How Customer Personality Traits Influence Brand Loyalty in ... · How Customer Personality Traits Influence Brand Loyalty in the Coffee Shop Industry: The Moderating Role of Business

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wjht20

Download by: [134.117.10.200] Date: 21 July 2017, At: 08:02

International Journal of Hospitality & TourismAdministration

ISSN: 1525-6480 (Print) 1525-6499 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjht20

How Customer Personality Traits InfluenceBrand Loyalty in the Coffee Shop Industry: TheModerating Role of Business Types

Soon-Ho Kim, Minseong Kim & Stephen Holland

To cite this article: Soon-Ho Kim, Minseong Kim & Stephen Holland (2017): How CustomerPersonality Traits Influence Brand Loyalty in the Coffee Shop Industry: The ModeratingRole of Business Types, International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration, DOI:10.1080/15256480.2017.1324340

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15256480.2017.1324340

Published online: 19 Jul 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 7

View related articles

View Crossmark data

How Customer Personality Traits Influence Brand Loyaltyin the Coffee Shop Industry: The Moderating Role ofBusiness TypesSoon-Ho Kima, Minseong Kimb, and Stephen Hollandb

aCecil B. Day School of Hospitality, J. Mack Robinson College of Business, Georgia State University,Atlanta, Georgia, USA; bDepartment of Tourism, Recreation & Sport Management, College of Healthand Human Performance, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA

ABSTRACTThis study examines how perceptions associated with custo-mer personality traits can affect customer satisfaction, custo-mer brand identification (CBI), and involvement as well as thedevelopment of brand loyalty. Social identity theory wasapplied to explain these effects as it relates to coffee shopbusinesses and further investigate relationships between cus-tomers and a brand. The verified model with a survey sampleof 743 customers confirmed that customer personality traitshad significant effects on customer satisfaction and CBI.Customer satisfaction had positive effects on CBI, involvement,and brand loyalty. CBI had significant influences on involve-ment and brand loyalty. Involvement was, in turn, positivelyassociated with brand loyalty. In addition, the relationshipsbetween these variables were moderated by business type(i.e., independent coffee shop vs. franchise coffee shop).

ARTICLE HISTORYReceived 29 March 2016Revised 7 September 2016Accepted 8 September 2016

KEYWORDSBrand loyalty; CBI; customerpersonality traits; customersatisfaction; involvement

Introduction

Meeting the challenges of the volatile and evolving coffee shop businesssector is not easy. The nature of coffee shop operations incorporatingagriculture, manufacturing, and service requires a variety of disciplines tolead research and innovation (Rodgers, 2007). To survive in this competitivebusiness, coffee shop operations are consistently forced to modify and inno-vate to meet the changing needs and preferences of various target consumersegments. The business has worked on innovating itself through educatingenhanced nutrition value, improving the speed and accuracy of service, andinitiating manufacturing/service advances to retain or attract clientele(Rodgers, 2007). In concert with such efforts, successful coffee shop man-agers are adopting brand strategies to emphasize the uniqueness of theirbrand as well as to differentiate, position, and extend their brand (Ray &Chiagouris, 2009).

CONTACT Minseong Kim [email protected] Department of Tourism, Recreation & Sport Management,College of Health and Human Performance, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-7011, USA.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM ADMINISTRATIONhttps://doi.org/10.1080/15256480.2017.1324340

© 2017 Taylor & Francis

The increased purchasing power of consumers has driven a substantialincrease in the consumption of coffee beverages (Ko & Chiu, 2008).Consequently, coffee shops have materialized, one after another, all overthe world (Coffer, 2014). However, it is essential for coffee shop managersto uncover practices to place their services and products distinctly apart fromcompetitors due to the highly competitive market environment, where acoffee shop’s products and services may begin to be perceived as an undif-ferentiated commodity by providing similar coffee, tea, and dessert menus(Lee & Yeu, 2010). Thus, the implementation of branding schemes to differ-entiate and publicize a clear brand identity is one of the most competitiveadvantages a coffee shop business can utilize (Ahearne & Bhattacharya, 2005;O’Neill & Mattila, 2004).

Recent store branding research (e.g., Das, Datta, & Guin, 2012) has beenbased on conventional branding literature (e.g., Liljander, Polsa, & Van Riel,2009), which indicates that consumers are more likely to identify as well aspersonalize with a certain brand. Understanding customer-brand identifica-tion and personality traits processes are essential for a brand marketer toincrease a brand’s performance, and market share, and other core functionsfor operating a successful business (Ahearne & Bhattacharya, 2005; Hultman,Skarmeas, Oghazi, & Beheshti, 2015; Lam, Ahearne, Hu, & Schillewaert,2010). There has been a broad consensus in the consumer behavior arenaon three assertions: (a) brand loyalty tends to achieve greater revenue andhigher growth rates (O’Neill & Mattila, 2004); (b) involvement is a significantfactor in the process of determining behaviors of a consumer (Olsen, 2007);(c) customer satisfaction is a critical driver of store success (Ko & Chiu,2008), especially in the foodservice sector, whose intangible offerings areevaluated by obtaining customer feedback.

Consumers with high brand identification, satisfaction, involvement, orloyalty are not only less sensitive to price, but also less likely to be influencedby a competitor’s advances (Hultman et al., 2015). In practice, a coffee shopbrand manager often spends millions of dollars annually in order to createand support the brand. However, a minimal amount of research concerningthe interrelationship between these concepts has been conducted (Hultmanet al., 2015). Thus, this study examines the interrelationships among custo-mer personality traits, satisfaction, brand identification, involvement, andbrand loyalty. Another objective is to explore the moderating effect ofbusiness types in hypothesized interrelationships because much attentionhas been paid to business types in coffee shop markets. To be specific,some business owners tend to prosper as chain owners, while others thriveas independent business. In reality, it is not easy to answer to the franchiseand independent business dilemma. To help in deciding, owners may care-fully compare the two business models from customer’s brand loyalty devel-opment perspectives.

2 S.-H. KIM ET AL.

Literature Review and Hypotheses Development

Background study and customer brand identification

Social identity theory is based on the notion that the self-concept of indivi-duals is defined based on their social connections with groups or organiza-tions (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Social identity sustains self-concept whichconsists of a personal identity comprising peculiar features, which are socialidentities, interests and abilities, which encompass conspicuous group classi-fications (So, King, Sparks, & Wang, 2013). Based on this conception,Bhattacharya and Sen (2003) proposed that customers establish identificationwith a company or they may already share the same self-definitional char-acteristics (Lam et al., 2010). Extending Bhattacharya and Sen’s (2003) socialidentity theory from a company to a brand, social identity theory was alsofound to be suitable for explaining a customer brand relationship sinceidentification has significant influences for sustaining the relationship (Lamet al., 2010). This extension is possible because brands can embody self-relevant social types that consumers connect with (Fournier, 1998) sincemeanings can be conveyed between a brand and the self (McCracken,1988), as is apparent in the popularity of wearing status brand apparel(e.g., Nike, Calloway, North Face, Disney, etc).

A new extension to the hospitality literature is in conformity with the viewthat the private and social self plays a different role in attitude change as wellas formation toward brands (Lam et al., 2010). Lam et al. (2010) considered abrand as a type of relationship collaboration associated with (1) the privateself (i.e., a consumer who exploits a brand defining who he/she is) and (2) thesocial self (i.e., a consumer believing him/herself to be a member of an in-group of consumers related to a certain brand).

Customer identification emphasizes how a customer recognizes a brand as“not me” or “me” and how he/she behaves in accordance with the brand’smost conspicuous identity (Lam et al., 2010). McEwen (2005) argued that aconsumer is likely to create a powerful relationship with brands since his/heridentity is expressed and enhanced by the brands. Thus, CBI defines custo-mers as identifying with a particular brand and feeling an affinity with thebrand (Del Rio, Vazquez, & Iglesias, 2001).

Customers potentially have a multidimensional affiliation with a brand,which establishes clear distinctions between CBI and other variables. Ineffect, this indicates that CBI is different from brand loyalty, with loyaltyindicating being deeply committed to consistently repatronize or rebuy aparticular service/product in the long-term (Lam et al., 2010). In spite ofmarketing efforts and situational influences potentially leading to switchingbehavior, brand loyalty causes repeated same brand set or purchasing (Oliver,1999). Most empirical research investigates brand loyalty with behavioralaspects, including willingness to pay more, repurchase, and positive word

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM ADMINISTRATION 3

of mouth. However, since CBI has evaluative aspects (i.e., social or indivi-dual) which brand loyalty cannot fully embrace, not all loyal consumersidentify with a particular brand. A consumer’s behavior can be motivatedby CBI beyond rebuying, including defending the brand as closely related tohis/her own self even while being criticized (see Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003).

Brand loyalty

Brand loyalty is complex and consists of three dimensions: behavioral,attitudinal and composite loyalty. Behavioral brand loyalty is associatedwith previous purchases and the frequency of purchasing a particularbrand (Ehrenberg, Uncles, & Goodhardt, 2004). The behavioral measure-ments use regular, repetitive buying behavior as a marker of loyalty (Bowen& Chen, 2001). Attitudinal loyalty is an attitudinal tendency in terms of beingcommitted to a certain brand which explains a brand loyalty’s psychologicalelement (Pedersen & Nysveen, 2001). The attitudinal measurements utilizedata to capture the psychological and emotional attachments integral toloyalty. However, attitudinal loyalty is not a proper representation of realbusiness prospects (Odin, Odin, & Valette-Florence, 2001), because a custo-mer may have low repetitive repurchases of a particular brand although he/she shows a relative high level of attitudinal loyalty (Chacon & Mason, 2011).Composite loyalty is created by the consumer’s attitude, behavioral inten-tions and purchase behaviors (Pedersen & Nysveen, 2001). Composite brandloyalty focuses on the evaluation of consumers who have loyalty toward abrand and express their feelings and purchase behavior in relation to thatbrand (Bowen & Chen, 2001). Therefore, composite brand loyalty is bestmeasured by combining attitudinal and behavioral dimensions including acustomer’s total amount of purchase and purchase frequency, susceptibilityto brand-switching, and product preferences (Zins, 2001). One problem withcomposite brand loyalty is that the attitudinal and behavioral dimensionscannot be combined because they measure different entities. Specifically, theattitudinal dimension expresses loyalty regarding customers’ strength ofaffection toward a brand). In contrast, the behavioral dimension is viewedas actual consumption as duration and frequency (Mechinda, Serirat, &Gulid, 2009).

Numerous brand loyalty studies have used behavioral brand loyalty bymeasuring behavioral indicators to predict a customer’s future purchasingbehavior (Back & Parks, 2003) because behavioral loyalty expresses an actualbehavior as reflected in intention to repurchase a particular brand andrecommendation to others. Therefore, we have adopted behavioral brandloyalty because the behavioral approach is a more realistic indicator (i.e., acustomer’s repurchasing behavior contributes to direct revenues to the

4 S.-H. KIM ET AL.

brand) of how well the brand is executing compared to its competitors(Russell-Bennett, McColl-Kennedy, & Coote, 2007).

The concept and effect of customer personality traits

Personality traits are defined here as “an individual’s characteristic pattern ofthought, emotion and behavior, together with the psychological mechanisms—hidden or not—behind those patterns” (Funder, 1997, pp. 1–2). Personalitytraits are patterns where consumers express their actual or idealized self-image. Thus, personality traits reflect the values, actions and words of acustomer on a particular brand. In the consumer behavior literature, person-ality traits can help develop integrated conceptual frameworks for under-standing consumers and allow for development of better targetedcommunications (Baumgartner, 2002). In the past, personality traits wereconceptualized as multidimensional constructs (Geuens, Weijters, & Wulf,2009). For the purpose of this study, however, we emphasize the overallpersonality traits since prior research on consumer behavior illustrates con-sumers cannot distinguish their personality traits very well and overallpersonality traits are one of the most influential factors of consumer beha-viors (Adjei & Clark, 2010; Vazquez-Carrasco & Foxall, 2006).

H1: Customer personality traits affect customer satisfaction positively.

A brand may evoke strong psychological and cognitive attachments as a partof the self-concept of an individual. According to previous studies, brandscan induce a strong symbolic value usually describing customers (Ekinci,Sirakaya-Turk, & Preciado, 2013; Hultman et al., 2015). CBI refers to howconsumers feel a sense of connectedness to a certain coffee shop brand anddefine themselves regarding that feeling (Mael & Ashforth, 1992). Hence,coffee shop brands with strong personality traits will manifest themselves byeffectively reflecting the desired self-concepts of customers:

H2: Customer personality traits affect customer brand identification positively.

Several studies have indicated a connection between personality traits andinvolvement. Ajzen (1987) stated that personality traits are a significantantecedent of explaining and predicting the behaviors of human-beings.Thus, the personality traits of a consumer can play an important role ininvolving a particular brand through the values held by the individual. Kim,Suh, and Eves (2010) reported that consumer beliefs, attitudes, behaviors canbe associated with personality traits. Therefore, another hypothesis is:

H3: Customer personality traits affect involvement positively.

Personality traits have provided a basis for differentiation resulting in favor-able behaviors as well as attitudes towards a particular brand. Based on this

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM ADMINISTRATION 5

premise, customers tend to speak more highly of brands and repurchasethose possessing favorable and distinctive features (Chi & Qu, 2008) thatresonates with their personality tendencies. Hence, a customer with a positiveimage resulting from a particular brand is more likely to be loyal toward thatbrand:

H4: Customer personality traits affect brand loyalty positively.

The concept and effects of customer satisfaction

In the service literature, research on consumer satisfaction (Arnett, German,& Hunt, 2003) strongly supports the importance of building relationships(Oliver, 1980). Oliver (1980) defined satisfaction as an overall affectivereaction to a divergence resulting from the anticipated expectations and theactual experience of overall services received. Oliver (1997) suggests thatsatisfaction assessments are holistic and are related to affective judgments.Chen (2008) referred to satisfaction as the subjective post-consumptionevaluative judgment of customers based on all experiences as well as encoun-ters with a certain organization. Kuenzel and Halliday (2008) referred tosatisfaction as the customer’s emotional or cognitive response toward a brandafter having purchased and used the brand for some time period.

Bhattacharya and Sen (2003) argued that there is a causal relationshipbetween identification and satisfaction because customers will more likelyexperience contentment with products or services of a brand provider if theyhave a positive identity toward the brand. Even though research on CBI andsatisfaction is not well documented (Kuenzel & Halliday, 2008), a customerwho is more likely to rely on brand identification tends to give high credenceto the products and services of the brand (Nam, Ekinci, & Whyatt, 2011).Therefore, customer satisfaction probably is a principal determinant of CBIin coffee shop markets. In addition, brand identification assists in achieving asense of belonging to social groups or enhance positive images within socialgroups among consumers when they are satisfied with a brand (Kim et al.,2010). Therefore, the resulting hypothesis is:

H5: Customer satisfaction affects customer brand identification positively.

Involvement is associated with information processing and search behavior,with brand loyalty, brand commitment, amount of money spent, and buyingfrequency (Tsiotsou, 2005). Furthermore, level of involvement is affected bycustomer satisfaction, and to be a mediator between satisfaction and beha-vioral intention (Lai & Chen, 2011). Cognitive consistency theory posits thatindividuals strive to sustain a stable set of cognitions and beliefs (Sternberg,1987). If consumers are not satisfied with a purchase, they may decide to

6 S.-H. KIM ET AL.

involve themselves less to distance themselves from the problem, and thusmaintain cognitive consistency. Therefore, the hypothesis is:

H6: Customer satisfaction affects involvement positively.

The concept and effect of involvement

In consumer behavior literature, involvement has been well conceptualized(Suh & Yi, 2006). Involvement is defined as the perceived personal associa-tion of choices as it relates to individuals’ basic self-concept, goals and values(Celsi & Olson, 1988). Zaichowsky (1985) defines involvement as an indivi-dual’s level of importance or interest objects have for the individual, or theobjects’ centrality to the ego structure of the individual. Hence, the level ofdecision making in an individual’s purchasing procedure is determined bythe degree of involvement (Martinez & Bosque, 2013). Involvement isdescribed as interest in the goal-object, which can be a purchase decisionwhich may also include brand-decision involvement (Mittal & Lee, 1989).The involvement construct regarding brand-decision is the awareness experi-enced in the brand selection stage. Coulter, Price, and Feick (2003) insist thatinvolvement with a brand results in individuals spending more time inresearching information about the brand.

From a hospitality context perspective, Cohen (1982) considers involve-ment high when consumers appreciate a service. Scott, Laws, and Boksberger(2009) point out that a consumer with high involvement in terms of serviceprobably engages in wide-ranging search behavior, and tends to be morerelated to higher level facets of the brand. According to basic principles ofsocial identity theory, involvement is linked to identity exploration and to asense of belonging to a peer group. Consumers tend to recognize brandnames when shopping and consumption behaviors are associated with per-sonal relevance (Bagozzi & Dholakia, 2006). Given the personal commitmentof frequent visits, it is likely that a coffee shop customer will attach highlevels of importance to the physical habit of patronage (Auh, Bell, McLeod, &Shih, 2007). Thus, customer brand identification is likely to positively affectinvolvement, so the seventh hypothesis is:

H7: Customer brand identification affects involvement positively.

The effects of customer satisfaction, CBI, and involvement on brand loyalty

Customer satisfaction can occur along various dimensions, including satis-faction with the personnel, core service, the product or the organization ingeneral. An accrued assemblage of consumption and purchase experiences ofa customer contributes to satisfaction (Lewis & Soureli, 2006). A consumerhas a high level of loyalty when feeling good about his/her relationship with a

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM ADMINISTRATION 7

particular brand (Mittal & Kamakura, 2001). Virtually all viewpoints indicatethat a customer’s level of satisfaction affects his or her loyalty (Moutinho &Smith, 2000). Past research studies have suggested that post-purchase beha-viors and loyalty are influenced by feelings of satisfaction (Choi & Chu,2001). Therefore, coffee shop customer satisfaction affects the coffee shop’sbrand loyalty for those satisfied consumers:

H8: Customer satisfaction positively affects brand loyalty.

Nam et al. (2011) demonstrated that brand loyalty as well as emotionalbonding and symbolic interaction are stimulated by brand identification.Some empirical research results on the consequences of CBI predict thatthe more customers identify with a brand, the more they agree with its normsand cooperate with the brand (Kim et al., 2010). Previous research hasempirically indicated that CBI has a positive influence on customers’ con-tributions, cooperation, and willingness to contribute to the brand (He & Li,2011; He, Li, & Harris, 2012). These concepts predict that the more coffeeshop consumers identify with a coffee shop brand, the greater the likelihoodthat positive word-of-mouth reports and brand loyalty will result. Thus,customer brand identification is likely to influence the coffee shop customers’sense of brand loyalty:

H9: Customer brand identification affects brand loyalty positively.

Involvement relates to the interest in or degree of concern for the purchaseexperience prompted by the consideration of a particular purchase (Ganesh,Arnold, & Reynolds, 2000). Involvement is considered as the effort, cost, orinvestment in a brand, and outcome of interactions with the brand (Beatty,Kahle, & Homer, 1988). The more involved a customer is in the purchase of abrand, the more likely they will maintain loyalty to the brand (Russell-Bennett et al., 2007). Thus, involvement with a coffee shop brand is likelyto influence the coffee shop’s brand loyalty.

H10: Involvement positively affects brand loyalty.

Moderating role of business type

Global coffee consumption has been increased and over 2.25 billion cups ofcoffee are consumed daily in coffee shops around the world (Coffer, 2014). Inthe United States, for example, coffee shops have grown in popularity andover 20,000 coffee shops exist combined with $10 billion annual revenue(Gaille, 2013). Independent coffee shops are outnumbered by franchise coffeeshops in terms of overall units, and franchise coffee shops now own amajority share of the coffee shop market based on sales (Global CoffeeReport, 2013). In the United States, for example, over 70% of the market

8 S.-H. KIM ET AL.

share in premium coffee sales is generated from a small handful of principalplayers including Starbucks Corporation, Dunkin’ Brands, Caribou CoffeeCompany, and Seattle’s Best Coffee. As a result, these franchise coffee shopsare likely to lead to increased competition with independent coffee shops.

As a business model, an owner has the option of purchasing a franchise orbeing an independent business operation. Each option has its weaknesses andstrengths. To decide which business type is appropriate for the owner, he/sheneeds to understand differences between independent businesses and fran-chises. Franchises provide several advantages. The formula for a provensystem of brands and operations already exists with a good franchise. Inthe case of a popular coffee shop franchise, although customers may not havebeen to an individual franchise before, they will feel confident that its qualityof product is likely consistent with similar branded coffee shops. The con-sistency of operations, store design, and products can be a key advantage offranchise business. Therefore, franchises may take less time to developcustomer bases than an independent business resulting in a larger profitearlier (Young, Clark, & Mclntyre, 2007).

Based on these concepts, this study addresses practical implications bycomparing differences in consumer perceptions between independent coffeeshops and franchise coffee shops. Therefore, the associated hypotheses are:

H11–H20: The relationships among customer personality traits, customer satisfac-tion, customer brand identification, involvement, and brand loyalty are differentfor independent coffee shops and franchise coffee shops.

Methods

Sample and data collection

The sample consisted of customers visiting either franchise or independentcoffee shops. The data collection was conducted between March and April of2014 in South Korea, districts containing the major cities of Seoul, Busan,Incheon, Daejeon, Daegu, Gwangju, and Ulsan. Surveys were conducted at atotal of 40 coffee shops; Starbucks, Caffé Bene, Coffee Bean and Tea Leaf,Angel in-Us, Hollys Coffee, Ediya Coffee, Tom N Toms, and other indepen-dent coffee shops (franchises are bolded). These coffee shop names are wellrecognized by national and international Korean customers, and are repre-sentative of popular franchise branded and independent coffee shops inSouth Korea. We believe that all of these outlets create unique brand imagesby offering symbolic value because customers consume coffee shop brands inaddition to beverages and desserts, develop consumption meanings in thereflexive environment, and express their personality and identity throughsocial interactions. Well-trained graduate students visited coffee shops andasked their owners or managers to help with this study and survey. After they

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM ADMINISTRATION 9

agreed to participate in the survey, graduate students randomly approachedcustomers. A cross-sectional, self-administered field survey was conducted inpresence of our graduate students. The onsite survey provides several benefitseven though it is more costly than other approaches (i.e., more accurateresponses and a high response rate). While respondents filled out the surveyquestionnaire, a free beverage or dessert menu item was provided as a rewardto avoid nonresponse bias. The survey was offered only after confirming thepotential participant was over 18 years old. A total of 780 questionnaireswere returned but 37 were not usable because of missing information. The743 usable responses consisted of 395 customers of franchise name-brandcoffee shops operated by franchisees, 247 customers of independent coffeeshops operated by local owners, and 101 customers failing to mentionwhether they were customers in franchise or independent coffee shops.Over half of the participants were female (66.8%), 25–34 years of age(38.5%) and 35–44 years of age (24.4%). More than two thirds (67.2%) ofthe respondents graduated from or was attending a four-year college. Annualhousehold income range was distributed across the categories of less than$49,999 with 56.3%, followed by $80,000 or above at 28.7%. For comparison,the average household income (2013) in South Korea was $44,184.

Measurements

This study adapted multiple items developed and tested in prior research tomeasure all constructs. Each item was measured on a 7-point Likert-typescale anchored by 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree. The customerpersonality traits dimension was defined as the characteristic patterns ofbehavior as well as the emotions and thoughts of an individual coalescingwith the psychological framework (Funder, 1997). This dimension was mea-sured with six items originally utilized by Vazquez-Carrasco and Foxall(2006). This study drew on a comprehensive literature review in terms ofcustomer personality traits in adapting those items. As exhibited in Hultmanet al.’s (2015) study, this study drew on a comprehensive literature reviewand conducted several pre-test personal interviews. After doing so, twoacademic scholars with the hospitality and consumer behavior backgroundsevaluated the measures’ content validity by judging how each item preciselyformulated the overall customer personality traits. To ensure effective instru-ment format as well as semantic design, 20 potential respondents completeda revised pre-test survey. Customer satisfaction was defined as “an outcomeof purchase and consumption resulting from the buyers’ comparison of therewards and costs of the purchase in relation to the anticipated outcomes”(Tam, 2004, p. 899). For customer satisfaction, three items were used basedon Lee, Lee, and Yoo (2000) study. CBI refers to “a customer’s psychologicalstate of perceiving, feeling, and valuing his/her belongingness with a brand”

10 S.-H. KIM ET AL.

(Lam et al., 2010, p. 130). CBI was measured with four items developed by Soet al. (2013). The measures not only were well developed throughout con-ceptualizations, practitioner and academic literature, but also had a high levelof reliability (scale reliability was .93) and validity in their study (averagevariance extracted was .72). Involvement represents “the level of interest orimportance of a brand to a customer” (Russell-Bennett et al., 2007, p. 1255).Involvement was measured with three items adapted from Mittal and Lee’sstudy (1989). Lastly, brand loyalty refers to “a deeply held commitment to re-buy or re-patronize a preferred product/service consistently in the future,thereby causing repetitive same-brand or same brand-set purchasing, despitesituational influences and marketing efforts having the potential to causeswitching behavior” (Oliver, 1999, p. 34). Five items were used to measurethe brand loyalty dimension and these items were adapted from Olsen’s(2007) study.

Results

Measurement model

The indicators used in this study were subjected to reliability and validityanalyses. Using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, the reliabilities of all constructswere assessed, which ranged from 0.70 to 0.91, which is an acceptable level inthe social science (i.e., exceeding 0.70) (Nunnally, 1978). All measures werethen subjected to confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to test validity(Anderson & Gerbing, 1992) using AMOS 20.0. Indicators, which had poorlyloaded on the latent variables were dropped for their purification. Forexample, two items from the customer personality traits along with oneitem from the brand loyalty category, which had factor loadings lower than.50, were removed from further analyses to maintain an acceptable level ofconvergent and discriminant validity (Kim, Kim, Han, & Holland, 2016). Theconfirmatory factor analysis indicated that all loadings exceeded 0.60, and allindicators t-value exceeded 11.30 (p < .001), confirming convergent validity.

As shown in Table 1, the CFA results indicate good fits: χ2 = 418.22(df = 125, p < .01), GFI = 0.93, AGFI = 0.91, RMSEA = 0.06, NFI = 0.94,CFI = 0.96. In order to test discriminant validity, this study compared thesquare of the coefficients which represent its correlation with other latentvariables to the proportion of variance extracted (AVE) in all latent variables.AVEs in all latent variables exceeded the respective squared correlationestimate, satisfying discriminant validity standards (see Table 2).

Another analysis was conducted to further support evidence of the mea-sures’ discriminant validity. Confirmatory factor analysis was performed oneach pair of primary measures to examine whether the model constrainingthe measures to be the same would be significantly different from the

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM ADMINISTRATION 11

unconstrained model (Lee, Kim, Lee, & Li, 2012; Rust, Moorman, & Dickson,2002). The test results suggest evidence of discriminant validity across theconstructs (see Table 3).

For testing common method variance (CMV), this study used Harman’sone-factor test (Bauer, Falk, & Hammerschmidt, 2006; Lee, Kim, Son, & Lee,2011), which compares the multidimensional model’s fit (i.e., the proposedmodel) against a single-factor model’s fit. If the one-factor model’s fit isbetter than the multidimensional model (the proposed model) meaning thatone latent variable accounts for all latent variables, it indicates evidence ofCMV (McFarlin & Sweeney, 1992). The fit of the one-factor model was:χ2 = 2,207.81 with df = 135, and the fit of the five dimensional measurementmodel was: χ2 = 418.22 and df = 125. The fit of the proposed model isconsiderably better than that of the one-factor model, indicating CMV is nota serious threat to this research.

Structural model and test of hypotheses

AMOS 20.0W was used to conduct path analysis. The fit indices of theproposed model indicate that the model fits the data well: χ2 = 418.22,df = 125, p < .01, GFI = 0.93, AGFI = 0.91, NFI = 0.94, CFI = 0.96,RMSEA = 0.06. Maximum likelihood estimates for the parameters of themodel are given in Table 4 and Figure 1.

H1 to H4 predicted that customer personality traits would affect customersatisfaction, CBI, involvement and brand loyalty. The results showed thatcustomer personality traits significantly influenced customer satisfaction(coefficient = 0.58, t-value = 12.35, p < .01) and CBI (coefficient = 0.63,t-value = 10.50, p < .01). However, customer personality traits did not havesignificant effects on involvement and brand loyalty. Therefore, only H1 andH2 were supported.

H5 and H6 posited that customer satisfaction would affect CBI andinvolvement. The results revealed that customer satisfaction significantlyaffected CBI (coefficient = 0.19, t-value = 4.00, p < .01) and involvement(coefficient = 0.26, t-value = 5.57, p < .01). Thus, H5 and H6 were supported.H7 indicated CBI would affect involvement. The results showed that CBI hada positive influence on involvement (coefficient = 0.54, t-value = 7.48,p < .01), supporting H7. H8 to H10 posited the impacts of customersatisfaction, CBI, and involvement on brand loyalty. The results showedthat customer satisfaction (coefficient = 0.54, t-value = 11.79, p < .01), CBI(coefficient = 0.23, t-value = 3.37, p < .01), and involvement (coeffi-cient = 0.14, t-value = 2.96, p < .01) had significant effects on brand loyalty.Therefore, H8, H9, and H10 were supported.

The mediating roles of customer satisfaction, CBI, and involvement onthe relationship between customer personality traits and brand loyalty

12 S.-H. KIM ET AL.

were investigated with the Aroian version of the Sobel test (see Table 5)and the BC bootstrapping method (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). MacKinnon,Lockwood, Hoffman, West, and Sheets (2002) compared to traditionalsingle mediation analysis methods, this combined method to mediationanalysis can be more suitable (e.g., Lee, Choi, Moon, & Babin, 2014). Wecan test the level of significance of the indirect influence of the indepen-dent variable on the dependent variable via a mediator with the Aroianversion of the Sobel test (see Preacher & Hayes, 2008). Table 6 indicatesthat customer satisfaction significantly mediates the effect of customerpersonality traits on CBI (Customer Personality Traits → CustomerSatisfaction → CBI; .11; 95% bootstrap CI = .06L CI, .17UL CI;Z = 3.81, p < .01). The direct effect of customer personality traits onCBI is also significant (Customer Personality Traits → CBI; .63, p < .01).

Table 1. Measurement Model From Confirmatory Factor Analysis.

Constructs and variablesa

Standardizedloading(t-value) CCR AVE

Customer Personality Traits (α = 0.83) 0.81 0.51I feel my favorite coffee shops offer a warm dining experience. 0.72 (fixed)I feel my favorite coffee shops offer a pleasant dining experience. 0.79 (18.03)I feel excited when I go to my favorite coffee shops. 0.65 (18.23)My favorite coffee shops offer a sophisticated servicescape.b —My favorite coffee shops have higher drinking quality standards.b —I feel my favorite coffee shops offer a hometown atmosphere. 0.65 (15.06)

Satisfaction (α = 0.70) 0.84 0.66Overall, I am satisfied with my favorite coffee shop. 0.89 (fixed)I am satisfied when visiting my favorite coffee shop compared to myexpectations.

0.89 (27.36)

I am satisfied when visiting my favorite coffee shop considering myinvested time and effort.

0.44 (11.30)

Customer brand identification (α = 0.83) 0.86 0.61When someone praises my favorite coffee shop, it feels like a personalcompliment.

0.71 (fixed)

I would experience an emotional loss if I had to stop going to my favoritecoffee shop.

0.73 (16.45)

I believe others respect me for my association with my favorite coffeeshop.

0.73 (16.34)

I consider myself a valuable partner of my favorite coffee shops. 0.73 (16.42)Involvement (α = 0.89) 0.87 0.69I have a strong interest in coffee shops. 0.83 (fixed)Coffee shops are very important to me. 0.94 (26.92)For me, coffee shops do not matter. 0.73 (20.56)

Brand loyalty (α = 0.91) 0.81 0.59I consider myself a loyal customer at my favorite coffee shops.b —I will continue to enjoy drinks at my favorite coffee shops. 0.86 (fixed)I would give positive recommendations to others about my favoritecoffee shops.

0.79 (24.35)

Overall, I will continue to repurchase drinks at my favorite coffee shops. 0.91 (30.23)Overall, I will continue to maintain a valued membership card if providedone at my favorite coffee shop.

0.80 (24.98)

Note. CCR = composite construct reliability; AVE = average variance extracted.aχ2 = 418.22, df = 125 (χ2/df = 3.35), p = .00, GFI = 0.93, AGFI = 0.91, RMSEA = 0.06, NFI = 0.94, CFI = 0.96.bItems were deleted during the confirmatory factor analysis.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM ADMINISTRATION 13

Thus, customer satisfaction plays a partial mediating role in the relation-ship between customer personality traits and CBI. Customer satisfactionsignificantly mediates the effect of customer personality traits on involve-ment (Customer Personality Traits → Customer Satisfaction →Involvement; .55; 95% bootstrap CI = .45L CI, .67UL CI; Z = 5.08,p < .01). The direct effect of customer personality traits on involvementis not significant (Customer Personality Traits → Involvement; −.03, n.s.).This result indicates that customer satisfaction plays a full mediating rolein the relationship between customer personality traits and involvement.Additionally, CBI significantly mediates the effect of customer personalitytraits on brand loyalty (Customer Personality Traits → CBI → BrandLoyalty; .55; 95% bootstrap CI = .47L CI, .66UL CI; Z = 3.19, p < .01).The direct effect of customer personality traits on brand loyalty is notsignificant (Customer Personality Traits → Loyalty; .01, n.s.). This resultindicates that CBI plays a full mediating role in the relationship betweencustomer personality traits and brand loyalty.

CBI significantly mediates the effect of customer satisfaction on invol-vement (Customer Satisfaction → CBI → Involvement; .10; 95% boot-strap CI = .05L CI, .16UL CI; Z = 3.51, p < .01). The direct effect of

Table 2. Construct Intercorrelations (Φ), Means, and Standard Deviations.M SD PT CS CBI IV BL

PT 4.88 1.15 1CS 5.13 1.21 0.45** 1CBI 4.33 1.35 0.59** 0.42** 1IV 4.76 1.48 0.42** 0.41** 0.56** 1BL 5.04 1.23 0.49** 0.58** 0.55** 0.54** 1

Note. PT = personality traits; CS = customer satisfaction; CBI = customer brand identification; IV =involvement; BL = brand loyalty.

**p < .01. *p < .05.

Table 3. Chi-Square Difference Test for Discriminant Validity of the Measures.Constrained Unconstrained

Constructs χ2 df χ2 df △χ2 p

PT vs. CS 120.95 14 69.72 13 51.23 .00PT vs. CBI 108.10 20 103.54 19 4.56 .00PT vs. IV 121.07 14 102.55 13 18.52 .00PT vs. BL 165.25 20 142.77 19 22.47 .00CS vs. CBI 46.49 14 26.10 13 20.39 .00CS vs. IV 43.53 9 28.67 8 14.86 .00CS vs. BL 35.13 14 28.51 13 6.62 .00CBI vs. IV 43.45 14 33.59 13 9.86 .00CBI vs. BL 98.15 20 87.56 19 10.59 .00IV vs. BL 85.46 14 58.37 13 27.08 .00

Note. PT = personality traits; CS = customer satisfaction; CBI = customer brand identification; IV =involvement; BL = brand loyalty.

14 S.-H. KIM ET AL.

customer satisfaction on involvement is also significant (CustomerSatisfaction → Involvement; .26, p < .01). Thus, CBI plays a partialmediating role in the relationship between customer satisfaction andinvolvement. Additionally, CBI significantly mediates the effect of cus-tomer satisfaction on brand loyalty (Customer Satisfaction → CBI →Brand Loyalty; .09; 95% bootstrap CI = .06L CI, .14UL CI; Z = 2.53,p < .05). The direct effect of customer satisfaction on brand loyalty isalso significant (customer satisfaction → brand loyalty; .54, p < .01).Thus, CBI plays a partial mediating role in the relationship betweencustomer satisfaction and brand loyalty. Finally, involvement signifi-cantly mediates the effect of CBI on brand loyalty (CBI →Involvement → Brand Loyalty; .07; 95% bootstrap CI = .02L CI, .13ULCI; Z = 2.74, p < .01). The direct effect of CBI on brand loyalty is alsosignificant (CBI → Brand Loyalty; .23, p < .01). Thus, involvement playsa partial mediating role in the relationship between CBI and brandloyalty.

For testing the moderating influence of business types on the hypothe-sized relationships, a multi-group test comparing chi-square differenceswas employed (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1993). Based on independent coffeeshops and franchise coffee shops, the samples were divided into twogroups. The constrained model was set to equal two business types tocompare it with the unconstrained model allowing all coefficients to differbetween the two business types (Jang, Kim, & Lee, 2015; Jöreskog &Sörbom, 1993; Lee et al., 2014). Table 6 revealed some significant differ-ences in the hypothetical relationships between the two business types.

Table 4. Standardized Parameter Estimates.Path Standardized estimates SMC (R2) t-value Total effect p-value

H1: PT → CS 0.58 12.35** .58 .002**H2: PT → CBI 0.63 10.50** .74 .003**H3: PT → IV −0.03 −0.46 .52 .002**H4: PT → BL 0.01 0.07 .56 .003**H5: CS → CBI 0.19 4.00** .19 .003**H6: CS → IV 0.26 5.57** .37 .002**H7: CBI → IV 0.54 7.48** .54 .003**H8: CS → BL 0.54 11.79** .63 .003**H9: CBI → BL 0.23 3.37** .30 .002**H10: IV → BL 0.14 2.96** .14 .011*Endogenous variablesCS .34 (33.8%)CBI .57 (57.4%)IV .49 (48.7%)BL .62 (62.4%)

Note. PT = personality traits; CS = customer satisfaction; CBI = customer brand identification; IV =involvement; BL = brand loyalty; SMC = squared multiple correlations. χ2 = 418.22, df = 125, p = .000,GFI = 0.93, AGFI = 0.91, NFI = 0.94, CFI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.06.

**p < .01. *p < .05.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM ADMINISTRATION 15

There were significant differences in 2 of 10 paths: customer personalitytraits to brand loyalty (Δχ2(1) = 5.35, p < .05) and customer brandidentification to brand loyalty (Δχ2(1) = 10.82, p < .01), thus supportingH14 and H19. However, both paths from customer personality traits andbrand loyalty of independent coffee shops and franchise coffee shops werenot significant. The path from customer brand identification to brandloyalty for independent coffee shops was significant (coefficient = 0.48,t-value = 3.95, p < .01), whereas the path for franchise coffee shops wasnot significant (see Figures 2 and 3).

Figure 1. Estimates of structural model with total samples. Note. Standardized coefficient(t-value); solid line = significant path; dotted line = insignificant path. **p < .01. *p < .05.

Table 5. Results of Mediating Role Estimation of Customer Satisfaction, Customer BrandIdentification, and Involvement Between Personality Traits and Brand Loyalty.

95% bootstrap CIs

Paths of mediating role Indirect effects LL Cls UL Cls Z-values Mediating roles

PT → CS → CBI .11 .06 .17 3.81** Partial mediatorPT → CS → IV .55 .45 .67 5.08** Full mediatorPT → CBI → BL .55 .47 .66 3.19** Full mediatorCS → CBI → IV .10 .05 .16 3.51** Partial mediatorCS → CBI → BL .09 .06 .14 2.53* Partial mediatorCBI → IV → BL .07 .02 .13 2.74** Partial mediator

Note. PT = personality traits; CS = customer satisfaction; CBI = customer brand identification; IV =involvement; BL = brand loyalty; LL Cls = lower bound confidence levels; UL Cls = upper bound confidencelevels.

**p < .01. *p < .05.

16 S.-H. KIM ET AL.

Discussion

While recent research in the general marketing field has been cognizant ofthe significance of personality traits and CBI in the process of loyalty devel-opment, relatively little research concerning the role of these elements hasbeen conducted in the coffee shop industry. To fill an existing literature gap,this research developed and tested a structural model interrelated to person-ality traits and CBI with customer satisfaction, involvement, and brandloyalty.

The results indicate that the personality traits dimension is a significantfactor and wields an indirect influence on brand loyalty through customersatisfaction, CBI, and involvement, underscoring the importance of CBI inthe augmentation of involvement. The findings of this study show thatpositive consumer personality traits also can enhance customer satisfactionand identification with the brand. Before customers enter, they recognize thebrand logo and exterior design of the coffee shop. The coffee shop needs toprovide what customers seek and expect from its brand. As customers walkthrough the door, they should be welcomed by a familiar interior and greetedby a barista wearing a familiar uniform in the same branded coffee shopelsewhere in the country. The beverage and dessert names should also be thesame. If customers recognize what they want, and if they get it from thecoffee shop brand time and time again, they will feel fulfilled and satisfiedwith the brand. All these practices reflect brand image, avoid brand confu-sion, and enhance the standardized, yet satisfying, connection with the brandthrough consistency. To facilitate this, future studies need to develop andvalidate a personality traits scale applied to a wide range of coffee shopbrands.

Some marketing studies suggest that the link between satisfaction andloyalty does not always hold (Hultman et al., 2015). Nevertheless, this

Table 6. Business Type Differences in Standardized Structural Estimates.H0 Path Chi-square statistic Chi-square difference

— Unconstrained model χ2 = 587.19, df = 250 —H11 PT → CS χ2 = 589.77, df = 251 Δ χ2(1) = 2.58, n.s.H12 PT → CBI χ2 = 589.54, df = 251 Δ χ2(1) = 2.35, n.s.H13 PT → IV χ2 = 587.70, df = 251 Δ χ2(1) = 0.51, n.s.H14 PT → BL χ2 = 592.54, df = 251 Δ χ2(1) = 5.35, p < .05H15 CS → CBI χ2 = 587.35, df = 251 Δ χ2(1) = 0.16, n.s.H16 CS → IV χ2 = 589.36, df = 251 Δ χ2(1) = 2.17, n.s.H17 CBI → IV χ2 = 588.08, df = 251 Δ χ2(1) = 0.89, n.s.H18 CS → BL χ2 = 587.66, df = 251 Δ χ2(1) = 0.47, n.s.H19 CBI → BL χ2 = 598.01, df = 251 Δ χ2(1) = 10.82, p < .01H20 IV → BL χ2 = 587.30, df = 251 Δ χ2(1) = 0.11, n.s.

Note. PT = personality traits; CS = customer satisfaction; CBI = customer brand identification; IV =involvement; BL = brand loyalty. The path was constrained to be equal across the two groups.

**p < .01. *p < .05.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM ADMINISTRATION 17

research suggests that customer satisfaction can be the most influential driverof the development of brand loyalty for the coffee shop market. In addition,satisfaction is an important mediator of the relationship between personalitytraits and brand loyalty. Thus, marketers of branded coffee shops that wantto establish loyalty should recognize the significance of customer satisfaction,in terms of its role not only as a core determinant of CBI, involvement andbrand loyalty, but also as a core consequence of personality traits. Moreover,the managers need to ensure that their employees are completely orientedtowards the service level which must be delivered to customers. To improvethe qualifications of the employees, a training program is needed. Coffeeshop managers also need to continuously check their customers’ perceptionsof services/products as well as customers’ latest wants/needs in order to keepthe company’s marketing tools updated and keep customers more satisfiedand delighted.

This study also indicates that CBI has significant impacts on involvementand brand loyalty. Customers with strong identification with a coffee shopbrand not only intend to repurchase its products, but also recommend it toothers. This role is particularly important to coffee shop managers since loyalcustomers offer increased competitive advantage, referrals, market shares,profits, and repeat business (Kayaman & Arasli, 2007). Scholars in the coffeeshop industry should take note that CBI is a form of self-expression andprovides emotion driven returns. Thus, coffee shop managers should makeefforts to develop a distinct coffee shop brand identity or brand imageresonating with customers. Also, managers need to clearly distinguish theirbrand from other coffee shop brands, to the extent possible. Particularly,coffee shop brand managers need to note that Korean customers seek theadded experience of finding an image consistent with or enhancing their ownidentity. Furthermore, it is common for Koreans to look for a “Third Place”(i.e., home being the first and work being the second). Starbucks, one of thedominant brands in the Korean coffee shop market, has played a central roleas the third place for its customers. Starbucks continually emphasizes theimportance of a healthy body and mind, brand image that fits many Koreanconsumers’ identity. Other coffee shop companies would benefit from devel-oping their brand image based on the cultural assumptions and identity oftheir customers.

The results further indicate that involvement is an antecedent of brandloyalty. Personality traits and identification encouraging that involvement isan important finding for the coffee shop industry. It would be expected thatan increase in perceptions of personality traits, customer satisfaction, andCBI will result in increased customer involvement through an effort toidentify customers with matching personality traits at the branded coffeeshop. Coffee shop marketers should utilize this link when designing coffeeshop brand personalities to attract target consumer segments. If customers

18 S.-H. KIM ET AL.

are able to be more involved with a coffee shop brand than they expectedthrough achieving higher satisfaction and CBI, customers will more likelybecome regular patrons and develop loyalty toward that coffee shop as well asits brand.

Figure 2. Estimates of structural model with independent coffee shop samples. Note.Standardized coefficient (t-value); solid line = significant path; dotted line = insignificant path;bolded line = significant difference between two groups. **p < .01. *p < .05.

Figure 3. Estimates of structural model with franchisee coffee shop samples. Note. Standardizedcoefficient (t-value); solid line = significant path; dotted line = insignificant path; bolded line =significant difference between two groups. **p < .01. *p < .05.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM ADMINISTRATION 19

Another interesting finding is that a loyal consumer of an independentcoffee shop is motivated to differentiate his/herself via an original brandexperience. In the case of independent coffee shop marketers, the brandexperience should be more original to nurture a coffee shop customer’sidentification to a greater degree than they would experience at a franchisecoffee shop. If an independent coffee shop brand creates a unique identity totarget the desires of a customer, it will allow a competitive differentiation ofthe services/products and help enhance identification of the customer withthe brand. When establishing a marketing campaign and program fosteringstrong CBI, franchise coffee shop branding marketers provide opportunitiesfor customers to enhance brand loyalty as a consequence of CBI’s impact oninvolvement.

Franchised coffee shops generate benefits for both owners and customers.Franchise coffee shop owners enjoy the stability and security stemming frombelonging to an even larger company with a proven track record, but they sacrificeindependence in terms of decision-making. Also, franchise coffee shop ownersusually experience greater variety of coffee flavors and types, standardized services,and higher quality products than those found in many independent coffee shops.In addition to these aspects, they believe that customers perceive their coffee shopsas offering value. The acquisition of a franchise coffee shop brand name isconsidered one of the more significant advantages to encourage independentcoffee shop owners to become franchise coffee shop owners. However, thisstudy indicates that, the brands of independent coffee shops can be a morevaluable asset than those of franchise coffee shops. The findings are thought tobe significant as permitting owners of independent coffee shops to differentiatetheir brands from those of their competitors (e.g., franchise coffee shops and otherindependent coffee shops), while also adding these concepts to the wider brandand coffee shop literature.

Even though this study provides several implications in terms of the coffee shopindustry, it has several limitations. First, since this study relied on two academicscholars’ judgments of the extent to which personality traits items formulate theoverall customer personality traits, this study left unanswered the question of themeasurements of customer personality traits. To counter this limitation, moresophisticated items can expand explanation and more deeply examine the custo-mer personality traits dimension. Therefore, elaboration of the present resultsthrough better understanding sophisticated customer personality traits itemsshould occur in future studies. Second, although this study provides some usefulfindings about loyalty factors in the coffee shop market, the approach of ownersdistributing the questionnaires to participants might have skewed the results sinceowners could have been selective in whom they distributed the questionnaires to.Future research needs to collect data from other populations and in contexts withwider and diverse samples and settings. Third, while this study did analyzedifferences between customers of each coffee shop (e.g., Starbucks vs. Coffee

20 S.-H. KIM ET AL.

Bean), there was no significant difference between the customer groups. However,since customers in each type of coffee shop demonstrate similar characteristics,there may be other differences between the customer groups. Future researchshould look for significant differences between the coffee shops by conductingmulti-group analyses with other determinants of brand loyalty. Last, this researchrelied on the mediating effects of customer satisfaction, customer brand identifi-cation, and involvement. Research should be undertaken to extend this modeldescribing Korean coffee shop consumers’ brand loyalty in other consumptioncontexts and across a wider population and other cultures in order to test thegeneralizability of the results.

References

Adjei, M. T., & Clark, M. N. (2010). Relationship marketing in A B2C context: Themoderating role of personality traits. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 17(1),73–79. doi:10.1016/j.retconser.2009.10.001

Ahearne, M., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of customer-company identification: Expanding the role of relationship marketing. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 90(3), 574–585. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.3.574

Ajzen, I. (1987). Attitudes, traits, and actions: Dispositional prediction of behavior inpersonality and social psychology. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental socialpsychology (pp. 1–63). New York, NY: Academic Press.

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1992). Assumptions and comparative strengths of thetwo-step approach: Comment on Fornell and Yi. Sociological Methods & Research, 20(3),321–333. doi:10.1177/0049124192020003002

Arnett, D., German, B., & Hunt, S. D. (2003). The identity salience model of relationshipmarketing success: The case of nonprofit marketing. Journal of Marketing, 67(2), 89–105.doi:10.1509/jmkg.67.2.89.18614

Auh, S., Bell, S. J., McLeod, C. S., & Shih, E. (2007). Co-production and customer loyalty infinancial services. Journal of Retailing, 83(3), 359–370. doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2007.03.001

Back, K. J., & Parks, S. C. (2003). A brand loyalty model involving cognitive, affective, andconative brand loyalty and customer satisfaction. Journal of Hospitality Tourism Research,27(4), 419–435. doi:10.1177/10963480030274003

Bagozzi, R. P., & Dholakia, U. M. (2006). Antecedents and purchase consequences ofcustomer participation in small group brand communities. International Journal ofResearch in Marketing, 23(1), 45–61. doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2006.01.005

Bauer, H. H., Falk, H., & Hammerschmidt, M. (2006). eTransQual: A transaction process-based approach for capturing service quality in online shopping. Journal of BusinessResearch, 59(7), 866–975. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.01.021

Baumgartner, H. (2002). Toward a personology of the consumer. Journal of ConsumerResearch, 29(2), 286–292. doi:10.1086/341578

Beatty, S., Kahle, L. R., & Homer, P. (1988). The involvement-commitment model: Theoryand implications. Journal of Business Research, 16(2), 149–167. doi:10.1016/0148-2963(88)90039-2

Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2003). Consumer-company identification: A framework forunderstanding consumers’ relationships with companies. Journal of Marketing, 67(2), 76–88. doi:10.1509/jmkg.67.2.76.18609

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM ADMINISTRATION 21

Bowen, J. T., & Chen, S. L. (2001). The relationship between customer loyalty and customersatisfaction. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 13(5), 213–217. doi:10.1108/09596110110395893

Celsi, R., & Olson, J. (1988). The role of involvement in attention and comprehensionprocesses. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 210–224. doi:10.1086/jcr.1988.15.issue-2

Chacon, J., & Mason, K. J. (2011). An analysis of the relationship between passenger loyaltyand consumer buying behavior for network and low-cost carriers. Transportation Journal,50(3), 271–290. doi:10.5325/transportationj.50.3.0271

Chen, C. F. (2008). Investigating structural relationships between service quality, perceivedvalue, satisfaction, and behavioral intentions for air passengers: Evidence from Taiwan.Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 42(4), 709–717. doi:10.1016/j.tra.2008.01.007

Chi, C. G., & Qu, H. (2008). Examining the structural relationships of destination image,tourist satisfaction and destination loyalty: An integrated approach. Tourism Management,29(4), 624–636. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2007.06.007

Choi, T. Y., & Chu, R. (2001). Determinants of hotel guests’ satisfaction and repeat patronagein the Hong Kong hotel industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 20(3),277–297. doi:10.1016/S0278-4319(01)00006-8

Coffer, D. (2014). The evolution of the coffee shop: Coffee brands around the world are stayingrelevant with food, alcoholic beverage. Retrieved from http://nrn.com/opinions/evolution-coffee-shop23

Cohen, J. B. (1982). Involvement, separating the state from its causes and effects. In W. L.Wilkie (Ed.), Consumer behavior (p. 57). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.

Coulter, R., Price, L. L., & Feick, L. (2003). Rethinking the origins of involvement and brandcommitment: Insights from post-socialist central Europe. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(2), 151–169. doi:10.1086/376809

Das, G., Datta, B., & Guin, K. K. (2012). From brands in general to retail brands: A reviewand future agenda for brand personality measurement. The Marketing Review, 12(1), 91–106. doi:10.1362/146934712X13286274424389

Del Rio, A. B., Vazquez, R., & Iglesias, V. (2001). The effects of brand associations onconsumer response. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(5), 410–425. doi:10.1108/07363760110398808

Ehrenberg, A., Uncles, M., & Goodhardt, G. (2004). Understanding brand performancemeasures: Using Dirichlet benchmarks. Journal of Business Research, 57(12), 1307–1325.doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2002.11.001

Ekinci, Y., Sirakaya-Turk, E., & Preciado, S. (2013). Symbolic consumption of tourismdestination brands. Journal of Business Research, 66(6), 711–718. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.09.008

Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in con-sumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 343–373. doi:10.1086/209515

Funder, D. C. (1997). The personality puzzle. New York, NY: W. W Norton & Co.Gaille, B. (2013). 25 coffee shop industry statistics and trends. Retrieved from http://brandon

gaille.com/25-coffee-shop-industry-statistics-and-trends/Ganesh, J., Arnold, M. J., & Reynolds, K. E. (2000). Understanding the customer base of

service providers: An examination of the differences between switchers and stayers. Journalof Marketing, 64(3), 65–87. doi:10.1509/jmkg.64.3.65.18028

Geuens, M., Weijters, B., & Wulf, K. D. (2009). A new measure of brand personality.International Journal of Research in Marketing, 26(2), 97–107. doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2008.12.002

22 S.-H. KIM ET AL.

Global Coffee Report. (2013). Korean coffee, Gangnam style. Retrieved from http://gcrmag.com/market-reports/view/coffee-gangnam-style

He, H., & Li, Y. (2011). CSR and service brand: The mediating effect of brand identificationand moderating effect of service quality. Journal of Business Ethics, 100(4), 673–688.doi:10.1007/s10551-010-0703-y

He, H., Li, Y., & Harris, L. (2012). Social identity perspective on brand loyalty. Journal ofBusiness Research, 65(5), 648–657. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.03.007

Hultman, M., Skarmeas, D., Oghazi, P., & Beheshti, H. M. (2015). Achieving tourist loyaltythrough destination personality, satisfaction, and identification. Journal of BusinessResearch, 68(11), 2227–2231 doi:10.1016/j.busres.2015.06.002

Jang, Y. J., Kim, W. G., & Lee, H. Y. (2015). Coffee shop consumers’ emotional attachmentand loyalty to green stores: The moderating role of green consciousness. InternationalJournal of Hospitality Management, 44, 146–156. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2014.10.001

Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with theSIMPLIS command language. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kayaman, R., & Arasli, H. (2007). Customer based brand equity: Evidence from the hotelindustry. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, 17(1), 92–109. doi:10.1108/09604520710720692

Kim, S. H., Kim, M. S., Han, H. S., & Holland, S. (2016). The determinants of hospitalityemployees’ pro-environmental behaviors: The moderating role of generational differences.International Journal of Hospitality Management, 52, 56–67. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2015.09.013

Kim, Y. G., Suh, B. W., & Eves, A. (2010). The relationships between food-related personalitytraits, satisfaction, and loyalty among visitors attending food events and festivals.International Journal of Hospitality Management, 29(2), 216–226. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2009.10.015

Ko, W. H., & Chiu, C. P. (2008). The relationships between brand attitude, customers’satisfaction and revisiting intentions of the university students: A case study of coffeechain stores in Taiwan. Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 11(1), 79–95. doi:10.1080/15378020801926791

Kuenzel, S., & Halliday, S. V. (2008). Investigating antecedents and consequences of brandidentification. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 17(5), 293–304. doi:10.1108/10610420810896059

Lai, W. T., & Chen, C. F. (2011). Behavioral intentions of public transit passengers: The rolesof service quality, perceived value, satisfaction and involvement. Transport Policy, 18(2),318–325. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2010.09.003

Lam, S. K., Ahearne, M., Hu, Y., & Schillewaert, N. (2010). Resistance to brand switchingwhen a radically new brand is introduced: A social identity theory perspective. Journal ofMarketing, 74(6), 128–146. doi:10.1509/jmkg.74.6.128

Lee, H. S., Lee, Y. K., & Yoo, D. K. (2000). The determinants of perceived service quality andits relationship with satisfaction. Journal of Services Marketing, 14(3), 217–231.doi:10.1108/08876040010327220

Lee, H. S., & Yeu, M. S. (2010). Factors influencing the intention to redeem coffee shopcoupons in Korea. International Journal of Business and Management, 5(7), 92–98.

Lee, Y. K., Choi, J., Moon, B. Y., & Babin, B. J. (2014). Codes of ethics, corporate philan-thropy, and employee responses. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 39, 97–106. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2014.02.005

Lee, Y. K., Kim, S., Lee, K. H., & Li, D. (2012). The impact of CSR on relationship quality andrelationship outcomes: A perspective of service employees. International Journal ofHospitality Management, 31(3), 745–756. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.09.011

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM ADMINISTRATION 23

Lee, Y. K., Kim, Y. S., Son, M. H., & Lee, D. J. (2011). Do emotions play a mediating role inthe relationship between owner leadership styles and manager customer orientation, andperformance in service environment? International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30(4), 942–952. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.02.002

Lewis, B. R., & Soureli, M. (2006). The antecedents of consumer loyalty in retail banking.Journal of Consumer Behavior, 5(1), 15–31. doi:10.1002/cb.46

Liljander, V., Polsa, P., & Van Riel, A. (2009). Modelling consumer responses to an apparelstore brand: Store image as a risk reducer. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 16(4), 281–290. doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2009.02.005

MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). Acomparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects.Psychological Methods, 7(1), 83–104. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.83

Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of thereformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior,13(2), 103–123. doi:10.1002/job.4030130202

Martinez, P., & Bosque, I. R. (2013). CSR and customer loyalty: The roles of trust, customeridentification with the company and satisfaction. International Journal of HospitalityManagement, 35, 89–99. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.05.009

McCracken, G. (1988). Culture and consumption. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.McEwen, J. W. (2005). Married to the brand: Why consumers bond with some brands for life.

New York, NY: Gallup Press.McFarlin, D. B., & Sweeney, P. D. (1992). Distributive and procedural justice as predictors of

satisfaction with personal and organizational outcomes. The Academy of ManagementJournal, 35(3), 626–637. doi:10.2307/256489

Mechinda, P., Serirat, S., & Gulid, N. (2009). An examination of tourists’ attitudinal andbehavioral loyalty: Comparison between domestic and international tourists. Journal ofVacation Marketing, 15(2), 129–148. doi:10.1177/1356766708100820

Mittal, B., & Lee, M. S. (1989). A causal model of consumer involvement. Journal of EconomyPsychology, 10(3), 363–389. doi:10.1016/0167-4870(89)90030-5

Mittal, V., & Kamakura, W. A. (2001). Satisfaction, repurchase intent, and repurchasebehavior: Investigating the moderating effect of customer characteristics. Journal ofMarketing Research, 38(1), 131–142. doi:10.1509/jmkr.38.1.131.18832

Moutinho, L., & Smith, A. (2000). Modelling bank customer satisfaction through mediationof attitudes towards human and automated banking. International Journal of BankMarketing, 18(3), 124–134. doi:10.1108/02652320010339699

Nam, J., Ekinci, Y., & Whyatt, G. (2011). Brand equity, brand loyalty and consumer satisfac-tion. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(3), 1009–1030. doi:10.1016/j.annals.2011.01.015

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.O’Neill, J. W., & Mattila, A. S. (2004). Hotel branding strategy: Its relationship to guest

satisfaction and room revenue. Journal of Hospitality Tourism & Research, 28(2), 156–165.doi:10.1177/1096348004264081

Odin, Y., Odin, N., & Valette-Florence, P. (2001). Conceptual and operational aspects ofbrand loyalty: An empirical investigation. Journal of Business Research, 53(2), 75–84.doi:10.1016/S0148-2963(99)00076-4

Oliver, C. (1997). Sustainable competitive advantage: Combining institutional and resource-based views. Strategic Management Journal, 18(9), 697–713.

Oliver, R. L. (1980). A Cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfactiondecisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(4), 460–469. doi:10.2307/3150499

Oliver, R. L. (1999). Whence consumer loyalty? [Special issue]. Journal of Marketing, 63, 33–44. doi:10.2307/1252099

24 S.-H. KIM ET AL.

Olsen, S. O. (2007). Repurchase loyalty: The role of involvement and satisfaction. Psychology& Marketing, 24(4), 315–341. doi:10.1002/mar.20163

Pedersen, P. E., & Nysveen, H. (2001). Shopbot baking: An exploratory study of customerloyalty effects. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 19(4), 146–155. doi:10.1108/02652320110392518

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing andcomparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3),879–891. doi:10.3758/BRM.40.3.879

Ray, I., & Chiagouris, L. (2009). Customer retention: Examining the roles of store affect andstore loyalty as mediators in the management of retail strategies. Journal of StrategicMarketing, 17(1), 1–20. doi:10.1080/09652540802619160

Rodgers, S. (2007). Innovations in food service technology and its strategic role. InternationalJournal of Hospitality Management, 26(4), 899–912. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2006.10.001

Russell-Bennett, R., McColl-Kennedy, J. R., & Coote, L. V. (2007). Involvement, satisfaction,and brand loyalty in a small business services setting. Journal of Business Research, 60(12),1253–1260. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.05.001

Rust, R. T., Moorman, C., & Dickson, P. R. (2002). Getting return on quality: Revenueexpansion, cost reduction, or both? Journal of Marketing, 66(4), 7–24. doi:10.1509/jmkg.66.4.7.18515

Scott, N., Laws, E., & Boksberger, P. (2009). The marketing of hospitality and leisureexperiences. Journal of Hospitality Marketing Management, 18(2/3), 99–110. doi:10.1080/19368620802590126

So, K. K., King, C., Sparks, B. A., & Wang, Y. (2013). The influence of customer brandidentification on hotel brand evaluation and loyalty development. International Journal ofHospitality Management, 34, 31–41. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.02.002

Sternberg, R. J. (1987). Linking versus loving: A comparative evaluation of theories.Psychological Bulletin, 102(3), 331–345. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.102.3.331

Suh, J. C., & Yi, Y. (2006). When brand attitudes affect the customer satisfaction-loyaltyrelation: The moderating role of product involvement. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(2), 145–155. doi:10.1207/s15327663jcp1602_5

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S.Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Chicago, IL:Nelson-Hall.

Tam, J. L. M. (2004). Customer satisfaction, service quality and perceived value: An inte-grative model. Journal of Marketing Management, 20(7/8), 897–917. doi:10.1362/0267257041838719

Tsiotsou, R. (2005). Perceived quality levels and their relation to involvement, satisfaction,and purchase intentions. Marketing Bulletin, 16(4), 1–10.

Vazquez-Carrasco, R., & Foxall, G. R. (2006). Influence of personality traits on satisfaction,perception of relational benefits, and loyalty in a personal service context. Journal ofRetailing and Consumer Services, 13(3), 205–219. doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2005.08.006

Young, J. A., Clark, P. W., & Mclntyre, F. S. (2007). An exploratory comparison of the casualdining experience. Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 10(3), 87–105. doi:10.1300/J369v10n03_06

Zaichowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of ConsumerResearch, 12(3), 341–351. doi:10.1086/208520

Zins, A. H. (2001). Relative attitudes and commitment in customer loyalty models: Someexperiences in the commercial airline industry. International Journal of Service IndustryManagement, 12(3), 269–294. doi:10.1108/EUM0000000005521

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM ADMINISTRATION 25