The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1355-5855.htm

Effect of brand experiences Moderated

mediation role
on brand loyalty mediated by brand brand trust

love: the moderated mediation role

of brand trust
Byung Ryul Bae Received 10 March 2022
Revised 9 October 2022
Department of Business Administration, Jeonbuk National University, 10 November 2022
Jeonju, South Korea, and 26 December 2022
Accepted 26 December 2022
Sung-Eun Kim
Korea Carbon Industry Promotion Agency, Jeonju, South Korea

Abstract
Purpose – The aim of this study is to examine how brand trust moderates the effect of brand experience on
brand loyalty mediated by brand love in the context of Korean smartphone users. The authors examine the
relationships focused on Apple iPhone and Samsung Galaxy phone.
Design/methodology/approach – The authors designed the conceptual model based on theoretical and
empirical background. The authors collected data using a self-administered structured questionnaire through
an online research company. The authors tested the hypotheses using a structural equation modeling in AMOS
and PROCESS macro model number 8 based on 598 Korean smartphone users.
Findings – The authors found that brand experiences affect brand love, and brand love affects brand loyalty.
The authors found that brand experiences affect brand loyalty directly, and brand love mediated the
relationship between brand experiences and brand loyalty. The authors found that brand trust had a
moderating effect between brand experiences and brand love but had no moderating effect between brand
experiences and brand loyalty. Finally, the authors found that brand trust has a moderated mediation role
between brand experiences, brand love and brand loyalty.
Originality/value – This is the first study to examine the moderated mediation role of brand trust in the
relationship between brand experiences, brand love and brand loyalty focused on Apple iPhone and Samsung
Galaxy phone users in the Korean context.
Keywords Brand experience, Brand love, Brand loyalty, Brand trust, Moderated mediation
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
According to recent data, the average person spends 3 h and 15 min on their phone each day
(Exploding Topics, 2022). Consumers experience many things while using their smartphone
brands. Through this brand experience, consumers have feelings of love for a specific brand
and have loyalty to that brand (Albert and Merunka, 2013; Bagozzi et al., 2017; Brakus et al.,
2009; Carroll and Ahuvia, 2006; Coleman, 2018; Huang, 2017; Mostafa and Kasamani, 2021;
Pan et al., 2012). In the smartphone industry, brand love and loyalty can be influenced by a
variety of factors, including the hardware and design of the phone, the software and features
it offers, and the level of customer support provided by the brand. Brands that consistently
deliver high-quality products and offer excellent customer service are more likely to foster
brand love and loyalty among their customers. In the context of smartphone brands, the
brand experience and brand love that a customer has can be influenced by a variety of factors
(Christino et al., 2020). For example, a customer may have a positive brand experience with a
smartphone brand if they find the brand’s phones to be reliable, easy to use and aesthetically Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing
and Logistics
pleasing. On the other hand, if a customer has had negative experiences with a brand’s © Emerald Publishing Limited
1355-5855
phones (e.g. frequent malfunctions, poor customer service), they may have a negative brand DOI 10.1108/APJML-03-2022-0203
APJML experience and be less likely to have brand love for the brand. Among the smartphone
brands, iPhone and Galaxy are the top two brands in the global market (Counterpoint, 2022).
As competition in the smartphone market intensifies, Apple and Samsung are attempting to
increase their brand loyalty. To increase brand loyalty, it is necessary to provide customers
with a favorable experience related to the brand they use. In that context, Apple iPhone and
Samsung Galaxy are striving to create memorable customer experiences. An example of a
customer experience associated with a smartphone brand is a sensory experience (e.g. the
color of my smartphone is attractive). It is critical to understand which brand experience
factors are the determinants of brand loyalty. Marketing scholars have recognized that
consumers wish to buy brands that provide memorable experiences (Brakus et al., 2009;
Coleman, 2018). It is necessary to understand which factors affect brand love and brand
loyalty among the factors that consumers experience while using smartphones. In this
context, the brand experience construct has received much attention from marketing scholars
(Andreini et al., 2018; Brakus et al., 2009; Ding and Tseng, 2015; Huang, 2017; Sahin
et al., 2011).
Attaining a high level of customer loyalty is critical to achieving firm performance (Griffin,
2002). Brand loyalty affects a company’s performance in terms of market share and profits
(Griffin, 2002; Watson et al., 2015). Marketing scholars have proposed and tested various
constructs, including brand attachment (Mostafa and Kasamani, 2021; Park et al., 2010;
Thomson et al., 2005), brand commitment (Burmann and Zeplin, 2005; Chaudhuri and
Holbrook, 2001), brand experience (Brakus et al., 2009; Iglesias et al., 2011), brand love (Albert
and Merunka, 2013; Albert et al., 2009; Batra et al., 2012) and brand trust (Chaudhuri and
Holbrook, 2001; Delgado-Ballester and Munuera-Aleman, 2001), which can affect brand
loyalty. All these constructs would be categorized as a consumer–brand relationship
(Fournier, 1998). According to consumer–brand relationship theory, the stronger the
consumer–brand relationship, the greater the brand loyalty. Among these constructs, this
study focuses on the relationships between brand experience, brand trust and brand love,
with the potential to affect brand loyalty in two best-selling smartphone brands (i.e. iPhone
and Galaxy) in Korea. Also, we seek to examine whether the relationship between brand
experience, brand trust, brand love and brand loyalty differs between these two brands.
Brand trust is an essential predictor of customer loyalty (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001;
Pan et al., 2012; Zhang et al., 2020). Prior research on brand trust has mainly focused on the
direct or indirect effect of brand loyalty (Delgado-Ballester and Munuera-Aleman, 2001;
Wang, 2002). The role of brand trust in developing brand loyalty has been debated. Some
scholars have maintained that brand trust directly affects brand loyalty (Chaudhuri and
Holbrook, 2001; Pan et al., 2012). In contrast, others have asserted that mediating variables are
required to develop brand loyalty (Matzler et al., 2008; Yasin and Shamim, 2013). Research on
the moderating role of brand trust in the relationships between brand experience, brand love
and brand loyalty is scarce in the brand management literature (cf., Kim and Jones, 2009). Kim
and Jones (2009) investigated the moderating role of brand trust by focusing on online
shopping. In that respect, there is a research gap between the prior study and this study.
Therefore, it is necessary to fill the research gap. We guess this is because most researchers
viewed brand trust as a direct factor for brand love and brand loyalty. However, we expect
that brand trust plays a moderating role in the relationship between them. We predict that the
greater the brand trust, the greater the relationships between brand experience and brand
love. Investigating this relationship is meaningful because it clarifies the relationship
between brand experience, brand love and brand loyalty. Brand trust leads to brand loyalty
because trust creates exchange relationships that are highly valued (Chaudhuri and
Holbrook, 2001). If customers have more trust in the brand, their brand loyalty will increase.
We propose that brand trust plays a moderating role in the relationship between brand
experience, brand love and brand loyalty. We expect that the higher the brand trust, the
stronger the relationship between them. One of the purposes of this study is to examine how Moderated
brand trust moderates the effect of brand experience on brand loyalty mediated by brand love mediation role
in the context of Korean smartphone users.
This study contributes to the extant brand management literature by addressing the
brand trust
following research issues. First, we seek to examine the brand experience and brand love in
terms of multidimensional constructs. We conceptualize the brand experience as composed of
four dimensions (i.e. sensory, affective, intellectual and behavioral). We conceptualize brand
love as composed of two dimensions (i.e. intimacy and passion). Multidimensional constructs
are theoretically more fruitful than individual dimensions (Edwards, 2001; Law and Wong,
1999). Two views have been proposed regarding multidimensional constructs: factor view and
composite views (Edwards, 2001; Law and Wong, 1999; Law et al., 1998). A factor view is similar
with the superordinate construct proposed by Edwards (2001). This study conceptualizes brand
experience and brand love as a factor view because the relationship between these constructs
and their dimensions revealed different manifestations of multidimensional constructs. A few
studies related to brand experience and brand love have been conducted from a
multidimensional perspective (Santos and Schlesinger, 2021; Singh et al., 2021). Singh et al.
(2021) studied brand experience from a multidimensional construct. Santos and Schlesinger
(2021) studied brand experience and brand love as multidimensional constructs.
Second, prior research on the role of brand trust in the relationship between brand
experience and brand loyalty mainly focused on brand trust as an independent variable or
mediator of brand loyalty (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001; Delgado-Ballester and Munuera-
Aleman, 2001). However, this study seeks to examine how brand trust moderates the effect of
brand experience on brand loyalty, mediated by brand love. By examining the moderating
role of brand trust in the relationship between brand experience, brand love and brand
loyalty, we confirm that brand trust can be a moderator of brand loyalty. Finally, there is
limited research on the antecedents and consequences of brand love. By addressing the role of
brand love as a mediator in a conceptual framework, this study aims to highlight the
importance of brand love in developing brand loyalty. In the remainder of the paper, we
review key concepts from the brand management literature to build our conceptual
framework of the brand experience on brand loyalty. Next, we present the research
methodology and data analysis. Finally, the study concludes by discussing the theoretical
and managerial implications, limitations and areas for future research.

Literature review and hypotheses development

The effect of brand experience on brand love
Brakus et al. (2009, p. 53) conceptualized brand experience as “subjective, internal consumer
responses (sensations, feelings and cognitions) and behavioral responses evoked by brand-
related stimuli that are part of a brand’s design and identity, packaging, communications, and
environments.” In addition, Brakus et al. (2009) classified the brand experience into four
dimensions: sensory, affective, intellectual and behavioral. The sensory brand experience is
the visual, auditory, olfactory, gustatory and tactile stimulation provided by the brand
(Andreini et al., 2018). Affective brand experiences are feelings and sentiments induced by the
brand. Intellectual brand experience refers to the brand’s ability to make customers think
(Bapat and Thanigan, 2016). Behavioral brand experience includes bodily experiences,
lifestyles and brand interactions (Bapat and Thanigan, 2016; Zarantonello and Schmitt, 2010).
Carroll and Ahuvia (2006, p. 81) defined brand love as “the degree of passionate emotional
attachment a satisfied consumer has for a particular trade name.” Batra et al. (2012)
conceptualized brand love as a higher-order construct composed of three first-order factors:
self-brand integration, passion-driven behaviors and positive emotional connection. Albert
et al. (2009) conceptualized brand love as a second-order construct composed of two
APJML first-order factors: affection and passion. We conceptualize brand love as a higher-order
construct composed of two first-order factors: intimacy and passion. This conceptualization
is consistent with Sarkar et al. (2012). Sarkar et al. (2012) conceptualized brand love as
intimacy and passion. The intimacy dimension refers to the extent to which consumers attach
degrees to the brand. The passion dimension refers to the extent to which consumers’ sense of
“rightness” about the relationship includes a strong desire for the brand (Batra et al., 2012). As
consumer experience products or services, they develop favorable or unfavorable emotions
toward the brand. Customers who are satisfied with the brand experience will increase their
love for the brand (Albert et al., 2009; Batra et al., 2012; Brakus et al., 2009; Joshi and Garg,
2021; Iglesias et al., 2011; Roy et al., 2013). Positive brand experiences encourage consumers to
attach to a brand and develop positive love toward that brand (Safeer et al., 2021; Singh et al.,
2021). Based on these arguments, we expect that experience stimulated by a brand affects
brand love. Thus, we propose H1 as follows:
H1. Brand experience has a positive effect on brand love.

The effect of brand experience on brand loyalty

We define brand loyalty as a consumer’s preference for a specific brand and the repurchase of
the same brand, despite the circumstances and marketing efforts to induce conversion
behavior (Aaker, 1996; Oliver, 1999). Brand loyalty consists of behavioral and attitudinal
loyalty (Odin et al., 2001; Oliver, 1999; Watson et al., 2015). Behavioral loyalty captures
consumers who repeatedly purchase the same brand (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001).
Attitudinal loyalty includes consumers’ psychological commitment to the brand (Odin et al.,
2001). Among these two components, this study focuses on behavioral loyalty.
Since positive brand experiences lead to pleasurable outcomes, we expect consumers to
repeat these positive experiences. In other words, positive brand experiences affect consumer
brand loyalty. Consumers with favorable brand experiences are more likely to repurchase a
brand, recommend it to others and be less likely to buy an alternative brand (Chaudhuri and
Holbrook, 2001; Oliver, 1999). Francisco-Maffezzolli et al. (2014) found no direct relationship
between brand experience and brand loyalty for perfume and bath soap brands. Iglesias et al.
(2011) studied the relationship between brand experience, brand loyalty and affective
commitment for car, laptop and sneaker brands. They found that brand experience did not
affect brand loyalty directly. They revealed that affective commitment mediates the role
between brand experience and brand loyalty. Ong et al. (2018) showed that brand experience
affects brand loyalty in the context of Malaysian restaurant brands. As described above,
prior research on the direct relationship between brand experience and brand loyalty shows
conflicting results. If brands deliver an excellent experience to consumers, brand loyalty can
be built (Brakus et al., 2009; Iglesias et al., 2011; Ong et al., 2018). We predict a positive
relationship between brand experience and brand loyalty. Based on this theoretical and
empirical background, we hypothesize H2 as follows:
H2. Brand experience has a positive effect on brand loyalty.

The effect of brand love on brand loyalty

Consumers prefer to purchase brands that they love. Loyalty to the brand is determined by
the degree of emotional commitment of a consumer to a specific brand (Bagozzi et al., 2017;
Park et al., 2010). Subsequently, brand love stimulates brand loyalty (Kazmi and Khalique,
2019). Kazmi and Khalique (2019) found that brand love is positively related to brand loyalty
based on empirical results from Pakistani cosmetics brands. Carroll and Ahuvia (2006) found
that brand love is positively related to brand loyalty. Bergkvist and Bech-Larsen (2010)
showed that brand love affects brand loyalty through two survey-based studies that focused
on the iPod and Panadol brands. Based on this theoretical and empirical background, we Moderated
hypothesize H3 as follows: mediation role
H3. Brand love has a positive effect on brand loyalty. brand trust

The mediating role of brand love

As discussed previously, brand experience leads to brand love, which, in turn, leads to brand
loyalty. Thus, we propose the mediating role of brand love in the relationship between brand
experience and brand loyalty (Roy et al., 2013; Trivedi and Sama, 2021; Yim et al., 2008).
Huang (2017) studied the mediating role of brand love in the relationship between brand
experience and loyalty. He classified brand experience into sensory, intellectual, and
behavioral experiences and brand loyalty into behavioral and attitudinal loyalty. He tested
the mediation effect of brand love and found that it has a full mediation role in the behavioral
experience, behavioral loyalty and attitudinal loyalty. Kazmi and Khalique (2019) found a
mediating effect in the link between brand experience and brand loyalty through brand love
for Pakistani cosmetic brands. Roy et al. (2013) proposed a theoretical framework for the
antecedents and consequences of brand love. They suggested that brand love has a
mediating role in the link between brand experience and loyalty, although they did not test
the relationship. Francisco-Maffezzolli et al. (2014) examined the mediating effect of brand
relationship quality on the relationship between brand experience and loyalty, focusing on
perfume and bath soap consumers. They found that brand experience had no direct effect on
loyalty, however, when mediated by love/passion, the effect was significant. Santos and
Schlesinger (2021) found that brand love mediates the relationship between brand experience
and loyalty. Based on this theoretical and empirical background, H4 is proposed as follows:
H4. Brand love mediates the positive relationship between brand experience and brand
loyalty.

The moderating role of brand trust

Brand trust is critical in determining consumer–brand relationships. If consumers have more
trust in a brand, the perceived risks associated with purchasing the brand will decrease (Wang,
2002). If consumers perceive the brand to be more reliable, the perceived risk associated with
purchasing the brand will decrease. Brand trust is defined as “the willingness of the average
consumer to rely on the ability of the brand to perform its stated function” (Chaudhuri and
Holbrook, 2001, p. 82). This study examines the moderating role of brand trust in the
relationship between brand experience and brand love. This study also investigates the
moderating role of brand trust in the relationship between brand experience and brand loyalty.
Brand trust is gradually built on consumers’ experiences with the brand. Most studies on the
relationship between brand trust and brand love have focused on brand trust as a direct effect
of brand love (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001; Joshi and Garg, 2021; Pande and Gupta, 2019;
Zhang et al., 2020). Urban et al. (2000) argue that trust not only builds consumer-brand
relationships, but it also stimulates brand loyalty. This study assumes that brand trust plays a
moderating role in the relationship between brand experience and brand loyalty. This is
because the effect of brand experience on brand loyalty varies depending on the level of brand
trust. We expect that the greater the brand trust, the stronger the relationship between brand
experience and brand loyalty. Therefore, we propose H5 as follows:
H5. Brand trust moderates the effect of brand experience on brand loyalty, such that this
effect is stronger for higher levels of brand trust.
Garg et al. (2016) provide insights into the moderating role of brand trust in the relationship of
brand experience to brand love. Customers develop emotional and cognitive feelings toward
APJML the brand based on their brand experience. Consumers’ trust in a brand depends on brand
attributes such as brand reliability and confidence. Consumers trust those brands which have
provided a pleasant experience in the past. Thus, consumers may develop a sustainable
relationship with the brand. Brand trust reflects the credibility of the branded product and
motivates consumers to make regular purchases (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001). Therefore,
consumers develop an affinity with branded products that offer a pleasant and memorable
experience (Bairrada et al., 2018; Park et al., 2010). Based on this theoretical and empirical
background, we propose H6 as follows:
H6. Brand trust moderates the effect of brand experience on brand love, such that this
effect is stronger for higher levels of brand trust.

The moderated mediation role of brand trust

Assuming brand trust moderates the association between brand experience and brand love, it
is also likely that brand trust will conditionally influence the strength of the indirect
relationship between brand experience and brand loyalty – thereby demonstrating a pattern
of moderated mediation between the study variables, as depicted in Figure 1. We predict a
weak (strong) relationship between brand experience and brand loyalty when brand trust is
low (high). As a result, we propose H7 as follows:
H7. The mediating effect of brand experience on brand loyalty through brand love is
moderated by brand trust, such that this effect is stronger for higher levels of
brand trust.
We develop a conceptual framework, as shown in Figure 1, based on the previously
mentioned empirical and theoretical background.

Research methodology
Data collection and sample
To test the hypotheses proposed in the conceptual model, we collected data using a structured
questionnaire through a convenience sampling technique in May 2021. This study focused on
smartphone brand users in the Korean context. Since the smartphone is a product we use
every day, it was judged that it is most suitable for research on brand experience, so the

Figure 1.
Conceptual framework
smartphone was selected as a research object. We asked them to respond only to those who Moderated
use Samsung Galaxy Phones and Apple iPhones. As of 2021, Apple iPhone and Samsung mediation role
Galaxy smartphones are among the top two brands in Korea. Approximately 63% of
consumers use Samsung Galaxy phones, and about 20% use Apple iPhones (Gallup Korea,
brand trust
2021). We collected data through a self-administered survey conducted by an online research
company. The online research company reached 616 respondents. Among the respondents
who answered the questionnaires, 18 cases were removed because of outlier testing. Finally,
598 respondents were included in the data analysis. Of the sample, 49.7% were iPhone users
(n 5 297), and 50.3% were Galaxy users (n 5 301). The mean age of the sample was 37 years,
and 48.7% were women (n 5 291). Occupation of the sample covered 26% students (n 5 154),
21% employees (n 5 124) and 16% self-employment (n 5 94). The residential area of the
sample was distributed throughout the country.

Measures
Except for the demographic variables, all constructs were measured using a 7-point Likert-
type scale (1 5 strongly disagree, 7 5 strongly agree). The existing scales were adapted for
each construct. The measurement items are shown in Appendix 1. Brand experience was
measured using Brakus et al.’s (2009) scale, which is composed of four dimensions: sensory,
affective, intellectual and behavioral. The sensory experience was measured using four
items (e.g. “The color of my smartphone brand is cool”). The affective experience was
measured using four items (e.g. “I feel happy when using my smartphone brand”). The
behavioral experience was measured using three items (e.g. “My smartphone brand is
suitable for my lifestyle”). The intellectual experience was measured using four items (e.g.
“My smartphone brand stimulates my intellectual curiosity”). The scale developed by
Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001) was used to measure brand trust with four items (e.g. “I
trust this brand”). Brand love was measured using the scales of Batra et al. (2012), Carroll
and Ahuvia (2006), and Sarkar et al. (2012) which comprises two dimensions: intimacy and
passion. The intimacy dimension was measured using four items (e.g. “I feel affection for
my smartphone brand”). The passion dimension was measured using four items (e.g. “I am
obsessed with my smartphone brand”). Brand loyalty was measured using Chaudhuri and
Holbrook’s (2001) scale, which is composed of four items (e.g. “I will continue to purchase
my smartphone brand”).

Data analysis and results

Measurement model analysis. We employed structural equation modeling implemented in
Amos to assess the psychometric properties of the constructs. Confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA) was employed to assess the discriminant and convergent validity of all eight
constructs (brand experience indicated by four dimensions [i.e. sensory brand experience,
affective brand experience, behavioral brand experience and intellectual brand experience],
brand trust, brand love indicated by two dimensions [i.e. intimacy and passion] and
behavioral brand loyalty). The measurement model showed an acceptable fit to the data (χ 2/
df 5 3.287, CFI 5 0.934, TLI 5 0.924, RMSEA 5 0.074, SRMR 5 0.04). The factors had an
average variance extracted (AVE) above 0.50, and construct reliability (CR) above 0.70,
demonstrating convergent validity (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). The factor loadings in the
CFA, Cronbach’s alpha, AVE and CR for each construct are presented in Table 1, and the
correlation coefficients of paired constructs are presented in Table 2. We employed
the HTMT approach to further assess the discriminant validity using SmartPLS 3.3 (Henseler
et al., 2015; Voorhees et al., 2016). The HTMT ratios are presented in Table 2. The results met
the HTMT[.85] criteria, except between affective and behavioral experience, providing
support for discriminant validity.
APJML Cronbach’s
Construct Items Mean SD Factor loading α CR AVE

Sensory experience Sens1 5.36 1.13 0.817 0.907 0.909 0.716

Sens2 5.54 1.10 0.927
Sens3 5.53 1.07 0.861
Sens4 5.47 1.09 0.771
Affective experience Affe1 5.31 1.08 0.851 0.906 0.910 0.716
Affe2 5.11 1.12 0.862
Affe3 4.63 1.28 0.789
Affe4 5.09 1.16 0.880
Behavioral experience Beha1 5.19 1.17 0.849 0.882 0.884 0.717
Beha2 4.93 1.20 0.840
Beha3 5.34 1.07 0.848
Intellectual experience Inte1 4.84 1.28 0.856 0.891 0.894 0.679
Inte2 4.57 1.32 0.852
Inte3 4.96 1.35 0.814
Inte4 4.66 1.45 0.772
Intimacy Inti1 4.50 1.29 0.863 0.945 0.943 0.805
Inti2 4.43 1.28 0.869
Inti3 4.89 1.23 0.937
Inti4 4.95 1.19 0.918
Passion Pass1 4.60 1.40 0.856 0.941 0.943 0.804
Pass2 4.92 1.31 0.912
Pass3 5.04 1.33 0.938
Pass4 5.10 1.34 0.879
Brand trust Trus1 5.14 1.29 0.920 0.924 0.938 0.792
Trus2 5.39 1.31 0.932
Trus3 4.70 1.55 0.841
Trus4 4.86 1.56 0.863
Brand loyalty Loya1 5.33 1.20 0.915 0.958 0.960 0.856
Loya2 5.14 1.29 0.935
Loya3 5.05 1.30 0.928
Table 1. Loya4 5.30 1.24 0.913
Measurement model Note(s): CR 5 composite reliability, AVE 5 average variance extracted

Construct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Sensory 0.846 0.730 0.702 0.561 0.534 0.656 0.607 0.781

2. Affective 0.719 0.846 0.875 0.781 0.777 0.845 0.749 0.744
3. Behavioral 0.688 0.868 0.847 0.757 0.729 0.793 0.756 0.784
4. Intellectual 0.528 0.749 0.749 0.824 0.791 0.815 0.704 0.698
5. Intimacy 0.506 0.760 0.746 0.765 0.897 0.840 0.764 0.703
6. Passion 0.627 0.825 0.786 0.768 0.859 0.897 0.794 0.764
7. Brand trust 0.580 0.740 0.752 0.671 0.760 0.780 0.890 0.793
Table 2. 8. Brand loyalty 0.572 0.737 0.782 0.672 0.720 0.772 0.775 0.925
Fornell-Larcker Note(s): The italicized diagonal value is the square root of AVE. Below the diagonal elements are the
criterion and HTMT correlation values between the constructs. Above the diagonal elements are the HTMT values

Common method variance check. As we collected self-reported measures from the

respondents, common method variance (CMV) may be a concern. To check for a potential
common method bias, we applied two statistical approaches. First, our CFA showed that the
eight-factor model fit significantly better than the one-factor model, indicating no significant Moderated
CMV (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Single-factor model of all constructs yielded a χ 2 5 6236.7, mediation role
df 5 434 compared with χ 2 5 1740.5, df 5 406 for the eight-factor measurement model. Since
the one-factor model was significantly worse than the measurement model (Δχ 2 5 4496.2,
brand trust
Δdf 5 28, p < 0.001), CMV is not a serious threat to this study. Second, CMV is modeled by
specifying factor loadings from the ULMC (unmeasured latent method construct) which has
no unique indicators of its own for all substantive items suspected of CMV contamination
(Richardson et al., 2009). The inclusion of ULMC resulted in a model with a slightly improved
fit to the data (Δχ 2(32) 5 534.917, p < 0.001, ΔRMSEA 5 0.013, ΔCFI 5 0.025 and
ΔTLI 5 0.025). Although the overall chi-square statistics are significant, other fit indices
yielded a slight improvement, suggesting that the method effects are insignificant
(Richardson et al., 2009). The results of both statistical analyses revealed that common
method bias was not a substantial concern.

Hypothesis testing
It is important to clarify the nature of the relationships between multidimensional constructs
and their dimensions (Edwards, 2001, p. 145). Two types of higher-order constructs are
common (Edwards, 2001; Law et al., 1998; Law and Wong, 1999). If the relationship flows from
the construct to its dimensions, it is termed a superordinate construct. For the aggregate
construct, causality flows from lower-level constructs to higher-order factors. We
conceptualize brand experience and brand love as superordinate constructs because these
two constructs cause their dimensions. Prior research on brand experience and brand love
conceptualized them as unidimensional rather than multidimensional (Safeer et al., 2021).
Although this approach benefits from testing each unidimensional effect, it is limited in its
ability to analyze higher-order factors. Therefore, to overcome this limitation, this research
seeks to analyze the brand experience and brand love as high-order constructs (e.g. Singh
et al., 2021). We test hypotheses H1, H2, H3 and H4 as second-order factor models based on the
superordinate view.
To test hypotheses H1, H2, H3 and H4, we performed structural equation modeling using
Amos. The results show that all the direct effects of brand experience and brand love on
brand loyalty are statistically significant (see Table 3). The brand experience was positively
associated with brand love (b 5 1.501, p < 0.001). Therefore, H1 was supported. Brand love
was positively associated with brand loyalty (b 5 0.382, p < 0.001). Therefore, H2 was
supported. The brand experience was positively associated with brand loyalty (b 5 0.868,
p < 0.001). Therefore, H3 was supported. To examine the indirect effect of brand experience
on brand loyalty through brand love, we used the bootstrapping method (2,000 re-samples,
non-parametric bootstrap) in Amos. The indirect effect of brand experience on brand loyalty
via brand love was significant (b 5 0.574, p < 0.01, 95% CI [0.162, 1.094]). Therefore, H4 was
supported.
To test H5, H6 and H7, we performed moderated mediation analysis using the regression
bootstrapping method with 5,000 samples and a 95% bias-corrected confidence interval (CI)

Path: hypothesis b β SE

Brand experience → Brand love: H1 1.501 ***

0.929 0.100
Brand love → Brand loyalty: H2 0.382*** 0.349 0.122 Table 3.
Brand experience → Brand loyalty: H3 0.868*** 0.490 0.202 Results of direct effect
Brand experience → Brand love → Brand loyalty: H4 0.574 **
95% CI [0.162, 1.094] (H1, H2, H3) and
Note(s): b 5 Unstandardized estimate, β 5 Standardized estimate, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001 indirect effect (H4)
APJML in PROCESS 4.0 (Model 8) developed by Hayes (2018). To test H5, H6 and H7, we summed the
scores of the relevant items and mean-centered to form overall indices of all constructs
(Nyadzayo and Khajehzadeh, 2016). We present the conditional process analysis results in
Table 4.
Moderating effect of brand trust on the relationship between brand experience and brand
loyalty is not statistically significant (b 5 0.001, SE 5 0.002, t 5 0.582, p 5 0.561). Therefore,
H5 was not supported. More specifically, the conditional direct effect at the low level of brand
trust (M-1SD) (b 5 0.127, SE 5 0.019, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.090, 0.164]), at the medium level of
brand trust (M) (b 5 0.132, SE 5 0.017, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.099, 0.165]) and at the high level of
brand trust (Mþ1SD) (b 5 0.137, SE 5 0.019, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.100, 0.173]). Moderating
effect of brand trust on the relationship between brand experience and brand love is
statistically significant (b 5 0.009, SE 5 0.003, t 5 2.736, p 5 0.006). Therefore, H6 was
supported. We present this moderating effect graphically in Figure 2.
The index of moderated mediation was significant (index 5 0.002, SE 5 0.001, 95% CI
[0.0001, 0.003]), therefore, H7 was supported. The index of moderated mediation quantifies
the effect that a moderator has on a mediated relationship (Hayes, 2015, 2018). This result
indicates that brand trust moderates the mediating effect of brand love on the relationship
between brand experience and brand loyalty (see Table 4). More specifically, the conditional
indirect effect at the low level of brand trust (M-1SD) was significant (b 5 0.071, SE 5 0.031,
95% CI [0.046, 0.097]), at the medium level of brand trust (M) was significant (b 5 0.077,
SE 5 0.014, 95% CI [0.049, 0.105]) and at the high level of brand trust (Mþ1SD) was
significant (b 5 0.083, SE 5 0.016, 95% CI [0.053, 0.114]). This result indicates that the greater
the brand trust, the greater the mediating effect (Hayes, 2015, 2018).
Additional analysis. We performed two additional analyses to examine the relationship
between brand experience and brand love. First, we analyzed the effect of brand experience
on brand love from a unidimensional perspective. Batra et al. (2012) maintained that it would

b SE t p

Mediator (brand love)

Brand experience 0.441 0.017 25.593 <0.001
Brand trust 0.456 0.060 7.548 <0.001
Brand experience 3 brand trust: H6 0.009 0.003 2.736 0.006
Dependent variable (brand loyalty)
Brand experience 0.132 0.017 7.886 <0.001
Brand trust 0.220 0.042 5.216 <0.001
Brand love 0.174 0.027 6.341 <0.001
Brand experience 3 brand trust: H5 0.001 0.002 0.582 0.561

b BootSE BootLLCI BootULCI

Conditional direct effect

M1SD (3.848) 0.127 0.019 0.090 0.164
M (0.000) 0.132 0.017 0.099 0.165
Mþ1SD (3.848) 0.137 0.019 0.100 0.173
Conditional indirect effect
Table 4. M1SD (3.848) 0.071 0.013 0.046 0.097
Results of conditional M (0.000) 0.077 0.014 0.049 0.105
process analysis (H5, Mþ1SD (3.848) 0.083 0.016 0.053 0.114
H6, H7) Index of moderated mediation: H7 Index: 0.002 0.001 0.0001 0.0032
 50.00 Brand
trust
Moderated
–3.85 mediation role
0.00
3.85
brand trust
45.00
Brand love

40.00

35.00
Figure 2.
Moderating effects of
brand trust on the
30.00 relationship between
–13.59 0.00 13.59
brand experience and
brand love
Brand experience

be more fruitful to analyze the individual components of brand love separately if the research
purpose is to understand all the elements available for increasing brand love. In line with their
assertion, we analyzed the relationships between brand experience, brand love and brand
loyalty based on individual components. The results are presented in Appendix 2. The
behavioral experiences did not affect intimacy among the four brand experience factors.
Behavioral and sensory factors did not affect passion among the four brand-experience
factors. Intimacy and passion affected brand loyalty. We also analyzed the relationships
based on the two smartphone users by multi-group analysis. The results showed that there
were no statistical differences between the two groups (see Appendix 3).
Second, we performed a multi-group analysis to compare the parameters between the two
groups in terms of a multidimensional perspective (Kline, 2016). The results in Appendix 4
indicate that the influence of brand experience on brand love was found to be significantly
greater for iPhone users than for Galaxy users (biPhone 5 1.919, βiPhone 5 0.941,
bGalaxy 5 1.390, βGalaxy 5 0.902, t 5 2.215). The influence of brand love on brand loyalty
was found to be significantly greater for Galaxy users than for iPhone users (biPhone 5
0.220, βiPhone 5 0.201, bGalaxy 5 0.647, βGalaxy 5 0.611, t 5 3.192). The influence of brand
experience on brand loyalty was found to be significantly greater for iPhone users than for
Galaxy users (biPhone 5 2.173, βiPhone 5 0.974, bGalaxy 5 0.488, βGalaxy 5 0.299, t 5 2.944). In
conclusion, the influence of brand experience on brand love and brand loyalty was found to
be greater for iPhone users than for Galaxy users.

Discussion and conclusion

Consumers experience their smartphone brand in their daily lives. The more consumers
experience their brand favorably, the more they love it, thus leading to brand loyalty. This
study investigates the role of brand love and brand trust in the link between brand experience
and brand loyalty. Specifically, this study focuses on the moderating role of brand trust and
mediating role of brand love in the relationship between brand experience and brand loyalty.
We seek to examine these effects in the context of Korean consumers’ top two smartphone
brands (i.e. iPhone and Galaxy). The main findings of this study are as follows.
First, brand experience positively affected brand love, suggesting that the more favorable the
brand experience of consumers is, the more the brand love will be. This result was consistent with
the findings of Sarkar et al. (2012), Brakus et al. (2009), and Roy et al. (2013). Second, brand
APJML experience positively affected brand loyalty, implying that consumers’ positive brand
experiences increase their loyalty to the brand. This result was consistent with the findings of
Brakus et al. (2009), Iglesias et al. (2011), and Ong et al. (2018). Third, brand loves positively
affected brand loyalty, revealing that consumers’ positive brand love enhances their loyalty to
the brand. This result is consistent with the findings of Batra et al. (2012), Bergkvist and Bech-
Larsen (2010), Carroll and Ahuvia (2006), and Huang (2017). Fourth, brand love mediated the
relationship between brand experience and brand loyalty, suggesting that brand love plays a
partial mediating role in the relationship between brand experience and brand loyalty. This result
is consistent with the findings of Huang (2017), Kazmi and Khalique (2019), and Roy et al. (2013).
Fifth, brand trust moderated the relationship between brand experience and brand love. This
result indicates that a higher level of brand trust results in a stronger relationship between brand
experience and brand love. Sixth, it was found that sensory, affective and intellectual experience
factors affected intimacy, and affective and intellectual factors affected passion. Among these
factors, affective experience emerged as the most important dimension in influencing intimacy
and passion. Intimacy and passion affected brand loyalty, respectively. Among passion and
intimacy elements, passion is a more important factor than intimacy in determining brand
loyalty. Seventh, this study shows that brand trust moderates the mediating effect of brand love
in the relationship between brand experience and brand loyalty. This finding is unique in the
brand management literature, and we expect this finding contributes to the brand management
literature. Previous studies on the role of brand trust have focused on the determinants of brand
loyalty and brand love. Finally, we compared the parameters between two smartphone brand
users. The results indicate that the effect of brand experience on brand love was significantly
stronger for iPhone users than for Galaxy users. The effect of brand love on brand loyalty was
significantly stronger for Galaxy users than for iPhone users. The effect of brand experience on
brand loyalty was significantly stronger for iPhone users than for Galaxy users.

Theoretical and managerial implications

This study makes several theoretical implications for the brand management literature. First,
prior research on brand experience, brand love, brand trust and brand loyalty has
conceptualized brand trust as an independent variable of brand loyalty. However, this study
conceptualizes brand trust as a moderating variable in the relationship between brand
experience, brand love and brand loyalty. The results show that brand trust moderates the
relationship between brand experience and brand love. That is, the greater the brand trust, the
stronger the relationship between brand experience and brand love. Therefore, this study has
theoretical implications in that brand trust moderates the relationship between brand
experience and brand love. Second, this study conceptualizes brand experience and brand love
as high-order factors. Existing studies on these concepts have been conceptualized from a first-
order factor perspective. This study provides theoretical implications that brand experience and
brand love can act as a higher-order factors. Third, this study provides theoretical implications
that brand trust plays a moderated mediating role in the relationship between brand experience,
brand love and brand loyalty. It was found that the greater the brand trust, the greater the
relationship between brand experience, brand love and brand loyalty.
This study has significant managerial implications. First, this study reveals that the effect
of brand experience on brand love was stronger for iPhone users than for Galaxy users. Apple
lovers do not see Apple as a mere product, but as a creative person who makes their life
convenient and enjoyable. This is the difference between Samsung Galaxy and Apple iPhone
(MacInnis et al., 2016). Therefore, Samsung should strive to enhance customers’ brand
experiences and brand love. To do this, we suggest two main points. (1) From a design point of
view, aesthetic pleasure should be given to the customer. (2) From a functional point of view,
it is necessary to solve various difficulties of customers. When these two elements are in place,
the brand will be loved by customers. Second, this study reveals that the effect of brand love Moderated
on brand loyalty was greater for Galaxy users than for iPhone users. This result can be mediation role
affected by consumer ethnocentrism. In other words, customers want to repurchase Samsung
Galaxy produced by a Korean company in the future. It has been a fact for several years that
brand trust
consumer loyalty to Apple iPhone in the US is higher than that of Galaxy and other brands of
smartphones. According to a Morgan Stanley survey in May (2017), 92% of US consumers
said they would repurchase an Apple iPhone within a year, surpassing Samsung’s 77% and
LG’s 59%. In other words, loyalty to the iPhone is higher than to other smartphones. Third,
the effect of brand experience on brand loyalty was greater for iPhone users than for Galaxy
users. Therefore, Samsung should strive to provide a more favorable brand experience to
customers. In sum, Samsung should effort to provide a more favorable brand experience and
brand love than Apple. To achieve this, Samsung managers need to provide various sources
of brand experience, such as events, campaigns and storytelling (Khan and Rahman, 2015).

Limitations and future research

This study focuses on two best-selling smartphone brands (i.e. iPhone and Galaxy) in a
Korean context. A limitation of this study is that it focuses only on the smartphone product
category. The results of this study were obtained from Korean smartphone users. Therefore,
the results may vary depending on the country or product category, which necessitates
expanding this research to other countries or product categories. Galaxy is produced by
Samsung, a representative Korean company. Korean consumers’ ethnocentrism may affect
the results among the constructs (Shimp and Sharma, 1987; Steenkamp et al., 2003; Sun et al.,
2021). Sun et al. (2021) found that domestic smartphone brands affect directly brand equity,
but foreign brands did not. Therefore, it is necessary to research expanding the country. The
effects of brand experience dimensions (i.e. sensory, affective, intellectual and behavioral) on
brand love may depend on the type of product or service offered (Huaman-Ramirez and
Merunka, 2019). Therefore, it is necessary to research expanding the product category.
We modeled the brand experience as the sole predictor of brand love and brand loyalty.
Other variables, such as brand characteristics (e.g. quality level), may affect brand love. In
addition to brand trust, other variables, such as consumer variables (e.g. personality traits)
and relationship attributes (e.g. relationship length), may act as moderating variables, which
calls for investigation in future research.

References
Aaker, D.A. (1996), “Measuring brand equity across products and markets”, California Management
Review, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 102-120.
Albert, N. and Merunka, D. (2013), “The role of brand love in consumer-brand relationship”, Journal of
Consumer Marketing, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 258-266.
Albert, N., Merunka, D. and Valette-Florence, P. (2009), The Feeling of Love toward a Brand: Concept
and Measurement, ACR North American Advances, McGill, A.L. and Shavitt, S., Duluth, M.N.
Vol. 36, pp. 300-307.
Andreini, D., Pedeliento, G., Zarantonello, L. and Solerio, C. (2018), “A renaissance of brand experience:
advancing the concept through a multiperspective analysis”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 91, pp. 123-133.
Bagozzi, R.P., Batra, R. and Ahuvia, A. (2017), “Brand love: development and validation of a practical
scale”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Bairrada, C.M., Coelho, F. and Coelho, A. (2018), “Antecedents and outcomes of brand love:
utilitarian and symbolic brand qualities”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52 Nos 3/4,
pp. 656-682.
APJML Bapat, D. and Thanigan, J. (2016), “Exploring relationship among brand experience dimensions, brand
evaluation and brand loyalty”, Global Business Review, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 1357-1372.
Batra, R., Ahuvia, A. and Bagozzi, R.P. (2012), “Brand love”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 76
No. 1, pp. 1-16.
Bergkvist, A. and Bech-Larsen, T. (2010), “Two studies of consequences and actionable antecedents of
brand love”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 17, pp. 504-518.
Brakus, J.J., Schmitt, B.H. and Zarantonello, L. (2009), “Brand experience: what is it, how is it
measured? Does it affect loyalty?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 73 No. 3, pp. 52-68.
Burmann, C. and Zeplin, S. (2005), “Building brand commitment: a behavioural approach to internal
brand management”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 12, pp. 279-300.
Carroll, B.A. and Ahuvia, A.C. (2006), “Some antecedents and outcomes of brand love”, Marketing
Letters, Vol. 17, pp. 79-89.
Chaudhuri, A. and Holbrook, M.B. (2001), “The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect
to brand performance: the role of brand loyalty”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 65 No. 2, pp. 81-93.
Christino, J., Silva, T., Moura, L.R. and Fonseca, L.H. (2020), “Antecedents and consequents of brand
love in the smartphone market: an extended study of the Impact of switching cost”, Journal of
Promotion Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 1-21.
Coleman, D. (2018), Building Brand Experiences: A Practical Guide to Retaining Brand Relevance,
Kogan Page, New York, NY.
Counterpoint (2022), “Counterpoint quarterly report”, available at: https://www.counterpointresearch.
com/ko/counterpoint-quarterly-reports/
Delgado-Ballester, E. and Munuera-Aleman, J.L. (2001), “Brand trust in the context of consumer
loyalty”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 Nos 11/12, pp. 1238-1258.
Ding, C.G. and Tseng, T.H. (2015), “On the relationships among brand experience, hedonic emotions,
and brand equity”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 17 Nos 7/8, pp. 994-1015.
Edwards, J.R. (2001), “Multidimensional constructs in organizational behavioral research:
an integrative analytical framework”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 4 No. 2,
pp. 144-192.
Exploding Topics (2022), “Time spent using smartphones (2022 statistics)”, available at: https://explo
dingtopics.com/blog/smartphone-usage-stats
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Fournier, S. (1998), “Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in consumer
research”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24 March, pp. 343-371.
Francisco-Maffezzolli, E.C., Semprebon, E. and Prado, P.H.M. (2014), “Construing loyalty through
brand experience: the mediating role of brand relationship quality”, Journal of Brand
Management, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 446-458.
Gallup Korea (2021), “2012-2021 smartphone usage rate & brand”, available at: https://www.gallup.co.
kr/etc/searchReport.asp
Garg, R., Mukherjee, J., Biswas, S. and Kataria, A. (2016), “An investigation into the concept of brand
love and its proximal and distal covariates”, Journal of Relationship Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 3,
pp. 135-153.
Griffin, J. (2002), Customer Loyalty: How to Earn it, How to Keep it, Jossey-Bass, New York, NY.
Hayes, A.F. (2015), “An index and test of linear moderated mediation”, Multivariate Behavioral
Research, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
Hayes, A.F. (2018), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A
Regression-Based Approach, 2nd ed., Guilford Press, New York, NY.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2015), “A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity Moderated
in variance-based structural equation modeling”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 115-135. mediation role
Huaman-Ramirez, R. and Merunka, D. (2019), “Brand experience effects on brand attachment:
brand trust
the role of brand trust, age, and income”, European Business Review, Vol. 31 No. 5,
pp. 610-645.
Huang, C.C. (2017), “The impacts of brand experiences on brand loyalty: mediators of brand love and
trust”, Management Decision, Vol. 55 No. 5, pp. 915-934.
Iglesias, O., Singh, J.J. and Batista-Foguet, J.M. (2011), “The role of brand experience and affective
commitment in determining brand loyalty”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 18 No. 8,
pp. 570-582.
Joshi, R. and Garg, P. (2021), “Role of brand experience in shaping brand love”, International Journal of
Consumer Studies, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 259-272.
Kazmi, S.H.A. and Khalique, M. (2019), “Brand experience and mediating roles of brand love, brand
prestige and brand trust”, Market Forces, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 78-98.
Khan, I. and Rahman, Z. (2015), “Brand experience formation mechanism and its possible outcomes:
a theoretical framework”, The Marketing Review, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 239-259.
Kim, S. and Jones, C. (2009), “Online shopping and moderating role of offline brand trust”, Direct
Marketing: An International Journal, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 282-300.
Kline, R.B. (2016), Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, The Guilford Press, New
York, NY.
Law, K.S. and Wong, C.S. (1999), “Multidimensional constructs in structural equation analysis:
an illustration using the job perception and job satisfaction constructs”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 143-160.
Law, K.S., Wong, C.S. and Mobley, W.H. (1998), “Toward a taxonomy of multidimensional constructs”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 741-755.
MacInnis, D.J., Park, C.W., Eisingerich, A.B. and Weiss, A.M. (2016), Brand Administration: Building a
Business People Love, Wiley, New York, NY.
Matzler, K., Grabner-Krauter, S. and Bidmon, S. (2008), “Risk aversion and brand loyalty:
the mediating role of brand trust and brand affect”, Journal of Product and Brand
Management, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 154-162.
Morgan Stanley (2017), “Sustainable signals: new data from the individual investor”, available at:
https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/apple-stock-price-morgan-stanley-note-2017-5-
1002022779?miRedirects51
Mostafa, R.B. and Kasamani, T. (2021), “Brand experience and brand loyalty: is it a
matter of emotions?”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 33 No. 4,
pp. 1033-1051.
Nyadzayo, M.W. and Khajehzadeh, S. (2016), “The antecedents of customer loyalty: a moderated
mediation model of customer relationship management quality and brand image”, Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 30, pp. 262-270.
Odin, Y., Odin, N. and Valette-Floence (2001), “Conceptual and operational aspects of brand loyalty:
an empirical investigation”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 53 No. 2, pp. 75-84.
Oliver, R.L. (1999), “Whence consumer loyalty”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63 No. 1, pp. 33-44.
Ong, C.H., Lee, H.W. and Ramayah, T. (2018), “Impact of brand experience on loyalty”, Journal of
Hospitality Marketing and Management, Vol. 27 No. 7, pp. 755-774.
Pan, Y., Sheng, S. and Xie, F.T. (2012), “Antecedents of customer loyalty: an empirical synthesis and
reexamination”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 150-158.
APJML Pande, S. and Gupta, K.P. (2019), “Does brand experience impacts brand love: the role of brand trust”,
SAMVAD: SIBM Pune Research Journal, Vol. 18, pp. 73-78.
Park, C.W., MacInnis, D.J., Priester, J., Eisingerich, A.B. and Iacobucci, D. (2010), “Brand attachment
and brand attitude strength: conceptual and empirical differentiation of two critical brand
equity drivers”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 74 No. 6, pp. 1-17.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, N.P. and Lee, J.Y. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Richardson, H.A., Simmering, M.J. and Sturman, M.C. (2009), “A tale of three perspectives: examining
post hoc statistical techniques for detection and correction of common method variance”,
Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 762-800.
Roy, S.K., Eshghi, A. and Sarkar, A. (2013), “Antecedents and consequences of brand love”, Journal of
Brand Management, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 325-332.
Safeer, A.A., He, Y. and Abrar, M. (2021), “The influence of brand experience on brand authenticity
and brand love: an empirical study from Asian consumers’ perspective”, Asia Pacific Journal of
Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 33 No. 5, pp. 1123-1138.
Sahin, A., Zehir, C. and Kitapci, H. (2011), “The effects of brand experiences, trust and satisfaction on
building brand loyalty: an empirical research on global brands”, Procedia Social and Behavioral
Sciences, Vol. 24, pp. 1288-1301.
Santos, M. and Schlesinger, W. (2021), “When love matters: experience and brand love as antecedents
of loyalty and willingness to pay a premium price in streaming services”, Spanish Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 374-391.
Sarkar, A., Ponnam, A. and Murthy, B.K. (2012), “Understanding and measuring romantic brand
love”, Journal of Customer Behavior, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 325-348.
Shimp, T.A. and Sharma, S. (1987), “Consumer ethnocentrism: construction and validation of the
CETSCALE”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 280-289.
Singh, D., Bajpai, N. and Kulshreshtha, K. (2021), “Brand experience-brand love relationship for Indian
hypermarket brands: the moderating role of customer personality traits”, Journal of
Relationship Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 20-41.
Steenkamp, J.B.E.M., Batra, R. and Alden, D.L. (2003), “How perceived brand globalness creates brand
value”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 53-65.
Sun, Y., Gonzalez-Jimenez, H. and Wang, S. (2021), “Examining the relationships between e-WOM,
consumer ethnocentrism and brand equity”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 130, pp. 564-573.
Thomson, M., MacInnis, D.J. and Park, C.W. (2005), “The ties that bind: measuring the strength of
consumers’ emotional attachments to brands”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 15, pp. 77-91.
Trivedi, J. and Sama, R. (2021), “Determinants of consumer loyalty towards celebrity-owned
restaurants: the mediating role of brand love”, Journal of Consumer Behavior, Vol. 20 No. 3,
pp. 748-761.
Urban, G.L., Sultan, F. and Qualls, W.J. (2000), “Placing trust at the center of your internet strategy”,
Sloan Management Review, Vol. 42 Fall, pp. 39-48.
Voorhees, C.M., Brady, M.K., Calantone, R. and Ramirez, E. (2016), “Discriminant validity testing in
marketing: an analysis, causes for concern, and proposed remedies”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 119-134.
Wang, G. (2002), “Attitudinal correlates of brand commitment: an empirical study”, Journal of
Relationship Marketing, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 57-75.
Watson, G.F., Beck, J.T., Henderson, C.M. and Palmatier, R.W. (2015), “Building, measuring, and profiting
from customer loyalty”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 43 No. 6, pp. 790-825.
Yasin, M. and Shamim, A. (2013), “Brand love: mediating role in purchase intentions and word-of-
mouth”, Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 101-109.
Yim, C.K., Tse, D.K. and Chan, K.W. (2008), “Strengthening customer loyalty through intimacy and Moderated
passion: roles of customer-firm affection and customer-staff relationships in services”, Journal
of Marketing Research, Vol. 45 No. 6, pp. 741-756. mediation role
Zarantonello, L. and Schmitt, B.H. (2010), “Using the brand experience scale to profile consumers and
brand trust
predict consumer behaviour”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 17, pp. 532-540.
Zhang, S., Peng, M.Y.P., Peng, Y., Zhang, Y., Ren, G. and Chen, C.C. (2020), “Expressive brand
relationship, brand love, and brand loyalty for tablet PCs: building a sustainable brand”,
Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 11, pp. 1-10.

Appendix 1

Construct Items Description Sources

Brand Sensory Sens1 The color of my smartphone is cool Brakus et al. (2009)
experience experience Sens2 I like the design of my smartphone
Sens3 I like the shape of my smartphone
Sens4 The material of my smartphone
feels good
Affective Affe1 I enjoy using my smartphone brand
experience Affe2 I am happy to use my smartphone
brand
Affe3 I was moved by my smartphone
brand
Affe4 It feels good to use my smartphone
brand
Behavioral Beha1 My smartphone brand fits my
experience lifestyle
Beha2 My smartphone brand drives
positive behavior
Beha3 My smartphone brand is easy to use
Intellectual Inte1 My smartphone brand stimulates
experience my intellectual curiosity
Inte2 My smartphone brand makes me
think
Inte3 After using my smartphone brand, I
learned something new
Inte4 When I see an advertisement for my
smartphone brand, I think about it
Brand love Intimacy Inti1 I feel affection for my smartphone Batra et al. (2012), Carroll and
brand Ahuvia (2006),Sarkar et al.
Inti2 I feel the warmth of my smartphone (2012)
brand
Inti3 I love my smartphone brand
Inti4 My smartphone brand feels familiar
Passion Pass1 I am obsessed with my smartphone
brand
Pass2 I feel attracted to my smartphone
brand
Pass3 My smartphone brand delights me
Pass4 My smartphone brand is what I
want
Table A1.
(continued ) Measures
APJML Construct Items Description Sources

Brand loyalty Loya1 I will continue to purchase my Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001)
smartphone brand
Loya2 I will recommend my smartphone
brand to others
Loya3 I want to introduce my smartphone
brand to others
Loya4 I will speak favorably of my
smartphone brand to others
Brand trust Trus1 I trust my smartphone brand Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001)
Trus2 I can rely on my smartphone brand
Trus3 My smartphone brand does not
disappoint me
Trus4 I have confidence in my smartphone
Table A1. brand

Appendix 2

Path Unstand estimates Stand estimates SE t-value p

Sensory experience → Intimacy 0.140 0.105 0.056 2.518 0.012*

Affective experience → Intimacy 0.508 0.463 0.087 5.830 ***
Behavioral experience → Intimacy 0.101 0.081 0.093 1.092 0.275
Intellectual experience → Intimacy 0.442 0.446 0.051 8.609 ***
Sensory experience → Passion 0.081 0.057 0.053 1.538 0.124
Affective experience → Passion 0.546 0.465 0.084 6.520 ***
Behavioral experience → Passion 0.096 0.072 0.088 1.081 0.280
Table A2. Intellectual experience → Passion 0.398 0.376 0.049 8.163 ***
Results of Intimacy → Brand loyalty 0.218 0.227 0.045 4.853 ***
unidimensional Passion → Brand loyalty 0.543 0.602 0.045 12.165 ***
analysis Note(s): *p < 0.05

Appendix 3

Path iPhone (n 5 297) Galaxy (n 5 301) Parameter comparison y

Sensory experience → Intimacy 0.255 (0.070)

**
0.531 (0.856) 0.916
Affective experience → Intimacy 0.677 (0.114)** 11.169 (11.169) 1.067
Behavioral experience → Intimacy 0.192 (0.116) 11.165 (10.491) 1.046
Intellectual experience → Intimacy 0.325 (0.070)** 1.453 (1.132) 0.994
Sensory experience → Passion 0.008 (0.064) 1.651 (6.240) 0.263
Affective experience → Passion 0.795 (0.111)*** 39.684 (134.440) 0.301
Behavioral experience → Passion 0.136 (0.108) 38.349 (127.281) 0.300
Intellectual experience → Passion 0.212 (0.064)** 3.921 (11.828) 0.314
Intimacy → Brand loyalty 0.090 (0.071) 0.197 (0.088)**
0.937
Table A3.
Results of parameter Passion → Brand loyalty 0.607 (0.074)*** 0.626 (0.086)*** 0.169
comparison between Note(s): Standard errors are given in parentheses. y Parameter comparison means critical ratios for
two smartphone differences between parameters. More than ±1.96 means the two parameters are statistically significant
brand users differences between them at the α 5 0.05 level. **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001
Appendix 4 Moderated
mediation role
brand trust
Parameter
Path iPhone (n 5 297) Galaxy (n 5 301) comparison y

Brand experience b 5 1.919(0.206), β 5 0.941, b 5 1.390(0.121), β 5 0.902, 2.215*

→ Brand love t 5 9.317 t 5 11.464
Brand love → Brand b 5 0.220(0.248), b 5 0.647(0.112), β 5 0.611, 3.192**
loyalty β 5 0.201, t 5 0.889 t 5 5.791
Brand experience b 5 2.173(0.547), β 5 0.974, b 5 0.488(0.170), β 5 0.299, 2.944**
→ Brand loyalty t 5 3.976 t 5 2.879
Table A4.
Note(s): Standard errors are given in parentheses. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, b 5 unstandardized estimate, Results of parameter
β 5 standardized estimate, y Parameter comparison means critical ratios for differences between parameters. comparison between
More than ±1.96 means the two parameters are statistically significant differences between them at the two smartphone
α 5 0.05 level brand users

Corresponding author
Byung Ryul Bae can be contacted at: bbr@jbnu.ac.kr

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com