exploring brand personality congruence - K-REx - Kansas State ...

a company.” Temporal (2002) further observes that the most successful brands enjoy the
trust of their customers and maintenance of that trust facilitates brand loyalty.
Past literature states that trust enhances the strength of loyalty and relationship quality
because as trust is built, the perceived risk in and vulnerability to the service provider is
reduced (Berry, 2000), and the consumer’s confidence in keeping the relationship is
increased (Morgan & Hunt, 1994; Sirdeshmukh et al., 2002; Hennig-Thurau et al., 2002). As
a pioneer in relationship marketing, Berry (2000) suggests that “trust is critical to the
formation of service-based relationships because of the intangibility of services” (p.163).
The study aims to validate the relationship between trust and a measure of composite brand
loyalty in the casual dining brand, which includes the cognitive, affective, conative, and
action phases. Thus, the study proposes that higher levels of trust lead to higher levels of
brand loyalty (H6: Trust is positively associated with brand loyalty).
Satisfaction
An array of definitions for the satisfaction construct is present in the marketing
literature. Most of these definitions have involved “an evaluative, affective, or emotional
response” (Oliver, 1989, p.1), most of which are anchored on the disconfirmation paradigm
(Oh & Parks, 1997; Yi, 1990). That is, satisfaction is determined by the comparison of
perceptions of product performance with existing expectations (Oliver, 1997). When
performance is less than what the customers expect, quality is perceived to be low resulting
in negative disconfirmation or dissatisfaction. Conversely, if performance meets customer’s
expectations (zero disconfirmation) or exceeds customer’s expectations (positive
disconfirmation), quality is perceived to be high and satisfaction results (Bitner, 1990;
Kandampully et al., 2001). Furthermore, Oliver (1997) defined satisfaction/dissatisfaction as
“the consumer’s fulfillment response, the degree to which the level of fulfillment is pleasant
or unpleasant” (p.28).
Oliver (1999) later redefined satisfaction as “a fairly temporal post usage state for
one-time consumption or a repeatedly experienced state for ongoing consumption that
reflects how the product or service has fulfilled its purpose” (p.41). As such, research has
been mixed in the operationalization of the satisfaction construct (Anderson & Fornell, 1994;
Jones & Suh, 2000). Satisfaction has been viewed as a transaction specific measure (i.e.:
22