Journal of Business Research 96 (2019) 343–354

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

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

How does sensory brand experience influence brand equity? Considering the T
roles of customer satisfaction, customer affective commitment, and
employee empathy
⁎
Oriol Iglesiasa, Stefan Markovicb, , Josep Rialpc
a
Marketing Department, ESADE – Universitat Ramon Llull, Av. Torre Blanca 59, 08172 Sant Cugat del Vallès (Barcelona), Spain
b
Department of Marketing, Copenhagen Business School, Solbjerg Plads 3, 2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark
c
Department of Business, School of Business and Economics, Edifici B, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Campus UAB, 08193 Bellaterra (Barcelona), Spain

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Building a favorable sensory brand experience is crucial in services settings to strengthen the competitive po-
Sensory brand experience sition of a brand and its equity. However, little empirical research exists in this area. Additionally, and sur-
Banking industry prisingly, most of the research on service brand experience neglects the importance of employees. This study
Brand equity investigates the effect of sensory brand experience on brand equity in the banking industry, through customer
Employee empathy
satisfaction and customer affective commitment. It also examines whether employee empathy moderates the
Customer affective commitment
impacts of sensory brand experience on customer satisfaction and customer affective commitment. Based on data
Customer satisfaction
collected through a panel of 1739 customers, the hypothesized structural model is tested using path analysis.
Results show that sensory brand experience has a positive indirect impact on brand equity, through customer
satisfaction and customer affective commitment. Customer satisfaction positively influences customer affective
commitment, and employee empathy negatively moderates the relationship between sensory brand experience
and customer satisfaction.

1. Introduction Goldkuhl & Styvén, 2007; Lin, 2015), and even more specifically in the
banking industry (Chahal & Dutta, 2015). This industry is currently
In an ever more competitive, interconnected and transparent busi- immersed in a profound revolution (Bennett & Kottasz, 2011), because
ness environment, brands must offer memorable experiences to their the recent financial crisis undermined the industry's reputation, and
customers if they want to differentiate themselves and build a solid obliged banks to provide better customer experiences in order to regain
competitive position (Berry, Carbone, & Haeckel, 2002; Pine & Gilmore, customer trust (Johnson & Peterson, 2014). On one side, most banks are
1998; Schmitt, 1999). This challenge is especially relevant in the ser- closing many branches and enhancing online customer service channels
vices sector (e.g., Markovic, Iglesias, Singh, & Sierra, 2018) because of in search of more agile and personalized experiences (Gilbert, Meyer, &
the distinctive nature of a service (i.e., intangible, heterogeneous, in- Fuchs, 2013). For example, the five largest British banks closed around
separable, and perishable) (Berry, 1980; Zeithaml, Parasuraman, & 1700 branches in the period 2011–2016 (Treanor, 2016), and Wells
Berry, 1985), and the numerous touch-points that exist between ser- Fargo recently announced plans to close > 400 American branches by
vices brands and their customers (Grönroos, 2006). A favorable brand the end of 2018 (Gray, 2017). On the other, banks are also trying to
experience increases customer satisfaction, enhances customer affective improve the experience they offer customers in a much more selective
commitment, improves the quality of the brand-customer relationships, network of offices. In order to achieve this, many banks are paying
and strengthens brand equity (e.g., Brakus, Schmitt, & Zarantonello, special attention to building sensory brand experiences that enable
2009; Iglesias, Singh, & Batista-Foguet, 2011; Lin, 2015; Yao, Wang, & them to connect with the various senses of their customers (Hultén,
Liu, 2013). 2011). For example, Santander Bank is opening new offices with an
According to Brakus, Schmitt, and Zarantonello (2009), brand ex- innovative design that includes intelligent lighting and air conditioning
perience is composed of four distinct dimensions: sensory, affective, systems to improve customer experience and heighten comfort. Like-
intellectual, and behavioral. However, some researchers suggest that wise, the bank is also developing visual and auditory systems to im-
the sensory dimension is particularly relevant in services settings (e.g., prove the experience of older people, as well as people with disabilities.

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (O. Iglesias), [email protected] (S. Markovic), [email protected] (J. Rialp).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.05.043
Received 22 August 2017; Received in revised form 30 May 2018; Accepted 31 May 2018
Available online 19 June 2018
0148-2963/ © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
O. Iglesias et al. Journal of Business Research 96 (2019) 343–354

Also with the aim of improving the sensory brand experience in its communications and environments.” From this standpoint, brand ex-
offices, Lloyds Bank has developed a white tea and thyme perfume. perience contains four dimensions: sensory, affective, intellectual, and
Other banks, including the National Australia Bank and China Mer- behavioral (Brakus, Schmitt, & Zarantonello, 2009). The sensory di-
chants Bank, also have their own fragrances. Overall, one of the key mension of brand experience is the focus of this study, and comprises
strategies of financial services brands to strengthen their competitive the tactile, visual, auditory, olfactory, and gustatory stimulations gen-
position, regain customer trust and satisfaction, and increase their erated by brands in customers (Hultén, 2011). The sensory dimension
equity is building a superior sensory brand experience in their branches captures the degree to which the brand appeals to the five senses of the
(Lin, 2015). Unfortunately, from an academic perspective, there are still customers, and also the extent to which these customers find the brand
few theoretical proposals on how to build and manage sensory brand interesting in a sensory way (Brakus, Schmitt, & Zarantonello, 2009).
experiences, as this is an emerging field (e.g., Hultén, 2011). Similarly, Although the brand's sounds (e.g., in-store signature music) and smells
little empirical research exists on the impact of sensory brand experi- (e.g., in-store perfumes, candles, product scent) can rapidly boost the
ence on key customer outcomes (e.g., customer satisfaction and cus- sensory experience of customers (e.g., Hultén, 2011), the brand's colors,
tomer affective commitment) (e.g., Moreira, Fortes, & Santiago, 2017) shapes, typefaces, and designs can also stimulate customer senses
and brand outcome variables (e.g., brand equity) in the services sector (Brakus, Schmitt, & Zarantonello, 2009; Schmitt & Simonson, 1997). An
(e.g., Chahal & Dutta, 2015). element that is part of the brand environment (e.g., the product) can
In parallel to building a better sensory brand experience, a services stimulate diverse customer senses at the same time (e.g., visual and
brand should also place special emphasis on recruiting, training, and gustatory). Accordingly, researchers have highlighted the importance of
developing employees (Berry, 1981; Grönroos, 2011) because they are studying brand experience from a multi-sensory perspective (i.e., cap-
the ones that can make or break the brand (Roper & Davies, 2007) in turing all five human senses) and argue that a multi-sensory brand
each of their personal interactions with customers. Employees are the experience can boost the brand's value-generation processes and equity
main stakeholders in services settings (e.g., Balmer, 2010; Harris & de (e.g., Hultén, 2011; Hultén, Broweus, & van Dijk, 2009; Lin, 2015;
Chernatony, 2001), and consequently, the provision of a superior ex- Moreira, Fortes, & Santiago, 2017).
perience will depend on employees believing and sharing the values of Regarding the other three dimensions of brand experience, the af-
the brand (Ind, Iglesias, & Markovic, 2017; Ind, 2007) and acting ac- fective dimension relates with sentiments, feelings, and emotions that
cordingly (Markovic Markovic, 2016; Morrison & Crane, 2007). This brands induce in customers. Hence, it captures the degree to which
also means that employees must have high levels of empathy so that customers perceive the brand as an emotional brand (Brakus, Schmitt,
they can understand customer expectations and react quickly and ef- & Zarantonello, 2009). The intellectual dimension has to do with the
fectively to their demands (Davis, 1996; Homburg, Wieseke, & imaginative and analytical thinking that brands trigger in customers.
Bornemann, 2009). Surprisingly, despite the emphasis that traditional Namely, it captures the extent to which the brand makes customers
services literature places on the central role of employees (e.g., Berry, think and stimulates their curiosity and problem-solving capabilities
1981; Harris & de Chernatony, 2001), most of the research on service (Brakus, Schmitt, & Zarantonello, 2009). Finally, the behavioral di-
brand experience neglects the key importance of employees (e.g., Ding mension encompasses customer attitudes and actions caused by brands.
& Tseng, 2015; Nysveen, Pedersen, & Skard, 2013). It relates to the degree to which customers engage in physical behavior
This article addresses the above-discussed shortcomings in the and bodily experiences when using the brand (Brakus, Schmitt, &
current literature by investigating the effect of sensory brand experi- Zarantonello, 2009).
ence on brand equity in the banking industry, considering the roles of Not all brand experiences are equal in terms of strength and in-
customer satisfaction, customer affective commitment, and employee tensity (Brakus, Schmitt, & Zarantonello, 2009; Zarantonello & Schmitt,
empathy. Data are collected in Spain, by means of an online panel 2013). While some brand experiences can be ordinary and common-
composed of 1739 customers. Structural equation modeling via partial place (Carù & Cova, 2003), others may be strong and memorable (Pine
least squares is used to simultaneously test the hypothesized relation- & Gilmore, 1998). For instance, Macy's and Dell are considered as or-
ships. The following sections present the Theoretical background and dinary, or even weak, experiential brands (e.g., Brakus, Schmitt, &
hypotheses development, the Methodology, the Data analysis and re- Zarantonello, 2009), while Starbucks and Apple are among the most
sults, and the Discussion and conclusion. cited brands in academic marketing research for providing strong and
memorable brand experiences (e.g., Brakus, Schmitt, & Zarantonello,
2. Theoretical background and hypotheses development 2009; Hultén, 2011; Morrison & Crane, 2007). Strong and memorable
brand experiences are likely to produce many organizational ad-
2.1. The effect of sensory brand experience on brand equity vantages, including enhanced customer satisfaction, loyalty, brand-
customer relationships, brand personality, and brand equity (e.g.,
In the last decade, several scholars have acknowledged that mana- Brakus, Schmitt, & Zarantonello, 2009; Iglesias, Singh, & Batista-
ging experiences ought to be a key concern for any brand (Berry, Foguet, 2011; Lin, 2015; Sahin, Zehir, & Kitapçı, 2011; Yao, Wang, &
Carbone, & Haeckel, 2002; Brakus, Schmitt, & Zarantonello, 2009; Pine Liu, 2013). Accordingly, researchers argue that in an increasingly
& Gilmore, 1998; Schmitt, 1999). Experiences are different from goods competitive business environment, organizations must focus on im-
and services (Iglesias, Singh, & Batista-Foguet, 2011; Pine & Gilmore, proving brand experiences (e.g., Frow & Payne, 2007; Haeckel,
1998). From the branding perspective, experiences are the takeaway Carbone, & Berry, 2003).
impressions created in the minds of customers because of their inter- Brand equity is one of the most important constructs within the field
actions with brands (e.g., Carbone & Haeckel, 1994; Klaus & Maklan, of brand management, from both academic and managerial perspec-
2007). These interactions can be direct or indirect. Direct interactions tives (Yang, Liu, & Li, 2015). Traditionally, brand equity is defined as “a
generally occur when customers purchase, consume, or use the brand's set of brand assets and liabilities linked to a brand, its name, and
goods or services; whereas indirect interactions mainly take place when symbol, that add to or subtract from the value provided by a product or
customers experience the brand's advertising, marketing communica- service to a firm and/or to that firm's customers” (Aaker, 1991, p. 15).
tions, word-of-mouth recommendations, news reports, and reviews More recently, however, several scholars conceptualize brand equity as
(Brakus, Schmitt, & Zarantonello, 2009; Meyer & Schwager, 2007). a relational market-based asset generated by means of interactions and
Brakus, Schmitt, and Zarantonello (2009) (p. 53) define brand ex- relationships between brands and their customers (e.g., Davcik, Vinhas
perience as “subjective, internal consumer responses (sensations, feel- da Silva, & Hair, 2015; Hooley, Greenley, Cadogan, & Fahy, 2005;
ings, and cognitions) as well as behavioral responses evoked by brand- Srivastava, Fahey, & Christensen, 2001).
related stimuli that are part of a brand's design and identity, packaging, The link between brand experience and brand equity is

344
O. Iglesias et al. Journal of Business Research 96 (2019) 343–354

fundamentally studied in the services sector. For instance, in a business- H2. Sensory brand experience has a positive effect on customer
to-business services setting, Biedenbach and Marell (2010) provide affective commitment.
empirical evidence for a positive influence of customer experience on
brand awareness, brand associations, perceived quality, and brand
loyalty, which are the four dimensions of brand equity proposed by 2.3. The effect of sensory brand experience on customer satisfaction
Aaker (1991). In an online retailing context, Chen (2012) shows that
brand experience has a positive effect on brand equity, measured by Since the mid-1980s, the topic of customer satisfaction has been
brand strength, attractiveness, uniqueness, and likeability. In the mo- increasingly researched, especially in the fields of marketing and ser-
bile phone industry, Sheng and Teo (2012) provide empirical evidence vices (e.g., Anderson, 1994; Anderson & Sullivan, 1993; Churchill Jr &
for a positive effect of customer experience (sensory, affective, in- Surprenant, 1982; Oliver, 1980). Traditionally, customer satisfaction is
tellectual, and behavioral) on brand equity. In the hotel industry, Xu conceptualized as the post-consumption evaluation of the firm/brand
and Chan (2010) propose that the quality of customer experience is a and/or its offerings, dependent on the perceived value, quality, and
key determinant of overall brand equity. In a study on event marketing, expectations (e.g., Anderson, 1994; Oliver, 1980). More recently,
Zarantonello and Schmitt (2013) find that sensory, affective, in- however, several authors argue that customer satisfaction is the key
tellectual, and behavioral brand experiences are positively related to outcome of brand experience (e.g., Chahal & Dutta, 2015). Accordingly,
brand equity. In an empirical study on Starbucks, Cleff, Lin, and Walter Meyer and Schwager (2007) conceptualize customer satisfaction as the
(2014) show that sensory, affective, cognitive, behavioral, and rela- accumulation of multiple customer experiences with the brand. Simi-
tional brand experiences have a positive influence on brand equity, and larly, Lin (2015) proposes that customer satisfaction is the emotional
that the sensory and affective dimensions have an especially large po- and psychological result of individual customer experiences, and White
sitive influence. Similarly, in the airline industry, Lin (2015) finds that, and Yu (2005) argue that customer satisfaction is an affective summary
although affective, behavioral, and intellectual brand experiences have response to brand experiences.
a positive impact on brand equity, the main type of innovative brand Following these more modern approaches to the conceptualization
experiences positively affecting the brand equity of Cathay Pacific, EVA of customer satisfaction, many scholars are now examining the link
Airways, and Korean Air are sensory experiences. Likewise, in a ca- between brand experience and customer satisfaction from an empirical
tering services context, Moreira, Fortes, and Santiago (2017) show that perspective. For example, in the context of product brands, Başer,
sensory-stimulated brand experiences have a positive effect on brand Cintamür, and Arslan (2015) find that sensory, affective, behavioral,
equity. In accordance with these findings from various services settings, and intellectual brand experiences have a positive influence on cus-
including the banking industry, the authors hypothesize that: tomer satisfaction. Similarly, in the retailing sector, Ha and Perks
(2005) show that a consumer who enjoys impressive brand experiences
H1. Sensory brand experience has a positive effect on brand equity. becomes a highly satisfied consumer; and Ishida and Taylor (2012) find
that sensory, affective, behavioral, and intellectual brand experiences
have a positive indirect impact on customer satisfaction through brand
2.2. The effect of sensory brand experience on customer affective personality. Considering brands from both the goods and services sec-
commitment tors, Brakus, Schmitt, and Zarantonello (2009) provide empirical evi-
dence for the same indirect impact as Ishida and Taylor (2012), but also
Developing customer commitment is essential for any brand, be- for a direct influence of sensory, affective, behavioral, and intellectual
cause committed customers are less sensitive to price (Hess and Story, brand experiences on customer satisfaction. Similarly, Kim, Lee, and
2005) and to punctual episodes of poor brand performance (Story & Suh (2015) find that the sensory, affective, intellectual, and behavioral
Hess, 2010). Scholars identify two types of customer commitment – experiences of customers with a shopping mall brand determine their
continuance and affective (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Evanschitzky & satisfaction with the brand. Likewise, in the automotive industry, Şahin,
Wunderlich, 2006; Fullerton, 2003). Continuance commitment con- Turhan, and Zehir (2013) show that sensory, affective, behavioral, and
ceptualizes the need by the customer to maintain a relationship with a intellectual brand experiences have a positive influence on brand sa-
brand, due to a lack of alternatives, or high switching costs tisfaction. In the airline industry, Lin (2015) obtains the same results,
(Evanschitzky & Wunderlich, 2006); while affective commitment is and Kim, Chua, Lee, Boo, and Han (2016) find that sensory brand ex-
defined as an emotional response that originates from the psychological perience is positively related to customer satisfaction. In a similar vein,
identification and attachment of customers to a brand (Allen & Meyer, in the banking industry, Khan et al. (2016) find that online brand ex-
1990; Fullerton, 2003). perience is a positive antecedent of customer satisfaction; and Chahal
Managers have traditionally used brand communications and ad- and Dutta (2015) show that sensory experience significantly determines
vertising as the key tools to elicit strong emotional responses from customer experience with the brand, which in turn has a positive effect
customers (Frow & Payne, 2007). However, in the current hyper-com- on customer satisfaction. In line with these previous results from the
petitive environment, several scholars argue that brands need to deliver banking industry and other contexts, and with the aim of gaining fur-
strong, memorable, and unique experiences if they want customers to ther empirical insight into the effects of the sensory dimension of brand
develop positive emotions and feelings toward the brand (e.g., Brakus, experience, which is key in the banking industry (Chahal & Dutta,
Schmitt, & Zarantonello, 2009; Mosley, 2007). Surprisingly, scant em- 2015), the authors hypothesize that:
pirical research exists relating brand experience to customer affective H3. Sensory brand experience has a positive effect on customer
commitment. Among this scant research, Iglesias, Singh, and Batista- satisfaction.
Foguet (2011) show that sensory, affective, behavioral, and intellectual
brand experiences are positive determinants of customer affective
commitment. Similarly, Jung and Soo (2012) find that affective and 2.4. The moderating influence of employee empathy on the effects of sensory
behavioral brand experiences are positive antecedents of customer af- brand experience on customer affective commitment and customer
fective commitment. satisfaction
In accordance with the above-presented scant empirical findings
and the conceptual line of argument, and focusing on the sensory di- Empathy is a relevant construct in the literature on services and is
mension of brand experience, which is crucial in the services sector crucial for a mutual understanding between social actors (e.g., Davis,
(Lin, 2015), and especially in the banking industry (Chahal & Dutta, 1996; Kenny & Albright, 1987). More precisely, in services settings,
2015), the authors postulate that: empathy is a core determinant of favorable customer-employee

345
O. Iglesias et al. Journal of Business Research 96 (2019) 343–354

interactions (Aggarwal, Castleberry, Ridnour, & Shepherd, 2005; associated employee empathy with brand experience, customer affec-
Giacobbe, Jackson Jr, Crosby, & Bridges, 2006), and therefore a fun- tive commitment, or customer satisfaction, few researchers are ex-
damental skill for service employees (Ahearne, Jelinek, & Jones, 2007; amining employee empathy as a moderator of the impacts of brand
Pilling & Eroglu, 1994). experience on customer affective commitment and customer satisfac-
Empathy is widely conceptualized as the ability to understand and tion. This gap is surprising because when employees behave in an
react to the thoughts and feelings of others (Barrett-Lennard, 1981; empathic manner, favorable customer experience with the brand can
Goldstein & Michaels, 1985; McBane, 1995; Pilling & Eroglu, 1994). plausibly be expected to turn into even greater customer affective
Several scholars propose that employees with high levels of empathy commitment to and satisfaction with the brand. In line with this ra-
can more easily identify and address customer needs and desires (e.g., tionale, based on the above-discussed literature, and focusing on the
Dawson, Soper, & Pettijohn, 1992; Homburg, Wieseke, & Bornemann, sensory dimension of brand experience because of its key importance in
2009) and are more likely to be helpful – so producing experiences that the services sector (Lin, 2015), and specifically in the banking industry
are rich in interpersonal concern and emotional contagion (e.g., (Chahal & Dutta, 2015), the authors posit that:
McBane, 1995). The concept of emotional contagion is introduced in
H4. The greater employee empathy, the stronger the effect of sensory
the literature on social psychology (Gump & Kulik, 1997) and suggests
brand experience on customer affective commitment.
that feelings and emotions can be transmitted from person to person –
even through short interactions – and leave an enduring memory (e.g., H5. The greater employee empathy, the stronger the effect of sensory
Rozin & Royzman, 2001). brand experience on customer satisfaction.
Employees can transfer positive feelings and emotions to customers
(Howard & Gengler, 2001) and these feelings are likely to create an
affective commitment in customers (Mende & Bolton, 2011) if em- 2.5. Inter-relationship between customer affective commitment, customer
ployees are sufficiently empathic during these interactions (Lee, Comer, satisfaction, and brand equity
Dubinsky, & Schafer, 2011; Wieseke, Geigenmuller, & Kraus, 2012).
This is especially important in services settings, due to the greater Even if historically customer satisfaction is one of the most re-
amount of employee-customer interactions that such settings entail searched topics within the discipline of marketing (Oliver, 1997) and
when compared to goods contexts (Grönroos, 2006). Considering that the antecedents of customer satisfaction are widely researched (e.g.,
the customer orientation of service employees involves developing brand experience) (e.g., Başer, Cintamür, & Arslan, 2015; Khan et al.,
empathy toward customers, which is essential for understanding their 2016), scholars are paying less attention to its consequences. More
needs and desires (e.g., Giacobbe, Jackson Jr, Crosby, & Bridges, 2006; specifically, when empirically studying the consequences of customer
Stock & Hoyer, 2005), researchers from the field of services suggest that satisfaction, researchers primarily focus on behavioral outcome vari-
when service employees have a strong customer orientation, customers ables, such as customer purchase intentions (e.g., Mai & Ness, 1999;
develop greater affective commitment toward the services brand or Martenson, 2007) and customer loyalty (e.g., Brakus, Schmitt, &
company (e.g., Hennig-Thurau, 2004; Markovic et al., 2018). Accord- Zarantonello, 2009; Chang & Tu, 2005). Unexpectedly, however, cus-
ingly, Hennig-Thurau (2004) proposes that developing affinity and fa- tomer satisfaction has not been widely related from an empirical
miliarity with customers can increase affective commitment to the standpoint to affective outcome variables, such as customer affective
service provider. Similarly, Daniels, Glover, and Mellor (2014) show commitment.
that perceived empathy has a positive impact on affect. This scant research includes studies primarily developed in the
Apart from relating employee empathy to customer feelings and services sector. For example, in a restaurant setting, Lai (2015) finds
emotions, scholars also argue that when employees portray an empathic that customer satisfaction boosts customer affective commitment. Si-
attitude, customers will be more satisfied with the brand (e.g., milarly, in the travel industry, Richard and Zhang (2012) show that
Markovic et al., 2018). As empathic employees are concerned about and customer satisfaction with a travel agency increases customer affective
better understand customer needs and desires (Saxby, Celuch, & Walz, commitment to that agency. Likewise, in the banking industry, Saxby,
2015), they can better personalize the service for each customer and so Celuch, and Walz (2015) provide empirical evidence for a positive ef-
improve customer satisfaction (Giacobbe, Jackson Jr, Crosby, & fect of customer satisfaction on customer affective commitment. In a
Bridges, 2006; Jones & Shandiz, 2015). Accordingly, Stock and Hoyer study encompassing four services settings (i.e., retailing, entertainment,
(2005) and Hennig-Thurau (2004) find that those service employees banking, and transport), Dimitriades (2006) operationalizes customer
with a strong customer orientation can make customers more satisfied. commitment by only including its affective component, and finds a
Finally, in addition to associating employee empathy with customer positive consequence for customer satisfaction. Similarly, in a theater
affective commitment and satisfaction, scholars also relate empathy to company, Johnson, Sivadas, and Garbarino (2008) show that customer
brand experience. Employees are key stakeholders in services brands satisfaction has a positive influence on customer affective commitment.
(e.g., Balmer, 2010; Harris & de Chernatony, 2001; Iglesias, Markovic, In line with these results from diverse services settings, including the
Singh, & Sierra, 2017), as they can make or break the brand (Roper & banking industry (Saxby, Celuch, & Walz, 2015), the authors hy-
Davies, 2007) when interacting with customers and shaping their brand pothesize that:
experience (Iglesias, Singh, & Batista-Foguet, 2011). When customers
H6. Customer satisfaction has a positive effect on customer affective
perceive that employees behave in an empathic manner (i.e., trying to
commitment.
understand and address their needs and desires) during their interac-
tions, they tend to assess employee performance more positively and Scholars do not widely link customer satisfaction with customer
have a better brand experience (Wieseke, Geigenmuller, & Kraus, affective commitment from an empirical standpoint, but satisfaction is
2012). Being able to understand and address customer needs and de- repeatedly related to brand equity. For instance, in a business-to-busi-
sires enables employees to deliver a quality service (Puccinelli, ness services setting, Geigenmüller and Bettis-Outland (2012) propose
Andrzejewski, Markos, Noga, & Motyka, 2013), and thereby improve that customer satisfaction with a service boosts service brand equity.
customer experience with the brand (Markovic et al., 2018). This is Similarly, in banking and discount store services, Ha, Janda, and
especially true in services contexts, where some scholars argue that Muthaly (2010) highlight that customer satisfaction is crucial and has a
employee empathy is an important determinant of customer brand strong and positive influence on brand equity. In the same vein, Hsu
experience (e.g., Markovic et al., 2018; Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & (2012) argues that customer satisfaction in the life insurance industry
Berry, 1985, 1988; Rust & Oliver, 1994). plays a central role and has a positive effect on brand equity. Likewise,
Although previous research has either directly or indirectly in a study on winery experience, Nella and Christou (2014) show that

346
O. Iglesias et al. Journal of Business Research 96 (2019) 343–354

Table 1
Constructs and items used in the questionnaire.
Constructs Items Reference(s)

Sensory brand experience This brand makes a strong impression on my visual sense or other senses. Brakus, Schmitt, and Zarantonello (2009)
I find this brand interesting in a sensory way.
This brand appeals to my senses.
Customer affective commitment I enjoy being a customer of this brand. Mende and Bolton (2011)
I have positive feelings about this brand.
I feel attached to this brand.
Customer satisfaction All in all, I am very satisfied with this brand. Homburg, Wieseke, and Bornemann (2009)
The touch-points with this brand meet my expectations of the ideal touch-points with this type
of brands.
The performance of this brand has fulfilled my expectations.
Employee empathy The brand employees give customers individual attention. Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry (1994)
The brand employees deal with customers in a caring fashion.
The brand employees have the customer best interest at heart.
The brand employees understand the needs of their customers.
Brand equity Even if another brand has the same features as this brand, I would prefer to buy this brand. Yasin, Noor, and Mohamad (2012)
If I have to choose among different brands offering the same type of service, I would definitely
choose this brand. Yoo, Donthu, and Lee (2000)
Even if another brand has the same price as this brand, I would still buy this brand.

the higher the level of visitor satisfaction, the greater the winery brand Watchravesringkan, 2014) and attachment/identification (Lassar,
equity. Mittal, & Sharma, 1995) are dimensions of brand equity. For instance,
In a study on hospital marketing, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, and Kang Burmann, Jost-Benz, and Riley (2009) introduce a model of brand
(2008) find a positive indirect effect of customer satisfaction on brand equity that integrates external and internal brand strength perspectives,
equity, through brand awareness, which is a dimension of brand equity where commitment is considered a component of internal brand
(Aaker, 1996). In the context of retail brands, Pappu and Quester strength. Correspondingly, Feldwick (1996, p. 11) proposes a con-
(2006) show a positive influence for customer satisfaction with the ceptualization of brand equity as “a measure of the strength of con-
retailer on retail brand equity. Likewise, in higher education, Dennis, sumer attachment to a brand.” Although previous research has pri-
Papagiannidis, Alamanos, and Bourlakis (2016) find that student sa- marily linked affective commitment with brand equity through the
tisfaction with a university has a positive effect on the university's dimensions of brand equity, some recent empirical studies have in-
brand equity. Similarly, in a study on environmentally-responsible in- vestigated affective commitment as an antecedent of brand equity (e.g.,
formation and electronics products, Chen (2010) finds a positive effect Šerić, Mikulić, & Gil-Saura, 2016; Sierra, Iglesias, Markovic, & Singh,
of green customer satisfaction on green brand equity. Finally, in a cross- 2017), as it is plausible to expect that when customers feel identified
cultural study involving multiple brands from different sectors, Torres with a specific brand and develop a strong emotional attachment to that
and Tribó (2011) find that customer satisfaction is a positive antecedent brand, brand equity will increase (Šerić, Mikulić, & Gil-Saura, 2016).
of brand equity. In accordance with these previous empirical results This is aligned with the recent suggestions about studying brand equity
from diverse fields, the authors postulate that: dimensions as brand equity antecedents (Wang, Kandampully, Lo, &
Guicheng, 2006), which is a natural step in advancing the under-
H7. Customer satisfaction has a positive effect on brand equity.
standing of the brand equity construct (Šerić, Mikulić, & Gil-Saura,
In addition to relating customer satisfaction to brand equity, some 2016).
scholars either directly or indirectly associate customer affective com- Among the scant empirical research causally relating affective
mitment with brand equity (e.g., Baumgarth & Schmidt, 2010; Dwivedi commitment (i.e., a dimension of brand equity) to brand equity, in the
& Johnson, 2013; Sierra, Iglesias, Markovic, & Singh, 2017). For ex- field of corporate services brands, Sierra, Iglesias, Markovic, and Singh
ample, Fullerton (2005) finds that affective commitment decreases (2017) find that customer affective commitment to a brand has a po-
switching intentions, and Gundlach, Achrol, and Mentzer (1995) sug- sitive effect on brand equity. Similarly, in the context of higher edu-
gest that positive feeling toward a specific brand can prevent searching cation, Jillapalli and Jillapalli (2014) show that student commitment
for alternative brands. Customers who have low switching intentions positively influences brand equity. Finally, in the hotel industry, Šerić,
and who do not search for alternative brands can be considered brand- Mikulić, and Gil-Saura (2016) find that affective commitment has a
loyal customers (Gundlach, Achrol, & Mentzer, 1995). This traditional positive impact on brand equity. In line with scant previous research,
understanding of loyalty as a continuous act of repurchase of a specific and aiming to gain further empirical insights into this relationship, the
brand's products and/or services constitutes its behavioral dimension authors posit that:
(Moliner-Velázquez, Gil-Saura, & Ruiz-Molina, 2011; Oliver, 1997;
H8. Customer affective commitment has a positive effect on brand
Zins, 2001). More recently, however, scholars have also recognized the
equity.
attitudinal (or intention-based) dimension of loyalty (Kumar & Advani,
2005; Moliner-Velázquez, Gil-Saura, & Ruiz-Molina, 2011; Zins, 2001),
and defined brand loyalty in terms of customer desire to recommend
3. Methodology
the brand to others, customer preference for one brand over other
brands, and customer feeling of attachment to a brand (e.g., Fournier,
3.1. Questionnaire and measures
1998; Markovic et al., 2018; Moliner-Velázquez, Gil-Saura, & Ruiz-
Molina, 2011; Šerić, Gil-Saura, & Mollá-Descals, 2013). Moreover,
The questionnaire was based on constructs that were measured
many scholars acknowledge that brand loyalty is a dimension of brand
using and adapting existing scale items in the literature (see Table 1).
equity (e.g., Aaker, 1996; Biedenbach, Bengtsson, & Wincent, 2011;
All responses were recorded by means of an ordinal 7-point Likert scale,
Pappu, Quester, & Cooksey, 2005, 2006).
that ranged from “completely disagree” to “completely agree.” A
Apart from brand loyalty, academics also propose that affective
double-blind back-translation process was applied to the questionnaire
commitment (Martin & Brown, 1990; Matthews, Son, &
to translate the items into Spanish.

347
O. Iglesias et al. Journal of Business Research 96 (2019) 343–354

In addition, the questionnaire was pre-tested in two ways. Firstly, to

Employee
avoid potential misinterpretation by respondents, 3 professors and 3
Empathy
practitioners from the areas of brand management and brand experi-
ence were asked to assess the adequacy of the questions from the
conceptual standpoint, and the way in which they were posed. Customer
H4 H5 Affective
Secondly, 10 target respondents were asked to evaluate the ques-
Commitment
tionnaire's ease of comprehension.

H2 H8
3.2. Data collection and sample

Sensory H1 Brand
Data collection was conducted in Spain in 2016, using an online Brand Equity
customer panel for the banking industry. All Spanish regional states Experience
were represented in the sample. Regarding the sampling procedure
H6
method, a non-probabilistic sampling by quotas was implemented. The H3 H7
quotas established in the socio-demographic variables were re-
presentative of the Spanish population.
Respondents answered several filtering questions that proved their Customer
Satisfaction
engagement in the use of banking services. This approach resulted in a
sample of 1739 customers, whose ages ranged from 18 to 65, with an
average age of 40.46, a median age of 40, and 50.1% of respondents Fig. 1. Hypothesized model.
were female. 30% of respondents had a high-medium/high social
status, 51.1% a medium social status, and 18.9% a medium/low-low the research objectives are exploratory in nature (e.g., Peng & Lai,
social status. Table 2 depicts the sample profile in detail, including the 2012). Thus, PLS-SEM is suitable to analyze the hypothesized model in
distribution of respondents across the Spanish regional states. this study (Fig. 1), because (1) the model is complex (i.e., it involves 16
items for 5 constructs), (2) it contains complex relationships (i.e.,
4. Data analysis and results mediators and moderator), and (3) several hypothesized relationships
that are part of the model are under-researched from an empirical
The authors used structural equation modeling via partial least standpoint.
squares (PLS-SEM) to simultaneously test the hypothesized relation-
ships in Smart PLS 3.0 software. PLS-SEM is a variance-based estima-
4.1. Measurement assessment
tion procedure based on a set of multiple regressions and ordinary least
square estimators. The procedure is an iterative algorithm that first
Table 3 includes the basic indexes of central tendency (i.e., mean
solves the blocks of the measurement models, and then estimates the
and median) and variability (i.e., standard deviation). To assess the
path coefficients in the structural model. Several scholars have argued
adequacy of the measures, the authors estimated the convergent va-
that PLS-SEM is a suitable procedure to test complex models and
lidity through: item reliability, construct reliability, and average var-
complex relationships between constructs (e.g., Chin, Marcolin, &
iance extract (AVE) (see Table 3). Firstly, item reliability was evaluated
Newsted, 2003; Eggert, Ulaga, & Schultz, 2006; Henseler, Ringle, &
based on the factor loadings of the items (i.e., observed variables) on
Sinkovics, 2009; Sarkar, Echambadi, & Harrison, 2001). In addition,
their respective constructs. As all the factor loadings were higher than
scholars have proposed that PLS-SEM is an appropriate procedure when
the threshold value of 0.6, convergent validity was supported. Sec-
ondly, construct reliability was assessed through both composite re-
Table 2
Sample profile.
liability (CR) values and Cronbach alpha coefficients. As all the CR
values and Cronbach alpha coefficients were higher than the threshold
% value of 0.7, convergent validity was supported. Thirdly, the AVE was
Gender Male 49.9 assessed because it is the summary indicator of convergence. As all the
Female 50.1 AVE values were higher than the threshold value of 0.5, convergent
Age 18–29 19.8
30–49 56.4 Table 3
50–65 23.8
Item descriptive and convergent validity.
Social status high-medium/high 30.0
medium 51.1 Construct Item Mean Median SD Loadings Cronbach CR AVE
medium/low-low 18.9 Alphas
Spanish regional states Andalucía 16.4
Aragón 4.0 BE BE1 4.88 5.00 1.65 0.94 0.92 0.95 0.86
Principado de Asturias 2.9 BE2 4.87 5.00 1.64 0.93
Islas Baleares 1.7 BE3 4.93 5.00 1.65 0.91
Islas Canarias 3.6 CAC CAC1 4.55 5.00 1.70 0.92 0.89 0.93 0.82
Cantabria 1.5 CAC2 4.85 5.00 1.61 0.92
Castilla- La Mancha 3.9 CAC3 4.62 5.00 1.70 0.88
Castilla-León 6.9 CS CS1 5.09 5.00 1.59 0.95 0.95 0.97 0.90
Catalunya 14.1 CS2 4.92 5.00 1.53 0.94
Comunidad Valenciana 10.7 CS3 5.02 5.00 1.55 0.95
Extremadura 1.9 EE EE1 5.26 5.00 1.41 0.89 0.91 0.94 0.79
Galicia 6.8 EE2 5.10 5.00 1.47 0.89
La Rioja 0.3 EE3 5.43 6.00 1.41 0.87
Comunidad de Madrid 15.5 EE4 5.02 5.00 1.49 0.90
Comunidad Foral de Navarra 0.5 SBE SBE1 4.01 4.00 1.72 0.93 0.93 0.95 0.87
País Vasco 5.2 SBE2 4.08 4.00 1.73 0.94
Región de Murcia 4.1 SBE3 4.04 4.00 1.73 0.93

348
O. Iglesias et al. Journal of Business Research 96 (2019) 343–354

Table 4 Table 6
Convergent validity: cross-loadings analysis. Measurement equivalence through CFA.
BE CAC CS EE SBE Gender (men: 868; women: 871) χ2 df p

BE1 0.941 0.780 0.802 0.648 0.557 Unconstrained 689.54 188

BE2 0.928 0.809 0.820 0.648 0.583 Constraining measurement weights 705.51 199
BE3 0.913 0.722 0.750 0.634 0.519 Difference 15.97 11 0.142
CAC1 0.751 0.917 0.760 0.629 0.688
CAC2 0.818 0.924 0.819 0.668 0.636
CAC3 0.690 0.881 0.667 0.583 0.654 Social status (high: 521; medium: 889; low: 329) χ2 df p
CS1 0.823 0.793 0.954 0.729 0.565
CS2 0.802 0.784 0.940 0.730 0.577 Unconstrained 750.23 282
CS3 0.806 0.782 0.953 0.727 0.560 Constraining measurement weights 765.54 304
EE1 0.597 0.593 0.666 0.893 0.437 Difference 15.31 22 0.849
EE2 0.645 0.639 0.710 0.885 0.483
EE3 0.557 0.537 0.614 0.869 0.368
EE4 0.655 0.676 0.726 0.904 0.528 customers). The authors implemented construct level correction (CLC)
SBE1 0.542 0.661 0.532 0.463 0.934 to address this potential common method variance issue (Chin,
SBE2 0.569 0.688 0.576 0.490 0.936
SBE3 0.563 0.682 0.565 0.490 0.930
Thatcher, Wright, & Steel, 2013). CLC involves creating as many CMV
control constructs as constructs in the model. Each CMV control uses
Note: In bold, the loadings between the items and the constructs they measure. the same entire set of measured latent marker variables. The CMV
construct is modeled as impacting each construct present in the hy-
validity was supported. The authors also conducted a cross-loadings pothesized model. The authors used the latent marker variable of psy-
analysis, which shows that the items load more on the construct that chological risk, which contains the following three items (Keh & Pang,
they measure than on the other constructs, further supporting con- 2010): (1) the thought of using the services of this brand makes me feel
vergent validity (see Table 4). psychologically uncomfortable, (2) the thought of using the services of
The authors also estimated discriminant validity to further ensure this brand causes me to experience unnecessary tension, and (3) I would
the adequacy of the measures. Discriminant validity is evaluated by worry a lot when buying the services of this brand.
comparing the square root of the AVE of each construct with the bi- A high correlation between this latent marker variable and any
variate correlations among constructs. A measurement model is con- other construct present in this study would confirm an issue of CMV.
sidered to have acceptable discriminant validity if the square root of the The lowest absolute correlation between the latent marker variable and
AVE of each construct is higher than any of the bivariate correlations the other constructs present in this research (rs) is the CMV estimate
among the constructs. As all the square roots of AVE were higher than (Lindell & Whitney, 2001). The rs is a conservative estimate because an
the bivariate correlations among the constructs, discriminant validity unadjusted correlation is influenced by the true covariance and by the
was supported. Table 5 depicts the assessment of discriminant validity. CMV (Lindell & Whitney, 2001). In this study, the rs is 0.111, which is
associated with an R2 of 0.012, indicating a low common source effect
4.2. Measurement equivalence shared between constructs (see Table 7).
To control for CMV, all the correlations among constructs were
The authors tested for measurement equivalence to assess whether adjusted using rs = 0.111. All the correlations remained significant
the constructs (via their scale items) were invariant across gender and after adjusting for CMV, and therefore the authors concluded that the
social status. In the literature, there are two widely recognized tech- estimations of the parameters of the hypothesized model are not biased
niques to test for measurement equivalence: confirmatory factor ana- by CMV.
lysis (CFA) (Steenkamp & Baumgartner, 1998) and generalizability
theory (Cronbach, Gleser, Nanda, & Rajaratnam, 1972). As the sub- 4.4. Structural model evaluation
sample size for gender and social status is large enough (i.e., > 75), the
authors used CFA to assess the structural invariance of the constructs The evaluation of the structural model contains the estimation and
across gender and social status (see Table 6). Results show that the the statistical test of the hypothesized relationships. As the scores of the
structure of the constructs is the same for men and women, and for the constructs in PLS-SEM analysis are aggregates of the observed variables,
three social status groups. Constraining the measurement weights for a degree of measurement error can influence the estimation of the path
the different groups of gender and social status does not suppose a coefficients (i.e., PLS-SEM bias). To check for this kind of bias effect,
worse fit (i.e., p-values > 0.05). bias corrected and accelerated bootstrap confidence intervals (Efron,
1987; Streukens, Wetzels, Daryanto, & De Ruyter, 2010) were added for
4.3. Common method variance every path coefficient of the structural model (see Table 8). The authors
created 5000 bootstrap resamples (with replacement) from the original
A potential problem of common method variance (CMV) arises in dataset to compute the standard error of the path coefficients. For the
this research as data were collected from the same respondents (i.e., outcomes of the bootstrap procedure, no inconsistent results were ob-
tained regarding the population inference using two procedures: (1) the
Table 5 point estimate, and (2) the bias-corrected interval estimation, which
Discriminant validity.
Table 7
BE CAC CS EE SBE
Correlation coefficients and R2 between marker and constructs.
BE 0.93a
Construct Correlation coefficient R2
CAC 0.83b 0.91
CS 0.85 0.83 0.95 SBE 0.111 0.012
EE 0.69 0.69 0.77 0.89 EE −0.243 0.059
SBE 0.60 0.73 0.60 0.52 0.93 CAC −0.111 0.012
CS −0.264 0.069
a
Square root of AVE in the diagonal. BE −0.224 0.050
b
Pearson correlations among constructs.

349
O. Iglesias et al. Journal of Business Research 96 (2019) 343–354

Table 8
Path coefficients results.
Estimate coefficients Standard error p-value 95% bias-corrected CI Result

Direct effects
H1: SBE → BE −0.01 0.020 0.628 [−0.049; 0.029] Not supported
H2: SBE → CAC 0.35 0.020 0.000 [0.308; 0.388] Supported
H3: SBE → CS 0.29 0.022 0.000 [0.246; 0.331] Supported
H6: CS → CAC 0.55 0.028 0.000 [0.496; 0.604] Supported
H7: CS → BE 0.52 0.027 0.000 [0.471; 0.575] Supported
H8: CAC → BE 0.41 0.032 0.000 [0.343; 0.468] Supported

Moderating effects
H4: SBE × EE → CAC 0.01 0.004 0.278 [−0.004; 0.013] Not supported
H5: SBE × EE → CS −0.02 0.006 0.001 [−0.032; −0.009] Supported

proposes that estimator bias does not highly influence estimations. 5. Discussion and conclusion
At a significance level of 0.05, the estimated values of the path
coefficients empirically support all the direct effects that are part of the 5.1. Theoretical contributions
hypothesized model, except the direct effect of sensory brand experi-
ence on brand equity (β 1 = −0.01; p = 0.628) (see Table 8). Specifi- In broad terms, this paper contributes to the literature by advancing
cally, sensory brand experience has a positive and direct effect on knowledge of the brand equity formation process, which is especially
customer affective commitment (β 2 = 0.35; p = 0.000) and customer relevant and requires further academic attention in services settings
satisfaction (β 3 = 0.29; p = 0.000), which empirically supports H2 and (e.g., Iglesias, Markovic, Singh, & Sierra, 2017; Šerić & Gil-Saura, 2012;
H3, respectively. In addition, customer satisfaction has a positive and Sierra, Iglesias, Markovic, & Singh, 2017). More specifically, this article
direct influence on brand equity (β 7 = 0.52; p = 0.000) and customer contributes to the literature by showing that the direct effect of sensory
affective commitment (β 6 = 0.55; p = 0.000), which in turn has a brand experience on brand equity is not significant in the context of
positive and direct impact on brand equity (β 8 = 0.41; p = 0.000), banking services. This finding is interesting and relevant, because
thereby empirically supporting H7, H6, and H8, respectively. Finally, previous research found that the direct effect of sensory brand experi-
although employee empathy does not influence the relationship be- ence on brand equity is significant in other services contexts – including
tween sensory brand experience and customer affective commitment catering services (Moreira, Fortes, & Santiago, 2017) and the airline
(β 4 = 0.01; p = 0.278), such employee empathy has a negative direct industry (Lin, 2015). This implies that in the banking industry, relevant
effect on the relationship between sensory brand experience and cus- mediators for transferring positive sensory brand experience into en-
tomer satisfaction (β 5 = −0.02; p = 0.001). Thus, while H4 is not hanced brand equity are required. Accordingly, this research has shown
empirically supported, H5 is statistically significant with negative sign. that developing customer satisfaction with the brand, and affective
After estimating the direct effects, the authors analyzed the indirect commitment to the brand, is indispensable if brands want to turn po-
effects using the bootstrap procedure described by Preacher and Hayes sitive sensory brand experience into improved brand equity in the
(2004) and implemented in the SPSS macro developed by Hayes banking industry. This is consistent with previous research that shows
(2013). Table 9 shows the indirect effects, standard errors, and the 95% that customer evaluations of brand experience (e.g., Berry, 2000;
bias-corrected confidence intervals obtained by applying bootstrap es- Sierra, Iglesias, Markovic, & Singh, 2017) and their emotional responses
timation. The three indirect effects studied are statistically significant (Haeckel et al., 2003; Morrison & Crane, 2007) are key to building
(i.e., different from zero in the population), as the 95% bias-corrected brand equity.
confidence interval of their estimates does not contain zero. Thus, as This article also shows that, in the banking industry, customer sa-
the direct effect of sensory brand experience on brand equity is not tisfaction with the brand has a positive effect on customer affective
significant, the authors concluded that customer affective commitment commitment to the brand, which in turn positively influences brand
and customer satisfaction fully mediate the impact of sensory brand equity. These findings further reinforce the central role of customer
experience on brand equity. In addition, as the direct effect of customer satisfaction in building brand equity within the context of brand ex-
satisfaction on brand equity is significant, the authors concluded that perience in the services sector (e.g., Ha, Janda, & Muthaly, 2010; Hsu,
customer affective commitment is a partial mediator of the impact of 2012). Additionally, these results emphasize the notion that customer
customer satisfaction on brand equity. satisfaction is a key outcome of brand experience (e.g., Chahal & Dutta,
2015), which is aligned with the conceptualization of customer sa-
tisfaction as the accumulation of experiences that a given customer has
with a specific brand (Meyer & Schwager, 2007).
Moreover, this research also suggests that high levels of customer
affective commitment may be especially relevant in the context of
Table 9
services (Markovic et al., 2018; Sierra, Iglesias, Markovic, & Singh,
Assessing the indirect effects.
2017) since services are intangible and heterogeneous (Zeithaml,
Mediation Direct effect Indirect Standard 95% bias- Result Parasuraman, & Berry, 1985), and so the task of providing a homo-
effects effect error corrected CI
geneous quality experience is more challenging than in the field of
SBE → Not 0.313 0.020 [0.275; Full products/goods (Booms & Bitner, 1981). Consequently, when custo-
CS → significant 0.353] mediation mers affectively commit to a brand, they are more likely to blame oc-
BE casional service failures on external factors that are not directly linked
SBE → Not 0.145 0.014 [0.120; Full with the services brand itself (Story & Hess, 2010). Brand equity levels,
CAC → Significant 0.174] mediation
BE
therefore, are likely to remain less sensitive to such failures (Iglesias,
CS → Significant 0.330 0.025 [0.283; Partial Markovic, Singh, & Sierra, 2017; Sierra, Iglesias, Markovic, & Singh,
CAC → 0.380] mediation 2017).
BE Another key theoretical contribution of this research is that

350
O. Iglesias et al. Journal of Business Research 96 (2019) 343–354

employee empathy negatively moderates the relationship between 5.2. Managerial implications
sensory brand experience and customer satisfaction. This finding im-
plies that the higher the level of employee empathy, the lower is the Brands in the banking industry are increasingly moving a relevant
impact of sensory brand experience on customer satisfaction. This part of their operations into the online channel to provide a simpler,
finding is counterintuitive, as empathic employees tend to have a better faster, and more convenient experience to their customers. However, in
understanding of customer needs (Saxby, Celuch, & Walz, 2015), which parallel, some of these brands are also investing significantly in im-
allows them to deliver better and more personalized experiences proving the experience in a more selective number of branches. This is
(Giacobbe, Jackson Jr, Crosby, & Bridges, 2006; Jones & Shandiz, because there are some target customers, such as the elderly (i.e., the
2015), and therefore achieve higher levels of customer satisfaction most relevant users of bank branches) who still appreciate the possi-
(Hennig-Thurau, 2004; Markovic et al., 2018). Thus, one would expect bility of personally interacting with brand employees. From this per-
that the higher the level of employee empathy, the greater the impact of spective, banking brands should invest in employee training, as front-
sensory brand experience on customer satisfaction. However, the line employees are the key drivers for customer satisfaction and cus-
counterintuitive moderating effect of this research implies that, if tomer affective commitment in the bricks and mortar context.
brands want to boost customer satisfaction, a positive sensory brand However, if banking brands want to increase their equity, they
experience becomes less relevant when employee empathy is high than should also invest in designing a superior sensory brand experience.
when it is low. This finding, although initially counterintuitive, re- Accordingly, managers should pay special attention to the visual, au-
sonates with previous literature from the field of services that argues ditory and olfactory brand-customer interfaces, in order to adapt or
that employees represent the key interface for successful customer- redesign them to address customer requirements effectively. This is
brand interactions (e.g., Gummesson, 1991; Harris & de Chernatony, especially important when dealing with the requirements of specific
2001; Iglesias, Ind, & Alfaro, 2013) and can make or break the brand customer segments, such as the elderly or people with disabilities, who
when interacting with customers (Ind, 2007; Ind, Iglesias, & Schultz, can take more advantage of an improved sensory brand experience.
2013; Markovic & Bagherzadeh, 2018; Roper & Davies, 2007). In es- Improving customers' sensory experience with the brand is essential in
sence, when employees are empathic (i.e., when they understand cus- the banking industry, as it can boost the levels of customer satisfaction
tomer needs and desires and deliver experiences accordingly), they and customer affective commitment, which in turn are likely to increase
become the key driver to customer satisfaction. Consequently and brand equity.
comparatively, when evaluating the brand experience, customers then Finally, brands in the banking industry should also leverage on the
pay less attention to the positive sensory cues. Interestingly enough, potential of music and fragrances to build an ecosystem of sensory cues
from the opposite perspective, this also means that sensory brand ex- capable of creating a more pleasant atmosphere and experience. These
periences can be an extremely valuable tool to compensate for and deal sensory cues, such as signature fragrances and music lists, should be
with the consequences of the heterogeneous nature of services caused, designed in line with the brand identity and aim at boosting brand
for instance, by the variability of employee empathy levels (Zeithaml, equity. The presence of positive sensory cues is important because, even
Parasuraman, & Berry, 1985). When employee empathy levels are low, if employees have a crucial role in building services brands (Markovic
the impact of positive sensory brand experience on customer satisfac- Markovic, 2016; Iglesias, Markovic, Singh, & Sierra, 2017; Ind, 2007)
tion is higher, and therefore a positive sensory brand experience can and in achieving high levels of customer satisfaction and customer af-
help compensate for low levels of employee empathy. This is in line fective commitment (Markovic et al., 2018), their performance cannot
with suggestions from the literature on store atmospherics (e.g., Turley be constantly homogeneous. This is because service employees' atti-
& Milliman, 2000) and claims that atmosphere and its sensory cues can tudes, organizational commitment and/or empathy levels inevitably
play a very significant role in enhancing service assessment, and vary over time. In this regard, managers in service industries should
thereby in creating customer satisfaction. Overall, this research further understand that designing and orchestrating a superior sensory brand
reinforces the relevant role that the sensory dimension of brand ex- experience can compensate for and address the variability of customer
perience plays in services contexts (Goldkuhl & Styvén, 2007; Lin, service levels derived, for instance, from the heterogeneity of employee
2015), and especially in the banking industry (Chahal & Dutta, 2015), empathy when interacting with customers.
in complementing and enriching service performance assessment by
customers, especially when there is variability in employee perfor- 5.3. Limitations and future research
mance due to a lack of empathy.
In contrast, this research has not found empirical evidence to sup- Notwithstanding its theoretical contributions and managerial im-
port the moderating effect of employee empathy on the relationship plications, this research also has some limitations. First, this study is
between sensory brand experience and customer affective commitment. limited to the banking industry, and therefore the external validity of
A potential reason can be found in the fact that while customer sa- the findings is an issue. Future research should replicate this in-
tisfaction is a post-consumption evaluation of the brand experience that vestigation and widen the diversity of services settings in the sample to
takes into consideration several dimensions, including the perceived discover if the results are consistent across the whole services sector.
value, quality, or initial expectations (Anderson, 1994; Churchill Jr & Testing the model in the field of goods and comparing the results across
Surprenant, 1982; Oliver, 1980; White & Yu, 2005), customer affective services and goods sectors would also be interesting. This approach
commitment is instead an emotional response (Allen & Meyer, 1990; could reveal some key particularities of services brands and how they
Fullerton, 2003). In fact, previous research shows that sensory cues are ought to be managed compared to product brands. The second limita-
capable of eliciting strong and instantaneous emotional responses tion is because the sample is only representative of the Spanish target
(Chebat & Michon, 2003; Turley & Milliman, 2000) because they di- population. Therefore, the generalizability of the results is a concern.
rectly impact the limbic system, which is the part of the brain that Future studies should include surveys from other nations. Evaluating
processes and manages emotions (Spangenberg, Crowley, & Henderson, the sensorial experiences from nations with differing cultures (Imrie,
1996). This means that positive sensory cues can elicit strong and fast 2005) would be interesting. For example, the Chinese are believed to
emotional responses, and thus higher levels of customer affective pay more attention to intangible cues than American customers
commitment, that are not contingent on the evaluation of employee (Mattila, 1999). Thirdly, all the data for this research were collected
empathy levels. through surveys, and therefore mono-method bias is an issue. Future
research should triangulate this data source by gaining qualitative in-
sight into the sensory brand experience framework (e.g., through focus
groups or in-depth interviews).

351
O. Iglesias et al. Journal of Business Research 96 (2019) 343–354

In addition, future research could try to understand from an omni- Chin, W. W., Thatcher, J. B., Wright, R. T., & Steel, D. (2013). Controlling for common
channel perspective the impact of offline sensory brand experience on method variance in PLS analysis: the measured latent marker variable approach. In H.
Abdi, W. W. Chin, V. Esposito Vinzi, G. Russolillo, & L. Trinchera (Eds.). New per-
generating positive word-of-mouth in online environments. Another spectives in partial least squares and related methods (pp. 231–239). New York, NY:
relevant line of research would be to test, through an experimental Springer.
design, the impact of each type of sensory brand experience (i.e., sight, Churchill, G. A., Jr., & Surprenant, C. (1982). An investigation into the determinants of
customer satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research, 19(4), 491–504.
smell, taste, touch and sound) on consumer behavior, and more speci- Cleff, T., Lin, I. C., & Walter, N. (2014). Can you feel it?-the effect of brand experience on
fically, on evaluating the experience. Finally, in line with recent sug- brand equity. Journal of Brand Management, 11(2), 7.
gestions (e.g., Huang & Cai, 2015; Šerić, Mikulić, & Gil-Saura, 2016), Cronbach, L. J., Gleser, G. C., Nanda, H., & Rajaratnam, N. (1972). The dependability of
behavioral measurements: Theory of generalizability for scores and profiles. New York:
future research could extend the model of this article by examining Wiley.
whether brand loyalty performs well as a consequence of brand equity. Daniels, K., Glover, J., & Mellor, N. (2014). An experience sampling study of expressing
affect, daily affective well-being, relationship quality, and perceived performance.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87(4), 781–805.
References
Davcik, N. S., Vinhas da Silva, R., & Hair, J. F. (2015). Towards a unified theory of brand
equity: Conceptualizations, taxonomy and avenues for future research. The Journal of
Aaker, D. A. (1991). Managing brand equity: Capitalizing on the value of a brand name. New Product and Brand Management, 24(1), 3–17.
York, NY: Free Press. Davis, M. H. (1996). Empathy: A Social Psychological Approach. Boulder CO: Westview
Aaker, D. A. (1996). Measuring brand equity across products and markets. California Press.
Management Review, 38(3), 102–120. Dawson, L. E., Soper, B., & Pettijohn, C. E. (1992). The effects of empathy on salesperson
Aggarwal, P., Castleberry, S. B., Ridnour, R., & Shepherd, C. D. (2005). Salesperson effectiveness. Psychology and Marketing, 9(4), 297–310.
empathy and listening: Impact on relationship outcomes. Journal of Marketing Theory Dennis, C., Papagiannidis, S., Alamanos, E., & Bourlakis, M. (2016). The role of brand
and Practice, 13(3), 16–31. attachment strength in higher education. Journal of Business Research, 69(8),
Ahearne, M., Jelinek, R., & Jones, E. (2007). Examining the effect of salesperson service 3049–3057.
behavior in a competitive context. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35(4), Dimitriades, Z. S. (2006). Customer satisfaction, loyalty and commitment in service or-
603–616. ganizations: Some evidence from Greece. Management Research News, 29(12),
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, con- 782–800.
tinuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational and Ding, C. G., & Tseng, T. H. (2015). On the relationships among brand experience, hedonic
Organizational Psychology, 63(1), 1–18. emotions, and brand equity. European Journal of Marketing, 49(7/8), 994–1015.
Anderson, E. W. (1994). Cross-category variation in customer satisfaction and retention. Dwivedi, A., & Johnson, L. W. (2013). Trust–commitment as a mediator of the celebrity
Marketing Letters, 5(1), 19–30. endorser–brand equity relationship in a service context. Australasian Marketing
Anderson, E. W., & Sullivan, M. W. (1993). The antecedents and consequences of cus- Journal; AMJ, 21(1), 36–42.
tomer satisfaction for firms. Marketing Science, 12(2), 125–143. Efron, B. (1987). Better bootstrap confidence intervals. Journal of the American Statistical
Balmer, J. M. (2010). Explicating corporate brands and their management: Reflections Association, 82(397), 171–185.
and directions from 1995. Journal of Brand Management, 18(3), 180–196. Eggert, A., Ulaga, W., & Schultz, F. (2006). Value creation in the relationship life cycle: A
Barrett-Lennard, G. T. (1981). The empathy cycle: Refinement of a nuclear concept. quasi-longitudinal analysis. Industrial Marketing Management, 35(1), 20–27.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28(2), 91–100. Evanschitzky, H., & Wunderlich, M. (2006). An examination of moderator effects in the
Başer, İ. U., Cintamür, İ. G., & Arslan, F. M. (2015). Examining the effect of brand ex- four-stage loyalty model. Journal of Service Research, 8(4), 330–345.
perience on consumer satisfaction, brand trust and brand loyalty. Marmara University Feldwick, P. (1996). Do we really need ‘brand equity’? Journal of Brand Management, 4(1),
Journal of Economic & Administrative Sciences, 37(2), 101–128. 9–28.
Baumgarth, C., & Schmidt, M. (2010). How strong is the business-to-business brand in the Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in
workforce? An empirically-tested model of ‘internal brand equity’ in a business-to- consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 343–373.
business setting. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(8), 1250–1260. Frow, P., & Payne, A. (2007). Towards the ‘perfect’ customer experience. Journal of Brand
Bennett, R., & Kottasz, R. (2011). Strategic, competitive, and co-operative approaches to Management, 15(2), 89–101.
internationalisation in European business schools. Journal of Marketing Management, Fullerton, G. (2003). When does commitment lead to loyalty? Journal of Service Research,
27(11−12), 1087–1116. 5(4), 333–344.
Berry, L. L. (1980). Services marketing is different. Business, 30(3), 24–29. Fullerton, G. (2005). How commitment both enables and undermines marketing re-
Berry, L. L. (1981). The employee as customer. Journal of Retail Banking, 3(1), 33–40. lationships. European Journal of Marketing, 39(11/12), 1372–1388.
Berry, L. L. (2000). Cultivating service brand equity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Geigenmüller, A., & Bettis-Outland, H. (2012). Brand equity in B2B services and con-
Science, 28(1), 128–137. sequences for the trade show industry. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing,
Berry, L. L., Carbone, L. P., & Haeckel, S. H. (2002). Managing the total customer ex- 27(6), 428–435.
perience. MIT Sloan Management Review, 43(3), 85–89. Giacobbe, R. W., Jackson, D. W., Jr., Crosby, L. A., & Bridges, C. M. (2006). A contingency
Biedenbach, G., Bengtsson, M., & Wincent, J. (2011). Brand equity in the professional approach to adaptive selling behavior and sales performance: Selling situations and
service context: Analyzing the impact of employee role behavior and customer–- salesperson characteristics. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 26(2),
employee rapport. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(7), 1093–1102. 115–142.
Biedenbach, G., & Marell, A. (2010). The impact of customer experience on brand equity Gilbert, R. A., Meyer, A. P., & Fuchs, J. W. (2013). The future of community banks:
in a business-to-business services setting. Journal of Brand Management, 17(6), Lessons from banks that thrived during the recent financial crisis. Federal Reserve
446–458. Bank of St. Louis Review, 95(2), 115–143.
Booms, B. H., & Bitner, M. J. (1981). Marketing strategies and organization structures for Goldkuhl, L., & Styvén, M. (2007). Sensing the scent of service success. European Journal
service firms. Marketing of Services, 25(3), 47–52. of Marketing, 41(11/12), 1297–1305.
Brakus, J. J., Schmitt, B. H., & Zarantonello, L. (2009). Brand experience: What is it? How Goldstein, A. P., & Michaels, G. Y. (1985). Empathy: Development, training, and con-
is it measured? Does it affect loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 73(3), 52–68. sequences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Burmann, C., Jost-Benz, M., & Riley, N. (2009). Towards an identity-based brand equity Gray, A. (2017). Wells Fargo sets out plans to close 400 branches. Financial Timeshttps://
model. Journal of Business Research, 62(3), 390–397. www.ft.com/content/16dd7e0e-d995-11e6-944b-e7eb37a6aa8e.
Carbone, L. P., & Haeckel, S. H. (1994). Engineering customer experiences. Marketing Grönroos, C. (2006). Adopting a service logic for marketing. Marketing Theory, 6(3),
Management, 3(3), 9–19. 317–333.
Carù, A., & Cova, B. (2003). Revisiting consumption experience: A more humble but Grönroos, C. (2011). A service perspective on business relationships: The value creation,
complete view of the concept. Marketing Theory, 3(2), 267–286. interaction and marketing interface. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(2),
Chahal, H., & Dutta, K. (2015). Measurement and impact of customer experience in 240–247.
banking sector. Decision, 42(1), 57–70. Gummesson, E. (1991). Marketing-orientation revisited: The crucial role of the part-time
Chang, C. H., & Tu, C. Y. (2005). Exploring store image, customer satisfaction and cus- marketer. European Journal of Marketing, 25(2), 60–75.
tomer loyalty relationship: Evidence from Taiwanese hypermarket industry. Journal Gump, B. B., & Kulik, J. A. (1997). Stress, affiliation, and emotional contagion. Journal of
of American Academy of Business, 7(2), 197–202. Personality and Social Psychology, 72(2), 305–319.
Chebat, J. C., & Michon, R. (2003). Impact of ambient odors on mall shoppers' emotions, Gundlach, G. T., Achrol, R. S., & Mentzer, J. T. (1995). The structure of commitment in
cognition, and spending: A test of competitive causal theories. Journal of Business exchange. The Journal of Marketing, 59(1), 78–92.
Research, 56(7), 529–539. Ha, H. Y., Janda, S., & Muthaly, S. (2010). Development of brand equity: Evaluation of
Chen, L. S. L. (2012). What drives cyber shop brand equity? An empirical evaluation of four alternative models. The Service Industries Journal, 30(6), 911–928.
online shopping system benefit with brand experience. International Journal of Ha, H. Y., & Perks, H. (2005). Effects of consumer perceptions of brand experience on the
Business and Information, 7(1), 81–104. web: Brand familiarity, satisfaction and brand trust. Journal of Consumer Behaviour,
Chen, Y. S. (2010). The drivers of green brand equity: Green brand image, green sa- 4(6), 438–452.
tisfaction, and green trust. Journal of Business Ethics, 93(2), 307–319. Haeckel, S. H., Carbone, L. P., & Berry, L. L. (2003). How to lead the customer experience.
Chin, W. W., Marcolin, B. L., & Newsted, P. R. (2003). A partial least squares latent Marketing Management, 12(1), 18.
variable modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: Results from a Monte Harris, F., & de Chernatony, L. (2001). Corporate branding and corporate brand perfor-
Carlo simulation study and an electronic-mail emotion/adoption study. Information mance. European Journal of Marketing, 35(3/4), 441–456.
Systems Research, 14(2), 189–217. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis.

352
O. Iglesias et al. Journal of Business Research 96 (2019) 343–354

New York: The Guilford Press. Lin, Y. H. (2015). Innovative brand experience's influence on brand equity and brand
Hennig-Thurau, T. (2004). Customer orientation of service employees: Its impact on satisfaction. Journal of Business Research, 68(11), 2254–2259.
customer satisfaction, commitment, and retention. International Journal of Service Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross-
Industry Management, 15(5), 460–478. sectional designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 114–124.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). The use of partial least squares path Mai, L. W., & Ness, M. R. (1999). Canonical correlation analysis of customer satisfaction
modeling in international marketing. Advances in International Marketing, 20, and future purchase of mail-order speciality food. British Food Journal, 101(11),
277–319. 857–870.
Hess, J., & Story, J. (2005). Trust-based commitment: multidimensional consumer-brand Markovic Markovic, S. (2016). 21st-Century Brands: An Innovation Opportunity and an
relationships. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 22(6), 313–322. Ethical Challenge. PhD dissertation. Barcelona, Spain: Universitat Ramon Llull.
Homburg, C., Wieseke, J., & Bornemann, T. (2009). Implementing the marketing concept Markovic, S., & Bagherzadeh, M. (2018). How does breadth of external stakeholder co-
at the employee-customer interface: The role of customer need knowledge. Journal of creation influence innovation performance? Analyzing the mediating roles of
Marketing, 73(4), 64–81. knowledge sharing and product innovation. Journal of Business Research, 88,
Hooley, G. J., Greenley, G. E., Cadogan, J. W., & Fahy, J. (2005). The performance impact 173–186.
of marketing resources. Journal of Business Research, 58(1), 18–27. Markovic, S., Iglesias, O., Singh, J. J., & Sierra, V. (2018). How does the perceived
Howard, D. J., & Gengler, C. (2001). Emotional contagion effects on product attitudes. ethicality of corporate services brands influence loyalty and positive word-of-mouth?
Journal of Consumer Research, 28(2), 189–201. Analyzing the roles of empathy, affective commitment, and perceived quality. Journal
Hsu, K. T. (2012). The advertising effects of corporate social responsibility on corporate of Business Ethics, 148(4), 721–740.
reputation and brand equity: Evidence from the life insurance industry in Taiwan. Martenson, R. (2007). Corporate brand image, satisfaction and store loyalty: A study of
Journal of Business Ethics, 109(2), 189–201. the store as a brand, store brands and manufacturer brands. International Journal of
Huang, Z., & Cai, L. A. (2015). Modeling consumer-based brand equity for multinational Retail & Distribution Management, 35(7), 544–555.
hotel brands: When hosts become guests. Tourism Management, 46, 431–443. Martin, G. S., & Brown, T. J. (1990). In search of brand equity: The conceptualization and
Hultén, B. (2011). Sensory marketing: The multi-sensory brand-experience concept. measurement of the brand impression construct. Marketing Theory and Applications,
European Business Review, 23(3), 256–273. 2(1), 431–438.
Hultén, B., Broweus, N., & van Dijk, M. (2009). Sensory marketing. Basingstoke: Palgrave Matthews, D. R., Son, J., & Watchravesringkan, K. (2014). An exploration of brand equity
Macmillan. antecedents concerning brand loyalty: A cognitive, affective, and conative perspec-
Iglesias, O., Ind, N., & Alfaro, M. (2013). The organic view of the brand: A brand value co- tive. Journal of Business and Retail Management Research, 9(1), 26–39.
creation model. Journal of Brand Management, 20(8), 670–688. Mattila, A. S. (1999). The role of culture in the service evaluation process. Journal of
Iglesias, O., Markovic, S., Singh, J. J., & Sierra, V. (2017). Do customer perceptions of Service Research, 1(3), 250–261.
corporate services brand ethicality improve brand equity? Considering the roles of McBane, D. A. (1995). Empathy and the salesperson: A multidi-mensional perspective.
brand heritage, brand image, and recognition benefits. Journal of Business Ethics, Psychology and Marketing, 12(4), 349–370.
1–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3455-0. Mende, M., & Bolton, R. N. (2011). Why attachment security matters how customers'
Iglesias, O., Singh, J. J., & Batista-Foguet, J. M. (2011). The role of brand experience and attachment styles influence their relationships with service firms and service em-
affective commitment in determining brand loyalty. Journal of Brand Management, ployees. Journal of Service Research, 14(3), 285–301.
18(8), 570–582. Meyer, C., & Schwager, A. (2007). Understanding customer experience. Harvard Business
Imrie, B. C. (2005). Beyond disconfirmation: The role of generosity and surprise. Review, 85, 117–126 (February).
International Marketing Review, 22(3), 369–383. Moliner-Velázquez, B., Gil-Saura, I., & Ruiz-Molina, M. E. (2011). Conceptualizing and
Ind, N. (2007). Living the brand: How to transform every member of your organization into a measuring loyalty: Towards a conceptual model of tourist loyalty antecedents.
brand champion. London: Kogan Page. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 17(1), 65–81.
Ind, N., Iglesias, O., & Markovic, S. (2017). The co-creation continuum: From tactical Moreira, A. C., Fortes, N., & Santiago, R. (2017). Influence of sensory stimuli on brand
market research tool to strategic collaborative innovation method. Journal of Brand experience, brand equity and purchase intention. Journal of Business Economics and
Management, 24(4), 310–321. Management, 18(1), 68–83.
Ind, N., Iglesias, O., & Schultz, M. (2013). Building brands together. California Morrison, S., & Crane, F. G. (2007). Building the service brand by creating and managing
Management Review, 55(3), 5–26. an emotional brand experience. Journal of Brand Management, 14(5), 410–421.
Ishida, C., & Taylor, S. A. (2012). Retailer brand experience, brand experience con- Mosley, R. W. (2007). Customer experience, organisational culture and the employer
gruence, and consumer satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction brand. Journal of Brand Management, 15(2), 123–134.
and Complaining Behavior, 25, 63–79. Nella, A., & Christou, E. (2014). Linking service quality at the cellar door with brand
Jillapalli, R. K., & Jillapalli, R. (2014). Do professors have customer-based brand equity? equity building. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 23(7), 699–721.
Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 24(1), 22–40. Nysveen, H., Pedersen, P. E., & Skard, S. (2013). Brand experiences in service organiza-
Johnson, D. S., & Peterson, M. (2014). Consumer financial anxiety: US regional financial tions: Exploring the individual effects of brand experience dimensions. Journal of
service firms' trust building response to the financial crisis. The International Journal of Brand Management, 20(5), 404–423.
Bank Marketing, 32(6), 515–533. Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of sa-
Johnson, M. S., Sivadas, E., & Garbarino, E. (2008). Customer satisfaction, perceived risk tisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(4), 460–469.
and affective commitment: An investigation of directions of influence. Journal of Oliver, R. L. (1997). Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on the customer. New York: Irwin/
Services Marketing, 22(5), 353–362. McGraw-Hill.
Jones, J. L., & Shandiz, M. (2015). Service quality expectations: Exploring the importance Pappu, R., & Quester, P. (2006). Does customer satisfaction lead to improved brand
of SERVQUAL dimensions from different nonprofit constituent groups. Journal of equity? An empirical examination of two categories of retail brands. The Journal of
Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 27(1), 48–69. Product and Brand Management, 15(1), 4–14.
Jung, L. H., & Soo, K. M. (2012). The effect of brand experience on brand relationship Pappu, R., Quester, P. G., & Cooksey, R. W. (2005). Consumer-based brand equity:
quality. Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, 16(1), 87–98. Improving the measurement–empirical evidence. The Journal of Product and Brand
Keh, H. T., & Pang, J. (2010). Customer reactions to service separation. Journal of Management, 14(3), 143–154.
Marketing, 74(2), 55–70. Pappu, R., Quester, P. G., & Cooksey, R. W. (2006). Consumer-based brand equity and
Kenny, D., & Albright, L. (1987). Accuracy in interpersonal perception: A social relations country-of-origin relationships: Some empirical evidence. European Journal of
analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 102(3), 390–402. Marketing, 40(5/6), 696–717.
Khan, I., Khan, I., Rahman, Z., Rahman, Z., Fatma, M., & Fatma, M. (2016). The role of Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A conceptual model of service
customer brand engagement and brand experience in online banking. The quality and its implications for future research. The Journal of Marketing, 49(Fall),
International Journal of Bank Marketing, 34(7), 1025–1041. 41–50.
Kim, H. C., Chua, B. L., Lee, S., Boo, H. C., & Han, H. (2016). Understanding airline Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple item scale
travelers' perceptions of well-being: The role of cognition, emotion, and sensory ex- for measuring customer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1),
periences in airline lounges. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 33(9), 1213–1234. 12–40.
Kim, J. W., Lee, F., & Suh, Y. G. (2015). Satisfaction and loyalty from shopping mall Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1994). Alternative scales for measuring
experience and brand personality. Services Marketing Quarterly, 36(1), 62–76. service quality: A comparative assessment based on psychometric and diagnostic
Kim, K. H., Kim, K. S., Kim, D. Y., Kim, J. H., & Kang, S. H. (2008). Brand equity in criteria. Journal of Retailing, 70(3), 201–230.
hospital marketing. Journal of Business Research, 61(1), 75–82. Peng, D. X., & Lai, F. (2012). Using partial least squares in operations management re-
Klaus, P., & Maklan, S. (2007). The role of brands in a service-dominated world. Journal of search: A practical guideline and summary of past research. Journal of Operations
Brand Management, 15(2), 115–122. Management, 30(6), 467–480.
Kumar, S. R., & Advani, J. Y. (2005). Factors affecting brand loyalty: A study in an Pilling, B. K., & Eroglu, S. (1994). An empirical examination of the impact of salesperson
emerging market on fast moving consumer goods. Journal of Customer Behaviour, empathy and professionalism and merchandise salability on retail buyers' evalua-
4(2), 251–275. tions. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 14(1), 45–58.
Lai, I. K. (2015). The roles of value, satisfaction, and commitment in the effect of service Pine, B. J., & Gilmore, J. H. (1998). Welcome to the experience economy. Harvard
quality on customer loyalty in Hong Kong–style tea restaurants. Cornell Hospitality Business Review, 76, 97–105.
Quarterly, 56(1), 118–138. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect
Lassar, W., Mittal, B., & Sharma, A. (1995). Measuring customer-based brand equity. effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, &
Journal of Consumer Marketing, 12(4), 11–19. Computers, 36(4), 717–731.
Lee, S., Comer, L. B., Dubinsky, A. J., & Schafer, K. (2011). The role of emotion in the Puccinelli, N. M., Andrzejewski, S. A., Markos, E., Noga, T., & Motyka, S. (2013). The
relationship between customers and automobile salespeople. Journal of Managerial value of knowing what customers really want: The impact of salesperson ability to
Issues, 23(2), 206–226. read non-verbal cues of affect on service quality. Journal of Marketing Management,

353
O. Iglesias et al. Journal of Business Research 96 (2019) 343–354

29(3–4), 356–373. of Management, 27(6), 777–802.

Richard, J. E., & Zhang, A. (2012). Corporate image, loyalty, and commitment in the Steenkamp, J. E. M., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in
consumer travel industry. Journal of Marketing Management, 28(5–6), 568–593. cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(1), 78–90.
Roper, S., & Davies, G. (2007). The corporate brand: Dealing with multiple stakeholders. Stock, R. M., & Hoyer, W. D. (2005). An attitude-behavior model of salespeople's cus-
Journal of Marketing Management, 23(1–2), 75–90. tomer orientation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33(4), 536–552.
Rozin, P., & Royzman, E. B. (2001). Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Story, J., & Hess, J. (2010). Ethical brand management: Customer relationships and
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(4), 296–320. ethical duties. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 19(4), 240–249.
Rust, R. T., & Oliver, R. L. (1994). Service quality: Insights and managerial implications Streukens, S., Wetzels, M., Daryanto, A., & De Ruyter, K. (2010). Analyzing factorial data
from the frontier. In R. T. Rust, & R. L. Oliver (Eds.). Service quality: New directions in using PLS. In V. Esposito Vinzi, W. W. Chin, J. Henseler, & H. Wang (Eds.). Handbook
theory and practice (pp. 1–19). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. of partial least squares. Springer handbooks of computational statistics (pp. 567–587).
Şahin, A., Turhan, G., & Zehir, C. (2013). Building behavioral intentions in automotive Berlin: Springer.
industry: Brand experience, satisfaction, trust, direct mail communication and atti- Torres, A., & Tribó, J. A. (2011). Customer satisfaction and brand equity. Journal of
tudes toward advertising. Business Management Dynamics, 4(3), 45–61. Business Research, 64(10), 1089–1096.
Sahin, A., Zehir, C., & Kitapçı, H. (2011). The effects of brand experiences, trust and Treanor, J. (2016). Bank branch closures trigger high street alarm bells. The Guardianhttps://
satisfaction on building brand loyalty; an empirical research on global brands. www.theguardian.com/business/2016/aug/21/bank-branch-closures-trigger-high-
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 24, 1288–1301. street-alarm-bells.
Sarkar, M. B., Echambadi, R. A. J., & Harrison, J. S. (2001). Alliance entrepreneurship and Turley, L. W., & Milliman, R. E. (2000). Atmospheric effects on shopping behavior: A
firm market performance. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6–7), 701–711. review of the experimental evidence. Journal of Business Research, 49(2), 193–211.
Saxby, C., Celuch, K., & Walz, A. (2015). How employee trustworthy behaviors interact to Wang, Y., Kandampully, J. A., Lo, H. P., & Guicheng, S. (2006). The roles of brand equity
emotionally bond service customers. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and corporate reputation in CRM: A Chinese study. Corporate Reputation Review, 9,
and Complaining Behavior, 28, 75–89. 179–197.
Schmitt, B. (1999). Experiential marketing. Journal of Marketing Management, 15(1–3), White, C., & Yu, Y. T. (2005). Satisfaction emotions and consumer behavioral intentions.
53–67. Journal of Services Marketing, 19(6), 411–420.
Schmitt, B. H., & Simonson, A. (1997). Marketing aesthetics: The strategic management of Wieseke, J., Geigenmuller, A., & Kraus, F. (2012). On the role of empathy in customer-
brands, identity, and image. New York: The Free Press. employee interactions. Journal of Service Research, 15(3), 316–331.
Šerić, M., & Gil-Saura, I. (2012). ICT, IMC, and brand equity in high-quality hotels of Xu, J. B., & Chan, A. (2010). A conceptual framework of hotel experience and customer-
Dalmatia: An analysis from guest perceptions. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & based brand equity: Some research questions and implications. International Journal
Management, 21(8), 821–851. of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 22(2), 174–193.
Šerić, M., Gil-Saura, I., & Mollá-Descals, A. (2013). Loyalty in high-quality hotels of Yang, Y., Liu, X., & Li, J. (2015). How customer experience affects the customer-based
Croatia: From marketing initiatives to customer brand loyalty creation. Journal of brand equity for tourism destinations. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing,
Relationship Marketing, 12(2), 114–140. 32(sup1), S97–S113.
Šerić, M., Mikulić, J., & Gil-Saura, I. (2016). Exploring relationships between customer- Yao, J., Wang, X., & Liu, Z. (2013). Identification system. Journal of Applied Sciences,
based brand equity and its drivers and consequences in the hotel context. An impact- 13(21), 4477–4482.
asymmetry assessment. Current Issues in Tourism, 1–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ Yasin, N. M., Noor, M. N., & Mohamad, O. (2012). Does image of country-of-origin matter
13683500.2016.1209163. to brand equity? Journal of Product and Brand Management, 16(1), 38–48.
Sheng, M. L., & Teo, T. S. (2012). Product attributes and brand equity in the mobile Yoo, B., Donthu, N., & Lee, S. (2000). An examination of selected marketing mix elements
domain: The mediating role of customer experience. International Journal of and brand equity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(2), 195–211.
Information Management, 32(2), 139–146. Zarantonello, L., & Schmitt, B. H. (2013). The impact of event marketing on brand equity:
Sierra, V., Iglesias, O., Markovic, S., & Singh, J. J. (2017). Does ethical image build equity The mediating roles of brand experience and brand attitude. International Journal of
in corporate services brands? The influence of customer perceived ethicality on af- Advertising, 32(2), 255–280.
fect, perceived quality, and equity. Journal of Business Ethics, 144(3), 661–676. Zeithaml, V. A., Parasuraman, A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). Problems and strategies in ser-
Spangenberg, E. R., Crowley, A. E., & Henderson, P. W. (1996). Improving the store vices marketing. The Journal of Marketing, 49(2), 33–46.
environment: Do olfactory cues affect evaluations and behaviors? Journal of Zins, A. H. (2001). Relative attitudes and commitment in customer loyalty models: Some
Marketing, 60, 67–80. experiences in the commercial airline industry. International Journal of Service
Srivastava, R. K., Fahey, L., & Christensen, H. K. (2001). The resource-based view and Industry Management, 12(3), 269–294.
marketing: The role of market-based assets in gaining competitive advantage. Journal

354