



































Events and Tourism Review


  

Events and Tourism Review Vol. 3 No. 1 (Spring 2020), 13-25, DOI: 10.18060/23236 

Copyright © 2020 Nripendra Singh & Olivia M Keltz 

 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribuion 4.0 International License. 

 

Events and Tourism Review 
 

June 2020 

 

Volume 3 No. 1 

 

 

Tridimensional Approach to Assess Brand Loyalty for Cafes  

 
 

Nripendra Singh 

Clarion University Of Pennsylvania 

 

 

Olivia M. Keltz 

Clarion University Of Pennsylvania 

 
  

 

For Authors 

Interested in submitting to this journal? We recommend that you review the About the Journal 

page for the journal's section policies, as well as the Author Guidelines. Authors need to 

register with the journal prior to submitting or, if already registered, can simply log in and 

begin the five-step process. 

  

For Reviewers 

If you are interested in serving as a peer reviewer, please register with the journal. Make sure 

to select that you would like to be contacted to review submissions for this journal. Also, be 

sure to include your reviewing interests, separated by a comma. 

  

About Events and Tourism Review (ETR) 

ETR aims to advance the delivery of events, tourism and hospitality products and services by 

stimulating the submission of papers from both industry and academic practitioners and 

researchers. For more information about ETR visit the Events and Tourism Review. 

 

 

 

Recommended Citation 

Singh, N. & Keltz, O. M. (2020). Tridimensional Approach to Assess Brand Loyalty for Cafes. 

Events and Tourism Review, 3(1), 13-25. 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
http://journals.iupui.edu/index.php/jet/about
http://journals.iupui.edu/index.php/jet/about/submissions#authorGuidelines
http://journals.iupui.edu/index.php/jet/user/register
http://journals.iupui.edu/index.php/index/login
https://journals.iupui.edu/index.php/ETR/user/register
http://journals.iupui.edu/index.php/ETR


Singh, N. & Keltz, O. M. (2020) / Events and Tourism Review, 3(1), 13-25.      

                                                14 

 

  
Events and Tourism Review Vol. 3 No. 1 (Spring 2020), 13-25, DOI: 10.18060/23236 

Copyright © 2020 Nripendra Singh & Olivia M Keltz 

 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

 

 

Abstract 

 

The purpose of this study was to identify the factors that influence brand loyalty among youth 

for local cafes in a small town. A descriptive research design with a survey method was used 

to collect data using the online Qualtrics platform. Three hundred and one (301) usable 

responses using a stratified sampling technique were collected on a 5-point Likert scale as 

recommended for analysis. Tri-dimensional approach was used to assess behavioral, 

attitudinal, and cognitive loyalty. Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) using SPSS AMOS 

was utilized to test the model fit and assess the validity and reliability of the results. The study 

is unique as it focuses on brand loyalty towards local cafes as compared to national brands 

such as Starbucks. 

 

Keywords: Youth Behavior, Brand Loyalty, Attitudinal Loyalty, Tri-dimensional Approach 

 

Introduction 

 

The success of organizations depends largely on how well it attracts consumers towards 

their brands. Loyalty towards brands can save millions of dollars; an estimate from Serafin and 

Horton (1994) suggested that every percentage of loyalty for the Ford Company was worth $100 

million in profits. Thus, brand loyalty is an important factor that determines why consumers prefer 

one brand over the other and greatly benefits a company. Recently, brand loyalty has been 

considered a sustainable competitive advantage that is extremely valuable to businesses, which 

cannot be easily imitated by competitors (Ehsan, Warraich, & Sehribanoglu, 2016). Most studies 

on brand loyalty have focused on big brands, but this concept is equally important for local brands 

in a small town such as Clarion, PA.  

Clarion is a small town in the northwest region of Pennsylvania. It is considered a college 

town, as it is home to Clarion University and its 5,200 students. The small town of Clarion is a 

great example of an area with competitive surroundings for café business. In Clarion specifically, 

there is a local café, Michelle’s Café, amid many global franchises, such as Starbucks and 

McDonald’s. In this situation, brand loyalty has an important role in the local café. Thus, the 

purpose of this study is to understand brand loyalty towards café in a small college town. The 

outcome from the study will help cafés to develop marketing strategies based on results from the 

survey method and constructs including repurchase intention, switching intentions, willingness to 

recommend, brand preference, price tolerance, and brand identification.  

 

Literature Review  

 

In order for a business to succeed to its highest potential, the business should obtain 

consumers who are loyal to the brand name. In other words, a business must maintain a pool of 

consumers who consistently patronize their stores. Brand loyalty is defined as a market-based 

resource that provides a sustainable competitive advantage as it cannot be easily imitated (Ehsan 

et al., 2016). It is ideal for a business to have a distinct attribute that stands out to consumers that 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/


Singh, N. & Keltz, O. M. (2020) / Events and Tourism Review, 3(1), 13-25.      

                                                15 

 

  
Events and Tourism Review Vol. 3 No. 1 (Spring 2020), 13-25, DOI: 10.18060/23236 

Copyright © 2020 Nripendra Singh & Olivia M Keltz 

 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

 

makes consumers want to stay loyal to the brand name because they feel confident that they will 

receive consistency with the service/products of the company. Generating new consumers is 

important for company growth but maintaining consistent value from loyal consumers is a factor, 

which drives companies to success.  

 

Measuring Brand Loyalty- Tri-Dimensional Approach  
Brand loyalty is defined by Oliver (1999) as “a deeply held commitment to rebuy or 

continuously patronize a preferred product/service consistently in the future thereby causing 

repetitive same brand or same brand set purchasing, despite situational influences and marketing 

efforts having the potential to cause switching behavior.” By this definition, brand loyalty is a 

matter of repurchasing only. Initially in the 1970s, brand loyalty was measured in one dimension 

by behavior (Jacoby & Kyner, 1973). However, brand loyalty can be categorized and measured 

through more than just behavioral tendencies. A newer model can explain brand loyalty through 

three different aspects- behavioral, attitudinal, and cognitive. The original three-dimensional 

model was used to measure loyalty only in the service sector by Jones and Taylor, (2007) and 

Worthington, Russel-Bennett & Hartel, (2009). The model is validated for product brands by 

Ehsan et al. (2016) with their test on brand loyalty in the cola market in Pakistan.   

The behavioral category is associated with the frequency of purchases of a particular brand. 

Behavioral loyalty can be expressed as a brand preference (measured as expenditure on a particular 

brand as a proportion of product category) or as brand allegiance (measured as expenditure on a 

brand over time) (Worthington et al., 2010). Attitudinal loyalty can be referred to as commitment 

towards a brand in terms of psychological and emotional attachments towards it. Attitudes toward 

a certain brand can result in recommendations or preference for a certain brand due to reputation 

or quality. Cognitive loyalty is the commitment to stay with a brand on the basis of switching costs 

and brand attributes evaluations (Ehsan et al., 2016). Cognitive loyalty, on the other hand, refers 

to a psychological preference towards a brand and having positive beliefs about purchasing it on 

the next occasion (Worthington et al., 2010). This third approach will show how and why students 

are loyal to specific brands using the three categories: cognitive responses (I think), emotive 

responses (I feel), and behavioral responses (I do). 

 

Willingness to Recommend  
Willingness to recommend, as a part of attitudinal loyalty, is whether a consumer is willing 

to recommend a product, service, or brand to another consumer (Jones & Taylor, 2007). A 

consumer’s willingness to endorse a company or product to friends, family, and colleagues is an 

indicator of brand loyalty because of the risk to a person’s reputation when they make a 

recommendation. They will risk their reputations only if they feel “intense loyalty”, and positive 

recommendations can lead to company growth, and the significance of this factor as a growth 

stimulator should not be overlooked (Reichfield, 2003). Recommendations and reviews are a way 

for people to risk their reputations every day online to benefit a business.  

 

Brand Preference   
As defined by Worthington et al. (2010), cognitive commitment is the decision to stay with 

a brand, based on switching costs and brand attributes. Affective commitment refers to the positive 

feelings that come from purchasing the brand and emotional connection with the brand. Brand 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/


Singh, N. & Keltz, O. M. (2020) / Events and Tourism Review, 3(1), 13-25.      

                                                16 

 

  
Events and Tourism Review Vol. 3 No. 1 (Spring 2020), 13-25, DOI: 10.18060/23236 

Copyright © 2020 Nripendra Singh & Olivia M Keltz 

 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

 

preference is the personal ranking of brands when given the choice between two similar products 

or services of different brands. Brand preference is especially strong when a person is willing to 

sacrifice features such as convenience or price for a specific brand. 

 

Repurchase Intention  

Brand behavioral loyalty can be measured through actual purchase action, and the 

continuance of purchasing the same brand (Ehsan et al., 2016). A study by Porral, Fernandez 

(2015), has shown that brand awareness, perceived quality, and brand loyalty are all valid factors 

that affect purchase intention. It was found that perception of a brand to be equal or greater to 

competitors or creating customer loyalty programs will increase repurchase intention. Repurchase 

intention will occur when a person feels that they like the brand well enough to patronize that 

business again in the future. Repurchase intention can be caused by a preference for the brand, the 

quality, comfort, or any other factor that the customer values.  

 

Switching Intentions  

Consumers may intend to continue patronizing a company or service they currently use, or 

they may decide to end a relationship with a service provider and patronize a different business in 

the same category (Jones & Taylor, 2007). Because switching intentions is the probability of a 

customer switching to a competitor, brand switching and switching intention imply negative 

outcomes for companies. Businesses need to pay careful attention to switching intentions because 

it decreases profitability, lowers market share, and raises marketing costs (Seong & Kyung, 2018). 

Usually, customers do not tend to switch loyalty to other stores unless some negative experience 

happens to them while at the main store.  

 

Price Tolerance  
Retailers develop strategies, which emphasize the value of the money in whatever choice 

the consumers make. Studies have shown that consumers often actively search for a brand that will 

result in savings and the need to save money is a reason to stick with a brand, however, Porral et 

al., (2015) showed that low prices are not sufficient to bring value and develop a long-term 

relationship with customers. These contradicting studies can be due to the difference in ages. 

Young adults are those who are born between the years 1980 and 1994 and are notoriously brand 

disloyal (Lazarevic, 2012). Anderson (1996) postulated that young adults have a greater price 

tolerance and willingness to pay extra when they feel more brand loyal, identify themselves with 

the brand, or feel satisfied.  

 

Brand Identification  

Customer brand identification is defined as customers identifying with a brand and feeling 

an affinity toward it (Kim, Kim, & Holland, 2018). Customers believe that a brand is either “me” 

when they feel it embodies them, or “not me” when they cannot relate. It is based on social identity 

theory. In other words, customers who buy a certain brand feel that they belong to a group of 

people who also buy that brand. A person who frequents Starbucks, for example, has strong brand 

identification if they connect with other Starbucks customers, buy merchandise, and consider 

themselves a true Starbucks person. Therefore, brands can embody characteristics that consumers 

connect with.   

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/


Singh, N. & Keltz, O. M. (2020) / Events and Tourism Review, 3(1), 13-25.      

                                                17 

 

  
Events and Tourism Review Vol. 3 No. 1 (Spring 2020), 13-25, DOI: 10.18060/23236 

Copyright © 2020 Nripendra Singh & Olivia M Keltz 

 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

 

Based on the above discussion, the broad research question that this study will answer is: 

Which attributes toward a café are more important to predict brand loyalty, using a tri-

dimensional approach?  . 

 

 

Figure 1. Tri-dimensional approach to test brand loyalty  

Figure 1 shows the tri-dimensional approach for brand loyalty. The three dimensions include 

behavioral, attitudinal, and cognitive loyalty. The behavioral loyalty category consists of two 

factors for repurchase intention and switching intentions. Each factor included three 

questionnaire statements. Attitudinal loyalty consisted of willingness to recommend and brand 

preference with three and four questionnaire statements, respectively. Cognitive loyalty includes 

price tolerance and brand identification factors with three questionnaire statements each. 

 

Methodology 

 

The survey method was used to collect the data for analysis. The survey instrument was 

designed using existing scales from Ehsan et al. (2016). The responses were collected on a 5-point 

Likert scale using an online Qualtrics platform. More than 300 young adults were targeted as 

respondents using the convenience-sampling technique in a rural college town in Pennsylvania. 

An anonymous survey link was sent to the college students in a state university belonging to the 

Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education (PASSHE) in the United States using a university-

wide e-mailing list-serve. Finally, the questionnaire used in this study had six attributes under three 

Repurchase 
Intentions 

Switching 
Intentions 

 

Willingness to 
Repurchase 

Brand 
Preference 

Price 
Tolerance 

Brand 
Identification 

Cognitive 

Loyalty 

Attitudinal 
Loyalty 

Behavioral 
Loyalty 

Brand   Loyalty 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/


Singh, N. & Keltz, O. M. (2020) / Events and Tourism Review, 3(1), 13-25.      

                                                18 

 

  
Events and Tourism Review Vol. 3 No. 1 (Spring 2020), 13-25, DOI: 10.18060/23236 

Copyright © 2020 Nripendra Singh & Olivia M Keltz 

 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

 

dimensions to capture the elements of brand loyalty (see appendix for the questionnaire). A pilot 

study on a sample of 50 respondents was conducted and based on the reliability analysis. Once the 

pilot study was confirmed to be reliable and valid, the questionnaire was used to collect the final 

data in this study. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to assess the hypothesized model 

using model fit indices using SPSS and AMOS software. Confirmatory factor analysis was used 

to test the validity and reliability of the data. 

 

Results and Discussion 

 

Finally, 385 survey responses were collected using the Qualtrics online survey platform. 

Eighty-two surveys were incomplete, and two surveys did not pass the serious participation 

question. Therefore, there were 301 usable survey responses for data analysis. Table 1 includes all 

301 survey responses. The sociodemographic characteristics of respondents (Table 1) indicated 

that respondents were predominantly female (70.43%), between the ages of 18 and 22 (58.47%), 

and of white ethnicity (89.37%). 

 

Table 1: Respondents Characteristics 

Respondents Characteristics 

Characteristics N Percent 

Gender Male 83 27.6 

Female 212 70.4 

Age 18 - 22 years 176 58.5 

23 - 38 years 54 17.9 

39 years or older 71 23.6 

Race African American 7 2.3 

Asian 10 3.3 

White 269 89.4 

Hispanic/Latino 12 4.0 

Frequency of Visit Once a week 163 54.2 

2 - 3 times a week 90 29.9 

4 or more times a week 29 9.6 

Once a day 14 4.7 

2 or more times a day 5 1.7 

 

Table 2 shows the results from the reliability test (Cronbach’s α) on the collected responses 

to determine if the items in the survey accurately represented the factors. Each factor had 

acceptable reliability (Kline, 2016). Reliability scores (Cronbach’s α= .897) were high and 

acceptable. Figure 2 shows the hypothesized model, which is followed by the results from the 

model fit indices. The indices in Figure 2 furthest to the left show the corresponding questionnaire 

statements to the three dimensions of brand loyalty. As the data fit the model reasonably well, and 

the sizes of parameter estimates were found to be adequate, the measurement model was 

considered statistically valid. 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/


Singh, N. & Keltz, O. M. (2020) / Events and Tourism Review, 3(1), 13-25.      

                                                19 

 

  
Events and Tourism Review Vol. 3 No. 1 (Spring 2020), 13-25, DOI: 10.18060/23236 

Copyright © 2020 Nripendra Singh & Olivia M Keltz 

 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

 

Table 2. Reliability Testing 

Constructs M Cronbach’s α 

Repurchase Intention 3.98 0.673 

Switching Intention 3.35 0.680 

Willingness to Recommend 4.19 0.791 

Brand Preference 3.99 0.785 

Price Tolerance 3.53 0.580 

Brand Identification 2.78 0.791 

 

Results from the hypothesized measurement model as shown in Figure 2, support the tri-

dimensional approach, as the model fit indices fits the data well. The model fit indices with re-

specifications done based the modification indices are as follows: χ 2 / df = 2.585, RMSEA= 0.73, 

GFI= .889, CFI= .918, TLI= .897, and NFI= .874.  

 
Figure 2. Measurement Model 

 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/


Singh, N. & Keltz, O. M. (2020) / Events and Tourism Review, 3(1), 13-25.      

                                                20 

 

  
Events and Tourism Review Vol. 3 No. 1 (Spring 2020), 13-25, DOI: 10.18060/23236 

Copyright © 2020 Nripendra Singh & Olivia M Keltz 

 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

 

The next step after the confirmatory factor analysis was to test the hypothesized model for 

reliability and validity. Fornell and Larcker (1981) suggest using construct validity was determined 

through convergent and discriminant validity. As seen in Table 3, results from composite reliability 

(CR), average variance extracted (AVE), and inter-correlation factors with AVE, which should be 

less than the square root of AVE to prove discriminant validity. As per Singh (2018), because of 

self-reported data, shared method variance generally shows inflated relationships among latent 

variables. Therefore, discriminant validity is acceptable (Brooke, Russell, & Price, 1988; Singh, 

2018). Thus, the model was accepted to have construct validity. 

 

Table 3. Reliability and Validity Results 

 

 

CR AVE 

Brand_ 

Preference 

Repurchase_ 

Intentions 

Switching_ 

Intentions Willingness 

Price_ 

Tolerance 

Brand_ 

Identification 

Brand_ 

Preference 0.791 0.497 0.705           

Repurchase_ 

Intentions 0.695 0.450 0.721 0.671         

Switching_ 

Intentions 0.690 0.529 0.664 0.684 0.727       

Willingness 0.728 0.476 0.963 0.801 0.801 0.690     

Price_ 

Tolerance 0.692 0.435 0.620 0.581 0.543 0.706 0.659   

Brand_ 

Identification 0.792 0.561 0.622 0.457 0.504 0.624 0.557 0.749 

 

The next step is to assess the structural model. As this model is a non-unidimensional higher-

order model (lower-order measures capture different latent variables), it is considered a second-

order factor model (Figure 3 and 4). The six factors under the three dimensions and brand loyalty 

are latent factors as they were indirectly derived from the questions asked in the first order 

(Figure 1), as discussed before in the methodology section. 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/


Singh, N. & Keltz, O. M. (2020) / Events and Tourism Review, 3(1), 13-25.      

                                                21 

 

  
Events and Tourism Review Vol. 3 No. 1 (Spring 2020), 13-25, DOI: 10.18060/23236 

Copyright © 2020 Nripendra Singh & Olivia M Keltz 

 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

 

 

Figure 3. Second (2nd) Order Factor Model 

 

Figure 4. Third (3rd) Order Factor Model 

Repurchase 
Intentions 

Switching 
Intentions 

 

Willingness 
to 

Repurchase 

Brand 
Preference 

Price 
Tolerance 

Brand 
Identificatio

n 

Cognitive 
Loyalty 

Attitudinal 
Loyalty 

Behavioral 
Loyalty 

.92 

.84 

.87 

.83 

.82 

1.0 

.93 

.78 

.71 

Repurchase 
Intentions 

Switching 
Intentions 

 

Willingness 
to 

Repurchase 

Brand 
Preference 

Price 
Tolerance 

Brand 
Identificatio

 

Cognitive 
Loyalty 

Attitudinal 
Loyalty 

Behavioral 

Loyalty 

Brand   
Loyalty 

.95 

.89 

.98 

.83 

.82 

1.0 

.93 

.78 

.71 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/


Singh, N. & Keltz, O. M. (2020) / Events and Tourism Review, 3(1), 13-25.      

                                                22 

 

  
Events and Tourism Review Vol. 3 No. 1 (Spring 2020), 13-25, DOI: 10.18060/23236 

Copyright © 2020 Nripendra Singh & Olivia M Keltz 

 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

 

The second- and third-order factor models, as shown in Figures 5 and 6, possess the same 

model fit indices as in the first-order or measurement model (Table 4). The same model fit indices 

show that the proposed model is acceptable as it fits the data well. Additionally, this provides 

evidence that all the items and the six factors explain the three dimensions of brand loyalty in 

explaining overall brand loyalty. Thus, the proposed model with the six factors under the three 

categories is sufficient to measure brand loyalty towards local cafes in a small college town. This 

validates that the tri-dimensional approach works well to explain brand loyalty for cafes and 

applicable in small towns too.  

 

Table 4. Model Fit Indices in the 2nd and 3rd Order Factor Models 

Model Fit 

Indices 

 

 

 

Recommended 

value 

 

 

 

2nd Order Factor 

Model 

 

 

 

3rd Order Factor 

Model 

 

 

 

Chi-square (χ 2  

or CMIN) 

non-significant p-

value 315.423 315.423 

Df  - 122 122 

χ 2 / df < 5 2.585 2.585 

RMSEA < .08 .073 .073 

GFI close to 1 .889 .889 

CFI > .9 .918 .918 

TLI > .9 .897 .897 

NFI close to 1 .874 .874 

 

As per the results using structural equation modeling, it is evident that the model is highly 

acceptable and considered valid for assessing cafés’ brand loyalty.  

 

Conclusion, Limitations, and Recommendations 

 This study investigated how and why young adults exhibit brand loyalty toward local cafés 

in small college towns in three dimensions. This was unlike past studies that applied only 

behavioral loyalty factors in only the service sector. A key takeaway from these findings is that 

the three dimensions of behavioral loyalty, attitudinal loyalty, and cognitive loyalty together 

represent overall brand loyalty. These findings are in line with the findings from previous literature 

such as Ehsan et al. (2016). Thus, this study validates that the three dimensions explain brand 

loyalty well, as suggested in the tri-dimensional theory.  

  Findings suggest that consumers (young adults in this case) exhibit more than just 

behavioral loyalty, including attitudinal and cognitive dimensions. This study shows that 

attitudinal loyalty is strongest in young adults. An interesting finding is reflected from the 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/


Singh, N. & Keltz, O. M. (2020) / Events and Tourism Review, 3(1), 13-25.      

                                                23 

 

  
Events and Tourism Review Vol. 3 No. 1 (Spring 2020), 13-25, DOI: 10.18060/23236 

Copyright © 2020 Nripendra Singh & Olivia M Keltz 

 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

 

squared multiple correlations [SMC or R2] of the three dimensions. SMC indicates the 

relationship between an indicator and its underlying construct. In other words, it explains the 

percent of variance explained by the predictor variable. A small size indicates a weak 

relationship as it indicates a high measurement error (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).  Behavioral 

loyalty was found to have SMC = .89, Attitudinal loyalty was .95, and Cognitive loyalty was .79. 

In other words, attitudinal loyalty construct can explain 95% of the variance and is the strongest 

predictor variable of brand loyalty with a loading of 0.98. This finding suggests that young adults 

exhibit strong attitudinal loyalty out of the three loyalty dimensions. This is important for 

managers or owners of local cafés because they can then capitalize on the strong loyalty factors. 

For example, with these results, it is established that attitudinal loyalty has a higher influence on 

young adults’ decision-making. As attitudinal loyalty consists mainly of willingness to 

recommend and brand preference, it is recommended that managers implement rewards 

programs for customers (especially students) for referring friends and family to the café.  

Like all research studies, this study also has limitations. The first limitation is the small 

sample size specific to a student population in a small town in Pennsylvania; therefore, future 

research may include a large sample size from the entire United States. Secondly, the data was 

skewed with white undergraduate females. On a larger sample, data may be more evenly 

distributed. Thirdly, resources for this study were very limited and the authors could only use the 

free trial version of Qualtrics. This allowed the authors to see 100 responses at a time, meaning 

the survey had to be constructed multiple times, and the anonymous link was distributed through 

exhausted resources at the university campus. Recommendations include using a platform that 

allows for viewing of more responses in a single attempt.  

 In the case of a rural college town in Pennsylvania, young adults in the area exhibit 

attitudinal loyalty the strongest, then behavioral, then cognitive. While there are many 

limitations, this study can be useful in the case of a local café who must compete with franchises. 

A local café has more leniency and freedom due to the shorter chain of command to implement 

marketing strategies based on the results of the study. Strong attitudinal loyalty suggests that 

referrals and recommendation programs would benefit a café to increase brand loyalty. 

 

Appendix: Statements (Scale) Used for Survey  

STATEMENTS 

Behavioral Loyalty: 

Repurchase Intentions 

I prefer “My Favorite Cafe” to other coffee shops 

I intend to repurchase coffee from “My Favorite Cafe” again in the future. 

Compared to “My Favorite Cafe”, there are few alternatives with whom I am likely to be 

satisfied. 

 

Switching Intentions 

When purchasing coffee, I regularly change coffee shops  

Although there are many options of other coffee shops, I will continue to buy coffee from “My 

Favorite Cafe” 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/


Singh, N. & Keltz, O. M. (2020) / Events and Tourism Review, 3(1), 13-25.      

                                                24 

 

  
Events and Tourism Review Vol. 3 No. 1 (Spring 2020), 13-25, DOI: 10.18060/23236 

Copyright © 2020 Nripendra Singh & Olivia M Keltz 

 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

 

Even if another brand has the same features as “My Favorite Cafe”, I would prefer to buy from 

“My Favorite Cafe” 
 

Attitudinal Loyalty: 

Willingness to Recommend 

I would recommend, “My Favorite Cafe” to friends and relatives 

I would give positive recommendations to others about “My Favorite Cafe” 

I would recommend “My Favorite Cafe” to anyone who asks for my advice  

 

Brand Preference 

When I purchase coffee, I prefer “My Favorite Cafe” 

When I purchase coffee, “My Favorite Cafe” will be my first choice. 

“My Favorite Cafe” has the most excellent quality, so it makes me want to visit often 

I choose “My Favorite Cafe” because it has a good reputation  

 

Cognitive Loyalty: 

Price Tolerance 

I am likely to pay a little bit more to purchase from “My Favorite Cafe” 

If “My Favorite Cafe” raised prices by 10 percent, I am likely to remain a customer 

The prices of “My Favorite Cafe” are affordable for most consumers 
 

Brand Identification 

My choice of going to “My Favorite Cafe” says a lot about who I am. 

I think of “My Favorite Cafe” as “my” coffee shop 

When someone praises “My Favorite Cafe”, it feels like a personal compliment 

 

  

Reference  
 

Aaker, D.A., (1991). Managing brand equity capitalizing on the value of brand name. New 

York: The Free Press.  

Anderson, E. W. (1996). Customer satisfaction and price tolerance. Marketing Letters, 7(3), 265-

274. doi:10.1007/bf00435742 

Brooke, P. P., Jr., Russell, D. W., & Price, L. J. (1988). Discriminant validation of measures of 

job satisfaction, job involvement, and organizational commitment. Journal of Applied 

Psychology, 73(2), 139-145. 

Ehsan, U., Warraich, K. M., & Sehribanoglu, S. (2016). Measuring brand loyalty in cola market: 

A three dimensional approach. Journal of Social Sciences, 9(1), 153-165. 

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable 

variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50. 

Jacoby, J., & Chestnut, R. W. (1978). Brand Loyalty: Measurement and Management. New 

York: John Wiley & Sons. 

Jacoby, J. & Kyner, D. (1973). Brand loyalty vs. repeat purchasing behavior. Journal of 

Marketing Research. 10(1). 1-9.  

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/


Singh, N. & Keltz, O. M. (2020) / Events and Tourism Review, 3(1), 13-25.      

                                                25 

 

  
Events and Tourism Review Vol. 3 No. 1 (Spring 2020), 13-25, DOI: 10.18060/23236 

Copyright © 2020 Nripendra Singh & Olivia M Keltz 

 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

 

Jones, T. & Taylor, F. S. (2007). The conceptual domain of service loyalty: How many 

dimensions? Journal of Product & Brand Management. 15(7), 442-449. 

Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: The 

Guilford Press. 

Lazarevic, V. (2012). Encouraging brand loyalty in fickle generation Y consumers. Young 

Consumers,13(1), 45-61. doi:10.1108/17473611211203939 

Mellens, M., Dekimpe, M. G., & Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M. (1996). A review of brand-loyalty 

measures in marketing. Tijdschrift voor Economie en Management, 41(4).  

Oliver, R. L. (1999). Whence consumer loyalty? The Journal of Marketing. 63. 33-44. 

Porral, C. C., Fernandez, V.-A. M., Boga, O. J., & Mangin, J.-P.L. (2015). Measuring the 

influence of customer-based store brand equity in the purchase intention. Cuadernos de 

Gestión, 15(1), 93–117. https://doi.org/10.5295/cdg.130408cc 

Reichfield, F. F.(2003). One number you need to grow. Harvard Business Review. 81(12).46-54. 

Seong, H. L., & Kyung, S. J. (2018). Customer Behaviors: Identifying brand fans. Social 

Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 46(8), 1285-1304. 

doi:10.2224/sbp.6482 

Serafin, R., & Horton, C. (1994). Automakers go a long way to keep flock loyal. Advertising 

Age, 65, 13. 

Singh, N. (2018). Investigating conference attendee’s mobile application adoption behavior: An 

ecological perspective. Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 16882. 

https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd/16882 

Worthington, S., Russell-Bennett, R. & Hartel, C. (2010). A tri-dimensional approach for 

auditing brand loyalty. Journal of Brand Management, 17. 10.1057/bm.2009.24.  

 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

