Questionnaire for Consumer Buying Behavior for Cell Phones

Document Sample
Questionnaire for Consumer Buying Behavior for Cell Phones Powered By Docstoc

Brand Loyalty: Emotional Devotion or Rational Behavior – A Study on
             Mobile Telephones from Eskisehir Turkey
                      Dr. N. Figen Ersoy, Anadolu University, Eskisehir, Turkey
                      Dr. Nuri Çalık, Anadolu University, Eskisehir, Turkey


       Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to determine the factors that lead to brand loyalty. These factors have not yet
been clearly defined because so many situational and transient agents play roles in its development. We ask questions
about who, when, why, for how long, for what types of products, and under what conditions brand loyalty occurs in order
to suggest some identifiable determinants. We use the mobile telephone (cell phone) as a test product for the development
of brand loyalty.
       a.    Data collection: 1200 persons over 18 years of age who were selected on a stratified sample basis took the
survey, and 1059 responses are eligible to be analyzed. The questionnaire consisted of 50 questions: five on the
demographic factors of age, gender, occupation, educational level and personal monthly income; seven on name of the
brand used, term of cell phone usage, term of same brand usage, price paid for the cell phone, amount of time used daily,
main purpose of cell phone use, and what guided the decision to buy; and 38 questions regarding the user’s practice and
the evaluation of cell phones, using a five-point Likert-type scale.
       b. Theoretical framework: Each of the 50 questions represents a variable to be analyzed. The degree to which
factors influence the participants’ cell-phone appraisal was hypothesized to reveal significant differences between, on one
hand, demographic factors and, on the other, brands, usage rates, time of usage and purpose of usage.
       c. Analysis of data: Factor analysis was applied to the 38 scaled variables. Five common factors appeared:
preference, involvement rate-commitment, satisfaction, performance and allegiance-switching. This analysis produced
promising results, since almost all variables stand under appropriate factors to which they are assumed to belong.
Indicators such as the KMO test, a measure of sampling adequacy, produced the high score of 0.984; similarly Cronbach’s
Alpha, an analysis of scale reliability, was 0.955, which is also a high score. Non-parametric statistical tests such as Chi-
square analysis were also applied to determine the mutual relationships of variables when some interfering variables are
added to these mutual relationships to determine whether the direction or magnitude of mutual relationships is altered.
       e. – Findings: Significant differences found between different consumer demographics with respect to cell phone
usage rate, term of usage and the price paid for cell phones. Further analysis indicated close relationships between brand
loyalty elements as involvement, performance, satisfaction, preference and switching.


       The concept of loyalty has long been debated among marketing professionals, but a solid definition has remained
elusive. This may be because loyalty is measured on two dimensions: behavioral and attitudinal. The behavioral dimension
explains brand loyalty by means of actual purchases that occur in a given period, while the attitudinal dimension defines
loyalty in terms of stated preferences, commitments or purchase intention (Rundle-Thiere and Mackay, p. 532). It is often
difficult to understand the real determinants of brand loyalty because of the wide range of products and services that may
engender it. Cellular phones first appeared in Turkey in the 1990s as novelty items, but their use spread quickly thereafter.
This study aims seeks the primary determinants of attitude (emotion) and behavior, their impacts on consumer brand
selection, and how individuals are categorized based on their attitude toward their own brands.


Brand Loyalty Concept
     Brand loyalty refers to the consumers’ repeatedly purchasing a specific product brand over other brands (Lin, Wu,
Wang, 2000). The concept of brand loyalty has strategic importance in terms of a firm’s ability to obtain sustainable
competitive advantage and growth. Brand-loyal consumers are more profitable and the costs of marketing to them are
lower than customers who are not brand-loyal. In fact, it has been suggested that the cost of recruiting a new customer is
five times greater than he cost of retaining an existing customer (Barsky, 1994; Reicheld and Sasser, 1990, from Wood,
2004) because:
 Loyalty reduces customer acquisition costs.
   Positive word of mouth from loyal customers saves on marketing costs to get new customers.
   Loyal customers’ demand elasticity is lower, based on the degree or type of loyalty.
   Brand-loyal customers increase the chances a brand extension will succeed and lower the risk of new product failure.

     Loyalty rates are connected to market share.
     According to Jacopy and Kyner, “brand loyalty provides some understanding of the causative factors underlying the
development of brand loyalty”(Tarper, 1974) Tarper (1974) defined brand loyalty as being based on certain conditions:
that is, brand loyalty for a particular product or service must be a biased (non-random) behavioral response (purchase)
expressed over time by some decision-making unit with respect to one or more alternative brands out of a set of such
brands and a function of a psychological (decision-making, evaluative) process.
      Gounaris and Stathakopoulos (2004) contended that the concept of brand loyalty must be related to
⇒ Repeat purchase
⇒ Preferences
⇒ Commitment
⇒ Retention
⇒ Allegiance
These factors are called as the brand loyalty measures (Thiele, Mackay, 2001)
Brand Loyalty Models:
According to Gounaris and Stathakopoulos (2004), there are three brand loyalty models that explain consumer purchasing
⇒ The behavioral approach: According to this view, brand loyalty is revealed in terms of repeat purchases. Dirichlet’s
    model is one of the most prominent of these.
⇒ The attitudinal approach: According to this perspective, brand loyalty consists of a strong internal disposition towards
  a brand, leading to repeat purchases. As such, the attitudinal approach conceives of brand loyalty as being based on
  stated preferences, commitment or purchase intentions.
⇒ The reasoned action approach: Ha proposed that the theory of reasoned action could be used to explain brand loyalty.
  According to the reasoned action paradigm, based on the theory of reasoned action introduced by Fishbein, brand
  loyalty is dependent on normative influences.
    While all of these models are based on repeat purchases, each goes about determining the types of loyalty that a
consumer will show toward a brand in a different way. In criticizing the behavioral model, Gounaris and Stathakopoulos
(2004) pointed out that “a consumer who is unfavorable to the purchase of a certain brand may still purchase the brand
[and then stop] when the consumer is no longer forced to keep purchasing the brand.” In Gounaris and Stathakopoulos’
view, only an increase in attitudinal brand loyalty should lead to a true increase in behavioral brand loyalty.

Brand Loyalty Types
Figure 1 shows four types of brand loyalty (Gounaris, Stathakopoulos (2004):
  ⇒ No loyalty: Consumers do not purchase the brand or have any information on or experiences with the brand. At the
      same time, there are no social influences to get them to try or buy the brand (e.g., reference group and opinion
    ⇒ Covetous loyalty: There is no purchase but, emotional attachments are very high. The individual exhibits a very
      high level of relative attachment to the brand as well as a strong positive predisposition toward it. This type of
      loyalty derives from the individual’s perception of the brand personality such that the brand is related to the
      individual’s own self-perception and personality.
    ⇒ Inertia loyalty: The brand is purchased repeatedly by the consumer, but there is no emotional attachment or any
      social influences. Because they lack any alternative brand or product, consumers keep buying the brand. The
      consumer’s purchasing behavior is characterized primarily by habitual attachment, at least in part because of brand-
      switching costs (Lin, Wu & Wang, 2000).
    ⇒ Premium loyalty: An individual exhibits a high degree of relative attachment to the brand, high instances of repeat
      purchases, and high levels of influence by social pressure. This type of loyalty, sometimes called action loyalty,
      characterizes the greatest degree of consumer attachment to the brand.

Resource: Gounaris and Stathakopoulos,(2004) Antecedents and consequences of brand loyalty: An empirical study,
Journal of Brand Management;; 11, 4
Brand Loyalty Behavior:
        According to Wood (2004), early studies and research on brand loyalty failed to find any demographic correlates,
but demographics failed to discriminate between buyers of different brands within a category. Other studies have identified
a relationship between demographics like age and degree of brand loyalty (Jacoby and Chesnut, 1978; Day, 1969; Engel,
1968; Cunnigham, 1956; Guest, 1964; Frank, 1967; Carman, 1969; Newman and Werbel, 1973;, Lau and Lee, 1999).
        Many theories explain how consumers make decisions about purchasing a brand, and these models usually address
some causes or factors that affect the degree or type of brand loyalty, including satisfaction (Morraga, Parraga, Gonzales,
2008), usage rate, usage cause, trust (Lau and Lee, 1999), social pressure, emotional pressure, habitual behavior, brand
knowledge (Keller, 2003; Aggarwal and Law, 2005), market structure (Lin, Wu and Wang, 2000), the relationship
between company image and brand reputation (Lau and Lee, 1999),similarity between consumers’ self-concept and brand
personality, brand experiences (Lau and Lee, 1999) and others. The causes of brand switching behavior have also been
examined in some studies (Lee, Lee and Feick, 2001; Hsu and Chang, 2003).

                           RESEARCH MODEL AND HYPOTHESES

     This field research was conducted in May 2008 in Eskisehir, Turkey, a city with 600,000 inhabitants. 1200 individuals
  who use cell phones were selected on a random basis using the Stratified Sampling Method, of which 1059 are found
  eligible to be included in the research project. Ninety-eight senior students who were taking a course in marketing
  research served as pollsters in exchange for extra credit in the course. The respondents were required to answer 50
  questions, each representing a separate variable of either an independent, a dependent or a moderating nature. Thirty-
  eight questions (variables) that reflected consumers’ attitudes toward cell phones were measured on a five-point Likert-
  type scale ranging from 1= strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree. 12 questions were nominal, ordinal, ratio and interval
  scale-type questions. The last five questions reflected the demographic characteristics of cell phone users. All attitude
  questions but three approached the issue from the positive side, and two stood as control questions. However, no
  respondents fell into this trap, which increased scale reliability. The variables used in the analyses and their explanations
  are as follows:

  Table 1. Variables and Their Explanations

      Variables                                   Explanation
   CELLPHONAME                      Name of the brand used.
   TERMOFUSAGE                      Term of usage (cell phone usage)
   SAMEBRAND                        Term of usage (using the same brand)
   PRICE                            The price paid for the cell phone ($)
   FREQUENCY                        Daily time spent using cell phone (min.)
   PURPOSE                          Main purpose of cell phone use
   PURCHDECISION                    "By what means you decided to purchase this brand"
   HIGHPEFORM                       "This brand renders higher performance than the other brands"
   NOLETDOWN                        "I trusted this brand when I bought it because I knew it would never let me down"
   OFFER                            "This brand offers me the product I need"
   HIGHQUALITY                      "This brand has a reputation for high quality"

   BESTINCATEG                     "This brand is qualified as the best in its category"
   SWITCH                          "I can switch to another brand if I get a better offer from other brands"
   PREDICTPER                      "I can always predict (anticipate) the performance of this brand"
   PROBSOLVING                     "This brand helps me to solve the problems related to this product"
   PEOPLARND                       "The people around me told me that this brand is reliable"
   TASKFULFLM                      "This brand fulfills its task better than other brands"
   PROPERDECI                      "I think I made a proper decision in selecting this nrand"
   REPUTATION                      "This brand has a reputation for being reliable"
   TRUST                           "I trust this brand"
   CHANGBLE                        "The performance of this brand is quite variable; therefore, I am not sure about its
                                   performance next time I buy it"
   KEEPSRCHING                     "If this brand were not available when I intended to buy it, I would have searched for it
                                   until I found it"
   HANDINESS                       "This brand is more handy than the other brands"
   COMMITMENT                      "I feel like a member of this brand gamily"
   OPINILEADER                     "I often praise this brand to my friends"
   LIKING                          "I like this brand"
   DENIAL                          "I do not believe it if someone tells me that this brand is unreliable"
   EXPERIENCE                      "Using this brand provides a good experience"
   STABILITY                       "This brand always keeps its quality at a high level"
   FAME                            "This brand is famous for performing well"
   MEETNEEDS                       "This brand meet my needs better than the other brands"
   RECOMMEND                       "I can recomennd this brand to everybody"
   CONFIDENCE                      "The performance of this brand is as I expected and I count on this brand"
   ENJOYMENT                       "I really enjoy this brand"
   ANTICIPATION                    "I knew what I expected from this brand when I bought it"
   COMPARISON                      "Very few of other brands are better than my brand"
   FAVORITE                        "This brand is always my favorite brand"
   REPEATPRCHSE                    "I'll keep on buying this brand"
   EVALUATE                        "This brand evaluates me as a product-oriented customer"
   SATISFACTION                    "Purchasing this brand satisfies me"
   ASSISTANCE                      "This brand helps me to be satisfied with the product"
   DEFENSE                         "I defend this brand if somebody makes negative comments about it"
   MAXIMUMVAL                      "This brand guides me to get the maximum value from it"
   CONSISTQUALITY                  "This brand provides consistent quality"
   NEGCOMMENT                      "Some negative comments are made about this brand"
    AGE (ratio scale)                      18-25         26-40        41-62        62+
    GENDER(nominal scale)                  female          male
    OCCUPATION                             wage or salary earner             businessman       self-employed professional or
    (nominal scale)                        manager                       retired                housewife
    EDUCATION(ordinal)                     Elementary                 High School        College or university
    INCOME (ratio                          0-600 USD/month              600-1200 USD/month            1201-2400 USD/month
    scale)                                 2401-4800 USD/month            4801+ USD

Research hypotheses are as follows:

H1: There are significant differences between user demographics and terms of cell phone usage.
H1a: Older people belong to the “late majority” or “laggard” group in adopting cell phones.
H1b: Females’ cell phone usage history is dramatically shorter than that of males.
H1c: Businessmen, managers and self-employed persons have used cell phones for a longer time than those in the other
    occupation groups.
H1d: More educated persons began using cell phones before less educated persons.
H1e: High income correlates with earlier usage of cell phones

H2: There are significant differences between user demographics and the term of using the same brand (brand loyalty from
a “temporal” point of view).
H2a: Younger people are more loyal.
H2b: Gender
H2c: Occupation
H2d: Education Level
H2e: Those with higher income have more sustained loyalty.

H3: People pay a higher price for their telephone in anticipation of higher performance. (Perceived quality)

H2a: High price leads to a prediction of high performance.
H3b: High price leads to the claim that it is the best brand in its category
H3c: High price leads to trust in the brand.
H3d: High price leads to the product needed
H3e: High price leads to a relatively higher performance.
H3f: High price leads to a reputation of high quality.

H4: Average daily time spent with cell phones shows significant differences between people who have regular jobs and do
not have much idle time and those who have ample time.
4a: Workers
H4b: Retired persons
H4c: Housewives
H4d: Students

H5: The main purpose of cell phone usage differs significantly across users’ demographics.
H5a: Sending messages and internet usage is more common among those in the younger generation.
H5b: Females differ from males in terms of the main purpose of cell phone use.
H5c: Students send more messages and use more internet connections than those in other occupations.
H5d: The higher a person’s education, the lower the voice calling rate.
H5e: Cheaper means of communication (i.e., sending messages) is practiced more widely by low-income groups.

H6: Word-to-mouth information (negative comments) leads to brand switching.

H7: Long-term usage of the same brand leads to high involvement. (Price paid is a moderating variable here.) H7a: Long-
term usage leads a person to identify himself/herself with the brand.
H7b: Long-term usage leads users to become opinion-leaders to their friends.
H7c: Long-term usage leads to pure (strong) loyalty.
H7d: Long-term usage leads to the opinion that the brand fulfills its task perfectly.
H7e: Long-term usage leads the user to defend the brand against negative comments.
H7f: Long-term usage leads to the feeling of maintaining a good experience.

H8: Different brands have different levels of satisfaction for cell phone users.
   (Higher market share in terms of usage is correlated with higher satisfaction obtained.)

H9: Self-evaluation and relying on past experience in deciding to buy a cell phone induces more satisfaction than do other
    means of making a decision to buy.

H10: Repeat purchase is positively related to the price paid for the cell phone.

H11: High involvement with the brand triggers repeat purchases.

H12: Repeat purchase intention is significantly different among the brands.

                           ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

    The SPSS 15 package program is used in this survey for bivariate and multivariate analyses. All relationships are
  tested at ρ<0.01 significance level. Factor Analysis reduced 38 scale variables into FİVE basic components, as shown in
  Table 2:

  Table 2. Categorization of Consumer Attitudes in terms of Cellphone Usage

   Component 1         Component 2         Component 3                                Component 4
   Preference          Brand Involvement   Satisfaction                               Performance
    FAME         .695* COMMITMENT .774 ASSISTANCE       .601                          OFFER            .631
    COMPARISON .681    OPINILEADER .717 CHANGBLE -.591**                              HIGHQUALITY        .629
    REPUTATION   .653  KEEPSRCHING .635 CONSISTQUALITY.576                            HIGHPEFORM        .615
    MEETNEEDS   .594   TASKFULFLM .536 TRUST            .574                          NOLETDOWN        .588
   ANTICIPATION .590   DEFENSE        .500 PROBSOLVING .537                           BESTINCATEG       .573
   FAVORITE     .582   EXPERIENCE .491     PROPERDECI   .510                          PREDICTPER        .445

PEOPLARND          .574                               RECOMMEND           .486
LIKING             .571                                                           Component 5
HANDINESS          .541                                                           Brand Switching
STABILITY          .541                                                           NEGCOMMENT
ENJOYMENT   .536                                                                  SWITCH      -616**
CONFIDENCE   .507                                                                 DENIAL       .422

 * Rotated Factor Scores          ** Control question is asked inversely and yields negative result
Scale Reliability (α) :                             Component 4: Performance              .865
Component 1: Preference:               .958         Component 5: Brand Switching:. NA
Component 2 Brand Involvement.          .897
Component 3: Satisfaction:         .800 (.923)***
Overall Reliability:                  .961          Sample Adequacy (KMO test) :              .984
 *** When the inverse question is excluded

     The hypothesis tests yielded the following conclusions (Chi Square Tests):

•H1 is totally rejected, since no clear reasonable evidence is found between the term of cell phone usage and
demographic factors. Therefore, it could be said that all demographic groups began using cell phones indifferently
•H2 is partially accepted. The term “brand loyalty” is restricted to long-term usage, and other determinants are
neglected. People younger than 25 years of age stick to the same brand more than people over age 62 do (36% to 20%,
respectively). There is no clear evidence about differences in usage by gender at the extreme (very high usage and
very low usage), but a clear distinction is observed at 7-18 months of usage, where 27% of males and 21% of females
began usage. A significant difference is found in income, as the usage for more than 60 months is 34.5 % for the
highest income group and only 13.6% for the lowest income group.

•H3: This hypothesis is sustained at ρ<0.01 significance level, where a high price paid for the cell phone in
anticipation of high performance leads to loyalty. The hypothesis test reveals this significant relationship at all
categories of performance. H3a, which proposes that a high price paid leads prediction of high performance, yielded
striking results; people who paid the lowest price (under 100 USD) denies this proposal 30% to 12% whereas the
people who paid the highest prices (over 400 USD) accepted this proposal 34% to 15%
H3b yields similar results as H3a in that the number of people who believe that high-priced brands are the best brands
in their category surpasses the number of those who don’t, 40% to 12%.
H3c proposes that people pay high prices for cell phones because they want a product they can trust and don’t want to
be let down. High-priced cell phone owners support this idea by 39% as opposed to 9%.
H3d: the results are more striking when the high price paid is related to the product needed. Those who paid less than
100 USD for their brands rejects this idea 4% to 13%, whereas people who paid more than 400 USD accept this idea
40% to 4%.
H3e: the expectation of high performance when a high price is paid is also widely accepted in this research. High-
priced cell phone owners believe that their brands provide higher performance than other brands 40% to 11%, while
low-priced cell phone owners reject this idea 27% to 15%. The price-quality relationship is shown here to be positive.
The perception of high quality 24% to 13% on the part of the high-priced phone owners, whereas this perception falls
to 13% to 40% on the part of the low-priced phone owners.

•H4 is formulated to relate daily idle time with daily phone usage. Retired people, housewives and students were
assumed to spend more time with their cell phones, but such a positive relationship is shown only in the student
category. The “addicted user” rate (more than 60 minutes per day) is 25% for students, whereas this rate for retired
people and housewives is 7% and 8%, respectively.

•H5 is partially sustained because no significant difference is observed between the sexes.
H5a: Message-sending among the younger generation is significantly more frequent than for the older age groups.
22% of the youngsters use cell phones for the purpose of sending messages, while the rate for the other age groups
does not exceed 9%.
H5b: no notable difference is observed between the sexes.
H5c: Sending messages seems to the main business of students; 29%, a rate significantly higher than the other groups,
send messages. The second-closest group is white- and blue-collar workers, with a rate of 11%.
H5d: Voice calling, although is a common way of communicating, is more widespread among less-educated groups,
while more educated groups are more likely to use the internet to send messages and shoot pictures and video. The
rate of voice communication among elementary school graduates is 94%, compared with 77% for highly educated

H5e: is also sustained because the cheapest way of communicating via cell phones is sending messages. The rate of
sending messages is 20% among the lowest income group, and the rate falls to 3% among the highest income group.

•H6: The hypothesis that negative comments about the brand in use leads to brand switching is supported. 61% of the
participants report switching to another brand if they strongly believe negative comments about the brand, whereas
only 17% agree to switch if they don’t believe in it.

•H7: Long-term usage of the same brand leads to higher involvement. This hypothesis is sustained at all levels of
H7a: Identification with the brands (seeing oneself as a member of the brand’s family group) produces a significant
difference based on the length of time the brand has been used. 29% of the users who used the same brand more than
60 months see themselves as a member of the brand’s family group, whereas this rate falls to less than 12% of the
users who used the same brand fewer than 16 months.
H7b: This hypothesis is also sustained at a high level of significance; 25% of the long-term users strongly agree that
they often praise this brand to their friends, whereas this rate falls to less than 13% of those persons who used the
same brand for fewer than six months.
H7c: Insisting on the same brand, avoiding the purchase of any other brand and searching until the brand is found are
widely accepted ideas among users who used the same brand for more than 60 months. This rate is 25% to less than
14% when compared with those who used the same brand for fewer than six months.
H7d: 32% of long-term users believe that the brand they are using fulfills its task better than any other brands; on the
other hand, only 14 % of the short-term users agree with this proposal.
H7e: People tend to defend the brand they are using against negative comments, but there is a significant gap between
long-term users (23%) and short-term users (16%) of the same brand.
H7f: Feeling that using the same brand maintains a good experience for the user is a common opinion shared by the
long-term users. 24% of the long-term users share this idea, whereas less than 14% of the short-terms users accept it.
The price paid is an important moderating variable governing H7 since, at lower priced items—less than 200 USD—
all the relationships discussed above lose their significance. In other words, high involvement is not observed on
cheaper items.

•H8: In this analysis, the number of brands is reduced to five from 14. 95% of all participants in the study use these
first five brands. There is a significant difference between the market leader (in this research 500 out of 1059
respondents are reported to use this brand) and its followers. The rate of satisfaction is 22% for the market leader and
15% or less for other brands. The rate of perception of consistent quality is 39% for the market leader and 20% or less
for the others. The trust scores are 49% for the leader and 30% or less for the others. The ability to solve problems is
20% for the leader and 15% or less for the others. Avoidance of cognitive dissonance is 49% for the leader and 25%
or less for the others. Deriving maximum value from the brand is 24% for the leader and 15% or less for the others
•H9: This hypothesis is also sustained since personal evaluation of the brand and relying on past experience helped
much more in the buying decision than other means. 23% strongly agreed that prior experience was important, while
21% agreed that personal evaluation was important. None of the other factors exceeded 15%.

•H10: The hypothesis that a higher price paid for the phone triggers repeat purchases of the same brand was tested and
accepted at the ρ<0.01 significance level. 38% of those who paid 800 USD or more strongly agree that they will keep
on buying the same brand, whereas only 26% of cheap phone owners show a similar intention.

•H11: The correlation between brand involvement and intention to repeat purchase is extremely high. 35% of those
who are highly involved in the brands that they are using and who feel like members of the brand family strongly
agree that they will keep on buying this brand. However, the rate fades to 5% on the part of those who exhibit low

•H12: The test of this hypothesis produces similar results as H8. 41% of respondents strongly agree that they will keep
on buying the same brand, but the highest rate for the followers is only 17%.


    This study highlights the most conspicuous relationships of loyalty in mobile telephone usage. Most of the survey
consisted of questions to the respondents with the purpose of determine their perceptions and subjective evaluations
on factors such as quality, reliability, performance, involvement and satisfaction. All these factors are of great
importance, but further in-depth studies should be conducted that select these factors one at a time. Brand loyalty has
been debated for a long time, and findings have varied extensively based on the features of consumers and products,
time and place.

Aggarwal Pankaj, Law Sharmistha (2005), Role Of Relationship Norms in Processing Brand Information, Journal of Consumer Research, 32, 3, 453-464
Gounaris Spiros, Stathakopoulos Vlasis (2004), Antecedents And Consequences of Brand Loyalty: An Empirical Study, Journal of Brand Management,
   11, 4; 283-306
Hsu Jane Lu, Chang Wei-Hsien (2003), The Role of Advertising Played in Brand Switching, Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge, 2,
   2, 322-328
Keller Kevin Lane (2003), Brand Synthesis: The Multidimensionality of Brand Knowledge, Journal of Consumer Research, 29, 4, 565-600
Lau Geok Theng, Lee Sook Han (1999), Consumer’s Trust in a Brand and the Link to Brand Loyalty, Journal of Market-Focused Management, 4, 4, 341-
Lee Jonathan, Lee Janghyuk, Feick Lawrence (2001), The Impact of Switching Costs on Customer Satisfaction-Loyalty Link: Mobile Phone Service in
   France, Journal of Services Marketing, 15, 1, 35-48
Lin Chinho, Yih Wu Wann, Wang Zhi Feng (2000), A Study of Market Structure: Brand Loyalty and Brand Switching Behaviors for Durable Household
   Appliances, International Journal of Market Research, 42, 3, 277- 364
Rundle-Thiele Sharyn, Mackay Marisa Maio (2001), Assessing the Performance of Brand Loyalty Measures: The Journal of Service Marketing, 15, 6/7,
Tarper Lawrence X Sr. (1974), A Brand Loyalty Concept: A Comment, Journal of Marketing Research, 11, 2, 214-217
Thiele Sharyn Rundle, Mackay Marisa Maio (2001), Assessing the Performance of Brand Loyalty Measures, The Journal of Services Marketing, 15, 6/7,
Wood Lisa M. (2004), Dimensions Of Brand Purchasing Behavior: Consumers in The 18-24 Age Group, Journal of Consumer Behavior, 4, 1, 9- 24

Shared By:
Description: Questionnaire for Consumer Buying Behavior for Cell Phones document sample