Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Loyalty as a matter of principle: the influence of standards of judgment on customer loyalty

  • Published:
Marketing Letters Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Ethicists refer to people who make judgments based on normative principles as deontologists. Their ethical standards are such that loyalty is an important characteristic to them—which could make them appealing consumers for marketers to target. In a series of three studies, we illustrate the following: whether deontological standards of judgment positively impact their consumer loyalty, if normative advertising campaigns are more effective for deontologists than for utilitarians, and whether the loyalty proneness of deontologists is a function of selective processing. While standards of judgment have been addressed in the literature to measure practices of marketers, our research is the first that speaks to the impact that standards of judgment can have on consumer decision-making.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We thank the reviewers for pointing this out.

  2. NFCC correlated with deontology (r = 0.295, p < 0.01) and utilitarianism (r = 0.154, p < 0.05); in addition, U marginally correlated with variety seeking (r = 0.134, p < 0.06).We also assessed whether identity theory (Hong et al. 1997), and value orientations (Schwartz and Rubel 2005) explained any of our effects. While a number of variables correlated with utilitarianism, deontology, and brand loyalty, we found no mediating effects of any of the variables. Specifically, we found that utilitarian was correlated with conformity (r = −0.176, p < 0.05), tradition (r = −0.179, p < 0.01), benevolence (r = 0.316, p < 0.001), universalism (r = 0.329, p < 0.001), self-transcendence (r = 0.385, p < 0.001), power (r = −0.197, p < 0.01), and conservation (r = −0.181, p < 0.01), implicit morality (r = 0.143, p < 0.05), and implicit personality (r = 0.173, p < 0.05); deontology was correlated with conformity (r = 0.429, p < 0.001), tradition (r = 0.307, p < 0.001), benevolence (r = −0.153, p < 0.05), universalism (r = − 0.298, p < 0.001), power (r = 0.161, p < 0.05), openness to change (r = −0.329, p < 0.001), self-transcendence (r = −0.286, p < 0.001), and conservation (r = 0.386, p < 0.001), implicit morality (r = −0.216, p < 0.01), and implicit personality (r = −0.262, p < 0.001); brand loyalty correlated with conformity (r = 0.177, p < 0.05), self-direction ((r = −0.209, p < 0.01), openness to change (r = −0.213, p < 0.01), and conservation (r = 0.179, p < 0.05).

  3. Further, controlling for household income does not affect the interaction. While HHI does provide a main effect (z = 2.03, p = 0.043), the interaction remains virtually identical when controlling for HHI (z = −2.02, p = 0.044).

References

  • Brady, F. N. (1985). A janus-headed model of ethical theory: looking two ways at business/society issues. Academy of Management Review, 10(3), 568–576.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brady, F. N. (1990). Ethical managing: rules and results. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brady, F. N., & Dunn, C. P. (1995). Business meta-ethics: an analysis of two theories. Business Ethics Quarterly, 5(3), 385–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brady, F. N., & Wheeler, G. E. (1996). An empirical study of ethical predispositions. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(9), 927–940.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burton, S., Lichtenstein, D. R., Netemeyer, R. G., & Garretson, J. A. (1998). A scale for measuring attitude toward private label products and an examination of its psychological and behavioral correlates. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 26(4), 293–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burton, B., Dunn, C., & Goldsby, M. (2006). Moral pluralism in business ethics education: it is about time. Journal of Management Education, 30(1), 90–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campo, K., Gijsbrechts, E., & Nisol, P. (2000). Towards understanding consumer response to stock-outs. Journal of Retailing, 76(2), 219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaudhuri, A., & Holbrook, M. B. (2001). The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand performance: the role of brand loyalty. Journal of Marketing, 65, 81–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cialdini, R. B., Trost, M. R. (1998). Social influence: social norms, conformity and compliance.

  • Coughlan, R. (2005). Employee loyalty as adherence to shared moral values. Journal of Managerial Issues, 43–57.

  • Day, G. S. (1969). A two-dimensional concept of brand loyalty. Journal of Advertising Research, 9(3), 29–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Wulf, K., Odekerken-Schröder, G., & Iacobucci, D. (2001). Investments in consumer relationships: a cross-country and cross-industry exploration. Journal of Marketing, 65(4), 33–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dick, A. S., & Basu, K. (1994). Customer loyalty: toward an integrated conceptual framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22(2), 99–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donthu, N., & Gilliland, D. (1996). Observations: the infomercial shopper. Journal of Advertising Research, 36(2), 69–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dowling, G. R., & Uncles, M. (1997). Do customer loyalty programs really work? Sloan Management Review, 38(4), 71–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • East, R., & Hammond, K. (1996). The erosion of repeat-purchase loyalty. Marketing Letters, 7(2), 163–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehrenberg, A. S. C., Goodhardt, G. J., & Barwise, T. P. (1990). Double jeopardy revisited. Journal of Marketing, 54(3), 82–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elliott, S. (1992). The media business: advertising; Quaker oats spotlights vigorous elderly. The New York Times.

  • 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. Journal of Marketing, 64(3), 65–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goode, M., Khamitov, M., & Thomson, M. (2015). Dyads, triads and consumer treachery: when interpersonal connections guard against brand cheating. In S. Fournier, M. Breazeale, & J. Avery (Eds.), Strong brands, strong relationships. London: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ha, C. L. (1998). The theory of reasoned action applied to brand loyalty. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 7(1), 51–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: a versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling. Manuscript submitted for publication.

  • Homburg, C., & Giering, A. (2001). Personal characteristics as moderators of the relationship between customer satisfaction and loyalty—an empirical analysis. Psychology and Marketing, 18(1), 43–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacoby, J., Chestnut, R. W., & Fisher, W. A. (1978). A behavioral process approach to information acquisition in nondurable purchasing. Journal of Marketing Research, 15(4), 532–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, C. W., & Ring, L. J. (1980). Market positioning across retail fashion institutions: a comparative analysis of store types. Journal of Retailing, 56(1), 37–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleiser, S. B., Sivadas, E., Kellaris, J. J., & Dahlstrom, R. F. (2003). Ethical ideologies: efficient assessment and influence on ethical judgements of marketing practices. Psychology and Marketing, 20(1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kredentser, M. S., Fabrigar, L. R., Smith, S. M., & Fulton, K. (2012). Following what people think we should do versus what people actually do elaboration as a moderator of the impact of descriptive and injunctive norms. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(3), 341–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Love, E., & Dunn, C. (2010). Marketing education for sustainability. Portland: Paper presented at the Academy of Marketing Science Annual Conference.

    Google Scholar 

  • Love, E., Dunn, C. (2011). The influence of ethical framework on issue involvement and information seeking. In: 21st Annual International Association for Business and Society, Banff, Alberta.

  • McIntyre, R. P., Capen, M. M., & Minton, A. P. (1995). Exploring the psychological foundations of ethical positions in marketing. Psychology and Marketing, 12(6), 569–583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melnyk, V., & Osselaer, S. J. (2012). Make me special: gender differences in consumers’ responses to loyalty programs. Marketing Letters, 23(3), 545–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, P. E., Enis, B. M. (1986). Classifying products strategically. The Journal of Marketing, 24–42.

  • Oliver, R. L. (1999). Whence consumer loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 63 (ArticleType: research-article / Issue Title: Fundamental Issues and Directions for Marketing / Full publication date: 1999 / Copyright © 1999 American Marketing Association). 33–44.

  • O’Shaughnessy, N. (2002). Toward an ethical framework for political marketing. Psychology and Marketing, 19(12), 1079–1094.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pare, V., & Dawes, J. (2012). The persistence of excess brand loyalty over multiple years. Marketing Letters, 23(1), 163–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Posavac, S. S., Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Kardes, F. R., & Fitzsimons, G. J. (2004). The brand positivity effect: when evaluation confers preference. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(3), 643–651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robin, D. P., & Reidenbach, R. E. (1987). Social responsibility, ethics, and marketing strategy: closing the gap between concept and application. Journal of Marketing, 51(1), 44–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. H., & Rubel, T. (2005). Sex differences in value priorities: cross-cultural and multimethod studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6), 1010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheth, J. N., & Parvatiyar, A. (1995). The evolution of relationship marketing. International Business Review, 4(4), 397–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sung, Y., & Choi, S. M. (2010). “I won’t leave you although you disappoint me”: the interplay between satisfaction, investment, and alternatives in determining consumer–brand relationship commitment. Psychology and Marketing, 27(11), 1050–1073.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Terech, A., Bucklin, R., & Morrison, D. (2009). Consideration, choice, and classifying loyalty. Marketing Letters, 20(3), 209–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomson, M., MacInnis, D. J., & Whan Park, C. (2005). The ties that bind: measuring the strength of consumers’ emotional attachments to brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(1), 77–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webster, D. M., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1994). Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(6), 1049.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whan Park, C., MacInnis, D. J., Priester, J., Eisingerich, A. B., & Iacobucci, D. (2010). Brand attachment and brand attitude strength: conceptual and empirical differentiation of two critical brand equity drivers. Journal of Marketing, 74(6), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Y-Y, H., C-Y, C., Dweck, C. S., & Sacks, R. (1997). Implicit theories and evaluative processes in person cognition. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33(3), 296–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Finance & Marketing, Western Washington University, 516 High Street, Bellingham, WA, 98225, USA

    Edwin Love & Mark Staton

  2. Richard Ivey School of Business, Western University, 1151 Richmond Street N, London, ON, N6A 3K7, Canada

    Jeff D. Rotman

Authors
  1. Edwin Love
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mark Staton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jeff D. Rotman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Edwin Love.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 3 Modified utilitarian and deontological scale items
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Love, E., Staton, M. & Rotman, J.D. Loyalty as a matter of principle: the influence of standards of judgment on customer loyalty. Mark Lett 27, 661–674 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-015-9371-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-015-9371-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation