Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 31 (2016) 277–286

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jretconser

Exploring the link between customer experience–loyalty–consumer

spend
Mala Srivastava a,n, Dimple Kaul b
a
Indian Institute of Management, Kashipur, India
b
SVKM's Institute of International Studies, Mumbai, India

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Customer experience has drawn significant interest in recent times from both academicians as well as
Received 25 August 2015 practitioners. There is growing understanding in literature that attitudes are formed by past and present
Received in revised form experiences and are expected to change as a function of consumer experience. Attitudes are described as
13 April 2016
one of the most important determinant of the behaviour. Dick and Basu (1994) were precise in sug-
Accepted 14 April 2016
gesting that a favourable attitude and repeat purchase were required to define loyalty as they viewed
loyalty in an attitude-behaviour framework, loyalty is an important concept related with repetitive
Keywords: purchasing behaviour and high Consumer spend. Literature suggests that building loyalty is found in
Customer experience successful management of Customer experience yet little research exist that incorporated this variable
Attitudinal loyalty
into explaining customer loyalty therefore signifying a gap in existing substantive knowledge. The cur-
Behavioural loyalty
rent paper studies the impact of customer experience on attitudinal and behaviour loyalty. The study
Consumer spend
Loyalty framework extends the findings by adding an observed behaviour- share of spend in the frame work. The present
study will provide valuable insights to theorist in the retail context as well as practitioners ability to
develop more effective strategies.
& 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction loyalty. We also extended the framework by introducing consumer

Retailers recognize that greater understanding of customers
can enhance customer loyalty and retail performance. As com-
moditisation of many service offerings continues, new sources of
competitive differentiation/advantage will come from focusing on
the management of customer experiences. In recent years, man-
agers have become increasingly aware of the need to create value
for their customers in the form of experiences. To compete effec-
tively, businesses must focus on the customer's shopping experi-
ence. Literature suggests that building loyalty is found in suc-
cessful management of Customer experience(CE) yet little research
exist that incorporated this variable into explaining customer
loyalty therefore signifying a gap in existing substantive knowl-
edge. The current paper studies the impact of CE on attitudinal
loyalty (AL) and behavioural loyalty (BL) and observed consumer
action. Our research extends the work available in loyalty litera-
ture by adding a new dimension of customer experience which is
under researched as an antecedent. Secondly we reinforce the
importance of the influence of attitudinal loyalty on behavioural
n
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: malasriv@gmail.com,
mala.srivastava@iimkashipur.ac.in (M. Srivastava),
Kauldimple123@gmail.com (D. Kaul).
spend (CS) studied by measuring share of wallet as consequence of
loyalty.
A resume of research literature is offered, relating to under-
standing the concept of focal construct. From this, a conceptual
model is developed. The fieldwork methodology adopted is then
outlined, followed by presentation of result and discussion of the
main findings.
2. Theoretical background and hypotheses
2.1. Customer experience
Consumers use visit to department store not only for purchase
but also for enjoyment and entertainment purposes and evaluate
service in terms of how much pleasure or fun they have received.
Department stores in India attract affluent clients who have
emotional gratification as a major consumption motive and hence
consumers often form affective expectations and the actual hap-
piness they receive in service consumptions will directly influence
their satisfaction. Thus Customer experience in retail context is
extremely relevant. Babin et al. (1994) reconfirm this in their study
found that consumer evaluation of a retail store is not only influ-
enced by its functional quality but is also influenced by its

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.04.009
0969-6989/& 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
278 M. Srivastava, D. Kaul / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 31 (2016) 277–286
“emotional-induced quality” that consumers attribute to the retail
setting. This is reinforced by Russell and Pratt (1980) study on
consumers' evaluation of stores.
In consumer behaviour an experience is above all a personal
occurrence, often with important emotional significance, founded
on the interaction with stimuli which are the products or services
consumed (Donora Grundey, 2008).It is important to understand
that the process of customer experience creation in retailing is
formed of many independent touch points or contact points dur-
ing the exchange journey. A review of literature reveals that Hol-
brook and Hirschman (1982) were the first who researched that
consumption has experiential aspects meaning that customer be-
haviour was approached through customer experience. Pine and
Gilmore (1999) identified that retail experiences consist of holistic
realms (aesthetic, entertainment, education, escapist), which allow
flow between the various static and dynamic elements within the
experiential environment. The ‘experience’ concept came to the
fore in the management discipline with the publication of Pine
and Gilmore work.
Schmitt (1999) was the researcher who proposed a detailed
framework of experiential marketing having two elements: stra-
tegic experience modules (SEMs), which are different types of
experiences, and ExPros (short for experience producers) which
are the various agencies that deliver these experiences. According
to Schmitt experience marketing is the discipline of creating
products and services that produce five different types of experi-
ences (Think, feel, act, sense, and relate ) the ‘strategic experience
modules’ (SEMs). It is with his work that CE emerged as a dis-
tinctive construct in the marketing literature.
Fornerino et al. (2006) identified five dimensions of customer
experience namely sensorial-perceptual, affective and physical-
behavioural and social and cognitive (facets). Gentile et al. (2007)
worked on six components of customer experience, but not em-
pirically tested, namely sensorial, emotional, cognitive, pragmatic,
lifestyle and relational, which create value with the customer and
enhance loyalty. Gentile et al. (2007) defined customer experience
as “originating from a set of interactions between a customer and a
product, a company or a part of the organisation, which provokes a
reaction. This experience is strictly personal and implies custo-
mer's involvement at different levels. However the concept of in-
volvement is different from that of customer experience”.
Verhoef et al. (2009) describe experience as involving “cogni-
tive, affective, social and physical responses to the retailer” with-
out further elaboration. Brakus (2009) said that the experience
construct varies from evaluative and affective constructs like at-
titudes, attachment and involvement. Brakus et al. (2009) em-
pirically measured the four dimensions of brand experience
namely sensory, intellectual, affective and behavioural. Thus it is
evident from the review that empirical study on customer ex-
perience as a construct use dimensions like think, feel, sense, act
and relate to capture a customer experience. Schmitt (2009) ar-
gued that the ultimate goal of marketers is to integrate the five
experiences to create a holistic experience. The present study
conceptualized CE as a second order reflective construct with the
four experience dimensions.
2.2. Loyalty
Customer loyalty is a dream that all retailer chase. In India post
2000 there has been manifold growth in the modern retail format.
As a consequence of this department stores are facing tremendous
competition and are struggling to retain customers. Thus, loyalty
as a phenomena is gaining impetus in research in Indian context.
Loyalty is a phenomenon that has always received a great deal of
interest among market researchers, particularly in retail context.
However, research suffers from a lack of agreement over the
operationalization of the construct of the loyalty. The early con-
ceptualisation was led by equating behaviour patterns to infer
loyalty. Thus researched used number of visits, consumer spend,
frequency of purchase, etc. measure of loyalty. They assumed that
repeat purchasing can capture the loyalty of a consumer towards
the brand of interest. Newman (1966) was the first to challenge
this conceptualisation. It was then that research in loyalty ex-
plored it as a latent construct. Furthermore, the latent mental
construct view gained support from the works of researcher like,
Jacoby (1971), Jacoby and Kyner (1973), Jacoby et al. (1978), Zei-
thaml et al. (1996) and Oliver (1999). They visualised loyalty as a
latent mental Construct and viewed “loyalty” as a mental state felt
by an individual towards a specific choice object, which is then
reflected in the behaviour of the individual.
Once the loyalty emerged as a latent construct it dimension-
ality became an important area of study. Many researchers (e.g.,
Kahn et al., 1986; Ehrenberg et al., 1990) have defined loyalty only
from a behavioural perspective. Other researchers like, Day (1969),
Dick and Basu (1994), Baldinger and Rubinson (1996), Rundle-
Thiele and Bennett (2001), Rundle-Thiele (2005), however, sug-
gested that attitude should be included along with behaviour to
define loyalty. The concept of customer loyalty became more
complex and was considered as an important key to the success of
an organisation. Oliver (1997) described customer loyalty as “A
deeply held commitment to re-buy or repatronize a preferred
product/service consistently in the future, thereby causing re-
petitive same-brand or same brand-set purchasing despite situa-
tional influences and marketing efforts, having the potential to
cause switching behaviour” thus highlighting the behavioural as-
pect. On the other hand loyalty as an attitude may lead to a po-
sitive relationship with the brand (Jacoby et al., 1978; Foxall, 1994;
Reichheld, 2006) suggested that strong attitudinal commitment to
a brand is necessary for loyalty to exist.
However, the need for the inclusion of “attitude” along with
behaviour to define brand loyalty has been felt by many re-
searchers in the late sixties. Day (1969) was perhaps the first to
recognize and articulate this need followed by Jacoby's (1971),
Jacoby and Kyner (1973) and Dick and Basu (1994). If we see the
review much of the work in loyalty in 1970 and 1980 was domi-
nated by behaviour based approach it was only in post 1994 that a
strong attitudinal approach was developed when Dick and Basu
emphasized the two construct model.
Garland and Gendall (2004) confirmed Dick and Basu's loyalty
descriptions and said that attitude and behaviour were the most
important measures of loyalty. According to Jones and Taylor
(2007) loyalty, a higher order factor, is comprised of two dimen-
sions: a behavioural element and a combined attitudinal/cognitive
element and this model is more consistent in the service sector. A
meta-analysis by Yoo and Bai (2013) reveals that behavioural
loyalty is more researched than attitudinal loyalty in business
journals. Cheng (2011) and Baumann et al. (2011) also expounded
the need for two distinctive construct of loyalty. Baumann et.al
also proposed one as reflective and the other as formative.
Therefore, there is enough evidence to study the two construct of
loyalty as distinct constructs as against a composite construct. The
present study proposes a two factor model for loyalty the attitude
/cognitive called (attitudinal) and the behavioural intention.
2.3. Behavioural loyalty
Cunningham (1956) was one of the first researchers to em-
pirically study the behavioural aspect of brand loyalty. Measures of
behavioural (repurchase) intentions, which have developed into
the perhaps most common way of measuring loyalty, are proble-
matic for several reasons. From a loyalty as behaviour perspective,
such a measure is only valid to the extent that stated behavioural
 M. Srivastava, D. Kaul / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 31 (2016) 277–286
intentions closely correspond to actual (repurchase) behaviour.
Since research on the link between intentions and behaviour in-
dicate a far from clear-cut relationship, the validity of purchase
intentions as a measure of behavioural loyalty can be questioned.
Rust et al. (1995) recognizing that repurchase intentions do not
necessarily reflect the true probability of repurchase, suggesting
that measures of intentions could be calibrated by following up on
actual repurchase behaviour of sample respondents. From the la-
tent mental construct perspective of loyalty, the validity of mea-
sures of repurchase intentions is difficult to evaluate. On the one
hand, if measures of purchase intentions are interpreted as the
preferred behaviour of the respondent, which would correspond
to the attitudinal component of loyalty. The behavioural loyalty is
reflected through the frequency of visits, number of purchases
made, level of cross-selling buying and length of the relationship
with the brand or company (Söderlund, 2002). Chitty et al. (2007)
defined behavioural loyalty as indicated by repeated purchase
behaviour. Jones and Taylor (2007) researched customer loyalty
and suggested that both the marketing and psychological litera-
ture indicate that behavioural loyalty is measured by re-purchase
intentions, switching intentions and purchasing intentions.
The operational definition of behavioural loyalty adapted for
this study is “Customer's intentions for repeat patronage, repeat
purchase and actual purchase behaviour” (Jones and Taylor, 2007;
Bove et al., 2009). The behavioural loyalty construct was measured
using three items adapted from Jones and Taylor (2007) as: “I have
bought more qualitative products in this store than I planned to
buy, thanks to the store”, “Even in the case of mark-up, I would like
to buy products from the store in future”, “I am willing to dedicate
all my future purchases in the product category to this retailer.”
2.4. Attitudinal loyalty
A common thought among these researchers was that the be-
havioural theories do not explain the development or modification
of loyalty and are built on the assumption that environmental
conditions that may lead to a change in customer behaviour re-
mained constant. It has been seen that behavioural measures are
sensitive to changes or fluctuations in the short run. They sug-
gested that emotional or psychological attachment translates into
strong attitudinal loyalty and loyalty can be measured by the
feelings and beliefs towards the purchased brands, willingness to
recommend these brands to others and repeat patronage.
Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001) defined attitudinal loyalty in
terms of consumer's desire to continue relationship with the or-
ganisation selling products or services irrespective of lower prices
offered by competitors and to recommend the product/service to
others. The attitudinal loyalty approach includes emotional and
psychological aspects of loyalty, which reflects on engagement and
allegiance of the customers to the brand (Jones and Taylor, 2007).
Chitty et al. (2007) defined attitudinal loyalty as the inherent af-
fective facets of customer loyalty. According to Torres-Moraga et al.
(2008) attitudinal loyalty includes aspects like cognitive, affective
and conative inclinations of customers to continue relationship
with a brand/company. Attitudinal loyalty includes cognitive loy-
alty which entails an individual completely reforming what he/she
believes about the relationship with his/her service provider
(Donnelly, 2009). Izogo (2015) highlighted the importance of at-
titudinal loyalty in retail context.
The operational definition of attitudinal loyalty adapted for this
study is “a consumer's identification with a particular service
provider and preference of a product or service over alternatives”
(Jones and Taylor, 2007). The attitudinal loyalty construct was
measured using seven items adapted from Jones and Taylor
(2007).
279
2.5. Relationship between loyalty and behaviour
An implicit assumption seems to be that if an individual is
mentally loyal to a product or firm, he or she will act accordingly.
However, it is observed sometimes that the relationship between
different aspects of loyalty is complex. For example, Jacoby et al.
(1978) acknowledge that attitudinal and behavioural brand loyalty
“…must be separated to be properly understood.” To investigate
the relationship between attitudinal and behavioural brand loy-
alty, one can draw from the theory of reasoned action. Ajzen and
Fishbein (2005) developed this theory to relate customers' beliefs
and attitudes to their behavioural intentions. This theory assumes
that customers carefully process decision making by considering
the consequences of the alternative behaviours and choosing the
one that leads to the most desirable consequences. The result of
this reasoned choice process reveals a behavioural intention to
engage in the selected behaviour. Bentler and Speckart (1981)
stated that attitudes have causal priority over behaviours. Ac-
cordingly, Oliver (1999) suggested that brand loyalty stages exhibit
a learning process that highlights the relationship between atti-
tude and behaviour.
H1. Attitudinal loyalty will have a positive and direct effect on
Behavioural loyalty.
2.6. Customer experience and loyalty
According to Crosby and Johnson (2007), managing customer's
experience is the most important ingredient in building customer
loyalty. Kim et al. (2008) developed a scale to measure memorable
experiences and proved that it had significant positive effects on
future behavioural intentions. He also tested empirically that
memorable experiences are more likely to influence a person's
future behaviour.
Yeng and Mat (2013) empirically tested the antecedents of
loyalty in Malaysian retail and found that while service quality,
product quality, store atmosphere and promotion activity have
strong influence on cognitive/attitudinal loyalty, satisfaction, loy-
alty programs and retailer brand equity affect affective (attitu-
dinal) loyalty directly and that attitudinal loyalty should be given
top priority in strategy planning because it will build up the be-
havioural loyalty.
Thus, we can summarise that:
H2. Customer experience has a positive and direct effect on atti-
tudinal loyalty.
H3. Customer experience has a positive and direct effect on be-
havioural loyalty.
2.7. Behaviour
In retailing, consumers typically patronize multiple outlets.
Thus, an important issue is why consumers vary in how they di-
vide their purchases across outlets and how outlets can get a
greater share of consumer expenditures. Two important ways that
this share could be influenced is by managing customer experi-
ence and loyalty. It is intuitive that customers who have had a
good experience in the store would concentrate a larger share of
expenditures in that store and be less inclined to visit other stores.
However, one could also expect shoppers who regularly use sev-
eral stores to be fairly satisfied with all of these stores; hence the
satisfaction with a particular store might lead to decisive higher
store usage. A similar thing is proposed by action control studies
imply that not all intentions are transformed into action Kuhl and
Beckmann (1985). That stream of research concludes that the
previous loyalty states may result in a readiness to act which
280 M. Srivastava, D. Kaul / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 31 (2016) 277–286

implies buy in retail outlets. This readiness must convert into ac-
tual action in terms of purchase by the consumer’s or in other term
willingness to spend.
H4a. CE will have a positive and direct effect on customer spend
in the store measured by share of wallet (SOW).
H4b. Attitudinal loyalty will have a positive and direct effect on
customer spend in the store measured by share of wallet (SOW).
H4c. Behavioural loyalty will have a positive and direct effect
customer spend in the store measured by share of wallet (SOW).
2.8. Mediation
We tested a multiple mediation model by using bootstrapping
approach, which is suggested by Preacher and Hayes (2008). This
method allows testing for more than one mediator simultaneously.
Therefore, the likelihood of parameter bias due to the omitted
variables will be reduced by using this method. Further, the total
indirect effect and the specific indirect effects of independent
variable on dependent variable via mediators will be analysed
smoothly by using this approach.
The multiple mediation models basically involve two parts. The
first one is analysing the total indirect effect, namely, whether the
set of mediators such as behavioural loyalty and attitudinal
transmit the effect of Customer experience to observed consumer
behaviour. The second part is the testing hypotheses regarding
individual mediators such as investigating the specific indirect
effect associated with each putative mediator.
2.9. Proposed model
Each construct was measured using previously used scales from the
marketing or psychology literature. The design of the survey con-
tained two parts. Part A asked general questions about the type of
service and the duration of the relationship that the consumer has
with a particular service company. Part B focused on the consumer's
relationship with the retailer like customer experience and loyalty
using previously developed scales from previous researches and
adapted for the lifestyle retailing context. All the items were rated
on a seven-point scale. The customer experience measure adopted a
scale developed and tested by Schmitt (1999). The original scale had
19 items. The present study used a 26 items for measuring the
customer experience dimensions of sense (5), think (5), feel (5), act
(4) and relate (7). Loyalty was measured using the adopted 14 item
scale adapted from Jones and Taylor (2007). The scale had three
dimensions Behavioural which was measured using five item,
Cognitive was measured using four item and Attitude was measured
by using five item.
3.3. Respondent characteristics
The subjects for the study were 840 retail customers who shop
from lifestyle retailers like Shoppers Stop, Pantaloons, Westside
and Lifestyle. Shoppers were both Males (56.5%) and Females (43.5
5) the sample shows no bias towards any gender. Working pro-
fessionals emerged as the largest percentage of the sample at
Table 1
Characteristics of the sample.
Sample profile Number Sample %
Gender (Valid N¼ 840)
Male 475 56.5
Female 365 43.5

Retailer visited by customers (N¼ 836)

Westside 116 13.8
Shoppers Stop 309 36.9
Pantaloon 193 23.08
Lifestyle 218 26.07

. Loyalty card member of any retailer Y OR N) N ¼840

Yes 592 70.5
No 248 29.5

Occasions when I make purchases at the retailer,

N¼ 840
Festivals and Birthdays 428 51
Anniversary 17 2
Others 395 47

Occupation (N¼ 837)

3. Method Working 549 65.9
Own business 81 9.7
3.1. Data collection Retired 19 2.3
Studying 154 18.4
Homemaker 31 3.7
Data for the study was collected through structured ques-
tionnaires administered to respondents personally. The population
Social class N¼ 839
for the study are individual who were intercepted at the mall and
Middle 451 53.8
had made a purchase in Pantaloon, Lifestyle, Shoppers Stop and Higher middle 316 37.7
Westside. The four outlets are leading department stores in India. Rich 56 6.7
Over 1000 respondents were contacted, however a usable sample Wealthy 16 1.9
of 840 lifestyle retail customers was considered for final analysis.
Approximate annual family income N¼ 821
3.2. Measure 6–10 Lacs 424 51.6
10–20 Lacs 256 31.2
20–30 lacs 91 11.1
The review of literature and interview with shoppers provided Above 30 lacs 50 6.1
the basis for modification of the scale for lifestyle retail customers.
 M. Srivastava, D. Kaul / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 31 (2016) 277–286
65.9%, followed by students (18.4%), having own business (9.7%)
and homemakers (3.7%). The percentage reflects the growing im-
portance of young people in the mall culture developing in India.
The details of the percentage of sample customers who can afford
to shop at these lifestyle retail outlets with different incomes
groups are middle (53.8%), higher middle (37.7), rich (6.7%) and
wealthy (1.9%) this reflects the dominance of the middle class in
the sample which is also true in the population on India. Re-
spondents with Annual family income falling between INR 6 lakhs
and INR 10 lakhs represented 51.1% of the sample and 31.2% re-
spondents had an annual family income falling between INR 10
lakhs and INR 15 lakhs. It is interesting to note that 11.1% of the
total respondents had an annual family income of INR 20 lakhs to
30 lakhs whereas 6.1% respondents showed an annual family in-
come of INR 30 lakhs and above. The resulting sample represents a
good cross section of respondent's age, gender, buyers from the
four retailers and a very good representation of the population
visiting Mall in India (Table 1. Samples description).
4. Analysis
This study adopted Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) for the
data analysis. The raw data was screen for missing data, outliers,
normality, and linearity in order to achieve maximum accuracy.
Data transformation was performed in order to correct non-nor-
mality data. The analysis follows two steps. The first step is to
confirm the factor structure of measurement items and to estab-
lish the CFA. The second step confirms the model structure and
tested the proposed hypothesis. Structural equation modelling
(SEM) is appropriate for the study as it is a statistical technique for
specifying and estimating models of linear relationships among
variables using a combination of statistical data and qualitative
causal assumptions (MacCallum and Austin, 2000). SEM is a
powerful second generation multivariate analysis technique for
examining causal models and evaluating the corresponding mea-
surement model simultaneously. It is superior to traditional factor
analysis and regression since the measurement model is assessed
within the context of the theoretical structural model (Liang and
Huang, 1998).
5. Result
5.1. Measurement
For each of the measured constructs, measurement uni-di-
mensionality and reliability was assessed by examining the results
of individual principal components analyses and confirmatory
factor analyses and by examining measures of scale reliability (e.g.,
Cronbach's alpha, and AVE Fornell and Larker's (1981) internal
consistency measures). For uni-dimensionality, a principal com-
ponents analysis was run separately for each construct to ensure
that all items loaded onto one factor only, which they did (Gerbing
and Anderson 1988). Any items that loaded poorly were dropped
(i.e., factor loadings were less than 0.7). The resulting scales all
demonstrated good reliability according to accepted standards
(i.e., α's 40.70, AVE 4 0.5).
5.2. Customer experience
The exploratory factor analysis was conducted using Principal
Component Analysis (PCA) and Varimax rotation. The varimax
rotation resulted in a four factor solution. The total variance ex-
plained was 62.06%. For each factor, those items with a loading
greater than 0.7 were retained, for a total of 16 items (4 sense,
281
4 feel, 4 think and 4 relate). Each factor (i.e., subscale of the Ex-
perience Scale) had a high or acceptable coefficient alpha (think:
0.93, sense: 0.92, feel/relate: 0.92). The subscale act in the original
scale had low loading and hence was dropped.
In the CFA CE emerged as a four factor second order reflective
construct. The second order was considered as the CFA showed
high correlation between the four construct. The results clearly
support that CE is explained through the four dimensions viz.,
think, feel, sense, and relate the fit indices (χ2/df ¼ 4.65, GFI ¼0.89,
RMSEA¼ 0.074, NFI ¼0.884, CFI ¼0.82) suggest that the model
with the Four latent variables represents a good fit to the data.
Thus CFA was a holistic construct encompassing the four sub
constructs.
5.3. Loyalty
The exploratory factor analysis was conducted using Principal
Component Analysis (PCA) and Varimax rotation. The varimax
rotation resulted in a two factor solution. The total variance ex-
plained was 72.13. Loyalty emerged as a multi-dimensional con-
struct as observed by Jones and Taylor (2007). According to Jones
and Taylor loyalty, is comprised of two dimensions: a behavioural
element and a combined attitudinal/cognitive element. Similar
results were observed in the present study also. However only 10
items were retained three of behaviour (coefficient alpha.95) and
seven of attitude/cognitive (coefficient alpha 0.91). The CFA re-
plicated the EFA with the fit indices (χ2/df ¼4.12, GFI ¼0.99,
RMSEA¼ 0.081, NFI ¼0.864, CFI¼0.87).
5.4. Consumer spend (share of wallet)
Consumer spend was measured by proportion-of-purchase
measures which is represents the share of purchases devoted to a
specific brand or store in comparison to overall use, or spending, in
the category(Share of consumer wallet). Such a measure is, for
example, used by Cunningham in his early studies on brand and
store loyalty (Cunningham, 1956, 1961). Cunningham's measure
reflects the share of purchase devoted to the brand or store that
accounts for the largest, share of purchases. Finally, consumer
action was measured by the share of wallet calculation. Total
spend on the category in the last six month and share for the
present store expressed as a percentage. Thus the present study
used Share of Wallet to capture consumer spend.
The measurement results indicate that all the measure like CE,
Behavioural loyalty and attitudinal loyalty exhibit acceptable
psychometric properties and appropriate measure. All the con-
structs are relevant and appropriate for the study. The table two
shows a consolidated CFA for all construct their AVE and construct
validity and the items used to measure it (Table 2).
5.5. Structural model and Hypothesis testing
The hypotheses were tested using SEM analysis with maximum
likelihood estimation. Estimation of the structural model with four
constructs resulted in good fitting statistical results. The chi-
square value was significant and the ratio of the chi-square value
to the degrees of freedom was 4.94. RMSEA values of 0.068 in-
dicate a fair fit (between 0.03 and 0.08 with 95% confidence). The
present study accepted Root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA) of 0.068. It was developed by Steiger and Lind (1980) and
tells us how well the model, with unknown but optimally chosen
parameter estimates would fit the populations covariance matrix
(Byrne, 1998). In recent years it has become regarded as ‘one of the
most informative fit indices’ (Diamantopoulos et al., 2000). In the
early nineties, an RMSEA in the range of 0.05–0.10 was considered
an indication of fair fit and values above 0.10 indicated poor fit
282 M. Srivastava, D. Kaul / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 31 (2016) 277–286

Table 2
CFA table of the measurement model showing Parameter estimates, critical ratios, and average variance extracted and construct reliability.

Statements Codes Unstandardized Standardised S.E. C.R. P AVE Construct

estimate estimate validity

Attitudinal and cognitive Loyalty 0.51 0.88

LOY12: I consider this retailer as my only choice for shop- LOY12_1 1 0.697
ping in the product category
LOY11: I am willing to pay more as compared to other re- LOY13_1 1.062 0.749 0.052 20.243 0.001
tailers for the products I buy from this retailer
LOY14: I identify with this retailer more than any other LOY14_1 1.002 0.706 0.052 19.131 0.001
retailer
LOY2: I will say positive things about the retailer LOY2_1 0.769 0.682 0.042 18.525 0.001
LOY3: I am willing to share my shopping experience with LOY3_1 0.891 0.7 0.076 11.703 0.001
relatives and friends
LOY4: I will choose this retailer as my first choice if buying LOY4_1 0.865 0.74 0.043 20.01 0.001
in this area again
LOY1: I will recommend shopping in this retailer to others LOY1_1 0.806 0.698 0.043 18.933 0.001
Behavioural loyalty 4.972 0.57 0.80
LOY8: I am willing to revisit the retailer LOY8_1 0.87 0.73 0.044 19.873 0.001
LOY9: I am willing to dedicate all my future purchases in LOY9_1 1.131 0.783 0.053 21.223 0.001
the product category to this retailer
LOY7: Even in the case of mark-up, I would like to buy LOY7_1 1 0.744 0.001
products from the store in future

Consumer experience
Feel 0.51 0.81
The shopping experience is refreshing CE22_1 1 0.643 0.001
The temperature inside the store is comfortable CE23_1 1.175 0.768 0.067 17.598 0.001
The store is well lighted to help select Merchandise CE24_1 1.134 0.799 0.063 18.019 0.001
The store has a welcoming atmosphere CE25_1 0.884 0.644 0.057 15.465 0.001
Relate feel 2.854 0.59 0.85
Coming here will improve my social life with friends CE11_1 1 0.001
Shopping enables me to exchange experiences with those CE13_1 1.138 0.711 0.068 16.847 0.001
who have common interests as mine
I can relate to other shoppers here CE14_1 1.298 0.869 0.067 19.232 0.001
I feel a desire of self-improvement here CE15_1 1.192 0.843 0.063 18.917 0.001
Sense relate 0.51 0.81
The smell of the store is very good CE17_1 1 0.722 0.001
I paid attention to the music played at the retailer CE18_1 1.071 0.739 0.055 19.516 0.001
The shopping experience made me relaxed and CE19_1 1.069 0.807 0.051 21.028 0.001
comfortable
The ambience of the store is very pleasant CE27_1 0.768 0.578 0.05 15.418 0.001
think 0.53 0.82
I felt secure in dealing with the service staff CE1_1 1 0.676 0.001
I did not feel deceived by the service staff (such as pricing, CE2_1 1.1 0.739 0.061 18.076 0.001
special deals, discounts, gifts etc.)
I felt satisfied with the treatment I received from the ser- CE3_1 1.152 0.794 0.06 19.041 0.001
vice staff
The service staff showed a commitment to satisfy my needs CE4_1 1.031 0.711 0.059 17.533 0.001

(McCallum, 1996). However, more recently, a cut-off value close to
0.06 (Hu and Bentler, 1999) or a stringent upper limit of 0.07
(Steiger, 2007) seems to be the general consensus amongst au-
thorities in this area. Since my study has a RMSEA of 0.068 and all
other fit indices were also good decided so we decided to go with
0.068. The other global fit indices were RMR.092, GFI.985, AGFI.98,
NFI.961 and CFI.984 providing ample evidence of model fit. The
confirmatory factor analysis diagram with standardised/un-
standardized estimates is illustrated in Exhibit 1A and 1B. The
unstandardized estimates help to understand the calculation of
the critical ratio. The standardised estimates help to understand
the measurement model loadings.
The Table 3 proves that Hypothesis 1 predicted that Attitudinal
loyalty would have a significant and positive influence on Beha-
vioural loyalty thus supporting the stage model of loyalty forma-
tion proposed by Oliver (1997). Hypothesis 2 and 3 predicted that
Attitudinal loyalty and Behavioural loyalty in the service provider
would be positively influence by a consumer experience is sup-
ported. The results showed that the influence of customer ex-
perience on Attitudinal loyalty (β ¼1.46, 13.5, p o0.001) CE on
Behavioural loyalty (β ¼0.439, 3.0, p o0.001) were in the
hypothesized direction and the paths were statistically significant;
thus, H1, H2 and H3 were supported (Table 3).
5.6. Mediation results
The Table 4 capture the direct and the indirect effect of the
independent variables on share of wallet. Hypothesis 4 had three
sub-hypothesis. H4 (a) which states that CE will have a direct and
positive influence on share of wallet was not supported (β ¼ 0.32,
0.91, p o0.35). Thus CE did not have a direct and significant impact
on consumer share of wallet(CS) in presence of Attitudinal loyalty
and Behavioural loyalty. Hypothesis 4 (b),(c) predicts that Attitu-
dinal loyalty and behavioural loyalty have a positive and sig-
nificant impact on share of wallet (CS) was well supported as the
result indicate that (β ¼2.07,8.51, p o0.001 and β ¼0.89,5.36,
po 0.001) the path were in hypothesized direction and were
statistically significant; Thus H4 b and c were also supported.
The total effect on share of wallet (CS) will be the sum of direct
and indirect effect (3.7, p o0.001) the direct effect of CE and the
indirect effect of CE. We find that the relation between CE and
share of wallet (CS) is completely mediated by Attitudinal loyalty
 M. Srivastava, D. Kaul / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 31 (2016) 277–286
Exhibit 1A. Model with standardized estimates.
and Behavioural loyalty. (0.32, p o0.35). Further to this the Sobel
test for individual effect was carried which revealed that Attitu-
dinal loyalty completely mediates the relationship between CE and
share of wallet (CS )(6.87, p o0.001) and behavioural loyalty par-
tially mediates the relationship between CE and share of wallet
(3.57, p o0.01). The directions of the paths from CE to Attitudinal
loyalty and Behavioural loyalty are consistent with the literature
that greater Customer experience leads to Attitudinal loyalty and
Behavioural loyalty which in turn leads to greater share of spend
at retail outlets. Thus the attitudinal loyalty significantly carries
the influence of CE to share of wallet (CS); i.e., the indirect effect of
the CE on share of wallet (CS) through the mediator variable is
significant.
The bootstrap estimates presented in Table 4 are based on 2000
bootstrap samples. 95% Bias.
To sum up the findings support the CE–loyalty–CS linkage in
retailing. The three independent variables explained 75% of the
variation in explaining consumer spend as measured by share of
wallet. Thus supporting the relationship hypothesized in the model.
Five hypothesis found support in the study and the predicted rela-
tions were significant. Attitudinal loyalty emerged as a strong
mediator in the model as compared to behavioural Loyalty.
6. Discussion and implication
The findings provide theoretical and practical implication. This
study extends the findings to include consumer spend as an
283
important consequence of loyalty. It also shows that customer
loyalty has two independent components which have an in-
dependent play on consumer spend. The study also illustrates that
CE affect CS via Al and BL. However, it is attitudinal loyalty which
carries the impact of CE to CS. The affect and cognitive route
emerged much stronger and significant that CE to BL. The frame-
work captures both the path and integrates them successfully.
The findings of the study with regards to AL impacts BL and their
impact consumer spent is line with the findings of Oliver (1999)
who suggested a four stage framework which demonstrate a hier-
archical approach to loyalty formation. Bandyopadhyay and Martell
(2007) also report in their study that attitudinal loyalty leads to
behavioural loyalty. These findings are also confirmed in a study
conducted by Chai et al. (2015) who show that advocacy intention is
a consequence of repurchase intention. AL influences BL found
confirmation in a study by Bagram and Khan (2012) who showed
that Brand loyalty was shown to be strongly affected by a customer’s
brand attitude, Similarly Krystallis and Chrysochou (2014) report
that customer loyalty is a function on consumer attitude.
Customer experience influence both AL and BL however, AL is
better explained by CE is in consonance with similar findings in
Donnelly (2009) study. Similarly Zeithmal (1996) argued that
when customers have a get a good feeling about a service certain
behaviours are evident including loyalty and willingness to revisit.
A similar findings was also reported by Rose et al. (2012) who
found in their study that affect experience had a significant in-
fluence on repurchase intention. So one can assume that a good
284 M. Srivastava, D. Kaul / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 31 (2016) 277–286

Exhibit 1B. Model with unstandardized estimates.

Table 3
The unstandardized/unstandardized parameter estimates, SE and CR.

Understanding Standardized S.E. C.R. Significance

H1 Behavioural o- attitudinal 0.545 0.575 0.089 6.15 0.001 S

H2 Attitudinal o- CE 1.46 0.877 0.108 13.56 0.001 S
H3 Behavioural o- CE 0.439 0.278 0.146 3.008 0.003 S
H4a Share of wallet(CS) o- CE  0.32  0.064 0.348  0.919 0.358 NS
H4b Share of wallet(CS) o- attitudinal 2.027 0.677 0.238 8.51 0.001 S
H4c Share of wallet(CS) o- behavioural 0.894 0.283 0.167 5.361 0.001 S

Table 4
Shows the total, direct and indirect effect.

Total effect Unmediated direct effect Mediated effect-indirect

Estimate S.E. C.R. Estimate S.E. C.R. Estimate S.E. C.R.

Attitudinal loyalty CE 1.46 0.108 13.56** 1.46 0.108 13.56** NA

Behavioural loyalty CE 1.2 0.112 9.44** 0.439 0.146 3.008* NA
Share of wallet(CS) CE 3.7 0.29 11.21** 1.318 0.139 9.50**  0.32 – 0.919
Share of wallet(CS) AL 2.54 0.536 2.12* 0.851 0.061 13.85** 0.456 0.072 6.352*
Behavioural loyalty AL 0.545 0.089 6.15** NA NA
Share of wallet(CS) BL 0.894 0.207 5.361** NA NA

n
po 0.05.
nn
po 0.01.

customer experience has a long term impact on retail performance Experience cannot sell the same product and service or providers
as it impact is felt via the loyalty route. One must understand that benefits directly, but it can gather emotions of the customer's need
CE is a psychological feeling existing in the mind of the customer. and stimulate motivation to buy the product or service (Ruiping
 M. Srivastava, D. Kaul / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 31 (2016) 277–286
and Yujuan, 2006). Thus, the customer experience can bring
benefit to the company only indirectly.
The study provides new insight to the loyalty frame by de-
monstrating the role of consumer experience. Furthermore, it will
help practitioners to understand how the outcomes from loyalty
can be achieved and can be used. The ultimate goal of retailers is
to achieve consumer spends this model provides retailer direction
to achieve it. Whereas previous studies mostly examined how
loyalty can be initiated through either satisfaction or trust, no
study explored how the attitudinal component of loyalty can be
initiated. The present study therefore advances loyalty research by
examining how attitudinal loyalty could be initiated by CE. There
have been may studies which have tried to study customer ex-
perience however very few studies have studied the impact of
Customer experience on established construct like loyalty and
consumer spend. From the theoretical point of view, the result of
this study supported the stage model of loyalty proposed by Oliver
(1999).
7. Conclusion and limitation
The research has several limitation. The study and frame devel-
oped applies to life style retailing were the role of affect route may
be very important in predicted behaviour. The results should not be
generalized to other formats. Thus there is a need to test the frame
work in other retail formats and services organisations. The re-
spondent were self-reporting and have the draw back of a study of
this nature. The study includes four variable the future study could
include other variable or the contextual variables as moderators. In
conclusion, our research may be seen as exploring the relationship
between behavioural loyalty and attitudinal loyalty. Further support
for our work across different service and markets will be helpful in
validating the bi-dimensional (behavioural and attitudinal) char-
acteristics of loyalty and its impact on consumer spend.
References
Ajzen, I., Fishbein, M., 2005. The influence of attitudes on behavior. In: Albarracín,
D., Johnson, B.T., Zanna, M.P. (Eds.), The Handbook of Attitudes. Erlbaum,
Mahwah, NJ, pp. 173–221.
Anderson, J.C., Gerbing, D.W., 1988. Structural equation modeling in practice: a
review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol. Bull. 103 (3), 411.
Babin, B.J., Darden, W.R., Griffin, M., 1994. Work and/or fun: measuring hedonic and
utilitarian shopping value. J. Consum. Res. 20 (4), 644–656.
Bagram, D., Khan, S., 2012. Attaining Customer Loyalty! The Role of Consumer At-
titude and Consumer Behavior. International Review of …, 1(1), 1–8. Retrieved
from http://www.irmbrjournal.com/papers/1361536804.pdf.
Baldinger, A.L., Rubinson, J., 1996. Brand loyalty: the link between attitude and
behavior. J. Advert. Res. 36 (6), 22–34.
Bandyopadhyay, S., Martell, M., 2007. Does attitudinal loyalty influence behavioral
loyalty? A theoretical and empirical study. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 14 (1), 35–44.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2006.03.002.
Baumann, C., Elliott, G., Hamin, H., 2011. Modelling customer loyalty in financial
services: a hybrid of formative and reflective constructs. Int. J. Bank Mark. 29
(3), 247–267.
Bentler, P.M., Speckart, G., 1981. Attitudes” cause” behaviors: a structural equation
analysis. J. Pers. Social. Psychol. 40 (2), 226.
Bove, L.L., Pervan, S.J., Beatty, S.E., Shiu, E., 2009. Service worker role in encouraging
customer organizational citizenship behaviors. J. Bus. Res. 62 (7), 698–705.
Brakus, J.J., Schmitt, B.H., Zarantonello, L., 2009. Brand experience: what is it? How
is it measured? Does it affect loyalty?. J. Mark. 73 (3), 52–68.
Byrne, D.S., 1998. Complexity Theory and the Social Sciences: An Introduction.
Psychology Press, London.
Chaudhuri, A., Holbrook, M.B., 2001. The chain of effects from brand trust and
brand affect to brand performance: the role of brand loyalty. J. Mark. 65 (2),
81–93.
Cheng, S., 2011. Comparisons of competing models between attitudinal loyalty and
behavioral loyalty. Int. J. Bus. Social. Sci. 2 (10), June 2011 149 add.
Chitty, B., Ward, S., Chua, C., 2007. An application of the ECSI model as a predictor of
satisfaction and loyalty for backpacker hostels. Mark. Intell. Plan. 25 (6),
563–580.
Crosby, L.A., Johnson, S.L., 2007. Experience required. Mark. Manag. 16 (4), 20–28.
285
Cunningham, R.M., 1956. Brand loyalty-what, where, how much. Harv. Bus. Rev. 34
(1), 116–128.
Cunningham, R.M., 1961. Customer loyalty to store and brand. Harv. Bus. Rev. 39
(6), 127–137.
Day, G.S., 1969. A two dimensional concept of brand loyalty. J. Advert. Res. 9,
29–36.
Dick, A.S., Basu, K., 1994. Customer loyalty: toward an integrated conceptual fra-
mework. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 22 (2), 99–113.
Donnelly, M., 2009. Building Customer Loyalty: A Customer Experience based Ap-
proach in a Tourism Context. Waterford Institute of Technology, Waterford
Ireland, Doctoral Dissertation.
Diamantopoulos, A., Siguaw, J.A., Siguaw, J.A., 2000. Introducing LISREL: a guide for
the uninitiated. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Ehrenberg, A.S.C., Goodhardt, G.J., Barwise, P.B., 1990. Double jeopardy revisited. J.
Mark. 54, 82–91.
Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with un-
observable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 18 (1), 39–50. http:
//dx.doi.org/10.2307/3151312.
Fornerino, M., Helme-Guizon, A., Gotteland, D., Helme, A. 2006, May. Mesurer
L’immersion dans une experience de consommation: Premiers developpe-
ments. In: Actes du XXII ème Colloque international de l'Association Française
du Marketing.
Foxall, G.R., 1994. Behavior analysis and consumer psychology. J. Econ. Psychol. 15
(1), 5–91.
Garland, R., Gendall, P., 2004. Testing Dick and Basu’s customer loyalty model.
Australas. Mark. J. 12 (3), 81–87.
Gentile, C., Spiller, N., Noci, G., 2007. How to sustain the customer experience: An
overview of experience components that co-create value with the customer.
Eur. Manag. J. 25 (5), 395–410.
Grundey, D., 2008. Editorial applying sustainability principles in the economy.
Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 14 (2), 101–106.
Holbrook, M.B., Hirschman, E.C., 1982. The experiential aspects of consumption:
consumer fantasies, feelings and fun. J. Consum. Res. 9, 132–140.
Hu, L.T., Bentler, P.M., 1999. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Mod-
el.: Multidiscip. J. 6 (1), 1–55.
Izogo, E.E., 2015. Determinants of attitudinal loyalty in Nigerian telecom service
sector: Does commitment play a mediating role? J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 23,
107–117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2014.12.010.
Jacoby, J., 1971. Brand loyalty: a conceptual definition. In: Proceedings of the 79th
American Psychological Association Convention, pp. 655–656.
Jacoby, J., Chestnut, R.W., Fisher, W.A., 1978. A behavioral process approach to in-
formation acquisition in nondurable purchasing. J. Mark. Res., 532–544.
Jacoby, J., Kyner, D.B., 1973. Brand loyalty versus repeat purchasing behavior. J.
Mark. Res. Febr., 1–9.
Jones, T., Taylor, S.F., 2007. The conceptual domain of service loyalty: how many
dimensions? J. Serv. Mark. 21 (1), 36–51.
Kahn, B.E., Kalwani, M.U., Morrison, D.G., 1986. Measuring variety seeking and re-
inforcement behaviors using panel data. J. Mark. Res. 23, 89–100.
Kim, W.G., Jin-Sun, B., Kim, H.J., 2008. Multidimensional customer-based Brand
equity and its consequences in mid-priced hotels. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 32,
235–254. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1096348007313265.
Krystallis, A., Chrysochou, P., 2014. The effects of service brand dimensions on
brand loyalty. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 21 (2), 139–147. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jretconser.2013.07.009.
Kuhl, J., Beckmann, J., 1985. Historical perspectives in the study of action control.
Action Control, 89–100.
Liang, T.-P., Huang, J.-S., 1998. An empirical study on consumer acceptance of
products in electronic markets: a transaction cost model. Decis. Support Syst.
24 (1), 29–43.
MacCallum, R.C., Austin, J.T., 2000. Applications of structural equation modeling in
psychological research. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 51 (1), 201–226.
McCallum, A.K., 1996. Bow: A toolkit for statistical language modeling, text re-
trieval, classification and clustering.
Newman, J., 1966. On Knowing the Consumer. Wiley, New York.
Oliver, C., 1997. Satisfaction: A Behavioural Perspective on Consumers. McGraw-
Hill, Maidenhead.
Oliver, R.L., 1999. Whence consumer loyalty? J. Mark. 63, 33–44.
Pine, J., Gilmore, J.H., 1999. The Experience Economy: Work is Theatre and Every
Business a Stage. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
Preacher, K.J., Hayes, A.F., 2008. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing
and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behav. Res.
Methods 40 (3), 879–891.
Reichheld, F.F., 2006. The Ultimate Question: Driving Good Profits and True Growth.
Harvard Business Press, Boston.
Rose, S., Clark, M., Samouel, P., Hair, N., 2012. Online customer experience in
e-retailing: an empirical model of antecedents and outcomes. J. Retail. 88 (2),
308–322. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2012.03.001.
Ruiping, X., Yujuan, Z., 2006. The construction of service-marketing system based
on customers' Experience/construction du systeme de service-marketing base
sur l’experience de la clientele. Can. Social. Sci. 2 (6), 87.
Rundle-Thiele, S.R., 2005. Elaborating customer loyalty: exploring loyalty to wine
retailers. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 12 (5), 333–344.
Rundle-Thiele, S.R., Bennett, R., 2001. A brand for all seasons: a discussion of loyalty
approaches and their applicability for different markets. J. Product. Brand
Manag. 10 (1), 25–37.
286 M. Srivastava, D. Kaul / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 31 (2016) 277–286
Russell, J.A., Pratt, G., 1980. A description of the affective quality attributed to en-
vironments. J. Pers. Social. Psychol. 38 (2), 311.
Rust, R.T., Zahorik, A.J., Keiningham, T.L., 1995. Return on quality (ROQ): making
service quality financially accountable. J. Mark., 58–70.
Schmitt, B., 1999. Experiential marketing. J. Mark. Manag. 15 (1–3), 53–67, service
quality‟, Journal of Marketing, vol. 60, pp. 31–46.
Schmitt, B., 2009. The concept of brand experience. J. Brand Manag. 16 (7), 417–419.
Söderlund, M., 2002. Customer familiarity and its effects on satisfaction and be-
havioral intentions. Psychol. Mark. 19 (10), 861–879.
Steiger, J.H., 2007. Understanding the limitations of global fit assessment in
structural equation modeling. Pers. Individ. Differ. 42 (5), 893–898.
Steiger, J.H., Lind, J.C., 1980. Statistically based tests for the number of common
factors. Annu. Meet. Psychom. Soc. 758.
Torres-Moraga, E., Vásquez-Parraga, A.Z., Zamora-González, J., 2008. Customer
satisfaction and loyalty: start with the product, culminate with the brand. J.
Consum. Mark. 25 (5), 302–313.
Verhoef, P.C., Lemon, K.N., Parasuraman, A., Roggeveen, A., Tsiros, M., Schlesinger, L.
A., 2009. Customer experience creation: determinants dynamics and manage-
ment strategies. J. Retail. 85 (1), 31–41.
Yeng, L.C., Mat, N.K. the Antecedents of Customer Loyalty in Malaysian Retailing:
Capitalizing the Strategic Tool. In: Proceedings of 3rd Asia-Pacific Business
Research Conference, pp. 25–26.
Yoo, M., Bai, B., 2013. Customer loyalty marketing research: a comparative approach
between hospitality and business journals. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 33 (1), 166–177.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2012.07.009.
Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L., Parasuraman, A., 1996. The behavioral consequences of
service quality. J. Mark. 60, 2.