International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management

Emerald Article: Moderating role of involvement in building a retail brand Bernhard Swoboda, Frank Haelsig, Hanna Schramm-Klein, Dirk Morschett

Article information:
To cite this document: Bernhard Swoboda, Frank Haelsig, Hanna Schramm-Klein, Dirk Morschett, (2009),"Moderating role of involvement in building a retail brand", International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 37 Iss: 11 pp. 952 - 974 Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09590550910999370 Downloaded on: 14-05-2012 References: This document contains references to 99 other documents To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com This document has been downloaded 2548 times.

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by NORTHUMBRIA UNIVERSITY For Authors: If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service. Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Additional help for authors is available for Emerald subscribers. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0959-0552.htm

IJRDM 37,11

Moderating role of involvement in building a retail brand

Bernhard Swoboda
Trier University, Trier, Germany

952
Received 31 May 2008 Revised 1 December 2008 Accepted 27 April 2009

Frank Haelsig
Simon-Kucher & Partners, Koln, Germany

Hanna Schramm-Klein
University of Siegen, Siegen, Germany, and

Dirk Morschett
University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to focus on one of the main antecedents of consumer behaviour concerning its role in building a retail brand. It addresses how consumer involvement inuences perception of retailer attributes, which affects customer-based retail brand equity when considering retailers as brands. Design/methodology/approach A model is developed that includes the impact of central dimensions of the perception of retailer attributes, their effects on customer-based retail brand equity and the moderating role of consumer involvement. The empirical study is based on a sample of 3,000 consumers spread over ve retail sectors (grocery, clothing, DIY, electronics and furniture). Findings Using multiple-group structural equation modelling, the intersectoral relevance of involvement as a moderator in building a strong retail brand is demonstrated. In retailing, consumer involvement has a moderating effect on the inuence of retailer attributes on retail brand equity. The direction of this inuence differs, however, from one perceived retailer attribute to the next. Whereas the inuence of price, communication and store design is greater on highly involved consumers than on those with low involvement, the inuence of service and assortment is greater in consumers with low involvement. Since consumers with a different level of involvement have a different perception of retailer attributes, this factor is relevant to retail branding. Originality/value Understanding retailers as brands conceptually a basic model shows how to build retail brand equity using the dimensions of retailer marketing instruments, and this model is stable enough to test different antecedents, including involvement for the rst time in this context. The ve sectors surveyed distinguish the study methodologically from those that focus only on one sector. Finally, the results show that the retailer attributes relevant to retail brand equity differ between customers with high involvement and those with low involvement. This aspect must be considered in the preliminary stages of retail brand building. Keywords Retailing, Brand equity, Brands, Consumer behaviour Paper type Research paper

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management Vol. 37 No. 11, 2009 pp. 952-974 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0959-0552 DOI 10.1108/09590550910999370

Introduction While there certainly are many psychological effects on the relationship between the objective reality of a retailer and the way in which consumers perceive it (Luomala, 2003), the present study concentrates on involvement as a moderating factor. Involvement is commonly acknowledged as being a key determinant in consumers shopping behaviour (including the choice of retail outlets; Steenkamp and Wedel, 1991).

The present study assumes that involvement also inuences the building of a strong retail brand. Branding can be especially important in retailing, given its highly competitive nature and its strong inuence on patronage behaviour (Ailawadi and Keller, 2004; Hartman and Spiro, 2005). Thus, the increasingly widely used view of the retailer as a brand is one of the most important trends in retailing (Grewal et al., 2004). At the same time, empirical studies regarding the retailer as a brand have only been pursued on relatively rare occasions so far (Davies, 1992; Kent, 2003), while substantially more research has been conducted on store image. We have applied the terminological understanding of, e.g. Ailawadi and Keller (2004), and do not equate retail brands with private labels, store brands or retailer brands. Instead the retailer itself is seen as the brand, e.g. Tesco, IKEA or Aldi. The aim of the present study is to analyse how consumer involvement affects the relationship between the perception and evaluation of retailer attributes and customer-based retail brand equity, using multiple-group structural equation modelling. While previous studies concentrate on single retail sectors and raise the question of whether the results can be generalised to cover other retailing sectors (grocery: Morschett et al., 2006; textiles: Birtwistle et al., 1999; Pappu and Quester, 2006; furniture: Groeppel-Klein et al., 1999), the present study does look at the relevance of low-involvement and high-involvement consumers specic to the retail sector, but focuses mainly on the moderating role of involvement intersectorally. Based on the present research on retailer attributes, their impact on customer-based retail brand equity and the role of involvement in this relationship are conceptualised. Hypotheses address the relationship between perception of retailer attributes and retail brand equity, focusing particularly on the moderating role of involvement. Methodology and results form part of the empirical study, which then leads to the overall conclusions. Conceptual framework, constructs and hypotheses Conceptualisation of the perception of retailer attributes This study investigates a broad spectrum of customer-perceived retailer activities that can be inuenced actively by a rm. Only a few research studies have conducted a thorough investigation of the retail marketing mix with the aim of comparing specic attributes in terms of their relevance in building a strong retail brand (Kent, 2003; Miranda et al., 2005). Thus, the following argumentation has to consider the research ndings on retailer/store image, but without discussing the terminology due to the long history of changing conceptualisation (Hartman and Spiro, 2005). In retailing research literature, consumers perception of a retailer or of the retailers activities as displayed in the retailer attributes can be considered closely related to the store image construct (Morschett et al., 2005). Since the introduction of store image research (Martineau, 1958), researchers have devoted considerable attention to developing the idea that consumers hold images of particular stores in their minds (Berry, 1969; Kasulis and Lusch, 1981; Marks, 1976). As store image research has performed a great deal of work in identifying the major facets of store image, many differentiating factors could be found, e.g. eight attributes or marketing instruments in fashion retailing by Birtwistle et al. (1999), four by Teas (1994), six others by Barich and Srinivasan (1993) or Mazursky and Jacoby (1986)

Moderating role of involvement

953

IJRDM 37,11

954

and different attributes by previous researchers (Lindquist, 1974/1975; Doyle and Fenwick, 1974/1975; Fisk, 1961/1962). The present study attempts to apply a broad catalogue in order to detect wide facets of retailer attribute dimensions and their varying relevance when comparing different consumer segments based on low and high involvement. As in store image research, the retailer attributes in this paper are generally investigated without considering whether these attributes match. Unlike previous research, however, the authors argue that the individual retailer attributes perceived cannot be regarded in isolation because they do interact with one another in the mind of the consumer (Marks, 1976). This is a plausible argument for consumer-based retailing studies (Bell et al., 1997). Conceptualisation of customer-based retail brand equity The literature contains a substantial number of different approaches to conceptualisation of brand equity (Aaker, 1991; Ye and van Raaij, 2004). Ailawadi and Keller (2004) point out that this conceptualisation is even more difcult for retail brands due to the special requirement and complexity of retail brand equity. While the authors generally agree with Kellers well-known conceptualisation of brand equity as being composed of brand awareness and brand image (Keller, 1993, p. 8), the present study focuses on the latter because, for the largest retailers in a sector, variance in consumers awareness is low and empirically, awareness is a prerequisite for image, so image and the resulting customer-based retail brand equity can only be measured for those retailers that are known to the consumer. In branding literature, different types of brand associations are distinguished by their level of abstraction. Keller classies brand associations in three major categories of increasing abstraction: attributes, benets and attitudes. Attitudes, i.e. summary judgments and overall evaluations, represent the most abstract and highest-level type of brand association (Keller, 1993, p. 4, 2003, p. 596). According to most researchers, the well-researched attitude construct refers to an affect or a general evaluative reaction (Bagozzi, 1978). In the tri-component theory, there are three components assigned to attitudes (Bagozzi, 1978; Iniesta and Sanchez, 2002, p. 264): a cognitive one, capturing the consumers beliefs and knowledge, an affective one, reecting feelings and emotions, and a conative one, resulting in the behavioural intention or willingness to develop an actual form of behaviour. To obtain a comprehensive view, the attitude-based conceptualisation of retail brand equity in the present study includes these three components. At the same time, attitude research suggests that indicators of all three components converge to form a uni-dimensional attitude measure (Burnkrant and Page, 1982). The indicators employed in our study, which cover all three components, are likeability (Lassar et al., 1995; Keller, 2003; Ye and van Raaij, 2004), differentiation (Davies, 1992; Netemeyer et al., 2004), trustworthiness (Sheth and Venkatesan, 1968; Doyle, 1990) and customer loyalty (Beatty et al., 1988; Bloemer and de Ruyter, 1998; Iniesta and Sanchez, 2002; Oliver, 1999; Wallace et al., 2004) (with the two indicators commitment and willingness to recommend). Conceptualisation of involvement The concept of involvement that has evolved from sociological research was introduced to marketing by Krugmann (1965; see Mittal (1995, p. 664) for the diversity of terms). There are three schools of thought in involvement research:

(1) In the salience of stimulus approach, involvement is expressed as the role of a stimulus in individual behaviour. This approach is independent of the individual motives or values of the consumer and relates solely to the stimulus and its characteristics (Petty et al., 1983). (2) The enduring product involvement approach understands involvement as the subjective and sustained importance of a stimulus that evolves as a result of proximity to the central motives and values of the individual (for ego involvement, see Lastovicka and Gardner, 1979). (3) The attention/processing strategies (state) approach integrates both viewpoints. Mitchell (1979) understands involvement as a state of activation, motivation or interest that occurs if a stimulus is particularly relevant for the individual or generates situation-related consequences. It is evoked by factors specic to the individual, to the stimulus, or to the situation and reects the willingness to act upon the stimulus cognitively or emotionally. This combination of approaches leads to an understanding of involvement as a complex, non-observable construct that characterises a state of activation (particularly motivation) and of interest specic to an individual. This state is determined by external stimuli (e.g. retail store, situation) and by internal circumstances (e.g. self-image, values). Since an individual is involved, emotional and cognitive processes (e.g. absorption and processing of information) are affected (Kapferer and Laurent, 1985, p. 290; Lastovicka and Gardner, 1979, p. 53; Mitchell, 1979, p. 194; Park et al., 2007, p. 127). Although the degree of involvement changes constantly, many authors distinguish between the dichotomous occurrence of low and high involvement (Bloemer and de Ruyter, 1999; Flynn and Goldsmith, 1993; Gardner et al., 1978; Yi and Jeon, 2003), where a distinction can be made between situational factors, personal factors and object or stimulus factors (Muncy and Hunt, 1984, p. 193; Houston and Rothschild, 1978, p. 184). Empirical research has veried that highly involved individuals seek out information actively and draw on more information than individuals with low involvement (Craik and Lockhart, 1972; Maoz and Tybout, 2002; Park et al., 2007). With low involvement, more information consistent to pattern is retained than with high involvement, meaning that consistency of information provided is particularly important with low involvement. As shown by Shao et al. (2004), appropriate dress by service personnel inuences purchasing behaviour, particularly for customers with low involvement. In addition, people with low involvement frequently fall back on central, salient characteristics/features of a schema, thus it is wise to communicate only a small amount of information under low-involvement conditions. We should point out that this study considers consumers individual involvement to be a behavioural research construct, but not a specic product attribute, as is the case in some studies (Churchill and Surprenant, 1982; Gotlieb et al., 1992). These studies refer to high-involvement and low-involvement products. This is based on the assumption that certain products (due to their attributes or area of application) lead to high or low involvement, respectively, by every consumer. The authors consider this to be a rather unrealistic approach and one that is questionable from the point of view of behavioural research, thus it is not pursued further.

Moderating role of involvement

955

IJRDM 37,11

956

In explaining the building of a retail brand, the link to consumer involvement is a promising one and it can be assumed that involvement inuences perception of the retail brand. This assumption can be linked to the studies that show involvement to be an antecedent of store choice (Steenkamp and Wedel, 1991) or studies on product brand and retail store perception (Schramm-Klein et al., 2007). Studies on general brand loyalty show that high involvement is a sign of a strong emotional link to the brand concerned, while a more half-hearted, routine choice of a brand is an indication of low involvement. At the same time, the relevance of involvement is not universal. Berens et al. (2005, S. 44), for example, only demonstrated a limited moderating effect by involvement on the relationship between corporate brand and evaluation of a product. Conceptual framework and hypotheses Having provided a brief review of the literature and description of the authors understanding of the constructs used, this section concludes by setting forth a conceptual framework (Figure 1). General relations When forming a general understanding, it is important to note that consumers are inclined to simplify when assessing effect and are thus unable to judge individual, objectively different properties of an object truly independently of one another, with the result that the consumer tends rather to base his judgment on key information, for example, as well as on irradiation effects. Thus, consumers perception of store attributes can be divided into different central dimensions, and as pointed out, the individual dimensions cannot be regarded in isolation because they do interact with one another in the mind of the consumer (Marks, 1976). Human cognition and perception is an integrated process, which means that perception is not an isolated process of specic senses, but an integrated assimilation of stimuli (Gerrig and Zimbardo, 2004). It appears plausible, therefore, that perception of an individual retailer attribute irradiates onto other attributes (Bell et al., 1997; Swoboda et al., 2007). Thus, the authors assume that consumers perception of store attributes emerges from different central dimensions that are not independent of one other. While previous studies that have identied relevant retailer attributes and central dimensions in specic retail sectors have come to generally similar results across sectors, it remains to be analysed whether the same dimensions apply to all retail sectors. The results discussed from the literature (Oppewal and Timmermans, 1997) and the conceptualisation presented continue to allow the conclusion that evaluation of the central dimensions of retailer attributes has a positive inuence on customer-based

Consumer involvement H2 Objective configuration of retailer attributes and features

Figure 1. Conceptual framework

Perceived dimensions of retailer attributes

H1

Customer-based retail brand equity

retail brand equity. In Malhotras (1983) threshold model of store choice, ve salient characteristics that inuence store choice are identied, namely service quality, variety and selection, acceptable prices, convenience of location and physical facilities. Rinne and Swinyard (1995) or Mazursky and Jacoby (1986) also illustrate in their studies that the evaluations of these store attributes are not of equal importance. Besides these quite rare comparisons of the effect of retailer attributes, the literature also provides analyses of individual retailer attributes that illustrate the importance of the specic attribute, usually considered in isolation and without making any comparisons. These studies show that the evaluation of certain central dimensions, as for example the perceived service (quality), are found to be a signicant predictor of behavioural intentions and patronage behaviour, e.g. repeat purchase and recommendation behaviour (Bitner, 1990). Woodside et al. (1989) showed in their study that there is a signicant association between the evaluation of service quality and re-purchase behaviour. Owing to space limitation, it is not possible to refer to all studies that have demonstrated the relevance of particular retailer attributes, usually considered in isolation and without comparing the strength of the effects (price: Binkley and Bejnarowicz, 2003; assortment: Amine and Cadenat, 2003; advertising: Rajiv et al., 2002; store design: Turley and Chebat, 2002). Thus, the following two hypotheses are formulated: H1a. The more positive the evaluation of the different dimensions of retailer attributes, the more positive customer-based retail brand equity is inuenced. H1b. The strength of this inuence differs between the dimensions. The moderating role of involvement As pointed out, a distinctive feature of the study is its focus on the role of involvement in building a strong retail brand. In order to understand involvement, its ego, stimulus and situations components are to be viewed in terms of perception of retailing attributes and thus, their effect on retail brand equity. As shown, it can be assumed that the higher the involvement of consumers, the greater their personal interest/relevance and their emotional and cognitive commitment, which determine the more complex and in-depth processing of information, as well as the more detailed elaboration processes by individuals. It was shown in many studies that highly involved individuals seek out information actively and draw on more information than individuals with low involvement (Petty et al., 1983, p. 135; Bloemer and de Ruyter, 1998, p. 502). Transposed to the present question, involvement may not only inuence individual consumer perceptions of retail brand equity and of retailer attributes, but also affect the inuence of retailer attribute evaluation on attitudinal customer-based retail brand equity. Perception is a subjective, selective and individual process. Against this background, involvement can be considered in the context surveyed as a moderating variable that inuences the character and intensity of relationships between the dimensions in the effect model (Darrow and Kahl, 1982, p. 35; Sharma et al., 1981, p. 291). In principle, the literature assumes that involvement has a positive inuence on the effect relationships between two constructs. Involved consumers value the product more, engage in more product-related activities, and have a better knowledge of product

Moderating role of involvement

957

IJRDM 37,11

958

attributes and prices (Bloch and Richins, 1983; Richins and Bloch, 1986). As consumers with high involvement have a better knowledge of the current price level, they are more attracted by a particularly favourable price-value ratio than consumers with low involvement, who do not have this knowledge to such a large extent (Chandrashekaran and Grewal, 2003). Some other studies in retailing show that involvement has a positive inuence on the effect relationship of a model, for example on product brand perception or retail store perception and product brand loyalty (Schramm-Klein et al., 2007), but do not state which attributes are relevant here. As also highlighted, the inuence of involvement is not always evident. Suh and Yi (2006) demonstrate the differently oriented inuence of involvement. In their study, involvement reduces the direct effects of satisfaction on brand attitudes and loyalty, but it enhances the indirect effects of advertisement attitudes and corporate image. Other authors, however, highlight the positive moderating effect of involvement. In an analysis of the effects of loyalty programmes on value perception, programme loyalty and brand loyalty, Yi and Jeon (2003), for example, show that value perception of the loyalty programme inuences brand loyalty both directly and indirectly through programme loyalty. Under low-involvement conditions, there is no direct effect of value perception on brand loyalty. Thus, a largely positive inuence is weakened by the moderating effect of low involvement to the extent that this positive effect no longer exists. Although there is no absolutely clear indication in this context as to what effect involvement has on specic attribute dimensions, we assume a positive effect of high involvement on an effect relationship based on the studies mentioned. In this respect and combined with the common differentiation of high- and low-involvement consumers, it can be hypothesized that: H2. The evaluation of the dimensions of retailer attributes inuences customer-based retail brand equity more strongly when consumers are highly involved than when they have low involvement. Methodology Sample characteristics An empirical study was conducted in one German city with face-to-face interviews and 3,000 respondents (600 in grocery, clothing, DIY, electronics and furniture retailing). To ensure that the sample was representative of the population, quota sampling was conducted, taking consideration of the statistical distribution of shoppers in Germany in terms of their age and gender. Each respondent was asked about one specic retail store. The stores used as stimuli in the study were chosen based on recall values for the specic retail brand in a pre-test. In this pre-test, consumers were asked to list the retailers where a specic product group (e.g. groceries, clothing and furniture) could be purchased. It was also established that each respondent did his/her shopping at least occasionally in this store. Since the study covered different retail sectors, it is important not only to test the validity of the constructs, but also to assure measurement invariance across these sectors to be able to integrate the data and the resulting coefcients (Horn and McArdle, 1992, p. 117). This procedure states that a measurement model must be checked for invariance at three basic levels (congural, metric and scalar invariance), where each stage must be viewed as a prerequisite for the next stage. The results of

the validity test and the test for congural, metric and scalar invariance (Steenkamp and Baumgartner, 1998; van den Berg and Lance, 2000; Cheung and Rensvold, 2002) are included in Tables I and II. Measurement and central dimensions of the perception of retailer attributes As described before, perception of retailer attributes was measured with a comprehensive battery of items to cover a broad range of retailer attributes
Factor 1: Factor 2: Factor 3: Factor 4: Factor 5: Rotated component matrix items service value/price advertising assortment store design Friendly store employees 0.928 Good service 0.871 Competent store employees 0.771 Appropriate prices 0.819 Good price/value-ratio 0.801 Constant prices 0.798 Personally appealing advertising 2 0.866 Good advertising 2 0.860 Informative advertising 2 0.676 Wide assortment/one-stop shopping 0.779 Good quality of assortment 0.572 2 0.216 Good product availability 0.112 0.522 Pleasant shopping atmosphere 2 0.883 Easy to nd the way around 2 0.728 Comfortable shopping atmosphere 0.174 2 0.541 Eigenvalues 5.617 2.501 1.636 1.289 1.067 Share of explained total variance (%) 31.20 13.90 9.10 7.10 5.60 Average variance extracted (AVE) 0.744 0.620 0.652 0.506 0.593 Quality of t statistics of measurement model: GFI 0.964; AGFI 0.946; NFI 0.960; CFI 0.964; TLI 0.953; RMSEA 0.056 Invariance test for the scale across ve retail sectors RMSEA CFI TLI D-CFI D-TLI Model (#0.08) ($0.90) ($ 0.90) (#0.01) (# 0.05) Congural invariance 0.027 0.960 0.948 Full metric invariance 0.028 0.952 0.943 0.008 0.005 Full scalar invariance 0.037 0.907 0.902 0.053 0.046 Final partial scalar invariance 0.027 0.950 0.941 0.001 0.007 Note: Factor analysis and invariance test

Moderating role of involvement

959

Table I. Construct validity of the perceived dimensions of retailer attributes

Dimensions of retailer attributes Service Value/price Advertising Assortment Store design

Average variance extracted 0.744 0.620 0.652 0.506 0.593

Squared correlation of the dimensions Value/ Store Service price Advertising Assortment design 0.028 0.073 0.232 0.454 0.028 0.104 0.104 0.025 0.073 0.104 0.124 0.149 0.232 0.104 0.124 0.356 0.454 0.025 0.149 0.356

Note: Based on the total sample

Table II. Test of discriminant validity of the perceived dimensions of retailer attributes

IJRDM 37,11

960

following, among others, Mazursky and Jacoby (1986) and Pan and Zinkhan (2006). To establish meaningful groups of items, the items were analysed (after extensive examination and following adjustment of the battery of items) by exploratory and (then) conrmatory factor analysis, using the split-half method as cross-validation (across all ve sectors). The following adjustments of the item battery had to be done (beginning with 19 items): within the battery of items, the empirical research asked about the attractiveness of the private label products offered. The number of missing values (25 per cent) was too high, however, for this item to be analysed further. The authors explain this by the fact that the consumers only perceive the private label products by implication, but often cannot differentiate them consciously from the other products. The number of missing values was also too high for the item appealing special offers. The location variable was eliminated due to the surprisingly very low indicator reliability in the rst calculation of a conrmatory factor analysis. The cleanliness variable did load highly, but not unambiguously, on two separate factors and therefore was not considered. Following the theoretical considerations that the underlying factor structures are probably not independent of each other, an oblimin rotation was applied to the data set, i.e. across all ve retail sectors. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy was 0.814 and the x 2 of Bartletts test of sphericity was 8,191.3 (sign. 0.000). Five factors were extracted that are easy to interpret from the loadings displayed (Table I). To test this result further (and due to the rather heterogeneous results in prior store image research), the reliability and validity of the scale and its dimensions were evaluated. Conrmatory factor analysis was applied to the ve latent constructs identied in the exploratory factor analysis using the second half of the sample. The model was calculated with AMOS 7.0, applying the maximum-likelihood method (Kline, 1998). As shown in Figure 2 the overall t measures indicate a good t of the model to the empirical data. The expected interdependence between the latent constructs is clearly visible in the path coefcients (Fornell and Larcker, 1981; see Table II for the detailed test for discriminant validity for the total sample). But even the highest coefcient, however, (between service and store design) still indicates discriminant validity. Thus, the ve-dimensional structure for perception of retailer attributes is conrmed by the data. In a last step, measurement invariance across the ve retail sectors was also analysed successfully and partial scalar invariance was demonstrated; the values for D-CFI, D-TLI and RMSEA met the prescriptive thresholds. Partial scalar invariance is the minimum requirement for using the same model in different retail sectors in order to draw general conclusions (Table I). Measurement of customer-based retail brand equity Single indicators that were used to capture attitudinal retail brand equity are likeability, commitment, willingness to recommend, trustworthiness and differentiation. In view of its special importance, loyalty was measured using the two indicators commitment and customers willingness to recommend the retailer (Iniesta and Sanchez, 2002; Osman, 1993). It seems necessary to use multiple items

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Good service Friendly store employees Competent store employees Appropriate prices Good price/value-ratio Constant prices Good advertising Personally appealing advertising Informative advertising Good quality of assortment Wide assortment/one-stop shopping Good product availability Easy to find the way around Comfortable shopping atmosphere Pleasant shopping atmosphere

1.1 2.1 3.1 4.2 5.2 6.2 7.3 8.3 9.3 10.4 11.4 12.4 13.5 14.5 15.5 Store design Assortment 0.36 0.57 GFI: AGFI: NFI: TLI: CFI: RMSEA: 0.964 0.946 0.960 0.953 0.964 0.056 Value/price 0.46 0.31 Service

Moderating role of involvement

0.25

0.16

961

Advertising

0.28

0.61

0.36 0.16

Figure 2. Model and global t criteria for conrmatory factor analysis of the perception items

Note: n=1,500 (split-half method)

for retail brand equity because it is abstract and cannot be measured by a single item (see for a detailed discussion on this aspect: Bergkvist and Rossiter (2007)). Cronbachs coefcient alpha is used to assess reliability, and the adjusted item-to-total correlation is high for all items. The KMO measure of sampling adequacy was 0.833 and the x 2 of Bartletts test of sphericity was 3,047.4 (sign. 0.000). The results of the factor analysis are given in Table III. The scale is internally consistent. Furthermore, the authors are able to illustrate partial scalar invariance for the scale, which means that it can be used for all ve retail sectors. When examining the nomological validity of retail brand equity, its ability to predict shoppers buying behaviour (measured by share of spending in the specic retail sector at the retailer analysed) was tested by evaluating the results of a regression analysis. With R 2 of almost 0.4, the explanatory power is reasonably good compared to other studies. Measurement of involvement Validated scales to measure involvement can be found in the literature, but these do not appear suitable for unrestricted use in connection with retail branding and they also encompass a huge number of indicators. Please refer, for example, to Kapferer and Laurent (1985), Ratchford (1986), Richins and Bloch (1986) and Zaichkowsky (1985) on validated scales, and to Jain and Srinivasan (1990, 15 indicators), McQuarrie and Munson (1986, 22 indicators), Slama and Tashchian (1985, 33 indicators) and Zaichkowsky (1985, 20 indicators) for hugely comprehensive surveys. This is contrasted by involvement measures based on single statements on enjoyable shopping or scales with only two indicators (Berens et al., 2005, S. 46).

IJRDM 37,11
Factor loading (from principal axis analysis) 0.790 0.625 0.756 0.765 0.569

962

Table III. Construct validity of customer-based retail brand equity and invariance test

Likeability Differentiation Trustworthiness Commitment Willingness to recommend Quality of t statistics of measurement model: GFI 0.989; AGFI 0.966; NFI 0.983; CFI 0.984; TLI 0.969; RMSEA 0.074; AVE 0.509 Invariance test for the retail brand equity scale across ve retail sectors RMSEA CFI TLI D-CFI D-TLI Model (#0.08) ($0.90) ($0.90) (# 0.01) (# 0.05) Congural invariance 0.035 0.982 0.965 Full metric invariance 0.035 0.970 0.964 0.012 0.001 Final partial metric invariance 0.034 0.975 0.967 0.007 0.002 Full scalar invariance Initial scalar invariance 0.034 0.921 0.935 0.061 0.030 Final partial scalar invariance 0.051 0.973 0.963 0.009 0.002

Coefcient of determination (from conrmatory factor analysis) 0.782 0.633 0.755 0.763 0.574

In order to strike a balance and as conceptualised, ego, stimulus and situational involvement were each measured using two indicators in an identical manner, but adapted semantically to the retail sector concerned (Table IV). Ego involvement was operationalised based on the indicators analysed by Mittal (1995, p. 673) and by Neese and Taylor (1994, p. 68). The items for measuring stimulus involvement are geared to the original four-item scale by Beatty and Talpade (1994, p. 333), as well as the reduced three-item version by Flynn et al. (1996, p. 137).
Dimension Ego involvement Indicators/statements Food stores and the products sold there are a great passion of mine. (Ego involvement I) Food stores and the products sold there rank highly in my life (Ego involvement II) Food stores and the products sold there are very important to me (personally) (Stimulus involvement I) I am very interested in food stores and the products sold there (Stimulus involvement II) When buying food, I consider very carefully which food store to go to (Situational involvement I) The food store I shop at means a great deal to me (Situational involvement II)

Stimulus involvement

Situational involvement Table IV. Statements on measurement of involvement

Notes: The references to each specic sector in the six statements were adapted to the sector concerned in each case; the references to the indicator in each case is shown in brackets in the further analysis

Situational involvement (purchase decision involvement) was measured using the scales developed by Mittal (1989, p. 152) and Ratchford (1986, p. 28). This six-item scale was tested in a previous, unpublished study in the grocery retailing sector. The exploratory factor analysis yielded one factor. Thus, the various facets of involvement are included in the scale, but the result bears out those authors who entertain some doubts about involvement being represented by three separate, selective factors and thus only pinpoint one factor. The KMO value of 0.785 is satisfactory for the factor, as is a highly signicant x 2 value of 9,376.698 from the Bartlett test (df 15, p 0.000). On the other hand, further quality checks on the scale revealed too low reliability (0.210) for the Situational involvement II indicator, with the result that this indicator was eliminated in further analysis steps. As part of the subsequent, renewed exploratory factor analysis of the reduced involvement scale, a factor is again extracted, yielding a somewhat better KMO value of 0.862 and an extremely signicant x 2 value of 7,806.515 from the Bartlett test (df 10, p 0.000). Cronbachs alpha shows a value of 0.862. The majority of the quality criteria in the following test stages display good results and exceed the minimum requirements by a wide margin in most cases (Table V). Indicator reliability is slightly below the required level, and the RMSEA exceeds the maximum value very slightly. The congural invariance model and the more restrictive full metric invariance model were fullled, but not the more complete scalar invariance model (violation of the D-CFI value at 0.059). As a result, the scale had to be tested for partial scalar invariance, with the residual values of those indicators with the highest modication indices being determined successively. This procedure
Coefcient of determination (from conrmatory factor analysis) 0.715 0.877 0.522 0.352 0.256

Moderating role of involvement

963

Ego involvement I Ego involvement II Stimulus involvement I Stimulus involvement II Situational involvement I Situational involvement II (removed) Quality of t statistics of measurement model: GFI 0.979; AGFI 0.920; NFI 0.979; CFI 0.979; TLI 0.948; RMSEA 0.116; AVE 0.556 Invariance test for the involvement scale across ve retail sectors RMSEA CFI TLI D-CFI D-TLI Model (#0.08) ($0.90) ($ 0.90) (#0.01) (# 0.05) Congural invariance 0.059 0.972 0.930 Full metric invariance 0.049 0.965 0.951 0.007 (2 )0.021 Final partial metric invariance Full scalar invariance 0.062 0.913 0.906 0.059 0.024 Initial scalar invariance Final partial scalar invariance 0.054 0.961 0.928 0.011 0.002

Factor loading (from principal axis analysis) 0.797 0.868 0.815 0.709 0.542

Table V. Construct validity of involvement and invariance test

IJRDM 37,11

led to an improvement in the CFI value, and the difference compared to the basic model was reduced to 0.011, thus the required limiting value for D-CFI was only exceeded very slightly. This appears sufcient for the partial scalar invariance to be accepted. Hypothesis testing Analysis of the impact of retailer attributes on customer-based retail brand equity Based on the hypotheses and the results concerning the central dimensions of perception of retailer attributes, the model has been tested with the full sample (Figure 3). It is possible to include the data from the ve retail sectors because measurement invariance between the sectors has been demonstrated for all constructs in the model. The model analyses the impact of retailer attributes on retail brand equity for the total sample, i.e. all ve retailing sectors simultaneously, in order to reveal effects that occur across the retail sectors. The global t dimensions provide good values for the model and exceed the required minimum standards. The structural model is suitable for analysing the inuence of perceived dimensions of retailer attributes on retail brand equity. The standardised path coefcients show a positive but different effect of each dimension of retailer attributes on retail brand equity. As the squared multiple correlation (SMC) value show, the model explains the building of retail brand equity very well. It is interesting to note that the result showing special relevance of service in building a strong retail brand was clearly veried in a study by Oppewal and Timmermans (1997), which concludes that retailers themselves consider service to be the dimension where they can stand out against their competitors with most positive effect. The considerable inuence of price and store design, however, is also evident. With regard to consumer service, the empirical results, which identify service as the most important antecedent of customer-based retail brand equity among all dimensions of retailer attributes, support the emphasis that customer service has received in recent retail research (Bolton et al., 2007; Swoboda et al., 2007). The results also demonstrate that the focus of previous studies on price only is not appropriate
Service 11=0.320 ** Value/price 21=0.287 ** Advertising 31=0.159 ** 41=0.100 ** SMC = 0.607 Retail brand equity Likeability 1 2 3 4 5

964

11 21 31 41

Differentiation

Trustworthiness

Figure 3. Integrated model of the impact of perceived central dimensions of retailer attributes on retail brand equity (total sample)

n=3000 Assortment 51=0.237 ** Store design GFI: AGFI: NFI: TLI: CFI: RMSEA: 0.949 0.931 0.947 0.941 0.952 0.054 51

Commitment Willingness to recommend

Notes: *p<0.05; **p<0.01; n.s.= not significant

in retailing. While it does not exert a dominant inuence, it is nevertheless of almost equal importance as consumer service. Unlike the results of other studies (Koelemeijer and Oppewal, 1999; Stassen et al., 1999), evaluation of the assortment only has a minor, but still signicant effect on retail brand equity and, indirectly, on purchasing behaviour in this study. In many retail sectors, assortment may not provide retailers with the opportunity to create distinctive retail brand equity because the customer perceives the assortment of retailers as being almost interchangeable. All in all, these results indicate support for H1a and H1b. The role of involvement In accordance with the hypothesis, the sample was divided into two groups in line with the widely used dichotomous differentiation into low involvement and high involvement using the median of the involvement factor values (Gardner et al., 1978, p. 585; Jaccard and Wan, 1996, p. 49). One partial data set showed a greater level of involvement and the other a lesser level. Thus, it is possible to compare the effect relationships of the model between the low-involvement and high-involvement consumer groups, for which a multi-group causal analysis was used, although a moderated regression analysis, for example, would also have been possible in this case. First, Table VI shows the distribution of the two groups over the retail sectors concerned. Both involvement groups appear remarkably often in each sector. It is striking, however, that the majority of consumers in the grocery retailing sector believe themselves that they have a high level of involvement. In DIY and electronics retailing, however, most consumers characterise their involvement as rather low. H2, relating to the role of involvement on the effect of retailer attribute dimensions on retail brand equity, led to a comparison of the two consumer groups. The results of multiple-group structural equation modelling are shown in Table VII. Here, too, the values obtained for global t criteria are good. Furthermore, the SMCs for retail brand equity show very high values in both partial samples. Thus, the model developed can also be applied in the same way in these two consumer segments. In addition, all but one of the standardised estimators of structural equation coefcients are signicant at the 0.1 per cent level; however the exception is at least still signicant at the 1 per cent level. The table shows the hypothesized deviations in the importance of various retail marketing instruments based on the regarding their inuence on retail brand equity in the two consumer segments. Thus, it can be concluded that consumer involvement in retailing has a moderating effect on the effect relationships, however this effect is not always signicantly positive in the way formulated in H2. The general formulated H2 cannot be conrmed as being universally applicable because, for service and assortment, inuence on retail brand equity is signicantly higher for consumers with low involvement than for highly involved consumers. These results are conrmed by the authors mentioned, who do not assume that involvement has a general effect, but call for this to be analysed in detail. For this reason, particular importance is attached to the following discussion on content of the ndings. Discussion and implications The study shows in a general and stable model that evaluation of various dimensions of retailer attributes inuences consumer-based retail brand equity, and in what way.

Moderating role of involvement

965

966

IJRDM 37,11

Consumer segment 157 443 26.2 73.8 289 311 48.2 51.8 367 233 61.2 38.8 394 206 65.7 34.3 293 307

Low involved consumers High involved consumers

Table VI. Distribution of low and high involved consumers in the ve retail sectors Grocery Total % Clothing Total % Respondents Electronics DIY Total % Total % Furniture Total % 48.8 51.2 Total Total % 1,500 1,500 50.0 50.0

On the one hand, this creates an awareness in general of the relevance of store attributes in building a strong retail brand, and on the other hand it is shown that not only one, but also several instruments should be taken into account in explaining retail brand equity. It was not the aim of the present study to break building of a retail brand down to the level of an individual sector or rm; the objective was rather to identify common dimensions of retailer attributes applying intersectorally and which have an impact on retail brand equity. Retailers service quality seems to be of highest importance, but also the considerable inuence of the price and store design have to be highlighted. It underlines the fact that the price, which is often the dominant factor in retailing, should not be overestimated for retailing in general and, in conformity with the actual aims of several price leaders in various sectors in Germany, price should be supplemented by other attributes for positioning of a rm as a retail brand. The main focus of the present study, however, was the role of involvement, which is why the most concrete implications were obtained in this respect. Here, too, the managerial implications are rst of all to create an awareness of the importance of involvement, be this in their own sector (from the customers perspective) and above all to establish their own rm as a strong retail brand. As indicated, the studies conducted so far were only able to assume a difference in perception or in processing of information by customers with low and high involvement. Based on H2, the following discussion focuses on the perceived dimensions of retailer attributes. All in all, it can be concluded that service and assortment have a greater effect on retail brand equity in the customer group with low involvement and that price/value ratio, communication and store design are the dimensions with a higher effect on retail brand equity for consumers with high involvement. It has to be noted that these differences are not signicant. The following explanations can be provided for the individual ndings based on the preceding discussion of the results of other studies. The inuence of service is signicantly greater for customers with low involvement than for highly involved customers. There is a plausible reason for this: consumers with high involvement are presumably informed on the product beforehand (Maoz and Tybout, 2002; Park et al., 2007) and thus, do not have to rely entirely on service and advice from sales personnel. In addition, other studies have shown that it is the sales personnel and the perceived service quality they provide in sales situations with low
Low-involvement consumers (n 1,500) 0.593 0.344 * * 0.262 * * 0.129 * * 0.164 * * 0.219 * * High-involvement consumers (n 1,500) 0.609 0.272 * * 0.308 * * 0.173 * * 0.104 * 0.257 * *

Moderating role of involvement

967

Consumer segment SMC (retail brand equity) g11 (Service ! retail brand equity) g21 (Value/price ! retail brand equity) g31 (Advertising ! retail brand equity) g41 (Assortment ! retail brand equity) g51 (Store design ! retail brand equity)

x 2-Difference
5,967 * 3,301ns 3,371ns 4,209 * 3,129ns

Notes: *p , 0.05; * *p , 0.01; ns, not signicant; GFI 0.939; AGFI 0.920; NFI 0.932; TLI 0.926; CFI 0.944; RMSEA 0.037; x 2-difference, the difference in parameters between the two groups is inferred from the difference in model t when comparing a model with the parameters constrained to be equal versus a model in which they are allowed to differ

Table VII. Inuence of the perceived dimensions of retailer attributes on retail brand equity in different consumer segments formed according to level of involvement

IJRDM 37,11

968

involvement that have an important inuence on evaluation of a retail rm. This can even go to such lengths that the outward appearance of the personnel, as an indicator of reliability and competence, inuences purchasing behaviour (as demonstrated by Shao et al., 2004); particularly for customers with low involvement. Similar conclusions can be drawn for assortment, which has also been veried as having stronger effects in the consumer group with low involvement. On the other hand, well-informed customers do not appear to require a particularly wide assortment because they have already formed an opinion on the basis of the various information they have gathered and thus, do not need a particularly large selection. This nding, however, should certainly be subjected to future discussion. Closely related to this topic is the considerable importance of store design for consumers with high involvement. Based on the assumption that, due to their greater interest, these consumers have already gained an overview in the so-called pre-purchase phase and formed an opinion, it is important for consumers with high involvement to be able to nd their way around a store relatively quickly so that they can locate the desired articles quickly and easily. On the other hand, consumers with high involvement are more receptive to stimuli and information from the store environment. This would also be an exciting topic for more detailed investigation, bearing in mind the many studies on in-store management (Turley and Chebat, 2002). The stronger effect relationship between price/value ratio and retail brand equity found in consumers with high involvement can be explained without doubt by the fact that high-involvement customers have more precise information and conceptions and can also assess the price/value ratio more objectively (i.e. whether a price reects the value of products) than consumers with low involvement. As mentioned before, involved consumers value the product more, engage in more product-related activities and have a better knowledge of product attributes and prices (Chandrashekaran and Grewal, 2003; Richins and Bloch, 1986). Thus, the high-involvement customers are inuenced more easily by a positively perceived price/value ratio than customers with low involvement, who may not even be directly aware that a price is attractive. The greater importance of communication policy in relation to consumers with high involvement can be explained by the communication indicators of the respective retail rm, the content of which is formulated in relatively concrete terms. If involvement is higher, customers take more notice of the retail rms communications and can thus form an opinion more easily (Chandrashekaran and Grewal, 2003). On the other hand, customers with low involvement only perceive a rms communications subliminally or to a limited extent because, for example, they are less interested in the retailer or the retail sector concerned and what it has to offer. These types of consideration can be applied when building a retail brand. All in all, the results discussed show that consumer involvement has a moderating inuence on the effect relation between individual perception of retailer brand attributes and retail brand equity, as was expected in view of the central role of involvement as an antecedent for consumer behaviour in general. At the same time, however, it was shown for the rst time for retailing in general that different attributes are relevant to retail brand equity, depending on the level of involvement. Of course, the present study is limited in some aspects. A sector-specic view or even an analysis specic to a particular rm would be more meaningful for its management and would also allow precise conclusions to be drawn for retailing sectors

and individual rms. On the other hand, covering several sectors in the present study enabled the authors to generalise their observations to a certain extent. It was methodologically important to check the constructs for measuring invariance across the ve retail sectors. Furthermore, the fact that the analysis was restricted to a single city has obvious disadvantages. Nevertheless, the main level of competition in retailing is still found locally or specic to a location.

Moderating role of involvement

969

References Aaker, D. (1991), Managing Brand Equity, The Free Press, New York, NY. Ailawadi, K. and Keller, K. (2004), Understanding retail branding: conceptual insights and research priorities, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 80 No. 4, pp. 331-42. Amine, A. and Cadenat, S. (2003), Efcient retailer assortment: a consumer choice evaluation perspective, Journal of Retailing & Distribution Management, Vol. 31 No. 10, pp. 486-97. Bagozzi, R.P. (1978), The construct validity of the affective, behavioural, and cognitive components of attitude by analysis of covariance structures, Multivariate Behavioural Research, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 9-31. Barich, H. and Srinivasan, V. (1993), Prioritizing marketing image goals under resource constraints, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 35, pp. 69-76. Beatty, S.E. and Talpade, S. (1994), Adolescent inuence in family decision making: a replication with extention, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 332-41. Beatty, S.E., Kahle, L. and Homer, P. (1988), The involvement-commitment model: theory and implications, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 149-67. Bell, J., Gilbert, D. and Lockwood, A. (1997), Service quality in food retailing operations: a critical incident analysis, International Review of Retail, Distribution & Consumer Research, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 405-23. Berens, G., van Riel, C.B.M. and van Bruggen, G.H. (2005), Corporate associations and consumer product responses: the moderating role of corporate brand dominance, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 69 No. 3, pp. 35-48. Bergkvist, L. and Rossiter, J.R. (2007), The predictive validity of multiple-item versus single-item measures of the same constructs, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 175-84. Berry, L. (1969), The components of department store image: theoretical and empirical analysis, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 45, pp. 3-20. Binkley, J.K. and Bejnarowicz, J. (2003), Consumer price awareness in food shopping: the case of quantity surcharges, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 79 No. 1, pp. 27-35. Birtwistle, G., Clarke, I. and Freathy, P. (1999), Store image in the UK fashion sector: consumer versus retailer perceptions, The International Review of Retail, Distribution & Consumer Research, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 1-16. Bitner, M.J. (1990), Evaluating service encounters: the effects of physical surroundings and employee response, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 69-82. Bloch, P.H. and Richins, M.L. (1983), A theoretical model for the study of product importance perceptions, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 69-81. Bloemer, J. and de Ruyter, K. (1998), On the relationship between store image, store satisfaction and store loyalty, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 32 Nos 5/6, pp. 499-513.

IJRDM 37,11

970

Bloemer, J. and de Ruyter, K. (1999), Customer loyalty in high and low involvement service settings: the moderating impact of positive emotions, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 315-30. Bolton, R., Grewal, D. and Levy, M. (2007), Six strategies for competing through service: an agenda for future research, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 83 No. 1, pp. 1-4. Burnkrant, R.E. and Page, T. (1982), An examination of the convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity of Fishbeins behavioural intention model, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 19 No. 11, pp. 550-61. Chandrashekaran, R. and Grewal, D. (2003), Assimilation of advertised reference prices: the moderating role of involvement, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 79 No. 1, pp. 53-62. Cheung, G.W. and Rensvold, R.B. (2002), Evaluating goodness-of-t indexes for testing measurement invariance, Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 233-55. Churchill, G.A. and Surprenant, C. (1982), An investigation into the determinants of customer satisfaction, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 64-73. Craik, F.I.M. and Lockhart, R.S. (1972), Levels of processing: a framework for memory research, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 671-84. Darrow, A.L. and Kahl, D.R. (1982), A comparison of moderated regression techniques considering strength of effect, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 35-47. Davies, G. (1992), The two ways in which retailers can be brands, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 24-34. Doyle, P. (1990), Building successful brands: the strategic options, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 5-20. Doyle, P. and Fenwick, I. (1974/1975), How store image affects shopping habits in grocery chains, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 39-52. Fisk, G. (1961/1962), A conceptual model for studying customer image, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 9-16. Flynn, L.R. and Goldsmith, R.E. (1993), Application of the personal involvement inventory in marketing, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 10, pp. 357-66. Flynn, L.R., Goldsmith, R.E. and Eastman, J.K. (1996), Opinion leaders and opinion seekers: two new measurement scales, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 137-47. Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), Evaluating structural equitation models with unobservable variables and measurement errors, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 39-50. Gardner, M.P., Mitchell, A.A. and Russo, J.E. (1978), Chronometric analysis: an introduction and application to low involvement perception of advertisements, in Hunt, H.K. (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 5, Association for Consumer Research, Ann Arbour, MI, pp. 581-9. Gerrig, R. and Zimbardo, P. (2004), Psychology and Life, 17th ed., Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA. Gotlieb, J.B., Schlachter, J.L. and St Louis, R.D. (1992), Consumer decision making, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 191-208. Grewal, D., Levy, M. and Lehmann, D.R. (2004), Retail branding and customer loyalty: an overview, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 80 No. 4, pp. ix-xii. Groeppel-Klein, A., Thelen, E. and Antretter, C. (1999), The impact of shopping motives on store assessment, European Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 4, pp. 63-72. Hartman, K. and Spiro, R. (2005), Recapturing store image in customer-based store equity: a construct conceptualisation, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58 No. 8, pp. 1112-20.

Horn, J.L. and McArdle, J. (1992), A practical and theoretical guide to measurement invariance in aging research, Experimental Aging Research, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 117-44. Houston, M. and Rothschild, M.C. (1978), Conceptual and methodological perspectives on involvement, in Jain, S.C. (Ed.), Research Frontiers in Marketing, Vol. 3, American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, pp. 184-7. Iniesta, M.A. and Sanchez, M. (2002), Retail-consumer commitment and market segmentation, International Review of Retail, Distribution & Consumer Research, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 261-79. Jaccard, J. and Wan, C.K. (1996), LISREL Approaches to Interaction Effects in Multiple Regression, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Jain, K. and Srinivasan, N. (1990), An empirical assessment of multiple operationalizations of involvement, in Goldberg, M., Gorn, G. and Pollay, R. (Eds), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 17, Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 594-602. Kapferer, J.-N. and Laurent, G. (1985), Consumers involvement prole: new empirical results, in Hirschman, E.C. and Holbrook, M.B. (Eds), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 12, Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 290-5. Kasulis, J. and Lusch, R. (1981), Validating the retail store image concept, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 9, pp. 419-35. Keller, K. (1993), Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 1-22. Keller, K. (2003), Brand synthesis: the multidimensionality of brand knowledge, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 595-600. Kent, T. (2003), 2D23D: management and design perspectives on retail branding, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 31 Nos 2/3, pp. 131-42. Kline, R.B. (1998), Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modelling, Guilford Press, New York, NY. Koelemeijer, K. and Oppewal, H. (1999), Assessing the effects of assortment and ambience: a choice experimental approach, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 75 No. 3, pp. 319-45. Krugmann, H.E. (1965), The measurement of advertising involvement, Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 583-96. Lassar, W., Mittal, B. and Sharma, A. (1995), Measuring customer-based brand equity, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 11-19. Lastovicka, J.L. and Gardner, D.M. (1979), Components of involvement, in Maloney, J.C. and Silverman, B. (Eds), Attitude Research Play for High Stakes, American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, pp. 53-73. Lindquist, J. (1974/1975), Meaning of image, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 29-38. Luomala, H.T. (2003), Understanding how retail environments are perceived: a conceptualization and a pilot study, International Review of Retail, Distribution & Consumer Research, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 279-300. McQuarrie, E.F. and Munson, M. (1986), The Zaichkowsky personal involvement inventory: modication and extension, in Anderson, P. and Wallendorf, M. (Eds), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 14, Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 36-40. Malhotra, N. (1983), A threshold model of store choice, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 59 No. 2, pp. 3-21. Maoz, E. and Tybout, A.M. (2002), The moderating role of involvement and differentiation in the evaluation of brand extensions, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 119-31.

Moderating role of involvement

971

IJRDM 37,11

972

Marks, R.B. (1976), Operationalizing the concept of store image, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 37-46. Martineau, P. (1958), The personality of the retail store, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 47-55. Mazursky, D. and Jacoby, J. (1986), Exploring the development of store images, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 145-65. Miranda, M.J., Konya, L. and Havrila, I. (2005), Shoppers satisfaction levels are not the only key to store loyalty, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 220-32. Mitchell, A.A. (1979), Involvement: a potentially important mediator of consumer behaviour, in Wilkie, W. (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 6, Association of Consumer Research, Ann Arbor, MI, pp. 191-6. Mittal, B. (1989), Measuring purchase-decision involvement, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 147-62. Mittal, B. (1995), A comparative analysis of four scales of involvement, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 7, pp. 663-82. Morschett, D., Swoboda, B. and Foscht, T. (2005), Perception of store attributes and overall attitude towards grocery retailers: the role of shopping motives, The International Review of Retail, Distribution & Consumer Research, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 423-47. Morschett, D., Swoboda, B. and Schramm-Klein, H. (2006), Competitive strategies in retailing an investigation of the applicability of Porters framework for food retailers, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 275-87. Muncy, J.A. and Hunt, S.D. (1984), Consumer involvement: denitional issues and research directions, in Kinnear, T.C. (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 11, Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 193-6. Neese, W.T. and Taylor, R.D. (1994), Verbal strategies for indirect comparative advertising, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 56-69. Netemeyer, R.G., Krishnan, B., Pullig, C., Wang, G., Yagci, M., Dean, D., Ricks, J. and Wirth, F. (2004), Developing and validating measures of facets of customer-based brand equity, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 209-24. Oliver, R. (1999), Whence consumer loyalty?, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63 No. 4, pp. 33-44. Oppewal, H. and Timmermans, T. (1997), Retailer self-perceived store image and competitive position, The International Review of Retail, Distribution & Consumer Research, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 41-59. Osman, Z. (1993), A conceptual model of retail image inuences on loyalty patronage behaviour, The International Review of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 133-48. Pan, Y. and Zinkhan, G.M. (2006), Determinants of retail patronage: a meta-analytical perspective, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 82 No. 3, pp. 229-43. Pappu, R. and Quester, P. (2006), Does customers satisfaction lead to improves brand equity? An empirical examination of two categories of retail brands, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 4-14. Park, D.-H., Lee, J. and Han, I. (2007), The effect of on-line consumer reviews on consumer purchasing intention: the moderating role of involvement, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 125-48. Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J.T. and Schumann, D. (1983), Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: the moderating role of involvement, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 135-46.

Rajiv, S., Dutta, S. and Dhar, S.K. (2002), Asymmetric store positioning and promotional advertising strategies: theory and evidence, Marketing Science, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 74-96. Ratchford, B. (1986), New insights about the FCB grid, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 24-38. Richins, M.L. and Bloch, P.H. (1986), After the new wears off: the temporal context of product involvement, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 280-5. Rinne, H. and Swinyard, W. (1995), Segmenting the discount store market: the domination of the difcult discounter core, International Review of Retail, Distribution & Consumer Research, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 123-46. Schramm-Klein, H., Swoboda, B. and Morschett, D. (2007), Relationship between retail environment and consumers product brand loyalty in vertical vs conventional retail channels, AMA Summer Educators Conference Proceedings, Washington, DC, pp. 190-1. Shao, C.Y., Baker, J. and Wagner, J.A. (2004), The effects of appropriateness of service contact personnel dress on customer expectation of service quality and purchase intention: the moderating inuences of involvement and gender, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 57 No. 10, pp. 1164-76. Sharma, S., Durand, R.M. and Gur-Arie, O. (1981), Identication and analysis of moderator variables, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 291-300. Sheth, J. and Venkatesan, M. (1968), Risk-reduction processes in repetitive consumer behaviour, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 307-11. Slama, M.E. and Tashchian, A. (1985), Selected socio-economic and demographic characteristics associated with purchasing involvement, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 72-82. Stassen, R., Mittelstaedt, J. and Mittelstaedt, R. (1999), Assortment overlap: its effect on shopping patterns in a retail market when the distributions of prices and goods are known, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 75 No. 3, pp. 371-86. Steenkamp, J.-B. and Baumgartner, H. (1998), Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 78-90. Steenkamp, J.-B. and Wedel, M. (1991), Segmenting retail markets on store image using a consumer-based methodology, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 67 No. 3, pp. 300-20. Suh, J.-C. and Yi, Y. (2006), When brand attitudes affect the customer satisfaction-loyalty relation: the moderating role of product involvement, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 145-55. Swoboda, B., Haelsig, F., Morschett, D. and Schramm-Klein, H. (2007), An intersector analysis of the relevance of service in building a strong retail brand, Managing Service Quality Journal, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 428-48. Teas, K. (1994), Retail services image measurement: an examination of the stability of a numerical comparative scale, International Review of Retail, Distribution & Consumer Research, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 427-42. Turley, L. and Chebat, J.-C. (2002), Linking retail strategy, atmospheric design and shopping behaviour, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 18 Nos 1/2, pp. 125-44. van den Berg, R.J. and Lance, C.E. (2000), A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 4-69. Wallace, D.W., Giese, J.L. and Johnson, J.L. (2004), Customer retailer loyalty in the context of multiple channel strategies, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 80 No. 4, pp. 249-63. Woodside, A., Frey, L. and Daly, R.T. (1989), Linking service quality, customer satisfaction, and behavioral intention, Journal of Health Care Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 5-17.

Moderating role of involvement

973

IJRDM 37,11

Ye, G. and van Raaij, F.W. (2004), Brand equity: extending brand awareness and liking with signal detection theory, Journal of Marketing Communications, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 95-114. Yi, Y. and Jeon, H. (2003), Effects of loyalty programs on value perception, program loyalty, and brand loyalty, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 229-40. Zaichkowsky, J.L. (1985), Measuring the involvement construct, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 341-52. Further reading Aaker, D. (1996), Building Strong Brands, The Free Press, New York, NY. Corresponding author Bernhard Swoboda can be contacted at: b.swoboda@uni-trier.de

974

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints