Effect of Cognitive Engagement on the Development of Brand Love in a Hotel Context

Abstract

With growing number of hotel brands in the market, the lodging industry is facing intense competition more than ever, and managers are realizing the importance of developing strong customer–brand relationship. As a result, the concept of brand love is gaining increased attention in hospitality literature and academics are examining various antecedents of this concept. However, among prior studies’ exploration of its antecedents, the relationship between engagement process and brand love has been relatively neglected. Hence, the present study explores the relationship among customer–brand engagement, cognitive brand loyalty, and brand love. Specifically, this study focuses on the role of cognitive engagement on the development of brand love, as the advent of online environment and social networking service has significantly changed customer’s pre- and post-purchase decision-making process. The conceptual model illustrates that cognitive engagement, which is operationalized as a second-order construct of attention and absorption, has a significant positive effect on brand love directly and indirectly via the mediation of cognitive brand loyalty. Consequently, the findings indicate that “how” customers process brand information (cognitive engagement) is equally important as “what” they process (content, e.g., quality) to evoke cognitive brand loyalty and ultimately brand love among hotel guests.

Keywords

brand love brand loyalty cognitive engagement attention absorption hotel

Introduction

Major hotel chains are continuously seeking opportunities to attract new customers from various segments by introducing new brands to the market (Deloitte, 2017). However, brand proliferation in the market has resulted in intensified competition among hotel brands and retaining customers in the lodging industry has become increasingly difficult and important (Back & Parks, 2003). In response to this intensified competition, hospitality firms have attempted to compete through loyalty programs and price discounts (Kim, Jin-Sun, & Kim, 2008; So, King, & Sparks, 2014). Soon after, these strategies have been deemed unsustainable in the long run and hospitality firms have come to recognize the importance of developing a strong psychological attachment such as brand love among their customers (Kwon & Mattila, 2015; Tsai, 2014; Wang, Qu, & Yang, 2019). The reason is that prior research results have illustrated brand love’s association with various consequences, such as positive word of mouth (WOM), repeat purchase intentions, resistance to negative information about the brand, switching resistance, and willingness to pay premium price (Batra, Ahuvia, & Bagozzi, 2012; Carroll & Ahuvia, 2006; Thomson, MacInnis, & Park, 2005; Tsai, 2014).

Extant research that explores the antecedents of brand love has focused on brand attributes (Carroll & Ahuvia, 2006; Wallace, Buil, & de Chernatony, 2014), customer characteristics (Roy, Eshghi, & Sarkar, 2013; Unal & Aydin, 2013), and customer–brand relationships (Albert & Merunka, 2013; Bergkvist & Bech-Larsen, 2010; Huber, Meyer, & Schmid, 2015; Wang et al., 2019). In the hospitality and tourism literature, Kwon and Mattila (2015) examined self-brand connection and self-construal levels’ influence on WOM intention for loved hotel brands. Manthiou, Kang, Hyun, and Fu (2018) investigated the role of brand authenticity perception as a determinant of brand love in luxury hotel setting. Liu, Wang, Chiu, and Chen (2018) explored the role of novelty perception, hedonism, and brand reputation as antecedents of brand love among Generation Y for lifestyle hotel brands. Wang et al. (2019) analyzed the relationship between sub-brand love and corporate-brand love by concentrating on the antecedent of ideal-self–sub-brand congruence. In hospitality contexts other than hotels, Drennan et al. (2015) examined brand trust and satisfaction as antecedents of wine brand love, Song, Wang, and Han (2019) confirmed the moderating role of brand love in the relationship between trust and brand loyalty for name-brand coffee shops, and Han, Yu, Chua, Lee, and Kim (2019) discovered that the influence of service-encounter quality on airline customers’ repurchase intention was mediated by love. Meanwhile, relatively less attention has been placed on how customer–brand interaction or engagement experience plays a role in developing brand love. To fill in this research gap, the current study examined the relationship between one specific aspect of customer–brand engagement (CBE), cognitive engagement, and brand love.

With the Internet and online environment providing customers with a platform to be actively engaged with the brand beyond purchase, CBE is an emerging concept of interest in the hospitality literature. Hollebeek (2011b) defined CBE as “the level of customer’s cognitive, emotional, and behavioral investment in specific brand interactions” (p. 565). In hospitality and tourism literature, So et al. (2014) identified the cognitive manifestation of CBE with identification, attention, and absorption dimensions, the affective manifestation of CBE with enthusiasm dimension, and the behavioral manifestation of CBE with interaction dimension. Extant research has identified CBE as a significant predictor of consequences, such as commitment, trust, self-brand connection, brand attachment, WOM, and brand loyalty (Brodie, Hollebeek, Jurić, & Ilić, 2011; Hollebeek, Glynn, & Brodie, 2014; Leckie, Nyadzayo, & Johnson, 2016; Vivek, Beatty, Dalela, & Morgan, 2014). Also, empirical study in the hospitality literature confirmed the influence of dynamic customer engagement, that is personalizing customer engagement experience through machine learning, on customer loyalty in terms of customers’ annual membership renewal (Aluri, Price, & McIntyre, 2019). However, although the affective and behavioral dimensions of CBE are consistently found to be significantly related to brand loyalty, findings on the relationship between the cognitive dimensions of CBE and brand loyalty are mixed. For instance, Hollebeek et al. (2014) failed to obtain significant result when testing the relationship between cognitive processing (a consumer’s processing of brand-related thought and elaboration in a particular consumer–brand interaction) and brand loyalty. On this basis, they argued that “managers aiming to develop consumers’ ‘brand usage intent,’ which comprises a loyalty component, may wish to focus on activities and tactics fostering consumer ‘affection’ and ‘activation,’ as opposed to ‘cognitive processing’” (Hollebeek et al., 2014, p. 161).

However, the insignificant relationship between cognitive engagement and brand loyalty may be attributed to how the prior CBE studies have operationalized brand loyalty. For instance, Hollebeek et al. (2014) and Leckie et al. (2016) operationalized brand loyalty only in terms of behavioral aspects. Meanwhile, brand loyalty literature has emphasized the importance of attitudinal and behavioral brand loyalty for the development of complete brand loyalty (Dick & Basu, 1994; Jacoby, 1971; Jacoby & Chestnut, 1978). Oliver (1997, 1999) proposed that ultimate brand loyalty is developed in sequential order from cognitive, affective, and conative to behavioral brand loyalty. This sequential process of brand loyalty development was also confirmed in multiple hospitality studies (i.e., Back, 2005; Back & Parks, 2003; Kang, Tang, & Lee, 2015). Such a case suggests that cognitive engagement may not be directly linked to behavioral brand loyalty but still contribute to its development by inducing prior steps of cognitive, affective, and conative brand loyalty components.

Brand love is composed of affective and conative brand loyalty components, such as passion, intimacy, and commitment (Sarkar, 2013; Sternberg, 1986). Cognitive brand loyalty based on consumer’s perception of quality is identified as an antecedent to brand love (Batra et al., 2012), and behavioral brand loyalty constructs, such as repeat purchase and WOM, are identified as consequences of brand love (Batra et al., 2012; Carroll & Ahuvia, 2006; Kwon & Mattila, 2015). With a conceptual framework of brand love that captures cognitive, affective, conative, and behavioral brand loyalty, examining the relationship between cognitive engagement and brand love will provide a further comprehensive view on the relationship between cognitive engagement and complete brand loyalty. Consequently, the current study presents and tests a conceptual model that illustrates the relationship between cognitive engagement and brand love with cognitive brand loyalty as the mediator. This study strives to confirm the role that cognitive engagement can play in building true brand loyalty and to highlight that “how” customers cognitively process information about a brand (cognitive engagement) is equally important as “what” they cognitively process (content of information, e.g., quality perception).

Review of Literature

Brand Love

Brand love is often defined as “the degree of passionate emotional attachment a satisfied consumer has for a particular trade name” (Carroll & Ahuvia, 2006, p. 81). Despite the ongoing discussion about the definition of brand love and the dimensions that construct the concept, majority of existing research on brand love agrees that the dimensional structures of interpersonal and brand love are conceptually analogous (Albert, Merunka, & Valette-Florence, 2008; Carroll & Ahuvia, 2006; Shimp & Madden, 1988). Sternberg’s (1986) triangular theory of love is one of the interpersonal love theories on which the brand love literature largely relies. On the basis of this theory, love consists of three correlated components, namely, intimacy, passion, and decision/commitment. Intimacy is related to feelings of closeness in a relationship and is mainly affective in nature. Passion encompasses motivational involvement between partners and evokes various forms of arousal. For the decision/commitment dimension, the decision involves the recognition of a loving relationship between partners in a short term, whereas commitment refers to maintaining that loving relationship in the long term. Batra et al. (2012) asserted that the decision component is largely irrelevant in the context of brand love because people rarely consciously decide to perceive their relationship with a brand as love. Thus, further discussion in the present study only entails the commitment component in the last dimension of brand love.

Recently, hospitality and tourism literature has started paying increased attention to brand love because the construct has been shown to influence important marketing variables, such as positive WOM, repeat purchase intentions, resistance to negative information about the brand, switching resistance, and willingness to pay premium price (Batra et al., 2012; Carroll & Ahuvia, 2006; Thomson et al., 2005; Tsai, 2014; Wang et al., 2019). Moreover, Tsai’s (2014) study on the relationship between brand love and switching resistance loyalty illustrates that brand love is a construct particularly relevant to the hotel industry, which faces severe challenges in retaining loyal customers. Numerous studies have explored the antecedents of brand love in the hospitality literature. Kwon and Mattila (2015) proposed that self-brand connection is a critical component in developing brand love. Manthiou et al. (2018) investigated the effects of brand authenticity perceptions, impression in memory, and lifestyle congruence on building brand love in the luxury hotel context. Liu et al. (2018) confirmed that brand love for lifestyle hotels among Generation Y can be enhanced through novelty perception, hedonism, and brand reputation. Wang et al. (2019) examined the influence of ideal-self–sub-brand congruence on brand love for the sub-brand and subsequently for the corporate. These studies have concentrated on the relationship between the content of cognitive processing (the issue of “what”) and brand love. However, no study in the hospitality and tourism literature, as well as the general marketing literature, has tested the relationship between cognitive processing experience (the issue of “how”) and brand love.

Brand Loyalty

Brand loyalty literature has undergone considerable evolution over the years. In the early stage, the literature focused on the behavioral dimension of loyalty, which simply measured brand loyalty in terms of its outcome characteristics (Caruana, 2002). This approach was challenged by Day (1969), who argued that brand loyalty is more than simply consistently buying from the same brand. By building on this argument, Jacoby (1971) developed a brand loyalty conceptualization, which incorporated behavioral and attitudinal components. Following this conceptualization, Dick and Basu (1994) focused on an individual’s attitude that leads to an attitude–congruent purchasing behavior. Consequently, a loyalty framework was proposed, which conceptualizes loyalty as the relationship between the “relative attitude toward the brand” and “repeat patronage,” with attitudinal antecedents of cognitive, affective, and conative categories (Dick & Basu, 1994).

In line with Dick and Basu’s (1994) conceptualization, Oliver (1997, 1999) proposed a comprehensive conceptualization, which argues that consumer has ultimate loyalty when all four components of loyalty, namely cognitive, affective, conative, and behavioral, are achieved. Oliver’s (1997, 1999) framework differs from the prior framework in a sense that attitudinal brand loyalty is regarded as a sequential process in which consumers are theorized to become “loyal first in a cognitive sense, then later in an affective sense, and still later in a conative manner” (1997, p. 392). Cognitive loyalty is a type of loyalty that is based solely on the belief that one brand is preferable over its alternatives in terms of its attribute performance levels. Affective loyalty occurs when cumulative satisfaction or pleasurable fulfillment is processed. Conative (behavioral intention) loyalty refers to the intention and motivation to repurchase. However, commitment at this stage is yet to be realized into action. Finally, behavioral loyalty is achieved when the intention to repurchase is converted into readiness to act and the desire to overcome situational or marketing efforts that might prevent the act. According to Oliver (1997, 1999), these stages should be considered in a sequential process for customers to become truly brand loyal. Moreover, the sequential nature of loyalty components has been confirmed by multiple hospitality studies (i.e., Back, 2005; Back & Parks, 2003; Kang et al., 2015). For instance, based on the theory of information processing, Kang et al. (2015) hypothesized and confirmed the sequential process of building customer loyalty in the order of cognitive, affective, and conative terms in name-brand coffee shop context. Therefore, cognitive brand loyalty can be expected to be a vital trigger point in establishing complete brand loyalty.

Cognitive Engagement

CBE refers to “the level of customer’s cognitive, emotional, and behavioral investment in specific brand interactions” (Hollebeek, 2011b, p. 565). Although clarity and consensus on engagement operationalization in the customer context remain lacking in the literature (Hollebeek, 2011a), an increasing number of studies are adopting the multidimensional perspective with various combinations of cognitive, affective, and behavioral components (Hollebeek, 2011a). For instance, Hollebeek et al. (2014) proposed a three-dimensional (cognitive, affective, and behavioral) engagement conceptualization and So et al. (2014) introduced a five-dimensional conceptualization of CBE for hospitality and tourism brands.

According to So et al. (2014), CBE for hospitality and tourism brands is composed of five dimensions: identification, attention, absorption, enthusiasm, and interaction. The current study focuses on two cognitive dimensions, namely, attention and absorption. Identification is another cognitive dimension cited by So et al. (2014). However, identification was not considered in the present study because its nature is distinct from attention and absorption. Identification represents the salience or importance of the engagement object to an individual, whereas attention and absorption refer to one’s psychological presence in or investment to a brand (Rothbard, 2001). As this work emphasizes on the experience rather than the content of cognitive processing, identification was not regarded as part of cognitive engagement dimensions. In fact, extant studies have revealed that cognitive engagement is best broken down into an element of attention and absorption (Dessart, Veloutsou, & Thomas, 2015).

Attention refers to the cognitive resource that a person allocates to an engagement object (Kahn, 1990; Rothbard, 2001; So et al., 2014). Thus, customers who are cognitively engaged with a hotel brand are likely to pay considerable attention toward brand information, such as service information, brand news, and promotion campaigns (So et al., 2014). The importance of attention as a key dimension of engagement is supported by regulatory engagement theory (Scholer & Higgins, 2009), which states that turning attention away from the object decreases the level of engagement and defines engagement as sustained attention (So et al., 2014). Absorption indicates the state of being fully concentrated and immersed with the engagement object to the point of losing track of time (So et al., 2014). Specifically, in the marketing domain, absorbed customers are likely to be fully concentrated, happy, and deeply engrossed while interacting with the brand (Patterson, Yu, & de Ruyter, 2006). For example, customers who are absorbed with hotel brands will lose track of time while reading other customers’ reviews online or interacting with other customers in the online community.

According to Rothbard (2001), attention and absorption are distinct yet related constructs because they both represent motivational constructs. Personal and material resource theory (Katzell & Thompson, 1990) provides an explanation for how attention can be motivating by stating that resources facilitate goal attainment, whereas lack of resources can be demotivating. Furthermore, Rothbard (2001) highlighted that absorption component is related to intrinsic motivation and thus further interest-based reasons. Extant theories on intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985) suggest that intrinsic interest prompts customers to participate in various activities. Given that attention and absorption are motivational mechanisms, we can conclude that they are distinct yet closely related components of engagement. Therefore, the two components are operationalized as two dimensions of a second-order construct, which will be referred to as cognitive engagement henceforth.

Relationship Between Cognitive Engagement and Cognitive Brand Loyalty

According to Oliver (1999), cognitive brand loyalty involves the mental processing of brand attribute information. This definition is consistent with Holbrook and Hirschman’s (1982) theory that conscious cognition forms the substance of conscious thought patterns and rational information processing. According to Vivek (2009), cognitive attention is consistent with the concept of conscious participation and captures customers’ level of attention toward a brand. For example, a customer with a high level of cognitive attention is likely to focus greatly toward brand information and likely to be involved in increased mental processing, thereby increasing cognitive brand loyalty.

Cognitive absorption is consistent with the concept of “flow,” which represents effortless concentration and state of optimal experience while interacting with the brand (So et al., 2014). For example, a customer with a high level of cognitive absorption is likely to be fully concentrated, happy, and deeply engrossed in reading or writing information regarding the focal brand. Furthermore, customers are likely to prefer the focal brand over its alternatives and thus develop cognitive brand loyalty because cognitive absorption creates intrinsic enjoyment for customers during their mental processing (Patterson et al., 2006; So et al., 2014). Hence, we formulate the following null and alternative hypotheses:

Hypothesis $1_{θ}$ : The effect of cognitive engagement on cognitive brand loyalty is insignificant.

Hypothesis $1_{a}$ : The effect of cognitive engagement on cognitive brand loyalty is significantly positive.

Relationship Between Cognitive Brand Loyalty and Brand Love

Sternberg (1986) argued that the three components, namely, intimacy, passion, and commitment, may not always be present in a love relationship and proposed eight types of love depending on the presence or absence of one or more components. Among these types, Sarkar (2013) adopted a romantic love relationship, which involves the components of intimacy and passion, into the consumer–brand relationship context. According to Sarkar (2013), the affective and conative loyalty stages of Oliver’s (1999) phase-wise brand loyalty are analogous to the intimacy and passion components of romantic brand love, respectively. Furthermore, Sarkar (2013) re-explained Oliver’s (1999) step-wise loyalty phases in sequential order of cognitive loyalty to romantic brand love (composed of intimacy and passion) to behavioral loyalty phases by building on Oliver’s (1999) brand loyalty conceptualization, which posits that loyalty develops in sequential phase-wise order from cognitive, affective, conative, and behavioral loyalty. Thus, cognitive loyalty predicts romantic brand love, and romantic brand love predicts behavioral loyalty.

Although Sarkar (2013) emphasized the importance of the intimacy and passion components in explaining large variances in love, conative brand loyalty may not be comprehensively represented by merely including the passion component. Sternberg’s (1986) triangular theory of love denotes that commitment refers to the willingness to maintain a long-term loving relationship. This finding is consistent with the definition of conative loyalty. Moreover, Oliver (1999) clarified that the intention to be committed belongs to the conative rather than the cognitive category. Shimp and Madden (1988) conceptualized the romantic love type of relationship in consumer–brand concept as inhibited desire, whereas the consumer–brand relationship that is analogous to consummate love is named loyalty. This distinction may arise because yearning for a product (passion) without a willingness to maintain a long-term relationship (commitment) may only induce temporary and spurious loyalty that is less likely to connect to behavioral brand loyalty. Furthermore, Sarkar’s (2013) proposition was built on theoretical conceptualization, and a quantitative analysis that provides empirical evidence to support the proposition is yet to be conducted. Hence, we propose the following null and alternative hypotheses to explicate the relationship between cognitive brand loyalty and brand love:

Hypothesis $2_{θ}$ : The effect of cognitive brand loyalty on intimacy is insignificant.

Hypothesis $2_{a}$ : The effect of cognitive brand loyalty on intimacy is significantly positive.

Hypothesis $3_{θ}$ : The effect of cognitive brand loyalty on passion is insignificant.

Hypothesis $3_{a}$ : The effect of cognitive brand loyalty on passion is significantly positive.

Hypothesis $4_{θ}$ : The effect of cognitive brand loyalty on commitment is insig-nificant.

Hypothesis $4_{a}$ : The effect of cognitive brand loyalty on commitment is significantly positive.

Relationship Between Cognitive Engagement and Brand Love

A positive relationship between cognitive engagement and brand love can be inferred from evidence in the literature that associates cognitive engagement with the components of brand love, namely, intimacy, passion, and commitment. First, a positive relationship between cognitive engagement and intimacy is expected on the basis of the theory of “commodified emotions” (Boden & Williams, 2002, p. 498). Boden and Williams (2002) argued that emotion is channeled under the guidance of rationality and every emotion has an underlying reason or cognitive logic. Moreover, intimacy involves the mental process of sharing personal feelings and information with a partner (Clark & Reis, 1988). This tendency arises from the disclosure of personal information between partners, which creates a strong favorable attitude toward the other person and eventually contributes to the development of emotional feelings of closeness (Baumeister & Bratslavsky, 1999). Hence, when customers are cognitively engaged in the sense that they are present and focused on the brand and its related attributes, they will be cognitively invested in the disclosed information about the brand and thus develop intimacy with the brand.

The two components of cognitive engagement (absorption and attention) are also closely related to the passion component of brand love. According to Rothbard (2001), the constructs of attention and absorption hold motivational components. For instance, following the definition of attention as the amount of cognitive resources that an individual opts to allocate, personal and material resource theory suggests that resources facilitate goal attainment and lack of resources can demotivate goal attainment (Katzell & Thompson, 1990; Rothbard, 2001). Similarly, intrinsic motivation theories (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Rothbard, 2001) posit that absorption, which reflects the person’s total immersion or an intrinsic interest with the engagement object, encourages and motivates participation in activities. These definitions are consistent with Sternberg’s (1986) statement that passion is a motivational involvement between the partners and evokes various forms of arousal. Moreover, the relationship between job passion and cognitive engagement was supported by Ho, Wong, and Lee (2011).

A relationship between cognitive engagement and the commitment component of brand love can also be inferred. Abundant research results indicate that CBE enhances customers’ commitment or behavioral brand loyalty intention, such as future intention of continued usage (Bowden, 2009; Brodie et al., 2011; Hollebeek, 2011a; Hollebeek et al., 2014; Vivek et al., 2014). In the work engagement context, team and organizational commitment are significantly predicted by two dimensions, namely, vigor and absorption (Yalabik, Rossenberg, Kinnie, & Swart, 2015). The vigor concept, which refers to high levels of resilience and a willingness to invest effort on the job (Yalabik et al., 2015), is analogous to the concept of attention in a sense that both involve cognitive resource invested on the engagement object. In the marketing context, Mollen and Wilson (2010, p. 5) defined brand engagement in online context as “the cognitive and affective commitment to an active relationship with the brand,” and “active and sustained cognitive processing” was identified as one of the three insistent themes of engagement. In addition, although proposed in an interpersonal context, Rubin (1970) defined love as a three-dimensional construct, composed of affiliation and the need for dependence, predisposition to help, and exclusivity and absorption. Therefore, considerable evidence in the extant literature confirms the relationship between cognitive engagement and commitment.

We present the following null and alternative hypotheses on the basis of literature that suggests positive relationships between cognitive engagement and the three components of brand love:

Hypothesis $5_{θ}$ : The effect of cognitive engagement on intimacy is insignificant.

Hypothesis $5_{a}$ : The effect of cognitive engagement on intimacy is significantly positive.

Hypothesis $6_{θ}$ : The effect of cognitive engagement on passion is insignificant.

Hypothesis $6_{a}$ : The effect of cognitive engagement on passion is significantly positive.

Hypothesis $7_{θ}$ : The effect of cognitive engagement on commitment is insignif-icant.

Hypothesis $7_{a}$ : The effect of cognitive engagement on commitment is significantly positive.

Drawing on belief–attitude–behavior models, such as the theories of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991) and reasoned action (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975), prior studies have found cognitive engagement, particularly cognitive absorption, as an underlying determinant of product beliefs, such as perceived usefulness and ease of use (Agarwal & Karahanna, 2000; Davis, 1989). Meanwhile, cognitive brand loyalty refers to a stage in which loyalty is based on brand belief only (Oliver, 1999). According to Oliver (1999), a liking or attitude toward a brand develops in the second phase of affective loyalty and subsequently into the next phase of the conative stage. As previously mentioned, brand love is composed of affective and conative brand loyalty components. Therefore, on the basis of the theory of planned behavior, we can conclude that cognitive brand loyalty (loyalty stage grounded on brand belief) mediates cognitive engagement (determinant of product belief) and brand love (attitude toward the brand). Hence, the following hypotheses are proposed:

Hypothesis $8_{θ}$ : The indirect effect of cognitive engagement on intimacy via cognitive brand loyalty is insignificant.

Hypothesis $8_{a}$ : The indirect effect of cognitive engagement on intimacy via cognitive brand loyalty is significantly positive.

Hypothesis $9_{θ}$ : The indirect effect of cognitive engagement on passion via cognitive brand loyalty is insignificant.

Hypothesis $9_{a}$ : The indirect effect of cognitive engagement on passion via cognitive brand loyalty is significantly positive.

Hypothesis $10_{θ}$ : The indirect effect of cognitive engagement on commitment via cognitive brand loyalty is insignificant.

Hypothesis $10_{a}$ : The indirect effect of cognitive engagement on commitment via cognitive brand loyalty is significantly positive.

Conceptual Framework

Figure 1 displays the conceptual model used in this study, which presents the relationship among cognitive engagement, cognitive brand loyalty, and brand love dimensions in a hotel context.

Figure 1

The Conceptual Model and Structural Model Testing

Method

Measures and Data Collection

Multi-item measures using a 7-point Likert-type scale were adopted from extant literature and modified to the context of the study. Four items for each dimension applicable to the hotel context were selected from So et al.’s (2014) scale to measure the dimensions of cognitive engagement, namely, absorption and attention. Subsequently, cognitive brand loyalty was measured using items introduced by Back and Parks (2003). Finally, to measure brand love, four items were selected for each dimension, namely, intimacy, passion, and commitment, after reviewing the items used by Wang et al. (2019) and Alnawas and Altarifi (2016). These studies revised Sternberg’s (1997) scale items to improve clarity and relevance to the hotel context. Table 2 provides an overview of the measurement items and latent variables used.

The study population was composed of individuals who have hotel experience in the past 2 years and are older than 18 years. The questionnaire was distributed to 400 individuals through Amazon Mechanical Turk. Participants who agreed to participate after reading the informed consent form were directed to complete the survey. At the beginning of the survey, the participants were asked to write down the name of the hotel brand that they love. Then, a screening mechanism was included in the survey to control for potential sampling bias due to online data collection. For instance, the participants were asked to indicate the date of their last visit, frequency of visit, purpose of the visit, and whether they are a loyalty member of the hotel brand. Additionally, participants’ demographics, such as age, gender, annual household income, the highest level of completed education, and frequency of travel in a year, were collected.

Out of the 400 questionnaires, 65 responses were unusable, leaving a total of 335 questionnaires for data analysis. In all, 45.7% of the participants were males and 54.3% were females. 49.3% of participants were members of a loyalty program and 59.7% of participants have patronized their selected hotel brand 2 to 4 times/year. Table 1 presents other demographic characteristics of the sample.

Table 1

Demographic Characteristics

Items	Frequency
Items	n	Percent
Gender
Male	153	45.7
Female	182	54.3
Age (years)
18-23	29	8.7
24-29	100	29.9
30-35	82	24.4
36-50	85	25.4
50+	39	11.6
Highest education
Less than high school degree	2	0.6
High school degree	19	5.7
Some college	65	19.4
College graduate	149	44.5
Graduate degree	100	29.9
Annual household income
<$25,000	50	14.9
$25,000-49,999	99	29.6
$50,000-74,999	80	23.9
$75,000-99,999	53	15.8
≥$100,000	53	15.8
Frequency of travel (number of trips in a year)
0-1	23	6.9
2-4	192	57.3
5-7	82	24.5
8-10	25	7.5
≥11	13	3.9

Results

Measurement Model

Confirmatory factor analysis was performed using Amos 20.0 to examine the overall fit of the measurement model. As shown in Table 2, the measurement of attention, absorption, cognitive brand loyalty, intimacy, passion, and commitment were good fit to the data. The value of χ²/df was 2.657 (χ² = 571.202, df = 215, p < .05), and the values of comparative fit index (CFI), goodness-of-fit index (GFI), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) were .940, .849, and .070, respectively. All indices were acceptable on the basis of the model evaluation criteria suggested by Hu and Bentler (1999).

Table 2

Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results for Measurement Items

Dimension and Item Description	SL	TV	CR	AVE	SMC	CA
1. Absorption (M = 5.12, SD = 1.26)			.85	.68		.89
When I am staying at (brand) hotel, I forget everything else around me	.86	N/A			.74
Time flies when I stay at (brand) hotel	.76	16.32			.58
When I stay at (brand) hotel, I get carried away	.87	20.07			.75
During my stay at (brand) hotel, I am immersed	.80	17.81			.65
2. Attention (M = 5.17, SD = 1.32)			.90	.76		.92
I like to learn more about this (brand) hotel	.84	N/A			.79
I pay a lot of attention to anything about this (brand) hotel	.90	21.22			.80
Anything related to this (brand) hotel grabs my attention	.88	20.39			.77
I concentrate a lot on this (brand) hotel	.87	20.24			.76
3. Cognitive Brand Loyalty (M = 5.60, SD = .92)			.75	.62		.81
The (brand) hotel provides me superior service quality as compared with any other hotel brands	.80	N/A			.64
No other hotel brand performs better services than (brand) hotel	.73	13.59			.53
I believe (brand) hotel provides more benefits than other hotels in its category	.83	15.64			.68
4. Intimacy (M = 4.42, SD = 1.73)			.84	.67		.88
I feel emotionally close to (brand) hotel	.89	N/A			.79
I have a comfortable relationship with (brand) hotel	.67	14.07			.45
I feel like I really understand (brand) hotel	.84	20.29			.70
There is a certain intimacy between me and (brand) hotel	.86	21.23			.74
5. Passion (M = 5.23, SD = 1.14)			.81	.63		.86
I cannot imagine another hotel brand making me as happy as (brand)	.73	N/A			.54
I adore (brand) hotel	.78	14.10			.61
(Brand) hotel makes me feel great delight	.81	14.66			.65
Just seeing (brand) is exciting for me	.85	15.38			.72
6. Commitment (M = 5.61, SD = 0.91)			.83	.66		.88
I am committed to maintaining my relationship with (brand) hotel	.76	N/A			.57
I plan to continue my relationship with (brand) hotel	.84	15.69			.71
I view my relationship with (brand) hotel as a good decision	.79	14.67			.63
I have confidence in the stability of my relationship with (brand) hotel	.85	15.90			.72

Note: SL = standardized loadings; TV = t value; CR = composite reliability; SMC = squared multiple correlation; CA = Cronbach’s alpha; N/A = not applicable; AVE = average variance extracted; SD = standard deviation; CFI = comparative fit index; GFI = goodness-of-fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; df = degree of freedom. χ² = 571.202, (p < .05, df = 215); χ²/df = 2.657; CFI = .940; GFI = .849; RMSEA = .070.

All constructs in the conceptual model were subject to reliability tests of Cronbach’s alpha coefficient and composite construct reliability. All Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the data exceeded .70 and ranged from .81 to .92. The composite reliability values ranged from .75 to .90, which are higher than the threshold suggested by Fornell and Larcker (1981). Hence, the multi-item scales used in this study are reliable for measuring each construct.

Next, convergent and discriminant validities of the measure were assessed. Table 2 illustrates that all items possessed significant, standardized factor loadings ranging from .67 to .90. In addition, the average variance extracted (AVE) of all constructs ranged from .62 to .76, which were higher than the threshold value of .50, as suggested by Fornell and Larcker (1981). These results indicate that convergent validity is established in the measurement model (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). In examining discriminant validity, the square roots of AVE values were compared with the correlation coefficients between constructs. According to Fornell and Larcker (1981), discriminant validity is achieved if the square roots of AVEs are greater than the correlations between any two constructs. As shown in Table 3, the square roots of AVEs along the diagonal line were higher than the correlation coefficients between constructs, which suggests satisfactory discriminant validity.

Table 3

Discriminant Validity Analysis From Confirmatory Factor Analysis

	Absorption	Attention	CBL	Intimacy	Passion	Commitment
Absorption	.82
Attention	.81***	.87
CBL	.53***	.54***	.79
Intimacy	.70***	.78***	.53***	.82
Passion	.76***	.81***	.76***	.81***	.79
Commitment	.48***	.57***	.78***	.65***	.75***	.81

Note: The boldfaced diagonal elements are the square root of the average variance extracted (AVE) for the constructs. Off-diagonal elements are the correlations between the constructs. CBL = cognitive brand loyalty.

***

p < .001.

Structural Equation Model

Figure 1 depicts the structural equation model results. The structural path model of the study produced the following statistics: χ² = 601.86, df = 221, χ² /df = 2.72, CFI = .936, GFI = .843, and RMSEA = .072. The fit indices of the structural path model showed that the model was a good fit to the data. Additionally, the factor loadings of attention and absorption on the second-order construct, namely, cognitive engagement, were above .70 and significant. Moreover, the structural model exhibited strong explanatory power as the model explained 35.1% of cognitive brand loyalty, 74.7% of intimacy, 89.6% of passion, and 67.9% of commitment. To emphasize the importance of the two-factor second-order cognitive engagement model, we analyzed the model fit of an alternative model where attention and absorption were represented as first order. The model fit of the first-order model (χ² = 876.15, df = 219, χ² /df = 4.00, CFI = .890, GFI = .806, RMSEA = .095) was not as strong as that of the two-factor second-order model and the difference in their fits was significant: Δχ² (2) = 274.29, p < .001. Table 4 presents the model fit statistics of the current study in comparison with other alternative models.

Table 4

Model Fit Statistics Comparison

Model	χ²	df	χ²/df	CFI	GFI	RMSEA
Study’s conceptual model (second-order CE and first-order BL)	601.864	221	2.723	.936	.843	.072
Alternative Model 1 (first order CE and first-order BL)	876.154	219	4.001	.890	.806	.095
Alternative Model 2 (first-order CE and second-order BL)	913.924	222	4.117	.884	.786	.097
Alternative Model 3 (second-order CE and second-order BL)	656.770	222	2.958	.927	.819	.077

Note: CE = cognitive engagement; BL = brand love; CFI = comparative fit index; GFI = goodness-of-fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation.

The standardized path coefficients and significance level (t statistic) were evaluated to test for hypotheses. The standardized path coefficient from cognitive engagement to cognitive brand loyalty was ( $β$ = .593) significant (p < .001). Thus, Null Hypothesis 1_θ was rejected and Alternative Hypothesis 1_a was accepted. Subsequently, the standardized path loadings from cognitive brand loyalty to brand love dimensions were tested. The standardized path coefficients from cognitive brand loyalty to passion ( $β$ = .357) and commitment ( $β$ = .644) were significant, but that connecting cognitive brand loyalty to intimacy ( $β$ = .063) was insignificant. Thus, Null Hypotheses 3_θ and 4_θ were rejected and Alternative Hypotheses 3_a and 4_a were supported, but Null Hypothesis 2_θ was not rejected. Then, direct paths from cognitive engagement to brand love dimensions of intimacy, passion, and commitment were examined. All standardized path loadings were significant. As a result, Null Hypotheses 5_θ, 6_θ, and 7_θ were rejected and Alternative Hypotheses 5_a, 6_a, and 7_a were supported.

Finally, the indirect effects of cognitive engagement on brand love dimensions were examined. Such indirect effect on brand love via cognitive brand loyalty was positive and significant only for the commitment dimension (p < .01) with a standardized coefficient of .382. Meanwhile, the indirect effects for intimacy and passion were insignificant. As a result, Null Hypotheses 8_θ and 9_θ were not rejected, but Null Hypothesis 10_θ was rejected and Alternative Hypothesis 10_a was supported. Hence, cognitive engagement has a direct effect on the dimensions of intimacy and passion, whereas its effect on commitment is partially mediated via cognitive brand loyalty. This finding provides a possible explanation for why prior engagement studies have failed to find a significance between cognitive processing and behavioral brand loyalty, which is further discussed in subsequent sections. Table 5 shows the standardized total, direct, and indirect effects that correspond to Figure 1.

Table 5

The Standardized Total Effects, Direct Effects, and Indirect Effect

	Direct Effect	Indirect Effect	Total Effect
Cognitive engagement → Cognitive brand loyalty	.593***		.593
Cognitive engagement → Intimacy	.826***	.037	.863
Cognitive engagement → Passion	.691***	.211	.902
Cognitive engagement → Commitment	.259***	.382**	.640

p < .01. ***p < .001.

Discussion

Theoretical Implications

The theoretical significance of this study can be summarized in threefold. First, this study suggests that brand love may have been the missing link in the relationship between cognitive processing and behavioral brand loyalty. The findings have confirmed the direct effect of cognitive engagement on brand love. Behavioral brand loyalty, such as intention to revisit or repurchase, is often identified as a consequence of brand love (Batra et al., 2012; Carroll & Ahuvia, 2006). Hence, this study suggests that the insignificance of the relationship between cognitive processing and brand loyalty found in prior studies may have been due to the absence of brand love. In other words, brand love can be a critical mediator between cognitive engagement and behavioral brand loyalty.

Second, although intimacy and passion development can be established directly from cognitive engagement, commitment development from cognitive engagement involves direct and indirect effects. The indirect effect of cognitive engagement on brand love dimensions through the mediation of cognitive brand loyalty was significant only for the commitment dimension. Furthermore, the standardized path coefficient from cognitive brand loyalty to commitment is considerably larger than the standardized path coefficient from cognitive engagement to commitment. This result suggests that although cognitive engagement experience may be a sufficient condition for intimacy and passion development, cognitive engagement must be accompanied by a positive belief about the brand for commitment to develop. Thus, cognitive belief or the content of cognitive processing may be a stronger factor than cognitive engagement experience in cultivating commitment among hotel customers. The reason for such a phenomenon is that relative to intimacy and passion, commitment takes time to develop (Bügel, Buunk, & Verhoef, 2010; van Doorn et al., 2010). Oliver (1999) stated that conative loyalty, which implies a brand-specific commitment, is influenced by repeated episodes of positive affect toward the brand.

Finally, this research extends the brand love literature by identifying a new experiential antecedent to brand love. This study takes a step further from Oliver’s (1997, 1999) brand loyalty framework and Batra et al.’s (2012) brand love conceptualization in a sense that it focuses not necessarily on the content of cognitive processing as an antecedent of brand love but on the experiential component of cognitive engagement. Prior brand love literature has mainly focused on “what” (quality, self-brand congruency, and hedonic brand characteristics) induces brand love. However, this study illustrates that information processing experience (how enjoyable the information processing experience is to the extent that customers invest cognitive resources and lose track of time) could influence customers’ perception about a hotel brand and ultimately contribute to hotel brand love development.

Managerial Implications

The findings of the study can also be translated into meaningful managerial implications. Although quality and value are frequently addressed by managers to induce brand love among hotel customers, the results propose that managers must focus on not only the content but also the delivery process of information that will facilitate customers’ cognitive processing and engagement. For instance, managers must continuously interact with customers and provide them with an enjoyable information processing experience, wherein they can be totally immersed to the extent that they lose track of time. One way to achieve this strategy may be through the active use of technology, such as virtual reality or touchscreens. For example, the self-service kiosk and online check-in applications launched in hotel properties, such as the lower cost Dutch-based CitizenM or London’s Edwardian Hotels, not only empower guests with experience options to select in-room amenities or specific floors but also allow hotel employees to interact and engage with guests fully by automating manual processes that once lacked efficiency. This is consistent with Lee, Chua, and Han’s (2017) study results, which demonstrated that service encounter and physical environment, such as interactions between crews and passengers or interior designs, play important roles in creating novel cruise experiences, which in turn derive cruise passenger loyalty. Therefore, managers can leverage technology to engage customers cognitively.

Moreover, the findings can be implemented to develop brand website strategies, which will foster direct booking and enable hotels to gain competitive advantage against online travel agency websites. Customers generally process information most heavily when searching and booking. Therefore, utilizing their websites to serve as a platform for enhancing brand love and loyalty among customers is important for hotel brands. For instance, the results illustrate that price discounts or additional amenities during direct booking are insufficient for developing brand love among loyalty members. Instead, hotels should provide loyalty members who book directly through brand sites with enjoyable, creative, and relevant self-room shopping experience. Specifically, hotels could elicit engagement among customers by enhancing various components, such as ease of use, social interaction, instant feedback, and customization of their brand website.

Finally, the results indicate that managers must evoke intrinsic, rather than extrinsic, motivation among customers to induce brand love. As previously mentioned, attention and absorption components are closely related to the intrinsic motivation construct (Ho et al., 2011). The reason is that when people are intrinsically interested in an engagement object, they are likely to participate and allocate resources to the activities freely and these activities are likely to be sustained by the experience of interest and enjoyment (Deci & Ryan, 2002). According to Deci and Ryan (2002), expected rewards decrease but providing options or enjoyment increase intrinsic motivation. This result indicates that promoting loyalty points alone will not contribute to the development of cognitive engagement and then of brand love. By contrast, providing customers with options or stimuli that evoke pure enjoyment and interest will enable them to be cognitively engaged and ultimately develop brand love. This notion is consistent with the finding that hedonic brands and customer’s identification with the brand serve as antecedents to brand love (Carroll & Ahuvia, 2006; Huber et al., 2015).

Limitations and Suggestions for Future Studies

This study has limitations. First, this study was conducted using a cross-sectional design and correlational analysis that may inadequately capture the causality of cognitive engagement on the development of brand love. To verify the causal relationship between cognitive engagement and brand love, a mixed-method, such as experimental design studies, is suggested for future research. Second, no behavioral brand loyalty measure is available in the brand love scale. According to Batra et al. (2012), brand love is a construct that includes multiple cognitions, emotions, and behaviors. However, the majority of current scales on brand love in literature have included behavioral intention instead of actual behavioral loyalty measures. Therefore, to test whether cognitive engagement ultimately develops into comprehensive brand love, future research should consider actual purchase behavior measurements, such as repeat purchase frequency or brand purchase share (share of the focal brand among substitutable alternatives) by conducting a longitudinal study.

In addition, to compensating for the limitations of the current study, future research should expand on exploring other cognitive and experiential antecedents of brand love. For instance, antecedents of cognitive engagement, such as involvement and flow (Rothbard, 2001), or brand experience attributes, such as sensory, affective, behavioral, and intellectual brand experiences in hotels, could be examined in relation to the development of brand love. Moreover, given the diversified brand portfolio in the hotel industry (Wang et al., 2019), future research could further examine how the effect of cognitive engagement on brand love may vary across different hotel brand segments. For instance, the question of whether the effect of cognitive engagement on brand love would vary across brand-level segments, such as luxury, upscale, midscale, and economy, is another avenue to be further discussed in future studies.

Conclusion

In summary, the current article confirms the significant effect of cognitive engagement on hotel customers’ brand love development and suggests that “how” customers process cognitive information matters as much as “what” they process to develop hotel brand love. Also, the findings specify the necessary and sufficient conditions for cognitive engagement to develop each of the three brand love dimensions, namely intimacy, passion, and commitment. More specifically, by confirming the mediating role of cognitive brand loyalty in the relationship between cognitive engagement and commitment dimension of brand love, the study illustrates that cognitive engagement must be accompanied by cognitive belief to develop into commitment. Meanwhile, cognitive engagement is a sufficient condition for intimacy and passion development. These findings contribute to the hospitality literature by identifying a new antecedent to hotel brand love and propose managerial implications for hotel managers in areas of experiential and online marketing.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Minjung Shin

Minjung Shin (e-mail: mshin4@uh.edu), is a PhD candidate in the Conrad N. Hilton College of Hotel and Restaurant Management at University of Houston, Houston, Texas. Ki-Joon Back, PhD (e-mail: kback@uh.edu) is Associate Dean for Research and Graduate Studies and Eric Hilton Distinguished Chair Professor in the Conrad N. Hilton College of Hotel and Restaurant Management at University of Houston, Houston, Texas.

References

Agarwal

Karahanna

(2000). Time flies when you’re having fun: Cognitive absorption and beliefs about information technology usage. MIS Quarterly, 24, 665-694.

Ajzen

(1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.

Albert

Merunka

(2013). The role of brand love in consumer-brand relationships. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 30, 258-266.

Albert

Merunka

Valette-Florence

(2008). When consumers love their brands: Exploring the concept and its dimensions. Journal of Business research, 61, 1062-1075.

Alnawas

Altarifi

(2016). Exploring the role of brand identification and brand love in generating higher levels of brand loyalty. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 22, 111-128.

Aluri

Price

B. S.

McIntyre

N. H.

(2019). Using machine learning to cocreate value through dynamic customer engagement in a brand loyalty program. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 43, 78-100.

Back

K. J.

(2005). The effects of image congruence on customers’ brand loyalty in the upper middle-class hotel industry. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 29, 448-467.

Back

K. J.

Parks

S. C.

(2003). A brand loyalty model involving cognitive, affective, and conative brand loyalty and customer satisfaction. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 27, 419-435.

Batra

Ahuvia

Bagozzi

R. P.

(2012). Brand love. Journal of Marketing, 76(2), 1-16.

10.

Baumeister

R. F.

Bratslavsky

(1999). Passion, intimacy, and time: Passionate love as a function of change in intimacy. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 49-67.

11.

Bergkvist

Bech-Larsen

(2010). Two studies of consequences and actionable antecedents of brand love. Journal of Brand Management, 17, 504-518.

12.

Boden

Williams

S. J.

(2002). Consumption and emotion: The romantic ethic revisited. Sociology, 36, 493-512.

13.

Bowden

J. L. H.

(2009). The process of customer engagement: A conceptual framework. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 17, 63-74.

14.

Brodie

R. J.

Hollebeek

L. D.

Jurić

Ilić

(2011). Customer engagement: Conceptual domain, fundamental propositions, and implications for research. Journal of Service Research, 14, 252-271.

15.

Bügel

M. S.

Buunk

A. P.

Verhoef

P. C.

(2010). A comparison of customer commitment in five sectors using the psychological investment model. Journal of Relationship Marketing, 9, 2-29.

16.

Carroll

B. A.

Ahuvia

A. C.

(2006). Some antecedents and outcomes of brand love. Marketing Letters, 17, 79-89.

17.

Caruana

(2002). Service loyalty: The effects of service quality and the mediating role of customer satisfaction. European Journal of Marketing, 36, 811-828.

18.

Clark

M. S.

Reis

H. T.

(1988). Interpersonal processes in close relationships. Annual Review of Psychology, 39, 609-672.

19.

Davis

F. D.

(1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319-340.

20.

Day

G. S.

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

21.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York, NY: Plenum.

22.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(2002). Handbook of self-determination research. New York, NY: University of Rochester Press.

23.

Deloitte. (2017, May). Maximizing revenue in hospitality. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from https://deloitte.wsj.com/cmo/2017/05/30/maximizing-revenue-in-hospitality/

24.

Dessart

Veloutsou

Morgan-Thomas

(2015). Consumer engagement in online brand communities: A social media perspective. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 24, 28-42.

25.

Dick

A. S.

Basu

(1994). Customer loyalty: Toward an integrated conceptual framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22, 99-113.

26.

Drennan

Bianchi

Cacho-Elizondo

Louriero

Guibert

Proud

(2015). Examining the role of wine brand love on brand loyalty: A multi-country comparison. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 49, 47-55.

27.

Fishbein

Ajzen

(1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

28.

Fornell

Larcker

D. F.

(1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39-50.

29.

Han

Chua

Lee

Kim

(2019). Impact of core-product and service-encounter quality, attitude, image, trust, and love on repurchase: Full-service vs. low-cost carriers in South Korea. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 31, 1588-1608.

30.

V. T.

Wong

S. S.

Lee

C. H.

(2011). A tale of passion: Linking job passion and cognitive engagement to employee work performance. Journal of Management Studies, 48, 26-47.

31.

Holbrook

M. B.

Hirschman

E. C.

(1982). The experiential aspects of consumption: Consumer fantasies, feelings, and fun. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 132-140.

32.

Hollebeek

L. D.

(2011a). Demystifying customer brand engagement: Exploring the loyalty nexus. Journal of Marketing Management, 27, 785-807.

33.

Hollebeek

(2011b). Exploring customer brand engagement: Definition and themes. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 19, 555-573.

34.

Hollebeek

L. D.

Glynn

M. S.

Brodie

R. J.

(2014). Consumer brand engagement in social media: Conceptualization, scale development and validation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 28, 149-165.

35.

L. T.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1-55.

36.

Huber

Meyer

Schmid

D. A.

(2015). Brand love in progress—The interdependence of brand love antecedents in consideration of relationship duration. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 24, 567-579.

37.

Jacoby

(1971). Model of multi-brand loyalty. Journal of Advertising Research, 11(3), 25-31.

38.

Jacoby

Chestnut

R. W.

(1978). Brand loyalty: Measurement and management. New York, NY: Wiley.

39.

Kahn

W. A.

(1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692-724.

40.

Kang

Tang

Lee

J. Y.

(2015). Self-congruity and functional congruity in brand loyalty. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 39, 105-131.

41.

Katzell

R. A.

Thompson

D. E.

(1990). Work motivation: Theory and practice. American Psychologist, 45, 144.

42.

Kim

W. G.

Jin-Sun

Kim

H. J.

(2008). Multidimensional customer-based brand equity and its consequences in midpriced hotels. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 32, 235-254.

43.

Kwon

Mattila

A. S.

(2015). The effect of self–brand connection and self-construal on brand lovers’ word of mouth (WOM). Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 56, 427-435.

44.

Leckie

Nyadzayo

M. W.

Johnson

L. W.

(2016). Antecedents of consumer brand engagement and brand loyalty. Journal of Marketing Management, 32, 558-578.

45.

Lee

Chua

Han

(2017). Role of service encounter and physical environment performances, novelty, satisfaction, and affective commitment in generating cruise passenger loyalty. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 22, 131-146.

46.

Liu

C. R.

Wang

Y. C.

Chiu

T. H.

Chen

S. P.

(2018). Antecedents and outcomes of lifestyle hotel brand attachment and love: The case of Gen Y. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 27, 281-298.

47.

Manthiou

Kang

Hyun

S. S.

X. X.

(2018). The impact of brand authenticity on building brand love: An investigation of impression in memory and lifestyle-congruence. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 75, 38-47.

48.

Mollen

Wilson

(2010). Engagement, telepresence and interactivity in online consumer experience: Reconciling scholastic and managerial perspectives. Journal of Business Research, 63, 919-925.

49.

Oliver

R. L.

(1997). Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on the consumer. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

50.

Oliver

R. L.

(1999). Whence consumer loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 63, 33-44.

51.

Patterson

de Ruyter

(2006, December). Understanding customer engagement in services. Paper presented at the ANZMAC 2006 Conference on Advancing Theory, Maintaining Relevance, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.

52.

Rothbard

N. P.

(2001). Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in work and family roles. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 655-684.

53.

Roy

S. K.

Eshghi

Sarkar

(2013). Antecedents and consequences of brand love. Journal of Brand Management, 20, 325-332.

54.

Rubin

(1970). Measurement of romantic love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16, 265.

55.

Sarkar

(2013). Romantic brand love: A conceptual analysis. Marketing Review, 13, 23-37.

56.

Scholer

A. A.

Higgins

E. T.

(2009). Exploring the complexities of value creation: The role of engagement strength. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19, 137-143.

57.

Shimp

T. A.

Madden

T. J.

(1988). Consumer-object relations: A conceptual framework based analogously on Sternberg’s triangular theory of love. Advances of Consumer Research, 15, 163-168.

58.

K. K. F.

King

Sparks

(2014). Customer engagement with tourism brands: Scale development and validation. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 38, 304-329.

59.

Song

Wang

Han

(2019). Effect of image, satisfaction, trust, love, and respect on loyalty formation for name-brand coffee shops. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 79, 50-59.

60.

Sternberg

R. J.

(1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 93, 119-135.

61.

Sternberg

R. J.

(1997). Construct validation of a triangular love scale. European Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 313-335.

62.

Thomson

MacInnis

D. J.

Park

C. W.

(2005). The ties that bind: Measuring the strength of consumers’ emotional attachments to brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15, 77-91.

63.

Tsai

S. P.

(2014). Love and satisfaction drive persistent stickiness: Investigating international tourist hotel brands. International Journal of Tourism Research, 16, 565-577.

64.

Unal

Aydın

(2013). An investigation on the evaluation of the factors affecting brand love. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 92, 76-85.

65.

van Doorn

Lemon

K. N.

Mittal

Nass

Pick

Pirner

Verhoef

P. C

. (2010). Customer engagement behavior: Theoretical foundations and research directions. Journal of Service Research, 13, 253-266.

66.

Vivek

S. D.

(2009). A scale of consumer engagement (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa.

67.

Vivek

S. D.

Beatty

S. E.

Dalela

Morgan

R. M.

(2014). A generalized multidimensional scale for measuring customer engagement. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 22, 401-420.

68.

Wallace

Buil

de Chernatony

(2014). Consumer engagement with self-expressive brands: Brand love and WOM outcomes. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 23, 33-42.

69.

Wang

Y. C.

Yang

(2019). The formation of sub-brand love and corporate brand love in hotel brand portfolios. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 77, 375-384.

70.

Yalabik

Z. Y.

Van Rossenberg

Kinnie

Swart

(2015). Engaged and committed? The relationship between work engagement and commitment in professional service firms. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26, 1602-1621.