8/8/2019 A Project Report on MR (Product Involvement and Brand Loyalty)
1/21
a
A Project Report On
PRODUCT INVOLVEMENT & BRAND LOYALTY
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirementsFor the award of the degree of
Post Graduate Diploma in Management [PGDM]
AT
Submitted to
Mr. Rajesh Sharma VARUN NARANG
Roll No. 29118Ph No. 9810876503
NIILM Center for Management Studies
New Delhi 110044
Batch (2009-2011)
8/8/2019 A Project Report on MR (Product Involvement and Brand Loyalty)
2/21
b
Contents
Abstract: ...................................................................................................................................................................... - 1 -
1.0 INTRODUCTION WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO INDIAN CONTEXT: ................................................. - 1 -
1.2 Indian Salt Market .............................................................................................................................................. - 2 -
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................................................................................... - 3 -
2.1 A brief review on Product Involvement............................................................................................................... - 4 -
2.2 A brief review of Brand Loyalty ......................................................................................................................... - 4 -
3.1 Pie Charts and Diagram .......................................................................................................................................... - 7 -
4.0 HYPOTHESIS ....................................................................................................................................................... - 8 -
5.0 RESULTS .............................................................................................................................................................. - 9 -
6.0 FINDINGS............................................................................................................................................................. - 9 -
7.0 SUMMARY WITH REFERENCE TO SIMILARITIES AND DISSIMILARITIES .............................................. - 10 -
8.0 MANEGERIAL IMPLICATION.......................................................................................................................... - 11 -
10.0 SCOPE FOR FURTHER RESEARCH ............................................................................................................... - 12 -
11.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................................................................................................................. - 13 -
8/8/2019 A Project Report on MR (Product Involvement and Brand Loyalty)
3/21
c
8/8/2019 A Project Report on MR (Product Involvement and Brand Loyalty)
4/21
- 1 -
IS THERE A LINK BETWEEN PRODUCT INVOLVEMENT/ BRAND
LOYALTY: AN EMPERICAL STUDY INDIAN YOUTH
Abstract:
In the new stream of study between product involvement and brand loyalty, a convenience
sample of 100 people were asked to complete a questionnaire relating to two products (Sport
shoes and Salt) which had been found in preliminary qualitative research to be associated with
total and minimal level of involvement. The analysis of variance was conducted to know the
significant difference between high and low involvement product on the basis of five dimensions
such as Interest, Sign, Pleasure, Risk Probability and RiskImportance. Furthermore, the link
between product involvement and brand loyalty was found to inve different aspects of product for
each of the product concerned.
1.0INTRODUCTION WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO INDIAN CONTEXT:
Indian markets from low-involvement to high-involvement product categories have been
experiencing sweeping changes in the past decade. Changing lifestyles, fragmented market
segments and consumer preferences, and intense competition from the brands of multinational
corporations (MNCs) have made branding strategies a prerequisite for marketing success1.
1.1 Sportswear Market in IndiaSportswear is a term that normally brings to mind an image of an athlete or a sportsman dressed
up to begin a game such as a cricketer in full gear, a tennis champ in sport clothing. However, it
is interesting to note that during the last few decades the dimensions of sportswear have
expanded to an extent that has brought forth a whole new face for this clothing category and
what was traditionally sports clothing, is fast acquiring the nomen activewear.
The Sportswear Market in India is highly competitive market. The youth in India is ready for the
sportswear definition. The youth in the relatively smaller cities is also aware of what brands are
doing globally, be it fashion or the automobile industry. Many a times, the customer is aware of
1 Excerpts from the Journal of Brand Management (2003)
8/8/2019 A Project Report on MR (Product Involvement and Brand Loyalty)
5/21
- 2 -
the products before it even reaches the stores. This shows the involvement level of youth.
Awareness for sportswear category has been created by effective communication during product
launch, conveying what sportswear means.
The sportswear market is the only sector in India that has the presence of all top international
brands. The year 2006 witnessed the entry of Nike, Reebok and Adidas that gave a new
dimension to footwear and fashion retailing in the country. Then there are brands like Puma and
Tommy Hilfiger that are determined to present a whole new experience in fashionable active
wear and sportswear. All these brands are today targeting a nationwide expansion and this
market segment is suddenly beginning to look a lot bigger than what it was initially perceived to
be.
The major brands of India in sports shoes like Bata and Liberty have also responded positively to
the challenges in a bid to retain the market leadership. They have significantly transformed their
retail formats to become more lifestyle-oriented and are positioning themselves as vibrant and
contemporary Indian brands.2
1.2 Indian Salt Market
The Indian Salt market is also gaining potential. There is huge competition in this market sector.
The companies offering the product are: Tata, Annapurna, Saffola, and Naturefresh.
According to a particular article of Business Line in 2008, Tata Salt continues to reap the early
bird advantage, with a leading 38 per cent share of the national branded salt segment, and a 17
per cent share of the total iodized branded salt market. Annapurna salt brand is estimated to have
a market share of about 16 per cent. (DCW Chemicals' Captain Cook, launched in 1991, was
subsequently acquired by International Best foods, which in turn was acquired by Unilever, HLL
continues to distribute Captain Cook salt, but the brand isn't being pushed as aggressively now,
observe FMCG analysts.)
New entrant Naturefresh, from the Cargill Foods stable, claims to be showing positive results.
Naturefresh salt has been able to make inroads, generating switch in brand preference from the
2
Excerpts taken from an article Sports enough to wear from the website of Third Eyesight accessed on 20/4/2010
at 10:15;http://3isite.com/articles/sportswear_brands_india_nike_reebok_adidas_tommy_hilfiger_armani_ralph_lauren_calvi
n_klein.htm
8/8/2019 A Project Report on MR (Product Involvement and Brand Loyalty)
6/21
- 3 -
top end of the edible salt market. Other significant branded players include Marico's Saffola,
positioned as a niche, low-sodium brand introduced about four years ago, and Nirma Shudh,
which isn't completely national yet.
One of the reasons why salt is outperforming other commodities is to do with the life span of
branded salt being longer. Apart from that, there's been an effective `iodine deficiency
campaign', owing to which the penetration of branded salt is about 20 per cent nationally,
compared to one per cent for branded Atta and sugar."
Salt can be differentiated by free flowing', `iodized', `granular' and `vacuum evaporation'. While
the consumer is swayed by a number of brands and benefits which indicates low brand loyalty,
there is a preference for reputed brands and familiar names. That's because salt is a habitual
product and the consumer doesn't prefer frequent brand switches. The Indian consumer is willing
to switch among a set of preferred brands, depending on availability, personal preference and
product offering.3
Hence in Indian context the sport shoes is regarded as high involvement product and salt being
low involvement product is considered to be high brand loyal product.
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW
Product involvement and brand loyalty are two important concepts believed to explain a
significant proportion of consumer purchase choices. Several studies (e.g. Traylor, 1981; Park,
1996; Iwasaki and Havitz, 1998), have examined the relationship between product involvement
and brand loyalty, under different names. Traylor (1981) used the term ego involvement and
brand commitment whereas Park (1996) referred to involvement and attitudinal
involvement.
Traylor (1983) stated that brand commitment is generally not directly related to product
involvement, suggesting that it is possible to consider cases where high product involvement is
directly related to low brand commitment and high brand commitment to low product
involvement. This is because involvement and loyalty is consumer defined phenomena.
3 Hindu Business Line dated 22/06/2008 Salts sweet success accessed on 20/4/2010 at 10:00 am
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/catalyst/2002/06/20/stories/2002062000020100.html
8/8/2019 A Project Report on MR (Product Involvement and Brand Loyalty)
7/21
- 4 -
2.1 A brief review on Product Involvement
According to Miller and Marks (1996), Product involvement inves an ongoing commitment on
the part of the consumer with regards to thoughts, feelings and behavioral responses to product
category. Product involvement is independent and situational influences (Miller and Mark,1996). Richens and Bloch (1986) note that the customers with high involvement products would
find the products interesting and this would occupy the consumers thoughts without the stimulus
of immediate purchase. Such interest may arise from consumers perception that the product
class meets important values and goals. According to OCass and Muller (1999), product
involvement is seen as the intensity with which a product gestalt is embedded in and driven by
the consumers value system.
According to Kapferer and Laurent (1985), different involvement profile can and should, be
developed for each individual consumer. The two profiles on the extreme end are high
involvement and low involvement profile. The involvement profile is based on five dimensions:
1) Interest: the personal interest a person has in a product category, its personal meaning and
importance. 2) Pleasure: the hedonic value of the product, its ability to provide pleasure and
enjoyment. 3) Sign: the degree to which it expresses the personal self. 4) Risk Importance: the
perceived importance of potential negative consequences associated with a poor choice of the
product. 5) Risk Probability: the perceived probability of making poor choice. All the facets
(dimensions) of the involvement profile must be considered simultaneously because different
facets have different influences on the selected aspects of consumer behavior. Depending on
these five dimensions, consequences on consumer behavior, such as time spent on information
search, the number of brands examined and the attention paid to advertisement messages, may
differ across individuals with respect to different product categories.
2.2 A brief review of Brand Loyalty
According to Aaker (1992), brand loyalty implies both a consistent pattern of purchase of a
specific brand over time and a favorable attitude towards a brand. The literature shows two
alternative approaches to the construct of brand loyalty. The first one is concerned with a
consistent purchase behavior of a specific brand over time. This is behavioral approach to brand
8/8/2019 A Project Report on MR (Product Involvement and Brand Loyalty)
8/21
- 5 -
loyalty and the second one relies on a favorable attitude towards a brand is the attitudinal
approach to brand loyalty.
There are some definitions given by various authors like According to Kuehn (1962), brand
loyalty can be viewed as, at least in part, a function of the frequency and regularity with which a
brand has been selected in the past. According to tucker, brand loyalty is a biased choice
behavior with respect to branded merchandise. According to LeClerc and Little (1997), the
number of brand purchased in the last year as the indicator of loyalty. According to Cunningham
(1956), single brand loyalty is the proportion of total purchases represented by large single brand
used. Dual brand loyalty is the proportion of total purchases represented by the two largest single
brands used.
The conceptual definition of brand loyalty by Jacob and Kyner (1973) is: the biased(non biased),
behavioral responses expressed over time, by some decision making unit with respect to one or
more alternative brands out of the set of brands and is a functional of psychological processes.
2.3 Justification of basing hypotheses on demographic variables such as age, income,
education
The hypothesis is based on various factors such as age, income and education. The hypothesis is
reached out on the basis on argument given by various author.
Age has a great impact on involvement level of product. Age carries with it culturally defined
behavioral and attitudinal norms (Alreck 2000). Age affects consumers self concept and life
styles (Henry 2000). Age determines the consumption of various products, media, and shopping
centers and has been used by marketers to segment the markets. Age also influences the level of
consumer involvement (Slama and Tashchin 1985; Jain and Sharma 2002). Though age forms a
part of one's stage of family life cycle, yet it is in itself an important factor for various products.
Similarly income also has a significant impact on consumer involvement. Income of the family
combined with family's accumulated wealth determines the purchasing power (Hawkins et al
2003). However, income enables purchases but does not generally cause or explain them. It is
likely that the occupation and education directly influence the preferences for products, media
and activities; income provides the means to acquire them (Mulhern et al 1998). Jain and Sharma
(2002) and Slama and Taschian (1985) identified that income influences the involvement levels.
8/8/2019 A Project Report on MR (Product Involvement and Brand Loyalty)
9/21
- 6 -
Similarly education also affects the involvement level of consumer. Education is one of the
widely applied cues to evaluate an individual (Hawkins et al 2003). It is strongly related to
occupation and income. Various studies have found differences in consumption of products with
differences in the Educations. Jain and Sharma (2002) could gather a minimal support for the
argument that consumer involvement differs for differences in consumers' Education. However,
it may be speculated that the differences in the involvement levels of consumer would be
influenced by different Education
3.0 METHODOLOGY
In the particular study, a survey was conducted for high involvement and low involvement
products where respondents were asked about their involvement (high and low) with products.
As a pretest analysis a sample of 50 respondents was taken from Select City Walk Mall. And the
findings indicated that Sport Shoes were regarded as High involvement product and Salt was
regarded as low involvement product. Then the questionnaire was prepared based on five
dimensions Interest, Sign, Pleasure, Risk Probability and Risk Importance. The Consumer
Involvement Profile (CIP) scale was used on seven point Likert scale from 1- strongly disagree
to 7- strongly agree.
Then a sample of 100 students was taken in the study. Respondents were taken from shopping
malls and Jawaharlal Nehru University Campus. Respondents were classified on the basis of age,
income and education.
TABLE 1: Classification of Respondents on the basis of Age, Income and Education
Group RangeNo of Respondents and
percentage
AGE
< 20 yrs 820-30 yrs 83> 30 yrs 9TOTAL 100
Income
< 50,000 4750,000 100000 17>1,00,000 36TOTAL 100
Education
Undergraduate 10Graduate 23Post-Graduate 67TOTAL 100
8/8/2019 A Project Report on MR (Product Involvement and Brand Loyalty)
10/21
- 7 -
3.1 Pie Charts and Diagram
3.1.1 Classification of respondents on the basis of age
3.1.2 Classification of respondents on the basis of Education
3.1.3 Classification of respondents on the basis of Household Income
9%8%
83%
AGE
< 20
20-30
> 30
10%
23%
67%
QUALIFICATION
UNDERGRADUATE
POST GRADUATE
GRADUATE
47%
17%
36%
RESPONSES
< 50,000
50,000-1,00,000
> 1,00,000
8/8/2019 A Project Report on MR (Product Involvement and Brand Loyalty)
11/21
- 8 -
4.0 HYPOTHESIS
The below hypothesis are classified into High Involvement and Low Involvement Product
4.1 High involvement product
H01: There is no significant difference among different age groups for high involvement product
(shoes)
H02: There is no significant difference among different income groups for high involvement
product (shoes)
H03: There is no significant difference among different education groups for high involvement
product (shoes)
4.2 Low involvement product
H04: There is no significant difference among different age groups for low involvement product
(salt)
H05: There is no significant difference among different income groups for low involvement
product (salt)
H06: There is no significant difference among different education groups for low involvement
product (salt)
4.3 Impact on the basis of factors of consumer involvement
H07: There is no significant difference between high involvement and low involvement product
by interest factor
H08: There is no significant difference between high involvement and low involvement product
by sign factor
H09: There is no significant difference between high involvement and low involvement product
by pleasure factor
H10: There is no significant difference between high involvement and low involvement product
by risk probability factor
H11: There is no significant difference between high involvement and low involvement product
by risk importance factor.
8/8/2019 A Project Report on MR (Product Involvement and Brand Loyalty)
12/21
- 9 -
5.0 RESULTS
5.1 One Way ANOVA
One Way ANOVA is analyzed using SPSS 15
TABLE 2: Showing the results of all the hypothesis of One Way ANOVAS
No. HYPOTHESIS Sig.
H1 No significant difference among different age groups in high involvementproduct (shoes) 0.874
H2 No significant difference among different income groups in high involvementproduct (shoes) 0.943
H3 No significant difference among different education groups in high involvement
product (shoes) 0.783
H4 No significant difference among different age groups in low involvement
product (salt) 0.949
H5 No significant difference among different income groups in low involvementproduct 0.924
H6 No significant difference among different education groups in low involvement
product (salt) 0.898
H7 No significant difference between high involvement and low involvement
product by interest factor 0.006*
H8 No significant difference between high involvement and low involvement
product by sign factor 0.001*
H9 No significant difference between high involvement and low involvement
product by pleasure factor 0.032*
H10 No significant difference between high involvement and low involvementproduct by risk probability factor 0.132
H11 No significant difference between high involvement & low involvementproduct by risk importance 0.041
*
H12 No significant difference between the mean rating of high involvement andLow involvement product 0.758
* The optimal level of accepting null hypothesis is p > 0.05 at 95% confidence level
6.0 FINDINGS
We observed the impact of age, income & education on high involvement & low involvement
product. We used one way ANOVA to find out the results. We found that the significant F test
for age was 0.949 & 0.874 for low involvement & high involvement products respectively. Since
both the values are greater than 0.05 at 95% confidence level, hence we conclude that there is no
significance difference among different age groups on high involvement & low involvement
products. Similarly we found that the significant F test for income was 0.843 & 0.981 for low
8/8/2019 A Project Report on MR (Product Involvement and Brand Loyalty)
13/21
- 10 -
involvement & high involvement products respectively. So there is no significant difference
among different income groups on high involvement & low involvement products. The findings
also indicated that significant F test for education was 0.898 & 0.783 for low involvement &
high involvement products respectively. So there is no significant difference among different
education groups on high involvement & low involvement products.
We also need to observe the impact of different dimensions of consumer involvement (Interest,
Sign, Pleasure, Risk Probability and Risk Importance) on high involvement & low involvement
products. So we observed that the significant F test was 0.006 which is less than 0.05, hence we
conclude that there is a significant difference between high involvement & low involvement
products due to interest factor. Similarly we observed a significant difference between high
involvement & low involvement products due to Sign, Pleasure & Risk Importance. But there is
no significant difference between high involvement & low involvement products due to Risk
Probability. This implies that Risk Probability do not have impact on high involvement & low
involvement products.
One of the findings indicates that there is no significant difference between the mean rating of
respondents for high involvement and low involvement product.
The Cronbach Alpha was applied to know the reliability & internal consistency of the test. The
Cronbach Alpha for 7 Point Scale measuring the consumer involvement stood at 0.944 & 0.958
for Salt & Sport Shoes respectively. Since the Cronbach Alpha for both the products is greater
than 0.7, hence the test is reliable.
We also found that the mean rating of respondents for low involvement products is greater than
the mean rating for high involvement product. This shows that low involvement product can
have high Brand Commitment & high involvement product can have Low Brand Commitment.
In this study Salt being a low involvement product is considered to be high in Brand Loyalty.
This proves that Brand Loyalty & Product involvement as consumer defined phenomenon as
stated by Traylor (1983).
7.0 SUMMARY WITH REFERENCE TO SIMILARITIES AND DISSIMILARITIES
The study conducted state that the high brand loyalty can be coupled with low product
involvement and vice versa. In this study salt being low involvement product is considered to be
high in brand loyalty. This findings is similar to the article of Business Line (2008) regarding
8/8/2019 A Project Report on MR (Product Involvement and Brand Loyalty)
14/21
- 11 -
Salt's sweet success which also state that salt is a habitual product and consumer do not prefer
frequent brand switch, therefore salt is considered to be high in brand loyalty. 4
There was a similar study conducted by G. Sridhar in 20065 in his research on Consumer
Involvement in product choice- A Demographic Analysis where the researcher found the impact
of age, education and Income on High Involvement & Low Involvement Product. The research
found that there is a significant difference among different age group, Education and Income
group in high involvement & low Involvement product. But in the original study there is no
significant difference among different age group, education and Income in high involvement &
low Involvement products.
8.0 MANAGERIAL IMPLICATION
Our findings indicate that factors like age, Income, Education do not have a great impact on low
involvement and high involvement product. These findings are useful for marketer. Marketer
would continue to produce and offer high involvement and low involvement product without
segmenting the product Age wise, education wise and income wise, because these factors do not
affect the consumer involvement.
We also observe that various dimensions of consumer involvement like Interest, Sign, Pleasure,
Risk Probability and Risk importance helps to find out the significant difference between high
involvement and low involvement product. This finding can also be useful for the marketer. The
marketer must take into account the dimensions of involvement while offering high and low
involvement product. A marketer must analyze the product on the basis of Interest, Sign,
Pleasure and Risk Importance before offering product to consumer. A marketer must analyze the
reason of consumer to buy the particular product, whether the consumer is excited in buying the
product or whether the consumer buys the product because it expresses his/her own self or some
other reasons.The findings would be helpful for the Managers and executives in product planning. The
manager must analyze different dimensions of consumer involvement (Interest, Sign, Pleasure &
4Hindu Business Line dated 22/06/2008- Salts sweet success. Retrieved on April, 20th 2010 at 10:00 am fromhttp://www.thehindubusinessline.com/catalyst/2002/06/20/stories/2002062000020100.htm5 G. Sridhar (2007), XIMB journal of Management
8/8/2019 A Project Report on MR (Product Involvement and Brand Loyalty)
15/21
- 12 -
Risk importance) in designing the marketing strategies. However there is no need for manager to
consider Risk Probability (as a dimension of involvement) in designing the marketing strategies
because Risk probability do not have significant impact on high and low involvement product
9.0 LIMITATION
The finding suffered from some limitations. One of the limitation was that majority of selected
sample was between the age group 20-30. We selected sample of 100 respondents from JNU
University. Hence the sample was confined to students of JNU University with similar age
group, Education Qualification. Another limitation was the Response bias. Many of the
respondents gave inaccurate answers. There was some Inability error i.e. Respondent were
unable to provide accurate answers because of various reasons like unfamiliarity, fatigue,
question content, question format. Another limitation was that there were very less number of
respondents selected as a sample representative.
10.0 SCOPE FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
There is a great scope for further improvement as the study was confined to the impact of various
dimensions of involvement on the two involvement profile. Factor Analysis might be conducted
in order to determine the number of factors that would account for maximum variance in the data
for use in subsequent multivariate analysis.
The study reveals that attitude is the key determinant of real brand loyalty, the other is behavioral
loyalty. Attitudinal loyalty has been broken down into cognitive, affective and conotive
construct. Quester and Lim (2003) found all the three variables merged into one factor for both
product and brand loyalty, so in order to replicate the study the researcher fixed the brand loyalty
into one factor. Hence there is a scope of further research to test these three construct of brand
loyalty against the five dimension of product involvement in order to find further insight.Another scope for improvement is that in addition with age, education and income, some more
factors can be taken like gender, marital status, and familys monthly expenditure
8/8/2019 A Project Report on MR (Product Involvement and Brand Loyalty)
16/21
- 13 -
11.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY1.Aaker, D. A. (1992). Value of Brand Equity. The Journal Business Strategy, 13 (4), 27-
37.
2.Alreck, P.L (2000). Consumer Age Role Norms.Psychology and Marketing, 891-900.3.Boonghe Yoo, Donthu, N. & S.Lee (2000). An Examination of Selected Marketing Mix
Elements and Brand Equity, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 28(2): 195-
211.
4.Chaudhari, A. (1995). Brand equity and double jeopardy, Journal of Product and BrandManagement, 4 (2), 26-32.
5.Cunningham, R.M. (1956). Brand Loyalty- what, where, how much? Harvard BusinessReview, 34 (2), 116-28
6.Dick, A.S. & Basu, K. (1994) Customer loyalty: toward an integrated conceptualframework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22 (2), 99-113.
7.Douglas, N. (2006) How Product Involvement affects Brand Loyalty Journal ofMarketing Research. 4, 34-56.
8.Farley, J.U. (1964). Why does Brand Loyalty vary over product, Journal of MarketingResearch, 1 (4), 9-14.
9.Hawkins I. Del, Roger J. Best & Kenneth A. Coney (2003). Consumer Behavior BuildingMarketing Strategy, Ninth Edition, Tata McGraw Hill, New Delhi.
10.Henry, P. (2000). Modes of Thought that vary systematically with Social Class and Age.Psychology and Marketing, 421 440.
11.Iwasaki, Y. & Havitz, M.E. (1998). A path-analytic model of the relationships betweeninvolvement, psychological commitment and loyalty. Journal of Leisure Research, 30
(2), 256-80.
12.Jacoby, J. & Kyner, D.B. (1973). Brand Loyalty vs. repeat purchasing behavior. Journalof Marketing Research, 10, 1-9.
13.Jain, K. & Srinivasan, N. (1990). An empirical assessment of multiple operationalizationsof involvement, in Goldberg, M.E. and Pollay, R.W.(Eds). Advances in Consumer
Research, 17, 594-602.
8/8/2019 A Project Report on MR (Product Involvement and Brand Loyalty)
17/21
- 14 -
14.Jain K. Sanjay & Kavita Sharma (2002). Relevance of Personal Factors as Antecedentsof Consumer Involvement: An Exploration, Vision, 13 24.
15.Kapferer, J.-N. & Laurent, G. (1985a). Consumer Involvement Profiles: a new practicalapproach to consumer involvement. Journal ofAdvertising Research, 25 (6) 48-56.
16.Kapferer, J-N & Laurent, G. (1958b). Consumer involvement profiles: new empiricalresults in Hiroshima, E. and Holbrook, M. (Eds). Advances in Consumer Research, 12,
Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT, 290-5.
17.Kuehn, A.A. (1962). Consumer brand choice as a learning process. Journal ofAdvertising Research, 2, 10-17.
18.LeClerc, F. & Little, JDC. (1997). Can advertisement copy make FSI coupons moreeffective?, Journal of Marketing Research, 34, 473-84.
19.Miller, D.W. & Marks, L.J. (1996). The Moderating effects of enduring involvement onimaginary- evoking advertisements, American MarketingAssociation, Winter, 121-8
20.OCass, A. & Muller, T. (1999). A study of Australian materialistic values, productinvolvement and the self-image/product image congruency relationships for fashion
clothing, Proceedings of the World MarketingCongress on Global Perspectives in
marketing for the 21stCentury, Qawra, Malta.
21.Park, S-H (1996). Relationships between involvement and attitudinal loyalty construct inadult fitness programs. Journal ofConsumer Research, 28 (4), 233-50.
22.Quester, P. & Lim, A.L. (2000). Product Involvement/Brand Loyalty: is there a link? ,Journal of Product and Brand Management, 12 (1), 22-38
23.Rechin, M.L. & Bloch, P.H. (1986). After the wears off: the temporal context of productinvolvement, Journal ofConsumer Research, 7, 272-82
24.Slama, M.E. & Tashchian, A. (1985). Selected socioeconomic and demographiccharacteristics associated with purchasing involvement. Journal of Marketing, 49, 72-82
25.
Sridhar G. (2007). Consumer Involvement in Product Choice- A Demographic Analysis.
Journal of Marketing Research, 32 (4) , 43-68.
26.Traylor, M.B. (1981). Product involvement and brand commitment, Journal ofAdvertising Research, 51-6.
27.Traylor, M.B. (1983). Ego involvement and brand commitment: not necessarily the same.Journal ofConsumer Marketing, 75-9.
8/8/2019 A Project Report on MR (Product Involvement and Brand Loyalty)
18/21
- 15 -
28.Tucker, W.T. (1964). The development of brand loyalty. Journal of Marketing Research,1 (3), 32-5.
29.Zeithaml, Valarie A. (1988). Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality, and Value: AMeans-End Model and Synthesis of Evidence. Journal of Marketing52 (July), 2-22.
WEBLOGRAPHY
ySalts sweet success, Hindu Business Line, 22/06/2008. Retrieved on April, 20th 2010fromhttp://www.thehindubusinessline.com/catalyst/2008/06/20/stories/2002062000020100.htm
ySports enough to wear, Third eyesight, 24/08/2006. Retrieved on April, 20th 2010 fromhttp://3isite.com/articles/sportswear_brands_india_nike_reebok_adidas_tommy_hilfiger_ar
mani_ralph_lauren_calvin_klein.htm
ANNEXURE
8/8/2019 A Project Report on MR (Product Involvement and Brand Loyalty)
19/21
- 16 -
The following questions were prepared on the basis of 7 point Likert scale. And a sample of 100 respondents
were selected to fill questionnaire QUESTIONS
1 It was very important for me to buy this particular brand of SPORTS SHOES over (an) other brand(s).
2Over the last few months/years, I have always bought the same brand of SPORTS SHOES because I really liked
the brand
3
I put in quite a great deal of effort when I made a decision about which brand of SPORTS SHOES to buy
among these brands
4 Although another brand was on sale, I still bought this particular brand of SPORTS SHOES
5 I would be upset if I had to buy another brand of SPORTS SHOES if this particular brand was not available
6I always thought of this particular brand of SPORTS SHOES over the other brand(s) when I considered buying a
pair/one
7 I was excited about getting this particular brand of SPORTS SHOES over the other brand(s)
8 I would continue to buy the same brand of SPORTS SHOES because I like the brand very much
9 I always found myself consistently buying this particular brand of SPORTS SHOES over the other brand(s)10 I considered brand to be very important in choosing a SPORTS SHOES
11 I felt good about this particular brand of SPORTS SHOES over the other brand(s)
12 I paid a lot of attention to this particular brand of SPORTS SHOES over the other brand(s)
13 I felt very attached to this particular brand of SPORTS SHOES over the other brand(s)
14 Once I have decided on a particular brand of SPORTS SHOES over the other brands, I will stick by it
15I was interested in this particular brand of SPORTS SHOES over the other brand(s)
16If this particular brand of SPORTS SHOES wasnt available at the store, I would rather not buy at all if I have
to choose another brand
8/8/2019 A Project Report on MR (Product Involvement and Brand Loyalty)
20/21
- 17 -
QUESTIONS
1 It was very important for me to buy this particular brand of SALT over (an) other brand(s).
2 Over the last few months/years, I have always bought the same brand of SALT because I really liked the brand
3I put in quite a great deal of effort when I made a decision about which brand of SALT to buy among these
brands
4 Although another brand was on sale, I still bought this particular brand of SALT
5 I would be upset if I had to buy another brand of SALT if this particular brand was not available
6 I always thought of this particular brand of SALT over the other brand(s) when I considered buying a pair/one
7 I was excited about getting this particular brand of SALT over the other brand(s)
8 I would continue to buy the same brand of SALT because I like the brand very much
9 I always found myself consistently buying this particular brand of SALT over the other brand(s)
10 I considered brand to be very important in choosing a SALT
11 I felt good about this particular brand of SALT over the other brand(s)
12 I paid a lot of attention to this particular brand of SALT over the other brand(s)
13 I felt very attached to this particular brand of SALT over the other brand(s)
14 Once I have decided on a particular brand of SALT over the other brands, I will stick by it
15 I was interested in this particular brand of SALT over the other brand(s)
16If this particular brand of SALT wasnt available at the store, I would rather not buy at all if I have to choose
another brand
8/8/2019 A Project Report on MR (Product Involvement and Brand Loyalty)
21/21
- 18 -