Moderating Role of Product Involvement on the Relationship
Between Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty

SUDDIN LADA; SAMSINAR MD; KENNY TEOH GUAN CHENG

Moderating Role of Product Involvement on the Relationship Between Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty

SUDDIN LADA¹,SAMSINAR MD. SIDIN² and KENNY TEOH GUAN CHENG³

SUDDIN LADA, MBA Lecturer of International Marketing, Universiti Malaysia Sabah- Labuan International Campus, Labuan F.T., Malaysia. Postal Address: SPKAL, Universiti Malaysia Sabah- Labuan International Campus, 87000 Labuan F.T., Malaysia. Author's Personal/Organizational Website: www.ums.edu.my Email: suddin@ums.edu.my Suddin Lada is a lecturer of International Marketing Programme at Labuan School of International Business and Finance (SPKAL), Universiti Malaysia Sabah- Labuan International Campus, Labuan F.T., Malaysia. His current research interests are Marketing, Branding and Consumer Behavior
SAMSINAR MD. SIDIN, Ph.D Professor of Marketing, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Selangor Malaysia. Postal Address: Faculty of Economics and Management, Universiti Putra Malaysia 43400 Serdang, Selangor Malaysia. Author's Personal/Organizational Website: www.upm.edu.my Email: sms@putra.upm.edu.my Dr. Samsinar Md Sidin is a Professor of Faculty of Economics and Management, Universiti Putra Malaysia and the Head of Accreditation Unit. Her current research interests are on consumer behavior, including family purchase decision. Her research publications include papers in prestigious journals
KENNY TEOH GUAN CHENG, Ph.D Senior Lecturer of Marketing, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Selangor Malaysia. Postal Address: Faculty of Economics and Management, Universiti Putra Malaysia 43400 Serdang, Selangor Malaysia. Author's Personal/Organizational Website: www.upm.edu.my Email: kent@upm.edu.my Management, Universiti Putra Malaysia. His current research interests are on Marketing, Management, and consumer behavior. Dr. Kenny is a Lecture of Marketing and Management at Faculty of Economics andManagement, Universiti Putra Malaysia. His current research interests are on Marketing, Management, and consumer behavior

Related article at Pubmed, Scholar Google

Visit for more related articles at Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce

Abstract

Drawing from observations by consumer behavior theorists and product involvement studies, the present study seeks to investigate the moderating role of product involvement on the relationship between brand personality and brand loyalty. A total of 958 respondents participated in this study. They completed a 14-items questionnaire to measure product involvement, and a 32-items and 16-items questionnaire to measure brand personality and brand loyalty respectively. Results suggest that the effect of product involvement related to brand personality and brand loyalty is partly moderated, where the impact is greater for low involvement consumer groups than for moderate and high involvement consumer groups for both dimensions of ‘excitement’ and “ruggedness’. The present study has also revealed that product involvement increases the direct effect of excitement and ruggedness of brand personality dimension on brand loyalty. However, product involvement decreases the direct effect of sincerity, competence, and sophistication of brand personality dimension on brand loyalty. The study provides support for the value of measuring product involvement in the sportswear industry. Furthermore, marketing efforts for sportswear companies need to distinguish between the elements of involvement that are more significant to brand personality and bran loyalty. The study also expands the body of knowledge by providing empirical verification of the link among product involvement profile (i.e., pleasure, interest, sign, risk importance, and risk probability), brand personality, and brand loyalty.

Keywords

Product Involvement, Brand Personality Dimension, and Brand Loyalty

INTRODUCTION

The sportswear industry is an increasingly competitive sector in Malaysia (Borneo Post, 2011), where local and independent companies must compete with international companies for market share. Furthermore, the sportswear industry, which includes both athletic footwear and apparel (clothes), is very big business. In 2009 alone, the Malaysian sports industry contributed some RM30.3 billion to the National Gross Domestic Product (Ithnin, 2012). Consequently, the high growth potential of the international sportswear industry promises a lot of golden opportunities for international and Malaysian stakeholders. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to seek better understand the consumer involvement via developing a unique brand personality in the pursuit of customer loyalty.

The growth of sports industry locally and internationally would seem to call for increased research in order to stay current trends and practices in the field.

However, little attention has been given to deeply understand the key components of product involvement (i.e. pleasure, interest, sign, risk importance, risk probability) as they have significant contribution in enhancing loyalty. According to Quester & Lim (2003), “consumers who are more involved with a particular brand are also more committed and hence loyal to that brand” (p. 22). Therefore, the formation of product involvement profile is believed positively or negatively influences the direct effects of brand personality on brand loyalty. Hence, it is noteworthy to investigate whether product involvement causes different perceptions towards brand personality and brand loyalty. The finding of this study will indicate the extent and how product involvement influences the brand personality-brand loyalty relationship. Besides, a primary contribution of this study is to theoretically and empirically relate product involvement with brand personality-brand loyalty relationship, which should facilitate positioning efforts.

In subsequent sections of this paper we explain the theoretical foundation and hypothesis development of our study, describe variables, instrument and measurement tools under study and test our conceptual model, and this paper ends with discussions of theoretical and managerial implication of the results

THEORETICAL FOUNDATION AND HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT

Product involvement

Product involvement, which refers to a general level of interest in or concern about a product class (Hupfer & Gardner, 1971), should be distinguished from product evaluation, which refers to a positive or negative reaction to a specific product. Involvement with products is expected to lead one to search for more information and spend more time searching for the right selection (Celsi & Olson, 1988; Greenwald & Leavitt, 1984). Thus, product involvement is likely to affect the satisfaction-loyalty relations by increasing or decreasing the direct and indirect effects on repurchase intentions of advertising, corporate image, and satisfaction. “Stimuli, cues, and contingencies in a consumer’s immediate environment may function as situational source of involvement” (Suh & Yi, 2006, p. 146). For example, in sales promotion programs, such as rebates, coupons, discounted price, create contingencies in consumer’s decision environments that might activate personally relevant goals and values.

Typically involvement has been viewed in terms of two broad categories – high and low involvement. Basically, a highly involved consumer is defined as one who is very interested in differences between particular brands and is willing to invest considerable energy in decision making (Schiffman & Kanuk, 1991). In contrast, low involvement purchases are purchases that are not very important to consumer, hold little relevance and little perceived risk, and thus engender very limited information processing (Schiffman & Kanuk, 1991, p. 213). In relation to human characteristics and brand personality, some researchers identified the person, product, and situation as the major component of involvement (Schiffman & Kanuk, 2000). This is where the moderating role of involvement is important to describe the relationship between level of customer satisfaction and brand loyalty.

Previously, several different items have been applied to measure product involvement.

Brand personality and brand loyalty relationship

According to Sirgy (1985) in the image congruence theory, consumers tend to develop a favorable attitude towards the brand when deciding about a purchase act, or about rebuying a product, if the image of the brand is perceived as similar to the consumer’s selfimage in terms of personality attributes. In terms of loyalty, Mengxia (2007) have examined the relationship between brand personality and consumers’ brand preference, affection, loyalty and purchasing intention. The findings of his study revealed that brand personality has a positive influence on brand preference, affection, loyalty and purchase intention.

Additionally Kumar et al., (2006), Guo (2003), and Lin (2010) also explored the connection between brand personality and brand loyalty. In Kumar et al.’s study they found that brand personality may influence consumers’ brand loyalty for consumable goods and Guo’s findings revealed that brand personality has significant influence on brand preference. Consumers like brands that have more distinct brand personality, and it is also likely that consumers are more familiar with the brands they prefer. Furthermore, Lin (2010) identified that competence and sophistication of brand personality have a significantly positive influence on affective loyalty. Brand loyalty develops when the brand fits the personality or self-image of the consumer or when the brand offers gratifying and unique benefits that the consumer seeks (Hanzaee et al., 2011). In both instances, personal attachment develops towards the brand. Based on the above works and discussions, this study proposes the following hypotheses:

• Hypothesis 1: Brand personality will have a positive effect on brand loyalty.

Moderating effect of product involvement on the relationship between brand personality and brand loyalty.

In today’s challenging and competitive market, brand loyalty remains as has been shown to be associated with higher rates of return on investment through increases in market share. However, developing, creating and also maintaining loyal customers have become increasingly difficult. In many previous studies, several factors are found to influence brand loyalty (e.g. customer satisfaction, trust, commitment, level of involvement, and familiarity etc.). Among them, involvement factor is found to be the predominant role. According to Park et al., (1996) involvement factor and attitudinal loyalty are highly correlated. A previous study conducted by Giese and Cote (2000) also found that, satisfaction and involvement are important determinants of attitudinal brand loyalty. The central premise of the literature in investigating the relationship between consumer involvement and brand loyalty is that “consumers who are more involved with a particular brand are also more committed and hence loyal to that brand” (Quester & Lim, 2003 p. 22). In case of high-involvement product like lifestyle clothing and shoes, which carry symbolic meaning and emotional aspects (Oh & Fiorito, 2002; Solomon, 2009), brand personality is of higher importance.

Earliest study done by Dick and Basu (1994), suggested that satisfaction and involvement are key antecedents of attitudinal brand loyalty. Rundle and Bennett (2001) argued that, attitudinal loyalty measures might be better predictors of further consumer behavior when the market is not stable. In particular, Bennett et al., (2005) has also mentioned that, the strength of effect of involvement on attitudinal brand loyalty would vary with the level of customer experience with the product. Furthermore, the brand personality-loyalty link is stronger when involvement is high (Bolton, 1998; Anderson, 1994). Thus, to create, to manage, and to exploit brand loyalty, the relationship between brand personality (IV) and brand loyalty (DV), must be determined.

Therefore, motivated by the above discussions, this study proposes the following hypothesis:

• Hypothesis 2: Product involvement moderates the relationship between brand personality and brand loyalty.

• H2a: Product involvement moderates the relationship between sincerity dimension and brand loyalty.

• H2b: Product involvement moderates the relationship between excitement dimension and brand loyalty.

• H2c: Product involvement moderates the relationship between competence dimension and brand loyalty.

• H2d: Product involvement moderates the relationship between sophistication dimension and brand loyalty.

• H2e: Product involvement moderates the relationship between ruggedness dimension and brand loyalty.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

The conceptual framework that guides this study appears in Figure 1. This framework is built upon the conceptual framework for brand personality dimension presented by Aaker (1997) and brand loyalty by Oliver (1999) to explain the relationship between brand personality and and brand loyalty. In addition to this relationship product involvement is added to this model to investigate the moderating effects. Based on the Table 1.0, most measurement items used by previous studies (e.g., Hanzaee et al., 2011; Suh and Yi, 2006; Kim, 2005; Quester and Lim, 2003) are adopted from consumer involvement profile (CIP) developed by Kapferer and Laurent (1985). The CIP is composed of 16 Likert-type statements, measuring five facet of consumer involvement. Kapferer and Laurent describe the five facets as follows (1985, p.50):

[1] Interest: centrality, ego-importance of the product class

[2] Pleasure: hedonic and rewarding value of the product class

[3] Sign: perceived sign value of the product class

[4] Risk importance: perceived importance of the negative consequences of a mispurchase.

[5] Risk probability: subjective probability of making a mispurchase.

All facets of the involvement profile must be considered simultaneously because different facets have different influences on selected aspects of consumer behavior (Quester and Lim, 2003). Accordingly, product involvement should be measured as a multidimensional construct since a single factor would seem insufficient to capture the richness of the overall concept (Kapferer and Laurent, 1985; Quester and Lim, 2003). Figure 1 above is the proposed theoretical framework of this study.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

Profile Characteristics

A total of 958 usable questionnaires were collected and analysed. Table 2 shows the demographic profile of the respondents. A total of 958 participants were involved in the final sample. The profile of respondents is given in Table 5.1 and it can be seen that with respect to gender, the male (50%) and female (50%) have equal distribution. In terms of age the 18-25 years age group makes up the largest respondents with 36.5%, followed by the 26-35 (35.7%) and 36-45 (22.8%) years groups respectively.

Overall, about 95% of respondents are between the ages of 18-45 years. The religion background is predominantly Islam, accounting for 54.8% of the samples. This is followed by Buddhism (19.0%), Hinduism (16.8%), Christianity (9.30%) and others (0.1%).

In terms of race, Malays represent 29.3%, Chinese represent 18.9% and Indians represent 16.8%. The Sabahans (16.7%) and Sarawakians (16.0%) represent almost equal percentages of respondents. Those of other races make up 2.3% of respondents. As for educational achievement, about 40.3% of the respondents possess qualifications of bachelor degree, 29.0% hold either a Certificate (16.8%) or Diploma (12.2%), and 22.7% possess qualifications of STPM and below, while the remaining 8% have earned either a Masters or PhD degree. The monthly income with highest representatives in the sample is in the range of RM1001 to RM5000 monthly (47.4%). 11.5% of the respondents earn between RM5001-RM10000 monthly, while 8.5% of the respondents have reported to have an income under RM1000 monthly. Additionally, 0.4% of the respondents indicated an income of between R10001 to RM15000 monthly, while the remaining 32.3% have no monthly income at all (i.e. this particular group is comprised of students, housewives, unemployed and retired persons).

With regard to employment status, about 20.9% of the samples are employees working as clerk, while non-working and self-employed respondents consisting of retirees; students and unemployed make up 1.4, 31.2 and 7.4% of the sample respectively. Among the employed respondents, a large portion of the sample (27.5%) is represented by officer, while around 8.6% are in executive positions, 0.9% are Managers, and 0.3% are in professional and top management level (Director) and the remaining 1.9% is represented by entrepreneurs.

Reliability Analysis

The Cronbach’s alpha for each of the five dimensions (i.e. pleasure, interest, sign, risk probability, risk probability) of product involvement, are presented in Table 3. Furthermore, all of the Cronbach’s alpha values are revealed to be significantly over 0.7 except for two of the product involvement dimensions (i.e. risk probability (0.675) and risk importance (0.687). This indicates that all variables/items are positively contributing to the overall reliability. In other words, brand personality, brand loyalty, and product involvement all have high reliabilities.

Correlation Analysis

As presented in Table 4, there is a positive correlation between brand personality and brand loyalty, and product involvement. However, correlation between brand personality and brand loyalty is found to be a weak correlation (r = 0.073, p < 0.01), whereas correlation between brand personality and product involvement is found to be moderate (r = .434, p < 0.01). Finally, the correlation between moderating variable (i.e. product involvement variable) and dependent variable (i.e. brand loyalty) appeared to be positively significant, with coefficient values of .261 (p < 0.01). The results of the correlation coefficient analysis also indicated that there is no correlation coefficient value of the studied variables above 0.85 or 0.9. Therefore, multicollinearity does not exist in the study (Field, 2009; Allen & Bennett, 2010).

Hypothesis testing

Involvement has often been regarded as one of the important moderators that determine purchase decision (Yi and Suh, 2006). Thus, main objective of this study is to test whether product involvement moderates the relationship between brand personality and brand loyalty. Findings from this study are presented below.

Hypothesis 1: Brand personality will have a positive effect on brand loyalty

Brand Personality Dimension and Brand Loyalty - Hypothesis 1 posited that there is a direct relationship between brand personality dimension and brand loyalty. The results in Table 5 indicated that 51.2% variances in brand loyalty could be explained by brand personality dimension (R² = 51.2, p < 0.00). There are three dimensions of brand personality found to have positive and negative influence on brand loyalty, namely sincerity (β = .060, p < 0.05), excitement (β = -.110, p < 0.01), and ruggedness (β = .693, p < 0.01). However, the remainder two dimensions of brand personality: competence and sophistication are found to have no significant relationship on brand loyalty

This means that H1 is partially supported.

Hypothesis 2: Product involvement moderates the relationship between brand personality and brand loyalty

• H2a: Product involvement moderates the relationship between sincerity dimension and brand loyalty.

• H2b: Product involvement moderates the relationship between excitement dimension and brand loyalty.

• H2c: Product involvement moderates the relationship between competence dimension and brand loyalty.

• H2d: Product involvement moderates the relationship between sophistication dimension and brand loyalty.

• H2e: Product involvement moderates the relationship between ruggedness dimension and brand loyalty.

In order to test the moderating effects of product involvement on the relationship between the dimensions of brand personality and brand loyalty, the hierarchical regression analysis was employed. Therefore, to test for moderating effects, a three-step hierarchical regression process was carried out following the guidelines suggested by Sharma, Durand, and Gur-Arie (1981). In the first regression the dependent variable of brand loyalty was regressed on the independent variable of brand personality (i.e. all of the five dimensions of brand personality), followed by a second regression of brand loyalty with both the independent variable of brand personality dimension and the moderator variable (i.e. product involvement) and finally the interaction terms of the independent variable and moderator variable were entered.

Table 6 illustrates the results of moderated regression analysis of the product involvement as a moderator on the relationship between each of the dimensions of brand personality (i.e. sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication, and ruggedness) and brand loyalty. The R² change and F change are significant in step 1 (R² change = 0.512, F change = 199.63, p < .00) indicating a significant relationship between brand personality dimension (i.e. predictor) and brand loyalty (i.e. criterion). However, in step 2, the F change is not significant (R² change = 0.001, F change = 1.42, p < .233), which demonstrates that the moderator (product involvement) is not positively related to either the predictor or the criterion variable. Finally, when the interaction terms were entered in step 3, the F change was found to be significant (R² change = 0.122, F change = 63.04, p < .00). Thus, the results indicate that the product involvement significantly influence the effect of brand personality on brand loyalty.

Based on Table 6, only two interaction terms: i.e. product involvement (PI) x excitement and product involvement (PI) x ruggedness are significant at p < 0.01 levels. However, the remaining three interaction terms, specifically product involvement (PI) x sincerity, product involvement (PI) x competence, and product involvement (PI) x sophistication are not significant. This means that hypotheses H2b and H2e are supported; meanwhile hypotheses H2a, H2c, and H2d are rejected. Overall, H2 is partially supported.

In order to interpret the moderating effects, it is necessary to display those significant interaction terms graphically. The significant interactions graphs are depicted in Figure 2 and 3. Figure 2 indicates that the effect of excitement dimension on brand loyalty is greater for low involvement consumer than the moderate and high involvement consumer groups. This finding suggests that low involvement consumers appear to have higher degree of loyalty with regard to their perception of the excitement of the brand claims than the moderate and high involvement consumers. Therefore, H2b is supported.

Based on Figure 3, it can be observed that the perception of the ruggedness dimension positively affects brand loyalty for all levels/groups of product involvement. However, the impact is greater for low involvement consumer group than the moderate and high involvement consumer groups. This means that the low involvement consumer group has greater brand loyalty level, as they perceive higher levels of brand ruggedness acquired from using the brand as compared to the moderate and high involvement consumer groups. Thus, H2e is supported.

CONCLUSION

This present study attempts to provide additional insight into the moderation effect of product involvement on the relationship between brand personality dimension and brand loyalty. The result shows that there exists an indirect route from brand personality to brand loyalty through product involvement. As noted earlier, only two interaction terms are significant (i.e. excitement and ruggedness). Surprisingly, the impact is greater for low involvement consumer groups than for moderate and high involvement consumer groups for both dimensions of ‘excitement’ and “ruggedness’. This means that the low involvement consumer group has greater brand loyalty levels, when they perceive higher levels of brand excitement (i.e. daring, trendy, exciting, cool, young, imaginative, unique, up to date, and contemporary) and ruggedness (i.e. outdoorsy, masculine, and tough) acquired from using the brand as compared to the moderate and high involvement consumer group. In other words, low involvement consumers seem to show high degree of loyalty if they perceive the experiential benefits of the brand as compared to high and moderate involvement consumers. Therefore, sportswear companies should actively focus on brand advertising to increase brand awareness among new and potential customer. The study also suggests that the sales representatives should focus on the experiential appeals of the brand in order to target high and moderate involvement of consumers.

The overall results support the previous finding that product involvement does moderate the relationship between brand personality and brand loyalty. One reason is because the fact that brand loyalty develops when the brand fits the personality of self-image of the consumer (Hanzaee et al., 2011). In addition, “a consumer’s level of involvement with an object, situation, or action is determined by the degree to which s/he perceives that concept to be personally relevant” (Celsi and Olson, 1988, p. 211). This study has revealed that product involvement increases the direct effect of excitement and ruggedness of brand personality dimension on brand loyalty. However, product involvement decreases the direct effect of sincerity, competence, and sophistication of brand personality dimension on brand loyalty. This result may suggest that dimensions of excitement and ruggedness create contingencies in consumer’s decision environment that might activate personally relevant goal and values. In consumer research, external stimuli are often used to manipulate the level of involvement experimentally (Yi and Suh, 2006). When personally relevant knowledge is activated in memory, a motivational state is created that energizes or drives consumers’ cognitive behavior (e.g., attention, comprehension, and information search - Celsi and Olson, 1988) or affective responses (e.g., emotions - Park and Young, 1986). Thus, product involvement is perceived by consumers rather than to be inherent within the product itself.

MANAGERIAL IMPLICATION

In general, the findings suggest that associating sportswear brands and products with different personality values could generate stronger perceptions of “excitement” and “ruggedness”. This might explain the wide spread tendency for marketing programs and promotion tactics of internationally recognized brands to be “image-focused” rather than “product-focused”. “There is some evidence that the importance one assigns to apparel is related to values of sense of belonging and security and uncertainty in the purchase decision making to warm relationship with others and self-respect” (Kim, 2005, p. 218). Thus, product involvement is likely to affect the brand personality-brand loyalty relations by increasing or decreasing the direct and indirect effects on repurchase intention. According to Hanzaee et al., (2011) brand loyalty develops when the brand fits the personality of the consumer or when the brand offers gratifying and unique attributes and benefits. Then, in both instances, personal attachment develops toward the brand. Sales promotion, such as coupons, price reductions, and rebates will create contingencies in consumers’ decision that might activate personal goals and values.

Tables at a glance


Table 1	Table 2	Table 3


Table 4	Table 5	Table 6

Figures at a glance


Figure 1	Figure 2	Figure 3

References

Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research,34(3), 347-356.

Allen, P. and Bennett, K. (2010). Pasw statistics by spss: a practical guide. Version 18.0.Cengage Learning: Australia.

Anderson, E. W. (1994). Cross-category variation in customer satisfaction and retention. Marketing Letters, 5, 19-30.

Bennett, R. & Rundle-Thiele, S. (2005). The brand loyalty life cycle: Implications for marketers. Brand Management, 12(4), 250-263.

Bolton, R. N. (1998). A dynamic model of the duration of the customer’s relationship witha continuous service provider: the role of satisfaction. Marketing Science, 17(1),45-65.

Borneo Post (2011). Sports industry to play more prominent role in Malaysia’s economicgrowth. URL: http://www.theborneopost.com. Assessed on 29 July 2011.Celsi, R., & Olson, J. (1988). The role of involvement in attention and comprehensionprocesses. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 210–224.

Dick, A. S. &Basu, K. (1994). Customer loyalty: Toward an integrated conceptualframework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22, 99-113.

Field, A. P. (2009). Discovering statistics using spss. Third Edition. Sage Publication Ltd.London.

Giese, J. L. & Cote, J. A. (2000). Academy of Marketing Science Review. Volume 2000No. 1. URL: http://www.amsreview.org/articles/giese01-2000.pdf. Accessed on18 January 2011.

Greenwald, A. A., & Leavitt, C. (1984). Audience involvement in advertising: four levels.Journal of Consumer Research, 11, 581–592.

Guo, Y. (2003). Facilitating flow in the Internet shopping experience. Proceedings of theNinth Americas Conference on Information Systems. Association for Information Systems, Tampa, FL (August), 3318-3325.

Hanzaee, K. H., Khoshpanjeh, M., and Rahnama, A. (2011). Evaluation of the effects ofproduct involvement facets on brand loyalty. African Journal of BusinessManagement, 5(16), 6964-6971.

Hupfer, N., & Gardner, D. (1971). Differential involvement with products and issues: Anexploratory study. In D. M. Gardner (Ed.), Proceedings, association for consumerresearch College Park, MD: Association for Consumer Research, 262–269.

Ithnin, H. (2012). Potensipakaiansukan. Harian Metro: Bisness, 24 September 2012,pp. 34.

Kim, H. S. (2005). Consumer profiles of apparel product involvement and values. Journalof Fashion Marketing and Management, 9(2), 207-220.

Kumar, R., Luthra, A. and Datta, G. (2006). Linkages between brand personality andbrand loyalty: a qualitative study in an emerging market in the Indian context.South Asian Journal of Management, 13(2), 11-35.

Kapferer J. N. and Laurent, G. (1993). Further Evidence on the Consumer InvolvementProfile: Five Antecedents of Involvement. Psychology and Marketing, 10 (4), 347-355.

Lin, L. Y. (2010). The relationship of consumer personality trait, brand personality andbrand loyalty: an empirical study of toys and video games buyers. Journal ofProduct & Brand Management, 19(1), 4–17.

Mengxia, Z. (2007). Impact of brand personality on PALI: a comparative research between two different brands. International Management Review, Marietta, 3(3), 36-46.

Oh, J., and Fiorito, S. S. (2002). Korean women‘s clothing brand loyalty. Journal ofFashion Marketing and Management, 6, 206-222.

Oliver, R. L. (1999). Whence consumer loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 63, 33-44.

Park, C. W and Young, S. H. (1986). Consumer Response to Television Commercials:The Impact of Involvement and Background Music on Brand Attitude Formation",Journal of Marketing Research, 23, p. 11-24.

Park, S. H (1996). Relationship between involvement and attitudinal loyalty construct in adult fitness program. Journal of Leisure Research, 4, 233-251.

Quester, P. & Lim, A. L. (2003). Product involvement/brand loyalty. Journal of Product &Brand Management, 12(1), 22-38.

Rundle-Thiele, S., & Bennett, R. (2001). A brand for all seasons? A discussion of brandloyalty approaches and their applicability for different markets. Journal of Product& Brand Management, 10(1), 25-37.

Schiffman, L. G. and Kanuk, L. L. (1991). Consumer behavior (2nd ed.). New Jersy.Prentice Hall.

Schiffman, L. G and Kanuk, L. L. (2000). Consumer behavior (7th ed.). New Jersy. Prentice Hall.

Sharma, S., Durand, R. M., &Gur-Arie, O. (1981). Identification and analysis of moderator variables. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 291-300.

Sirgy, M. J. (1985). Using self-congruity and ideal congruity to predict purchase intention. Journal of Business Research, 13, 229-241.

Solomon, M. R. (2009). Consumer behavior: buying, having, and being, Pearson. Upper Saddle River, NJ. Prentice Hall.

Suh, J. C and Yi, Y. (2006). When Brand Attitudes Affect The Customer Satisfaction-Loyalty Relation: The Moderating Role of Product Involvement. Journal ofConsumer Psychology, 16(2), 145–155