the effect of attitudinal loyalty towards behavioral

Jurnal EKSEKUTIF Volume 7 No. 3 Desember 2010

609

THE EFFECT OF ATTITUDINAL LOYALTY TOWARDS

BEHAVIORAL LOYALTY OF LIFEBUOY BAR SOAP CONSUMERS

IN SURABAYA

Iwan Soebioto

STIE IBMT Surabaya

Abstract : Brand that manages to bring a meaning impression on consumers are more likely to win a special

attention. In addition, consumers have a greater tendency to choose brands that gives them both pleasure

and utility value. The purpose of this research is to find out the stronger indicator of attitudinal loyalty and

the effect of attitudinal loyalty towards behavioral loyalty. This research is using confirmatory analysis in

which the aim to confirm the relationship between variables. Questionnaires were then distributed to people

who had used Lifebuoy bar soap for a maximum of past 6 months. Purposive sampling will be used in order

to provide a more realistic and reliable data. After collecting the data needed, SPSS 13.0 and AMOS 5.0 will

be used to aid in the interpretation of the result and findings. In addition, secondary data were also acquired

through the use of internet and finding related journals. In the findings, it is found out that the one who made

purchasing decision in buying Lifebuoy bar soap are female and they have an income of less than Rp.

1.000.000. As a result, it is discovered that brand affect is the stronger indicator of attitudinal loyalty of

Lifebuoy bar soap users in Surabaya. To add on, there is a positive relationship that attitude does lead to

behavioral loyalty.

Keywords: Brand Affect, Brand Trust, Attitudinal Loyalty, Behavioral Loyalty, Purposive sampling,

Confirmatory research, Lifebuoy

INTRODUCTION

In Indonesia, the cosmetics and toiletries market is predicted to grow more than

34 percent by 2011, according to Euromonitor (www.euromonitor.com). One of the key

drivers: an emerging consumer concern over appearance. For example, sales of anti-aging

products increased in value by more than 27 percent in 2006, and are expected to increase

by a total of 145 percent by 2011. (http://findarticles.com/p/articles /mi_m3374). In 2007,

the value growth was underpinned by improved purchasing power of consumers, a flurry

of new product launches, manufacturers’ advertising and promotional campaigns, and

increased product awareness. As economic conditions in the country saw stronger,

consumers demonstrated growing interest in products previously perceived as less

essential, such as fragrances, grooming products. It is predicted that in 2008, the cosmetic


610

and toiletries industry will grow at around 20%-40%.

(http://www.swa.co.id/sekunder/kolom/pemasaran/).

Essential toiletries products, namely hair care, bath and shower products and oral

hygiene, accounted for the bulk to cosmetics and toiletries value sales in Indonesia over the

review period. Indonesian consumers generally regard these products as basic necessities,

and thus the consumer bases, and the frequency of consumption, are huge in comparison

with less essential products. As demand for these products was already considered

saturated, manufacturers came up with product innovations such as new formulations with

value-added benefits, and novel packaging designs and formats to spice up growth and win

share.

In 2007, multinationals companies such as PT. Unilever Indonesia Tbk and

Procter and Gamble Home Products Indonesia continued to lead the way due to strong

brand images and huge marketing budgets. In addition, many Indonesian consumers tend

to prefer foreign brands, as these are generally considered to be of higher quality, and also

more reliable than offerings from domestic players. In light of the growing popularity of

cheaper local brands, there was a move by multinationals to prevent share loss by offering

cheaper products through price discounts and value-for-money offerings by bundling

products with free gifts and offering buy-one-get-one-free deal. Several multinationals also

widened their distribution coverage to reach traditional independent grocers.

One of PT. Unilever Indonesia’s oldest brands, Lifebuoy, has been sold in

countries across the world since the 1890’s. Throughout its history Lifebuoy soap has been

affordable to everyone, helping people to live with greater freedom from health problems.

In Indonesia, Lifebuoy has been well known for its brand's core promise of protection and

a commitment to support life through unbeatable protection. This brand image has been

formed for years in Indonesia.

In the aspect of the promotion strategy, Lifebuoy focuses on dimension of

sympathy and socially responsible, which proves efficient in driving its sales. For instance,

in Indonesia, Lifebuoy has been linked with a different but equally important healthcare

campaign. During the country’s economic crisis in the late 1990s, a substantial part of the

public healthcare infrastructure was affected due to lack of funding. As a result, some

20,000 health centers closed down. UNICEF, supported by sponsorship of $200,000 from

Unilever Indonesia, reopened 900 health centers in a pilot project. During 2000 the


611

company provided Lifebuoy branded healthcare leaflets, public service advertisements and

free samples of soap. (http://www. unilever.com)

Behavior has an effect towards purchasing decision. If they have a positive

behavior towards the brand, there is likelihood that consumers will purchase the same

brand over and over again. To conclude, Lifebuoy is still able to exist up till today is

because consumers have a positive behavior towards Lifebuoy, thus there is continuous

demand of the product. Evaluating this relation, thus this research will be focused on the

factor that influences the behavioral loyalty of consumers.

THEORY

Brand

Brands act as a distinctive factor that distinguishes one product from the other.

For example, consumers are no longer buying soap but choosing brands in the market i.e,

Lux, Biore, Lifebuoy and Dettol. Consumer sensitivity is the sensitivity. Producers of the

various soap brands can provide a detailed explanation on the differences of the brands.

Consumers see the differences in the package, logo, colour, even the shape of fonts used by

the brands. This is called consumer sensitivity. Thus, it is vital for producers to manage

their brand to make their products a success in the market. A highly, professionally

managed brand will attract customers, drive and stimulate them to buy, and even to buy

repeatedly.

Aaker (1991) states that brand should be considered as a soul. This statement

suggests that brands should not be viewed as a product or service, but as an organization,

person, or symbol that distinguishes them.

Brand Equity

Kotler and Armstrong (2004) define the meaning of brand equity as the positive

differential effect that knowing the brand name has on customer response to the product or

service. A similar definition by Aaker (1991) states that brand equity can be seen as the

outcome of putting together a brand’s values, responsibilities and resources with the

symbol and/or name. A brand’s responsibilities and resources, which are very important

for brand equity, may change in different situations. To see the changing factors more

easily, they can be divided into five classes (Aaker, 1991):


612

Brand Loyalty: People are bound to a brand which decreases the weakness to other

brands’ movement

Name awareness: A known brand has more chance to be selected and bought before

an unknown brand, just because of reliability and familiarity to the recognized brand.

Perceived quality: How a brand’s quality is seen by the customers. Good quality can

also mean higher price and a better gross margin.

Brand association: A symbol or character that symbolizes a specific brand.

Other proprietary bran assets: Something that discerns a specific brand from others:

patents, trademarks, etc.

These five factors are categories of brand equity and to add on, brand equity

provides value both to the company and the customers. Brand equity assets provide value

to the customers in the way that the assets can help them to interpret process and store

great quantities of information about products and brands. They also help the customers in

the buying decision in terms of perceived quality and familiarity with the brand.

Brand Loyalty

Brand loyalty has been defined in the literature as a repeat purchase that is a result

of a preference, attitude or market share. These differences in view are reflected in the

behaviouralist or cognitive schools of thought. In addition, more recent research has

introduced the affective component as an explicit element of brand loyalty, thus making

brand loyalty tri-partite construct containing affective, cognitive and behavioral aspects.

These three elements can be summarized as consisting of two key dimensions: attitudinal

and behavioral loyalty (Baldinger and Rubinson 1996). Attitude captures the affective and

cognitive aspects of brand loyalty, such as brand preference and commitment (Gremler and

Brown 1998). In contrast, behavioral brand loyalty is reflected in the observed repurchase

of a brand from a number of available brands (Ehrenberg 1988).

Aaker (1991) sees brand loyalty is categorized in 5 different levels and thus

grouping customers accordingly into a loyalty pyramid.


613

Figure 1 The loyalty Pyramid

Source: Aaker, David A. (1991)

Behavioral Loyalty

Behavioral loyalty is defined as consumers' repeat purchasing of a brand, which is

revealed through patterns of continued patronage and actual spending behaviors

(Hammond et al., 1996. (Uncles et al. 1998) reviews that there are several advantages such

as greater cost-effectiveness of retaining new customers compared with acquiring new

ones and the lower servicing costs for loyal consumers.

The measures for behavioral loyalty include purchasing frequency (i.e., Liljander

and Strandvik, 1993), proportion of purchases (i.e., Backman and Crompton, 1991),

purchase sequence (i.e., Kahn, Kalwani, and Morrison, 1986).

Attitudinal Loyalty

Attitudinal loyalty is an attitudinal predisposition consisting of commitment to a

brand and intention to repurchase the brand (Mellens et al., 1996). Attitudinal loyalty

focuses on the cognitive basis of loyalty and isolates purchases driven by a strong attitude

from purchases due to situational constraints. Brand loyalty for firms is therefore likely to

be characterized by the formation of attitudinal loyalty, which will be followed by the

display of behavioral loyalty.

Attitudinal loyalty is mainly operationalised as customer loyalty in terms of

customer preferences to a brand measured by: involvement (Patterson et al., 1997);

advocacy to others, referring to intention by word-of-mouth (WOM) and willingness to


614

recommend a brand (i.e., Zeithaml, Berry and Parasuraman, 1996); and tendency to resist

switching to an alternate brand (i.e., Crosby and Taylor, 1993), willingness to pay a

premium (Jacoby and Chestnut, 1978) and repeat purchase intention (i.e., Cronin and

Taylor, 1992).

Brand Trust

Brand trust refers to the consumer’s belief that the purchase of the brand is a safe

thing to do and not associated with risk (Chaudhuri and Holbrook 2001). (Chaudhuri &

Holbrook, 2001) further states that Brand trust will determine brand loyalty or consumer

commitment towards the brand because trust is potential in creating highly valued The

trust towards the brand will influence the intention to continue purchasing (attitudinal

loyalty) and stimulate the high attitudinal loyalty.

Components, which may seem distinct theoretically, may be detailed by

conceiving trust as a three-dimensional construct. Taking into account consumer interests

concurs with the idea of reciprocity, a fundamental factor in the paradigm of exchange,

defined as the moral obligation to give something in return for the good one has received

(Benevolence) (Smith-Ring and Van de Ven, 1992). Differentiating between the

presumption of capability and the presumption of honesty also makes it possible to

distinguish two sources of trust, one stemming from technical skills (Credibility) and the

other stemming from ethical proficiency (Integrity) (Landowski, 1989).

Brand Affect

“Brand affect is defined as a brand’s potential to elicit a positive emotional

response in the average consumer as a result of its use” (Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001).

In the relation between consumer loyalty and commitment, Dick & Basu (1994)

found that there is a relationship between loyalty and positive affect accepted by the

consumers. It is emphasized that brand loyalty will be even better if the brand is placed in a

positive emotional mood/affect. Brand affect uses indicators such as utilitarian and hedonic

value (Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001), quality and uniqueness (Keller, 2001).

Theoretical Framework

In this research, the will be using 4 latent variables and 15 observed variables.

Observed variables are the variables that are actually measured, such as manifested

performance on a particular test or the answers to specific item on a questionnaire.


615

Based on the theories stated above and its link towards the problem background,

the study proposed these hypotheses:

H1: The higher the benevolence, the higher is the brand trust of consumer towards

Lifebuoy bar soap

H2: The higher the credibility, the higher is the brand trust of consumer towards Lifebuoy

bar soap

H3: The higher the integrity, the higher is the brand trust of consumer towards Lifebuoy

bar soap

H4: The higher the utilitarianism, the higher the brand affect of consumer towards

Lifebuoy bar soap

H5: The higher the hedonism, the higher the brand affect of consumer towards Lifebuoy

bar soap

H6: The higher the uniqueness, the higher the brand affect of consumer towards Lifebuoy

bar soap

H7: The higher the quality, the higher the brand affect of consumer towards Lifebuoy bar

soap

H8: The higher the involvement, the higher the attitudinal loyalty of consumer towards

Lifebuoy bar soap

H9: The higher willingness to recommend, the higher the attitudinal loyalty of consumer

towards Lifebuoy bar soap

H10: The higher the resistance to switch, the higher the attitudinal loyalty of consumer


H11: The higher the willingness to pay a premium, the higher the attitudinal loyalty of

consumer towards Lifebuoy bar soap

H12: The higher the repurchase intention, the higher the attitudinal loyalty of consumer


H13: The higher the purchasing frequency, the higher the behavior loyalty of consumer


H14: The higher the proportion of purchase, the higher the behavior loyalty of consumer


H15: The higher the purchasing sequence, the higher the behavior loyalty of consumer



616

H16: The higher the brand trust, the higher the attitudinal loyalty of consumer towards

Lifebuoy bar soap

H17: The higher the brand affect, the higher the attitudinal loyalty of consumer towards

Lifebuoy bar soap

H18: The higher the attitudinal loyalty, the higher the behavior loyalty of consumer


RESEARCH METHODS

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) is used in this research paper, in which

several variables will be collected and tested in the form of hypothesis to find out which

variables that has a relationship with each other. It is a technique used to verify the factor

structure of a set of observed variables. The area of research is done in Surabaya only.

The questionnaires will be distributed to people who have used Lifebuoy in

Surabaya. Due to limited time of this study, the respondent must have used Lifebuoy

within a previous of 6 months period. To add on, the population must be the people who

make the purchasing decision in buying Lifebuoy bar soap. The segment will be the

working class people.

In this study, the research will use non probability purposive sampling. (Sekaran,

2003) mentioned that in non-probability sampling designs, the elements in the population

do not have any probabilities attached to their being chosen as sample subjects. In order to

be able to do a proper SEM analysis, Ferdinand (2006) states that the sample that is needed

to be analyzed is five times the total number of indicators. However, there is a need to add

an additional twenty – five respondents because the program, called AMOS 5, will need a

minimum data of 100 respondents if it is to be analyzed.

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

Company Profile

Unilever in Indonesia was established on 5th December 1933 as Lever’s

Zeepfabrieken NV in Batavia. The company’s name was later changed to PT Unilever

Indonesia Tbk. The company listed 15% of its shares on the Jakarta Stock Exchange and

Surabaya Stock Exchange following the approval from the Chairman of Capital Market

Supervisory Board (Bapepam) No.SI-009/PM/E/1981 on 16th November 1981. Unilever


617

Indonesia operates modern production facilities in two industrial areas. The Personal Care

and Toilet Soap plants are located in Rungkut, an industrial zone in Surabaya, East Java

occupying a land of 8.5 hectares. Whilst the NSD, Food, Liquid, Ice Cream and Home

Care factories are in Jababeka, Cikarang, West Java spreading in a total of 40 hectares of

land. Overall, PT. Unilever Indonesia is divided into three main divisions, which are Home

Care & Hygiene, Personal Care and Food & Ice cream.

Data Analysis and Result

After conducting the survey and methodology, analyzing of data given by

respondents will be carried out. To add on, the result of validity and reliability test will be

further discussed in this chapter as well.

Age

After collecting all of the data, the results shows that found out that the majority

of the respondents is between 18 – 25 years old, taking a 42% of the whole sample.

Secondly, the respondents that are between 26 – 35 years old are 36%, while 13% of the

sample consists of respondents in the age range of 36 – 45 years old. Moreover, 6% of the

respondents are between 46 – 55 years old. Lastly, the respondents that are 55 years old

and above stood at 3%.

Gender

After analyzing the gender classification of the respondents, the result shows that

from the 100 respondents that are using Lifebuoy, 68% of them are females, while the

other 32% of the respondents are male. This chart shows that female dominates the

respondents. In addition, it shows that it is female who tends to make the purchasing

decisions in buying daily needs.

Monthly Expense

After analyzing the Monthly Expense classification of the respondents, the result

shows that from the figure above, it is clear that majority of the people spend less than Rp.

1,000,000 a month (68%). For the respondents that spent Rp. 1,000,000 to Rp. 3,000,000,

they took up 31%. Last of all, 1% of the respondents had a monthly expense of Rp.

3,000,000 to Rp. 5,000,000.


618

Occupation

After analyzing the Monthly Expense classification of the respondents, the result

shows that the majority of the respondents were employees, taking up 69%. This shows

that most of the people who purchase Lifebuoy bar soap are employees. On the other hand,

15% of the respondents were students, followed by housewives at 10%. And lastly, 6%

claimed that they are business people.

Last Purchase

After analyzing the Last Purchase classification of the respondents, the result

shows that In the distribution of last purchase, 69% of the respondents stated that they

purchased Lifebuoy bar soap within less than a month. This is a strong indicator that they

are still able to answer the questions more accurately. For the respondents who bought

Lifebuoy bar soap within 1 month – 3 months, the data stood at 24%, and lastly, for the

respondents that bought Lifebuoy bar soap at 4 months – 6 months is 7%.

Validity Test

Validity test is conducted to measure the validity of the question that is given out

to 100 respondents.

Table 1. Validity Summary

Scale Mean

Validity Mean if Scale Corrected Item- Cronbach's

Item Variance if Total Alpha if Item

Deleted Item Deleted Correlation Deleted

Ben1 56.3300 63.658 0.255 0.911 YES

Ben2 55.9800 64.020 0.462 0.904 YES

Cred 55.9700 63.565 0.434 0.904 YES

Inter1 55.9400 64.340 0.420 0.904 YES

Inter2 56.0900 63.477 0.517 0.903 YES

Util 55.8600 63.172 0.479 0.903 YES

Hedo1 55.9700 62.696 0.515 0.902 YES

Hedo2 56.1800 61.280 0.632 0.900 YES

Hedo3 56.3100 59.974 0.614 0.900 YES

Uniq 56.0100 64.778 0.271 0.908 YES

Qual 56.0900 63.658 0.517 0.903 YES

Invol 56.1400 59.253 0.738 0.897 YES


619

\

Table 2 Validity Summary

Testing the validity of the data is very influential and vital in ensuring an accurate

research. To find the validity of the indicators, the Correlated Item – Total Correlation of

the respective indicators have to be higher than 0.195 (with N=100, r ≥ 0.195). As seen

from the two tables above, the 100 questionnaires that were given out were all valid, with

none being excluded. And to add on, all of the indicators have the value of higher than

0.195; this means that they are all valid.

Reliability Test

A good data have to be not only valid, but it must be reliable as well. The table

above shows that the Cronbach’s Alpa has a value of 0.906. The reliability test for each

variable can be considered reliable if the Cronbach Alpa is higher than 0.75. The closer

Cronbach’s Alpha ( ) is to 1, the higher the internal consistency of reliability. Thus, it can

Reco1 56.2900 61.137 0.657 0.899 YES

Reco2 56.1700 62.102 0.519 0.902 YES

Switch 56.3500 58.735 0.719 0.897 YES

Prem 56.4900 59.808 0.699 0.898 YES

Repur1 56.3000 58.798 0.708 0.897 YES

Repur2 56.0500 61.462 0.604 0.900 YES

Freq 56.0800 60.721 0.678 0.899 YES

Prop 56.2300 60.846 0.592 0.900 YES

Sequ 56.3700 61.872 0.362 0.909 YES

Cronbach's Alpha N of Items

0.906 21

N %

Valid 100 100.0

Excluded(a) 0 0.0

Total 100 100.0

Case Processing Summary

Cases

N %

Valid 100 100.0

Excluded(a) 0 0.0

Total 100 100.0

Case Processing Summary

Cases

Table 3. Reliability Table


620

be concluded that the data shown is reliable. This basically means that other people who

will fill in the questionnaire will also have a tendency to elicit the same response, as high

as 90.6%.

To sum up, by having a valid data, it means that the data is reliable enough to be

used further for the research.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Brand Trust

Brand Trust

Ben e1.40

Cred e2.55

Inter e3

.64

Using the program AMOS 5.0 and 5% of significance level, the result are as

shown. To test the hypothesis, the table output from AMOS above shows that all of the

three indicators, benevolence, credibility and integrity have significant effect to brand trust.

The indicators of brand trust have a P value of less than 0.05, thus it can be concluded that

they have a significant effect to brand trust. To sum up, the hypothesize of benevolence,

credibility and integrity to brand trust is therefore accepted

.

Estimate S.E. C.R. P Label

Ben <--- Brand Trust 1.000

Cred <--- Brand Trust 1.367 .594 2.301 .021

Inter <--- Brand Trust 1.156 .551 2.100 .036

Figure 2 Confirmatory Factor

Analysis Model of Brand

Trust

Table 4. Regression Weights of Brand Trust


621

Brand Affect

Brand Affect

Util e1.60

Hedo e2.77

Uniq e3.40

Qual e4

.59


Util <--- Brand Affect 1.000

Hedo <--- Brand Affect 1.160 .278 4.165 ***

Uniq <--- Brand Affect .710 .232 3.062 .002

Qual <--- Brand Affect .824 .200 4.113 ***



four indicators, utilitarian, hedonism, uniqueness and quality have significant effect to

brand affect. The indicators of brand affect have a P value of less than 0.05, thus it can be

concluded that they have a significant effect to brand affect. To sum up, the hypothesize of

utilitarian, hedonism, uniqueness and quality to brand affect is therefore accepted.

Figure 3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Model of Brand Trust

Table 5. Regression Weights of

Brand Affect


622

Attitudinal Loyalty



five indicators, involvement, willingness to recommend, willingness to switch, willingness

to pay a premium price and repurchase intention have significant effect to attitudinal

loyalty. The indicators of attitudinal loyalty have a P value of less than 0.05, thus it can be

concluded that they have a significant effect to attitudinal loyalty. To sum up, the

hypothesize of involvement, willingness to recommend, willngn willingness to switch,

willingness to pay a premium price and repurchase intention to attittudinal loyalty is

therefore accepted.

Behavioral Loyalty

Behavioral Loyalty

Freq e1.77

Prop e2.92

Sequ e3

.61


Util <--- Brand Affect 1.000



Qual <--- Brand Affect .824 .200 4.113 ***


Analysis Model of Attitudinal Affect

Attitudinal Loyalty

Invol e1

.72Reco e2.63

Switch e3.88

Prem e4

.87

Repur e5

.82


Brand Affect


Analysis Model of Behavioral Loyalty


623



three indicators, purchase frequency, proportion of purchase and purchase sequence have

significant effect to behavioral loyalty. The indicators of behavioral loyalty have a P value

of less than 0.05, thus it can be concluded that they have a significant effect to behavioral

loyalty. To sum up, the hypothesize of purchase frequency, proportion of purchase and

purchase sequence to behavioral loyalty is therefore accepted.

All Variables

Using the program AMOS 5.0, it is find out that using the significance level of 5%, all of

the P value of the various variables and indicators are all below the value of 0.05. Therefore, all of

them are valid.


Freq <--- Behavioral Loyalty 1.000

Prop <--- Behavioral Loyalty 1.327 .204 6.497 ***

Sequ <--- Behavioral Loyalty 1.131 .190 5.942 ***


Behaviorall Loyalty

Brand Trust

Brand Affect

Behavioral Loyalty

Attitudinal LoyaltyInterE3

.63

Cred

E2.54

Ben

E1

.42

Freq

E15

Prop

E14

Sequ

E13

Qual

E7

Uniq

E6

HedoE5

.91

UtilE4.51

Invol E12

.74

RecoE11

.63

Switch

E10

.83

Prem

E9

Repur

E8

z1

z2

.84 .57

.82

.52.35

.82

.29

.73

.70

.84

Figure 6 Confirmatory Factor Analysis Model of All

Variables


624

From the table above, it can be analyzed that all of the variables are significant,

which means that they are correlated somehow. For brand trust, the strongest indicator is

integrity, valued at 0.630. This means that this indicator plays an important role in making

Lifebuoy to become a brand that consumer can trust. The second strongest indicator of


Attitudinal Loyalty <--- Brand Affect 1.490 .343 4.347 ***

Attitudinal Loyalty <--- Brand Trust .550 .253 2.173 .030

Behavioral Loyalty <--- Attitudinal Loyalty .716 .124 5.800 ***

Inter <--- Brand Trust 1.000

Cred <--- Brand Trust 1.178 .457 2.578 .010

Ben <--- Brand Trust .931 .380 2.450 .014

Freq <--- Behavioral Loyalty 1.000

Prop <--- Behavioral Loyalty 1.111 .137 8.130 ***

Sequ <--- Behavioral Loyalty .979 .176 5.573 ***

Qual <--- Brand Affect 1.000



Util <--- Brand Affect 1.171 .302 3.878 ***

Invol <--- Attitudinal Loyalty 1.000

Reco <--- Attitudinal Loyalty .670 .110 6.107 ***

Switch <--- Attitudinal Loyalty 1.203 .146 8.229 ***

Prem <--- Attitudinal Loyalty 1.078 .132 8.139 ***

Repur <--- Attitudinal Loyalty .955 .118 8.118 ***

Estimate

Attitudinal Loyalty <--- Brand Affect .732

Attitudinal Loyalty <--- Brand Trust .285

Behavioral Loyalty <--- Attitudinal Loyalty .699

Inter <--- Brand Trust .630

Cred <--- Brand Trust .540

Ben <--- Brand Trust .421

Qual <--- Brand Affect .516

Uniq <--- Brand Affect .348

Hedo <--- Brand Affect .910

Util <--- Brand Affect .508

Invol <--- Attitudinal Loyalty .742

Reco <--- Attitudinal Loyalty .627

Switch <--- Attitudinal Loyalty .830

Prem <--- Attitudinal Loyalty .821

Freq <--- Behavioral Loyalty .838

Prop <--- Behavioral Loyalty .841

Sequ <--- Behavioral Loyalty .568

Repur <--- Attitudinal Loyalty .819

Table 8. Regression Weights of All Variables

Table 9. Standardized Regression Weights of All

Variables


625

brand trust is credibility, having an estimate of 0.540. The weakest indicator is

benevolence. The result of 0.421.

For brand affect, it can be seen from the table that hedonic is the strongest and the

most influential indicator, valued at 0.910. This can be interpreted that when a consumer

buys a bar soap. The second indicator is quality, with a value of 0.516. The third indicator

is utilitarian, with a value of 0.508. The fourth and last indicator is uniqueness, with a

value of 0.348.

For attitudinal loyalty, it can be seen from the table above that willingness to

switch is the strongest and most influential indicator of attitudinal loyalty. With a value of

0.830, this shows that the more they are loyal, the less willing are them to switch to other

brands offering the same benefits. The second strongest indicator is willingness to pay a

premium price with a value of 0.821. The third indicator is repurchase intention, with a

value of 0.819. The next indicator is involvement, with a value of 0.742. The last and

weakest indicator is willingness to recommend, with a value of 0.627.

For behavioral loyalty, the strongest indicator is the proportion of purchase, with

the value of 0.841. This portrays that when a consumer is loyal to a brand in terms of

behavior, they tend to purchase a bigger portion of their favourite brand over others. The

second indicator is purchase frequency, with a value of 0.838. The last and weakest

indicator of behavioral loyalty is purchase sequence, with the value of 0.568.

For the next section, the correlation between the latent variables is explained and

analyzed. From the Table 8, it shows that all of the hypothesize of brand affect and brand

trust to attitudinal loyalty and attitudinal to behavioral is accepted. Looking from table 9, it

can be seen that brand affect plays a bigger part in driving attitudinal loyalty of consumers

using Lifebuoy bar soap. With a value of 0.732, To add on, the trust that Lifebuoy can

provide is still considered weak in driving consumer to be more loyal in terms of attitude.

With the value of 0.285, consumer still do not trust Lifebuoy to a certain extent.

Lastly, the table above also shows that there is a strong indication that attitude

drives the behavior of consumers. With the value of 0.699, it depicts that attitude of

consumers after using Lifebuoy can lead to behavioral action such as a bigger proportion

of purchase and a tendency to frequently purchasing Lifebuoy bar soap


626

CONCLUSION

The empirical finding suggests the following:

1. Attitudinal loyalty does have an effect to behavioral loyalty of consumers using

Lifebuoy bar soap. In this research paper, it gives a value of 0.699 which shows that

there is a positive relationship between attitudinal and behavioral loyalty. In other

words, with a person that has an attitudinal loyalty; it will be followed by his/her

behavioral actions. This result is the same as a statement made by Ajzen and Fishbein,

1991, where it states that attitudes predict subsequent behavior.

2. Brand affect has a greater influence that make consumer loyal in terms of their

attitudinal loyalty. Shown in the previous chapter, the value of 0.732 means that in the

eyes of the respondents, brand affect are important compared to brand trust. Indicators

such as hedonic value and quality play a bigger role in driving brand affect.

3. Brand trust, has a value of 0.285 proves that trust that Lifebuoy try to emphasize on

the consumer is still not yet the driving factor of attitudinal loyalty. Consumer

attitudes’ towards Lifebuoy bar soap is still not yet driven by the trust that they have in

Lifebuoy.

REFERENCE

A. S. C. Ehrenberg 1988, Repeat-Buying: Facts, Theory and Application, London: Charles

Griffin & Company Ltd.

Aaker, David A. 1991, Managing Brand Equity Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand

Name”, The Free Press, New York

Aaker, David A., V. Kumar, George S, Day 2007, Marketing Research 9th Edition, John

Wiley and Sons Inc

Ajzen Icek, Martin Fishbein, (1991), The theory of planned behavior. Org Behavior

Human Decision Processes, p. 179-211

Assael, Henry (1992), Consumer Behavior and Market Action 4th Edition, Boston,

Massachusetts


627

Augusty Ferdinand 2006, Metode Penelitian Manajemen, 2nd Edition, Badan Penerbit

Universitas Diponegoro

Babin, B. J., Darden, W. R., Griffin, M. (1994), Work and/or fun: Measuring hedonic and

utilitarian shopping value, Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 644-656

Backman, C. W., Crompton, J. L. 1991, The usefulness of selected variables for predicting

activity loyalty, Leisure Sciences 13, 205-220

Baier, A. C. 1986, Trust and antitrust, Ethics, p. 231-260

Bainbridge, Jane 1997, Who Wins the National Trust? Marketing, October 23th, 21-23.

Baldinger, A. L, and J Rubinson 1996, Brand Loyalty: The link between attitude and

behavior. Journal of Advertising Research, (November/December) 22-34

Belk, Russel W., Melanie Wallendorf and Jr. John F. Sherry 1989, "The Sacred and the

Profane in Consumer Behavior: Theodicy on the Odyssey," Journal of Consumer

Research, 16 (June), p.1-38

Bettman, J.R. 1979, “An Information Processing Theory of Consumer Choice”, Addison-

Weslep Reading, Massachusetts

Chaudhuri, Arjun & Holbrook, Morris B. 2001, “The Chain of Effect from Brand Trust

and Brand Affect to Brand Performance: The role of Brand Loyalty”, Journal of Marketing

Vol.65, p. 81-93

Cronin, J. J., Taylor, S. A. 1992, "Measuring service quality: a re-examination and

extension”, Journal of Marketing 56, 55-68

Crosby, L. A., Taylor, J. R. 1983, Psychological commitment and its effects on post-

decision Evaluations and preferences satiability among voters, Journal of Consumer

Research 9, 413-431

Dick, A. S. and Basu, K. 1994, Customer Loyalty: Toward an Integrated Conceptual

Framework, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22, p.99-113


628

East, Robert, Wendy Lomax, Sarah Todd, Phil Gendall, Janet Hoek, & Deborah Perkins

1999, Customer Loyalty across Time and Space, European Marketing Academy

Conference, Berlin

Eric Maiwald 2004, Fundamental of Network Security, McGraw-Hill Professional, p. 100

Gremler, D.D, and S.W Brown 1998, “Service loyalty: Antecedents, Components and

Outcomes.” Pp. 165-166 in American Marketing Association

Hammond Kathy, East Robert, Ehrenberg Andrew S.C 1996, Buying more and buying

longer: Concepts and Applications of Consumer Loyalty, London: London Business

School

Hirschman, E., Holbrook, M. B. 1982, Hedonic consumption: emerging concepts, methods

and propositions, Journal of Marketing, 46, p.92-101

Keller, Kevin Lane 2001, Building Customer – Based Brand Equity, Marketing

Management, p.15-19

Kotler, Philip and Armstrong, Gary (2004), Principles of Marketing 10th Edition, Pearson

Prentice Hall

Malhotra Naresh K.; Marketing Research. 1999.. An Applied Orientation; Prentice-Hall,

Inc., New Jersey, 3rd edition.

Malhotra, Naresh K. 1996, Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation 2nd Edition,

Georgia Institute of Technology, Prentice Hall International

Oliver, Richard L. 1999, Whence Customer Loyalty, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63, p. 33-

44

Patterson Paul G. Johnson Lester W, Spreng Richard A. 1997, “Modeling the determinants

of customer satisfaction for business-to-business professional services”, Academic Mark

Science

the effect of attitudinal loyalty towards behavioral

Documents