Australasian Marketing Journal 18 (2010) 1–7

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Australasian Marketing Journal

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate /amj

Heart versus mind: The functions of emotional and cognitive loyalty

Charmine E.J. Härtel a,1, Rebekah Russell-Bennett b,*

a Department of Management, Monash University, Wellington Road, Clayton, Victoria 3800, Australiab School of Advertising, Marketing and Public Relations, Queensland University of Technology, GPO Box 2434, Brisbane QLD 4001, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Keywords:Brand loyaltyAttitudesEmotional loyaltyAttitudinal loyaltyFunctional approachValue-expression

1441-3582/$ - see front matter � 2009 Published bydoi:10.1016/j.ausmj.2009.10.003

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 7 3138 2894; faxE-mail addresses: charmine.hartel@buseco.monash

kah.bennett@qut.edu.au (R. Russell-Bennett).1 Tel.: +61 3 9905 2475.

While there is substantial research on attitudinal and behavioral loyalty, the deconstruction of attitudinalloyalty into its two key components – emotional and cognitive loyalty – has been largely ignored. Despitethe existence of managerial strategies aimed at increasing each of these two components, there is littleacademic research to support these managerial efforts. This paper seeks to advance the understanding ofemotional and cognitive brand loyalty by examining the psychological function that these dimensions ofbrand loyalty perform for the consumer. We employ Katz’s (1960) four functions of attitudes (utilitarian,knowledge, value-expression, ego-defence) to investigate this question. Surveys using a conveniencesample were completed by 268 consumers in two metropolitan cities on a variety of goods, servicesand durable products. The relationship between the functions and dimensions of loyalty were examinedusing MANOVA. The results show that both the utilitarian and knowledge functions of loyalty are signif-icantly positively related to cognitive loyalty while the ego-defensive function of loyalty is significantlypositively related to emotional loyalty. The results for the value-expressive function of loyalty were non-significant.

� 2009 Published by Elsevier Ltd. on behalf of the Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy.

1. Introduction

The development of brand loyalty is of concern to marketingacademics and practitioners alike. To date, the literature has fo-cused on attitudinal and behavioral loyalty and as such much isknown in this regard. Notwithstanding this impressive literatureand despite the well-accepted fact that attitudes can be brokendown into the constituent parts of emotion and cognition, attitudi-nal loyalty has not yet been examined from this perspective. Forthis reason, we focus in this article on attitudinal loyalty, decon-structing it into its two key components – emotional and cognitiveloyalty – in order to investigate the influence of the psychologicalfunctions of loyalty on emotional and cognitive loyalty. Our frame-work for undertaking this task is based in Katz’s (1960) four func-tions or motivational bases of attitudes, namely, utilitarian,knowledge, value-expression, and ego-defence.

We begin our investigation with a review of the literature onemotions in marketing, followed by a discussion of brand loyaltyand the functions of loyalty. Next, we draw conclusions from theliterature on the relationship between the functions of loyaltyand the cognitive and emotional dimensions of loyalty, and devel-op testable hypotheses. Subsequently, we describe a field study

Elsevier Ltd. on behalf of the Austr

: +61 7 3138 1811..edu.au (C.E.J. Härtel), rebe-

undertaken to investigate the hypotheses followed by details ofthe analyses. We conclude with implications for managementand theory and directions for future research.

1.1. Emotions in marketing

The study of emotions in marketing can be dated back to the1950’s when researchers placed an emphasis on emotional appeals(Dichter, 1960; Martineau, 1957). There was, however, a lull in thisresearch for almost two decades until the end of the 1970s whenresearch in marketing, like research in psychology, tended to fol-low information-processing theory which viewed consumers asdecision-makers who searched for and evaluated information inmaking their purchase decisions (Holbrook and O’Shaughnessy,1984). While a resurgence in the study of the role of emotions inmarketing took place in the late 1970s and early 1980s, it shouldbe noted that this research predominantly concentrated on theadvertising sector using variables such as feelings toward an ad,the emotional tone of the ad and emotional response and ad recall.In the 1990s, interest in emotions in the consumer behavior liter-ature was becoming more evident with focal constructs being com-plaint behavior, consumption emotions and consumer decision-making processes (see Ruth et al., 2007 for a summary). In the21st century, interest in emotions spread to the field of servicesmarketing, particularly in the field of service recovery (Chebatand Slusarczyk, 2005; Schoefer and Ennew, 2005; Smith and Bolton2002).

alian and New Zealand Marketing Academy.

2 C.E.J. Härtel, R. Russell-Bennett / Australasian Marketing Journal 18 (2010) 1–7

Despite the flourishing interest in the role of emotions in mar-keting and despite the fact that emotional loyalty is often seen asthe holy grail of marketing as it is believed that consumers whoare emotionally attached to a brand will buy more and tell othersabout the brand (Anon., 2007), there is limited evidence of emo-tions research in the field of brand loyalty, particularly in relationto the notion of emotional loyalty. To date, the scant literature inthe area concerns Oliver’s (1999) discussion of affective loyaltyas one of four types of loyalty and Harris and Goode’s (2004) sub-sequent operationalization of Oliver’s loyalty types. In this article,we elucidate the role of emotions in brand loyalty by drawing the-oretically on the work of Oliver (1999) and Harris and Goode(2004), with one primary point of departure, namely we take thedual approach rather than tri-partite approach to attitudes. Thatis, we bundle intentions in with attitudinal loyalty as the intentionto repeat purchase. Our justification for taking this approach is ex-panded upon next.

1.2. Brand loyalty

The traditional approach to conceptualizing brand loyalty istwo-dimensional, comprising attitudinal and behavioral loyalty(Day, 1969; Dick and Basu, 1994; Oliver, 1999; Russell-Bennettet al., 2007). While there is some debate in the brand loyalty liter-ature as to the causal ordering and the predictive power of thesetwo dimensions, these dimensions nonetheless are reflected in cur-rent brand loyalty research.

Behavioral loyalty is defined as the consumer’s tendency torepurchase a brand revealed through behavior which can be mea-sured and which impacts directly on brand sales (Hammond et al.,1996). Typically, fast-moving-consumer-goods such as supermar-ket products use behavioral loyalty measurement given the readyaccess to purchase information obtained through check-out scan-ners. Behavioral measures, however, do not provide any insightinto the customer’s attitude toward buying a particular brand; allthat behavioral loyalty can reveal is that a consumer has purchaseda brand on multiple occasions. Thus, a customer may be behavior-ally loyal but be apathetic or even dislike the brand (e.g., beingcompelled to repeatedly purchase because of lack of alternativeoptions).

In contrast to behavioral loyalty, attitudinal loyalty focuseson the customer’s attitude toward the brand, not their behavior.Although referred to as commitment loyalty by some scholars,attitudinal loyalty includes attitudinal preference, commitment to-wards the brand and intention to purchase the brand (Mellenset al., 1996). Consumers can hold positive, negative or ambiva-lent (both positive and negative) attitudes toward repurchas-ing a brand. Accordingly, we define attitudinal brand loyalty asthe consumer’s affective and cognitive evaluation of repurchasing abrand.

Within the attitude literature, attitudes are acknowledged ascomprising affect and cognition (Ajzen, 2001). In contrast, themarketing literature has tended to adopt a definition of attitudi-nal loyalty that focuses more heavily on cognition. We contendthat examining attitudinal loyalty by aggregating these twodimensions together limits the usefulness of the construct andmay even produce misleading results. Supporting this assertionis Oliver’s (1999) argument that affective loyalty is more deep-rooted than cognitive loyalty. In recognition of its constituentcomponents and the likely important differences between them,we argue that breaking attitudinal loyalty into emotional andcognitive loyalty provides marketing theorists and practitionerswith a more accurate and fine-grained approach to diagnosing,maintaining or increasing existing levels of brand loyalty (cf.Dube et al., 2003). We discuss each of these dimensions of attitu-dinal loyalty next.

1.3. Defining emotional and cognitive loyalty

We define emotional loyalty as the psychological preference forbuying a brand which consists of positive feelings about and affectiveattachment to continually purchasing a brand and cognitive loyaltyas the psychological preference for buying a brand which consists ofpositive beliefs and thoughts about continually purchasing a brand.In developing this conceptualization of emotional loyalty, we havedrawn on the brand affect literature and brand loyalty literature.

The concept of brand affect, which refers to the emotions thatare aroused towards the brand, has been used interchangeablywith affective loyalty (Bansal et al., 2004; Chaudhuri and Holbrook,2001). The term affective loyalty is defined as the degree of likingthe consumer has towards the brand (Oliver, 1999).

The cognitive component of attitudinal loyalty refers to the be-liefs and opinions about a particular object (Ajzen, 2001) where thepreference for the brand comes from decision-making and evalua-tion (Bloemer and Kaspar, 1995). Gremler and Brown (1998) andOliver (1999) identify cognitive loyalty as one of four componentsof loyalty (the others being affective loyalty, behavioral loyalty andbehavioral intention). Although Oliver (1999) posed that cognitiveloyalty is the first stage of loyalty development (following a stan-dard learning hierarchy of effects model), we contend that cogni-tive and emotional loyalty are not stages that occur in atemporal order as Oliver suggests but components of loyalty whichcan co-occur. We base this contention on the work of Ajzen (2001)who demonstrated an interplay between these two components ofattitudes. Specifically, he demonstrated that the affective compo-nent of attitudes is more accessible in memory than the cognitivecomponent and that the dominance of each component variesaccording to the circumstances. Furthermore, as discussed earlier,it is possible for a customer to be attitudinally loyal but not behav-iorally loyal (e.g., want a brand but be unable to buy it because offinancial circumstances or unavailability) or behaviorally loyal butnot attitudinally loyal (e.g., buy something repeatedly because it isthe only viable option).

Thus far we have established the distinction between behav-ioral and attitudinal loyalty and subsequently, because our focusin this article is on attitudinal loyalty, drew upon the substantialbody of attitude literature to argue for the importance of distin-guishing between the emotional and cognitive dimensions of atti-tudinal loyalty. Continuing on from this literature base, we nowpropose four functions of attitudinal loyalty, extrapolating fromthe well established finding of Katz’s (1960) four functions of atti-tudes as attitudinal antecedents.

1.4. The functions of attitudinal loyalty

In the consumer behavior field, there are a number of ap-proaches to studying attitudes. One such approach is the functionalapproach, which states that an attitude exists because it serves afunction for the person. Put another way, there are different moti-vational bases or antecedents to attitudes. Katz (1960) identifiedfour generic functions or motivational bases of attitudes, namelythe utilitarian function which focuses on the attributes of the object,the value-expressive function which expresses the person’s centralvalues or self-concept, the ego-defensive function which protectsthe person either from external threats or internal feelings, andthe knowledge function which provides mental order, structure,and meaning. Although an attitude can serve more than one func-tion, Katz noted that one function is often dominant.

As attitudinal loyalty is an attitude, we theorize that it will havedifferent motivational antecedents which accord with the fourfunctions of attitudes that Katz identified. These four functions ofbrand loyalty are thus coined the utilitarian loyalty function, the va-lue-expressive loyalty function, the ego-defensive loyalty function,

C.E.J. Härtel, R. Russell-Bennett / Australasian Marketing Journal 18 (2010) 1–7 3

and the knowledge loyalty function. We elaborate on each of thesefunctions next.

Extrapolating from Katz’s utilitarian function, we propose theexistence of a utilitarian loyalty function. As suggested by its name,this motivational antecedent of brand loyalty is about achieving ameans to an end (Kardes, 2002) and thus repurchase of a brand isentirely instrumental based on the brand’s performance. In otherwords, the customer’s motivation to be attitudinally loyal is classi-fied as utilitarian when the motive is getting value-for-money orthe best-deal as deemed through the customer’s comparison ofthe attributes of a brand with competitive brands.

The value-expressive function of attitudinal loyalty is extrapo-lated from Katz’s value-expressive function of attitudes. The va-lue-expressive loyalty function refers to the motivation to beloyal to a brand based on consistency between the brand and theconsumer’s values or the ability of the brand to outwardly expresstheir values (Kardes, 2002) and inform others of what they standfor. A customer’s motivation to be attitudinally loyal is classifiedas value-expressive when the customer is motivated by the desireto reveal an important part of their identity to others.

The ego-defensive function of attitudinal loyalty is extrapolatedfrom Katz’s ego-defensive function. Unlike the value-expressivefunction which refers to the motive to reveal the self, the ego-defensive function of attitudinal loyalty is about the motive to pro-tect the self from external threats or internal feelings. As such, thismotive involves Freudian defense mechanisms that help peopledeal with emotional conflict and feel better about themselves (Kar-des, 2002), contributing to their esteem or boosting their ego.

The fourth function of attitudinal loyalty proposed is the knowl-edge function. Also extrapolated from Katz’s four functions, thisfunction of attitudinal loyalty is concerned with an effort-minimi-zation motivation. A customer’s motivation to be attitudinally loyalis classified as the knowledge function when the customer is moti-vated by the desire to reduce ambiguity and increase the level ofcertainty in a purchase situation (Locander and Spivey, 1978).The knowledge loyalty function benefits the customer by removingthe need to undertake information search and evaluation of manyfeatures of possible alternatives (Kardes, 2002).

Understanding these four functions of attitudinal loyalty isimportant as they each represent motivational antecedents thatplay different roles and serve different purposes for the consumer.Furthermore, the different functions of loyalty are likely to be re-lated to different product categories. For example, product catego-ries that are likely to be bought based on a utilitarian motive wouldinclude durables such as vacuum cleaners, consumables such astoothpaste and laundry detergent and services such as carpet-cleaning and car insurance. In the section that follows, we examinehow the four different functions of attitudinal loyalty are likely torelate to the two dimensions of attitudinal loyalty.

1.5. The relationship between the antecedent functions of attitudinalloyalty and the cognitive and emotional dimensions of attitudinalloyalty

Our separation of the constructs of the functions of loyaltyand the dimensions of loyalty is in accordance with the wellestablished finding in the substantial body of literature on atti-tudes that the functions of attitudes are motivational anteced-ents to attitudes and thus distinct from attitudes themselves.Following Katz’s (1960) categorization of the motivational basesof attitudes into four functions, we proposed four functions ofattitudinal loyalty: the utilitarian function, the knowledge func-tion, ego-defensive function and the value-expressive function.We assert that these four different motivations for being loyalare differentially related to the dimensions of attitudinal loyalty,and thus yield insight into the different reasons underlying the

levels of emotional and cognitive loyalty observed in any givenconsumer. We examine these expected relationships in theremainder of this section.

The utilitarian function is hypothesized to be a higher-ordercognitive motivation based on the experience of using a brand(cf. Katz, 1960). The level of evaluation to select the brand is thusexpected to be done with care, with repurchase continuing untilthe brand ceases to perform at the necessary standard. The utilitar-ian function is driven by a performance need rather than an emo-tional need and thus purchases having this motivationalantecedent will tend to be objective in nature with little emotionalengagement. Thus, it is hypothesized that:

� H1: The utilitarian function of attitudinal loyalty is significantly andpositively associated with cognitive loyalty, but not with emotionalloyalty.

The knowledge function is hypothesized to be a lower-ordercognitive motivation that involves routine purchase with littledecision-making. When the knowledge function is buyers’ domi-nant motivation, they are likely to be open to switching to brandsthat have pricing specials, are more convenient or available. Assuch, there is likely to be little commitment to the brand or emo-tional investment. Thus, it is hypothesized that:

� H2: The knowledge function of attitudinal loyalty is significantlyand positively associated with cognitive loyalty but not with emo-tional loyalty.

The belief underpinning the ego-defensive function of attitudi-nal loyalty is based more on emotion than on reason (Katz, 1960)and this motivation is largely a subconscious one (Belch and Belch,1987) where repurchase decisions are unlikely to be influenced byconscious cognitive factors including pricing issues, value-for-money or convenience unless these factors relate to ego issues.The ego-defensive function is hypothesized to be an emotion-based motivation aimed at building a person’s self worth and com-pensating for their insecurities (Katz, 1960). The buyer is likely toengage in repeat purchase of that product or brand because he orshe has associated good feelings with being a customer of thatbrand and has their personal identity reinforced. Purchases thatdefend the buyer’s ego are likely to over-ride rational factors suchas pricing or alternative offers. Thus, it is hypothesized that:

� H3: The ego-defensive function of attitudinal loyalty is significantlyand positively associated with emotional loyalty, but not with cog-nitive loyalty.

The value-expressive function is hypothesized also to be anemotion-based motivation, however, this function links to socialidentity rather than personal identity. As expressing one’s valuesis part of the construction of social identity (Ashforth and Hum-phrey, 1993) and social identity has an emotional element, it islikely that this function of loyalty will be positively related to emo-tional loyalty whereby consumers re-buy the brand because theyare emotionally attached. Brands of products or services that fulfillthe value-expressive function of loyalty are those that allow a per-son to positively express his or her core values as well as expressthe type of person he or she perceives himself or herself to be(Katz, 1960). These core values facilitate the affiliation of the buyerwith others who also buy the brand, such as business club-mem-bers. Brands and products selected to express one’s values, tendto be high-involvement products. The public observation of theexpression of values is likely to mean that buyers continue tobuy the brand as long as it continues to represent their values.Thus, it is hypothesized that:

4 C.E.J. Härtel, R. Russell-Bennett / Australasian Marketing Journal 18 (2010) 1–7

� H4: The value-expressive function of attitudinal loyalty is signifi-cantly and positively associated with both emotional loyalty andcognitive loyalty.

2. Methodology

The research was conducted using a snowball sample in twometropolitan cities in Australia where individuals known to theresearchers were provided with five surveys and then asked tohave their friends or family complete these. This yielded 275 com-pleted surveys. The sample characteristics were: 49.2% male, 87.8%engaged in full-time or part-time work, 84.3% Australian citizens,mean age of 30.49 years.

The product categories used in the survey were determined inpilot testing with 65 respondents. The respondents were asked toidentify a list of products that were bought by all ages, by bothgenders and that were commonly purchased. There were 10 goodsproducts that were common (shampoo, deodorant, instant coffee,tea bags, toothpaste, headache tablets, beer, wine, magazines, per-fume), eight services (airline travel, mobile phone service, taxi,doctor, hairdresser, online dating, restaurant, hotel), and threedurables (computer, jeans, car). The reason there were fewer dura-bles was that it was difficult to identify durables that met the cri-teria. The pilot testing was specifically done to increase relevanceof the items and reduce non-response due to lack of relevantoptions.

The survey commenced by asking the respondent to select oneof three products they had bought recently (there were differentversions of the survey to enable a variety of services, goods anddurables that were either luxury or necessities to be included).Respondents were then asked to indicate the brand of that productthat was their last purchase, e.g., if the product of instant coffeewas selected, respondents were asked to indicate the brand of cof-fee that was their most recent purchase. The number of respon-dents in the main study who selected a particular productcategory is shown in Table 1. The remainder of the survey ques-tions related to the selected brand. The next section of the surveycontained items that measured the four functions of loyalty andthe two dimensions of loyalty with the final section containingdemographic information.

Table 1Product categories included in the survey.

Product Product type Number %

Shampoo FMCG 28 10.4Deodorant FMCG 28 10.4Airline travel Service 40 14.9Computer Durable 13 4.9Instant coffee FMCG 15 5.6Teabags FMCG 13 4.9Toothpaste FMCG 21 7.8Computer Durable 3 1.1Headache tablets FMCG 7 2.6Magazines FMCG 6 2.2Jeans Durable 6 2.2Perfume FMCG 13 4.9Car Durable 11 4.1Beer FMCG 7 2.6Wine FMCG 7 2.6Mobile phone service Service 17 6.3Taxi Service 2 0.7Doctor Service 5 1.9Hairdresser Service 8 3.0Online dating Service 2 0.7Restaurant Service 13 4.9Hotel Service 3 1.1Total 268 100

2.1. Measures

The measures used in this study were derived from the litera-ture. The two dimensions of attitudinal loyalty, namely cognitiveloyalty and emotional loyalty, were, respectively, assessed usingmeasures adapted from cognitive commitment measures (Chaudh-uri and Holbrook, 2001; Gilliland and Bello, 2002) and emotionalcommitment measures (Allen and Meyer, 1990; Harris and Goode,2004; Mathieu et al., 2000). The functions of loyalty measures werederived from Bennett et al. (2006) and were classified as high orlow based on a tertial split of the scores.

Reliability tests were performed on each measure with itemsbelow the threshold of 0.30 item-to-total correlation and Cronbachalpha of 0.70 removed (Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994). A validitytest using exploratory factor analysis was undertaken to further re-fine the measures. Items that cross-loaded or with factor loadingsbelow the threshold of 0.30 were removed (Nunnally and Bern-stein, 1994). The remaining items were then summated to formthe scores for each measure (see Appendix A for final items).

3. Results

Respondents used 22 different products and 137 brands inanswering the questionnaire (see Table 1). They indicated a meanlevel of buying the brand as 8.5 months and 89.2% were the deci-sion-maker on the purchase. The level of involvement had a meanlevel of product involvement of 3.6 out of 5 (moderately involving).

The descriptive analysis of the measures (see Table 2) indicateshigher levels of utilitarian and knowledge functions and lower lev-els of value-expressive and ego-defensive functions present in thedata. There was a significant difference in the scores for both cog-nitive loyalty (M = 4.01, SD = 0.75; t(259) = 86.79, p = 0.000) andemotional loyalty (M = 2.88, SD = 1.09; t(263) = 43.04, p = 0.000).

Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used to testthe hypotheses due to expected interrelationships between depen-dent variables. As multiple tests examining one dependent variableat a time can result in incorrect conclusions (Cooper and Schindler,2001), this method of analysis was employed so as to ensure thatindependent variables were making a significant unique contribu-tion on each of the dependent variables. Furthermore, this methodof analysis also ‘‘controls for the relationship among the errorterms of the dependent variables” (Judge et al., 1995, p. 500),reducing the risk of a Type 1 error. The independent variables usedwere utilitarian function of loyalty, knowledge function of loyalty,

Table 2Descriptive analysis of the measures.

Function of loyalty Mean SD

Ego-defensiveLow 1.76 0.51High 3.35 0.57

Value-expressiveLow 2.08 0.64High 3.64 0.057

KnowledgeLow 2.66 0.69High 4.19 0.43

UtilitarianLow 3.39 0.62High 4.42 0.36

Dimension of loyaltyEmotional loyalty 2.88 1.09Cognitive loyalty 4.01 0.75

Note: High is the top 1/3 of the tertial split and low is the bottom 1/3 of the tertialsplit.

C.E.J. Härtel, R. Russell-Bennett / Australasian Marketing Journal 18 (2010) 1–7 5

ego-defensive function of loyalty and the value-expressive func-tion of loyalty. The two dependent variables used were emotionalloyalty and cognitive loyalty. Results are presented below hypoth-esis by hypothesis for ease of description. Three of the four hypoth-eses were supported.

� H1: The utilitarian function of attitudinal loyalty is significantly andpositively associated with cognitive loyalty, but not with emotionalloyalty.

The relationship between the utilitarian function of attitudinalloyalty and both cognitive and emotional loyalty considered to-gether was significant (F2, 227 = 14.14, p = 0.000; Wilks’ Lamb-da = 0.889; partial eta squared = 0.111). When consideredseparately, however, only cognitive loyalty yielded significant re-sults (F1, 228 = 21.59, p = 0.000; partial eta squared = 0.087). Emo-tional loyalty was not significant (F1, 228 = 0.669, n.s.). Therefore,Hypothesis 1 was supported.

� H2: The knowledge function of attitudinal loyalty is significantlyand positively associated with cognitive loyalty but not with emo-tional loyalty.

The relationship between the knowledge function of attitudinalloyalty and both cognitive and emotional loyalty considered to-gether was significant (F2, 227 = 3.25, p = 0.041; Wilks’ Lamb-da = 0.972; partial eta squared = 0.028). However whenconsidered separately, only cognitive loyalty yielded significant re-sults (F1, 228 = 5.68, p = 0.018; partial eta squared = 0.024). Emo-tional loyalty was not significant (F1, 228 = 2.87, n.s.). Therefore,Hypothesis 2 was supported.

� H3: The ego-defensive function of attitudinal loyalty is significantlyand positively associated with emotional loyalty, but not with cog-nitive loyalty.

The relationship between the ego-defensive function of attitu-dinal loyalty and both cognitive and emotional loyalty consideredtogether was significant (F2, 227 = 32.77, p = 0.000; Wilks’ Lamb-da = 0.776; partial eta squared = 0.224). When considered sepa-rately, however, only emotional loyalty yielded significant results(F1, 228 = 64.86, p = 0.000; partial eta squared = 0.221). Cognitiveloyalty was not significant (F1, 228 = 3.60, n.s.). Therefore, Hypothe-sis 3 was supported.

� H4: The value-expressive function of attitudinal loyalty is signifi-cantly and positively associated with both emotional loyalty andcognitive loyalty.

The relationship between the value-expressive function of atti-tudinal loyalty and cognitive and emotional loyalty failed to pro-duce a significant result both when the dependent variables wereconsidered together (F2, 227 = 1.06, n.s.) and separately(F1, 228 = 0.073, n.s.; emotional loyalty; F1, 228 = 1.55, n.s.; cognitiveloyalty). Consequently, Hypothesis 4 was not supported.

4. Discussion

In this article, we argued for the need for marketing researchersto deconstruct attitudinal loyalty into its two key components ofemotional and cognitive loyalty in order to obtain a more accurateand fine-grained approach to diagnosing, maintaining or increasingexisting levels of brand loyalty. Although the marketing literatureacknowledges that attitudinal loyalty comprises these two compo-nents, it has remained an unexamined conceptual point. As such,

the study reported in this paper provides a first empirical examina-tion of the constituent components of attitudinal loyalty.

A second contribution of the article is its adaptation from theattitude literature of Katz’s (1960) model of the psychological func-tions (i.e., different consumer motivations) that attitudes serve.Namely, we introduce and assess the concept of functions of attitu-dinal loyalty, shedding insight on the psychological function thatthe emotional and cognitive dimensions of brand loyalty performfor the consumer.

A third contribution of the article is the examination of the rela-tionship between the functions of attitudinal loyalty and emotionaland cognitive loyalty outcomes. It was argued that the utilitarianfunction of loyalty would be positively associated with cognitiveloyalty and unrelated to emotional loyalty, the knowledge functionof loyalty would be positively associated with cognitive loyalty butunrelated to emotional loyalty, the ego-defensive function of loy-alty would be positively associated with emotional loyalty butunrelated to cognitive loyalty, and that the value-expressive func-tion of loyalty would be positively associated with both emotionalloyalty and cognitive loyalty. Support was found for all of thesepredictions except for the latter relating to the value-expressivefunction. Furthermore, the results also indicated that, as expected,the utilitarian function of loyalty is a higher-order cognitive func-tion than the knowledge function of loyalty. These findings haveimplications for designing communication messages and market-ing programs that will appeal to these different motivations. Weconsider some of the implications for managing emotional andcognitive loyalty, respectively, next.

4.1. Implications for managing emotional loyalty

The results indicated that emotional loyalty was only signifi-cantly related to one function of loyalty, ego-defensive rather thanboth the ego-defensive and value-expressive functions as origi-nally hypothesized. The conclusion that can thus be drawn fromthese results is that marketing managers who seek to achieve emo-tional loyalty from their consumers need to be aware of how thebrand meets the ego-needs of consumers. In particular, managersneed to be aware of whether the brand does fulfill ego-needs aswithout this need it is unlikely that any marketing campaignaimed at generating or increasing emotional loyalty will succeed.For instance, consumers will buy travel for different reasons; forthose whose choices are motivated by ego-defensive needs, beingable to tap into this motivation becomes a powerful tool for a mar-keting manager.

4.2. Implications for managing cognitive loyalty

As hypothesized, the results indicated that cognitive loyaltywas significantly related to both the utilitarian and knowledgefunctions of loyalty. Thus, if marketing managers seek to generateor increase cognitive loyalty, they need to initially ascertainwhether consumers are buying the brand based on the utilitarianor knowledge function. If consumers are motivated by a utilitarianfunction, then campaigns that focus on the brand’s functionalityand ease of use are likely to be more successful than a campaignwith a knowledge function focus. Campaigns that focus on theknowledge function need to emphasize convenience and minimi-zation of effort in order to generate cognitive loyalty.

4.3. Further research

The results of this research have identified a number of questionswhich should be pursued with further empirical research. Firstly,while the items used to measure value-expressive loyalty in thisstudy were based on items used and validated in previous empirical

6 C.E.J. Härtel, R. Russell-Bennett / Australasian Marketing Journal 18 (2010) 1–7

research, in this study the value-expressive function of loyalty wasnot found to have a significant relationship with either emotionalor cognitive loyalty as predicted. Closer examination of the measuresindicates that it is possible that the items used were too value-spe-cific and as such, further research and development to refine a mea-sure of value-expressive loyalty is warranted. Secondly, furtherresearch to answer the questions of whether or not the relationshipsbetween the functions of loyalty and dimensions of loyalty vary byproduct category would be beneficial? If they do, what factors mod-erate these relationships? Furthermore, future research is needed toinvestigate what the managerial importance of emotional and cogni-tive loyalty for companies operating in different industries is. Forexample, cognitive loyalty may be most important for transactionalbased purchases such as cleaning products and lawn serviceswhereas emotional loyalty may be most important for purchasessuch as music, entertainment, fashion, and beauty treatment, in partbecause of the functions they serve.

Thirdly, although it is not uncommon to use attitudes as a proxyfor behavior, it is important to keep in mind that attitudinal loyaltycan occur in the absence of behavioral loyalty and vice versa (e.g.,East et al., 2005). Further research focusing on the conditions thatpromote all three dimensions of brand loyalty (i.e., emotional, cog-nitive, behavioral) as well as different combinations will enhanceknowledge and practice of effective marketing communicationand risk management strategies.

5. Conclusion

A key concern of marketing academics and practitioners is thedevelopment of brand loyalty. Although marketing practitionershave developed campaigns focused on increasing emotional orcognitive loyalty, the academic literature has aggregated thesecomponents together as attitudinal loyalty in empirical research.In this article, we demonstrated that different attitudinal functionsare associated with emotional as compared to cognitive loyalty,thus providing evidence of the importance and usefulness of theo-retically and empirically differentiating between emotional loyaltyand cognitive loyalty.

Acknowledgements

This paper was jointly funded by the Australian Research Coun-cil (Grant No. LP0455372) and Colmar Brunton Research.

Appendix A

Items used.

Utilitarian functionLoyalty based on: the brand being functionalLoyalty based on: the brand being practicalLoyalty based on: the brand being easy to useLoyalty based on: the reliability of the brand not letting me downKnowledge functionLoyalty based on: the brand being value-for-moneyLoyalty based on: removing the need to keep checking whether the

brand was the right choiceLoyalty based on: having bought this brand for yearsValue-expressive functionLoyalty based on: the brand being an ethical purchaseLoyalty based on: the brand being made by a small businessLoyalty based on: the brand representing truth and honestyEgo-defensive functionLoyalty based on: the brand making me look betterLoyalty based on: the brand making me feel better about myselfLoyalty based on: the brand being flattering to meLoyalty based on: wanting people to see me with this brand

Loyalty based on: people who were better than me were buying thisbrand

Emotional loyaltyRepeat purchase: I intend to continue buying this brand as it makes me

feel happyRepeat purchase: I intend to continue buying this brand as it gives me

pleasureRepeat purchase: I feel emotionally attached to buying this brandCognitive loyaltyRepeat purchase: I intend to continue buying this brand as in

evaluating the options, this brand is the best for meRepeat purchase: I intend to continue buying this brand as it is the best

brand compared to othersRepeat purchase: I intend to continue buying this brand as I believe

this brand suits my needs

References

Ajzen, I., 2001. Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology 52,27–58.

Allen, N.J., Meyer, J.P., 1990. The measurement and antecedents of affective,continuance, and normative commitment to the organization. Journal ofOccupational Psychology 63, 1–18.

Anon., 2007. Brand loyalty: brands need to get emotional. Brand Strategy 12, 36.Ashforth, B.E., Humphrey, R.H., 1993. Emotional labor in service roles: the influence

of identity. Academy of Management Review 18 (1), 88–115.Bansal, H.S., Irving, P.G., Taylor, S.F., 2004. A three-component model of customer

commitment to service providers. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science32 (3), 234–250.

Belch, G.E., Belch, M.A., 1987. The application of expectancy valueoperationalization of function theory to examine attitudes of boycotters andnonboycotters of a consumer product. Advances in Consumer Research 232,236.

Bennett, R., Härtel, C.E.J., Worthington, S., Dickson, P.A., 2006. A functional approachto brand loyalty: an exploratory study. Paper presented at the EuropeanMarketing Academy Conference, Athens, Greece.

Bloemer, J.M.M., Kaspar, H.D.P., 1995. The complex relationship between consumersatisfaction and brand loyalty. Journal of Economic Psychology 16, 311–329.

Chaudhuri, A., Holbrook, M.B., 2001. The chain of effects from brand trust and brandaffect to brand performance: the role of brand loyalty. Journal of Marketing 61,81–93.

Chebat, J., Slusarczyk, W., 2005. How emotions mediate the effects of perceivedjustice on loyalty in service recovery situations: an empirical study. Journal ofBusiness Research 58 (5), 664.

Cooper, D.R., Schindler, P.S., 2001. Business Research Methods, eigth ed. McGrawHill/Irwin, New York.

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

Dichter, E., 1960. The Strategy of Desire. Doubleday, Garden City, NY.Dick, A.S., Basu, K., 1994. Customer loyalty: toward an integrated conceptual

framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 22 (2), 99–113.Dubé, L., Cervellon, M.-C., Jingyuan, H., 2003. Should consumer attitudes be reduced

to their affective and cognitive bases? Validation of a hierarchical model.International Journal of Research in Marketing 20, 259–272.

East, R., Gendall, P., Hammond, K., Lomax, W., 2005. Consumer loyalty: singular,additive or interactive? Australasian Marketing Journal 13 (2), 10–26.

Gilliland, D.I., Bello, D.C., 2002. Two sides to attitudinal commitment: the effect ofcalculative and loyalty commitment on enforcement mechanisms indistribution channels. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 30 (1),24–43.

Gremler, D.D., Brown, S.W., 1998. Service loyalty: antecedents, components, andoutcomes. American Marketing Association, Conference Proceedings 9, 165.

Hammond, K., East, R.L., Ehrenberg, A., 1996. Buying More and Buying Longer:Concepts and Applications of Consumer Loyalty. London Business School,London.

Harris, L.C., Goode, M.M.H., 2004. The four levels of loyalty and the pivotalrole of trust: a study of online service dynamics. Journal of Retailing 80,139–158.

Holbrook, M.B., O’Shaughnessy, J., 1984. The role of emotion in advertising.Psychology & Marketing 1 (2), 45–64.

Judge, T.A., Cable, D.M., Boudreau, J.W., Bretx Jr., R.D., 1995. An empiricalinvestigation of the predictors of executive career success. PersonnelPsychology 48, 485–519.

Kardes, F.R., 2002. Consumer Behavior and Managerial Decision Making. PrenticeHall, New Jersey.

Katz, D., 1960. The functional approach to the study of attitudes. The Public OpinionQuarterly 24 (2), 163–204.

Locander, W.B., Spivey, W.A., 1978. A functional approach to attitude measurement.Journal of Marketing Research 15 (4), 576–587.

Martineau, P., 1957. Mind and Emotion. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

C.E.J. Härtel, R. Russell-Bennett / Australasian Marketing Journal 18 (2010) 1–7 7

Mathieu, A., Bruvold, N.T., Ritchey, P.N., 2000. Subcultural research onorganisational commitment with the 15 OCQ invariant instrument. Journal ofPersonal Selling and Sales Management 20 (3), 129–138.

Mellens, M., Dekimpe, M.G., Steenkamp, J.B.E.M., 1996. A review of brand-loyaltymeasures in marketing. Tijdschrift voor Economie en Management 41 (4), 507–533.

Nunnally, J.C., Bernstein, I.H., 1994. Psychometric Theory, third ed. McGraw Hill,New York.

Oliver, R.L., 1999. Whence consumer loyalty? Journal of Marketing 63, 33–45.Russell-Bennett, R., McColl-Kennedy, J.R., Coote, L.V., 2007. The relative importance

of involvement and satisfaction on brand loyalty in a small business servicessetting. Journal of Business Research 60, 1253–1260.

Ruth, J.A., Otnes, C.C., Tuncay L., Kulkarni, A.A., 2007. The influence of change-focused advertising appeals. In: Lerman, D., Luna, D. (Eds.), Proceedings of theSociety for Consumer Psychology, Las Vegas, NV, Society for ConsumerPsychology, 2.

Schoefer, K., Ennew, C., 2005. The impact of perceived justice on consumers’emotional responses to service complaint experiences. The Journal of ServicesMarketing 19 (5), 261–271.

Smith, A.K., Bolton, R.N., 2002. The effects of customers, emotional responses toservice failures on their recovery effort evaluations and satisfaction judgments.Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 30 (1), 5–23.