

Note: No data exists for 1993, 1995-1997, and 2004.

136

Appendix A Theme 3. Additional Robustness Checks

I performed a sensitivity analysis to rule out a ‘study effect’. Specifically, I omitted each of the studies in my sample one at the time. The results were robust throughout, suggesting that the sample is stable. I also accounted for the fact that the samples were drawn from 35 countries across five continents, with approximately 30% of brand relationship elasticities data taken from the United States. In around 95% of the cases, the studies investigated the impact of brand relationship on customer brand loyalty on a national level within one country. However, a smaller number of studies examined brand relationship elasticity across multiple countries. I used five dummy variables capturing if the data comes from America, Asia, Australia and Oceania, Europe, and Mixed location. While my key findings are still robust, I do not find significant results across these variables. To examine the possibility of the “file-drawer” problem or publication bias, I adopt several approaches. First, I calculate the fail-safe sample size (NFS) for significant results using Orwin’s (1983) method. The larger the NFS, the greater is the confidence in the results obtained. I estimate that 3,560 elasticities with an effect size of zero would need to exist to render brand relationship elasticity non-significant at the .05 level. I also use an alternative fail-safe N computation proposed by Rosenthal (1979) which gives me a value of 10,522, this being the quantity of unpublished elasticities with an effect size of zero that would have to exist to render the observed effects non-significant at the alpha = .05 level. This number comfortably exceeds Rosenthal’s (1991) recommendation that, for a sound meta-analysis, the fail-safe N should exceed 5k + 10, which is 1530 (k = 304) in the context of my study. It is highly unlikely that so many of such studies exist, and this metric is considered a good indicator of robustness and reinforces that the effect is not the result of a bias to publish only statistically significant results (Rosenthal 1991). In addition, the set of observed effect sizes contains substantial proportions of positive and some negative, as well as significant and non-significant elasticities, which provides an additional argument that my meta-analysis is unlikely to suffer from a substantial publication bias.

137

Appendix A Theme 4. Alternative Estimation of HLM Results

Variable Estimate SE DF t-value p-value Constant .450 .215 88.9 2.09 .039 Brand Relationship Elasticities Brand attachment -.032 .044 262 -.72 .474 Self-brand connection -.089 .041 262 -2.18 .030 Brand identification -.093 .046 303 -2.01 .046 Brand trust -.091 .038 269 -2.37 .019 Brand love 0 Moderator Variables Loyalty characteristics attitudinal and mixed vs. behavioral -.230 .043 278 -5.31 <.001 absolute vs. relative and mixed -.075 .025 301 -2.95 .003 prospective and mixed vs. retrospective .059 .029 289 2.04 .043 measured before vs. otherwise -.079 .039 283 -2.03 .043 Control Variables Journal characteristics marketing vs. non-marketing -.064 .037 150 -1.72 .088 Brand characteristics self-selected vs. provided -.006 .037 170 -.17 .863 favorite vs. otherwise -.016 .039 185 -.42 .675 product brand .097 .065 153 1.49 .139 service brand .040 .074 156 .55 .585 store brand .130 .073 158 1.78 .077 team brand .042 .114 127 .37 .711 human brand .130 .114 187 1.14 .257 mixed brand .110 .071 156 1.55 .124 place brand 0 Sample characteristics lab -.113 .089 249 -1.26 .210 field -.063 .048 177 -1.32 .190 other 0 Asia -.010 .051 195 -.19 .846 Australia and Oceania -.050 .058 187 -.86 .392 Europe -.047 .043 163 -1.09 .279 mixed -.042 .086 66 -.49 .627 America 0 Consumer characteristics students vs. non-students -.021 .075 252 -.28 .780 age .001 .003 151 .36 .719 gender .001 .001 197 .69 .490 Methodological characteristics survey vs. otherwise .037 .053 162 .70 .482 year of data collection 1994a .229 .229 91.3 1.00 .321

138

year of data collection 1998 .204 .246 85.8 .83 .408 year of data collection 1999 .022 .226 84 .10 .923 year of data collection 2000 -.029 .276 109 -.11 .915 year of data collection 2001 .151 .236 86.4 .64 .524 year of data collection 2002 .311 .246 98.7 1.27 .208 year of data collection 2003 .046 .223 86.6 .20 .838 year of data collection 2005 .123 .233 95.3 .53 .598 year of data collection 2006 .225 .219 84.7 1.03 .308 year of data collection 2007 .235 .223 86.9 1.06 .294 year of data collection 2008 .071 .221 82.2 .32 .748 year of data collection 2009 .211 .218 83.7 .97 .336 year of data collection 2010 .069 .219 85.5 .31 .755 year of data collection 2011 .218 .220 86.6 .99 .325 year of data collection 2012 .152 .214 80.6 .71 .480 year of data collection 2013 .089 .275 122 .32 .748 year of data collection 2014 -.045 .237 90.4 -.19 .850 year of data collection 1992 0 a No data exists for 1993, 1995-1997 and 2004. b Variables where estimates are zero serve as base/reference for their respective categories (e.g., attachment, self- brand connection, identification, trust are compared to love).

139

Table 3c Alternative Estimation of HLM Results with a Park et al. (2010) Attachment Dummy

Variable Estimate SE DF t-value p-value Constant .440 .213 88.7 2.06 .042 Brand Relationship Elasticities Brand attachment -.040 .045 252 -.89 .372 Self-brand connection -.089 .041 263 -2.19 .030 Brand identification -.093 .046 303 -2.01 .045 Brand trust -.089 .038 270 -2.33 .021 Park et al. (2010) attachment dummy .063 .062 297 1.01 .312 Brand love 0 Moderator Variables Loyalty characteristics attitudinal and mixed vs. behavioral -.233 .044 276 -5.36 <.001 absolute vs. relative and mixed -.075 .025 302 -2.93 .004 prospective and mixed vs. retrospective .059 .029 289 2.06 .041 measured before vs. otherwise -.081 .039 284 -2.06 .041 Control Variables Journal characteristics marketing vs. non-marketing -.061 .037 149 -1.67 .097 Brand characteristics self-selected vs. provided -.006 .037 170 -.16 .876 favorite vs. otherwise -.019 .038 186 -.48 .628 product brand .097 .065 153 1.49 .137 service brand .037 .074 157 .51 .612 store brand .132 .072 157 1.82 .070 team brand .044 .113 126 .39 .697 human brand .110 .116 187 .95 .343 mixed brand .110 .071 155 1.56 .121 place brand 0 Sample characteristics lab -.098 .090 255 -1.08 .280 field -.064 .048 177 -1.35 .179 other 0 Asia -.011 .051 195 -.22 .826 Australia and Oceania -.055 .058 189 -.94 .348 Europe -.046 .043 162 -1.07 .287 mixed -.042 .085 65.1 -.50 .622 America 0 Consumer characteristics students vs. non-students -.009 .075 259 -.11 .910 age .001 .003 151 .39 .698 gender .001 .001 196 .69 .493 Methodological characteristics

140

survey vs. otherwise .035 .053 164 .66 .511 year of data collection 1994a .229 .227 90.9 1.01 .316 year of data collection 1998 .204 .244 85 .84 .405 year of data collection 1999 .020 .223 83.3 .09 .928 year of data collection 2000 -.030 .274 109 -.11 .912 year of data collection 2001 .149 .234 85.6 .64 .526 year of data collection 2002 .314 .244 98.2 1.29 .201 year of data collection 2003 .050 .221 86 .23 .820 year of data collection 2005 .120 .231 94.8 .52 .605 year of data collection 2006 .222 .217 84.1 1.02 .310 year of data collection 2007 .226 .221 86.7 1.02 .309 year of data collection 2008 .072 .218 81.5 .33 .743 year of data collection 2009 .210 .216 83.1 .97 .333 year of data collection 2010 .061 .217 85 .28 .778 year of data collection 2011 .215 .218 86.1 .99 .327 year of data collection 2012 .154 .212 79.9 .73 .470 year of data collection 2013 .091 .273 122 .34 .738 year of data collection 2014 -.073 .237 90.1 -.31 .757 year of data collection 1992 0 a No data exists for 1993, 1995-1997 and 2004. b Variables where estimates are zero serve as base/reference for their respective categories (e.g., attachment, self- brand connection, identification, trust are compared to love).

141

Table 4b Alternative Estimation Results of HLM Interaction Effects

Variable Estimate SE DF t-value p-value

Brand Relationship Elasticities x Loyalty Characteristics (trust-based x behavioral) vs. (identification-based x behavioral) .250 .130 304 1.92 .056 (attachment-based x behavioral) vs. (identification-based x behavioral) .378 .128 303 2.95 .004 (love-based x behavioral) vs. (identification-based x behavioral) .425 .150 293 2.84 .005 (self-brand connection-based x behavioral) vs. (identification-based x .318 .133 304 2.40 .017 behavioral) (love-based x retrospective) vs. (identification-based x retrospective) .193 .111 211 1.73 .084 Brand Relationship Elasticities x Brand Characteristics (attachment-based x self-selected) vs. (trust-based x self-selected) .171 .073 259 2.34 .020 (attachment-based x favorite) vs. (trust-based x favorite) .154 .071 275 2.18 .030 (love-based x favorite) vs. (trust-based x favorite) .164 .076 254 2.16 .031 (identification-based x service brand) vs. (attachment-based x service brand) .254 .121 249 2.10 .037 (love-based x service brand) vs. (attachment-based x service brand) .171 .094 256 1.82 .070 (trust-based x team brand) vs. (attachment-based x team brand) .544 .233 237 2.34 .020 (identification-based x team brand) vs. (attachment-based x team brand) .531 .249 304 2.13 .034 (trust-based x place brand) vs. (identification-based x place brand) .262 .133 183 1.97 .050 Brand Relationship Elasticities x Sample Characteristics (identification-based x lab) vs. (love-based x lab) .369 .132 251 2.81 .005 (self-brand connection-based x lab) vs. (love-based x lab) .281 .154 303 1.83 .069 (identification-based x lab) vs. (attachment-based x lab) .208 .124 297 1.67 .095 (attachment-based x field) vs. (self-brand connection-based x field) .277 .140 302 1.97 .049 (attachment-based x field) vs. (love-based x field) .445 .244 279 1.83 .069 (trust-based x field) vs. (self-brand connection-based x field) .217 .125 303 1.74 .083 (love-based x other) vs. (trust-based x other) .306 .118 295 2.60 .010 (love-based x other) vs. (attachment-based x other) .299 .124 296 2.41 .016 (love-based x other) vs. (self-brand connection-based x other) .239 .130 301 1.84 .067 (love-based x other) vs. (identification-based x other) .363 .118 286 3.07 .002 (attachment-based x America) vs. (trust-based x America) .180 .076 289 2.38 .018 (self-brand connection-based x America) vs. (trust-based x America) .130 .077 304 1.69 .093 (trust-based x Austalia and Oceania) vs. (love-based x Australia and .320 .153 300 2.08 .038 Oceania) (attachment-based x Austalia and Oceania) vs. (love-based x Australia and .332 .167 300 1.99 .047 Oceania) (identification-based x Austalia and Oceania) vs. (love-based x Australia .352 .145 223 2.43 .016 and Oceania) (trust-based x Europe) vs. (attachment-based x Europe) .151 .070 260 2.14 .033 (love-based x Europe) vs. (attachment-based x Europe) .287 .088 249 3.24 .001 (identification-based x Europe) vs. (attachment-based x Europe) .161 .092 303 1.74 .082 (love-based x Europe) vs. (trust-based x Europe) .136 .074 271 1.85 .066 (love-based x Europe) vs. (self-brand connecton-based x Europe) .167 .081 242 2.05 .041 Brand Relationship Elasticities x Consumer Characteristics (love-based x non-students) vs. (trust-based x non-students) .256 .124 296 2.06 .040 (love-based x non-students) vs. (identification-based x non-students) .356 .113 273 3.15 .002 (love-based x non-students) vs. (self-brand connection-based x non- .305 .113 286 2.71 .007 students) (love-based) x (age) -.012 .006 281 -2.16 .032 (identification-based) x (age) .013 .006 251 2.26 .025

142

Appendix A Theme 5. References Agudo, Jesús Collado, Angel Herrero Crespo, and Ignacio Rodríguez del Bosque (2012), “Adherence to Customer Loyalty Programmes and Changes in Buyer Behaviour,” The Service Industries Journal, 32 (8), 1323-41. Agustin, Clara and Jagdip Singh (2005), “Curvilinear Effects of Consumer Loyalty Determinants in Relational Exchanges,” Journal of Marketing Research, 42 (1), 96-108. Albert, Noel, Dwight Merunka, and Pierre Valette-Florence (2009), “The Feeling of Love Toward a Brand: Concept and Measurement,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 36, ed. Ann L. McGill and Sharon Shavitt, Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research, 300-7. Albert, Noel, Dwight Merunka, and Pierre Valette-Florence (2013), “Brand Passion: Antecedents and Consequences,” Journal of Business Research, 66 (7), 904-9. Aldas-Manzano, Joaquin, Carla Ruiz-Mafe, Silvia Sanz-Blas, and Carlos Lassala-Navarré (2011), “Internet Banking Loyalty: Evaluating the Role of Trust, Satisfaction, Perceived Risk and Frequency of Use,” The Service Industries Journal, 31(7), 1165–90. Algesheimer, René, Utpal M. Dholakia, and Andreas Herrmann (2005), “The Social Influence of Brand Community: Evidence from European Car Clubs,” Journal of Marketing, 69 (3), 19- 34. Anderson, Rolph E. and Srinivasan Swaminathan (2011), “Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty in E-Markets: A PLS Path Modeling Approach,” Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19 (2), 221-34. Ashworth, Laurence, Peter Dacin, and Matthew Thomson (2009), “Why on Earth Do Consumers Have Relationships with Marketers: Toward Understanding the Functions of Brand Relationships,” in Handbook of Brand Relationships, ed. Deborah J. MacInnis, C. Whan Park, and Joseph R. Priester, Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 65-81. Aurier, Philippe and Gilles Séré de Lanauze (2012), “Impacts of Perceived Brand Relationship Orientation on Attitudinal Loyalty: An Application to Strong Brands in the Packaged Goods Sector,” European Journal of Marketing, 46, (11/12), 1602–27. Aydin, Serkan and Gökhan Özer (2005), “The Analysis of Antecedents of Customer Loyalty in the Turkish Mobile Telecommunication Market,” European Journal of Marketing, 39 (7/8), 910-25. Bagozzi, Richard P., Rajeev Batra, and Aaron Ahuvia (2017), “Brand Love: Development and Validation of a Practical Scale,” Marketing Letters, 28 (1), 1-14. Bart, Yakov, Venkatesh Shankar, Fareena Sultan, and Glen L. Urban (2005), “Are the Drivers and Role of Online Trust the Same for All Web Sites and Consumers? A Large-Scale Exploratory Empirical Study,” Journal of Marketing, 69 (4), 133-52. Batra, Rajeev, Aaron Ahuvia, and Richard P. Bagozzi (2012), “Brand Love,” Journal of Marketing, 76 (2), 1-16. Beatty, Sharon E., Alexa M. Givan, George R. Franke, and Kristy E. Reynolds (2015), “Social Store Identity and Adolescent Females’ Store Attitudes and Behaviors,” Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 23 (1), 38-56. Bergkvist, Lars and Tino Bech-Larsen (2010), “Two Studies of Consequences and Actionable Antecedents of Brand Love,” Journal of Brand Management, 17 (7), 504-18. Bhattacharya, C. B., Hayagreeva Rao, and Mary Ann Glynn (1995), “Understanding the Bond of Identification: An Investigation of Its Correlates among Art Museum Members,” Journal of Marketing, 59 (4), 46-57.

143

Brocato, E. Deanne, Julie Baker, and Clay M. Voorhees (2015), “Creating Consumer Attachment to Retail Service Firms through Sense of Place,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43 (2), 200-20. Brodie, Roderick J., James R.M. Whittome, and Gregory J. Brush (2009), “Investigating the Service Brand: A Customer Value Perspective,” Journal of Business Research, 62 (3), 345- 55. Carlson, Jamie and Aron O’Cass (2012), “Optimizing the Online Channel in Professional Sport to Create Trusting and Loyal Consumers: The Role of the Professional Sports Team Brand and Service Quality,” Journal of Sport Management, 26 (6), 463-78. Carroll, Barbara A. and Aaron C. Ahuvia (2006), “Some Antecedents and Outcomes of Brand Love,” Marketing Letters, 17 (2), 79-89. Castaldo, Sandro, Francesco Perrini, Nicola Misani, and Antonio Tencati (2009), “The Missing Link between Corporate Social Responsibility and Consumer Trust: The Case of Fair Trade Products,” Journal of Business Ethics, 84 (1), 1-15. Chaudhuri, Arjun and Morris 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. Chaudhuri, Arjun and Morris B. Holbrook (2002), “Product-Class Effects on Brand Commitment and Brand Outcomes: The Role of Brand Trust and Brand Affect,” Journal of Brand Management, 10 (1), 33-58. Chen, Annie, Norman Peng, and Kuang-peng Hung (2015), “Examining Tourists’ Loyalty toward Cultural Quarters,” Annals of Tourism Research, 51, 59-63. Chen, Jin, Cheng Zhang, and Yunjie Xu (2009), “The Role of Mutual Trust in Building Members’ Loyalty to a C2C Platform Provider,” International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 14 (1), 147-71. Chen, Mei-Fang and Liang-Hung Mau (2009), “The Impacts of Ethical Sales Behaviour on Customer Loyalty in the Life Insurance Industry,” The Service Industries Journal, 29 (1), 59-74. Chiou, Jyh-Shen and Cornelia Droge (2006), “Service Quality, Trust, Specific Asset Investment, and Expertise: Direct and Indirect Effects in a Satisfaction-Loyalty Framework,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34 (4), 613-27. Cho, Eunjoo, Ann Marie Fiore, and Daniel W. Russell (2015), “Validation of a Fashion Brand Image Scale Capturing Cognitive, Sensory, and Affective Associations: Testing Its Role in an Extended Brand Equity Model,” Psychology and Marketing, 32 (1), 28-48. Choi, Hyeonyoung, Eunju Ko, Eun Young Kim, and Pekka Mattila (2015), “The Role of Fashion Brand Authenticity in Product Management: A Holistic Marketing Approach,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32 (2), 233-42. Cyr, Dianne (2008), “Modeling Web Site Design across Cultures: Relationships to Trust, Satisfaction, and E-Loyalty,” Journal of Management Information Systems, 24 (4), 47-72. Delgado-Ballester, Elena and José Luis Munuera-Alemán (2001), “Brand Trust in the Context of Consumer Loyalty,” European Journal of Marketing, 35 (11/12), 1238-58. Deng, Xinming and Yang Xu (2017), “Consumers’ Responses to Corporate Social Responsibility Initiatives: The Mediating Role of Consumer-Company Identification,” Journal of Business Ethics, 142 (3), 515-26. Donavan, D. Todd, Swinder Janda, and James G. Maxham III (2015), “Identification and Aftermarket Personalization with Durable Goods,” Psychology and Marketing, 32 (6), 611-

144

23. Dwivedi, Abhishek, Lester W. Johnson, and Robert McDonald (2016), “Celebrity Endorsements, Self-Brand Connection and Relationship Quality,” International Journal of Advertising, 35 (3), 486-503. Einwiller, Sabine A., Alexander Fedorikhin, Allison R. Johnson, and Michael A. Kamins (2006), “Enough is Enough! When Identification No Longer Prevents Negative Corporate Associations,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34 (2), 185-94. Ekinci, Yuksel, Ercan Sirakaya-Turk, and Sandra Preciado (2013), “Symbolic Consumption of Tourism Destination Brands,” Journal of Business Research, 66 (6), 711-18. Fetscherin, Mark and Mary Conway Dato-On (2012), “Brand Love: Investigating Two Alternative Love Relationships”, in Consumer-Brand Relationships: Theory and Practice, ed. Susan Fournier, Michael Breazeale and Marc Fetscherin, London, New York: Routledge, 151-64. Goode, Miranda, Mansur Khamitov, and Matthew Thomson (2015), “Dyads, Triads and Consumer Treachery: When Interpersonal Connections Guard Against Brand Cheating,” in Strong Brands, Strong Relationships, ed. Susan Fournier, Michael Breazeale, and Jill Avery, London, UK: Routledge/Taylor and Francis Group, 216-32. Guenzi, Paolo, Michael D. Johnson, and Sandro Castaldo (2009), “A Comprehensive Model of Customer Trust in Two Retail Stores,” Journal of Service Management, 20 (3), 290-316. Guido, Gianluigi and Alessandro M. Peluso (2015), “Brand Anthropomorphism: Conceptualization, Measurement, and Impact on Brand Personality and Loyalty,” Journal of Brand Management, 22 (1), 1-19. Hansen, Torben (2012), “The Moderating Influence of Broad-Scope Trust on Customer-Seller Relationships,” Psychology and Marketing, 29 (5), 350-64. Hansen, Torben (2014), “The Role of Trust in Financial Customer-Seller Relationships Before and After the Financial Crisis,” Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 13 (6), 442-52. Harris, Lloyd C. and Mark M. H. Goode (2004), “The Four Levels of Loyalty and the Pivotal Role of Trust: A Study of Online Service Dynamics,” Journal of Retailing, 80 (2), 139-58. Haryanto, Jony Oktavian, Manuela Silva, and Luiz Moutinho (2015), “Neural Network Approach to Understanding the Children’s Market,” European Journal of Marketing, 49 (3/4), 372-97. He, Hongwei and Yan Li (2011), “CSR and Service Brand: The Mediating Effect of Brand Identification and Moderating Effect of Service Quality,” Journal of Business Ethics, 100 (4), 673-88. He, Hongwei, Yan Li, and Lloyd Harris (2012), “Social Identity Perspective on Brand Loyalty,” Journal of Business Research, 65 (5), 648-57. Hem, Leif E. and Nina M. Iversen (2003), “Transfer of Brand Equity in Brand Extensions: The Importance of Brand Loyalty,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 30, ed. Punam Anand Keller and Dennis W. Rook, Valdosta, GA: Association for Consumer Research, 72- 79. Hollebeek, Linda D., Mark S. Glynn, and Roderick J. Brodie (2014), “Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development and Validation,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 28 (2), 149-65. Homburg, Christian, Jan Wieseke, and Wayne D. Hoyer (2009), “Social Identity and the Service- Profit Chain,” Journal of Marketing, 73 (2), 38-54. Hsu, Cathy H. C., Haemoon Oh, and A. George Assaf (2012), “A Customer-Based Brand Equity

145

Model for Upscale Hotels,” Journal of Travel Research, 51 (1), 81-93. Huang, Yu-An, Chad Lin, and Ian Phau (2015), “Idol Attachment and Human Brand Loyalty,” European Journal of Marketing, 49 (7/8), 1234-55. Hudson, Simon, Li Huang, Martin S. Roth, and Thomas J. Madden (2016), “The Influence of Social Media Interactions on Consumer-Brand Relationships: A Three-Country Study of Brand Perceptions and Marketing Behaviors,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 33 (1), 27-41. Hung, Hsiu-Yu (2014), “Attachment, Identification, and Loyalty: Examining Mediating Mechanisms across Brand and Brand Community Contexts,” Journal of Brand Management, 21 (7-8), 594-614. Ilicic, Jasmina and Cynthia M. Webster (2014), “Investigating Consumer-Brand Relational Authenticity,” Journal of Brand Management, 21 (4), 342–63. Jahn, Steffen, Hansjoerg Gaus, and Tina Kiessling (2012), “Trust, Commitment, and Older Women: Exploring Brand Attachment Differences in the Elderly Segment,” Psychology and Marketing, 29 (6), 445-57. Kang, Jun, Thomas Brashear Alejandro, and Mark D. Groza (2015), “Customer-Company Identification and the Effectiveness of Loyalty Programs,” Journal of Business Research, 68 (2), 464-71. Kharouf, Husni, Donald J. Lund, and Harjit Sekhon (2014), “Building Trust by Signaling Trustworthiness in Service Retail,” Journal of Services Marketing, 28 (5), 361-73. Kim, Hee-Woong and Sumeet Gupta (2012), “Investigating Customer Resistance to Change in Transaction Relationship with an Internet Vendor,” Psychology and Marketing, 29 (4), 257- 69. Kim, Kyung Hoon, Kang Sik Kim, Dong Yul Kim, Jong Ho Kim, and Suk Hou Kang (2008), “Brand Equity in Hospital Marketing,” Journal of Business Research, 61 (1), 75-82. Kressmann, Frank, M. Joseph Sirgy, Andreas Herrmann, Frank Huber, Stephanie Huber, and Dong-Jin Lee (2006), “Direct and Indirect Effects of Self-Image Congruence on Brand Loyalty,” Journal of Business Research, 59 (9), 955-64. Kudeshia, Chetna, Pallab Sikdar, and Arun Mittal (2016), “Spreading Love through Fan Page Liking: A Perspective on Small Scale Entrepreneurs,” Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 257-70. Lam, Shun Yin and Venkatesh Shankar (2014), “Asymmetries in the Effects of Drivers of Brand Loyalty between Early and Late Adopters and Across Technology Generations,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 28 (1), 26-42. Lam, Son K., Michael Ahearne, and Niels Schillewaert (2012), “A Multinational Examination of the Symbolic-Instrumental Framework of Consumer-Brand Identification,” Journal of International Business Studies, 43 (3), 306-31. Laroche, Michel, Mohammad Reza Habibi, Marie Odile Richard, and Ramesh Sankaranarayanan (2012), “The Effects of Social Media Based Brand Communities on Brand Community Markers, Value Creation Practices, Brand Trust and Brand Loyalty,” Computers in Human Behavior, 28 (5), 1755-67. Lee, Eun Mi, Seong-Yeon Park, Molly I. Rapert, and Christopher L. Newman (2012), “Does Perceived Consumer Fit Matter in Corporate Social Responsibility Issues?” Journal of Business Research, 65 (11), 1558-64. Leonidou, Leonidas C., Olga Kvasova, Constantinos N. Leonidou, and Simos Chari (2013), “Business Unethicality as an Impediment to Consumer Trust: The Moderating Role of

146

Demographic and Cultural Characteristics,” Journal of Business Ethics, 112 (3), 397-415. Lichtenstein, Donald R., Minette E. Drumwright, and Bridgette M. Braig (2004), “The Effect of Corporate Social Responsibility on Customer Donations to Corporate-Supported Nonprofits,” Journal of Marketing, 68 (4), 16-32. Lobschat, Lara, Markus A. Zinnbauer, Florian Pallas, and Erich Joachimsthaler (2013), “Why Social Currency Becomes a Key Driver of a Firm’s Brand Equity - Insights from the Automotive Industry,” Long Range Planning, 46 (1-2), 125-48. Loroz, Peggy Sue and Bridgette M. Braig (2015), “Consumer Attachments to Human Brands: The ‘Oprah Effect’,” Psychology and Marketing, 32 (7), 751-63. Loureiro, Sandra Maria Correia, Hans Ruediger Kaufmann, and Demetris Vrontis (2012), “Brand Emotional Connection and Loyalty,” Journal of Brand Management, 20 (1), 13-27. Love, Edwin, Mark Staton, and Jeff D. Rotman (2016), “Loyalty as a Matter of Principle: The Influence of Standards of Judgment on Customer Loyalty,” Marketing Letters, 27 (4), 661- 74. Macintosh, Gerrard and Lawrence S. Lockshin (1997), “Retail Relationships and Store Loyalty: A Multi-Level Perspective,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 14 (5), 487- 97. Magnoni, Fanny and Elyette Roux (2012), “The Impact of Step-Down Line Extension on Consumer-Brand Relationships: A Risky Strategy for Luxury Brands,” Journal of Brand Management, 19 (7), 595-608. Marin, Longinos, Salvador Ruiz, and Alicia Rubio (2009), “The Role of Identity Salience in the Effects of Corporate Social Responsibility on Consumer Behavior,” Journal of Business Ethics, 84 (1), 65-78. Marzocchi, Gianluca, Gabriele Morandin, and Massimo Bergami (2013), “Brand Communities: Loyal to the Community or the Brand?” European Journal of Marketing, 47 (1/2), 93-114. Matzler, Kurt, Elisabeth Pichler, Johann Füller, and Todd A. Mooradian (2011), “Personality, Person-Brand Fit, and Brand Community: An Investigation of Individuals, Brands, and Brand Communities,” Journal of Marketing Management, 27 (9-10), 874-90. Mazodier, Marc and Dwight Merunka (2012), “Achieving Brand Loyalty through Sponsorship: The Role of Fit and Self-Congruity,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40 (6), 807-20. Millán, Ángel and Estrella Díaz (2014), “Analysis of Consumers’ Response to Brand Community Integration and Brand Identification,” Journal of Brand Management, 21 (3), 254-72. Miquel-Romero, Maria José, Eva María Caplliure-Giner, and Consolación Adame-Sánchez (2014), “Relationship Marketing Management: Its Importance in Private Label Extension,” Journal of Business Research, 67 (5), 667-72. Moon, Byeong-Joon, Lee W. Lee, and Chang Hoon Oh (2015), “The Impact of CSR on Consumer-Corporate Connection and Brand Loyalty: A Cross Cultural Investigation,” International Marketing Review, 32 (5), 518-39. Nam, Janghyeon, Yuksel Ekinci, and Georgina Whyatt (2011), “Brand Equity, Brand Loyalty and Consumer Satisfaction,” Annals of Tourism Research, 38 (3), 1009-30. Nguyen, Bang, Philipp “Phil” Klaus, and Lyndon Simkin (2014), “It’s Just Not Fair: Exploring the Effects of Firm Customization on Unfairness Perceptions, Trust and Loyalty,” Journal of Services Marketing, 28 (6), 484-97. Nijssen, Edwin J and Hester van Herk (2009), “Conjoining International Marketing and

147

Relationship Marketing: Exploring Consumers’ Cross-Border Service Relationships,” Journal of International Marketing, 17 (1), 91-115. Nyffenegger, Bettina, Harley Krohmer, Wayne D. Hoyer, and Lucia Malaer (2015), “Service Brand Relationship Quality: Hot or Cold?” Journal of Service Research, 18 (1), 90-106. Orth, Ulrich R., Yonca Limon, and Gregory Rose (2010), “Store-Evoked Affect, Personalities, and Consumer Emotional Attachments to Brands,” Journal of Business Research, 63 (11), 1202–08. Orwin, Robert G. (1983), “A Fail-Safe N for Effect Size in Meta-Analysis,” Journal of Educational Statistics, 8 (2), 157-59. Park, C. Whan, Deborah J. MacInnis, Joseph Priester, Andreas B. Eisingerich, and Dawn Iacobucci (2010), “Brand Attachment and Brand Attitude Strength: Conceptual and Empirical Differentiation of Two Critical Brand Equity Drivers,” Journal of Marketing, 74 (6), 1-17. Park, C. Whan, Joseph R. Priester, Deborah J. MacInnis, and Zhong Wan (2009), “The Connection-Prominence Attachment Model (CPAM): A Conceptual and Methodological Exploration of Brand Attachment,” in Handbook of Brand Relationships, ed. Deborah J. MacInnis, C. Whan Park, and Joseph R. Priester, Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 327-41. Paulssen, Marcel, Raphael Roulet, and Sina Wilke (2014), “Risk as Moderator of the Trust- Loyalty Relationship,” European Journal of Marketing, 48 (5/6), 964-81. Pauwels-Delassus, Véronique and Raluca Mogos Descotes (2013), “Brand Name Change: Can Trust and Loyalty Be Transferred?” Journal of Brand Management, 20 (8), 656-69. Pentina, Iryna, Bashar S. Gammoh, Lixuan Zhang, and Michael Mallin (2013), “Drivers and Outcomes of Brand Relationship Quality in the Context of Online Social Networks,” International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 17 (3), 63-86. Pentina, Iryna, Lixuan Zhang, and Oksana Basmanova (2013), “Antecedents and Consequences of Trust in a Social Media Brand: A Cross-Cultural Study of Twitter,” Computers in Human Behavior, 29 (4), 1546-55. Pérez, Andrea and Ignacio Rodríguez del Bosque (2015a), “An Integrative Framework to Understand How CSR Affects Customer Loyalty through Identification, Emotions and Satisfaction,” Journal of Business Ethics, 129 (3), 571-84. Pérez, Andrea and Ignacio Rodríguez del Bosque (2015b), “Corporate Social Responsibility and Customer Loyalty: Exploring the Role of Identification, Satisfaction and Type of Company,” Journal of Services Marketing, 29 (1), 15-25. Pizzutti, Cristiane and Daniel Fernandes (2010), “Effect of Recovery Efforts on Consumer Trust and Loyalty in E-Tail: A Contingency Model,” International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 14 (4), 127-60. Rafiq, Mohammed, Heather Fulford, and Xiaoming Lu (2013), “Building Customer Loyalty in Online Retailing: The Role of Relationship Quality,” Journal of Marketing Management, 29 (3-4), 494-517. Ramaseshan, B. and Alisha Stein (2014), “Connecting the Dots between Brand Experience and Brand Loyalty: The Mediating Role of Brand Personality and Brand Relationships,” Journal of Brand Management, 21 (7-8), 664-83. Randhawa, Praneet, Roger J. Calantone, and Clay M. Voorhees (2015), “The Pursuit of Counterfeited Luxury: An Examination of the Negative Side Effects of Close Consumer- Brand Connections,” Journal of Business Research, 68 (11), 2395-403. Rindfleisch, Aric, James E. Burroughs, and Nancy Wong (2009), “The Safety of Objects:

148

Materialism, Existential Insecurity, and Brand Connection,” Journal of Consumer Research, 36 (1), 1-16. Rosenthal, Robert (1979), “The File Drawer Problem and Tolerance for Null Results,” Psychological Bulletin, 86 (3), 638-41. Rosenthal, Robert (1991), Meta-Analytic Procedures for Social Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Roy, Sanjit Kumar (2013), “Consequences of Customer Advocacy,” Journal of Strategic Marketing, 21 (3), 260-76. Sajtos, Laszlo, Roderick J. Brodie, and James Whittome (2010), “Impact of Service Failure: The Protective Layer of Customer Relationships,” Journal of Service Research, 13 (2), 216-29. Sanchez-Franco, Manuel J. (2009), “The Moderating Effects of Involvement on the Relationships between Satisfaction, Trust and Commitment in E-Banking,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23 (3), 247-58. Sanz-Blas, Silvia, Carla Ruiz-Mafé, and Isabel Pérez Perez (2014), “Key Drivers of Services Website Loyalty,” The Service Industries Journal, 34 (5), 455-75. Sen, Sankar, Allison R. Johnson, C. B. Bhattacharya, and Juan Wang (2015), “Identification and Attachment in Consumer-Brand Relationships,” in Brand Meaning Management (Review of Marketing Research, Vol. 12), ed. Deborah J. Macinnis and C. Whan Park, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 151-74. Singh, Jatinder J., Oriol Iglesias, and Joan Manel Batista-Foguet (2012), “Does Having an Ethical Brand Matter? The Influence of Consumer Perceived Ethicality on Trust, Affect and Loyalty,” Journal of Business Ethics, 111 (4), 541-9. Sirdeshmukh, Deepak, Jagdip Singh, and Barry Sabol (2002), “Consumer Trust, Value, and Loyalty in Relational Exchanges,” Journal of Marketing, 66 (1), 15-37. Sirgy, M. Joseph, Dhruv Grewal, Tamara F. Mangleburg, Jae-ok Park, Kye-Sung Chon, C. B. Claiborne, J. S. Johar, and Harold Berkman (1997), “Assessing the Predictive Validity of Two Methods of Measuring Self-Image Congruence,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25 (3), 229-41. So, Kevin Kam Fung, Ceridwyn King, Beverley A. Sparks, and Ying Wang (2014), “The Role of Customer Engagement in Building Consumer Loyalty to Tourism Brands,” Journal of Travel Research, 55 (1), 64-78. Stokburger-Sauer, Nicola, S. Ratneshwar, and Sankar Sen (2012), “Drivers of Consumer-Brand Identification,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 29 (4), 406-18. Sun, Pi-Chuan and Chia-Min Lin (2010), “Building Customer Trust and Loyalty: An Empirical Study in a Retailing Context,” The Service Industries Journal, 30 (9), 1439-55. Sung, Yongjun and Jooyoung Kim (2010), “Effects of Brand Personality on Brand Trust and Brand Affect,” Psychology and Marketing, 27 (7), 639-61. Thomson, Matthew (2006), “Human Brands: Investigating Antecedents to Consumers' Strong Attachments to Celebrities,” Journal of Marketing, 70 (3), 104-19. Thomson, Matthew, Deborah MacInnis, and C. Whan Park (2005), “The Ties that Bind: Measuring the Strength of Consumer’s Emotional Attachments to Brands,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15 (1), 77–91. Thompson, Frauke Mattison, Alex Newman, and Martin Liu (2014), “The Moderating Effect of Individual Level Collectivist Values on Brand Loyalty,” Journal of Business Research, 67 (11), 2437-46. Tsai, Shu‐Pei (2011), “Strategic Relationship Management and Service Brand Marketing,”

149

European Journal of Marketing, 45 (7/8), 1194-1213. Tsiotsou, Rodoula H. (2013), “Sport Team Loyalty: Integrating Relationship Marketing and a Hierarchy of Effects,” Journal of Services Marketing, 27 (6), 458-71. Vlachos, Pavlos A., Aristeidis Theotokis, Katerina Pramatari, and Adam Vrechopoulos (2010), “Consumer‐Retailer Emotional Attachment: Some Antecedents and the Moderating Role of Attachment Anxiety,” European Journal of Marketing, 44 (9/10), 1478-99. Wallace, Elaine, Isabel Buil, Leslie de Chernatony, and Michael Hogan (2014), “Who ‘Likes’ You...and Why? A Typology of Facebook Fans,” Journal of Advertising Research, 54 (1), 92-109. Walsh, Gianfranco, Vincent-Wayne Mitchell, Paul R. Jackson, and Sharon E. Beatty (2009), “Examining the Antecedents and Consequences of Corporate Reputation: A Customer Perspective,” British Journal of Management, 20 (2), 187-203. Wolter, Jeremy S. and J. Joseph Cronin Jr. (2016), “Re-Conceptualizing Cognitive and Affective Customer-Company Identification: The Role of Self-Motives and Different Customer- Based Outcomes,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44 (3), 397-413. Wu, Shih-Hao, Ching-Yi Daphne Tsai, and Chung-Chieh Hung (2012), “Toward Team or Player? How Trust, Vicarious Achievement Motive, and Identification Affect Fan Loyalty,” Journal of Sport Management, 26 (2), 177-91. Wu, Wei-Ping, T. S. Chan, and Heng Hwa Lau (2008), “Does Consumers’ Personal Reciprocity Affect Future Purchase Intentions?” Journal of Marketing Management, 24 (3-4), 345-60. Xie, Yi, Rajeev Batra, and Siqing Peng (2015), “An Extended Model of Preference Formation Between Global and Local Brands: The Roles of Identity Expressiveness, Trust, and Affect,” Journal of International Marketing, 23 (1), 50-71. Yoo, Chul Woo, G. Lawrence Sanders, and Junghoon Moon (2013), “Exploring the Effect of E- WOM Participation on E-Loyalty in E-Commerce,” Decision Support Systems, 55 (3), 669- 78. Yoshida, Masayuki, Brian Gordon, Makoto Nakazawa, and Rui Biscaia (2014), “Conceptualization and Measurement of Fan Engagement : Empirical Evidence from a Professional Sport Context,” Journal of Sport Management, 28 (4), 399-417. Zhang, Jing and Josée M. M. Bloemer (2008), “The Impact of Value Congruence on Consumer- Service Brand Relationships,” Journal of Service Research, 11 (2), 161-78. Zhang, Kem Z.K., Morad Benyoucef, and Sesia J. Zhao (2015), “Consumer Participation and Gender Differences on Companies’ Microblogs: A Brand Attachment Process Perspective,” Computers in Human Behavior, 44, 357-68. Zhou, Zhimin, Qiyuan Zhang, Chenting Su, and Nan Zhou (2012), “How Do Brand Communities Generate Brand Relationships? Intermediate Mechanisms,” Journal of Business Research, 65 (7), 890-5.

150

Appendix B Theme 1. Elasticities Included in the Analysis

Brand Author(s) and Year Publication Outlet Volume, Study Industry/Context Geographic Sample Brand Relationship Issue, Pages No Setting Size Relationship Elasticity No Elasticity Examined 1. Agarwal, Stackhouse, Osiyevskyy (2018) Journal of Business Ethics Forthcoming 212 Telecommunications USA 410 Trust-based 2. Agarwal, Stackhouse, Journal of Business Ethics Forthcoming 212 Telecommunications India 402 Trust-based Osiyevskyy (2018) 3. Agarwal, Stackhouse, Journal of Business Ethics Forthcoming 212 Telecommunications USA 410 Identification- Osiyevskyy (2018) based 4. Agarwal, Stackhouse, Journal of Business Ethics Forthcoming 212 Telecommunications India 402 Identification- Osiyevskyy (2018) based 5. Agudo, Crespo, del Bosque The Service Industries 32, 8, 1323- 55 Grocery retailing Spain 445 Trust-based (2012) Journal 41 (Supermarkets) 6. Agustin, Singh (2005) Journal of Marketing 42, 1, 96- 65 Clothing retailing USA 246 Trust-based Research 108 7. Agustin, Singh (2005) Journal of Marketing 42, 1, 96- 64 Airlines USA 113 Trust-based Research 108 8. Albert, Ambroise, Valette- Journal of Business 81, 96-106 172 Beverage industry, France 720 Self-brand Florence (2017) Research Clothing retailing connection- based 9. Albert, Ambroise, Valette- Journal of Business 81, 96-106 172 Beverage industry, France 720 Identification- Florence (2017) Research Clothing retailing based 10. Albert, Merunka, Valette- Advances in Consumer 36, 300-07 126 Not limited France 825 Love-based Florence (2009) Research 11. Albert, Merunka, Valette- Advances in Consumer 36, 300-07 126 Not limited France 825 Love-based Florence (2009) Research 12. Albert, Merunka, Valette- Journal of Business 66, 7, 904- 122 Not limited France 1505 Trust-based Florence (2013) Research 09 13. Albert, Merunka, Valette- Journal of Business 66, 7, 904- 122 Not limited France 1505 Identification- Florence (2013) Research 09 based 14. Albert, Merunka, Valette- Journal of Business 66, 7, 904- 122 Not limited France 1505 Love-based Florence (2013) Research 09 15. Aldas-Manzano, Ruiz-Mafe, The Service Industries 31, 7, 1165- 74 Financial services Spain 254 Trust-based Sanz-Blas, Lassala-Navarré Journal 90 (2011)

151

16. Algesheimer, Dholakia, Journal of Marketing 69, 3, 19-34 50 Automotive industry Germany, 529 Self-brand Herrmann (2005) Switzerland, connection- Austria based 17. Algesheimer, Dholakia, Journal of Marketing 69, 3, 19-34 50 Automotive industry Germany, 529 Self-brand Herrmann (2005) Switzerland, connection- Austria based 18. Ambroise, Pantin-Sohier, Journal of Brand 21, 4, 273- 285 Clothing retailing France 155 Attachment- Valette-Florence, Albert (2014) Management 85 based 19. Ambroise, Pantin-Sohier, Journal of Brand 21, 4, 273- 285 Clothing retailing France 154 Attachment- Valette-Florence, Albert (2014) Management 85 based 20. Anderson, Swaminathan (2011) Journal of Marketing Theory 19, 2, 221- 66 E-retailing (E- USA 851 Trust-based and Practice 34 commerce) 21. Ashworth, Dacin, Thomson Handbook of Brand 82-106 36 Not limited Canada 515 Attachment- (2009) Relationships based 22. Ashworth, Dacin, Thomson Handbook of Brand 82-106 36 Not limited Canada 515 Attachment- (2009) Relationships based 23. Ashworth, Dacin, Thomson Handbook of Brand 82-106 36 Not limited Canada 515 Self-brand (2009) Relationships connection- based 24. Ashworth, Dacin, Thomson Handbook of Brand 82-106 36 Not limited Canada 515 Self-brand (2009) Relationships connection- based 25. Ashworth, Dacin, Thomson Handbook of Brand 82-106 36 Not limited Canada 515 Trust-based (2009) Relationships 26. Ashworth, Dacin, Thomson Handbook of Brand 82-106 36 Not limited Canada 515 Attachment- (2009) Relationships based 27. Ashworth, Dacin, Thomson Handbook of Brand 82-106 36 Not limited Canada 515 Self-brand (2009) Relationships connection- based 28. Ashworth, Dacin, Thomson Handbook of Brand 82-106 36 Not limited Canada 515 Trust-based (2009) Relationships 29. Ashworth, Dacin, Thomson Handbook of Brand 82-106 36 Not limited Canada 515 Trust-based (2009) Relationships 30. Aurier, de Lanauze (2011) International Journal of 39, 11, 810- 217 Consumer packaged France 304 Trust-based Retail and Distribution 35 goods, Clothing Management retailing 31. Aurier, de Lanauze (2011) International Journal of 39, 11, 810- 217 Consumer packaged France 304 Trust-based Retail and Distribution 35 goods, Clothing Management retailing

152

32. Aurier, de Lanauze (2012) European Journal of 46, 11/12, 73 Consumer packaged France 404 Trust-based Marketing 1602-27 goods, Accessories 33. Aydin, Özer (2005) European Journal of 39, 7/8, 910- 89 Telecommunications Turkey 1662 Trust-based Marketing 25 34. Baek, Kim, Yu (2010) Psychology and Marketing 27, 7, 662- 253 Clothing retailing, USA 1500 Trust-based 78 Consumer packaged goods, Healthcare 35. Bagozzi, Batra, Ahuvia (2017) Marketing Letters 28, 1, 1-14 3 Clothing retailing USA 308 Love-based 36. Bagozzi, Dholakia (2006) International Journal of 23, 1, 45-61 153 Automotive industry USA 154 Identification- Research in Marketing based 37. Balaji, Roy, Sadeque (2016) Journal of Business 69, 8, 3023- 152 Higher education Malaysia 461 Identification- Research 32 based 38. Balaji, Roy, Sadeque (2016) Journal of Business 69, 8, 3023- 152 Higher education Malaysia 461 Identification- Research 32 based 39. Balaji, Roy, Sadeque (2016) Journal of Business 69, 8, 3023- 152 Higher education Malaysia 461 Self-brand Research 32 connection- based 40. Balaji, Roy, Sadeque (2016) Journal of Business 69, 8, 3023- 152 Higher education Malaysia 461 Self-brand Research 32 connection- based 41. Balaji, Roy, Wei (2016) Journal of Services 30, 2, 186- 189 Financial services Malaysia, India 241 Trust-based Marketing 200 42. Bansal, Taylor, St. James (2005) Journal of the Academy of 33, 1, 96- 226 Automotive industry, Canada 680 Trust-based Marketing Science 115 Beauty services 43. Barra, Pressgrove, Torres The Service Industries Forthcoming 274 Charitable and Chile 355 Trust-based (2018) Journal nonprofit industry 44. Barra, Pressgrove, Torres The Service Industries Forthcoming 274 Charitable and Chile 355 Trust-based (2018) Journal nonprofit industry 45. Barra, Pressgrove, Torres The Service Industries Forthcoming 274 Charitable and Chile 355 Trust-based (2018) Journal nonprofit industry 46. Barra, Pressgrove, Torres The Service Industries Forthcoming 275 Charitable and USA 440 Trust-based (2018) Journal nonprofit industry 47. Barra, Pressgrove, Torres The Service Industries Forthcoming 275 Charitable and USA 440 Trust-based (2018) Journal nonprofit industry 48. Bart, Shankar, Sultan, Urban Journal of Marketing 69, 4, 133- 109 A variety of websites USA 6831 Trust-based (2005) 52 49. Bartsch, Diamantopoulos, Journal of Business 69, 9, 3629- 207 A variety of product France 300 Identification- Paparoidamis, Chumpitaz Research 35 categories based (2016)

153

50. Batra, Ahuvia, Bagozzi (2012) Journal of Marketing 76, 2, 1-16 4 Consumer electronics USA 187 Love-based 51. Batra, Ahuvia, Bagozzi (2012) Journal of Marketing 76, 2, 1-16 4 Consumer electronics USA 187 Love-based 52. Beatty, Givan, Franke, Journal of Marketing Theory 23, 1, 38-56 121 A variety of retail USA 257 Identification- Reynolds (2015) and Practice stores based 53. Beatty, Givan, Franke, Journal of Marketing Theory 23, 1, 38-56 121 A variety of retail USA 257 Identification- Reynolds (2015) and Practice stores based 54. Bergkvist, Bech-Larsen (2010) Journal of Brand 17, 7, 504- 101 Consumer packaged Australia 135 Identification- Management 18 goods based 55. Bergkvist, Bech-Larsen (2010) Journal of Brand 17, 7, 504- 7 Consumer packaged Australia 158 Identification- Management 18 goods based 56. Bergkvist, Bech-Larsen (2010) Journal of Brand 17, 7, 504- 101 Consumer packaged Australia 135 Identification- Management 18 goods based 57. Bergkvist, Bech-Larsen (2010) Journal of Brand 17, 7, 504- 7 Consumer packaged Australia 158 Identification- Management 18 goods based 58. Bergkvist, Bech-Larsen (2010) Journal of Brand 17, 7, 504- 7 Consumer packaged Australia 158 Identification- Management 18 goods based 59. Bergkvist, Bech-Larsen (2010) Journal of Brand 17, 7, 504- 101 Consumer packaged Australia 135 Love-based Management 18 goods 60. Bergkvist, Bech-Larsen (2010) Journal of Brand 17, 7, 504- 101 Consumer packaged Australia 135 Identification- Management 18 goods based 61. Bergkvist, Bech-Larsen (2010) Journal of Brand 17, 7, 504- 101 Consumer packaged Australia 135 Love-based Management 18 goods 62. Bergkvist, Bech-Larsen (2010) Journal of Brand 17, 7, 504- 7 Consumer packaged Australia 158 Love-based Management 18 goods 63. Bergkvist, Bech-Larsen (2010) Journal of Brand 17, 7, 504- 7 Consumer packaged Australia 158 Love-based Management 18 goods 64. Bergkvist, Bech-Larsen (2010) Journal of Brand 17, 7, 504- 7 Consumer packaged Australia 158 Love-based Management 18 goods 65. Bergkvist, Bech-Larsen (2010) Journal of Brand 17, 7, 504- 101 Consumer packagaed Australia 135 Love-based Management 18 goods 66. Bhattacharya, Rao, Glynn Journal of Marketing 59, 4, 46-57 110 Art USA 238 Identification- (1995) based 67. Bhattacharya, Rao, Glynn Journal of Marketing 59, 4, 46-57 110 Art USA 238 Identification- (1995) based 68. Bhattacharya, Rao, Glynn Journal of Marketing 59, 4, 46-57 110 Art USA 238 Identification- (1995) based 69. Bhattacharya, Rao, Glynn Journal of Marketing 59, 4, 46-57 110 Art USA 238 Identification- (1995) based

154

70. Bock, Mangus, Folse (2016) Journal of Business 69, 10, 267 Not limited USA 508 Trust-based Research 3923-32 71. Bosnjak, Sirgy, Hellriegel, Journal of Travel Research 50, 5, 496- 233 Tourism Germany 973 Self-brand Oswin Maurer (2011) 508 connection- based 72. Breivik, Thorbjørnsen (2008) Journal of the Academy of 36, 4, 443- 170 Automotive industry, North America 678 Self-brand Marketing Science 72 Consumer electronics connection- based 73. Breivik, Thorbjørnsen (2008) Journal of the Academy of 36, 4, 443- 170 Automotive industry, North America 678 Self-brand Marketing Science 72 Consumer electronics connection- based 74. Breivik, Thorbjørnsen (2008) Journal of the Academy of 36, 4, 443- 170 Automotive industry, North America 678 Self-brand Marketing Science 72 Consumer electronics connection- based 75. Breivik, Thorbjørnsen (2008) Journal of the Academy of 36, 4, 443- 170 Automotive industry, North America 678 Love-based Marketing Science 72 Consumer electronics 76. Breivik, Thorbjørnsen (2008) Journal of the Academy of 36, 4, 443- 170 Automotive industry, North America 678 Love-based Marketing Science 72 Consumer electronics 77. Breivik, Thorbjørnsen (2008) Journal of the Academy of 36, 4, 443- 170 Automotive industry, North America 678 Love-based Marketing Science 72 Consumer electronics 78. Breivik, Thorbjørnsen (2008) Journal of the Academy of 36, 4, 443- 171 Entertainment Norway 256 Self-brand Marketing Science 72 connection- based 79. Breivik, Thorbjørnsen (2008) Journal of the Academy of 36, 4, 443- 171 Entertainment Norway 256 Self-brand Marketing Science 72 connection- based 80. Breivik, Thorbjørnsen (2008) Journal of the Academy of 36, 4, 443- 171 Consumer packaged Norway 277 Self-brand Marketing Science 72 goods connection- based 81. Breivik, Thorbjørnsen (2008) Journal of the Academy of 36, 4, 443- 171 Consumer packaged Norway 277 Self-brand Marketing Science 72 goods connection- based 82. Brocato, Baker, Voorhees Journal of the Academy of 43, 2, 200- 24 Entertainment USA 196 Identification- (2015) Marketing Science 20 based 83. Brocato, Baker, Voorhees Journal of the Academy of 43, 2, 200- 102 Hospitality industry USA 907 Attachment- (2015) Marketing Science 20 based 84. Brocato, Baker, Voorhees Journal of the Academy of 43, 2, 200- 24 Entertainment USA 196 Attachment- (2015) Marketing Science 20 based

155

85. Brocato, Baker, Voorhees Journal of the Academy of 43, 2, 200- 24 Entertainment USA 196 Identification- (2015) Marketing Science 20 based 86. Brocato, Baker, Voorhees Journal of the Academy of 43, 2, 200- 102 Hospitality industry USA 907 Identification- (2015) Marketing Science 20 based 87. Brocato, Baker, Voorhees Journal of the Academy of 43, 2, 200- 24 Entertainment USA 196 Attachment- (2015) Marketing Science 20 based 88. Brodie, Whittome, Brush (2009) Journal of Business 62, 3, 345- 72 Airlines New Zealand 552 Trust-based Research 55 89. Büttner, Göritz (2008) Journal of Consumer 7, 1, 35-50 232 E-retailing (E- Germany 631 Trust-based Behavior commerce) 90. Cai, Zhao, He (2015) Journal of Business 68, 3, 553- 220 Clothing retailing, China 323 Trust-based Research 60 Accessories, Kitchen appliances, Consumer packaged goods, Consumer electronics, Resturant industry 91. Cai, Zhao, He (2015) Journal of Business 68, 3, 553- 220 Clothing retailing, China 323 Trust-based Research 60 Accessories, Kitchen appliances, Consumer packaged goods, Consumer electronics, Resturant industry 92. Carlson, O’Cass (2012) Journal of Sport 26, 6, 463- 81 Sport industry Australia 414 Trust-based Management 78 93. Carlson, Suter, Brown (2008) Journal of Business 61, 4, 284- 241 Entertainment USA 314 Identification- Research 91 based 94. Carlson, Suter, Brown (2008) Journal of Business 61, 4, 284- 241 Entertainment USA 314 Identification- Research 91 based 95. Carlson, Suter, Brown (2008) Journal of Business 61, 4, 284- 241 Entertainment USA 314 Identification- Research 91 based 96. Carlson, Suter, Brown (2008) Journal of Business 61, 4, 284- 241 Entertainment USA 158 Identification- Research 91 based 97. Carlson, Suter, Brown (2008) Journal of Business 61, 4, 284- 241 Entertainment USA 158 Identification- Research 91 based 98. Carlson, Suter, Brown (2008) Journal of Business 61, 4, 284- 241 Entertainment USA 158 Identification- Research 91 based 99. Carroll, Ahuvia (2006) Marketing Letters 17, 2, 79-89 5 Consumer packaged USA 334 Self-brand goods connection- based

156

100. Carroll, Ahuvia (2006) Marketing Letters 17, 2, 79-89 5 Consumer packaged USA 334 Love-based goods 101. Castaldo, Perrini, Misani, Journal of Business Ethics 84, 1, 1-15 94 Grocery retailing Italy 400 Trust-based Tencati (2009) (Supermarkets) 102. Chae, Ko (2016) Journal of Business 69, 9, 3804- 186 Clothing retailing South Korea 582 Trust-based Research 12 103. Chan, Gong, Zhang, Zhou Journal of Service Research 20, 3, 259- 187 Beauty services Hong Kong 398 Identification- (2017) 74 based 104. Chaudhuri, Holbrook (2001) Journal of Marketing 65, 2, 81-93 90 A variety of product USA 4380 Trust-based categories 105. Chaudhuri, Holbrook (2001) Journal of Marketing 65, 2, 81-93 90 A variety of product USA 4380 Trust-based categories 106. Chaudhuri, Holbrook (2002) Journal of Brand 10, 1, 33-58 82 A variety of product USA 4110 Trust-based Management categories 107. Chavanat, Martinent, Ferrand Journal of Sport 23, 5, 644- 242 Sport industry France 289 Attachment- (2009) Management 70 based 108. Chavanat, Martinent, Ferrand Journal of Sport 23, 5, 644- 242 Sport industry France 289 Identification- (2009) Management 70 based 109. Chen, Mau (2009) The Service Industries 29, 1, 59-74 93 Financial Services Taiwan 215 Trust-based Journal 110. Chen, Peng, Hung (2015) Annals of Tourism Research 51, 1, 59-63 45 Tourism Taiwan 102 Identification- based 111. Chen, Peng, Hung (2015) Annals of Tourism Research 51, 1, 59-63 45 Tourism Taiwan 102 Self-brand connection- based 112. Chen, Phou (2013) Tourism Management 36, 269-78 144 Tourism Cambodia 428 Attachment- based 113. Chen, Phou (2013) Tourism Management 36, 269-78 144 Tourism Cambodia 428 Trust-based 114. Chen, Zhang, Xu (2009) International Journal of 14, 1, 147- 98 E-retailing (E- China 389 Trust-based Electronic Commerce 71 commerce) 115. Chiou (2004) Information and 41, 6, 685- 250 Telecommunications Taiwan 408 Trust-based Management 95 116. Chiou, Droge (2006) Journal of the Academy of 34, 4, 613- 86 Cosmetics industry USA 300 Trust-based Marketing Science 27 117. Chiou, Droge (2006) Journal of the Academy of 34, 4, 613- 86 Cosmetics industry USA 300 Trust-based Marketing Science 27 118. Chiou, Droge, Hanvanich Journal of Service Research 5, 2, 113-24 188 Financial services Taiwan 233 Trust-based (2002) 119. Cho, Fiore, Russell (2015) Psychology and Marketing 32, 1, 28-48 8 Clothing retailing USA 2373 Love-based

157

120. Cho, Fiore, Russell (2015) Psychology and Marketing 32, 1, 28-48 8 Clothing retailing USA 2373 Love-based 121. Choi, Ko, Kim, Mattila (2015) Journal of Product 32, 2, 233- 34 Sport industry South Korea 207 Attachment- Innovation Management 42 based 122. Choi, Ok, Hyun (2017) International Journal of 29, 4, 1185- 237 Restaurant industry USA 309 Trust-based Contemporary Hospitality 202 Management 123. Choi, Ok, Hyun (2017) International Journal of 29, 4, 1185- 237 Restaurant industry USA 309 Trust-based Contemporary Hospitality 202 Management 124. Chung, Cho (2017) Psychology and Marketing 34, 4, 481- 206 Beverage industry Singapore 400 Trust-based 95 125. Çifci, Ekinci, Whyatt, Japutra, Journal of Business 69, 9, 3740- 145 Clothing retailing Turkey 285 Identification- Molinillo, Siala (2016) Research 47 based 126. Çifci, Ekinci, Whyatt, Japutra, Journal of Business 69, 9, 3740- 145 Clothing retailing Turkey 285 Identification- Molinillo, Siala (2016) Research 47 based 127. Çifci, Ekinci, Whyatt, Japutra, Journal of Business 69, 9, 3740- 146 Clothing retailing Spain 236 Identification- Molinillo, Siala (2016) Research 47 based 128. Çifci, Ekinci, Whyatt, Japutra, Journal of Business 69, 9, 3740- 146 Clothing retailing Spain 236 Identification- Molinillo, Siala (2016) Research 47 based 129. Currás-Pérez, Bigné-Alcañiz, Journal of Business Ethics 89, 4, 547- 269 Consumer packaged Spain 299 Identification- Alvarado-Herrera (2009) 64 goods based 130. Cyr (2008) Journal of Management 24, 4, 47-72 141 E-retailing (E- Canada 230 Trust-based Information Systems commerce) 131. Cyr (2008) Journal of Management 24, 4, 47-72 79 E-retailing (E- Germany 118 Trust-based Information Systems commerce) 132. Cyr (2008) Journal of Management 24, 4, 47-72 103 E-retailing (E- China 223 Trust-based Information Systems commerce) 133. Da Silva Terres, dos Santos, Journal of Services 29, 1, 26-37 156 Healthcare Brazil 681 Trust-based Basso (2015) Marketing 134. Davvetas, Diamantopoulos Journal of Business 80, 218-27 236 Not limited Austria 350 Identification- (2017) Research based 135. De Vries, Carlson (2014) Journal of Brand 21, 6, 495- 199 Not limited Australia 404 Self-brand Management 515 connection- based 136. Delgado‐Ballester, Munuera‐ European Journal of 35, 11/12, 57 Consumer packaged Spain 173 Trust-based Alemán (2001) Marketing 1238-58 goods 137. Deng, Xu (2017) Journal of Business Ethics 142, 3, 515- 119 Beverage industry, China 338 Identification- 26 Tobacco industry based

158

138. Deng, Xu (2017) Journal of Business Ethics 142, 3, 515- 119 Beverage industry, China 338 Identification- 26 Tobacco industry based 139. Dennis, Papagiannidis, Journal of Business 69, 8, 3049- 268 Higher education USA 605 Self-brand Alamanos, Bourlakis (2016) Research 57 connection- based 140. Dennis, Papagiannidis, Journal of Business 69, 8, 3049- 268 Higher education USA 605 Self-brand Alamanos, Bourlakis (2016) Research 57 connection- based 141. Dennis, Papagiannidis, Journal of Business 69, 8, 3049- 268 Higher education USA 605 Attachment- Alamanos, Bourlakis (2016) Research 57 based 142. Dennis, Papagiannidis, Journal of Business 69, 8, 3049- 268 Higher education USA 605 Attachment- Alamanos, Bourlakis (2016) Research 57 based 143. Dennis, Papagiannidis, Journal of Business 69, 8, 3049- 268 Higher education USA 605 Trust-based Alamanos, Bourlakis (2016) Research 57 144. Dennis, Papagiannidis, Journal of Business 69, 8, 3049- 268 Higher education USA 605 Trust-based Alamanos, Bourlakis (2016) Research 57 145. Diallo, Lambey-Checchin Journal of Business Ethics 141, 3, 435- 175 Grocery retailing France 689 Trust-based (2017) 49 (Supermarkets) 146. Dolbec, Chebat (2013) Journal of Retailing 89, 4, 460- 259 Clothing retailing Canada 122 Attachment- 66 based 147. Donavan, Janda, Maxham III Psychology and Marketing 32, 6, 611- 125 Automotive industry USA 1193 Identification- (2015) 23 based 148. Donavan, Janda, Suh (2006) Journal of Brand 14, 1-2, 125- 197 Sport industry USA 401 Identification- Management 36 based 149. Drennan, Bianchi, Cacho- International Journal of 49, 47-55 200 Beverage industry Australia, Chile, 3462 Love-based Elizondo, Louriero, Guibert, Hospitality Management Mexico, France, Proud (2015) Portugal 150. Drennan, Bianchi, Cacho- International Journal of 49, 47-55 200 Beverage industry Australia, Chile, 3462 Trust-based Elizondo, Louriero, Guibert, Hospitality Management Mexico, France, Proud (2015) Portugal 151. Duman, Ozgen (2018) Journal of Business Forthcoming 282 Consumer packaged Turkey 317 Identification- Research goods based 152. Duman, Ozgen (2018) Journal of Business Forthcoming 282 Consumer packaged Turkey 317 Identification- Research goods based 153. Dwivedi, Johnson, McDonald International Journal of 35, 3, 486- 116 Telecommunications India 535 Self-brand (2016) Advertising 503 connection- based 154. Dwivedi, Johnson, McDonald International Journal of 35, 3, 486- 116 Telecommunications India 535 Trust-based (2016) Advertising 503

159

155. Einwiller, Fedorikhin, Johnson, Journal of the Academy of 34, 2, 185- 128 Financial services USA 210 Identification- Kamins (2006) Marketing Science 94 based 156. Eisingerich, Rubera (2010) Journal of International 18, 2, 64-79 191 Furniture retailing United Kingdom 167 Self-brand Marketing connection- based 157. Eisingerich, Rubera (2010) Journal of International 18, 2, 64-79 191 Furniture retailing China 230 Self-brand Marketing connection- based 158. Ekinci, Sirakaya-Turk, Preciado Journal of Business 66, 6, 711- 48 Hospitality industry Turkey 361 Identification- (2013) Research 18 based 159. Elbedweihy, Jayawardhena, Journal of Business 69, 8, 2901- 185 Consumer electronics United Kingdom 135 Identification- Elsharnouby, Elsharnouby Research 10 based (2016) 160. Elbedweihy, Jayawardhena, Journal of Business 69, 8, 2901- 185 Consumer electronics United Kingdom 158 Identification- Elsharnouby, Elsharnouby Research 10 based (2016) 161. Escalas (2004) Journal of Consumer 14, 1-2, 168- 229 Financial services, USA 153 Self-brand Psychology 80 Consumer Electronics connection- based 162. Evanschitzky, Ramaseshan, Journal of the Academy of 40, 5, 625- 169 General retailing Germany 5189 Trust-based Woisetschläger, Richelsen, Blut, Marketing Science 38 (Department Stores) Backhaus (2012) 163. Evanschitzky, Ramaseshan, Journal of the Academy of 40, 5, 625- 169 General retailing Germany 5189 Trust-based Woisetschläger, Richelsen, Blut, Marketing Science 38 (Department Stores) Backhaus (2012) 164. Evanschitzky, Ramaseshan, Journal of the Academy of 40, 5, 625- 169 General retailing Germany 5189 Trust-based Woisetschläger, Richelsen, Blut, Marketing Science 38 (Department Stores) Backhaus (2012) 165. Evanschitzky, Ramaseshan, Journal of the Academy of 40, 5, 625- 169 General retailing Germany 5189 Trust-based Woisetschläger, Richelsen, Blut, Marketing Science 38 (Department Stores) Backhaus (2012) 166. Fetscherin, Conway Dato-on Consumer-Brand 151-164 2 Automotive industry USA 180 Love-based (2012) Relationships: Theory and Practice 167. Flavián, Guinalíu, Gurrea Information and 43, 1, 1-14 270 A variety of websites Spain 351 Trust-based (2006) Management 168. Flavián, Guinalíu, Gurrea Information and 43, 1, 1-14 270 A variety of websites Spain 351 Trust-based (2006) Management 169. Flavián, Guinalíu, Gurrea Information and 43, 1, 1-14 270 A variety of websites Spain 351 Trust-based (2006) Management

160

170. Flavián, Guinalíu, Gurrea Information and 43, 1, 1-14 270 A variety of websites Spain 351 Trust-based (2006) Management 171. Fock, Chan, Yan (2011) Journal of Business 64, 7, 672- 225 Higher education Hong Kong 181 Self-brand Research 79 connection- based 172. Fock, Chan, Yan (2011) Journal of Business 64, 7, 672- 225 Higher education Hong Kong 181 Self-brand Research 79 connection- based 173. Ford, Merchant, Bartier, Journal of Business 83, 19-29 251 Automotive industry, Belgium 245 Trust-based Friedman (2018) Research Clothing retailing, Beverage industry, Consumer packaged goods 174. Ford, Merchant, Bartier, Journal of Business 83, 19-29 251 Automotive industry, Belgium 245 Attachment- Friedman (2018) Research Clothing retailing, based Beverage industry, Consumer packaged goods 175. Ford, Merchant, Bartier, Journal of Business 83, 19-29 251 Automotive industry, Belgium 245 Self-brand Friedman (2018) Research Clothing retailing, connection- Beverage industry, based Consumer packaged goods 176. Ford, Merchant, Bartier, Journal of Business 83, 19-29 251 Automotive industry, Belgium 245 Self-brand Friedman (2018) Research Clothing retailing, connection- Beverage industry, based Consumer packaged goods 177. Ford, Merchant, Bartier, Journal of Business 83, 19-29 252 Automotive industry, USA 415 Trust-based Friedman (2018) Research Clothing retailing, Beverage industry, Consumer packaged goods 178. Ford, Merchant, Bartier, Journal of Business 83, 19-29 252 Automotive industry, USA 415 Attachment- Friedman (2018) Research Clothing retailing, based Beverage industry, Consumer packaged goods

161

179. Ford, Merchant, Bartier, Journal of Business 83, 19-29 252 Automotive industry, USA 415 Self-brand Friedman (2018) Research Clothing retailing, connection- Beverage industry, based Consumer packaged goods 180. Ford, Merchant, Bartier, Journal of Business 83, 19-29 252 Automotive industry, USA 415 Self-brand Friedman (2018) Research Clothing retailing, connection- Beverage industry, based Consumer packaged goods 181. Fritz, Schoenmueller, Bruhn European Journal of 51, 2, 324- 159 A variety of brands Germany 509 Self-brand (2017) Marketing 48 connection- based 182. Fritz, Schoenmueller, Bruhn European Journal of 51, 2, 324- 159 A variety of brands Germany 509 Self-brand (2017) Marketing 48 connection- based 183. Fullerton (2011) Journal of Retailing and 18, 1, 92- 178 Financial services Canada 207 Trust-based Consumer Services 100 184. Fullerton (2011) Journal of Retailing and 18, 1, 92- 178 Beauty services Canada 252 Trust-based Consumer Services 100 185. Fullerton (2011) Journal of Retailing and 18, 1, 92- 178 Automotive industry Canada 203 Trust-based Consumer Services 100 186. Goode, Khamitov, Thomson Strong Brands, Strong 216-32 19 Not limited Canada 175 Attachment- (2015) Relationships based 187. Goode, Khamitov, Thomson Strong Brands, Strong 216-32 19 Not limited Canada 175 Attachment- (2015) Relationships based 188. Goode, Khamitov, Thomson Strong Brands, Strong 216-32 20 Not limited USA 292 Attachment- (2015) Relationships based 189. Goode, Khamitov, Thomson Strong Brands, Strong 216-32 19 Not limited Canada 175 Attachment- (2015) Relationships based 190. Goode, Khamitov, Thomson Strong Brands, Strong 216-32 19 Not limited Canada 175 Attachment- (2015) Relationships based 191. Goode, Khamitov, Thomson Strong Brands, Strong 216-32 20 Not limited USA 292 Attachment- (2015) Relationships based 192. Goode, Khamitov, Thomson Strong Brands, Strong 216-32 19 Not limited Canada 175 Attachment- (2015) Relationships based 193. Goode, Khamitov, Thomson Strong Brands, Strong 216-32 19 Not limited Canada 175 Attachment- (2015) Relationships based

162

194. Goode, Khamitov, Thomson Strong Brands, Strong 216-32 20 Not limited USA 292 Attachment- (2015) Relationships based 195. Goode, Khamitov, Thomson Strong Brands, Strong 216-32 20 Not limited USA 292 Attachment- (2015) Relationships based 196. Goode, Khamitov, Thomson Strong Brands, Strong 216-32 20 Not limited USA 292 Attachment- (2015) Relationships based 197. Goode, Khamitov, Thomson Strong Brands, Strong 216-32 20 Not limited USA 292 Attachment- (2015) Relationships based 198. Goode, Khamitov, Thomson Strong Brands, Strong 216-32 19 Not limited Canada 175 Attachment- (2015) Relationships based 199. Goode, Khamitov, Thomson Strong Brands, Strong 216-32 20 Not limited USA 292 Attachment- (2015) Relationships based 200. Goode, Khamitov, Thomson Strong Brands, Strong 216-32 19 Not limited Canada 175 Attachment- (2015) Relationships based 201. Goode, Khamitov, Thomson Strong Brands, Strong 216-32 20 Not limited USA 292 Attachment- (2015) Relationships based 202. Guenzi, Johnson, Castaldo Journal of Service 20, 3, 290- 52 Grocery retailing Italy 393 Trust-based (2009) Management 316 (Supermarkets) 203. Guenzi, Johnson, Castaldo Journal of Service 20, 3, 290- 52 Grocery retailing Italy 393 Trust-based (2009) Management 316 (Supermarkets) 204. Guido, Peluso (2015) Journal of Brand 22, 1, 1-19 137 A variety of product Italy 951 Self-brand Management categories connection- based 205. Ha (2016) Journal of Services 30, 5, 529- 258 Tourism South Korea 302 Trust-based Marketing 40 206. Ha (2016) Journal of Services 30, 5, 529- 258 Tourism South Korea 302 Trust-based Marketing 40 207. Han, Nguyen, Simkin (2016) European Journal of 50, 7/8, 254 Restaurant industry United Kingdom 320 Identification- Marketing 1348-76 based 208. Hansen (2012) Psychology and Marketing 29, 5, 350- 97 Financial services Denmark 1155 Trust-based 64 209. Hansen (2012) Psychology and Marketing 29, 5, 350- 97 Financial services Denmark 817 Trust-based 64 210. Hansen (2014) Journal of Consumer 13, 6, 442- 99 Financial services Denmark 757 Trust-based Behavior 52 211. Hansen (2014) Journal of Consumer 13, 6, 442- 97 Financial services Denmark 1155 Trust-based Behavior 52 212. Harris, Goode (2004) Journal of Retailing 80, 2, 139- 104 E-retailing (E- United Kingdom 294 Trust-based 58 commerce)

163

213. Harris, Goode (2004) Journal of Retailing 80, 2, 139- 105 E-retailing (E- United Kingdom 204 Trust-based 58 commerce) 214. Haryanto, Moutinho, Coelho Journal of Business 69, 10, 286 Restaurant industry Brazil 150 Trust-based (2016) Research 4020-32 215. Haryanto, Moutinho, Coelho Journal of Business 69, 10, 286 Restaurant industry Indonesia 150 Trust-based (2016) Research 4020-32 216. Haryanto, Moutinho, Coelho Journal of Business 69, 10, 286 Restaurant industry Portugal 150 Trust-based (2016) Research 4020-32 217. Haryanto, Silva, Moutinho European Journal of 49, 3/4, 372- 80 Restaurant industry Malaysia 230 Trust-based (2015) Marketing 97 218. He, Zhu, Gouran, Kolo (2016) European Journal of 50, 1/2, 236- 228 Consumer packaged United Kingdom 156 Attachment- Marketing 59 goods, Beverage based industry 219. He, Li (2011) Journal of Business Ethics 100, 4, 673- 41 Telecommunications Taiwan 268 Identification- 88 based 220. He, Li, Harris (2012) Journal of Business 65, 5, 648- 87 Consumer electronics Taiwan 199 Trust-based Research 57 221. He, Li, Harris (2012) Journal of Business 65, 5, 648- 88 Cosmetics industry Taiwan 201 Identification- Research 57 based 222. He, Li, Harris (2012) Journal of Business 65, 5, 648- 88 Cosmetics industry Taiwan 201 Trust-based Research 57 223. Hem, Iversen (2003) Advances in Consumer 30, 72-79 15 Consumer packaged Norway 701 Self-brand Research goods, Automotive connection- industry, based Telecommunications 224. Hennig-Thurau, Gwinner, Journal of Service Research 4, 3, 230-47 277 A variety of service USA 336 Trust-based Gremler (2002) industries 225. Hennig-Thurau, Gwinner, Journal of Service Research 4, 3, 230-47 277 A variety of service USA 336 Trust-based Gremler (2002) industries 226. Hennig-Thurau, Langer, Hansen Journal of Service Research 3, 4, 331-44 227 Higher education Germany 1162 Trust-based (2001) 227. Hennig-Thurau, Langer, Hansen Journal of Service Research 3, 4, 331-44 227 Higher education Germany 1162 Trust-based (2001) 228. Hennig-Thurau, Langer, Hansen Journal of Service Research 3, 4, 331-44 227 Higher education Germany 1162 Trust-based (2001) 229. Hennig-Thurau, Langer, Hansen Journal of Service Research 3, 4, 331-44 227 Higher education Germany 1162 Attachment- (2001) based 230. Hennig-Thurau, Langer, Hansen Journal of Service Research 3, 4, 331-44 227 Higher education Germany 1162 Attachment- (2001) based

164

231. Hennig-Thurau, Langer, Hansen Journal of Service Research 3, 4, 331-44 227 Higher education Germany 1162 Attachment- (2001) based 232. Hollebeek, Glynn, Brodie Journal of Interactive 28, 2, 149- 135 Social media New Zealand 556 Self-brand (2014) Marketing 65 connection- based 233. Homburg, Wieseke, Hoyer Journal of Marketing 73, 2, 38-54 47 Hospitality industry Germany 597 Identification- (2009) based 234. Hsu, Oh, Assaf (2012) Journal of Travel Research 51, 1, 81-93 53 Hospitality industry China 1346 Trust-based 235. Hsu, Oh, Assaf (2012) Journal of Travel Research 51, 1, 81-93 53 Hospitality industry China 1346 Trust-based 236. Huang, Cheng (2016) Journal of Services 30, 4, 449- 243 Restaurant industry Taiwan 368 Identification- Marketing 61 based 237. Huang, Cheng (2016) Journal of Services 30, 4, 449- 244 Financial services Taiwan 296 Identification- Marketing 61 based 238. Huang, Cheng (2016) Journal of Services 30, 4, 449- 245 Restaurant industry Taiwan 318 Identification- Marketing 61 based 239. Huang, Cheng, Chen (2017) Journal of Services 31, 1, 63-72 263 Restaurant industry Taiwan 213 Identification- Marketing based 240. Huang, Cheng, Chen (2017) Journal of Services 31, 1, 63-72 263 Restaurant industry Taiwan 213 Identification- Marketing based 241. Huang, Cheng, Chen (2017) Journal of Services 31, 1, 63-72 263 Restaurant industry Taiwan 213 Identification- Marketing based 242. Huang, Cheng, Chen (2017) Journal of Services 31, 1, 63-72 263 Restaurant industry Taiwan 213 Identification- Marketing based 243. Huang, Lin, Phau (2015) European Journal of 49, 7/8, 76 Entertainment Australia 1135 Attachment- Marketing 1234-55 based 244. Huang, Lin, Phau (2015) European Journal of 49, 7/8, 28 Entertainment Taiwan 736 Attachment- Marketing 1234-55 based 245. Hudson, Huang, Roth, Madden International Journal of 33, 1, 27-41 139 Consumer electronics USA 207 Self-brand (2016) Research in Marketing connection- based 246. Hudson, Huang, Roth, Madden International Journal of 33, 1, 27-41 140 Automotive industry USA 281 Self-brand (2016) Research in Marketing connection- based 247. Hudson, Huang, Roth, Madden International Journal of 33, 1, 27-41 138 Sport industry France, United 533 Attachment- (2016) Research in Marketing Kingdom, USA based 248. Hudson, Huang, Roth, Madden International Journal of 33, 1, 27-41 138 Sport industry France, United 533 Self-brand (2016) Research in Marketing Kingdom, USA connection- based

165

249. Hudson, Huang, Roth, Madden International Journal of 33, 1, 27-41 140 Automotive industry USA 281 Love-based (2016) Research in Marketing 250. Hudson, Huang, Roth, Madden International Journal of 33, 1, 27-41 138 Sport industry France, United 533 Trust-based (2016) Research in Marketing Kingdom, USA 251. Hudson, Huang, Roth, Madden International Journal of 33, 1, 27-41 138 Sport industry France, United 533 Love-based (2016) Research in Marketing Kingdom, USA 252. Hultman, Skarmeas, Oghazi, Journal of Business 68, 11, 149 Tourism Taiwan 490 Identification- Beheshti (2015) Research 2227-31 based 253. Hung (2014) Journal of Brand 21, 7/8, 594- 18 Automotive industry Taiwan 280 Attachment- Management 614 based 254. Hung (2014) Journal of Brand 21, 7/8, 594- 18 Automotive industry Taiwan 280 Identification- Management 614 based 255. Hwang, Han (2014) Tourism Management 40, 244-59 198 Entertainment USA 330 Identification- based 256. Hwang, Hyun (2017) Current Issues in Tourism 20, 5, 497- 204 Airlines USA 202 Identification- 520 based 257. Hyun, Kim (2014) Journal of Hospitality and 38, 2, 162- 215 Restaurant industry USA 379 Attachment- Tourism Research 98 based 258. Ibáñez, Hartmann, Calvo (2006) The Service Industries 26, 6, 633- 154 Energy industry Spain 2020 Trust-based Journal 50 259. Ilicic, Webster (2014) Journal of Brand 21, 4, 342- 29 Accessories Australia 309 Trust-based Management 63 260. Ilicic, Webster (2014) Journal of Brand 21, 4, 342- 29 Accessories Australia 309 Trust-based Management 63 261. Ilicic, Webster (2014) Journal of Brand 21, 4, 342- 108 Financial services, Australia 342 Attachment- Management 63 Consumer electronics based 262. Jahn, Gaus, Kiessling (2012) Psychology and Marketing 29, 6, 445- 16 Beverage industry Germany 341 Self-brand 57 connection- based 263. Jahn, Gaus, Kiessling (2012) Psychology and Marketing 29, 6, 445- 16 Beverage industry Germany 341 Trust-based 57 264. Japutra, Ekinci, Simkin (2018) Journal of Business Forthcoming 240 Not limited United Kingdom 427 Self-brand Research connection- based 265. Japutra, Ekinci, Simkin (2018) Journal of Business Forthcoming 240 Not limited United Kingdom 427 Self-brand Research connection- based 266. Japutra, Ekinci, Simkin (2018) Journal of Business Forthcoming 240 Not limited United Kingdom 427 Attachment- Research based

166

267. Japutra, Keni, Nguyen (2016) Journal of Brand 23, 2, 137- 280 Higher education Indonesia 478 Self-brand Management 52 connection- based 268. Japutra, Molinillo (2018) Journal of Business Forthcoming 284 Consumer electronics, Spain 339 Trust-based Research Consumer packaged goods, Beverage industry, Kitchen appliances, Sport industry, Clothing retailing, Automotive industry 269. Jones, Kim (2010) International Journal of 34, 6, 627- 219 Clothing retailing USA 200 Trust-based Consumer Studies 37 270. Jones, Kim (2010) International Journal of 34, 6, 627- 219 Clothing retailing USA 200 Trust-based Consumer Studies 37 271. Kamran-Disfani, Mantrala, Journal of Business 77, 14-22 262 Grocery retailing Spain 505 Trust-based Izquierdo-Yusta, Martínez-Ruiz Research (Supermarkets) (2017) 272. Kamran-Disfani, Mantrala, Journal of Business 77, 14-22 262 Grocery retailing Spain 505 Trust-based Izquierdo-Yusta, Martínez-Ruiz Research (Supermarkets) (2017) 273. Kang, Brashear Alejandro, Journal of Business 68, 2, 464- 42 Not limited USA 573 Identification- Groza (2015) Research 71 based 274. Kang, Brashear Alejandro, Journal of Business 68, 2, 464- 42 Not limited USA 573 Identification- Groza (2015) Research 71 based 275. Kang, Hustvedt (2014) Journal of Business Ethics 125, 2, 253- 168 Clothing retailing USA 909 Trust-based 65 276. Kang, Tang, Fiore (2014) International Journal of 194 Restaurant industry USA 331 Trust-based Hospitality Management 277. Kaufmann, Petrovici, Filho, Journal of Business 69, 12, 213 Accessories Brazil 532 Attachment- Ayres (2016) Research 5735-47 based 278. Kaufmann, Petrovici, Filho, Journal of Business 69, 12, 214 Accessories Brazil 276 Attachment- Ayres (2016) Research 5735-47 based 279. Kaufmann, Petrovici, Filho, Journal of Business 69, 12, 214 Accessories Brazil 276 Attachment- Ayres (2016) Research 5735-47 based 280. Kemp, Jillapalli, Becerra (2014) Journal of Services 28, 2, 126- 208 Healthcare USA 322 Trust-based Marketing 37 281. Kemp, Jillapalli, Becerra (2014) Journal of Services 28, 2, 126- 208 Healthcare USA 322 Self-brand Marketing 37 connection- based

167

282. Kharouf, Lund, Sekhon (2014) Journal of Services 28, 5, 361- 60 Hospitality industry United Kingdom 420 Trust-based Marketing 73 283. Kharouf, Lund, Sekhon (2014) Journal of Services 28, 5, 361- 60 Hospitality industry United Kingdom 420 Trust-based Marketing 73 284. Kim, Gupta (2012) Psychology and Marketing 29, 4, 257- 75 E-retailing (E- South Korea 367 Trust-based 69 commerce) 285. Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kang Journal of Business 61, 1, 75-82 56 Healthcare South Korea 532 Trust-based (2008) Research 286. Kim, Lee (2017) Journal of Services 31, 7, 733- 235 Restaurant industry South Korea 743 Identification- Marketing 44 based 287. Kim, Lee (2017) Journal of Services 31, 7, 733- 235 Restaurant industry South Korea 743 Self-brand Marketing 44 connection- based 288. Koronaki, Kyrousi, Panigyrakis Journal of Business Forthcoming 257 Clothing retailing Greece 212 Attachment- (2018) Research based 289. Kressmann, Sirgy, Herrmann, Journal of Business 59, 9, 955- 123 Automotive industry Germany 600 Self-brand Huber, Huber, Lee (2006) Research 64 connection- based 290. Kudeshia, Sikdar, Mittal (2016) Computers in Human 54, 257-70 114 E-retailing (E- India 172 Love-based Behavior commerce) 291. Kudeshia, Sikdar, Mittal (2016) Computers in Human 54, 257-70 114 E-retailing (E- India 139 Love-based Behavior commerce) 292. Lam, Ahearne, Hu, Schillewaert Journal of Marketing 74, 6, 128- 239 Consumer electronics Spain 679 Identification- (2010) 46 based 293. Lam, Ahearne, Schillewaert Journal of International 43, 3, 306- 107 Beverage industry, Belgium, 5919 Identification- (2012) Business Studies 31 Sport industry, Netherlands, based Consumer electronics, France, United Restaurant industry, E- Kingdom, retailing (E-commerce) Germany, Spain, Italy, Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland, Slovakia, Turkey, Romania, Poland, USA 294. Lam, Ahearne, Schillewaert Journal of International 43, 3, 306- 107 Beverage industry, Belgium, 5919 Identification- (2012) Business Studies 31 Sport industry, Netherlands, based Consumer electronics, France, United Restaurant industry, E- Kingdom, retailing (E-commerce) Germany, Spain,

168

Italy, Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland, Slovakia, Turkey, Romania, Poland, USA 295. Lam, Shankar (2014) Journal of Interactive 28, 1, 26-42 17 Consumer electronics Singapore 514 Trust-based Marketing 296. Lam, Shankar (2014) Journal of Interactive 28, 1, 26-42 17 Consumer electronics Singapore 514 Trust-based Marketing 297. Lam, Shankar (2014) Journal of Interactive 28, 1, 26-42 17 Consumer electronics Singapore 514 Attachment- Marketing based 298. Lam, Shankar (2014) Journal of Interactive 28, 1, 26-42 17 Consumer electronics Singapore 514 Trust-based Marketing 299. Lam, Shankar (2014) Journal of Interactive 28, 1, 26-42 17 Consumer electronics Singapore 514 Trust-based Marketing 300. Lam, Shankar (2014) Journal of Interactive 28, 1, 26-42 17 Consumer electronics Singapore 514 Attachment- Marketing based 301. Lambert-Pandraud, Laurent Journal of Marketing 74, 5, 104- 281 Consumer packaged France 260 Attachment- (2010) 21 goods based 302. Laroche, Habibi, Richard (2013) International Journal of 33, 1, 76-82 272 Not limited Canada 441 Trust-based Information Management 303. Laroche, Habibi, Richard, Computers in Human 28, 5, 1755- 91 A variety of product Canada 441 Trust-based Sankaranarayanan (2012) Behavior 67 categories 304. Lastovicka, Sirianni (2011) Journal of Consumer 38, 2, 323- 273 Automotive industry USA 127 Love-based Research 42 305. Lee, Moon, Kim, Yi (2015) Information and 52, 3, 295- 151 Consumer electronics South Korea 310 Trust-based Management 304 306. Lee, Park, Rapert, Newman Journal of Business 65, 11, 43 Not limited South Korea 218 Identification- (2012) Research 1558-1564 based 307. Lee, Watkins (2016) Journal of Business 69, 12, 283 Accessories USA 396 Self-brand Research 5753-60 connection- based 308. Leonidou, Kvasova, Leonidou, Journal of Business Ethics 112, 3, 397- 61 Not limited Cyprus 387 Trust-based Chari (2013) 415 309. Lewin, Rajamma, Paswan Journal of Business 68, 3, 616- 182 Entertainment USA 340 Self-brand (2015) Research 22 connection- based

169

310. Lewin, Rajamma, Paswan Journal of Business 68, 3, 616- 183 Entertainment USA 849 Self-brand (2015) Research 22 connection- based 311. Lewin, Rajamma, Paswan Journal of Business 68, 3, 616- 183 Entertainment USA 573 Self-brand (2015) Research 22 connection- based 312. Lewin, Rajamma, Paswan Journal of Business 68, 3, 616- 184 Entertainment USA 325 Self-brand (2015) Research 22 connection- based 313. Lewin, Rajamma, Paswan Journal of Business 68, 3, 616- 184 Entertainment USA 301 Self-brand (2015) Research 22 connection- based 314. Lewis, Soureli (2006) Journal of Consumer 5, 1, 15-31 249 Financial services Greece 182 Trust-based Behavior 315. Lichtenstein, Drumwright, Journal of Marketing 68, 4, 16-32 113 Grocery retailing USA 508 Identification- Braig (2004) (Supermarkets) based 316. Lichtenstein, Drumwright, Journal of Marketing 68, 4, 16-32 113 Grocery retailing USA 508 Identification- Braig (2004) (Supermarkets) based 317. Lii, Lee (2012) Journal of Business Ethics 105, 1, 69- 190 Consumer electronics Taiwan 492 Identification- 81 based 318. Lin, Wang (2006) Information and 43, 3, 271- 150 A variety of m- Taiwan 255 Trust-based Management 82 commerce websites 319. Lin, Wang, Chang, Lin (2018) Journal of Business Forthcoming 224 Automotive industry Taiwan 580 Identification- Research based 320. Lo, Im, Chen, Qu (2017) International Journal of 29, 1, 458- 167 Hospitality industry Hong Kong 920 Trust-based Contemporary Hospitality 88 Management 321. Lobschat, Zinnbauer, Pallas, Long Range Planning 46, 1/2, 125- 100 Automotive industry USA 304 Trust-based Joachimsthaler (2013) 48 322. Loroz, Braig (2015) Psychology and Marketing 32, 7, 751- 23 Celebrities USA 138 Trust-based 63 323. Loroz, Braig (2015) Psychology and Marketing 32, 7, 751- 23 Celebrities USA 138 Attachment- 63 based 324. Loroz, Braig (2015) Psychology and Marketing 32, 7, 751- 23 Celebrities USA 138 Trust-based 63 325. Loroz, Braig (2015) Psychology and Marketing 32, 7, 751- 23 Celebrities USA 138 Trust-based 63 326. Loroz, Braig (2015) Psychology and Marketing 32, 7, 751- 23 Celebrities USA 138 Attachment- 63 based

170

327. Loroz, Braig (2015) Psychology and Marketing 32, 7, 751- 23 Celebrities USA 138 Attachment- 63 based 328. Loureiro, Kaufmann, Demetris Journal of Brand 20, 1, 13-27 1 Automotive industry Portugal 329 Trust-based (2012) Management 329. Loureiro, Kaufmann, Demetris Journal of Brand 20, 1, 13-27 1 Automotive industry Portugal 329 Trust-based (2012) Management 330. Loureiro, Kaufmann, Demetris Journal of Brand 20, 1, 13-27 1 Automotive industry Portugal 329 Love-based (2012) Management 331. Loureiro, Kaufmann, Demetris Journal of Brand 20, 1, 13-27 1 Automotive industry Portugal 329 Love-based (2012) Management 332. Loureiro, Kaufmann, Demetris Journal of Brand 20, 1, 13-27 1 Automotive industry Portugal 329 Self-brand (2012) Management connection- based 333. Loureiro, Kaufmann, Demetris Journal of Brand 20, 1, 13-27 1 Automotive industry Portugal 329 Self-brand (2012) Management connection- based 334. Loureiro, Kaufmann, Demetris Journal of Brand 20, 1, 13-27 1 Automotive industry Portugal 329 Attachment- (2012) Management based 335. Loureiro, Kaufmann, Demetris Journal of Brand 20, 1, 13-27 1 Automotive industry Portugal 329 Attachment- (2012) Management based 336. Love, Staton, Rotman (2016) Marketing Letters 27, 4, 661- 30 Consumer packaged USA 205 Attachment- 74 goods based 337. Luk, Yip (2008) Journal of Brand 15, 6, 452- 265 Clothing retailing Hong Kong 978 Trust-based Management 64 338. Luk, Yip (2008) Journal of Brand 15, 6, 452- 265 Clothing retailing Hong Kong 978 Trust-based Management 64 339. Macintosh, Lockshin (1997) International Journal of 14, 5, 487- 84 A variety of retail Australia 308 Trust-based Research in Marketing 97 stores 340. Macintosh, Lockshin (1997) International Journal of 14, 5, 487- 84 A variety of retail Australia 308 Trust-based Research in Marketing 97 stores 341. Magnoni, Roux (2012) Journal of Brand 19, 7, 595- 13 Automotive industry France 154 Self-brand Management 608 connection- based 342. Magnoni, Roux (2012) Journal of Brand 19, 7, 595- 13 Automotive industry France 154 Trust-based Management 608 343. Magnoni, Roux (2012) Journal of Brand 19, 7, 595- 13 Automotive industry France 154 Attachment- Management 608 based

171

344. Malär, Nyffenegger, Krohmer, Journal of the Academy of 40, 5, 728- 218 Consumer packaged Switzerland 3048 Trust-based Hoyer (2012) Marketing Science 44 goods, Durables, Services, Retail stores 345. Malär, Nyffenegger, Krohmer, Journal of the Academy of 40, 5, 728- 218 Consumer packaged Switzerland 3048 Trust-based Hoyer (2012) Marketing Science 44 goods, Durables, Services, Retail stores 346. Marin, Ruiz, Rubio (2009) Journal of Business Ethics 84, 1, 65-78 49 Financial services Spain 400 Identification- based 347. Marzocchi, Morandin, Bergami European Journal of 47, 1/2, 93- 38 Automotive industry Italy 256 Identification- (2013) Marketing 114 based 348. Marzocchi, Morandin, Bergami European Journal of 47, 1/2, 93- 38 Automotive industry Italy 256 Trust-based (2013) Marketing 114 349. Matzler, Pichler, Füller, Journal of Marketing 27, 9/10, 31 Automotive industry Austria 662 Attachment- Mooradian (2011) Management 874-90 based 350. Matzler, Pichler, Füller, Journal of Marketing 27, 9/10, 31 Automotive industry Austria 662 Trust-based Mooradian (2011) Management 874-90 351. Matzler, Strobl, Stokburger- Tourism Management 52, 507-20 163 Tourism Italy, United 2116 Self-brand Sauer, Bobovnicky, Bauer Kingdom, Czech connection- (2016) Republic, Poland, based Russia 352. Mazodier, Merunka (2012) Journal of the Academy of 40, 6, 807- 54 Sport industry, France 449 Trust-based Marketing Science 20 Consumer Electronics 353. Melewar, Foroudi, Gupta, European Journal of 51, 3, 572- 222 Clothing retailing United Kingdom 347 Trust-based Kitchen, Foroudi (2017) Marketing 604 354. Millán, Díaz (2014) Journal of Brand 21, 3, 254- 10 Consumer electronics, Spain 450 Self-brand Management 72 Kitchen appliances connection- based 355. Miquel-Romero, Caplliure- Journal of Business 67, 5, 667- 83 Consumer electronics, Spain 434 Trust-based Giner, Adame-Sánchez (2014) Research 72 Kitchen appliances 356. Miquel-Romero, Caplliure- Journal of Business 67, 5, 667- 83 Consumer electronics, Spain 434 Trust-based Giner, Adame-Sánchez (2014) Research 72 Kitchen appliances 357. Moliner, Sánchez, Rodríguez, European Journal of 41, 11/12, 231 Home and construction Spain 402 Trust-based Callarisa (2007) Marketing 1392-422 supplies 358. Moliner, Sánchez, Rodríguez, European Journal of 41, 11/12, 231 Tourism Spain 402 Trust-based Callarisa (2007) Marketing 1392-422 359. Moon, Lee, Oh (2015) International Marketing 32, 5, 518- 117 Consumer electronics USA 141 Self-brand Review 39 connection- based

172

360. Moon, Lee, Oh (2015) International Marketing 32, 5, 518- 142 Consumer electronics South Korea 199 Self-brand Review 39 connection- based 361. Moon, Lee, Oh (2015) International Marketing 32, 5, 518- 117 Consumer electronics USA 141 Self-brand Review 39 connection- based 362. Moon, Lee, Oh (2015) International Marketing 32, 5, 518- 142 Consumer electronics South Korea 199 Self-brand Review 39 connection- based 363. Morgan-Thomas, Veloutsou Journal of Business 66, 1, 21-27 160 Software United Kingdom 456 Trust-based (2013) Research 364. Naidoo, Hollebeek (2016) Journal of Business 69, 8, 3113- 209 Higher education Australia 256 Trust-based Research 21 365. Naidoo, Hollebeek (2016) Journal of Business 69, 8, 3113- 209 Higher education Australia 256 Trust-based Research 21 366. Nam, Ekinci, Whyatt (2011) Annals of Tourism Research 38, 3, 1009- 39 Hospitality industry United Kingdom 378 Identification- 30 based 367. Narteh, Mahmoud, Amoh The Service Industries 37, 7-8, 426- 179 Financial services Ghana 300 Trust-based (2017) Journal 47 368. Nguyen, Klaus, Simkin (2014) Journal of Services 28, 6, 484- 77 A variety of services United Kingdom 443 Trust-based Marketing 97 369. Nijssen, van Herk (2009) Journal of International 17, 1, 91- 62 Financial services Germany 160 Trust-based Marketing 115 370. Nyffenegger, Krohmer, Hoyer, Journal of Service Research 18, 1, 90- 127 Airlines Switzerland 631 Trust-based Malär (2015) 106 371. Nyffenegger, Krohmer, Hoyer, Journal of Service Research 18, 1, 90- 127 Airlines Switzerland 631 Self-brand Malär (2015) 106 connection- based 372. Nyffenegger, Krohmer, Hoyer, Journal of Service Research 18, 1, 90- 127 Airlines Switzerland 631 Love-based Malär (2015) 106 373. Nyffenegger, Krohmer, Hoyer, Journal of Service Research 18, 1, 90- 127 Airlines Switzerland 631 Attachment- Malär (2015) 106 based 374. Nyffenegger, Krohmer, Hoyer, Journal of Service Research 18, 1, 90- 127 Airlines Switzerland 631 Love-based Malär (2015) 106 375. Nyffenegger, Krohmer, Hoyer, Journal of Service Research 18, 1, 90- 127 Airlines Switzerland 631 Trust-based Malär (2015) 106 376. Nyffenegger, Krohmer, Hoyer, Journal of Service Research 18, 1, 90- 127 Airlines Switzerland 631 Self-brand Malär (2015) 106 connection- based

173

377. Nyffenegger, Krohmer, Hoyer, Journal of Service Research 18, 1, 90- 127 Airlines Switzerland 631 Self-brand Malär (2015) 106 connection- based 378. Nyffenegger, Krohmer, Hoyer, Journal of Service Research 18, 1, 90- 127 Airlines Switzerland 631 Trust-based Malär (2015) 106 379. Nyffenegger, Krohmer, Hoyer, Journal of Service Research 18, 1, 90- 127 Airlines Switzerland 631 Attachment- Malär (2015) 106 based 380. Nyffenegger, Krohmer, Hoyer, Journal of Service Research 18, 1, 90- 127 Airlines Switzerland 631 Love-based Malär (2015) 106 381. Nyffenegger, Krohmer, Hoyer, Journal of Service Research 18, 1, 90- 127 Airlines Switzerland 631 Attachment- Malär (2015) 106 based 382. Nyffenegger, Krohmer, Hoyer, Journal of Service Research 18, 1, 90- 127 Airlines Switzerland 631 Love-based Malär (2015) 106 383. Nyffenegger, Krohmer, Hoyer, Journal of Service Research 18, 1, 90- 127 Airlines Switzerland 631 Self-brand Malär (2015) 106 connection- based 384. Nyffenegger, Krohmer, Hoyer, Journal of Service Research 18, 1, 90- 127 Airlines Switzerland 631 Trust-based Malär (2015) 106 385. Nyffenegger, Krohmer, Hoyer, Journal of Service Research 18, 1, 90- 127 Airlines Switzerland 631 Attachment- Malär (2015) 106 based 386. Orth, Limon, Rose (2010) Journal of Business 63, 11, 33 Beverage industry USA 319 Attachment- Research 1202-08 based 387. Orth, Stöckl, Veale, Brouard, Journal of Business 65, 9, 1321- 279 Beverage industry Australia, Austria, 3323 Attachment- Cavicchi, Faraoni, Larreina, Research 27 France, Hungary, based Lecat, Olsen, Rodriguez-Santos, Italy, Spain, Santini, Wilson (2012) Switzerland, USA 388. Ozdemir, Hewett (2010) Journal of International 18, 1, 41-62 255 Book retailing Turkey 85 Trust-based Marketing 389. Ozdemir, Hewett (2010) Journal of International 18, 1, 41-62 255 Book retailing USA 80 Trust-based Marketing 390. Palmer, Koenig-Lewis, Asaad Journal of Business 69, 8, 3033- 162 Higher education United Kingdom 791 Identification- (2016) Research 3040 based 391. Park, Eisingerich, Park (2013) Journal of Consumer 23, 2, 229- 157 Consumer electronics USA 367 Attachment- Psychology 48 based 392. Park, Eisingerich, Park (2013) Journal of Consumer 23, 2, 229- 157 Consumer electronics USA 367 Attachment- Psychology 48 based 393. Park, Eisingerich, Park (2013) Journal of Consumer 23, 2, 229- 157 Consumer electronics USA 367 Attachment- Psychology 48 based

174

394. Park, Eisingerich, Park (2013) Journal of Consumer 23, 2, 229- 157 Consumer electronics USA 367 Attachment- Psychology 48 based 395. Park, Eisingerich, Park (2013) Journal of Consumer 23, 2, 229- 157 Consumer electronics USA 367 Attachment- Psychology 48 based 396. Park, Eisingerich, Park (2013) Journal of Consumer 23, 2, 229- 157 Consumer electronics USA 367 Attachment- Psychology 48 based 397. Park, Eisingerich, Park (2013) Journal of Consumer 23, 2, 229- 158 Grocery retailing USA 739 Attachment- Psychology 48 (Supermarkets) based 398. Park, Eisingerich, Park (2013) Journal of Consumer 23, 2, 229- 158 Grocery retailing USA 739 Attachment- Psychology 48 (Supermarkets) based 399. Park, Eisingerich, Park (2013) Journal of Consumer 23, 2, 229- 158 Grocery retailing USA 739 Attachment- Psychology 48 (Supermarkets) based 400. Park, Eisingerich, Park (2013) Journal of Consumer 23, 2, 229- 158 Grocery retailing USA 739 Attachment- Psychology 48 (Supermarkets) based 401. Park, Eisingerich, Park (2013) Journal of Consumer 23, 2, 229- 158 Grocery retailing USA 739 Attachment- Psychology 48 (Supermarkets) based 402. Park, Eisingerich, Park (2013) Journal of Consumer 23, 2, 229- 158 Grocery retailing USA 739 Attachment- Psychology 48 (Supermarkets) based 403. Park, Eisingerich, Park (2013) Journal of Consumer 23, 2, 229- 158 Grocery retailing USA 739 Attachment- Psychology 48 (Supermarkets) based 404. Park, Eisingerich, Park (2013) Journal of Consumer 23, 2, 229- 158 Grocery retailing USA 739 Attachment- Psychology 48 (Supermarkets) based 405. Park, Eisingerich, Park (2013) Journal of Consumer 23, 2, 229- 158 Grocery retailing USA 739 Attachment- Psychology 48 (Supermarkets) based 406. Park, Eisingerich, Park (2013) Journal of Consumer 23, 2, 229- 158 Grocery retailing USA 739 Attachment- Psychology 48 (Supermarkets) based 407. Park, Eisingerich, Park (2013) Journal of Consumer 23, 2, 229- 158 Grocery retailing USA 739 Attachment- Psychology 48 (Supermarkets) based 408. Park, Eisingerich, Park (2013) Journal of Consumer 23, 2, 229- 158 Grocery retailing USA 739 Attachment- Psychology 48 (Supermarkets) based 409. Park, Eisingerich, Park (2013) Journal of Consumer 23, 2, 229- 158 Grocery retailing USA 739 Attachment- Psychology 48 (Supermarkets) based 410. Park, Eisingerich, Park (2013) Journal of Consumer 23, 2, 229- 158 Grocery retailing USA 739 Attachment- Psychology 48 (Supermarkets) based 411. Park, Kim, Kwon (2017) Journal of Business 76, 8-13 177 General retailing South Korea 931 Trust-based Research (Department Stores) 412. Park, MacInnis, Priester, Journal of Marketing 74, 6, 1-17 112 Financial services United Kingdom 697 Attachment- Eisingerich, Iacobucci (2010) based

175

413. Park, MacInnis, Priester, Journal of Marketing 74, 6, 1-17 112 Financial services United Kingdom 697 Attachment- Eisingerich, Iacobucci (2010) based 414. Park, MacInnis, Priester, Journal of Marketing 74, 6, 1-17 111 Sport industry USA 141 Attachment- Eisingerich, Iacobucci (2010) based 415. Park, MacInnis, Priester, Journal of Marketing 74, 6, 1-17 112 Financial services United Kingdom 697 Attachment- Eisingerich, Iacobucci (2010) based 416. Park, MacInnis, Priester, Journal of Marketing 74, 6, 1-17 111 Sport industry USA 141 Attachment- Eisingerich, Iacobucci (2010) based 417. Park, MacInnis, Priester, Journal of Marketing 74, 6, 1-17 111 Sport industry USA 141 Attachment- Eisingerich, Iacobucci (2010) based 418. Park, Priester, MacInnis, Wan Handbook of Brand 327-41 106 Consumer electronics USA 280 Attachment- (2009) Relationships based 419. Park, Priester, MacInnis, Wan Handbook of Brand 327-41 106 Consumer electronics USA 280 Attachment- (2009) Relationships based 420. Paulssen, Roulet, Wilke (2014) European Journal of 48, 5/6, 964- 85 Automotive industry Switzerland 503 Trust-based Marketing 81 421. Pauwels-Delassus, Descotes Journal of Brand 20, 8, 656- 21 Consumer packaged France 300 Trust-based (2013) Management 69 goods 422. Peng, Chen, Wen (2014) Industrial Management and 114, 8, 165 Financial services Taiwan 245 Attachment- Data Systems 1131-43 based 423. Peng, Chen, Wen (2014) Industrial Management and 114, 8, 165 Financial services Taiwan 245 Identification- Data Systems 1131-43 based 424. Pentina, Gammoh, Zhang, International Journal of 17, 3, 63-86 124 Social media USA 284 Self-brand Mallin (2013) Electronic Commerce connection- based 425. Pentina, Gammoh, Zhang, International Journal of 17, 3, 63-86 124 A variety of brands USA 200 Self-brand Mallin (2013) Electronic Commerce connection- based 426. Pentina, Gammoh, Zhang, International Journal of 17, 3, 63-86 124 A variety of brands USA 84 Self-brand Mallin (2013) Electronic Commerce connection- based 427. Pentina, Zhang, Basmanova Computers in Human 29, 4, 1546- 143 Social media USA 184 Self-brand (2013) Behavior 55 connection- based 428. Pentina, Zhang, Basmanova Computers in Human 29, 4, 1546- 133 Social media Ukraine 125 Self-brand (2013) Behavior 55 connection- based

176

429. Pentina, Zhang, Basmanova Computers in Human 29, 4, 1546- 133 A variety of brands Ukraine 125 Self-brand (2013) Behavior 55 connection- based 430. Pentina, Zhang, Basmanova Computers in Human 29, 4, 1546- 133 Social media Ukraine 125 Trust-based (2013) Behavior 55 431. Pentina, Zhang, Basmanova Computers in Human 29, 4, 1546- 143 A variety of brands USA 184 Self-brand (2013) Behavior 55 connection- based 432. Pentina, Zhang, Basmanova Computers in Human 29, 4, 1546- 143 Social media USA 184 Trust-based (2013) Behavior 55 433. Pereira, Alves, Ferreira (2016) The Service Industries 36, 15-16, 216 Tourism Portugal 598 Trust-based Journal 827-45 434. Pérez, del Bosque (2015) Journal of Services 29, 1, 15-25 40 Financial services Spain 648 Identification- Marketing based 435. Pérez, del Bosque (2015) Journal of Services 29, 1, 15-25 40 Financial services Spain 476 Identification- Marketing based 436. Pérez, del Bosque (2015) Journal of Business Ethics 129, 3, 571- 37 Financial services Spain 1124 Identification- 84 based 437. Pivato, Misani, Tencati (2008) Business Ethics: A European 17, 1, 3-12 261 Grocery retailing Italy 400 Trust-based Review (Supermarkets) 438. Pizzutti, Fernandes (2010) International Journal of 14, 4, 127- 69 E-retailing (E- Brazil 3206 Trust-based Electronic Commerce 60 commerce) 439. Rafiq, Fulford, Lu (2013) Journal of Marketing 29, 3/4, 494- 58 Grocery retailing United Kingdom 491 Trust-based Management 517 (Supermarkets) 440. Raimondo, Miceli, Costabile Journal of Service Research 11, 2, 142- 211 Telecommunications Italy 461 Trust-based (2008) 60 441. Raimondo, Miceli, Costabile Journal of Service Research 11, 2, 142- 211 Telecommunications Italy 461 Trust-based (2008) 60 442. Ramaseshan, Stein (2014) Journal of Brand 21, 7/8, 664- 22 Restaurant industry; Australia 300 Attachment- Management 83 Consumer electronics; based Beverage industry 443. Ramaseshan, Stein (2014) Journal of Brand 21, 7/8, 664- 22 Restaurant industry, Australia 300 Trust-based Management 83 Consumer electronics, Beverage industry 444. Ramaseshan, Stein (2014) Journal of Brand 21, 7/8, 664- 22 Restaurant industry, Australia 300 Trust-based Management 83 Consumer electronics, Beverage industry

177

445. Ramaseshan, Stein (2014) Journal of Brand 21, 7/8, 664- 22 Restaurant industry, Australia 300 Attachment- Management 83 Consumer electronics, based Beverage industry 446. Ramaseshan, Stein (2014) Journal of Brand 21, 7/8, 664- 22 Restaurant industry, Australia 300 Attachment- Management 83 Consumer electronics, based Beverage industry 447. Ramaseshan, Stein (2014) Journal of Brand 21, 7/8, 664- 22 Restaurant industry, Australia 300 Trust-based Management 83 Consumer electronics, Beverage industry 448. Ramkissoon, Mavondo (2015) Journal of Business 68, 12, 271 Entertainment Australia 339 Identification- Research 2593-602 based 449. Ramkissoon, Mavondo (2015) Journal of Business 68, 12, 271 Entertainment Australia 339 Attachment- Research 2593-602 based 450. Randhawa, Calantone, Journal of Business 68, 11, 118 Accessories USA 296 Self-brand Voorhees (2015) Research 2395-403 connection- based 451. Revilla-Camacho, Vega- Psychology and Marketing 34, 11, 201 Beauty services Colombia, Chile, 947 Trust-based Vázquez, Cossío-Silva (2017) 1039-49 Spain, Lithuania, Poland 452. Rindfleisch, Burroughs, Wong Journal of Consumer 36, 1, 1-16 14 Not limited USA 314 Self-brand (2009) Research connection- based 453. Rindfleisch, Burroughs, Wong Journal of Consumer 36, 1, 1-16 14 Not limited USA 314 Self-brand (2009) Research connection- based 454. Rose, Merchant, Orth, Journal of Business 69, 2, 936- 192 Consumer packaged Germany 268 Trust-based Horstmann (2016) Research 43 goods, Automotive industry 455. Rose, Merchant, Orth, Journal of Business 69, 2, 936- 192 Consumer packaged Germany 268 Attachment- Horstmann (2016) Research 43 goods, Automotive based industry 456. Rose, Merchant, Orth, Journal of Business 69, 2, 936- 193 Consumer packaged USA 161 Trust-based Horstmann (2016) Research 43 goods, Automotive industry 457. Rose, Merchant, Orth, Journal of Business 69, 2, 936- 193 Consumer packaged USA 161 Attachment- Horstmann (2016) Research 43 goods, Automotive based industry 458. Roy (2013) Journal of Strategic 21, 3, 260- 63 Telecommunications India 582 Trust-based Marketing 76

178

459. Roy, Balaji, Soutar, Lassar, Roy Journal of Business Forthcoming 181 Hospitality industry Australia 435 Trust-based (2018) Research 460. Roy, Balaji, Soutar, Lassar, Roy Journal of Business Forthcoming 181 Hospitality industry USA 396 Trust-based (2018) Research 461. Roy, Balaji, Soutar, Lassar, Roy Journal of Business Forthcoming 181 Hospitality industry India 224 Trust-based (2018) Research 462. Roy, Balaji, Soutar, Lassar, Roy Journal of Business Forthcoming 181 Hospitality industry China 204 Trust-based (2018) Research 463. Roy, Khandeparkar, Motiani Journal of Brand 23, 5, 97- 147 A variety of retail India 500 Love-based (2016) Management 113 stores 464. Ruiz-Molina, Gil-Saura, Journal of Services 31, 2, 131- 221 A variety of retail Spain 820 Trust-based Servera-Francés (2017) Marketing 41 stores 465. Sajtos, Brodie, Whittome (2010) Journal of Service Research 13, 2, 216- 72 Airlines New Zealand 552 Trust-based 29 466. Sanchez-Franco (2009) Journal of Interactive 23, 3, 247- 96 Financial services Spain 456 Trust-based Marketing 58 467. Sanz-Blasa, Ruiz-Maféa, Perez The Service Industries 34, 5, 455- 78 E-retailing (E- Mexico 230 Trust-based (2014) Journal 75 commerce) 468. Schade, Hegner, Horstmann, Journal of Business 69, 1, 314- 260 Not limited Europe 297 Self-brand Brinkmann (2016) Research 22 connection- based 469. Schmalz, Orth (2012) Psychology and Marketing 29, 11, 869- 161 Consumer electronics Germany 157 Attachment- 84 based 470. Sen, Johnson, Bhattacharya, Review of Marketing 12, 151-74 27 Not limited Canada 268 Identification- Wang (2015) Research based 471. Sen, Johnson, Bhattacharya, Review of Marketing 12, 151-74 27 Not limited Canada 268 Attachment- Wang (2015) Research based 472. Shamah, Mason, Moretti, Journal of Business Forthcoming 223 Restaurant industry Egypt, Morocco 911 Self-brand Raggiotto (2018) Research connection- based 473. Shin, Casidy, Yoon, Yoon Journal of Brand 23, 5, 1-23 166 Restaurant industry USA 63 Trust-based (2016) Management 474. Shukla, Banerjee, Singh (2016) Journal of Business 69, 1, 323- 180 Clothing retailing, United Kingdom 212 Trust-based Research 31 Accessories 475. Singh, Iglesias, Batista-Foguet Journal of Business Ethics 111, 4, 541- 68 Consumer packaged Spain 16108 Trust-based (2012) 49 goods 476. Sirdeshmukh, Singh, Sabol Journal of Marketing 66, 1, 15-37 64 Airlines USA 113 Trust-based (2002)

179

477. Sirdeshmukh, Singh, Sabol Journal of Marketing 66, 1, 15-37 65 Clothing retailing USA 246 Trust-based (2002) 478. Sirgy, Grewal, Mangleburg, Journal of the Academy of 25, 3, 229- 132 Higher education USA 252 Self-brand Park, Chon, Claiborne, Johar, Marketing Science 41 connection- Berkman (1997) based 479. Sirgy, Grewal, Mangleburg, Journal of the Academy of 25, 3, 229- 130 A variety of product USA 428 Self-brand Park, Chon, Claiborne, Johar, Marketing Science 41 categories connection- Berkman (1997) based 480. Sirgy, Grewal, Mangleburg, Journal of the Academy of 25, 3, 229- 131 Financial services USA 320 Self-brand Park, Chon, Claiborne, Johar, Marketing Science 41 connection- Berkman (1997) based 481. Sirgy, Grewal, Mangleburg, Journal of the Academy of 25, 3, 229- 129 Clothing retailing USA 229 Self-brand Park, Chon, Claiborne, Johar, Marketing Science 41 connection- Berkman (1997) based 482. Sirgy, Grewal, Mangleburg, Journal of the Academy of 25, 3, 229- 132 Higher education USA 252 Self-brand Park, Chon, Claiborne, Johar, Marketing Science 41 connection- Berkman (1997) based 483. Sirgy, Grewal, Mangleburg, Journal of the Academy of 25, 3, 229- 131 Financial services USA 320 Self-brand Park, Chon, Claiborne, Johar, Marketing Science 41 connection- Berkman (1997) based 484. Sirgy, Grewal, Mangleburg, Journal of the Academy of 25, 3, 229- 130 A variety of product USA 428 Self-brand Park, Chon, Claiborne, Johar, Marketing Science 41 categories connection- Berkman (1997) based 485. Sirgy, Grewal, Mangleburg, Journal of the Academy of 25, 3, 229- 129 Clothing retailing USA 229 Self-brand Park, Chon, Claiborne, Johar, Marketing Science 41 connection- Berkman (1997) based 486. So, King, Sparks, Wang (2013) International Journal of 34, 31-41 264 Hospitality industry Australia 207 Identification- Hospitality Management based 487. So, King, Sparks, Wang (2013) International Journal of 34, 31-41 264 Hospitality industry Australia 207 Trust-based Hospitality Management 488. So, King, Sparks, Wang (2016) Journal of Travel Research 55, 1, 64-78 136 Hospitality industry, Australia 496 Trust-based Airlines 489. So, King, Sparks, Wang (2016) Journal of Travel Research 55, 1, 64-78 136 Hospitality industry, Australia 496 Identification- Airlines based 490. So, King, Sparks, Wang (2016) Journal of Service 27, 2, 170- 195 Not limited Australia 151 Identification- Management 93 based 491. So, King, Sparks, Wang (2016) Journal of Service 27, 2, 170- 195 Not limited Australia 151 Trust-based Management 93

180

492. So, King, Sparks, Wang (2016) Journal of Service 27, 2, 170- 196 A variety of retail Australia 259 Identification- Management 93 stores based 493. So, King, Sparks, Wang (2016) Journal of Service 27, 2, 170- 196 A variety of retail Australia 259 Trust-based Management 93 stores 494. Stokburger-Sauer (2011) Tourism Management 32, 6, 1282- 266 Tourism Germany 421 Identification- 89 based 495. Stokburger-Sauer, Ratneshwar, International Journal of 29, 4, 406- 44 Beverage industry, Germany 781 Identification- Sen (2012) Research in Marketing 18 Sport industry, based Consumer electronics, Grocery retailing (Supermarkets) 496. Stokburger-Sauer, Ratneshwar, International Journal of 29, 4, 406- 44 Beverage industry, Germany 781 Identification- Sen (2012) Research in Marketing 18 Sport industry, based Consumer electronics, Grocery retailing (Supermarkets) 497. Su, Swanson, Journal of Business 69, 9, 3261- 238 Hospitality industry China 416 Identification- Chinchanachokchai, Hsu, Chen Research 69 based (2016) 498. Sun, Lin (2010) The Service Industries 30, 9, 1439- 59 General retailing Taiwan 383 Trust-based Journal 55 (Department Stores) 499. Sung, Kim (2010) Psychology and Marketing 27, 7, 639- 70 Clothing retailing; USA 646 Trust-based 61 Accessories; Consumer packaged goods 500. Swimberghe, Astakhova, Ross Journal of Business 67, 12, 148 Not limited USA 500 Love-based Wooldridge (2014) Research 2657-65 501. Swimberghe, Astakhova, Ross Journal of Business 67, 12, 148 Not limited USA 500 Love-based Wooldridge (2014) Research 2657-65 502. Swimberghe, Astakhova, Ross Journal of Business 67, 12, 148 Not limited USA 500 Self-brand Wooldridge (2014) Research 2657-65 connection- based 503. Thompson, Newman, Liu Journal of Business 67, 11, 95 Consumer packaged China 316 Trust-based (2014) Research 2437-46 goods 504. Thomson (2006) Journal of Marketing 70, 3, 104- 26 Celebrities USA 164 Trust-based 19 505. Thomson (2006) Journal of Marketing 70, 3, 104- 26 Celebrities USA 164 Attachment- 19 based 506. Thomson (2006) Journal of Marketing 70, 3, 104- 26 Celebrities USA 164 Attachment- 19 based

181

507. Thomson (2006) Journal of Marketing 70, 3, 104- 26 Celebrities USA 164 Trust-based 19 508. Thomson, MacInnis, Park Journal of Consumer 15, 1, 77-91 35 Not limited USA 179 Attachment- (2005) Psychology based 509. Tsai (2011) European Journal of 45, 7/8, 6 A variety of service Canada, USA, 2481 Self-brand Marketing 1194-213 industries United Kingdom, connection- France, Germany, based Japan, Hong Kong, Australia 510. Tsai (2011) European Journal of 45, 7/8, 6 A variety of service Canada, USA, 2481 Trust-based Marketing 1194-213 industries United Kingdom, France, Germany, Japan, Hong Kong, Australia 511. Tsai (2011) European Journal of 45, 7/8, 6 A variety of service Canada, USA, 2481 Love-based Marketing 1194-213 industries United Kingdom, France, Germany, Japan, Hong Kong, Australia 512. Tsai (2011) International Business 20, 5, 521- 205 Automotive industry, Canada, USA, 1982 Trust-based Review 34 Consumer electronics, France, Germany, Sport industry United Kingdom, Japan, Hong Kong 513. Tsai (2011) International Business 20, 5, 521- 205 Automotive industry, Canada, USA, 1982 Trust-based Review 34 Consumer electronics, France, Germany, Sport industry United Kingdom, Japan, Hong Kong 514. Tsai (2011) International Business 20, 5, 521- 205 Automotive industry, Canada, USA, 1982 Self-brand Review 34 Consumer electronics, France, Germany, connection- Sport industry United Kingdom, based Japan, Hong Kong 515. Tsai (2011) International Business 20, 5, 521- 205 Automotive industry, Canada, USA, 1982 Self-brand Review 34 Consumer electronics, France, Germany, connection- Sport industry United Kingdom, based Japan, Hong Kong

182

516. Tsai (2011) International Business 20, 5, 521- 205 Automotive industry, Canada, USA, 1982 Attachment- Review 34 Consumer electronics, France, Germany, based Sport industry United Kingdom, Japan, Hong Kong 517. Tsai (2011) International Business 20, 5, 521- 205 Automotive industry, Canada, USA, 1982 Attachment- Review 34 Consumer electronics, France, Germany, based Sport industry United Kingdom, Japan, Hong Kong 518. Tsiotsou (2013) Journal of Services 27, 6, 458- 32 Sport industry Greece 287 Trust-based Marketing 71 519. Tsiotsou (2013) Journal of Services 27, 6, 458- 32 Sport industry Greece 287 Self-brand Marketing 71 connection- based 520. Tsiotsou (2013) Journal of Services 27, 6, 458- 32 Sport industry Greece 287 Attachment- Marketing 71 based 521. Urueña, Hidalgo (2016) Journal of Business 69, 4, 1384- 247 E-retailing (E- Spain 303 Trust-based Research 89 commerce) 522. Usakli, Baloglu (2011) Tourism Management 32, 1, 114- 164 Tourism USA 368 Self-brand 27 connection- based 523. Usakli, Baloglu (2011) Tourism Management 32, 1, 114- 164 Tourism USA 368 Self-brand 27 connection- based 524. Vlachos, Theotokis, Pramatari, European Journal of 44, 9/10, 12 Grocery retailing Greece 163 Trust-based Vrechopoulos (2010) Marketing 1478-99 (Supermarkets) 525. Vlachos, Theotokis, Pramatari, European Journal of 44, 9/10, 12 Grocery retailing Greece 163 Self-brand Vrechopoulos (2010) Marketing 1478-99 (Supermarkets) connection- based 526. Vlachos, Theotokis, Pramatari, European Journal of 44, 9/10, 12 Grocery retailing Greece 163 Attachment- Vrechopoulos (2010) Marketing 1478-99 (Supermarkets) based 527. Vlachos, Vrechopoulos (2012) Journal of Retailing and 19, 2, 218- 173 Grocery retailing Greece 215 Love-based Consumer Services 28 (Supermarkets) 528. Vlachos, Vrechopoulos (2012) Journal of Retailing and 19, 2, 218- 174 Grocery retailing Greece 465 Love-based Consumer Services 28 (Supermarkets) 529. Wallace, Buil, de Chernatony Journal of Brand 20, 2, 128- 202 Not limited Ireland 265 Self-brand (2012) Management 146 connection- based

183

530. Wallace, Buil, de Chernatony Journal of Brand 20, 2, 128- 202 Not limited Ireland 265 Self-brand (2012) Management 146 connection- based 531. Wallace, Buil, de Chernatony European Journal of 51, 2, 367- 176 Not limited Ireland 438 Self-brand (2017) Marketing 390 connection- based 532. Wallace, Buil, de Chernatony European Journal of 51, 2, 367- 176 Not limited Ireland 438 Love-based (2017) Marketing 390 533. Wallace, Buil, de Chernatony, Journal of Advertising 54, 1, 92- 9 Not limited Ireland 438 Self-brand Hogan (2014) Research 109 connection- based 534. Wallace, Buil, de Chernatony, Journal of Advertising 54, 1, 92- 9 Not limited Ireland 438 Self-brand Hogan (2014) Research 109 connection- based 535. Wallace, Buil, de Chernatony, Journal of Advertising 54, 1, 92- 9 Not limited Ireland 438 Love-based Hogan (2014) Research 109 536. Walsh, Mitchell, Jackson, British Journal of 20, 2, 187- 71 Public utilities Germany 511 Trust-based Beatty (2009) Management 203 537. Wang, Ngamsiriudom, Hsieh The Service Industries 35, 10, 555- 276 Financial services Taiwan 830 Trust-based (2015) Journal 72 538. Wang, Yeh, Yen, Sandoya The Service Industries 36, 9-10, 155 Social media Taiwan 289 Attachment- (2016) Journal 438-51 based 539. Wang, Yeh, Yen, Sandoya The Service Industries 36, 9-10, 155 Social media Taiwan 289 Attachment- (2016) Journal 438-51 based 540. Wang, Yeh, Yen, Sandoya The Service Industries 36, 9-10, 155 Social media Taiwan 289 Self-brand (2016) Journal 438-51 connection- based 541. Wang, Yeh, Yen, Sandoya The Service Industries 36, 9-10, 155 Social media Taiwan 289 Self-brand (2016) Journal 438-51 connection- based 542. Whang, Allen, Sahoury, Zhang Advances in Consumer 31, 320-27 203 Automotive industry USA 179 Love-based (2004) Research 543. Wilson, Giebelhausen, Brady Journal of the Academy of 45, 4, 534- 230 Consumer electronics USA 98 Self-brand (2017) Marketing Science 47 connection- based 544. Wolter, Brach, Cronin, Bonn Journal of Business 69, 2, 785- 248 Beverage industry USA 1253 Identification- (2016) Research 93 based 545. Wolter, Brach, Cronin, Bonn Journal of Business 69, 2, 785- 248 Beverage industry USA 1253 Identification- (2016) Research 93 based

184

546. Wolter, Brach, Cronin, Bonn Journal of Business 69, 2, 785- 248 Beverage industry USA 1253 Self-brand (2016) Research 93 connection- based 547. Wolter, Brach, Cronin, Bonn Journal of Business 69, 2, 785- 248 Beverage industry USA 1253 Self-brand (2016) Research 93 connection- based 548. Wolter, Cronin Jr. (2016) Journal of the Academy of 44, 3, 397- 120 Not limited USA 628 Identification- Marketing Science 413 based 549. Wolter, Cronin Jr. (2016) Journal of the Academy of 44, 3, 397- 120 Not limited USA 628 Identification- Marketing Science 413 based 550. Wolter, Cronin Jr. (2016) Journal of the Academy of 44, 3, 397- 120 Not limited USA 628 Identification- Marketing Science 413 based 551. Wolter, Cronin Jr. (2016) Journal of the Academy of 44, 3, 397- 120 Not limited USA 628 Identification- Marketing Science 413 based 552. Wong, Sohal (2006) International Journal of 23, 3, 244- 278 General retailing Australia 1261 Trust-based Quality and Reliability 64 (Department Stores) Management 553. Wong, Sohal (2006) International Journal of 23, 3, 244- 278 General retailing Australia 1261 Trust-based Quality and Reliability 64 (Department Stores) Management 554. Wu, Chan, Lau (2008) Journal of Marketing 24, 3/4, 345- 67 Consumer electronics Hong Kong 308 Trust-based Management 60 555. Wu, Chan, Lau (2008) Journal of Marketing 24, 3/4, 345- 67 Consumer electronics Hong Kong 308 Trust-based Management 60 556. Wu, Tsai, Hung (2012) Journal of Sport 26, 2, 177- 51 Sport industry Taiwan 217 Trust-based Management 91 557. Wu, Tsai, Hung (2012) Journal of Sport 26, 2, 177- 51 Sport industry Taiwan 217 Identification- Management 91 based 558. Wu, Tsai, Hung (2012) Journal of Sport 26, 2, 177- 51 Sport industry Taiwan 217 Identification- Management 91 based 559. Wu, Tsai, Hung (2012) Journal of Sport 26, 2, 177- 51 Sport industry Taiwan 217 Trust-based Management 91 560. Xie, Batra, Peng (2015) journal of International 23, 1, 50-71 115 Consumer electronics China 287 Trust-based Marketing 561. Xie, Batra, Peng (2015) journal of International 23, 1, 50-71 115 Consumer electronics China 287 Self-brand Marketing connection- based 562. Yeh, Wang, Yieh (2016) International Journal of 36, 3, 245- 234 Consumer electronics Taiwan 157 Identification- Information Management 57 based

185

563. Yim, Tse, Chan (2008) Journal of Marketing 45, 6, 741- 246 Restaurant industry Hong Kong 360 Trust-based Research 56 564. Yim, Tse, Chan (2008) Journal of Marketing 45, 6, 741- 246 Restaurant industry Hong Kong 360 Trust-based Research 56 565. Yim, Tse, Chan (2008) Journal of Marketing 45, 6, 741- 246 Restaurant industry Hong Kong 360 Trust-based Research 56 566. Yim, Tse, Chan (2008) Journal of Marketing 45, 6, 741- 246 Beauty services Hong Kong 360 Trust-based Research 56 567. Yim, Tse, Chan (2008) Journal of Marketing 45, 6, 741- 246 Beauty services Hong Kong 360 Trust-based Research 56 568. Yim, Tse, Chan (2008) Journal of Marketing 45, 6, 741- 246 Beauty services Hong Kong 360 Trust-based Research 56 569. Yoo, Park (2016) Journal of Business 69, 12, 256 Clothing retailing South Korea 150 Self-brand Research 5775-84 connection- based 570. Yoo, Park (2016) Journal of Business 69, 12, 256 Clothing retailing South Korea 153 Self-brand Research 5775-84 connection- based 571. Yoo, Sanders, Moon (2013) Decision Support Systems 55, 3, 669- 46 E-retailing (E- South Korea 257 Identification- 78 commerce) based 572. Yoshida, Gordon, Nakazawa, Journal of Sport 28, 4, 399- 134 Sport industry Japan 472 Identification- Biscaia (2014) Management 417 based 573. Yoshida, Gordon, Nakazawa, Journal of Sport 28, 4, 399- 134 Sport industry Japan 472 Identification- Biscaia (2014) Management 417 based 574. Yoshida, Gordon, Nakazawa, Journal of Sport 28, 4, 399- 134 Sport industry Japan 472 Identification- Biscaia (2014) Management 417 based 575. Yoshida, Gordon, Nakazawa, Journal of Sport 28, 4, 399- 134 Sport industry Japan 472 Identification- Biscaia (2014) Management 417 based 576. Zhang, Benyoucef, Zhao (2015) Computers in Human 44, 1, 357- 11 Consumer electronics China 424 Trust-based Behavior 68 577. Zhang, Benyoucef, Zhao (2015) Computers in Human 44, 1, 357- 11 Consumer electronics China 424 Self-brand Behavior 68 connection- based 578. Zhang, Bloemer (2008) Journal of Service Research 11, 2, 161- 92 Clothing retailing, Netherlands 1037 Trust-based 78 Financial services 579. Zheng, Hui, Yang (2017) Journal of Business 78, 217-25 210 Healthcare China 747 Trust-based Research 580. Zhou, Zhang, Su, Zhou (2012) Journal of Business 65, 7, 890- 25 Automotive industry China 437 Identification- Research 95 based

186

581. Zhou, Zhang, Su, Zhou (2012) Journal of Business 65, 7, 890- 25 Automotive industry China 437 Attachment- Research 95 based

187

Appendix B Theme 2. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Moderators in Study 2

Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Indulgence vs. Restraint 55.91 15.94 −

2. Individualism vs. Collectivism 65.47 27.50 .73*** −

3. Masculinity vs. Femininity 56.25 11.87 .25** .45*** −

4. Power distance 48.58 15.48 -.67*** -.75*** -.38*** −

5. Economic globalization 72.70 10.59 .14** .14** -.07 -.28*** −

6. Voice and accountability 1.01 .65 .48*** .48*** .06 -.50*** .52*** −

7. Level of Urbanization 77.93 11.53 .38*** .28*** -.04 -.30*** .40*** .43*** −

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

188

Appendix B Theme 3. References Agarwal, James, Madelynn Stackhouse, and Oleksiy Osiyevskyy (2018), “I Love That Company: Look How Ethical, Prominent, and Efficacious It Is - A Triadic Organizational Reputation (TOR) Scale,” Journal of Business Ethics, forthcoming. Agudo, Jesús Collado, Angel Herrero Crespo, and Ignacio Rodríguez del Bosque (2012), “Adherence to Customer Loyalty Programmes and Changes in Buyer Behaviour,” The Service Industries Journal, 32 (8), 1323-41. Agustin, Clara and Jagdip Singh (2005), “Curvilinear Effects of Consumer Loyalty Determinants in Relational Exchanges,” Journal of Marketing Research, 42 (1), 96-108. Albert, Noel, Laure Ambroise, and Pierre Valette-Florence (2017), “Consumer, Brand, Celebrity: Which Congruency Produces Effective Celebrity Endorsements?” Journal of Business Research, 81, 96-106. Albert, Noel, Dwight Merunka, and Pierre Valette-Florence (2009), “The Feeling of Love Toward a Brand: Concept and Measurement,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 36, ed. Ann L. McGill and Sharon Shavitt, Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research, 300-7. Albert, Noel, Dwight Merunka, and Pierre Valette-Florence (2013), “Brand Passion: Antecedents and Consequences,” Journal of Business Research, 66 (7), 904-9. Aldas-Manzano, Joaquin, Carla Ruiz-Mafe, Silvia Sanz-Blas, and Carlos Lassala-Navarré (2011), “Internet Banking Loyalty: Evaluating the Role of Trust, Satisfaction, Perceived Risk and Frequency of Use,” The Service Industries Journal, 31(7), 1165–90. Algesheimer, René, Utpal M. Dholakia, and Andreas Herrmann (2005), “The Social Influence of Brand Community: Evidence from European Car Clubs,” Journal of Marketing, 69 (3), 19- 34. Ambroise, Laure, Gaëlle Pantin-Sohier, Pierre Valette-Florence, and Noel Albert (2014), “From Endorsement to Celebrity Co-Branding: Personality Transfer,” Journal of Brand Management, 21 (4), 273-85. Anderson, Rolph E. and Srinivasan Swaminathan (2011), “Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty in E-Markets: A PLS Path Modeling Approach,” Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19 (2), 221-34. Ashworth, Laurence, Peter Dacin, and Matthew Thomson (2009), “Why on Earth Do Consumers Have Relationships with Marketers: Toward Understanding the Functions of Brand Relationships,” in Handbook of Brand Relationships, ed. Deborah J. MacInnis, C. Whan Park, and Joseph R. Priester, Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 65-81. Aurier, Philippe and Gilles Séré de Lanauze (2011), “Impacts of In‐Store Manufacturer Brand Expression on Perceived Value, Relationship Quality and Attitudinal Loyalty,” International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 39 (11), 810-35. Aurier, Philippe and Gilles Séré de Lanauze (2012), “Impacts of Perceived Brand Relationship Orientation on Attitudinal Loyalty: An Application to Strong Brands in the Packaged Goods Sector,” European Journal of Marketing, 46, (11/12), 1602–27. Aydin, Serkan and Gökhan Özer (2005), “The Analysis of Antecedents of Customer Loyalty in the Turkish Mobile Telecommunication Market,” European Journal of Marketing, 39 (7/8), 910-25. Baek, Tae Hyun, Jooyoung Kim, and Jay Hyunjae Yu (2010), “The Differential Roles of Brand Credibility and Brand Prestige in Consumer Brand Choice,” Psychology and Marketing, 27 (7), 662-78.

189

Bagozzi, Richard P., Rajeev Batra, and Aaron Ahuvia (2017), “Brand Love: Development and Validation of a Practical Scale,” Marketing Letters, 28 (1), 1-14. Bagozzi, Richard P. and Utpal M. Dholakia (2006), “Antecedents and Purchase Consequences of Customer Participation in Small Group Brand Communities,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 23 (1), 45-61. Balaji, M. S., Sanjit Kumar Roy, and Saalem Sadeque (2016), “Antecedents and Consequences of University Brand Identification,” Journal of Business Research, 69 (8), 3023-32. Balaji, M. S., Sanjit Kumar Roy, and Khong Kok Wei (2016), “Does Relationship Communication Matter in B2C Service Relationships?” Journal of Services Marketing, 30 (2), 186-200. Bansal, Harvir S., Shirley F. Taylor, and Yannik St. James (2005), ““Migrating” to New Service Providers: Toward a Unifying Framework of Consumers’ Switching Behaviors,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33 (1), 96-115. Barra, Cristobal, Geah Pressgrove, and Eduardo Torres (2018), “Trust and Commitment in the Formation of Donor Loyalty,” The Service Industries Journal, forthcoming. Bart, Yakov, Venkatesh Shankar, Fareena Sultan, and Glen L. Urban (2005), “Are the Drivers and Role of Online Trust the Same for All Web Sites and Consumers? A Large-Scale Exploratory Empirical Study,” Journal of Marketing, 69 (4), 133-52. Bartsch, Fabian, Adamantios Diamantopoulos, Nicholas G. Paparoidamis, Ruben Chumpitaz (2016), “Global Brand Ownership: The Mediating Roles of Consumer Attitudes and Brand Identification,” Journal of Business Research, 69 (9), 3629-35. Batra, Rajeev, Aaron Ahuvia, and Richard P. Bagozzi (2012), “Brand Love,” Journal of Marketing, 76 (2), 1-16. Beatty, Sharon E., Alexa M. Givan, George R. Franke, and Kristy E. Reynolds (2015), “Social Store Identity and Adolescent Females’ Store Attitudes and Behaviors,” Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 23 (1), 38-56. Bergkvist, Lars and Tino Bech-Larsen (2010), “Two Studies of Consequences and Actionable Antecedents of Brand Love,” Journal of Brand Management, 17 (7), 504-18. Bhattacharya, C. B., Hayagreeva Rao, and Mary Ann Glynn (1995), “Understanding the Bond of Identification: An Investigation of Its Correlates among Art Museum Members,” Journal of Marketing, 59 (4), 46-57. Bock, Dora E., Stephanie M. Mangus, and Judith Anne Garretson Folse (2016), “The Road to Customer Loyalty Paved with Service Customization,” Journal of Business Research, 69 (10), 3923-32. Bosnjak, Michael, M. Joseph Sirgy, Sarah Hellriegel, and Oswin Maurer (2011), “Postvisit Destination Loyalty Judgments: Developing and Testing a Comprehensive Congruity Model,” Journal of Travel Research, 50 (5), 496-508. Breivik, Einar and Helge Thorbjørnsen (2008), “Consumer Brand Relationships: An Investigation of Two Alternative Models,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36 (4), 443-72. Brocato, E. Deanne, Julie Baker, and Clay M. Voorhees (2015), “Creating Consumer Attachment to Retail Service Firms through Sense of Place,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43 (2), 200-20. Brodie, Roderick J., James R.M. Whittome, and Gregory J. Brush (2009), “Investigating the Service Brand: A Customer Value Perspective,” Journal of Business Research, 62 (3), 345- 55.

190

Büttner, Oliver B. and Anja S. Göritz (2008), “Perceived Trustworthiness of Online Shops,” Journal of Consumer Behavior, 7 (1), 35-50. Cai, Yuanyuan, Guangzhi Zhao, and Jiaxun He (2015), “Influences of Two Modes of Intergenerational Communication on Brand Equity,” Journal of Business Research, 68 (3), 553-60. Carlson, Jamie and Aron O’Cass (2012), “Optimizing the Online Channel in Professional Sport to Create Trusting and Loyal Consumers: The Role of the Professional Sports Team Brand and Service Quality,” Journal of Sport Management, 26 (6), 463-78. Carlson, Brad D., Tracy A. Suter, and Tom J. Brown (2008), “Social versus Psychological Brand Community: The Role of Psychological Sense of Brand Community,” Journal of Business Research, 61 (4), 284-91. Carroll, Barbara A. and Aaron C. Ahuvia (2006), “Some Antecedents and Outcomes of Brand Love,” Marketing Letters, 17 (2), 79-89. Castaldo, Sandro, Francesco Perrini, Nicola Misani, and Antonio Tencati (2009), “The Missing Link between Corporate Social Responsibility and Consumer Trust: The Case of Fair Trade Products,” Journal of Business Ethics, 84 (1), 1-15. Chae, Heeju and Eunju Ko (2016), “Customer Social Participation in the Social Networking Services and Its Impact upon the Customer Equity of Global Fashion Brands,” Journal of Business Research, 69 (9), 3804-12. Chan, Kimmy Wa, Taeshik Gong, Ruixue Zhang, and Mingjian Zhou (2017), “Do Employee Citizenship Behaviors Lead to Customer Citizenship Behaviors? The Roles of Dual Identification and Service Climate,” Journal of Service Research, 20 (3), 259-74. Chaudhuri, Arjun and Morris 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. Chaudhuri, Arjun and Morris B. Holbrook (2002), “Product-Class Effects on Brand Commitment and Brand Outcomes: The Role of Brand Trust and Brand Affect,” Journal of Brand Management, 10 (1), 33-58. Chavanat, Nicolas, Guillaume Martinent, and Alain Ferrand (2009), “Sponsor and Sponsees Interactions: Effects on Consumers’ Perceptions of Brand Image, Brand Attachment, and Purchasing Intention,” Journal of Sport Management, 23 (5), 644-70. Chen, Annie, Norman Peng, and Kuang-peng Hung (2015), “Examining Tourists’ Loyalty toward Cultural Quarters,” Annals of Tourism Research, 51, 59-63. Chen, Ching-Fu and Sambath Phou (2013), “A Closer Look at Destination: Image, Personality, Relationship and Loyalty,” Tourism Management, 36, 269-78. Chen, Jin, Cheng Zhang, and Yunjie Xu (2009), “The Role of Mutual Trust in Building Members’ Loyalty to a C2C Platform Provider,” International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 14 (1), 147-71. Chen, Mei-Fang and Liang-Hung Mau (2009), “The Impacts of Ethical Sales Behaviour on Customer Loyalty in the Life Insurance Industry,” The Service Industries Journal, 29 (1), 59-74. Chiou, Jyh-Shen (2004), “The Antecedents of Consumers’ Loyalty toward Internet Service Providers,” Information and Management, 41 (6), 685-95. Chiou, Jyh-Shen and Cornelia Droge (2006), “Service Quality, Trust, Specific Asset Investment, and Expertise: Direct and Indirect Effects in a Satisfaction-Loyalty Framework,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34 (4), 613-27.

191

Chiou, Jyh-Shen, Cornelia Droge, and Sangphet Hanvanich (2002), “Does Customer Knowledge Affect How Loyalty is Formed?” Journal of Service Research, 5 (2), 113-24. Cho, Eunjoo, Ann Marie Fiore, and Daniel W. Russell (2015), “Validation of a Fashion Brand Image Scale Capturing Cognitive, Sensory, and Affective Associations: Testing Its Role in an Extended Brand Equity Model,” Psychology and Marketing, 32 (1), 28-48. Choi, Hyeonyoung, Eunju Ko, Eun Young Kim, and Pekka Mattila (2015), “The Role of Fashion Brand Authenticity in Product Management: A Holistic Marketing Approach,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32 (2), 233-42. Choi, Young Gin, Chihyung “Michael” Ok, and Sunghyup Sean Hyun (2017), “Relationships between Brand Experiences, Personality Traits, Prestige, Relationship Quality, and Loyalty: An Empirical Analysis of Coffeehouse Brands,” International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 29 (4), 1185-202. Chung, Siyoung and Hichang Cho (2017), “Fostering Parasocial Relationships with Celebrities on Social Media: Implications for Celebrity Endorsement,” Psychology and Marketing, 34 (4), 481-95. Çifci, Sertaç, Yuksel Ekinci, Georgina Whyatt, Arnold Japutra, Sebastian Molinillo, and Haytham Siala (2016), “A Cross Validation of Consumer-Based Brand Equity Models: Driving Customer Equity in Retail Brands,” Journal of Business Research, 69 (9), 3740-47. Currás-Pérez, Rafael, Enrique Bigné-Alcañiz, and Alejandro Alvarado-Herrera (2009), “The Role of Self-Definitional Principles in Consumer Identification with a Socially Responsible Company,” Journal of Business Ethics, 89 (4), 547-64. Cyr, Dianne (2008), “Modeling Web Site Design across Cultures: Relationships to Trust, Satisfaction, and E-Loyalty,” Journal of Management Information Systems, 24 (4), 47-72. Da Silva Terres, Mellina, Cristiane Pizzutti dos Santos, and Kenny Basso (2015), “Antecedents of the Client’s Trust in Low- versus High-Consequence Decisions,” Journal of Services Marketing, 29 (1), 26-37. Davvetas, Vasileios and Adamantios Diamantopoulos (2017), ““Regretting Your Brand-Self?” The Moderating Role of Consumer-Brand Identification on Consumer Responses to Purchase Regret,” Journal of Business Research, 80, 218-27. De Vries Natalie Jane and Jamie Carlson (2014), “Examining the Drivers and Brand Performance Implications of Customer Engagement with Brands in the Social Media Environment,” Journal of Brand Management, 21 (6), 495-515. Delgado-Ballester, Elena and José Luis Munuera-Alemán (2001), “Brand Trust in the Context of Consumer Loyalty,” European Journal of Marketing, 35 (11/12), 1238-58. Deng, Xinming and Yang Xu (2017), “Consumers’ Responses to Corporate Social Responsibility Initiatives: The Mediating Role of Consumer-Company Identification,” Journal of Business Ethics, 142 (3), 515-26. Dennis, Charles, Savvas Papagiannidis, Eleftherios Alamanos, and Michael Bourlakis (2016), “The Role of Brand Attachment Strength in Higher Education,” Journal of Business Research, 69 (8), 3049-57. Diallo, Mbaye Fall and Christine Lambey-Checchin (2017), “Consumers’ Perceptions of Retail Business Ethics and Loyalty to the Retailer: The Moderating Role of Social Discount Practices,” Journal of Business Ethics, 141 (3), 435-49. Dolbec, Pierre-Yann and Jean-Charles Chebat (2013), “The Impact of a Flagship vs. a Brand Store on Brand Attitude, Brand Attachment and Brand Equity,” Journal of Retailing, 89 (4), 460-66.

192

Donavan, D. Todd, Swinder Janda, and James G. Maxham III (2015), “Identification and Aftermarket Personalization with Durable Goods,” Psychology and Marketing, 32 (6), 611- 23. Donavan, D. Todd, Swinder Janda, and Jaebeom Suh (2006), “Environmental Influences in Corporate Brand Identification and Outcomes,” Journal of Brand Management, 14 (1-2), 125-36. Drennan, Judy, Constanza Bianchi, Silvia Cacho-Elizondo, Sandra Louriero, Nathalie Guibert, and William Proud (2015), “Examining the Role of Wine Brand Love on Brand Loyalty: A Multi-Country Comparison,” International Journal of Hospitality Management, 49, 47-55. Duman, Sumeyra and Ozge Ozgen (2018), “Willingness to Punish and Reward Brands Associated to a Political Ideology (BAPI),” Journal of Business Research, forthcoming. Dwivedi, Abhishek, Lester W. Johnson, and Robert McDonald (2016), “Celebrity Endorsements, Self-Brand Connection and Relationship Quality,” International Journal of Advertising, 35 (3), 486-503. Einwiller, Sabine A., Alexander Fedorikhin, Allison R. Johnson, and Michael A. Kamins (2006), “Enough is Enough! When Identification No Longer Prevents Negative Corporate Associations,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34 (2), 185-94. Eisingerich, Andreas B. and Gaia Rubera (2010), “Drivers of Brand Commitment: A Cross- National Investigation,” Journal of International Marketing, 18 (2), 64-79. Ekinci, Yuksel, Ercan Sirakaya-Turk, and Sandra Preciado (2013), “Symbolic Consumption of Tourism Destination Brands,” Journal of Business Research, 66 (6), 711-18. Elbedweihy, Alaa M., Chanaka Jayawardhena, Mohamed H. Elsharnouby, and Tamer H. Elsharnouby (2016), “Customer Relationship Building: The Role of Brand Attractiveness and Consumer-Brand Identification,” Journal of Business Research, 69 (8), 2901-10. Escalas, Jennifer Edson (2004), “Narrative Processing: Building Consumer Connections to Brands,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14 (1-2), 168-80. Evanschitzky, Heiner, B. Ramaseshan, David M. Woisetschläger, Verena Richelsen, Markus Blut, and Christof Backhaus (2012), “Consequences of Customer Loyalty to the Loyalty Program and to the Company,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40 (5), 625-38. Fetscherin, Mark and Mary Conway Dato-On (2012), “Brand Love: Investigating Two Alternative Love Relationships”, in Consumer-Brand Relationships: Theory and Practice, ed. Susan Fournier, Michael Breazeale and Marc Fetscherin, London, New York: Routledge, 151-64. Flavián, Carlos, Miguel Guinalíu, and Raquel Gurrea (2006), “The Role Played by Perceived Usability, Satisfaction and Consumer Trust on Website Loyalty,” Information and Management, 43 (1), 1-14. Fock, Henry, Allan K. K. Chan, and Dengfeng Yan (2011), “Member-Organization Connection Impacts in Affinity Marketing,” Journal of Business Research, 64 (7), 672-79. Ford, John B., Atlaf Merchant, Anne-Laure Bartier, and Mike Friedman (2018), “The Cross- Cultural Scale Development Process: The Case of Brand-Evoked Nostalgia in Belgium and the United States,” Journal of Business Research, 83, 19-29. Fritz, Kristine, Verena Schoenmueller, and Manfred Bruhn (2017), “Authenticity in Branding - Exploring Antecedents and Consequences of Brand Authenticity,” European Journal of Marketing, 51 (2), 324-48. Fullerton, Gordon (2011), “Creating Advocates: The Roles of Satisfaction, Trust and

193

Commitment,” Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 18 (1), 92-100. Goode, Miranda, Mansur Khamitov, and Matthew Thomson (2015), “Dyads, Triads and Consumer Treachery: When Interpersonal Connections Guard Against Brand Cheating,” in Strong Brands, Strong Relationships, ed. Susan Fournier, Michael Breazeale, and Jill Avery, London, UK: Routledge/Taylor and Francis Group, 216-32. Guenzi, Paolo, Michael D. Johnson, and Sandro Castaldo (2009), “A Comprehensive Model of Customer Trust in Two Retail Stores,” Journal of Service Management, 20 (3), 290-316. Guido, Gianluigi and Alessandro M. Peluso (2015), “Brand Anthropomorphism: Conceptualization, Measurement, and Impact on Brand Personality and Loyalty,” Journal of Brand Management, 22 (1), 1-19. Ha, Hong-Youl (2016), “The Evolution of Brand Personality: An Application of Online Travel Agencies,” Journal of Services Marketing, 30 (5), 529-40. Han, Sung Ho, Bang Nguyen, and Lyndon Simkin (2016), “The Dynamic Models of Consumers’ Symbolic Needs: in the Context of Restaurant Brands,” European Journal of Marketing, 50 (7/8), 1348-76. Hansen, Torben (2012), “The Moderating Influence of Broad-Scope Trust on Customer-Seller Relationships,” Psychology and Marketing, 29 (5), 350-64. Hansen, Torben (2014), “The Role of Trust in Financial Customer-Seller Relationships Before and After the Financial Crisis,” Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 13 (6), 442-52. Harris, Lloyd C. and Mark M. H. Goode (2004), “The Four Levels of Loyalty and the Pivotal Role of Trust: A Study of Online Service Dynamics,” Journal of Retailing, 80 (2), 139-58. Haryanto, Jony Oktavian, Luiz Moutinho, and Arnaldo Coelho (2016), “Is Brand Loyalty Really Present in the Children's Market? A Comparative Study from Indonesia, Portugal, and Brazil,” Journal of Business Research, 69 (10), 4020-32. Haryanto, Jony Oktavian, Manuela Silva, and Luiz Moutinho (2015), “Neural Network Approach to Understanding the Children’s Market,” European Journal of Marketing, 49 (3/4), 372-97. He, Hongwei, Weichun Zhu, Dennis Gouran, and Olivia Kolo (2016), “Moral Identity Centrality and Cause-Related Marketing: The Moderating Effects of Brand Social Responsibility Image and Emotional Brand Attachment,” European Journal of Marketing, 50 (1/2), 236- 59. He, Hongwei and Yan Li (2011), “CSR and Service Brand: The Mediating Effect of Brand Identification and Moderating Effect of Service Quality,” Journal of Business Ethics, 100 (4), 673-88. He, Hongwei, Yan Li, and Lloyd Harris (2012), “Social Identity Perspective on Brand Loyalty,” Journal of Business Research, 65 (5), 648-57. Hem, Leif E. and Nina M. Iversen (2003), “Transfer of Brand Equity in Brand Extensions: The Importance of Brand Loyalty,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 30, ed. Punam Anand Keller and Dennis W. Rook, Valdosta, GA: Association for Consumer Research, 72- 79. Hennig-Thurau, Thorsten, Kevin P. Gwinner, and Dwayne D. Gremler (2002), “Understanding Relationship Marketing Outcomes: An Integration of Relational Benefits and Relationship Quality,” Journal of Service Research, 4 (3), 230-47. Hennig-Thurau, Thorsten, Markus F. Langer, and Ursula Hansen (2001), “Modeling and Managing Student Loyalty: An Approach Based on the Concept of Relationship Quality,” Journal of Service Research, 3 (4), 331-44.

194

Hollebeek, Linda D., Mark S. Glynn, and Roderick J. Brodie (2014), “Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development and Validation,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 28 (2), 149-65. Homburg, Christian, Jan Wieseke, and Wayne D. Hoyer (2009), “Social Identity and the Service- Profit Chain,” Journal of Marketing, 73 (2), 38-54. Hsu, Cathy H. C., Haemoon Oh, and A. George Assaf (2012), “A Customer-Based Brand Equity Model for Upscale Hotels,” Journal of Travel Research, 51 (1), 81-93. Huang, Min-Hsin and Zhao-Hong Cheng (2016), “Strategies to Enhance Consumers’ Identification with a Service Firm,” Journal of Services Marketing, 30 (4), 449-61. Huang, Min-Hsin, Zhao-Hong Cheng, and I-Chun Chen (2017), “The Importance of CSR in Forming Customer-Company Identification and Long-Term Loyalty,” Journal of Services Marketing, 31 (1), 63-72. Huang, Yu-An, Chad Lin, and Ian Phau (2015), “Idol Attachment and Human Brand Loyalty,” European Journal of Marketing, 49 (7/8), 1234-55. Hudson, Simon, Li Huang, Martin S. Roth, and Thomas J. Madden (2016), “The Influence of Social Media Interactions on Consumer-Brand Relationships: A Three-Country Study of Brand Perceptions and Marketing Behaviors,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 33 (1), 27-41. Hultman, Magnus, Dionysis Skarmeas, Pejvak Oghazi, and Hooshang M. Beheshti (2015), “Achieving Tourist Loyalty through Destination Personality, Satisfaction, and Identification,” Journal of Business Research, 68 (11), 2227-31. Hung, Hsiu-Yu (2014), “Attachment, Identification, and Loyalty: Examining Mediating Mechanisms across Brand and Brand Community Contexts,” Journal of Brand Management, 21 (7-8), 594-614. Hwang, Jinsoo and Heesup Han (2014), “Examining Strategies for Maximizing and Utilizing Brand Prestige in the Luxury Cruise Industry,” Tourism Management, 40, 244-59. Hwang, Jinsoo and Sunghyup Sean Hyun (2017), “First-Class Airline Travellers’ Perception of Luxury Goods and Its Effect on Loyalty Formation,” Current Issues in Tourism, 20 (5), 497-520. Hyun, Sunghyup Sean and Insin Kim (2014), “Identifying Optimal Rapport-Building Behaviors In Inducing Patrons’ Emotional Attachment In Luxury Restaurants,” Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 38 (2), 162-98. Ibáñez, Vanessa Apaolaza, Patrick Hartmann, and Pilar Zorrilla Calvo (2006), “Antecedents of Customer Loyalty in Residential Energy Markets: Service Quality, Satisfaction, Trust and Switching Costs,” The Service Industries Journal, 26 (6), 633-50. Ilicic, Jasmina and Cynthia M. Webster (2014), “Investigating Consumer-Brand Relational Authenticity,” Journal of Brand Management, 21 (4), 342–63. Jahn, Steffen, Hansjoerg Gaus, and Tina Kiessling (2012), “Trust, Commitment, and Older Women: Exploring Brand Attachment Differences in the Elderly Segment,” Psychology and Marketing, 29 (6), 445-57. Japutra, Arnold, Yuksel Ekinci, and Lyndon Simkin (2018), “Self-Congruence, Brand Attachment and Compulsive Buying,” Journal of Business Research, forthcoming. Japutra, Arnold, Keni Keni, and Bang Nguyen (2016), “What’s in a University Logo? Building Commitment in Higher Education,” Journal of Brand Management, 23 (2), 137-52. Japutra, Arnold and Sebastian Molinillo (2018), “Responsible and Active Brand Personality: On the Relationships with Brand Experience and Key Relationship Constructs,” Journal of

195

Business Research, forthcoming. Jones, Christie and Soyoung Kim (2010), “Influences of Retail Brand Trust, Off-Line Patronage, Clothing Involvement and Website Quality on Online Apparel Shopping Intention,” International Journal of Consumer Studies, 34 (6), 627-37. Kamran-Disfani, Omid, Murali K. Mantrala, Alicia Izquierdo-Yusta, María Pilar Martínez-Ruiz (2017), “The Impact of Retail Store Format on the Satisfaction-Loyalty Link: An Empirical Investigation,” Journal of Business Research, 77, 14-22. Kang, Jun, Thomas Brashear Alejandro, and Mark D. Groza (2015), “Customer-Company Identification and the Effectiveness of Loyalty Programs,” Journal of Business Research, 68 (2), 464-71. Kang, Jiyun and Gwendolyn Hustvedt (2014), “Building Trust Between Consumers and Corporations: The Role of Consumer Perceptions of Transparency and Social Responsibility,” Journal of Business Ethics, 125 (2), 253-65. Kang, Juhee, Liang Tang, and Ann Marie Fiore (2014), “Enhancing Consumer-Brand Relationships on Restaurant Facebook Fan Pages: Maximizing Consumer Benefits and Increasing Active Participation,” International Journal of Hospitality Management, 36, 145-55. Kaufmann, Hans Ruediger, Dan Alex Petrovici, Cid Gonçalves Filho, and Adriano Ayres (2016), “Identifying Moderators of Brand Attachment for Driving Customer Purchase Intention of Original vs Counterfeits of Luxury Brands,” Journal of Business Research, 69 (12), 5735- 47. Kemp, Elyria, Ravi Jillapalli, and Enrique Becerra (2014), “Healthcare Branding: Developing Emotionally Based Consumer Brand Relationships,” Journal of Services Marketing, 28 (2), 126-37. Kharouf, Husni, Donald J. Lund, and Harjit Sekhon (2014), “Building Trust by Signaling Trustworthiness in Service Retail,” Journal of Services Marketing, 28 (5), 361-73. Kim, Hee-Woong and Sumeet Gupta (2012), “Investigating Customer Resistance to Change in Transaction Relationship with an Internet Vendor,” Psychology and Marketing, 29 (4), 257- 69. Kim, Kyung Hoon, Kang Sik Kim, Dong Yul Kim, Jong Ho Kim, and Suk Hou Kang (2008), “Brand Equity in Hospital Marketing,” Journal of Business Research, 61 (1), 75-82. Kim, Soon-Ho and Seonjeong (Ally) Lee (2017), “Promoting Customers’ Involvement with Service Brands: Evidence from Coffee Shop Customers,” Journal of Services Marketing, 31 (7), 733-44. Koronaki, Eirini, Antigone G. Kyrousi, and George G. Panigyrakis (2018), “The Emotional Value of Arts-Based Initiatives: Strengthening the Luxury Brand-Consumer Relationship,” Journal of Business Research, forthcoming. Kressmann, Frank, M. Joseph Sirgy, Andreas Herrmann, Frank Huber, Stephanie Huber, and Dong-Jin Lee (2006), “Direct and Indirect Effects of Self-Image Congruence on Brand Loyalty,” Journal of Business Research, 59 (9), 955-64. Kudeshia, Chetna, Pallab Sikdar, and Arun Mittal (2016), “Spreading Love through Fan Page Liking: A Perspective on Small Scale Entrepreneurs,” Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 257-70. Lam, Shun Yin and Venkatesh Shankar (2014), “Asymmetries in the Effects of Drivers of Brand Loyalty between Early and Late Adopters and Across Technology Generations,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 28 (1), 26-42.

196

Lam, Son K., Michael Ahearne, Ye Hu, and Niels Schillewaert (2010), “Resistance to Brand Switching When a Radically New Brand Is Introduced: A Social Identity Theory Perspective,” Journal of Marketing, 74 (6), 128-46. Lam, Son K., Michael Ahearne, and Niels Schillewaert (2012), “A Multinational Examination of the Symbolic-Instrumental Framework of Consumer-Brand Identification,” Journal of International Business Studies, 43 (3), 306-31. Lambert-Pandraud, Raphaëlle and Gilles Laurent (2010), “Why Do Older Consumers Buy Older Brands? The Role of Attachment and Declining Innovativeness,” Journal of Marketing, 74 (5), 104-21. Laroche, Michel, Mohammad Reza Habibi, and Marie Odile Richard (2013), “To Be Or Not to Be in Social Media: How Brand Loyalty is Affected by Social Media?” International Journal of Information Management, 33 (1), 76-82. Laroche, Michel, Mohammad Reza Habibi, Marie Odile Richard, and Ramesh Sankaranarayanan (2012), “The Effects of Social Media Based Brand Communities on Brand Community Markers, Value Creation Practices, Brand Trust and Brand Loyalty,” Computers in Human Behavior, 28 (5), 1755-67. Lastovicka, John L. and Nancy J. Sirianni (2011), “Truly, Madly, Deeply: Consumers in the Throes of Material Possession Love,” Journal of Consumer Research, 38 (2), 323-42. Lee, Dongwon, Junghoon Moon, Yong Jin Kim, and Mun Y. Yi (2015), “Antecedents and Consequences of Mobile Phone Usability: Linking Simplicity and Interactivity to Satisfaction, Trust, and Brand Loyalty,” Information and Management, 52 (3), 295-304. Lee, Eun Mi, Seong-Yeon Park, Molly I. Rapert, and Christopher L. Newman (2012), “Does Perceived Consumer Fit Matter in Corporate Social Responsibility Issues?” Journal of Business Research, 65 (11), 1558-64. Lee, Jung Eun and Brandi Watkins (2016), “YouTube Vloggers’ Influence on Consumer Luxury Brand Perceptions and Intentions,” Journal of Business Research, 69 (12), 5753-60. Leonidou, Leonidas C., Olga Kvasova, Constantinos N. Leonidou, and Simos Chari (2013), “Business Unethicality as an Impediment to Consumer Trust: The Moderating Role of Demographic and Cultural Characteristics,” Journal of Business Ethics, 112 (3), 397-415. Lewin, Jeffrey, Rajasree K. Rajamma, and Audhesh K. Paswan (2015), “Customer Loyalty in Entertainment Venues: The Reality TV Genre,” Journal of Business Research, 68 (3), 616- 22. Lewis, Barbara R. and Magdalini Soureli (2006), “The Antecedents of Consumer Loyalty in Retail Banking,” Journal of Consumer Behavior, 5 (1), 15-31. Lichtenstein, Donald R., Minette E. Drumwright, and Bridgette M. Braig (2004), “The Effect of Corporate Social Responsibility on Customer Donations to Corporate-Supported Nonprofits,” Journal of Marketing, 68 (4), 16-32. Lii, Yuan-Shuh and Monle Lee (2012), “Doing Right Leads to Doing Well: When the Type of CSR and Reputation Interact to Affect Consumer Evaluations of the Firm,” Journal of Business Ethics, 105 (1), 69-81. Lin, Hsin-Hui and Yi-Shun Wang (2006), “An Examination of the Determinants of Customer Loyalty in Mobile Commerce Contexts,” Information and Management, 43 (3), 271-82. Lin, Chia-Wu, Kai-Yu Wang, Shu-Hao Chang, and Jin-An Lin (2018), “Investigating the Development of Brand Loyalty in Brand Communities from a Positive Psychology Perspective,” Journal of Business Research, forthcoming. Lo, Ada S.,Holly Hyunjung Im, Yong Chen, and Hailin Qu (2017), “Building Brand

197

Relationship Quality among Hotel Loyalty Program Members,” International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 29 (1), 458-88. Lobschat, Lara, Markus A. Zinnbauer, Florian Pallas, and Erich Joachimsthaler (2013), “Why Social Currency Becomes a Key Driver of a Firm’s Brand Equity - Insights from the Automotive Industry,” Long Range Planning, 46 (1-2), 125-48. Loroz, Peggy Sue and Bridgette M. Braig (2015), “Consumer Attachments to Human Brands: The ‘Oprah Effect’,” Psychology and Marketing, 32 (7), 751-63. Loureiro, Sandra Maria Correia, Hans Ruediger Kaufmann, and Vrontis Demetris (2012), “Brand Emotional Connection and Loyalty,” Journal of Brand Management, 20 (1), 13-27. Love, Edwin, Mark Staton, and Jeff D. Rotman (2016), “Loyalty as a Matter of Principle: The Influence of Standards of Judgment on Customer Loyalty,” Marketing Letters, 27 (4), 661- 74. Luk, Sherriff T. K. and Leslie S. C. Yip (2008), “The Moderator Effect of Monetary Sales Promotion on the Relationship between Brand Trust and Purchase Behaviour,” Journal of Brand Management, 15 (6), 452-64. Macintosh, Gerrard and Lawrence S. Lockshin (1997), “Retail Relationships and Store Loyalty: A Multi-Level Perspective,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 14 (5), 487- 97. Magnoni, Fanny and Elyette Roux (2012), “The Impact of Step-Down Line Extension on Consumer-Brand Relationships: A Risky Strategy for Luxury Brands,” Journal of Brand Management, 19 (7), 595-608. Malär, Lucia, Bettina Nyffenegger, Harley Krohmer, and Wayne D. Hoyer (2012), “Implementing an Intended Brand Personality: A Dyadic Perspective,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40 (5), 728-44. Marin, Longinos, Salvador Ruiz, and Alicia Rubio (2009), “The Role of Identity Salience in the Effects of Corporate Social Responsibility on Consumer Behavior,” Journal of Business Ethics, 84 (1), 65-78. Marzocchi, Gianluca, Gabriele Morandin, and Massimo Bergami (2013), “Brand Communities: Loyal to the Community or the Brand?” European Journal of Marketing, 47 (1/2), 93-114. Matzler, Kurt, Elisabeth Pichler, Johann Füller, and Todd A. Mooradian (2011), “Personality, Person-Brand Fit, and Brand Community: An Investigation of Individuals, Brands, and Brand Communities,” Journal of Marketing Management, 27 (9-10), 874-90. Matzler, Kurt, Andreas Strobl, Nicola Stokburger-Sauer, Artur Bobovnicky, and Florian Bauer (2016), “Brand Personality and Culture: The Role of Cultural Differences on the Impact of Brand Personality Perceptions on Tourists’ Visit Intentions,” Tourism Management, 52, 507-20. Mazodier, Marc and Dwight Merunka (2012), “Achieving Brand Loyalty through Sponsorship: The Role of Fit and Self-Congruity,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40 (6), 807-20. Melewar, T. C., Pantea Foroudi, Suraksha Gupta, Philip J. Kitchen, and Mohammad M. Foroudi (2017), “Integrating Identity, Strategy and Communications for Trust, Loyalty and Commitment,” European Journal of Marketing, 51 (3), 572-604. Millán, Ángel and Estrella Díaz (2014), “Analysis of Consumers’ Response to Brand Community Integration and Brand Identification,” Journal of Brand Management, 21 (3), 254-72. Miquel-Romero, Maria José, Eva María Caplliure-Giner, and Consolación Adame-Sánchez

198

(2014), “Relationship Marketing Management: Its Importance in Private Label Extension,” Journal of Business Research, 67 (5), 667-72. Moliner, Miguel A., Javier Sánchez, Rosa M. Rodríguez, and Luís Callarisa (2007), “Perceived relationship quality and post‐purchase perceived value: An integrative framework,” European Journal of Marketing, 41 (11/12), 1392-422. Moon, Byeong-Joon, Lee W. Lee, and Chang Hoon Oh (2015), “The Impact of CSR on Consumer-Corporate Connection and Brand Loyalty: A Cross Cultural Investigation,” International Marketing Review, 32 (5), 518-39. Morgan-Thomas, Anna and Cleopatra Veloutsou (2013), “Beyond Technology Acceptance: Brand Relationships and Online Brand Experience,” Journal of Business Research, 66 (1), 21-27. Naidoo, Vik and Linda D. Hollebeek (2016), “Higher Education Brand Alliances: Investigating Consumers’ Dual-Degree Purchase Intentions,” Journal of Business Research, 69 (8), 3113- 21. Nam, Janghyeon, Yuksel Ekinci, and Georgina Whyatt (2011), “Brand Equity, Brand Loyalty and Consumer Satisfaction,” Annals of Tourism Research, 38 (3), 1009-30. Narteh, Bedman, Mahmoud Abdulai Mahmoud, and Simon Amoh (2017), “Customer Behavioural Intentions towards Mobile Money Services Adoption in Ghana,” The Service Industries Journal, 37 (7-8), 426-47. Nguyen, Bang, Philipp “Phil” Klaus, and Lyndon Simkin (2014), “It’s Just Not Fair: Exploring the Effects of Firm Customization on Unfairness Perceptions, Trust and Loyalty,” Journal of Services Marketing, 28 (6), 484-97. Nijssen, Edwin J and Hester van Herk (2009), “Conjoining International Marketing and Relationship Marketing: Exploring Consumers’ Cross-Border Service Relationships,” Journal of International Marketing, 17 (1), 91-115. Nyffenegger, Bettina, Harley Krohmer, Wayne D. Hoyer, and Lucia Malaer (2015), “Service Brand Relationship Quality: Hot or Cold?” Journal of Service Research, 18 (1), 90-106. Orth, Ulrich R., Yonca Limon, and Gregory Rose (2010), “Store-Evoked Affect, Personalities, and Consumer Emotional Attachments to Brands,” Journal of Business Research, 63 (11), 1202-08. Orth, Ulrich R., Albert Stöckl, Roberta Veale, Joëlle Brouard, Alessio Cavicchi, Monica Faraoni, MikelLarreina, Benoît Lecat, Janeen Olsen, Carmen Rodriguez-Santos, Cristina Santini, and Damien Wilson (2012), “Using Attribution Theory to Explain Tourists’ Attachments to Place-Based Brands,” Journal of Business Research, 65 (9), 1321-27. Ozdemir, V. Emre and Kelly Hewett (2010), “The Effect of Collectivism on the Importance of ] Relationship Quality and Service Quality for Behavioral Intentions: A Cross-National and Cross-Contextual Analysis,” Journal of International Marketing, 18 (1), 41-62. Palmer, Adrian, Nicole Koenig-Lewis, Yousra Asaad (2016), “Brand Identification in Higher Education: A Conditional Process Analysis,” Journal of Business Research, 69 (8), 3033- 40. Park, C. Whan, Andreas B. Eisingerich, and Jason Whan Park (2013), “Attachment–Aversion (AA) Model of Customer-Brand Relationships,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23 (2), 229-48. Park, Eunil, Ki Joon Kim, and Sang Jib Kwon (2017), “Corporate Social Responsibility As a Determinant of Consumer Loyalty: An Examination of Ethical Standard, Satisfaction, and Trust,” Journal of Business Research, 76, 8-13.

199

Park, C. Whan, Deborah J. MacInnis, Joseph Priester, Andreas B. Eisingerich, and Dawn Iacobucci (2010), “Brand Attachment and Brand Attitude Strength: Conceptual and Empirical Differentiation of Two Critical Brand Equity Drivers,” Journal of Marketing, 74 (6), 1-17. Park, C. Whan, Joseph R. Priester, Deborah J. MacInnis, and Zhong Wan (2009), “The Connection-Prominence Attachment Model (CPAM): A Conceptual and Methodological Exploration of Brand Attachment,” in Handbook of Brand Relationships, ed. Deborah J. MacInnis, C. Whan Park, and Joseph R. Priester, Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 327-41. Paulssen, Marcel, Raphael Roulet, and Sina Wilke (2014), “Risk as Moderator of the Trust- Loyalty Relationship,” European Journal of Marketing, 48 (5/6), 964-81. Pauwels-Delassus, Véronique and Raluca Mogos Descotes (2013), “Brand Name Change: Can Trust and Loyalty Be Transferred?” Journal of Brand Management, 20 (8), 656-69. Peng, Kuo-Fang, Yan Chen, and Kuang-Wei Wen (2014), “Brand Relationship, Consumption Values and Branded App Adoption,” Industrial Management and Data Systems, 114 (8), 1131-43. Pentina, Iryna, Bashar S. Gammoh, Lixuan Zhang, and Michael Mallin (2013), “Drivers and Outcomes of Brand Relationship Quality in the Context of Online Social Networks,” International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 17 (3), 63-86. Pentina, Iryna, Lixuan Zhang, and Oksana Basmanova (2013), “Antecedents and Consequences of Trust in a Social Media Brand: A Cross-Cultural Study of Twitter,” Computers in Human Behavior, 29 (4), 1546-55. Pereira, Carla Alexandra Barbosa, Helena Maria Batista Alves, and João José Matos Ferreira (2016), “Impact of Tacit Knowledge on Customer Loyalty,” The Service Industries Journal, 36 (15-16), 827-45. Pérez, Andrea and Ignacio Rodríguez del Bosque (2015a), “An Integrative Framework to Understand How CSR Affects Customer Loyalty through Identification, Emotions and Satisfaction,” Journal of Business Ethics, 129 (3), 571-84. Pérez, Andrea and Ignacio Rodríguez del Bosque (2015b), “Corporate Social Responsibility and Customer Loyalty: Exploring the Role of Identification, Satisfaction and Type of Company,” Journal of Services Marketing, 29 (1), 15-25. Pivato, Sergio, Nicola Misani, and Antonio Tencati (2008), “The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Consumer Trust: The Case of Organic Food,” Business Ethics: A European Review, 17 (1), 3-12. Pizzutti, Cristiane and Daniel Fernandes (2010), “Effect of Recovery Efforts on Consumer Trust and Loyalty in E-Tail: A Contingency Model,” International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 14 (4), 127-60. Rafiq, Mohammed, Heather Fulford, and Xiaoming Lu (2013), “Building Customer Loyalty in Online Retailing: The Role of Relationship Quality,” Journal of Marketing Management, 29 (3-4), 494-517. Raimondo, Maria Antonietta, Gaetano “Nino” Miceli, and Michele Costabile (2008), “How Relationship Age Moderates Loyalty Formation: The Increasing Effect of Relational Equity on Customer Loyalty,” Journal of Service Research, 11 (2), 142-60. Ramaseshan, B. and Alisha Stein (2014), “Connecting the Dots between Brand Experience and Brand Loyalty: The Mediating Role of Brand Personality and Brand Relationships,” Journal of Brand Management, 21 (7-8), 664-83. Ramkissoon, Haywantee and Felix T. Mavondo (2015), “The Satisfaction-Place Attachment

200

Relationship: Potential Mediators and Moderators,” Journal of Business Research, 68 (12), 2593-602. Randhawa, Praneet, Roger J. Calantone, and Clay M. Voorhees (2015), “The Pursuit of Counterfeited Luxury: An Examination of the Negative Side Effects of Close Consumer- Brand Connections,” Journal of Business Research, 68 (11), 2395-403. Revilla-Camacho, María-Ángeles, Manuela Vega-Vázquez, and Fancisco-José Cossío-Silva (2017), “Exploring the Customer's Intention to Switch Firms: The Role of Customer- Related Antecedents,” Psychology and Marketing, 34 (11), 1039-49. Rindfleisch, Aric, James E. Burroughs, and Nancy Wong (2009), “The Safety of Objects: Materialism, Existential Insecurity, and Brand Connection,” Journal of Consumer Research, 36 (1), 1-16. Rose, Gregory M., Altaf Merchant, Ulrich R. Orth, and Florian Horstmann (2016), “Emphasizing Brand Heritage: Does It Work? And How?” Journal of Business Research, 69 (2), 936-43. Roy, Sanjit Kumar (2013), “Consequences of Customer Advocacy,” Journal of Strategic Marketing, 21 (3), 260-76. Roy, Sanjit Kumar, M. S. Balaji, Geoff Soutar, Walfried M. Lassar, and Rajat Roy (2018), “Customer Engagement Behavior in Individualistic and Collectivistic Markets,” Journal of Business Research, forthcoming. Roy, Pinaki, Kapil Khandeparkar, and Manoj Motiani (2016), “A Lovable Personality: The Effect of Brand Personality on Brand Love,” Journal of Brand Management, 23 (5), 97- 113. Ruiz-Molina, Maria-Eugenia, Irene Gil-Saura, and David Servera-Francés (2017), “Innovation as a Key to Strengthen the Effect of Relationship Benefits on Loyalty in Retailing,” Journal of Services Marketing, 31 (2), 131-41. Sajtos, Laszlo, Roderick J. Brodie, and James Whittome (2010), “Impact of Service Failure: The Protective Layer of Customer Relationships,” Journal of Service Research, 13 (2), 216-29. Sanchez-Franco, Manuel J. (2009), “The Moderating Effects of Involvement on the Relationships between Satisfaction, Trust and Commitment in E-Banking,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23 (3), 247-58. Sanz-Blas, Silvia, Carla Ruiz-Mafé, and Isabel Pérez Perez (2014), “Key Drivers of Services Website Loyalty,” The Service Industries Journal, 34 (5), 455-75. Schade, Michael, Sabrina Hegner, Florian Horstmann, Nora Brinkmann (2016), “The Impact of Attitude Functions on Luxury Brand Consumption: An Age-Based Group Comparison,” Journal of Business Research, 69 (1), 314-22. Schmalz, Sebastian and Ulrich R. Orth (2012), “Brand Attachment and Consumer Emotional Response to Unethical Firm Behavior,” Psychology and Marketing, 29 (11), 869-84. Sen, Sankar, Allison R. Johnson, C. B. Bhattacharya, and Juan Wang (2015), “Identification and Attachment in Consumer-Brand Relationships,” in Brand Meaning Management (Review of Marketing Research, Vol. 12), ed. Deborah J. Macinnis and C. Whan Park, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 151-74. Shamah, Rania A. M., Michela C. Mason, Andrea Moretti, and Francesco Raggiotto (2018), “Investigating the Antecedents of African Fast Food Customers’ Loyalty: A Self-Congruity Perspective,” Journal of Business Research, forthcoming. Shin, Hyunju, Riza Casidy, Alyssa Yoon, and So-Hyang Yoon (2016), “Brand Trust and Avoidance Following Brand Crisis: A Quasi-Experiment on the Effect of Franchisor

201

Statements,” Journal of Brand Management, 23 (5), 1-23. Shukla, Paurav, Madhumita Banerjee, Jaywant Singh (2016), “Customer Commitment to Luxury Brands: Antecedents and Consequences,” Journal of Business Research, 69 (1), 323-31. Singh, Jatinder J., Oriol Iglesias, and Joan Manel Batista-Foguet (2012), “Does Having an Ethical Brand Matter? The Influence of Consumer Perceived Ethicality on Trust, Affect and Loyalty,” Journal of Business Ethics, 111 (4), 541-9. Sirdeshmukh, Deepak, Jagdip Singh, and Barry Sabol (2002), “Consumer Trust, Value, and Loyalty in Relational Exchanges,” Journal of Marketing, 66 (1), 15-37. Sirgy, M. Joseph, Dhruv Grewal, Tamara F. Mangleburg, Jae-ok Park, Kye-Sung Chon, C. B. Claiborne, J. S. Johar, and Harold Berkman (1997), “Assessing the Predictive Validity of Two Methods of Measuring Self-Image Congruence,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25 (3), 229-41. So, Kevin Kam Fung, Ceridwyn King, Beverley A. Sparks, and Ying Wang (2013), “The Influence of Customer Brand Identification on Hotel Brand Evaluation and Loyalty Development,” International Journal of Hospitality Management, 34, 31-41. So, Kevin Kam Fung, Ceridwyn King, Beverley A. Sparks, and Ying Wang (2016), “The Role of Customer Engagement in Building Consumer Loyalty to Tourism Brands,” Journal of Travel Research, 55 (1), 64-78. Stokburger-Sauer, Nicola, E. (2011), “The Relevance of Visitors’ Nation Brand Embeddedness and Personality Congruence for Nation Brand Identification, Visit Intentions and Advocacy,” Tourism Management, 32 (6), 1282-89 Stokburger-Sauer, Nicola, S. Ratneshwar, and Sankar Sen (2012), “Drivers of Consumer-Brand Identification,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 29 (4), 406-18. Su, Lujun, Scott R. Swanson, Sydney Chinchanachokchai, Maxwell K. Hsu, Xiaohong Chen (2016), “Reputation and Intentions: The Role of Satisfaction, Identification, and Commitment,” Journal of Business Research, 69 (9), 3261-69. Sun, Pi-Chuan and Chia-Min Lin (2010), “Building Customer Trust and Loyalty: An Empirical Study in a Retailing Context,” The Service Industries Journal, 30 (9), 1439-55. Sung, Yongjun and Jooyoung Kim (2010), “Effects of Brand Personality on Brand Trust and Brand Affect,” Psychology and Marketing, 27 (7), 639-61. Swimberghe, Krist R. Marina Astakhova, Barbara Ross Wooldridge (2014), “A New Dualistic Approach to Brand Passion: Harmonious and Obsessive,” Journal of Business Research, 67 (12), 2657-65. Thompson, Frauke Mattison, Alex Newman, and Martin Liu (2014), “The Moderating Effect of Individual Level Collectivist Values on Brand Loyalty,” Journal of Business Research, 67 (11), 2437-46. Thomson, Matthew (2006), “Human Brands: Investigating Antecedents to Consumers' Strong Attachments to Celebrities,” Journal of Marketing, 70 (3), 104-19. Thomson, Matthew, Deborah MacInnis, and C. Whan Park (2005), “The Ties that Bind: Measuring the Strength of Consumer’s Emotional Attachments to Brands,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15 (1), 77–91. Tsai, Shu‐Pei (2011), “Strategic Relationship Management and Service Brand Marketing,” European Journal of Marketing, 45 (7/8), 1194-1213. Tsai, Shu‐Pei (2011), “Fostering International Brand Loyalty through Committed and Attached Relationships,” International Business Review, 20 (5), 521-34. Tsiotsou, Rodoula H. (2013), “Sport Team Loyalty: Integrating Relationship Marketing and a

202

Hierarchy of Effects,” Journal of Services Marketing, 27 (6), 458-71. Urueña, Alberto and Antonio Hidalgo (2016), “Successful Loyalty in E-Complaints: FsQCA and Structural Equation Modeling Analyses,” Journal of Business Research, 69 (4), 1384-89. Usakli, Ahmet and Seyhmus Baloglu (2011), “Brand Personality of Tourist Destinations: An Application of Self-Congruity Theory,” Tourism Management, 32 (1), 114-27 Vlachos, Pavlos A., Aristeidis Theotokis, Katerina Pramatari, and Adam Vrechopoulos (2010), “Consumer‐Retailer Emotional Attachment: Some Antecedents and the Moderating Role of Attachment Anxiety,” European Journal of Marketing, 44 (9/10), 1478-99. Vlachos, Pavlos A. and Adam P. Vrechopoulos (2012), “Consumer-Retailer Love and Attachment: Antecedents and Personality Moderators,” Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 19 (2), 218-28. Wallace, Elaine, Isabel Buil, and Leslie de Chernatony (2012), “Facebook ‘Friendship’ and Brand Advocacy,” Journal of Brand Management, 20 (2), 128-46. Wallace, Elaine, Isabel Buil, and Leslie de Chernatony (2017), “Consumers’ Self-Congruence with a “Liked” Brand: Cognitive Network Influence and Brand Outcomes,” European Journal of Marketing, 51 (2), 367-90. Wallace, Elaine, Isabel Buil, Leslie de Chernatony, and Michael Hogan (2014), “Who ‘Likes’ You...and Why? A Typology of Facebook Fans,” Journal of Advertising Research, 54 (1), 92-109. Walsh, Gianfranco, Vincent-Wayne Mitchell, Paul R. Jackson, and Sharon E. Beatty (2009), “Examining the Antecedents and Consequences of Corporate Reputation: A Customer Perspective,” British Journal of Management, 20 (2), 187-203. Wang, Stephen W., Waros Ngamsiriudom, and Chia-Hung Hsieh (2015), “Trust Disposition, Trust Antecedents, Trust, and Behavioral Intention,” The Service Industries Journal, 35 (10), 555-72. Wang, Tien, Keng-Jung Yeh, David C. Yen, and Mirhanna Gabrielle Sandoya (2016), “Antecedents of Emotional Attachment of Social Media Users,” The Service Industries Journal, 36 (9-10), 438-51. Whang, Yun-Oh, Jeff Allen, Niquelle Sahoury, and Haitao Zhang (2004), “Falling in Love With a Product: the Structure of a Romantic Consumer-Product Relationship,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 31, ed. Barbara E. Kahn and Mary Frances Luce, Valdosta, GA: Association for Consumer Research, 320-27. Wilson, Andrew E., Michael D. Giebelhausen, and Michael K. Brady (2017), “Negative Word of Mouth Can Be a Positive for Consumers Connected to the Brand,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45 (4), 534-47. Wolter, Jeremy S., Simon Brach, J. Joseph Cronin Jr., and Mark Bonn (2016), “Symbolic Drivers of Consumer-Brand Identification and Disidentification,” Journal of Business Research, 69 (2), 785-93. Wolter, Jeremy S. and J. Joseph Cronin Jr. (2016), “Re-Conceptualizing Cognitive and Affective Customer-Company Identification: The Role of Self-Motives and Different Customer- Based Outcomes,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44 (3), 397-413. Wong, Amy and Amrik S. Sohal (2006), “Understanding the Quality of Relationships in Consumer Services: A Study in a Retail Environment,” International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 23 (3), 244-64. Wu, Wei-ping, T. S. Chan, and Heng Hwa Lau (2008), “Does Consumers’ Personal Reciprocity Affect Future Purchase Intentions?” Journal of Marketing Management, 24 (3-4), 345-60.

203

Wu, Shih-Hao, Ching-Yi Daphne Tsai, and Chung-Chieh Hung (2012), “Toward Team or Player? How Trust, Vicarious Achievement Motive, and Identification Affect Fan Loyalty,” Journal of Sport Management, 26 (2), 177-91. Xie, Yi, Rajeev Batra, and Siqing Peng (2015), “An Extended Model of Preference Formation Between Global and Local Brands: The Roles of Identity Expressiveness, Trust, and Affect,” Journal of International Marketing, 23 (1), 50-71. Yeh, Ching-Hsuan, Yi-Shun Wang, and Kaili Yieh (2016), “Predicting Smartphone Brand Loyalty: Consumer Value and Consumer-Brand Identification Perspectives,” International Journal of Information Management, 36 (3), 245-57. Yim, Chi Kin (Bennett), David K. Tse, and Kimmy Wa Chan (2008), “Strengthening Customer Loyalty Through Intimacy and Passion: Roles of Customer-Firm Affection and Customer- Staff Relationships in Services,” Journal of Marketing Research, 45 (6), 741-56. Yoo, Jungmin and Minjung Park (2016), “The Effects of E-Mass Customization on Consumer Perceived Value, Satisfaction, and Loyalty toward Luxury Brands,” Journal of Business Research, 69 (12), 5775-84. Yoo, Chul Woo, G. Lawrence Sanders, and Junghoon Moon (2013), “Exploring the Effect of E- WOM Participation on E-Loyalty in E-Commerce,” Decision Support Systems, 55 (3), 669- 78. Yoshida, Masayuki, Brian Gordon, Makoto Nakazawa, and Rui Biscaia (2014), “Conceptualization and Measurement of Fan Engagement : Empirical Evidence from a Professional Sport Context,” Journal of Sport Management, 28 (4), 399-417. Zhang, Jing and Josée M. M. Bloemer (2008), “The Impact of Value Congruence on Consumer- Service Brand Relationships,” Journal of Service Research, 11 (2), 161-78. Zhang, Kem Z.K., Morad Benyoucef, and Sesia J. Zhao (2015), “Consumer Participation and Gender Differences on Companies’ Microblogs: A Brand Attachment Process Perspective,” Computers in Human Behavior, 44, 357-68. Zheng, Sijing, Siu Fu Hui, and Zhilin Yang (2017), “Hospital Trust or Doctor Trust? A Fuzzy Analysis of Trust in the Health Care Setting,” Journal of Business Research, 78, 217-25. Zhou, Zhimin, Qiyuan Zhang, Chenting Su, and Nan Zhou (2012), “How Do Brand Communities Generate Brand Relationships? Intermediate Mechanisms,” Journal of Business Research, 65 (7), 890-95.

204

Appendix C Theme 1. Main Measures in Study 3 (1-7 endpoints unless indicated otherwise)

Indulgence vs. Society should enable its members to enjoy their lives and have fun and leisure time; restraint Leisure time is important in life.

Individualism vs. I like sharing little things with my neighbors (reverse-coded); collectivism Decisions reached in groups are better than those reached by single individuals (reverse-coded); I usually sacrifice my self-interest for the benefit of my group (reverse-coded); It is important to me to be useful to others (reverse-coded); Group welfare is more important than individual rewards (reverse-coded); Group success is more important than individual success (reverse-coded).

Masculinity vs. Meetings are usually run more effectively when they are chaired by a man; femininity Solving difficult problems usually requires an active forcible approach which is typical of men; It is more important for men to have a professional career than it is for women; It is preferable to have a man in a high level position than a woman; Men solve problems with logical analysis, women solve problems with intuition; In some jobs, a man can always do better than a woman; It is important to have a job that provides opportunities for high earnings.

Power distance Bosses are always inaccessible and distant; Other people are a threat to one’s power and cannot be trusted; Inequalities among people are both expected and desired; It is important to respect people in authority because of their societal standing; People are better off not questioning the decisions of those in authority.

Perceived Products and services that I see in stores come from many different countries; economic Products and services that I see in stores are very similar to the ones I see abroad; globalization My country is doing very well when it comes to international trade; Foreign ownership of companies in my country is rare and not encouraged by government; A lot of other countries invest in my country in the form of foreign direct investment (FDI); Politicians in my country strongly emphasize integration and building economic ties with other countries in the world.

Voice and To what extent do you feel that your individual vote matters? accountability Do you feel you can meaningfully participate in selecting your government? To what extent do you perceive elections to be free and fair? Do you feel that you are able to freely express yourself in public? Are you able to exercise your freedom of association/assembly? To what extent is your government transparent? To what extent is your government accountable? To what extent do you agree with the statement “I enjoy a lot of political rights”? To what extent is your media free?

Urban residence My current place of residence (e.g., house, apartment) is located in a place that can best be described as: 1 (in the countryside) - 7 (in a city); 1 (rural) - 7 (urban).

Brand trust I trust XYZ; I rely on XYZ; XYZ is an honest brand; XYZ is safe.

Brand attachment

205

How well does each of the following words describe your feelings when you think about or use XYZ? Attached; Connected; Bonded; Affectionate; Loved; Friendly; Peaceful; Captivated; Passionate; Delighted. Brand love To what extent do you feel that using XYZ says something “true” and “deep” about whom you are as a person? To what extent do you feel yourself desiring to use XYZ products or services? Please express the extent to which you feel emotionally connected to XYZ; Please express the extent to which you believe that you will using XYZ for a long time; Suppose XYZ were to go out of existence, to what extent would you feel anxiety? On the following scales, please express your overall feelings and evaluations towards XYZ: 1 Negative - 7 Positive. Brand identification I feel a strong sense of belonging to XYZ; I identify strongly with XYZ; XYZ embodies what I believe in; XYZ is like a part of me; XYZ has a great deal of personal meaning for me. Self-brand connection XYZ reflects who I am; I can identify with XYZ; I feel a personal connection to XYZ; I (can) use XYZ to communicate who I am to other people; I think XYZ (could) help(s) me become the type of person I want to be; I consider XYZ to be “me” (it reflects who I consider myself to be or the way that I want to present myself to others); XYZ suits me well. Attitudinal Customer Brand I am committed to XYZ; Loyalty I would be willing to pay a higher price for XYZ over other brands; I consider myself to be loyal to XYZ; XYZ would be my first choice; I will not buy other brands if XYZ is available at the store. Behavioral Customer Brand To what extent out of 100% do you use XYZ for all your purchases in a given product or service Loyalty category? If you use only XYZ, you indicate 100%. If you use more than one brand, including any other companies or brands, indicate the percentage of your use of XYZ among all the competing brands (0% - 100% slider scale); Please indicate how many brands (in addition to XYZ) you are currently using for the same product or service that XYZ offers/sells? (converted to 0% - 100% share).

206

Appendix C Theme 2. Distribution Histograms for Moderators in Study 3

Indulgence vs. Restraint

Individualism vs. Collectivism

207

Masculinity vs. Femininity

Power Distance

208

Perceived Economic Globalization

Voice and Accountability

209

Urban Residence

210

Appendix C Theme 3. Estimation Results of Consumer Survey Moderation Effects in Study 3 Using Log Transformed Moderators

DV: Attitudinal Loyalty Trust Love Attachment Identification SBC B F- p- B F- p- B F- p- B F- p- B F- p- value value value value value value value value value value Indulgence vs. Restraint -.842 2.340 .127 -.169 .106 .745 .006 .001 .991 -.403 1.116 .291 -.397 .823 .365 Masculinity vs. Femininity .009 .001 .970 -.309 1.645 .200 -.211 .916 .339 -.081 .231 .631 -.234 1.654 .199

DV: Behavioral Loyalty Trust Love Attachment Identification SBC B F- p- B F- p- B F- p- B F- p- B F- p- value value value value value value value value value value Indulgence vs. Restraint -18.57 2.101 .148 -12.40 .849 .357 -11.64 1.124 .290 -7.42 .618 .432 .536 .003 .959 Masculinity vs. Femininity 1.31 .052 .820 -4.50 .517 .472 -9.37 3.673 .056 -4.21 1.040 .308 -5.93 1.872 .172 Note: Indulgence vs. Restraint and Masculinity vs. Femininity are log transformed to approximate normality. Re-running these analyses did not result in any changes compared to the main analyses in Study 3.

211

Curriculum Vitae

Mansur Khamitov EDUCATION

Ph.D., 2018 Ivey Business School, Western University Advisor: Dr. Matthew Thomson

M.B.A., Marketing, 2013 KIMEP University, Kazakhstan

B.S.S., Financial Management/Public Administration KIMEP University, Kazakhstan

RESEARCH INTERESTS

Consumer Information Processing Particularly in Relation to Branding (Brand Relationships, Brand Transgressions, Brand Loyalty) and Financial Decision-Making (Saving, Gambling)

JOURNAL PUBLICATIONS * denotes equal contribution

1. Rotman, Jeff*, Mansur Khamitov*, and Scott Connors* (2018), “Lie, Cheat, and Steal: How Harmful Brands Motivate Consumers to Act Unethically,” Journal of Consumer Psychology (Order of authorship determined by random draw), 28 (2), 353-61.

2. Connors, Scott*, Mansur Khamitov*, Sarah Moroz*, Lorne Campbell*, and Claire Henderson (2016), “Time, Money, and Happiness: Does Putting a Price on Time Affect Our Ability to Smell the Roses?” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 67, 60-64.

3. Khamitov, Mansur*, Jeff Rotman*, and Jared Piazza (2016), “Perceiving the Agency of Harmful Agents: A test of Dehumanization versus Moral Typecasting Accounts,” Cognition, 146, 33-47.

BOOK CHAPTERS

1. Goode, Miranda*, Mansur Khamitov*, and Matthew Thomson* (2015), “Dyads, Triads and Consumer Treachery: When Interpersonal Connections Guard Against Brand Cheating,” in Handbook of Strong Brands, Strong Relationships, ed. Susan Fournier, Michael Breazeale, and Jill Avery, London: Routledge/Taylor & Francis, 216-32.

PUBLISHED CASE STUDIES AND TEACHING NOTES

212

Khamitov, Mansur, Jodie Whelan, and Matthew Thomson (2015), “Superb Trucks LP: How to Conduct a Field Experiment”, Case #9B15A025, Teaching Note #8B15A025, Ivey Publishing.

HONORS, AWARDS, AND GRANTS

AMA CBSIG Rising Star Award Recipient, 2017-2018 Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) of Canada Doctoral Fellowship, 2017-2018 George E. Connell Graduate Scholarship, 2017-2018 AMA-Sheth Foundation Doctoral Consortium Fellow, University of Notre Dame, 2016 Society for Marketing Advances Best Dissertation Proposal Award Recipient, 2016 Society for Consumer Psychology International Travel Scholarship, 2016 Society for Marketing Advances Doctoral Consortium Fellow, 2016 Paul R. Lawrence Fellowship, Case Research Foundation/North American Case Research Association, 2016 Ontario Graduate Scholarship, Province of Ontario, 2015, 2016, 2017 C.B. (Bud) Johnston Graduate Scholarship, 2015-2016, 2016-2017 Ivey Thesis Research Fund, Western University, 2016-2017 Berdie and Irvin Cohen Graduate Scholarship, 2014-2015 Full Presidential MBA Scholarship, KIMEP University, 2011-2013 President of the Republic of Kazakhstan Scholarship, 2010-2011

RELEVANT PROFESSIONAL/INDUSTRY EXPERIENCE

Senior Product/Marketing Manager 2011-2013 Polpharma SA Pharmaceutical Works

Associate Brand Manager 2011 Procter & Gamble

213