


































In ternationa l
Scholars
Journa ls

                                                                                                               
African Journal of Agricultural Marketing ISSN: 2375-1061 Vol. 2 (4), pp. 127-135, April, 2014. Available online at 
www.internationalscholarsjournals.org © International Scholars Journals 

 

Author(s) retain the copyright of this article. 
 

 
 
 

Full Length Research Paper 
 

Consumer’s response to brands: A case study of 
beauty lotion brand in Cameroun 

 

Ephraim Biya Yang 
 

Department of Marketing, Faculty of Economic and Management, P.O. Box 14733, University of Douala, Douala, 
Cameroon. 

E-mail: Biya.and3@univ-douala.com 

 
Accepted 5 March, 2014 

 
This article seeks to contribute to a better knowledge of sensitivity of consumers to brands. The results of 

the survey carried out with 361 women aged fifteen and above on the beauty lotions market in the towns of 

Douala, Yaounde, Ngaoundere and Bafoussam validate the fact that enduring involvement, perceived 

differences and perceived risks in a category of products influence sensitivity to brands. The study also 

confirms that perceived differences between brands are the most explanatory variable of sensitivity to 

brands. Finally, this paper proposes a model of sensitivity to brands of Cameroonian consumers. To 

succeed in Cameroun, body lotion enterprises should make visible the characteristics/advantages of their 

brand and act on interpersonal communications. The strengthening of the brand strategy is an action lever 

strongly recommended to these enterprises. 
 
Key words: Sensitivity to brands, consumer behaviour, brands, perceived risk, perceived differences between the 

brands, enduring involvement. 

 
INTRODUCTION 
 
Brands constitute an essential element of economic life 
and represent undeniable assets for companies (Keller 
and Lehmann, 2006). By multiplying the devices of inter-
action with consumers, they have become indispensible 
partners and powerful ferments of social bond. Sign of 
the flag bearer of value, brands are able to create around 
them a community of fans. Apple, for example, creates a 
cult (Kapferer, 2011). Vector of differentiation and loyalty, 
brands allow enterprises of sub-Saharan Africa to be 
more competitive (Chinedu et al., 2011) through strate-
gies of alliances (Bekolo, 2004). .  

In developing countries and particularly in Cameroon, 

the explosion of brands is remarkable. An investigation 

report of the Economic Mission (2004a) found a 

significant breakthrough of brands in the dairy industry, 

the cosmetics industry and the production of foam by 

Batoula and Scimpos. One observes exponentially, the 

regular introduction of new   brands  in  the  Cameroonian 

 
 

 
market. For example, Guinness is launching Smirnoff Ice 
(December 2008) and Pilsner (November 2009). In March 
2010, the Cameroonian Cement of plants have intro-
duced in the market Fabrique. The Cameroonian bre-
weries have expanded their range of products with 
Booster Pina Colada (December 2008), Orangina 
(November 2010) and XXL (November 2012). In July 
2012, X- net phone (or Jam), the first Cameroonian phone 
brand Cameroonian has been created. Industry of body 
lotion is enriched with brands (eg Rapid'Clair, Bel'Clair, 
Moby Baby, Vaseline, Lumina, B-Light, etc.). In mineral 
water (bottled, bagged and placed in glasses), many 
brands compete for consumers (Tangui, Supermont, The 
Febe, Aquabelle, Contrex, Sahel Springs, Aqaba, Africa 
pure water, sweet water, Sahel, etc.). These illustrations 
are not exhaustive and are found in all sectors. The domi-
nant role of brands, in at least the Africa market, probably 
reflects the importance that   consumers  attach  to  them. 



 
Ephraim         127 
 
 
 

Indeed, a survey by McKinsey (2012) emphasizes that 
brands play an important role in African purchasing 
decisions. According to this institute, African consumers 
attach great importance to both the quality and the brand 
in their decision taking contrary to the idea that they are 
prone to unbranded products, cheap and of poor quality. 

Hence, a blooming research focuses on several funda-
mental concepts of brand management like brand equity 
(Aaker, 1992), the brand extension (Aaker and Keller, 
1990; Volckner and Sattler, 2006), the brand personality 
(Aaker, 1997), attachment to the brand (Chaplin and 
Deborah, 2005; Fedorikhin et al., 2008; Park et al., 2009) 
and, the love of brand (Thomson et al., 2005, Albert et al., 
2008, Batra et al., 2012) amongst others. If interest in the 
theme of the brand is significant, it must be 
acknowledged that little research focuses on sensitivity to 
brands and this, despite its managerial importance 
(Amine, 1998). Blomback (2005) underlines the interest 
of sensitivity to brands for a better optimazation of brand 
awareness which is a prerequisite for brand image 
(Aaker, 1991; Keller, 1993) and a factor of loyalty to the 
brand (Kapferer and Laurent, 1992; Amine, 1998; Odin et 
al., 2001). Brand sensitivity conditions the influence of 
brand personality on the relationship of the consumer to 
the brand (Gouteron, 2006, 2008; Bouhlel et al., 2011). 
Finally, sensitivity to brands is a key determinant of the 
relative importance of the brand in purchase decisions of 
organizations (Zablah et al., 2010).  

The objective of this article is to contribute to the 
existing literature on consumer behaviour by the study of 
a phenomenon which has not been dealt with enough in 
the academic framework (Kapferer and Laurent, 1983; 
1992; Froloff-Brouche and Ben-Miled, 1995): sensitivity to 
brands. We are precisely interested in the antecedents of 
sensitivity to brands. The present research is organized 
as follows. Firstly, the literature on the concept of 
sensitivity to brands and the factors likely to explain it are 
presented. Thus, the conceptual framework and the 
various proposals are specified. Then, the research 
methodology and the results are exposed. Lastly, the 
managerial implications, the limits and the research paths 
are explored. 
 

 
LITTERATURE REVIEW 
 
Brand sensitivity originates from the tradition of research 
on brand loyalty (Jacoby and Chestnut, 1978) or more 

precisely on the commitment to the brand (Froloff-
Brouche and Ben-Miled, 1995). It addresses the issue of 
the brand in general (Michel, 2004) that is to say, the 
strength of the link between the consumer and all brands 
of a category of a product. In this work, we use indif-
ferently sensitivity to the brand. In addition, the brand is a 
complex and multidimensional concept, which can be 
subject to a single definition. To delineate the scope of 
our research, we begin by clarifying this notion. It is a 
verbal or figurative element (a word, logo, symbol, motto, 

 
 
 

 
initials, numbers etc) used to identify the goods or 
services of an enterprise and to differentiate them from 
those of the competitors (Keller and Hoeffler, 2003, 
Duncan, 2005; Kotler and Keller, 2006). The term 
"brands" includes the brand of the manufacturers and 
distributors, large and small brands, local and interna-
tional brands.  

Brand sensitivity expresses the importance that the 
consumer attaches to the brand during the purchasing 
process (Kapferer and Laurent, 1983, 1992; Amine, 1998; 
Lachance et al., 2003; Beaudoin and Lachance, 2006). 
All consumers do not integrate brand in their purchase 
decision process. Only those who are sensitive to it do it 
(Kapferer, 2004). Kapferer and Laurent (1992) note that 
this sensitivity can be described by only one dimension: 
the fact of looking at the brand, of being attached to it, of 
giving it importance. Overall, they favour an approach 
based on events that reflect the vision of cognitive 
sensitivity to the brand. Indeed, a consumer is sensitive 
to brands if he/she considers it important to consult the 
information “which is the mark?” Thus, the brand is an 
“information chunk”: the only entity which summarizes all 
the information relating to the choice and consumption 
experiences, to the communicational expo-sures with the 
product (Hoch and Deighton, 1989). 

The sensitivity to brands is a psychological variable 
since it refers to the process of consumer decision. It is 
different from loyalty which is behavioural concept that 
can be measured by examining patterns of repeated 
buying over time (Kapferer and Laurent, 1983, 1992; 
Lachance et al., 2003). It is also an individual variable 
that varies from one individual to another and from the 
same individual, from a product to another. Finally, 
sensitivity to brands has several components: commit-
ment to a brand, the weight of the brand compared to that 
of other product attributes, the place of the brand in the 
purchase decision process. D'Astous and Gargouri 
(2001) refer to brand sensitivity, attaching great impor-
tance to brand names when choosing and purchasing. 
 
 
The enduring involvement in a category of products 
 
The involvement is behind any consumption decision. It 
has been introduced in marketing by Krugman (1967) to 
measure the reaction mode and information processing 
during an advertising exhibition. Involvement refers to a 
feature, a state or a process (Costley, 1988). In this work, 
involvement is considered as a feature which is a 
permanent individual characteristic for product category 
independent from the influence of the context (Bloch, 
1981; Engel and Blackwell, 1982; Higie and Feick, 1989). 
We retain enduring involvement rather than specific; first, 
because it is essentially based on the individual and not 
on the nature of the product (Zaichkowsky, 1985; 
Warrington and Shim, 2000); thus a continuous inter-
action between the individual and the product. It takes 
into account  the  cognitive   and   affective  components 



 
 
 

 
(Buck, 1988). This involvement is doomed to comparisons 
between individuals and not for comparisons between 
products (Houston and Rothschild, 1978; Strazzieri, 
1994). Then, enduring involvement is expressed at an 
aggregate level (or in the category of products) as well as 
sensitivity to brands. Lastly, the durable components are 
preferred to the contextual components (Valette-
Florence, 1989).  

The influence of enduring involvement on brand sensi-
tivity has been recognized by several authors (Kapferer 
and Laurent, 1992; Amine, 1998; Muratore, 2002; 
Lachance et al., 2003). We hypothesize that enduring 
involvement is the prerequisite of a potential sensitivity to 
brands. This is because consumers who find important a 
product category, are influenced by the performance of 
this category. They are motivated to actively seek and 
process the information on that category (Warrington and 
Shim, 2000). They thus consider the brand as a deter-
mining benchmark, hence our first hypothesis: 
 
H1: The enduring involvement of the consumer in a given 

category of products is positively associated to the 

consumer’s sensitivity to the brand. 
 
 
Perceived differences between the brands 
 
The Perceived differences between brands in a category 
of products represent the consumer's ability to discrimi-
nate between brands in this category. There is a situation 
of perceived differences among brands, when one or 
various brand are perceived as been highest than others 
in terms of achievement or quality (Van Trijp et al., 1996). 
In the contrary, the concept of parity (even) of brand 
means that differences among brand in a product 
category are very, very small (Jensen and Hansen, 
2006). Kapferer and Laurent (1992) insist that marketing 
is after all sensitivity to an attribute. This attribute is or is 
not possessed by certain brands. This brings forward the 
necessity to look at what is the brand. Differences 
between brands must be veritably or genuinely perceived 
by consumers (Ries and Trout, 1986) and valued by 
enterprises (Carpenter et al., 1994). These differences 
must not be only functional but also symbolic and/or 
emotional (Broniarczyk and Gershoff, 2003). 

The work of Kapferer and Laurent (1992) shows that 
the perceived differences between brands have a major 
impact on the sensitivity to the brand. This conclusion 
seems logical since a consumer believes that the brand 
in relation to other information best suited to his expec-
tations, will consider as a decisive criterion of choice 
compared to other possible criteria (Dick and Basu, 1994; 
Muncy, 1996). The decision making process of a consu-
mer is influenced by his perception of the similarity of the 
brands within a category of products (Assael, 1987). 
Likewise, similarity between brands is more likely to 
create confusion when sensitivity to brands and product 
involvement  are  low   ( D'Astous   and  Gargouri,  2001). 

 

128          Afr. J. Agric. Mark. 
 

 

 
Zaichkowsky (1985) argues that the perceived diffe-

rences between brands due to the strong involvement, 

may lead consumers to prefer one brand over another. 
Thus, a consumer will be encouraged to compare several 
brands if the differences between these brands are 

perceived as sufficiently important and beneficial. We can 
thus say that perceived differences between brands have 

a positive effect on the sensitivity of the Cameroonian 
consumer to the brand, from the following hypothesis: 
 
H2: Perceived differences between the consumer’s 

brands are positively associated to his/her sensitivity to 

the brand. 

 
The perceived risk in a category of products 
 
The risk is a key factor in understanding consumer 
behavior (Gabbott, 1991). In a simple way, the risk is the 
uncertainty of the result (Kunle, 2011). According to 
Bauer (1960), consumer behavior involves risk in the 
sense that each purchase will result in consequences, 
sometimes negative, that he cannot predict with any 
certainty, for numerous researchers (Bauer, 1960; 
Cunningham, 1967; Volle, 1995) perceived risk is based 
on two components (uncertainty and loss severity) and is 
subjective. In addition, the perceived risk may be specific 
(Stone and Gronhaug, 1993) or general (Cox, 1967). The 
measurement of overall risk differs depending on the 
researchers: financial risk, functional, psychological, 
physical and social (Jacoby and Kaplan, 1972; Peter and 
Tarpy, 1975; Shimp and Bearden, 1982; Schiffman and 
Kanuk, 2004), the risk of wasted time (Roselius, 1971) 
and the opportunity risk (Mitchell and Greatorex, 1993). 
Therefore, the perceived risk can be described as a multi-
dimensional concept (Sitkin and Weignart, 1995).  

The relationship between perceived risk and sensitivity 
to brands has been verified in most research 
(Cunningham, 1967), and today it is widely established 
that, the perceived risk is considered to be a major deter-
minant of sensitivity to brands (Kapferer and Laurent, 
1992). This corroborates the assertion of Kapferer (1998) 
that there is brand when there is risk. The brand serves 
as a reference when the consumer perceives risk. The 
brand is one of the effective methods of risk reduction 
(Sheth and Venkatesan, 1968; Roselius, 1971; Aaker, 
1992; Ailawadi et al., 2003). Gounaris and Stathakopoulos 
(2004) argue that this is especially true for high value and 
high involvement. This is logical because the perceived 
risk is composed of the probability of making a bad 
choice and the importance of the negative consequences 
of this bad choice (Amine, 1998). Thus, in the Came-
roonian context, we think that perceived risk has a 
positive influence on sensitivity to brands, whence our 
third hypothesis: 
 
H3: The consumer’s perceived risk in a category of 

products is positively   associated to his/her sensitivity to 



Ephraim         129 
 
 

 

 Enduring involvement  H1 
 

   

H2 

 

   
 

 Perceived différences   

    
 

 between brands   Sensitivity to 
 

   

 
brands 

 

   
  

Perceived risk  
H3 

 
Figure 1: Research model. 
 
 

 
the brand. 

Figure 1 represents the research model. 
 
 
METHODOLOGY 
 
Sampling and data collection 
 
In the absence of an exhaustive list of body lotion consumers, we 
opted for a sample reasoned choice that aims to make it look like 
the sample of the population from which it comes (Evrard et al., 
2003). Included in our sample, any woman likely to bring relevant 
information while remaining as close as possible to contextual 
reality. At the same time, we make sure that the sample is diver-
sified in terms of age, profession, area, religion and educational 
level. The data collection tool was a questionnaire administered 
face to face in the towns of Yaounde, Douala, Bafoussam and 
Ngaoundéré. We chose this mode of administration mainly because 
of the context of the study since it is important that the risk of non-
response be minimized. Indeed, in Cameroun, as in several African 
countries, access to information from the consumers is not an easy 
thing. To facilitate answers for the questionnaire, an initial contact, 
precise explanations and most especially the creation of a reliable 
climate are sometimes necessary for a better understanding of the 
terms of the respondent. In the same way, two reasons justify the 
choice of these cities: concentration of industries of body lotions 
and the presence of universities or higher schools. These contain 
many students belonging to our sample since the Cameroonian 
population is essentially young (Central Bureau of the Census and 
Population Studies, 2010). In addition to descriptive and identifi-
cation information, our questionnaire also included the collection of 
information on the explanatory reasons for the sensitivity of 
Cameroonian consumers to brands. 400 questionnaires were admi-
nistered during a one month period. 39 wrongly filled questionnaires 
were eliminated after analysis. We preserved 361 of them to carry 
out our study. This gives us a response rate of 90.25%.  

In order to better apprehend the concept of sensitivity to brands, 
we choose body lotions. The choice of this category of products has 
been dictated by criteria such as a variety of brands on markets, the 
high purchase frequency, personal utilization character, high 
competition between brands, popular and current character of the 
product. In fact, according to the investigations of the Economic 
mission carried out in Cameroun (2004b; 2006), body lotions are 
primarily sought by women. Conscious of this reality, most of the 
companies in this field propose body lotion bottles with pictures of 
beautiful women having a clear and fair complexion; for example, 
Maxi light, Clair Liss and Bioclaire body lotions to name a few. 

Since 2008, a series of body lotions’ advertisements (and even of 

 
 
 

 
children’s body lotions likely to captivate the attention of mothers) 
take place before, during and after the broadcast of TV series loved 
by Cameroonian women consumers. Without being exhaustive and 
based on our personal observations, we can name Primo et 
Essential for “Paloma”, Poupy Bébé and New Skin + for “Whirls of 
passion ”, White Express for “Between justice et vengeance ”, Clair 
et Net for “Vaidehi”, Pediaderm for “El Diablo”, Kloès for “Jacob 
Cross”, Golden Clear for “India”, Rapid Clair, Moby bébé and Biopur 
for “Redemption”, Vaseline for “The long expectation”, Kloès and 
Peau nette for “Intimate enemies”, Sephora for Teresa and 
Claraderm for El-Capo (in the Canal2 TV channel), Talangaï before 
“In the heart of sin ”, Vaseline for “Broken heart ” (in the CRTV TV 
channel) and Absolute White for “Marina”, Trompy for “The roman 
of life ” (in the Equinox TV channel).  

The consumers were questioned in the towns of Yaounde 
(29.1%), Douala (41.3%), Ngaoundéré (16.1%) and Bafoussam 
(13.6%). The exclusive choice of the women is explained by the 
consumption reality of beauty lotions by the population such as 
previously evoked. 67.9% of the sample has a university level of 
studies. 71.7% of those questioned are single. Several factors can 
explain this high rate of singles: increase in the duration of studies, 
the difficulty in finding a job and an increasing individualization of 
the society. 51% of those questioned are aged between 15 and 25, 
41.2% between 26 and 40 and 7.8% are above 40. Thus, the 
majority of the respondents of our sample are young. This result is 
in conformity with the characteristics of the Cameroonian population 
which is extremely young (CBCPS, 2010). Besides, according to 
the Africa 24 Magazine published in 2011, more than 70% of 
Cameroonians are less than 25 years old. This is also the case in 
many African countries. In 2005, 56% of the West African popu-
lation was less than 20 and 65 % (that is to say nearly two thirds), 
was less than 25 (Koffi and Kone, 2010). With 44% of the 
population being under 15 in 2006, sub-Saharan Africa is 
unmistakably the youngest region of the world (Lori, 2007). Indeed, 
in 2010, the most striking remark when one considers the 
demographic characteristics of the sub-Saharan African population 
is its youth: According to projections, 63% of this population is less 
than 25 while 20,4% cover the age group from 15 to 24 years old 
(Kofi and Kone, 2010). The great number of teenagers (students, 
labourers and the jobless) and young adults (employees, higher 
staff) is justified by their early use of cosmetic products. Let us 
specify here that the socio-professional categories (SPC) retained 
here are an adaptation of the nomenclature from the National 
Institute of Statistics (NIS) in 2005. This adaptation is justified by 
the fact that the body lotion is known and accessible to all the social 
categories. Lastly, 67.8% of those questioned have an income 
ranging between 25.000 F CFA and 50.000 F CFA (Table 1).  

The consumers of our sample use their body lotions “2 to 3 times 
daily” (61.2%); “1 time” (36%) or “more than 3 times” (2.8%). The 
majority of them buy their body lotions themselves (81.4%); pre-
ferably in small and medium-sized sales floors (85%). They prefer 
perfume shops in order to preserve the warm human contact which 
characterizes Africans. In fact, one often finds over perfume 
counters, salesmen attentive to the needs of customers and ready 
to make a small “sacrifice”. The setting up of these sales points also 
promotes bargaining, an archaic practice which has almost 
disappeared in Europe, but currently practiced in Cameroon and in 
Africa in general (Bekolo, 2007). On the other hand, the position “of 
the hawker” is clearly explained by the study of Tsapi and Gilardi 
(2011) which show that consumers avoid this system of distribution 
since according to them, the beauty lotions which are sold are often 
counterfeited, i.e. “mixed with cassava juice”. 40.4% of those 
questioned confide in a close relation for the purchase of a body 
lotion (Table 2). This result is in conformity with the reports of the 
exploratory study and the literature according to which consumers 
frequently seek the opinion of other people before a purchase 
(Price and Feick, 1984). Cameroonian consumers attach an 
importance to  “ word of mouth” which is the  most  used  source   of 



 
 
 

 
Table 1. Descriptive characteristics of consumers 

of beauty lotions. 
 

 Variable F % 
 

 Total sample 361 100 
 

 City   
 

 Yaounde 105 29.1 
 

 Douala 149 41.3 
 

 Ngaoundere 58 16.0 
 

 Bafoussam 49 13.6 
 

 Level of Education   
 

 Primary 9 2.5 
 

 Secondary 105 29.0 
 

 Higher 245 67.9 
 

 None 2 0.6 
 

 Marital status   
 

 Married 90 24.9 
 

 Divorced 5 1.4 
 

 Widows 7 1.9 
 

 Singles 259 71.7 
 

 Profession   
 

 Managerial 37 10.2 
 

 Self-employed 28 7.8 
 

 Employees 45 12.5 
 

 Labourers 2 0.6 
 

 Househelps 3 0.8 
 

 Students 198 54.8 
 

 Small trades 25 6.9 
 

 Unemployed 23 6.4 
 

 Age   
 

 15-25 years old 184 51.0 
 

 16-40 
149 41.2  

 
years old  

   
 

 >40 years old 28 7.8 
 

 Monthly Income   
 

 <25000 f CFA 111 30.7 
 

 25001-50000 f CFA 134 37.1 
 

 50001-100000 f CFA 51 14.2 
 

 100001-200000 f CFA 48 13.3 
 

 >200000 f CFA 17 4.7 
  

SPSS output version 17.0. 
 
 
 
information for the choice of a product (East et al., 2005). 

 
Measurement of the variables 
 
The measurement indicators of the concepts are from the literature. 

Some of them have been adapted and refined after  semi-directing 

 

130          Afr. J. Agric. Mark. 
 
 
 
talks with twenty-five beauty lotion consumers. The adaptation of 
the scales consisted in reformulating some of the items so that they 
are well understood by the Cameroonian consumers. The 
transposition of the scales without this effort of contextualization did 
not seem relevant to us insofar as it would negatively influence the 
answering rate. That being, in Table 3, the items in italic are those 
which were adapted.  

We use the P.I.A involvement measurement (Personal relevance, 
Interest and Attraction towards the product) suggested by Strazzieri 
(1994). It is a scale made up of six items whose total coherence 
and validity have been shown in many studies (Russet-red et al., 
1997; Gouteron, 2006). To measure the concept of perceived 
differences between brands, we chose the scale of Kapferer and 
Laurent (1992). It is apprehended using a battery of five items. For 
a measurement of perceived risk, we use works of Jacoby and 
Kaplan (1972) as well as those of Roselius (1971) which validate a 
six items-structure relative to the above-mentioned risks types. The 
final solution retains four items because the suppression of two 
items (in relative with psychological and functional risks) made it 
possible to improve the reliability of the instrument. The items 
concerned are: “The purchase of a body lotion can lead to a 
disappointment with oneself”; “The quality of a body lotion can 
appear to be below my expectations finally”. Concerning brand 
sensitivity, the five items retained are from the direct measurement 
gotten from Kapferer and Laurent’s scale (1992). This measuring 
instrument has been used in a great number of studies (Lachance 
et al., 2003; Perrin-Martinenq, 2004; Beaudoin and Lachance, 
2006; Bouhlel et al., 2011) which have shown the stability of its 
factorial structure. In these studies, it seems that the scale is 
reliable, valid, of unidimensional type and in full coherence with the 
definition of the construct. For all the constructs of the model, the 
women questioned were requested to give their opinion on the 
scales of the Likert type having five points. The answers varied from 
1 (totally disagree) to 5 (fully agree) passing through 3 (fairly 
agree). Finally, the data collected were analyzed by using the 
(SPSS) version 17.0. The principal components analysis enabled 
us to purify measurements and to structure the variables. The 
reliability of the items forming each component was verified by 
Cronbach’s alpha ( ). In order to identify the factors influencing 
brand sensitivity, we used correlation analyses and multiple 
regression. In our opinion, it is important to verify firstly the 
existence and the sense of the relation between each independent 
variable and the dependent variable by means of the Pearson’s 
linear correlation coefficient (r). We can then appreciate globally, 
the relevance of these relations by means of the linear regression 
coefficients. 

 
RESULTS 
 
The examination of our survey questionnaire indicates 
that 25 consumers (that is 6.9%) of our sample are 
weakly sensitive, 135 are moderately sensitive (that is 
37.4%) and 201 are highly sensitive (that is 55.8%).  

Table 3 gives details about the scales used and the 
usual validation evidence for the estimation of reliability. 
Reading this table, the principal components analysis 
carried out on the items of each concept reveals a factor 
having an eigenvalue higher than 1 (Kaiser Criterion). At 
the end of this procedure of processing of the variables, 
all the concepts are unidimensional and all the scales are 
reliable.  

The Pearson’s correlation coefficient between Enduring 

involvement and brand sensitivity is r = 0.840 and 

significant  with  the   threshold   p = 0.01 (Table 4). In the 



Ephraim         131 
 
 
 

Table 2. Behavioral characteristics of consumers of beauty lotions. 
 

Variable Frequency Percent 

Total sample 361 100 
Nature of respondent   

Rarely 14 3.9 
Often 38 10.5 
Always 309 85.6 

Type of buyer   
Yourself 294 81.4 
Your family (spouse/friend/relative) 67 18.6 

Frequency of daily use   
1 time 130 36.0 
2 à 3 times 221 61.2 
>3 times 10 2.8 

Place of purchase   
Perfume shops/supermarkets/mini-markets 307 85.0 
Hawkers 2 0.5 
Hairdressing/beauty salons 11 3.0 
Neighborhood shops 8 2.2 
Outdoor market 6 1.7 
Pharmacy 27 7.4 

Recommendation   
Dermatologist 21 5.8 
Close (friend/relative) 146 40.4 
Media 18 5.0 
Seller 94 26.0 
Yourself 80 22.1 
An unknown 2 0.5 

 
SPSS output version 17.0. 

 

 
same way, the correlation analysis reveals that perceived 

differences are significantly associated to brand sensi-

tivity (r = 0.852; p = 0.01). Lastly, there is a significant 

correlation between perceived risk and brand sensitivity (r 

= 0,819; p = 0.01). 
 
 
Hypothesis testing 
 
A regression analysis shows that the total adjustment of 

the model is of good quality. In fact, the values of the 
correlation coefficient R (0,916) and of the determination 

coefficient R ² (0,840) are all satisfactory since they are 
above 0.5. The test of robustness of this regression model 
reveals an F of Fisher value of 622,963 with a threshold 

of significance of 0,000 for 3 to 357 degrees of freedom. 
We note that this calculated threshold of significance is 

lower than 0.05. Moreover, the  t  values  for the variables 

 
 
 
 
 
introduced into the regression model (perceived risk, en-
during involvement and perceived differences) are 
satisfactory (with the threshold p = 0,000), that is, 8,860; 
8,132 and 9,976 respectively. From the results, it arises 
that perceived differences are the main antecedents of 
sensitivity to brands (ß = 0,373). Moreover, perceived 
risk, enduring involvement and perceived differences are 
explanatory sources of sensitivity to brands. Conse-
quently, the assumptions H1, H2 and H3 are validated. 
These three variables explain 84% of this sensitivity (R ²). 
These results are illustrated diagrammatically in Figure 2. 
The results under SPSS are in the appendix. 

The regression equation between these variables and 

sensitivity to brands which we note as Y1 is written as 

follows: 
 

Y1 = - 0. 004 + 0.303 RISK + 0.307 IMPL + 0.373 DIFCE 

(-,118) (8.860) (8.132) (9.976) 



132          Afr. J. Agric. Mark. 
 
 
 
Table 3. Principal component analysis of independent variables and brand sensitivity. 
 

Scale items 
Factor Item to total 

Cronbach  Eingalue 
% of 

 

loading correlation variance  

  
  

Enduring involvement  
The body lotion is a product which really counts for me.  
The body lotion is a product to which I attach a 

particular importance.  
The body lotion is a product about which I particularly 

like to speak  
The body lotion is a product which interests me.  
The body lotion is a product which attracts me 

particularly.  
The body lotion is a product whose purchase pleases 

me. 
 
Perceived differences between brands  
There are brands of body lotions which are by far 

superior to others. 

 
0.915 4.240 70.672  

0.865 0.784 
 
0.875 0.801 
 
0.676 0.574 
 
0.873 0.806 
 
0.869 0.805 
 
0.867 0.802 

 
0.874 3.378 67.553 
 
0.723 0.596 

 
I  believe  that  most  brands  of  body  lotions  are 

0.830 0.709  
comparable.  

  
  

Presently, all the brands of body lotions are good.  
As a whole, i find that all the brands of body lotions 

resemble each other.  
I think that there are great differences between the 

brands of body lotions. 
 
Perceived Risk  
The body lotion that I buy can give a bad indication of 

me to my entourage.  
The use of a body lotion can be dangerous for my 

health or that of my entourage.  
The purchase of a body lotion can represent a bad 

expenditure.  
The purchase of a body lotion can make me waste 

time. 
 
Brand Sensitivity  
I do not choose a body lotion according to the 

brand. I look at the brand when I buy a body lotion.  
For body lotions, the brand is not very important to me.  
I consider the brand when I buy a body lotion.  
I look at the brand first when I am choosing a body 

lotion. 

  
0.803 0.691   

0.900 0.813   

0.842 0.735   

 0.883 2.979 74.479 

0.892 0.782   

0.911 0.816   

0.750 0.605   

0.889 0.790   

 0.853 3.200 63.991 
0.668 0.529   

0.849 0.721   

0.746 0.617   

0.897 0.797   

0.819 0.687   
 
SPSS output version 17.0. 
 
 
 

Table 4. Summary of the Pearson’s correlations 

between the various antecedents of the sensitivity to 

brands. 
 

  Sensitivity to brands 
 Enduring involvement 0.840 ** 
 Perceived differences 0.852 ** 
 Perceived risk 0.819 ** 

 
SPSS output version 17.0. ** p = 0.01. 

 
 
 

 
Concretely, the more a consumer feels that a bad 

purchase would have serious consequences for her, the 
more she regards the brand as a decisive purchase 
criterion. The consumers attach a great importance to the 

purchase of body lotions. They therefore constantly use 
the brand as a reference mark. Lastly, it appears that the 

more the consumer sees differences between brands, the 
more he is sensitive to brands. This result seems to be 

explained mainly  by  the   phenomena   of   imitation  and 



Ephraim         133 
 
 

 

 Enduring involvement 0.307  
 

      

     
 

 Perceived differences  
0.373 

 
 

 

between the brands 
 

Sensitivity to 
 

   
 

   

 
brands 

 

   
 

 
 
 

 
enduring involvement. This approach seemed judicious to 

us for a better apprehension of these two concepts since 

the body lotion is a product with a rather high perceived 

risk and strong involvement. It is important to add that, 

through this approach, we share the opinion of several 

authors (Sherif and Cantril, 1947; Zaichkowsky, 1985; 

Valette-Florence, 1989; Strazzieri, 1994) which think that  
Perceived risk  

0.303 

 
enduring involvement should be distinguished from its 
antecedents (among which is perceived risk) and its 
consequences. 

Figure 2. The final model including all significant relations. 
 
 
 
 

 Enduring involvement 0.307  
 

      

     
 

 Perceived differences  
0.373 

 
 

 

between the brands 
 

Sensitivity to 
 

   
 

   

 
brands 

 

   
 

 
Besides, the conclusions of this study about the 

perceived differences between brands once more go in 
line with those of Kapferer and Laurent (1992). These 
authors’ results reveal an explanatory capacity of 0.38. 
The t value is 14.65 with the threshold of significance p = 
0.01. This explanatory capacity is almost identical to the 
one we obtained (0.37 with t = 0.976, p = 0.000). In fact, 
the more the consumer thinks that the brands are 
unequal on the level of their performances (ability to 
respond satisfactorily to a sought-after advantage or to 
provide a great total satisfaction) the more the brand will 
intervene as a decisive criterion of choice. We think, just  

Perceived risk  
0.303 

 
like Amine (1998) that sensitivity to the brand is 
nourished and reinforces the perception of quality  

Figure 3. The results of the multiple regression test. 
 
 
 
counterfeiting. Indeed, in the world of the body lotions 
brands, alternative choices are very numerous. The 
perception of differences between brands is expected to 
stimulate the research of varieties. However, in front of a 
significant number of possibilities of counterfeited or 
imitated choices, the consumer makes her decision of 
purchase within a set of brands which satisfy her need for 
safety. To end it up, the constant of the regression line is 
negative. Thus, if the beauty lotion firms do not set out to 
discriminate their brands more, to arouse the enthusiasm 
of consumers and to maximally reduce risk, the brands 
will no longer have any importance in the eyes of these 
consumers. 
 
 
DISCUSSION 
 
The results of the multiple regression test state that per-
ceived risk and enduring involvement significantly 
influence sensitivity to brands (Figure 3). These results 
match up with those obtained by Kapferer and Laurent 
(1992) as well as those of Froloff-Brouche and Ben-Miled 
(1995). However, their measurement of the two concepts 
is different from ours. In fact, to measure enduring in-
volvement in a category of products, they resorted to the 
Laurent and Kapferer’s involvement profile scale (1985). 
Although in conformity with the results of pre-ceding 
research, our conclusions nevertheless take their impor-
tance from the fact that they are obtained by a detailed 
approach   of   measurements   of   perceived    risk    and 

 
differences between the alternatives. The perceived 

differences between brands thus significantly favour the 

sensitivity of Cameroonian consumers to brands as 

regards body lotions. This result makes it possible to 

confirm and enrich previous work on the subject. 
 
 
Conclusion 
 
The main purpose of this research was to lead to a better 
comprehension of the concept of sensitivity to brands and 
its antecedents during the purchase of a body lotion. The 
empirical work carried out shows that Cameroonian 
consumers are sensitive to the brand. Thus, enterprises 
anxious about guaranteeing their permanence should be 
aware of this fact. It results from this research that small 
and medium-sized sale floors are preferred for the 
purchase of body lotions as they are places of friend-
liness. In the same way, recommendation by a close 
relation is appreciated by consumers of body lotions. It 
also results that perceived differences between brands, 
enduring involvement and perceived risk in body lotions 
positively influence sensitivity to brands. Lastly, perceived 
differences between brands are the fundamental pre-
cursor of sensitivity to brands.  

Such results are rich in terms of managerial implica-
tions. Firstly, the managers of the enterprises present or 

desiring to settle in Africa should reinforce the place of 
the brand in their marketing strategies since it is a 
considerable action lever for them. In the same way, they 

would gain more by highlighting interpersonal communi-
cations and the use of opinion leaders perceived as 

competent and credible (this is already done with the 
Cameroonian artist,   Lady   Ponce,  for the brand Golden 



 
 
 
 
Clear and with Dr. Charles Arnaud for the brand Moby 
Bébé). The dominant explanatory capacity of perceived 
differences should lead Cameroonian marketing experts 
not to underestimate this variable in the field of body 
lotions where the quality of the product is often opaque 
(in the light of imitation). This is one of the major con-
cerns of consumers because the quality control legal and 
administrative system is almost non-existent. It seems 
necessary to reassure consumers by showing during 
advertisements, the visible and unfalsifiable signs which 
make it possible for consumers to avoid incidents caused 
by the use of “fake” body lotions (This is already the case 
of the Roberts glycerin).  

In spite of its contributions, the present research has 
some limits. It is important firstly to stress that the sample 
is made up exclusively of women who do not meet the 
conditions of representativeness of the population. 
Moreover, the empirical research has been carried out in 
some Cameroonian cities with a sample of convenience. 
Even if the results are interesting, their generalization to 
all fields should be made with great prudence.  

Considering these limits, the study deserves to be 
continued in other categories of products with a signifi-
cant number of women and men. Other explanatory 

variables of sensitivity to brands could be identified. The 
study of the sensitivity of Cameroonian consumers to 

foreign brands compared to their sensitivity to local 
brands could be made. Lastly, an intercultural validation 

of the scale of sensitivity to brands in sub-Saharan Africa 
is possible. 
 
 
REFERENCES 
 
Aaker DA (1991). Managing Brand Equity, New York: The Free Press. 
Aaker DA, Keller KL (1990). Consumer Response to Brand Extensions, 

J. Mark. 54:27-41. 
Aaker DA (1992). The Value of Brand Equity, J. Bus. Strat.13(4):27-32. 
Aaker DA (1997). Dimensions of Brand Personality, J. Mark. Res. 

34(3):347-356. 
Ailawadi KL, Neslin SA, Lehmann DR (2003). Revenue Premium as an 

Outcome Measure of Brand Equity, J. Mark. 67(4):1-17. 
Albert N, Merunka D, Valette -Florence P (2008). When Consumers 

Love their Brands: Exploring the Concept and its Dimensions, J. Bus. 
Res. 61(10):1062-1075. 

Amine A (1998). Consumers’true Brand Loyalty: the Central Role of 
Commitment, J. Strat. Mark. 6(4):305-319.  

Assael H (1987). Consumer Behaviour and Marketing Action, Boston, 
MA, Kent. 

Batra R, Ahuvia A, Bagozzi RP (2012). Brand Love, J. Mark. 76:1-16. 
Bauer R (1960). Consumer Behaviour as Risk Taking, Dynamic for a 

Changing World, Am. Mark. Ass. pp.389-398. 
Beaudoin P, Lachance MJ (2006). Determinants of Adolescents’Brand 

Sensitivity to Clothing, Fam. Cons. Sci. Res. J. 34(4):312-331.  
Bekolo C (2004). La compétitivité par les processus marketing : une 

approche par les marques, Rev. Cam. Manage. 13:15-26. 
Bekolo C (2007). Approche culturelle du consommateur en Afrique et 

perspective pour la stratégie marketing, Rev. Gest. 2000:105-119. 
Bloch P (1981). Involvement Beyond The Purchase Process: 

Conceptual Issues and Empirical Investigation, éd. Monroe K, Ann 
Arbor, Michigan Association for Consumer Research: Adv. Cons Res. 
8:413-465. 

 

Blomback A (2005). Supplier Brand Image: A Catalyst for Choice, 
doctoral dissertation, Jonkoping International Business School. 

 

134          Afr. J. Agric. Mark. 
 
 
 
Bouhlel O, Mzoughi N, Hadiji D, Ben SI (2011). Brand Personality’s 

Influence on the Purchase Intention: A Mobile Marketing Case, Int. J. 
Bus. Manage. 6(9):210-227. 

Broniarczyk SM, Gershoff AD (2003). The Reciprocal Effects of Brand 
Equity and Trivial Attributes, J. Mark. Res. 40:161-175.  

Buck R (1988). Emotional Education and Mass Media: A New View of 
Global Village, In: Hawkins RP, Weimann JM and Pingree S eds., 
Merging Mass and Interpersonal Processes, Newburg Park, CA: 
Sage. Adv. Commun. Sci. pp. 44-76.  

Carpenter GS, Glazer R, Nakamoto K (1994). Meaningful Brands from 
Meaningless Differentiation: the Dependence on Irrelevant Attributes, 
J. Mark. Res. 31:339-350. 

Central Bureau of the Census and Population Studies (CBCPS) (2010). 
Third General Population and Thousing Census. 

Chaplin N, Deborah JR (2005). The Development of Self Brand 
Connections in Children and Adolescents, J. Cons. Res. 32(1):119-
129. 

Chinedu ON, Aham AV, Julius OO (2011) . An Empirical Study of the 
Impact of Branding on Consumer Choice for Regulated Bottled Water 
in Southeast, Nigeria, Int. J. Bus. Manage. 6(6):150-166. 

Costley C (1988). Meta Analysis of Involvement Research, In: Advances 
in Consumer Research 15, ed. MJ Houston, Provo UT: Association 
for Consumer Research pp.554-562. 

Cox DF (1967). Risk-Taking and Information-Handling in Consumer 
Behaviour, Harvard University, Boston pp.604-639. 

Cunningham SM (1967). The Major Dimensions of Perceived Risk, in 
DF Cox ed., Risk-Taking and Information-Handling in Cons. Behav. 
Boston: Harvard University Press pp.82-108. 

D’Astous A, Gargouri E (2001). Consumer of Brand Imitation, Eur. J. 
Mark. 35(2):153-167.  

Dick AS, Basu K (1994) . Customer Loyalty: Toward an Integrated 
Conceptual Framework, J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 22(2):99-113. 

Duncan TR (2005). Principles of Advertising and IMC, New York: 
McGraw-Hill.  

East R, Hammond K, Lomax W (2005). What is the effect of a 
recommendation?. Mark. Rev. 5(2):145-157. 

Engel JF, Blackwell RD (1982). Consumer Behaviour, 4th edition, New 
York, The Dryden Press. 

Evrard Y, Pras B, Roux E (2003) . Marketing. 3rd ed., Wiley, Paris. 
Fedorikhin, Alexander C, Whan P, Matthew T (2008). Beyond Fit and  

Attitude: The Effect of Emotional Attachment of Consumer 
Responses to Brand Extensions, J. Cons. Psychol. 18 (4):281-191. 

Froloff-Brouche L, Ben Miled H (1995). Le rôle de l’implication dans la 
formation de la sensibilité aux marques et à la promotion, 22nd Int. 
Res. Sem. Mark., IAE Aix-en-Provence pp.184-211. 

Gabbott M (1991). The Role of Product Cues in Assessing Risk in 
Second-Hand Markets, Europ. J. Mark. 25(9):38-50. 

Gouteron J (2006). L’impact de la personnalité de la marque sur la 
relation marque-consommateur, application au marché du prêt-à-
porter féminin, Rev. Franç. Mark. 207:43-59. 

Gouteron J (2008). L’impact de la personnalité de la marque sur la 
relation à la marque dans le domaine de la téléphonie mobile, La 
Rev. Sci. Gest, Dir. Gest. (233):115-127. 

Higie R, Feick L (1989). Enduring Involvement: Conceptual and 
Measurement Issues, éd. Srull TK. Provo, Utah, Association for 
Consumer Research: Adv. Cons. Res. 16:690-696. 

Hoch SJ, Deighton J (1989). Managing what consumers learn from 
experience, J. Mark. 53:1-20.  

Houston M, Rothschild ML (1978). Conceptual and Methodological 
Perspectives on Involvement, In: Hunt HK ed., Advances in 
Consumer Research 5, Ann Arbor MI: Association for Consumer 
Research pp.184-187.  

Institut National de la Statistique (2005). Enquête sur l’emploi au 
Cameroun: rapport principal, phase I. 

Jacoby J, Kaplan L (1972). The Components of Perceived Risk, in M 
Venkatesan ed., Proceedings, Adv. Cons. Res., Third Annual 
Convention of the Association for Consumer Research pp.382-393. 

Jacoby J, Chesnut RW (1978). Brand Loyalty: Measurement and 
Management, New York, Wiley and Sons. 

Jensen JM, Hansen T (2006). An Empirical Examination of Brand 
Loyalty, J. Prod. Brand Manage. 15(7):442-449.  

Kapferer JN, Laurent  G  (1983).  La  sensibilité  aux  marques:  un 



Ephraim         135 
 
 
 
 

nouveau concept pour gérer les marques, Paris, Fondation Jours de 
France pour la Recherche en Publicité.  
Kapferer JN, Laurent G (1992). La sensibilité aux marques, Marchés 

sans marques, Marchés à marques, éd. d’Organisation, Paris, 205p. 
Kapferer JN (1998). Les marques, capital de l’entreprise, 3ème éd., éd. 

d’Organisation. 
Kapferer JN (2004). The New Strategic Brand Management: 

Creating And Sustaining Brand Equity Long Term, Third edition, 
Kogan Page.  

Kapferer JN (2011). France: Pourquoi penser marque ?, Rev. 
Franç. Gest. 218-219:13-23. 

Keller KL (1993). Conceptualizing, Measuring and Managing 
Customer-based Brand Equity, J. Mark. 57(1):1-22.  

Keller KL, Hoeffler S (2003). The Marketing Advantages of Strong 
Brands, J. Brand Manage. 10(6):421-445. 

Keller KL, Lehmann DR (2006). Brands and branding: Research 
Findings and Future Priorities, Mark. Sci. 25(6):740-759. 

Koffi KR, Kone F (2010). Jeunesse : actrice du renouveau et de la 
renaissance africaine, Réf.: DEBATS - Courrier d’Afrique de 
l’Ouest Afrique, “… d’hier à demain : Métamorphoses !”, 76-
77:36-40. 

Kotler P, Keller K (2006). Marketing Management, 12e. New 
Jersey: Prentice Hall.  

Krugman H (1967). The Measurement of Advertising Involvement, 
Public Opinion Q. 30(Winter):583-596. 

Kunle AO (2011). Effets of Risk Perception on the Demand for 
Insurance: implications on Nigerian Road Users, J. Emer. Tre. 
Eco. Manage. Sci. 2(4):285-290. 

Lachance MJ, Beaudoin P, Robitaille J (2003). Adolescents’ Brand 
Sensitivity in Apparel: Influence on Three Socialization Agents, 
Int. J. Cons. Stud. 27(1):47-57. 

Lori SA (2007). La population jeune en Afrique : risque ou 
opportunité ? Bridge-Population Reférence Bureau (PRB) 
Available online: http://www.prb.org/pdf07/africasyouthpop_fr.pdf 
[Accessed: 18 may 2013].  

McKinsey & Company (2012). The rise of the African consumer. 
Available online: http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/consumer_ 
and_retail/the_rise_of_t he_african_consumer [Accessed: 25 
January 2013].  

Michel G (2004). Au Coeur de la marque : créer, gérer, développer 
et évaluer sa marque, Dunod, Paris. 

Mitchell VW, Greatorex M (1993). Risk Perception and Reduction in 
the Purchase of Consumer Services, Serv. Ind. J. 13(4):179-200. 

Muncy JA (1996). Measuring Perceived Brand Parity, Adv. Cons. 
Res., 23: 411-417.  

Muratore I (2002). Implication, âge et socialisation: trois 
antécédents de la sensibilité de l’enfant au cadeau et aux 
marques, Recherche Appl. Mark. 17(4):3-19. 

Odin Y, Odin N, Valette-Florence P (2001). Conceptual and 
Operational Aspects of Brand Loyalty: An Empirical Investigation, 
J. Bus. Res. 53(2):75-84. 

Park C, Whan, Deborah JM (2009). Brand Attachment and a 
Strategic Brand Exemplar in Handb. Brand and Exper. Manage. 
B Schimtt and D Rogers, eds. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar 
Publishing pp.3-17. 

Perrin-Martinenq D (2004). The Role of Brand Detachment on the 

Dissolution of the Relationship between the Consumer and the 

Brand, J. Mark. Manage. 20(9):1001-1023. 

 

 

 

 

Peter JP, Tarpey LX (1975). A comparative Analysis of three 
Consumer Decision Strategies, J. Cons. Res. 2(1):29-37.  

Price LL, Feick LF (1984). The Role of Interpersonal Sources in 
External Search: An Informational Perspective, Adv. Cons. 
Res. 11(1):250-255. 

Roselius T (1971). Consumer Rankings of Risk Reduction 
Methods, J. Mark. 35:56-61. 

Ries A, Trout J (1986). Positioning: the Battle for your Mind, 
McGraw-Hill Inc, New York.  

Schiffman LG, Kanuk LL (2004). Consumer Behavior, New 
Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall. 

Sherif M, Cantril H (1947). The Psychology of Ego-Involvement, 
New York, Wiley. 

Sheth JN, Venkatesan M (1968). Risk Reduction Process in 
Repetitive Consumer Behaviour, J. Mark. Res. 5(3):307-310.  

Shimp TA, Bearden WO (1982). Warranty and other Extrinsic 
Cue Effects on Consumers’ Risk Perceptions, J. Cons. Res. 
9(1):38-46. 

Sitkin SB, Weingart (1995). Determinants of Risk Decision-
making Behavior: a Test of the Mediating Role of Risk 
Perceptions and Propensity, Acad. Manage. J. 38(6):1573-
1592. 

Stone RN, Gronhaug K (1993). Perceived Risk: Further 
Considerations for The Marketing Discipline, Eur. J. Mark. 
27(3):39-50. 

Strazzieri A (1994). Mesurer l’implication indépendamment du 
risque perçu, Recherche Appl. Mark. 9(1):73-91.  

Thomson M, Deborah JM, Whan PC (2005). The Ties That 
Bind: Measuring the Strength of Consumers’Attachements to 
Brands, J. Cons. Psychol. 15(1):77-91. 

Tsapi V, Gilardi J-C (2011). Risque et stratégies de réduction du 
risque lors de l’achat auprès des vendeurs ultra-ambulants en 
Afrique, Rev. Franç. Mark. 232:25- 44. 

Van Trijp HCM, Hoyer WD, Inman JJ (1996). Why switch? 
Product Category-Level Explanations for True Variety-
Seeking Behavior, J. Mark. Res. 33(3):281-293. 

Valette-Florence P (1989) . Conceptualisation et mesure de 
l’implication, Recherche Appl. Mark. 4(1):57-78. 

Volckner F, Sattler H (2006). Drivers of Brand Extensions 
Success, J. Mark. 70(2):18-34.  

Volle P (1995). Le concept de risque perçu en psychologie du 
consommateur : antécédents et statut théorique, Recherche 
Appl. Mark. 10(1):39-56. 

Warrington P, Shim S (2000). An Examination of Selected 
Marketing Mix Elements and Brand Equity, J. Acad. Mark. 
Sci. 28(2):195-211. 

Zablah AR, Brown BP, Donthu N (2010). The Relative 
Importance of Brands in Modified Rebuy Purchase Situations, 
Int. J. Res. Mark. 27(3):248-260. 

Zaichkowsky JL (1985). Measuring the Involvement Construct, 

J. Cons. Res. 12(3):341-352.



 


