


































In ternationa l
Scholars
Journa ls

                                                                                                               
African Journal of Agricultural Marketing ISSN: 2375-1061 Vol. 3 (3), pp. 200-208, March, 2015. Available online at 
www.internationalscholarsjournals.org © International Scholars Journals 

 

Author(s) retain the copyright of this article. 

 
 
 
 

Full Length Research Paper 
 

Multi-dimensional measures to better loyalty behavior 
of customers in a Competitive environment 

 

*Fazlur Al Hasan, Zaiur R. Alam and Maqsudul V. I 
 

Department of Marketing, Faculty of Management Sciences, University of Karachi, Karachi, Pakistan. 
 

Accepted 27 February, 2015 
 

Creating and maintaining strong brand and a band wagon of loyal customers have become increasingly 

difficult in today's competitive environment due to proliferation of numerous brands in a generic product 
category. Brand loyalty has been shown to be associated with higher rates of return on investment due to 

increase in the market share. Children’s influence on family purchase decision depends on a number of 
parameters and situations. Children exercise various methods to influence their parents’ decision. Their 
influence varies from products to products. It depends on parents’ education, profession, income, single 

parent working or both parents working, and type of family. Astonishingly, very few studies have been 
undertaken to relate the brand loyalty and product involvement behavior of teenagers. The data for this 

study are gathered from a cross section of teenagers of different socioeconomic backgrounds, from the 
major metros of Indi during the third quarter of 2014. In this paper aside including only involvement of 

product brand influence scores, brand trust and the size of the consideration set have been incorporated to 
predict brand loyalty of teens. The findings of the study reveal that multi-dimensional measure is a better 
predictor of loyalty behavior. Research findings also reveal that different explanatory variables have 

diverse influence on the brand loyalty behavior of teens. 
 
Key words: Brand loyalty, product involvement, Indian teens, brand influence score. 

 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
Teenagers in the contemporary marketing environment 

constitute a pivotal market segment and deserve 

considerable attention from marketers and academicians 

due to the fact that market is expanding and teens spend  

 

 
 

*Corresponding Author Email: fazlurhasan12@gmail.com 

 

 

 

 
 

vast amount of money for a wide variety of products. It is 

a reality that children play a central role in influencing 

family purchasing decisions; this has urged the marketing 

researchers to track their brand influencing behavior.  
It can hardly be denied that the degree of influence 

exerted by children differs across product categories as 

well as the stage of the decision making process. The 

teenage  population  is  increasing  exponentially over the



Fazlur et al.      200 
 
 

 
last decade and for this reason the consumer behavior 
researchers are showing enormous interest to unveil the 
buying behavior of this growing segment.  

The Indian consumer market, which is primarily 
dominated by young generation, is becoming increasingly 
sophisticated and brand conscious. A typical upper 
middle class young consumer is beginning to look beyond 
the utility aspect of a product to seek intangibles like 
brand and lifestyle statement associated with the product. 
This modern consumer wants his purchases to reflect his 
lifestyle or at least the one he aspires for. As a result of 
this brand consciousness, the food and beverage 
segment of the FMCG sector is already witnessing a 
significant shift in demand from loose to branded 
products.  

India alone is home to 1.136 billion people, out of which 
an estimated 350 million are in the age bracket of 10-24 
years. Their purchasing power has significantly 
increased, both, in terms of salary and pocket money. An 
ASSOCHAM survey revealed that the average monthly 
allowance of urban children in the age group of 10-17 
years has gone up from  300 in 1998 to 1,300 in 2008. 
This segment is very attractive due to its size, increasing 
spending power, and large exposure to media. Among 
the existing studies, there is none in our knowledge that 
documents brand relationships of young consumers in an 
emerging economy. Finally, young consumers the world 
over are influenced by peers and family in their brand-
related decisions (Singh et al., 2003). For marketers, it is 
important to understand the impact of these factors on 
brand relationships and brand switching intentions.  

Teenagers who belong to the age group of 13 to 19 
approximately spend $150 billion per year globally. Teens 
also exert influence on the tune of an additional $150 
billion per year globally with “pester power.” It is believed 
from various sources that they indirectly influence another 
$300 billion per year. That is a total 
purchasing/influencing power of $600 billion this year. 
Moreover, teens to a considerable extent influence 
various products to be consumed and used by their 
parents and other members of their family to which they 
belong.  

The world is witnessing a rise in the number of young 
consumers and evidence suggests they are brand 
conscious. In addition, 57 per cent of the teenagers cite 
marketing and media in their conversations as compared 
to 48 per cent adults (Hein, 2007). Teenagers‟ share of 
expenditure in the Indian market is worth $2.8 billion 
(Rana, 2007); young consumers tend to be more involved 
with material possessions (Belk, 1988). Consumer 
socialization process begins at home; young consumers 
see brands which are consumed in the family and are 
likely to give first preference to the use and purchase of 
those brands. Even though young consumers start 
consuming and developing relationships with the new 
brands they get exposed to, the impact of the brand 
exposure from their families is  likely  to  be strong.  In the 

 

 
 
 
 
Indian context, family has traditionally played a strong 
role in influencing choices of their progeny. Bravo et al. 
(2007) argue that family always provides suggestions 
regarding brands for young consumers. The greater the 
family‟s influence on brand choice, the lower the depth of 
brand relationship (Sahay and Sharma, 2010).  

Today‟s teenage customers have emerged as big-time 
spenders, who not only have a good amount of pocket 
money but also know how to supplement the same by 
means of internships, summer jobs and part-time jobs. It 
can hardly be denied that the teenage market in India is 
growing at a fast pace although no systematic effort has 
been made to study the loyalty behaviour of teenage 
consumers. Considering a research gap in this area, in 
this paper an effort is made to discern the product 
involvement and brand loyalty behaviour of teenagers in 
India.  

There is a voluminous literature dedicated to the study 
of the concept of brand loyalty. However, most of the 
research work carried out in this area has focused on the 
Indian consumers, and studies involving the Indian 
teenage consumers are quite less in number. It is high 
time that research pertaining to loyalty involving Indian 
teenage consumers is strongly encouraged, because the 
outcome of any such research work would help the 
marketers to implement innovative changes in their 
product portfolio and thereby retain the customers.  

Entry of multinationals and their aggressive way of 
garnering market share results in sleepless nights for 
brand executives. Research pertaining to loyalty involving 
Indian consumers is the need of the hour, because the 
outcome of any such research work would help the 
corporate to implement innovative changes in their 
product portfolio and thereby retain the customers. There 
is a significant increase in the spending power of Indian 
teenagers and their desire to purchase sophisticated 
products. Availability of more number of multinational 
brands with unique attributes has forced the oscillating 
consumers to buy new brands. 

Another major consideration for the marketer is to look 
at the issue of teenager brand loyalty from the 
perspective of teenagers‟ level of involvement. The 
findings of various studies (Laurent and Kapferer, 1985; 
Bordo, 1993; Leclerc and Little, 1997) indicate a positive 
relationship between these two dimensions. However, 
since the pattern of Indian teenagers' involvement has not 
been fully explored, a study is required to examine the 
relative influence of the antecedents of teenage 
involvement on brand loyalty incorporating a few 
important explanatory variables that have not been 
addressed by researchers to predict brand loyalty 
behaviour of teenagers. Keeping in view the gaps in the 
existing literature this study is conducted with the 
following objectives: 
 

i) To determine the level of involvement of teens with 

respect  to various  brands  included  in  our  study and to 



 
 
 
 
look into the number of brands in their  consideration  set.  
ii) To assess the brand loyalty scores for various product 
categories considered in our study.  
iii) To develop a Brand Influence Score (BIS) scale of 
using a seven point Likert type of items.   
iv) To investigate nomological validity of the 
measurements by investigating the degree of association 
between brand loyalty and a set of explanatory variables.  
v) To explain adequately why results are divergent for a 
cross section of products included in our study.   
vi) To integrate the findings above and suggest possible 

managerial implications based on the findings of the 

study.  
 

The present study encompasses five broad sections 

including the introductory section which contained an 

overview of the teenage market in India as well as 

changes taking place in the developed markets. Instead 

of providing research questions, the objectives of the 

study have been included in the introductory section. 
 
 
LITERATURE REVIEW 
 
Product involvement and brand loyalty are two important 
components believed to explain a considerable proportion 
of consumer decision making behaviour. Several 
empirical studies have been reported in various 
marketing literature to establish relationship between 
consumer involvement with products and Brand Loyalty 
(Quester and Lim, 2003; Douglas, 2006; as cited by 
Sritharan et al., 2008). The findings of their studies in 
general postulate hat consumers who are more involved 
with a product category exhibit greater loyalty towards the 
brand. A few researchers in the field of consumer 
behaviour view that loyalty is a process of repurchasing 
which happens due to situational restrictions, lack of 
feasible alternatives, or out of expediency (Sadasivan et 
al., 2011). The researchers‟ interest to study the 
consumer involvement behaviors and brand loyalty has 
gained momentum in recent years after the publication of 
two articled by Quester and Lim (2003). Quester and Lim 
(2003), in their empirical observation, explained that the 
relationship between the product involvement and brand 
loyalty is found to involve different aspects of involvement 
for different product categories considered in their study. 
Knox and David (2003) also support the findings of 
Quester and Lim by integrating classical theory of 
involvement, brand loyalty, and commitment (Traylor, 
1981). Even in a grocery product purchase setting the 
outcome of the study corroborates the relationship 
between involvement and brand loyalty. In a similar 
study, Yi and Hoseong (2003) conducted a research to 
investigate the moderating role of product involvement 
and brand loyalty. The study further confirms that the 
consumer loyalty was highly affected by their level of 
involvement. In Indian context, Jain  and  Sharma  (2002) 

201          Afr. J. Agric. Mark. 
 
 

 
observed that differences in consumer involve-ment with 
the product depends on large number of products and 
brand related factors viz. consumer risk perception and 
hedonic value of the product, brand awareness and so 
on. The findings of the study reveal that consumer 
involvement differs across different type of products. 
Sahay and Sharma (2010), in a very recent study, 
reported that strong association has been observed 
between brand name and loyalty. The research indicated 
a positive as well as significant association among 
different faces of brand loyalty for cosmetics brands. 
Another current study conducted by Sridhar (2007) 
reveals that users of cell phone are highly brand loyal. 
Buyers of cell phones in their repeat purchase stick to the 
same brand once they find the brand satisfying all their 
needs and desires. In marketing terminology the 
phenomenon can be explained by the concept of risk 
importance which signifies that consumers in general are 
risk averse and try to avoid the psychological stress due 
to mispurchase of the desired brand. It is quite normal for 
consumers to favour a user friendly cell phone due to the 
fact that they do not have to pass through new learning 
and adoption process. In the context of store image study 
it is also revealed that involvement plays a dominant role 
in the purchase of private store brand (PSB). The findings 
corroborate that involvement influences buying decision 
and different faces of CIP scales are found to have strong 
impact on the loyalty behaviour for PSB.  

The concept of involvement was theorized by Krugman 
(1965) and subsequently the concept was refined by 
various authors. A substantial research work in the field 
of involvement has been taken to relate the brand loyalty 
and commitment behaviour of consumers, particularly 
after two articles were published in the journal of market-
ing and the journal of marketing research by Laurent and 
Kapferer (1985a, 1985b). However, Traylor (1981) has 
probably examined initially the relationship between 
product involvement and brand commitment. Since then a 
plethora of research articles have been published to 
relate involvement variables and brand loyalty behavior of 
consumers for a wide variety of product and services. 
However, Traylor (1981) has probably examined first the 
relationship between the product involvement and brand 
commitment.  

In the context of the review of literature presented 
above, several aspects need to be explained for 
establishing the justification of the present study. In 
existing literature the concept of narrow categorizers or 
broad categorizer has received very little attention from 
the researchers. Highly involved consumers find fewer 
brands acceptable. Theory posits that narrow catego-
rizers are likely to be more loyal to the brand they 
purchase for consumption. On the other hand, consumers 
who are broad categorizers have a large number of 
brands in their consideration set and they are very likely 
to be brand switchers. In view of this, it is perfectly logical 
to incorporate the number of brands the  consumers have  



Fazlur et al.      202 
 
 

 
In their consideration set. So far our knowledge goes 
previous studies did not incorporate this important 
variable for predicting brand loyalty behaviour of 
consumers. This study is undertaken to predict the 
involvement and brand loyalty behaviour of Indian 
teenagers who exert considerable pester power on their 
parents for the purchase of a brand of their choice. We 
have made a serious attempt to develop a brand 
influence score (BIS) scale that is reliable as well as valid 
to discern the relationship between BIS and brand loyalty. 
We have then sincerely endeavoured to incorporate this 
construct which was not considered by previous 
researchers working in this area.  

In this research work, we have introduced both global 

as well as multi-dimensional measure to capture the 

construct involvement to probe which measure is more 

effective in predicting brand loyalty behaviour of teens. 

 
METHODOLOGY 
 
Since the objective of our study is to relate the teenage involvement 
and brand loyalty behaviour incorporating the brand influence score 
and the number of brands in the consideration set, we have 
employed factor analysis to establish scale dimensionality. In 
addition to this, multiple regression analysis is employed to assess 
the importance of different variables in predicting the brand loyalty 
of teenagers considered in our study. Regression analysis is also 
employed to ascertain the predictive validity of the proposed 
measure of involvement and brand loyalty. The construct 
involvement is measured using a twelve item multi-dimensional 
scale incorporating risk probability, risk importance, pleasure value 
and the Sign Value. In our study, we have also measured 
involvement using a five item five-point scale proposed by 
Zaichkowsky (1995) to compare whether the uni-dimensional or 
multi-dimensional measure of involvement predicts brand loyalty 
behaviour of teenagers. Highly involved consumers find fewer 
brands acceptable (narrow categorizers) and tend to be more loyal. 
On the other hand, brand switchers are likely to have more brands 
in their consideration set (broad categorizers) that are likely to be 
less loyal to their brands. In an attempt to establish this 
phenomenon we have gathered data from teenagers regarding the 
number of brand they have in their consideration set. Teenagers 
play a significant role in deciding the brands they purchase for 
themselves as well as they shape the brand choice behaviour for 
other brands purchased for family consumption which are 
technically known as pester power. In our study, we have 
developed a seven item five point scale to measure the Brand 
Influence Score (BIS) of teenagers which is likely to influence the 
brand loyalty of teenagers. The detailed methodological procedures 
followed in our study are briefly discussed in the subsequent 
discussions. 
 
Scale development 
 
While developing the scale to measure the involvement construct, 
we have followed the recommended scaling procedures which are 

very commonly found in psychometric literature (Nunnally, 1978). 
Following Churchill's (1979) suggestion, we generated a pool of 

items for each facet from different involvement scales developed by 
Laurent and Kapferer (1995b), Jain and Srinivasan (1990), 

Lastovicka and Gardner (1979), and Zaichkowsky (1985). In 
addition,   a   preliminary  in-depth  discussion   with   a   sample   of 

 

 
 
 
 
respondents (n=21) pursuing management programme was also an 
important source from which we generated a few other items 
(Bhattacharya, 2000). 

Altogether, 28 five point semantic differential items were initially 
developed to reflect the four facets of involvement. These items 
were then judged for content validity by a small panel of experts 
(n=3) resulting in 17 semantic differential statements. The panel 
comprised both academicians and marketing professional having 
adequate knowledge in this field. These 17 items were then 
administered to an initial sample of post-graduate University (n=42) 
students over two products categories per student.  

Following suggestions of Zaichkowsky (1985) and Gaski and 
Etzel (1986), statements with items to total correlation (within each 
component) of r = 0.50 or more were retained. In this process five 
more items were dropped and finally 12 items were retained to 
measure 4 facets of involvement. It was required to establish scale 
dimensionality since the Interest and Pleasure items of CIP scale 
continued to fuse into a single factor.  

Data for the survey are obtained from a convenience sample of 
447 teens drawn from the four major metros in India. In addition to 
meeting the socio-demographic criteria, the choice of the 
convenience sample is made so that the teenagers have to be a 
user of the product on which their responses are sought. Due to 
financial constraint, it was not feasible for us to adopt a probability 
sampling technique Convenience sample, though not very scientific, 
helps in getting over this limitation. Moreover, since our objective is 
to determine the degree and direction of relationship between 
various facets of involvement and their influence on the teenagers‟ 
loyalty behavioural aspect and no generalizations about the sample 
teenagers were envisaged, a convenience sample was considered 
adequate for this study. The sample size was not very large but 
previous research in this area also conducted similar type of studies 
covering a sample size ranging from 150 to 450 in most of the 
cases. The data for the study were collected from different coaching 
centres by personally administering the questionnaire. The 
respondents were given a complementary gel pen as a token gift for 
participating in the study. 

 
Selection of stimulus products 
 
In our present study, a good deal of exploratory work is needed to 
select the products to be included in the study. While selecting the 
stimulus products for the study we have to resolve some important 
issues. First, the individual considered for the interview as a user of 
the products for which his response is sought. Secondly, products 
are deliberately chosen to represent contrasting profiles on various 
dimensions of involvement viz. risk, pleasure and sign (self 
expression factor) associated with the product.  

The final list of products retained for this study is done through a 

series of qualitative in-depth interviews with the teenagers. 

 
Psychometric performance of the scale 
 
The twelve-item involvement scale was initially administered to a 
sample of students enrolled in the Department of Commerce of 
North Bengal University to assess the reliability and validity of the 
proposed measure where each student had to give response on 
two product categories. We computed internal consistency reliability 
by Cronbach's alpha as well as by test-retest reliability. It is quite 
evident from the table that the reliability coefficients are reasonably 
high and it can be concluded that the scale which we intend to use 
in our study possesses sufficient degree of internal consistency 
despite a small number of items in each scale. It has to be 
remembered that consistency is a necessary but not sufficient 
condition for validity (Nunnally, 1978). Therefore, in the subsequent  



203          Afr. J. Agric. Mark. 
 
 
 

Table 1. Factor analysis results: cell phone (N=82) and toys (N=73). 
 

Items F1 F2 F3 F4  Items F1 F2 F3 F4 

PROB1    .691  PROB1    .649 
PROB2    .803  PROB2    .812 
PROB3   .849 .722  PROB3 .   .746 
PLSR1   .740   PLSR1 .713    

PLSR2   .749   PLSR2 .703    

PLSR3      PLSR3 .786    

RIMP1  .757    RIMP1  .779   

RIMP2  .811    RIMP2  .626   

RIMP3  .864    RIMP3  .701   

SEXP1 .763     SEXP1   .694  

SEXP2 .736     SEXP2  .593 .588  

SEXP3 .721     SEXP3   .717  

Eigen Value 3.17 1.97 1.82 1.15  Eigen Value 2.41 2.02 1.57 1.23 
% of Variance 29.9 17.3 18.3 9.8  % of Variance 20.1 16.9 13.2 10.3 

 
Loadings above 0.50 are reported. 

 

 
discussion we address this important issue in detail.  
The assessment here will begin with construct validity, which refers 
to the extent to which the hypothetical, unobservable construct of 
interest corresponds to its purported measure (Peter, 1981). In 
order for a measure to have construct validity, each of the 
measurement items must relate to the characteristics of the 
construct, and each item must be free from contamination by 
elements of other constructs. These two requirements are 
operationalised by two validity tests, viz. (a) Content Validity and (b) 
Scale Dimensionality. These two issues are briefly addressed 
below. 

 
 
 
 
samples for two different product categories. 

With a few notable exceptions, the scale items were 
loaded on the factors they were supposed to measure. Apart from 
this, for other applications, factor analysis led to the results we 
expected: one factor per item, all items from an antecedent on the 
same factor and one factor per antecedent.  

The results of factor analysis presented in Tables 1 and 3 amply 
demonstrate that the proposed measure is not contaminated with 
elements from the domain of other constructs or error. The 
systematic extraction of four factors can be interpreted as  
supportive evidence of construct validity. 

 
 
Content validity 
 
When a test is constructed so that its content of term measures 
what the whole test claims to measure, the test is said to have 
content or circular validity. It was done essentially by a systematic 
examination of the items included by researchers while capturing 
the domain of the construct. In addition to this, initial scale items (17 
pairs) were judged by a small sample of experts who expressed 
that these items could be used to capture the domain of the 
construct. Moreover, statistical tests were applied to ensure content 
validity. In our study, the level of internal consistency measured by 
Cronbach's alpha provided sufficient evidence for the content 
validity. 
 
Scale dimensionality 
 
The scale dimensionality may be reviewed via factor 
analysis which is a collection of mathematical procedures for 
determining which variables belong to which factor or 
underlying construct. Through factor analysis, specific 
expectations concerning the number of factors and their 

loadings are tested on sample data. Campbell (1960) and 
Nunnally (1978) suggest that each scale should measure a 
single facet if it is considered to have construct validity. 
Discriminant validity, on the other hand, represents the 

uniqueness of each scale vis-à-vis others. To test 

simultaneously construct and discriminant validity, we 

conducted  a  factor  analysis  of the items  using  student  

 
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 
 
There is no doubt from past literature that involvement 
with product plays a dominant role in explaining the 
loyalty behaviour of consumers belonging to different 
socio-demographic strata from which the samples are 
drawn. The unique approach of this paper is that we 
wanted to apply two very important product involvement 
scales frequently cited in marketing literature. The global 
measure suggested by Zaichkowsky (1985) which is 
found to be highly reliable because of number of items is 
included in the scale. During the same year, Laurent and 
Kapfarer (1985a) developed a multi-dimensional measure 
to capture various constructs of involvement using a 
scale which included five distinct dimensions. We have 
not come across any study incorporating both these 
scales to measure the relationship that exists between 
brand loyalty and product related involvement. The 
multiple regression results using multidimensional 
measure for the brands viz. Laptop; Apparel; Cell Phone; 
Toothpaste; Health Drink and Toys (modified Laurent and 
Kafperer scale, 1985). The idea behind employing these 
scales for six brands considered in our study was to 
discern the predictive ability of the measures included in 

the explanatory variable set. Major findings of the survey 

relating brand loyalty and product involvement are presented



Fazlur et al.      204 
 
 
 
 
Table 2. Factor analysis results: health drink (N=82) and laptop (N=73). 
 

Items F1 F2 F3 F4  Items F1 F2 F3 F4 
 

PROB1    .891  PROB1    .649 
 

PROB2   

.839 
.813  PROB2    .812 

 

PROB3   .792  PROB3    .746 
 

PLSR1   .720   PLSR1 .733    
 

PLSR2   .739   PLSR2 .693    
 

PLSR3      PLSR3 .686    
 

RIMP1  .817    RIMP1  .679   
 

RIMP2  .821 .300   RIMP2  .656   
 

RIMP3  .794    RIMP3  .711   
 

SEXP1 .813     SEXP1   .704  
 

SEXP2 .796     SEXP2   .688  
 

SEXP3 .723     SEXP3   .709  
 

Eigen Value 3.07 1.95 1.73 1.05  Eigen Value 2.11 1.91 1.37 1.39 
 

% of Variance 28.9 16.3 14.3 8.8  % of Variance 23.1 18.9 17.2 11.3 
  

Loadings above 0.50 are reported. 
 

 
Table 3. Factor analysis results: apparel (N=82) and toothpaste (N=73). 
 

Items F1 F2 F3 F4  Items F1 F2 F3 F4 

PROB1    .691  PROB1    -.649 
PROB2    .793  PROB2    -.812 
PROB3   .809 .732  PROB3    -.746 
PLSR1   .690   PLSR1 .703  .  

PLSR2   .689   PLSR2 .693    

PLSR3      PLSR3 .686    

RIMP1  .757    RIMP1  .719   

RIMP2  .731  .   RIMP2 . .696   

RIMP3  .794    RIMP3  .661   

SEXP1 .763     SEXP1   .624  

SEXP2 .716     SEXP2   .608  

SEXP3 .741 .067 .427 .427  SEXP3   .617  

Eigen Value 3.07 1.91 1.62 1.31  Eigen Value 2.62 1.92 1.42 1.23 
% of Variance 29.3 17.1 15.3 10.8  % of Variance 23.1 19.1 14.2 13.3 

 
Loadings above 0.50 are reported. 

 

 
in Tables 4-9 where six products have  been  considered.  
Although the tables are self explanatory, a few comments 
are necessary to focus on the weightage of variables co-
efficient in predicting brand loyalty. For cell phone, the 
risk probability factors as well as risk importance factors 
have been found to be insignificant though there are 
numerous brands in the market which may require lot of 
information processing. However, one possible reason 
behind this result may be attributed to consumer reliance 
to Nokia brand of cell phone which enjoys strong brand 
popularity in India. Similar findings have been reported by 
Quester and Lim (2003,pp 33-33). 

However, for toys, we find that risk  importance  facet is 

 

 
highly significant. The buyers probably are not sure about 
how long the product will last and whether it would be 
socially acceptable. Surprisingly for toys, a lot of spurious 
brands are trafficked in India and many buyers have 
expressed their concern whether they are really getting 
the original brand produced by a particular company or 
not. 

As hypothesized, it is expected that brand influence 
score would exert a positive influence on the brand 
loyalty construct. For toys the coefficient is positive and 
significant whereas for cell phone the same is not 
significant.  

The size of the consideration set  negatively  influences 



205          Afr. J. Agric. Mark. 
 
 
 

Table 4. Regression coefficients; product: toys. 
 

 Unstandardized Standardized   
 

Variables Coefficients Coefficients t Sig. 
 

 B Std. Error Beta   
 

Risk Probability .228 .191 .063 1.191 .238 
 

Sign 1.612 .177 .604 9.096 .000 
 

Pleasure .361 .147 .137 2.452 .017 
 

Risk Importance .457 .160 .162 2.858 .006 
 

Brand Influence 
.144 .079 .102 1.827 .072  

Score  

     
 

Consideration 
-1.017 .358 -.181 -2.840 .006  

Set  

     
  

Dependent variable: brand loyalty; adjusted R square: .699, F: 62.201, P<.000. 
 

 
Table 5. Regression coefficients; product: cell phone. 

 
  Unstandardized Standardized 

t Sig. 
 

 Variables Coefficients coefficients  

   
 

  B Std. Error Beta   
 

 Sign .494 .182 .233 2.717 .008 
 

 Pleasure 1.008 .226 .464 4.450 .000 
 

 Risk importance .016 .157 .009 .099 .921 
 

 Risk Probability -.007 .158 -.004 -.045 .964 
 

 Brand Influence Score .136 .087 .129 1.552 .125 
 

 Consideration Set -1.397 .576 -.218 -2.424 .018 
  

Dependent variable: brand loyalty; Note: adjusted R square 0.507, F: 14.730, P < .000. 
 

 
Table 6. Regression coefficients; product: laptop. 

 
 Unstandardized Standardized 

t Sig. 
 

Variables Coefficients Coefficients  

  
 

 B Std. Error Beta   
 

Sign .474 .212 .213 2.017 .010 
 

Pleasure 1.108 .246 .394 3.150 .000 
 

Risk importance .019 .187 .019 .079 .621 
 

Risk Probability -.012 .198 -.014 -.041 .734 
 

Brand Influence Score .235 .097 .282 2.420 .019 
 

Consideration Set -1.443 .835 -.195 -1.728 .009 
  

Dependent variable: brand loyalty. Note: adjusted R square: 0.446: F: 11.210, P<.000. 
 

 
the brand loyalty variable signifying the fact that the 
buyers considering higher number of brands are likely to 
be brand switchers. However, the results amply demon-
strate that the consideration set and brand loyalty 
behavior are inversely related. For both the brands, the 
adjusted R square values are significant beyond p< 
0.000.  

In case of laptop, the behavior of coefficients did not 

vary significantly but the value of R square drops 

significantly. For cell phone, the consideration set is 
significant beyond p<0.05 but the same is  highly   significant 

 

 
for a brand of laptop where all variables are found to be 
significant. Brand Influence Score is the most important 
determinant variable influencing the brand loyalty 
behavior of teens.  

For a product like toothpaste the involvement level is 

found to be significantly influencing the brand loyalty 

behavior of consumers and it can be concluded that 
though buyers develop a habitual buying behavior and 

are not reluctant to switch over to other brands, they 

search different flavor within their brand choice. A 

remarkable   variation  has  been  observed  between  the 



  Fazlur et al.      206      
 

Table 7. Regression coefficients; product: apparel.       
 

         
 

   Unstandardized Standardized 
t Sig. 

 
 

  Variables Coefficients Coefficients  
 

      
 

   B Std. Error Beta     
 

  Sign .514 .202 .253 2.517 .007   
 

  Pleasure 1.008 .219 .434 3.950 .000   
 

  Risk importance .016 .177 .010 .089 .911   
 

  Risk Probability -.007 .138 -.016 -.040 .864   
 

  Brand Influence Score .418 .072 .523 5.781 .000   
 

  Consideration Set -.886 .385 -.211 -2.303 .024   
  

Dependent variable: brand loyalty; note: adjusted R square: 0.523: F: 13.829, P< .000. 
 

 
Table 8. Regression Coefficients; Product: Health Drink. 
 
 Unstandardized Standardized 

t Sig. 
 

Variables Coefficients Coefficients  

  
 

 B Std. Error Beta   
 

Sign .514 .192 .263 2.317 .008 
 

Pleasure 1.118 .266 .424 4.050 .000 
 

Risk importance .016 .177 .006 .069 .901 
 

Risk Probability -.009 .137 -.002 -.039 .694 
 

Brand Influence Score .369 .069 .439 4.161 .000 
 

Consideration Set -1.571 .777 -.204 -2.021 .008 
  

Dependent variable: brand loyalty; adjusted R square: 0.498: F: 11.157, P<.000. 
 

 
Table 9. Regression coefficients; product: toothpaste. 
 
  Unstandardized Standardized 

t Sig. 
 

 Variables Coefficients Coefficients  

   
 

  B Std. Error Beta   
 

 Sign .394 .202 .203 2.012 .012 
 

 Pleasure 1.308 .276 .404 3.980 .000 
 

 Risk importance .026 .197 .019 .073 .671 
 

 Risk Probability -.011 .178 -.014 -.045 .694 
 

 Brand Influence Score .636 .155 .406 4.094 .000 
 

 Consideration Set -1.986 .727 -.270 -2.731 .008 
  

Dependent variable: brand loyalty; adjusted R square: 0.459: F: 11.085, P<.000. 
 

 
results of brand loyalty measure when deodorant 
purchase is concerned with only notable exception that 
prediction of brand loyalty gives a better result when all 
the facets of involvement are retained.  

Product like health drink, the size of the consideration 
set positively influences the brand loyalty variable 
signifying the fact that the buyers considering less 
number of brands are likely to be more brands loyal. 
However, the results amply demonstrate that the 
consideration set and brand loyalty behavior are inversely 
related. For this brand, the adjusted R square values are 

significant beyond p< 0.000.  
It was found that  there  is  positive significant impact of 

 

 
these independent variables on the dependent variable 

having p<.000. The value of Beta coefficients for all the 

independent variables shows a positive association within 

the model. The value of adjusted R-Square predicts a 

goodness of fit between the set of independent variables 

and the dependent variable. 
 
 
CONCLUSION AND MANAGERIAL IMPLICATION 
 
As a basis for an assessment of the psychometric 

performance of the scale administered in our study, in 

this  conclusive  section, we begin our discussion with the



 
 
 

207          Afr. J. Agric. Mark. 
 
 

 
findings of the reliability analyses discussed in this paper. 
There are two basic dimensions of reliability: repeatability 
and internal consistency. Assessing the repeatability 
property of measure is the first aspect of reliability. The 
test-retest correlation coefficients amply demonstrated 
the repeatability property adequately.  

The second underlying dimension of reliability is 
concerned with the homogeneity of the measure. To 
ensure homogeneity property internal consistency of 
multiple item measure has to be established. The 
coefficient of Alpha and the Split-half reliability estimates 
are within acceptable limit in spite of a very small number 
of items in each scale.  

Consistency is a necessary condition for validity but it 
is not a sufficient condition for establishing scale validity. 
Keeping this aspect in mind several estimates of validity 
have been provided in our study. We begin our 
discussion with face or content validity. The relevance of 
the scale items was judged by a short panel of experts. It 
appeared evident to the experts that the measure 
provided adequate coverage of the construct. Moreover, 
the item to total correlation coefficients and the internal 
consistency measures also provided sufficient evidence 
for content validity.  

In an attempt to establish discriminant and construct 
validity, factor analysis was conducted. Factor analysis of 
the items confirmed the multidimensional nature of the 
consumer involvement profile. 

These research findings are of significance to 
marketing practitioners and reveal the teenagers 
influence of involvement on brand loyalty. Results show 
that teenagers attach more importance to 'interest and 
pleasure' dimension followed by 'risk importance'. From 
managerial point of view, these results imply that 
teenagers can be persuaded to buy a particular brand of 
toys by consistently adding new features that offer unique 
benefits. Precisely, the concept of 'innovation through 
technology' needs to be focused on. It is suggested that 
marketing professionals should conduct surveys to 
identify the expectation of teenage users, which changes 
frequently.  

Specifically the present study offers brand executives a 
meaningful and valuable insight to guide them in winning 
competition. 'Pleasure' has emerged as another impor-
tant factor in the involvement scale. The respondents feel 
that pleasure facet is a driving force in selecting a 
particular brand of toys and laptop this provides a clue to 
the corporate that the store ambience and behaviour of 
the store personnel should be accentuated in a manner 
so as to highlight the pleasure aspect. Executives can 
perform Multi Dimension Scaling Technique to identify 
the positions of competitive brands in the market and 
select unique positioning for their brand. This can be 
achieved by creating specific association (Aaker, 1991) 
for their brand.  

'Sign' dimension has been extracted as an important 

factor in the analysis.    It   confirms  that  mobile  brands do 

 
reflect the personality of teenage users. This result is 
highly relevant to managers involved in developing an 
identity for their brands. They can explore the possibility 
of launching special models exclusively for high-end 
teenage consumers and help establish a sense of pride 
by owning that brand.  

This outcome of the results of multiple regression 
analysis suggests that 'pleasure‟ and „sign value' 
influences brand loyalty significantly. This is the 
testimony that 'innovative features' of the product is the 
key determinant of brand selection. In today‟s teen 
world, innovation seems to be the key to ensuring 
continuous patronage and the products must be 
regularly upgraded in terms of new features that offer a 
fresh experience with regard to product usage. This fact 
points towards the overriding importance of new product 
launches, either as an upgraded version of an already 
existing product, or a totally new product itself. 
 
 
LIMITATIONS AND DIRECTION FOR FUTURE 

RESEARCH 
 
Cautions should be made while generalizing the findings 

of this study, considering sample size and area of study. 
The research conducted among the Indian consumers 
may be subject to cultural influence and the similar 
study of brand loyalty in other countries is 
recommendable. This study focused only on limited 
variety of products and hence, the results are not 
applicable to other products. Further research is 
required for other products and services and 
comparisons could be made across different product 
classes. It is suggested that an interesting avenue to 
pursue research would be to investigate whether loyal 
consumers and switchers differ in their information 
search, promotional sensitivity, and the extent to which 
brand loyalty is affected by sales promotion offers. 
 
 
Conflict of Interests 
 

The authors have not declared any conflict of interests. 
 
 
REFERENCES 

 

Aaker DA (1991). "Managing Brand Equity: 
Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand Name," Free Press, 
New York. 

Belk RW (1988). “Possessions and the Extended 
Self,” J.Consum. Res.15(2):139-168. 

Bhattacharya D (2000). “Antecedents and 
Measurement of Consumer Involvement Profiles”, an  

unpublished dissertation at the University of North 

Bengal, India. 
Bloom PN (1981). "What Marketers Need to Know  

 
 



Fazlur et al.      208 
 
 
 
 

about the Marketing of Professional Services," in J. H. 
Bonnelly and W. R. George (Eds.), Marketing of 
Services, pp. 86-87. 

Bravo R, Fraj E, Martínez E (2007). “Intergenerational 
Influences on the Dimensions of Young Customer-based 
Brand Equity,” Young Consumers, 8(1):58-64 Campbell 
DT (1960). "Recommendations for APA Test Standards 
Regarding Construct, Trait and Discriminant Validity", 
American Psychologist, 15:546-553. 

Churchill GA Jr (1979) "A Paradigm for Developing 
Better Measures of Marketing Constructs", J. Mark. Res. 
16:64-73. 

Gaski JF, Etzel JE (1986). "The Index of Consumer 
Sentiment Toward Marketing", J. Mark. 50(3):71-81. 

Jain K, Srinivasan N (1990) "An Empirical Assessment 
of Multiple Operationalisations of Involvement", in 
Goldberg, ME & Pollay, RW (eds.), Advances in 
Consumer research 17: 594-602. Provo, VT: Association 
for Consumer Research. 

Jain KS, Sharma K (2000). "Product Related 
Antecedents of Consumer Involvement: An Empirical 
Investigation", Vikalpa, 25(1):29-42. 

Knox S, David W (2003). "Empirical Developments in 
the Measurement of Involvement, Brand Loyalty and their 
Relationship in Grocery Markets", J. Strategic Mark. 11 
:271-286. 

Krugman HE (1965). "The Impact of Television 
Advertising: Learning without Involvement", Public 
Opinion Quarterly 24, Fall 1965, pp. 349-56. 

Lastovicka JL, Gardner DM (1979). "Components of 
Involvement", in Attitude. 

Laurent G, Kepferer JN (1993)."Further Evidence on 
the CIP: Five Antecedents of Involvement", Psychology 
and Marketing, 10 (14):347-355. 

Laurent G, Kepferer JN (1985a) . "Consumer 
Involvement Profiles: A New Practical Approaches of 
Consumer Involvement", J. Advert. Res. 6:48-56. 

Laurent G, Kepferer JN (1985b). "Measuring Consumer 
Involvement Profiles", J. Mark. Res. 22 :41-53. 

Leclerc F, Little JDC (1997) . "Can Advertising Copy 
Make FSI Coupons more Effective?" J. Mark. Res. 
34:473-484. 

Mittal B (1995). "A Comparative Analysis of Four 
Scales of Consumer Involvement", Psychology and 
Marketing, Vol. 12(7):663-82. 

Nunnally J (1978), "Psychometric Theory," Second 
edition, McGraw Hill., New York. 

Peter PJ (1981). "Construct Validity: A Review of 
Basic Issues and Practices", J. Mark. Res. pp.133-145. 

Quester P, Lim, AL (2003). “Product 
Involvement/brand loyalty: Is there a link?”, J. Product 
and Brand Manage., 12(1):22-38. 

Sadasivan K, Samudhra RC, Syed Zafar M (2011). 2
nd

 
International Conference on Business and Economic 
Research (2nd ICBER 2011) Proceeding. 

Sahay A, Sharma N (2010). “Brand Relationships and 
Switching Behaviour for Highly Used Products in Young 
Consumers” , Vikalpa 35(1). 

Sritharan R, Jyothi KT, Rajakumar CS (2008). Role of 
involvement in predicting brand loyalty. Asia-Pacific 
Business Review, Asia-Pacific Institute of Management 
ISSN: 0973-2470. 

Singh R & Aggarwal K. Vimal 2012, “Role of Children 
In Family Purchase Decision Making -- -A Comparative 
Study Among Children Of Different Age Groups In 
Punjab And Chandigarh, India”, 2(5):161-176. 

Traylor MB (1981). "Product Involvement and Brand 
Commitment," J. Advert. Res. 21 (6):51-56. 

Yi Y, Hoseong J (2003). "Effects of Loyalty Programs 
on Value Perception, Program Loyalty and Brand 
Loyalty", J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 31 (3):229-240. 

Zaichkowsky JL (1985). "Measuring the Involvement 
Construct", J. Consum. Res.12:341-352. 

Zaichkowsky JL (1986). "Conceptualising 
Involvement", J. Advert.15 (2):4-14. 

Zaichkowsky JL (1994). "The personal Involvement 
Inventory: Reduction, Revision and Application to 
Advertising", J. Advert. XXIII(4): 59-70.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


