This article was downloaded by: [Bournemouth University]

On: 09 July 2015, At: 10:38

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: 5 Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG

Journal of Marketing Management

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjmm20

Does consumers' personal reciprocity

affect future purchase intentions?
Wei-ping Wu , T. S. Chan & Heng Hwa Lau
Published online: 01 Feb 2010.

To cite this article: Wei-ping Wu , T. S. Chan & Heng Hwa Lau (2008) Does consumers' personal
reciprocity affect future purchase intentions?, Journal of Marketing Management, 24:3-4, 345-360,
DOI: 10.1362/026725708X306130
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1362/026725708X306130

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

JOURNAL OF

MARKETING
MANAGEMENT

Downloaded by [Bournemouth University] at 10:38 09 July 2015

Does consumers personal reciprocity affect future

purchase intentions?1
Wei-ping Wu, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong*
T. S. Chan, Lingnan University, Hong Kong
Heng Hwa Lau, Casino Lisboa, Macau

Abstract In this study, we examine the mediating role of a consumers personal

reciprocity in the relationships between brand trust, brand loyalty and product
familiarity, and future purchase intentions. Data from 308 printer users in
Hong Kong reveals that a consumers personal reciprocity partially mediates
the relationships between brand trust and brand loyalty, and future purchase
intentions. The theoretical implication is that personal reciprocity not only
enhances consumers future purchase intentions but also provides an alternative
path linking brand trust and brand loyalty to consumers future purchase
intentions. The managerial implication is that by capitalising on a consumers
personal reciprocity in the context of consumer-firm relationships, firms can
improve their performance in retaining existing customers.

Keywords Personal reciprocity, Brand trust, Brand loyalty, Product familiarity,

Future purchase intentions.

INTRODUCTION
This study investigates the mediating role of a consumers personal reciprocity in the
relationships between brand trust, brand loyalty and product familiarity, and future
1

An earlier version of the paper was published in the conference proceedings of Chinese
Management: Sublimiation of Indigenised Research Work (Yau, O.H.M., eds.), Unit for
Chinese Management Development, City University of Hong Kong, 2006.

*Correspondence details and biographies for the authors are located at the end of the article.
JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT, 2008, Vol. 24, No. 3-4, pp. 345-360
ISSN0267-257X print /ISSN1472-1376 online Westburn Publishers Ltd.

doi: 10.1362/026725708X306130

Downloaded by [Bournemouth University] at 10:38 09 July 2015

346

JMM

Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 24

purchase intentions. For the purpose of this study, drawing on Morales (2005),
we define personal reciprocity as a consumers conscious tendency to engage in a
reciprocal and mutually beneficial relationship with a brand provider. Bagozzi (1995)
argued that reciprocity is embedded in consumer-firm relationships. Fournier et al.
(1998) reiterated that there should be a balance between giving and receiving in a
good consumer-firm relationship. In the Chinese context, reciprocity happens to be
one of the key Chinese social norms rooted deeply in traditional yet still prevailing
Chinese cultural values. Therefore, the study of how personal reciprocity might
be able to have an impact on a consumer-firm relationship in the Chinese context
is intended not only to enrich the existing literature but also to inform practices.
With the theoretical advancements at the domain of consumer-brand relationships
(Fournier 1998; Fournier and Yao 1997), an important research stream that explores
the relationships between brand trust, brand loyalty, and their related outcomes is
emerging. For example, Chauduri and Holbrook (2001, 2002) investigated the chain
of effects that run from brand trust to brand loyalty through to brand outcome.
Delgado-Ballster and Munuera-Alemn (2001) studied the relationship between brand
trust and brand loyalty. These studies have undoubtedly enriched our understanding
of the links between brand trust and brand loyalty and their respective impact on
future purchase intentions.
The relationship between a brand and a consumer may dissolute (Fajer and
Schouten 1995; Perrin-Martinenq 2004) since there are factors such as after-sales
service, speed of repairs and product quality that might lure loyal customers to switch
to competitive brands (Deighton et al. 1994; Lin et al. 2000). Surprisingly, hardly any
systematic empirical investigation has been published that examines how a consumers
personal reciprocity may be leveraged to mediate the relationships between brand
trust, brand loyalty, product familiarity and future purchase intentions of the same
brand.
The central premise of the current study is that a consumers personal reciprocity
plays an important mediating role in extending the positive effects of brand trust,
brand loyalty and product category familiarity to future purchase intentions. Davies
and Chun (2003) suggested that a consumer-brand partnership is a reciprocal one.
In a recent study, Morales (2005) argued that consumers demonstrate personal
reciprocity by rewarding firms for effort directed towards them individually. Schultz
and Bailey (2000) called for the development of reciprocity as a theory base on which
to build customer relationships. Not surprisingly, reciprocity has been treated as one
of the key theoretical pinnacles of a conceptual framework of resource investment
and customer-loyalty (Morais et al. 2004).
We posit that to translate brand trust and brand loyalty into future purchase
intentions of the same brand, personal reciprocity plays an important mediating role.
Similarly, to attract potential consumers who are familiar with a product category
but have yet to patronise a particular brand of that category, personal reciprocity
plays a crucial bridging link. In this paper, we highlight the underlying importance of
personal reciprocity in consumer-firm relationships.
The objective of this study is to develop and test a model of a consumers personal
reciprocity by integrating the literature of brand trust, brand loyalty, product familiarity
and reciprocity in the explanation of future purchase intentions. More specifically,
we demonstrate that there is an alternative path that links brand trust and brand
loyalty to future purchase intentions through the mediator, personal reciprocity. The
findings will help firms to design more effective relationship marketing practices by
specifically targeting those existing reciprocity-minded customers who already have

Wu, Chan and Lau Does consumers personal reciprocity affect future purchase intentions?

trust in and are loyal to their brands. In addition, we explore a possible link between
product familiarity, a consumers personal reciprocity and future purchase intentions.
The investigation of this possible link is equally important, as we will be able to
demonstrate for the first time whether a consumers personal reciprocity mediates
the relationship between product familiarity and future purchase intentions. The
findings will be of great significance to practicing managers in their formulation and
implementation of relationship marketing strategies. By capitalising on a potential
consumers reciprocal proneness, firms may be able to attract those potential
customers who are familiar with a product category but have yet to patronise a
particular brand of that category.

Downloaded by [Bournemouth University] at 10:38 09 July 2015

CONCEPTURAL BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES

Brand loyalty and brand trust
Sheth and Parvatiyar (1995) argued that although direct contact between consumers
and marketers is unlikely, consumers develop a relationship with a product or a
brand. They contend that brand loyalty is one of the primary measurements of the
relationship that consumers develop with a firms products and symbols. Brand loyalty
encompasses both behavioural and attitudinal components (Aaker 1991; Assael
1998; Oliver 1999). Behavioural (or purchase) loyalty consists of repeated purchases
of the brand, whereas attitudinal brand loyalty includes a degree of dispositional
commitment in terms of a unique value that is associated with the brand. For the
purpose of this study, we are only interested in attitudinal brand loyalty.
Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001) argued that although brands themselves may not
be capable of trust, brands have the response potential to elicit trust from consumers.
They define brand trust as the willingness of the average consumer to rely on the
ability of the brand to perform its stated function. Along a similar line, DelgadoBallester and Munuera-Alemn (2001) regarded brand trust as a feeling of security
held by the consumer that the brand will meet their consumption expectations.
Recently, a new stream of research has emerged that explores the antecedents and
consequences of brand trust and brand loyalty at the consumer-brand domain. For
example, Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001) examined two aspects of brand loyalty
purchase loyalty and attitudinal loyalty as linking variables in a chain of effects
that runs from brand trust and brand affect to brand performance (market share and
relative price). Delgado-Ballester and Munuera-Alemn (2001) investigated the link
from overall satisfaction to brand trust, to commitment, and to price tolerance. These
studies have obviously furthered our understanding of the relationship between brand
trust and brand loyalty. However, we are not aware of any studies that examine the
role of consumers personal reciprocity in mediating the relationships between brand
trust and future purchase intentions and between brand loyalty and future purchase
intentions.
Product familiarity
Product familiarity has long been an important issue in consumer research. Studies
have been conducted to investigate the role of product familiarity in learning new
information (Johnson and Russo, 1984) and information acquisition (Simonson et
al. 1988), in choice and matching judgments (Coupey et al. 1998), in post-purchase
responses, and in customer satisfaction, repurchase intentions, and word-of-mouth

347

348

JMM

Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 24

intentions (Sderlund 2002). Consumers who are highly familiar with a particular
product category may patronise any firms that provide such products. Nevertheless,
little is known about how the effects of product familiarity may be extended to future
purchase intentions through the mediation of consumers personal reciprocity. We
posit that consumers who are familiar with a product category can be attracted to
patronise a particular brand through the mediation of consumers personal reciprocity,
since people seem to have an innate desire to repay favours (Regan 1971).

Downloaded by [Bournemouth University] at 10:38 09 July 2015

Reciprocity and the Chinese context

Norm of reciprocity (Gouldner 1960) has been widely held as a universal principle
(Morales 2005). Reciprocity is regarded as one of the key ingredients that can cement
a lasting long-term consumer-firm relationship (Fournier et al. 1998). Bagozzi (1995)
argued that the phenomenon of reciprocity is present in consumer-firm relationships.
Others such as Schultz and Bailey (2000) and Morais et al. (2004) used reciprocity as a
theoretical base for building their respective theories of brand loyalty and customers
loyalty. Schultz and Bailey (2000) argued that people seek a reciprocal relationship
with the sellers from whom they purchase products and services. In a recent study,
Morales (2005) argued that consumers demonstrate personal reciprocity by
rewarding firms for effort directed towards them individually. By providing firms
with their personal data such as personal preferences, consumers expect reciprocation
in such benefits as club membership and new product information. Reciprocity is
also implicitly embedded in the resource theory in the context of customer-provider
relationships. De Wulf et al. (2001) regarded the concept of reciprocity as an
appropriate framework of thought for building the conceptual model of investments
in consumer relationships. Furthermore, reciprocity as an aspect of social capital was
found to significantly influence buyer decisions in embedded markets (Frenzen and
Davis 1990).
Westwood et al. (2004) argued that reciprocity is a universal social phenomenon,
but is subject to cultural variation in its manifestation in actual social relationships
and exchanges. In the Chinese context, the concept of reciprocity, incorporated into
the dominant social ethic by Confucian scholars, has been a social norm in social
relationships and exchanges for hundreds of years. At the heart of Chinese culture
is a concern for harmony and a fundamental relationship orientation (Westwood et
al. 2004). Reciprocity is deeply embedded in Chinese social relations. To maintain
social harmony, there are reciprocal obligations expected of all the parties in a
social relationship. According to Chen and Chen (2004), reciprocity takes on some
distinctive Chinese characteristics. Firstly, reciprocity of favour exchanges is the
most pervasive rule guiding Chinese social and economic interactions. Secondly, the
Chinese reciprocity emphasises a long-term orientation. Thirdly, what is reciprocated
must indeed be of great value to the receivers. Finally, it is the unequal exchange in
which both sides will practise trying to do more, improving with every new effort,
in a system of escalating favours. Studies have shown that gift-purchasing and giftgiving behaviours are deeply rooted in this social norm of reciprocity in the Chinese
cultural context (Yau et al 1999; Joy 2001). Norm of reciprocity is vividly reflected
in a Chinese word, Renqin. It means person A can deliver a favour to person B. By
accepting the offer, person B owes Renqin to person A and is obliged to pay back the
debt of gratitude to person A in due course. Renqin was found to be an important
factor for Chinese consumers to accept the concept and practices of relationship
marketing (Luk et al. 1999).
Figure 1 shows our conceptual framework, which depicts the chain of effects from

Downloaded by [Bournemouth University] at 10:38 09 July 2015

Wu, Chan and Lau Does consumers personal reciprocity affect future purchase intentions?

brand trust, brand loyalty, and product familiarity, to consumers personal reciprocity,
and then to future purchase intentions. In an optimal situation of consumer-firm
relationships, reciprocation of investments is expected of each other. Customers
believe that resources they are investing in the seller are being reciprocated in
an equitable fashion and satisfaction with the transaction generates and supports
an ongoing relation between exchange partners (Dorsh and Carlson 1996). We
expect that consumers personal reciprocity will play a partial mediating role in the
relationships between brand trust and brand loyalty and future purchase intentions.
This is because brand trust and brand loyalty have both been found to be positively
related to purchase intentions in the existing literature (Garbarina and Johnson,
1999; Morgan and Hunt 1994). However, to advance the existing literature, we
contend that an alternative path exists, linking both brand trust and brand loyalty
to future purchase intentions via consumers personal reciprocity. Consumers who
display brand trust and brand loyalty are more likely to engage in a reciprocal and
mutually beneficial relationship with the brand provider. By willingly disclosing their
personal information to the firm, consumers expect the firm to reciprocate with
better products or services and other related benefits such as product information
updates. Consequently, they are more likely to repeatedly patronise the same brand.
In another word, reciprocity acts as the mediating channel that extends effects of
both brand trust and brand loyalty onto future repeat intentions. In addition, we
argue that the relationship between product familiarity and future purchase intention
is fully mediated by consumers personal reciprocity. Those potential customers who
are familiar with a product category can be attracted to purchase a particular brand
through the mediation of personal reciprocity. For the purpose of this study, we define
personal reciprocity as a consumers conscious tendency to engage in a reciprocal and
mutually beneficial relationship with a brand provider.
Brand trust and personal reciprocity
Drawing on the aforementioned definitions of Delgado-Ballester and MunueraAlemn (2001) and of Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001), we define brand trust as
an average consumers confidence in and reliance on a brand to perform its stated
function. Trust gives the customer confidence in the equity and reliability of the
service or product that is offered by a firm (Garbarino and Johnson 1999), and gives

FIGURE 1 The hypothesised conceptual model

Brand
Loyalty

Brand
Trust

H2

H1

H3
Product
Familiarity

Personal
Reciprocity

H4

Future
Purchase
Intention

349

350

JMM

Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 24

Downloaded by [Bournemouth University] at 10:38 09 July 2015

confidence in the credibility of the firm (Macintosh and Lockshin 1997). Before
committing resources to a retailer, a customer must have some measure of assurance
that the retailer will make the necessary reparations (Dorsch and Carlston 1996). Trust,
clearly, is one such measure of assurance since it can effectively check opportunistic
behaviour which is one of the key causes of transaction costs (Bendapudi and Berry
1997). Therefore, consumers who have confidence in a brand are often ready to
engage in a reciprocal relationship with the provider of the brand by disclosing their
personal information since they are confident that their favours will not be taken for
granted and the providers will not misuse their personal information. Moreover, they
also expect that their favours would be reciprocated with such benefits as a sense of
security, reliable quality products, and related services. Brand trust can obviously
enhance a consumers conscious tendency to reciprocate with the provider. Hence,
we offer our first hypothesis.
H1 Brand trust is positively related to a consumers personal reciprocity.

Brand loyalty and personal reciprocity

We define brand loyalty as an emotional or psychological attachment to a brand within
a product class (Fournier 1998). Moorman et al. (1993) suggested that customers
who are committed to a relationship might have a greater propensity to act in a
manner that is consistent with that commitment. Committed customers are more
willing to cooperate with their product providers (Garbarino and Johnson 1999).
As a result, they will be more forthcoming with their personal information and will
disclose this information to the firm of their committed brand. In return, they expect
the firm to reciprocate the favour by providing them with various benefits. Loyal
customers are confident that the brand provider will compensate their investments
in the relationship. In other words, loyal consumers are more likely to reciprocate
the benefits offered by the brand provider by giving their personal information as an
input. We therefore argue that customers who are loyal to a brand may have a greater
willingness to engage in a reciprocal and mutually beneficial relationship with the
brand provider.
H2 Brand loyalty is positively related to a consumers personal reciprocity.

Product familiarity and personal reciprocity

Product familiarity is defined here as a consumers familiarity with a particular product
category. The existing literature suggests two seemingly contradictory alternatives
concerning the relationship between product familiarity and information search.
Firstly, customers who are more familiar with a certain product category tend to be
more active in searching for new product information to update their knowledge of
that product category (Richins and Root-Shaffer 1988; Johnson and Russo 1984).
Secondly, consumers who are more familiar with a product limit their information
search (Johnson and Russo 1984). But, both of the two alternatives suggest a positive
relationship between product familiarity and consumers personal reciprocity. On
the one hand, to make the right choices in future, customers not only need to store
information in their memory, but also need to update that information from time
to time. On the other hand, they have the need to reduce their choice set, as the
search for information can be costly and time consuming. To reduce expensive search
costs, these consumers are more likely to narrow down their choice set (Sheth and
Parvatiyar 1995). In a world of information explosion, consumers are usually ready

Wu, Chan and Lau Does consumers personal reciprocity affect future purchase intentions?

to accept relationship marketing practices that offer them information at a minimum

cost. Consequently, to get necessary information for future decision making and,
at the same time, to reduce the cost of obtaining the information, those consumers
who are familiar with a product category usually have greater conscious tendency
to engage in a reciprocal and mutually beneficial relationship with the chosen brand
providers. Hence, we hypothesise that
H3 Product familiarity is positively related to a consumers personal reciprocity.

Downloaded by [Bournemouth University] at 10:38 09 July 2015

Personal reciprocity and future purchase intentions

A consumers personal reciprocity measures a consumers conscious tendency to
engage in reciprocal and mutually beneficial relationships with firms. The reciprocal
and mutual benefits provide a solid foundation for both the maintenance and further
development of a long-term consumer-firm relationship. By disclosing their personal
information such as name, address, and personal preference, consumers assist the firm
to design and produce better quality and tailor-made products. In return, customers
expect to receive better products and other related benefits. This significantly reduces
both the perceived risk and uncertainty of the customer by staying with the same
firm (Stern et al. 1998), and the related opportunity costs. Reciprocation can make
consumers feel it is more beneficial to patronise the same brand repeatedly since
their favours given to the firm are rewarded with such benefits as better personalised
services and products. The norm of reciprocity serves as a compensatory mechanism
for maintaining customer-retailer relationships (Dorsch and Calson 1996). Under
such a compensatory mechanism, when customers perceive that they have been
helped, they tend to feel indebted and may feel compelled to provide pay back. We
therefore offer the following hypothesis,
H4 A consumers personal reciprocity is positively related to future purchase intentions.

METHODOLOGY
Sampling and data collection
The sampling frame is printer owners in Hong Kong. Chinese culture is well known
to be relationship rich and oriented toward the long term (Hofstede 1991). Hong
Kong, therefore, provides a supportive cultural context for studying the issues that
are related to consumer-firm relationships. In addition, most of the existing studies
on consumer relationship proneness have been conducted in Western countries.
Empirical investigation in a non-Western context can help test the generalisability of
the theories that come from the West. Hong Kong, as a former British colony, has a
political, legal, and economic system that is comparable to those of Western economies
such as the UK and the USA, and thus other contextual interferences are minimised.
We decided to conduct empirical tests within a particular product category, as it is
considered appropriate to study issues such as brand trust and brand loyalty within a
single product category (Delgado-Ballester and Munuera-Alemn 2001; Warrington
and Shim 2000). In the selection of a product category, we conducted two focus
group interviews with 11 university students in each group. Each interviewee was
asked to suggest the product category with which they were most familiar. The
product categories that were most frequently identified by the interviewees were
printers, mobile phones, clothing, and cosmetics. The female interviewees had a

351

Downloaded by [Bournemouth University] at 10:38 09 July 2015

352

JMM

Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 24

better knowledge of the product categories of clothing and cosmetics. To minimise

the potential bias between the male and female respondents, only mobile phones
and printers were retained for the next phase of the selection exercise. Based on the
two selection criteria that there was a relatively similar product category familiarity
between female and male respondents and that the respondents were eligible to
respond to the questions that were related to relationship marketing practices for the
chosen product category, printers turned out to be the most suitable product category
for this study.
The telephone numbers of 1,500 households were generated randomly from the
Hong Kong Residential Telephone Directory. To overcome inherent problems of
sampling from the telephone directory, a technique of random digit dialling (RDD)
was used (Frey 1989), by employing a computer programme that generates listings of
random numbers. According to the research on Home Computers and Networking
in Hong Kong that was carried out by the Telecommunications Research Project of
the Centre of Asian Studies at the University of Hong Kong, most of the computer
users in Hong Kong are below 45. Therefore, only printer owners below the age of
45 were interviewed, as printers are peripheral computer products, and limiting the
respondents to those below the age of 45 provided a more representative sample
of qualified informants who had experience and knowledge of printers. During
each phone call, after an explanation of the nature and purpose of the research, the
interview started with the eligible member (printer owner) in the household. If there
were two or more eligible members in a household, then we chose the respondent
randomly. Three hundred and eight questionnaires were collected, giving a response
rate of 20%.
Of the respondents, 55.8% were male and 44.2% female. Their ages ranged from
17 to 45, with 22.7 % being aged between 17 and 20, 36.4% between 21 and 25,
18.2% between 26 and 30, 12.3% between 31 and 35, and 0.4% between 36 and
45. Twenty-eight percent of the respondents had a monthly income of HK$0-5,000,
23.6% had an income of HK$5,001-10,000, 37.7% had an income of HK$10,00120,000, and 10.9% had an income of HK$20,001-85,000. In terms of educational
level, 0.7% of the respondents had a primary school education, 32% had a high
school education, 4.6% had a diploma, 18.3% had a university degree or higher, and
44.4% did not want to specify their educational level.
Reliability and validity
A structured questionnaire was used to reduce the potential problems of fatigue
and time pressure during a telephone interview so that respondents would find it
easier to answer the questions and would not perceive the interview to be timeconsuming (Aaker and Day 1990). This made it easier for the interviewer to record
the data during the interviews, and minimised the chance of interviewer bias. A backtranslation technique was used so as to ensure the accuracy of the questionnaire
items, as the interviews were conducted in Chinese. Reliability tests were carried
out to ensure that the scales in the questionnaire produced consistent results for the
variables. The results indicated that the Cronbachs alpha of all of the constructs
was above 0.78, which shows there is a satisfactorily high reliability of the scales.
Furthermore, to test the validity of all of the measures used, both discriminant and
convergent validity tests were conducted.
Convergent validity is concerned with whether multiple measures of the same
construct are in agreement. According to Anderson and Gerbing (1988), convergent
validity can be tested with a measurement model by examining whether the estimated

Wu, Chan and Lau Does consumers personal reciprocity affect future purchase intentions?

pattern coefficient of each indicator on its posited underlying construct is significant.

To test the convergent validity of the measurement model, a confirmatory factor
analysis was conducted, which resulted in a satisfactory model (2 =230.709, [IFI]
=0.918, normal fit index [NFI] = 0.895, and comparative fit index [CFI] = 0.916).
Thus, convergent validity was achieved. Discriminant validity was also achieved
by conducting Chi-square difference tests, whereby correlations between pairs of
constructs were freely estimated and then constrained to one. In each instance, a
significant lower chi-square in the base model was obtained, indicating satisfactory
discriminant validity (Jreskog 1971).

Downloaded by [Bournemouth University] at 10:38 09 July 2015

Independent variables
Brand trust (a = .87). The brand trust scale was adapted from those used in Chaudhuri
and Holbrook (2001) and Delgado-Ballester and Munuera-Aleman (2001). There are
three items on the brand trust scale rated on a 7-point Likert scale that ranges from
1, strongly disagree, to 7, strongly agree. The items include I rely on this brand,
This brand is trustworthy, and The quality of this brand is very good.
Brand loyalty (a = .86). The brand loyalty scale consists of three items, such as, I
have a strong sense of loyalty to this brand, I am proud of being the owner of this
brand, and I like this brand. The items were adapted from Garbarino and Johnson
(1999).
Product familiarity (a = 0.81). The product familiarity scale was developed from
a detailed consultation of the relevant literature such as Coupey et al. (1998) and
Grewal et al. (1998). The scale consists of two items. They are How knowledgeable
are you about printers? rated on a 7-point Likert scale that ranged from 1 not
knowledgeable at all to 7 very knowledgeable, and Please rate how familiar you
are with printers rated on a 7-point Likert scale that ranged from 1 extremely
unfamiliar to 7 extremely familiar).
Dependent variable
Future purchase intentions (a = 0.78). This scale comprises the two items, Are you
willing to repurchase the products of this brand in the future? and Are you willing to
give first consideration to this brand for future purchases? rated on a 7-point Likert
scale that ranges from 1 not at all willing to 7 extremely willing. The two items
were developed from Fournier (1998) and Garbarino and Johnson (1999). This is
designed to assess how willing the respondent (owner of a printer) is to repurchase
the same brand printer.
Mediating variable
Personal reciprocity (a = 0.81). The scale was adapted from the measures that were
used in Stone and Woodcock (1995) and in Ambler et al. (1999), and are rated on a
7-point Likert scale that ranges from 1 strongly disagree to 7 strongly agree. The
items are I hope that the provider of this brand can offer me some individualised
products/services, I am willing to give my personal information to the provider of
this brand so that I can be better served, and I am willing to cooperate with the
provider of this brand. This scale is designed to capture a consumers reciprocal
needs with the provider of a brand.

353

354

JMM

Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 24

Downloaded by [Bournemouth University] at 10:38 09 July 2015

ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

The hypothesised structural equation model was tested using AMOS 4.0 (Arbuckle
1999). The covariance matrices are provided in Table 2, and the results are shown in
Figure 2. The hypothesised model has a reasonable goodness-of-fit (2 = 230.709, p
= 0.000, incremental fit index [IFI] = 0.918, comparative fit index [CFI] = 0.916,
normed fit index [NFI] = 0.895 and RMSEA<0.07). Three out of the four hypotheses
are supported statistically. As expected, both brand trust and brand loyalty are found
to be highly correlated with consumer personal reciprocity, thereby supporting
both Hypotheses 1 ( = 0.386, p < 0.000) and 2 ( = 0.138, p < 0.05). Similarly,
Hypothesis 4, which predicts a positive relationship between consumer personal
reciprocity and future purchase intentions, is strongly supported ( = 0.354, p <
0.000). However, Hypothesis 3 turned out to be non-significant ( = -0.056, n.s.).
In Figure 2, it can be observed that both brand trust and brand loyalty, though not
hypothesised, also have a direct impact on future purchase intentions ( = 0.180, p
< 0.01; = 0.243, p < 0.000), which suggests that the relationships between brand
trust and future purchase intentions and between brand loyalty and future purchase
intentions are partially mediated by a consumers personal reciprocity. In addition,
there is a non-significant relationship between product familiarity and future purchase
intentions ( = 0.003, n.s.). Covariance among the independent variables was also
controlled in the model. Another model retaining only the significant parameters is
shown in Figure 3. The results of the two models are very much in agreement with
each other.
Nested model comparisons
Obtaining an acceptable level of goodness of fit suggests that the proposed
model explains or fits the data quite satisfactorily. However, to make sure that
the hypothesised mediating model is a better model and the alternative paths via
FIGURE 2 Results of the hypothesis testing

(=.709***)

(=.378***)

Brand
Loyalty

(=.243***)
(=.138*)

Brand
Trust

(=.386***)

Personal
Reciprocity

(=.354***)

(=-.056, n.s.)
(=.003, n.s.)
(=.249***)

Product
Familiarity

(=.180**)

Note: n.s. = not significant. x2 =230.709, IFI=0.918, CFI=0.916, NFI=0.895,

RMSEA<0.07
*p<0.005, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

Future
Purchase
Intention

Downloaded by [Bournemouth University] at 10:38 09 July 2015

Wu, Chan and Lau Does consumers personal reciprocity affect future purchase intentions?

consumer personal reciprocity are not redundant, we estimated three competing

models by conducting nested-models comparison tests (Table 1). In the nested-model
1, we estimated a model wherein we dropped a hypothesised path from brand trust
to personal reciprocity, while retaining all other relationships. As expected, this
model is an inferior model in terms of goodness of fit (IFI = .910, NFI = .888,
and CFI = .911) when compared with the mediating model in Figure 2. Then, we
estimated another model wherein we dropped two hypothesised paths from brand
trust to personal reciprocity and from brand loyalty to reciprocity while retaining all
other relationships. Similarly, this model resulted in an inferior fit with 2 =40.912
(p<0.000) when compared with the mediating model. In other words, the fit of the
restricted model is less satisfactory (NFI= .876, CFI= .900 and IFI= .898) than the
mediating model. Therefore, the results of the nested comparison tests increased the
acceptance of our mediating model. As per the method used in Morgan and Hunt
(1994), we compared the mediating model with a direct model (rival model). In the
direct model, treating personal reciprocity as one of the independent variables, we
dropped the three hypothesised paths (brand trust to personal reciprocity, brand
TABLE 1 Results of nested-model comparisons
Model

df

x2

Mediating Model

55

230.709

Nested Model 1

56

246.379

Nested Model 2

57

271.621

NFI

CFI

IFI

0.895

0.916

0.918

15.669***

0.888

0.911

0.910

40.912***

0.876

0.900

0.898

x2

Nested Model 3
(Direct Model)
58
276.979
46.270***
0.874
0.898
0.896
Note: x2 = the difference between the mediating model and a nested model.
*** = p<0.001. This indicates the differences between the mediating model and the three
nested models are significant. Therefore, the mediating model is a model with a better
goodness of fit.
Nested Model 1 is a nested model in which one path, brand trust reciprocity, is dropped
from the mediating model in Figure 2. Nested Model 2 is a nested model in which two paths,
brand trust reciprocity and brand loyalty reciprocity, are dropped from the mediating
model. Nested Model 3 (Direct Model) is a nested model in which three paths (brand trust
reciprocity, brand loyalty reciprocity, and product familiarity reciprocity) are
dropped from the mediating model.

TABLE 2 Correlations, standard deviations, and means

Variables

Means S.D

1. Reciprocity

4.31

1.30

2. Brand Loyalty

3.97

1.42

.308***

3. Brand Trust

4.95

.99

.368***

.499***

4. Product Familiarity

3.20

1.32

.183***

.335***

.238***

5. Future Purchase
Intentions

4.30

1.14

.545***

.524***

.512***

*** p<0.00

.210***

355

356

JMM

Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 24

FIGURE 3 The final model with significant parameters

(=.712***)

Brand
Loyalty

(=.233***)
(=.128*)

(=.425***)

Brand
Trust

(=.374***)

Personal
Reciprocity

(=.358***)

Future
Purchase
Intention

(=.169**)

Downloaded by [Bournemouth University] at 10:38 09 July 2015

(=.274***)

Product
Familiarity

Note: x2 =233.307, IFI=0.918, CFI=0.916, NFI=0.894, RMSEA<0.07

*p<0.005, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

loyalty to personal reciprocity and product familiarity to personal reciprocity).

Again, the direct model turned out to be an inferior model (NFI=0.874, IFI=.896,
and CFI=.898) when compared with the mediating model. Hence, the results of
nested model comparison tests indicate that the mediating model is a superior model
and the mediating role of personal reciprocity in the relationships between brand
trust and future purchase intentions and between brand loyalty and future purchase
intentions is not redundant.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

We set out to explore the mediating role of a consumers personal reciprocity in the
relationships between brand trust, brand loyalty, and product familiarity and future
purchase intentions in the context of product category of printers. The study builds
on the recent theoretical and empirical advancements in the literature of consumerbrand relationships, brand trust, and brand loyalty (Chauhuri and Holbrook 2001;
Delgado-Ballester and Munuera-Alemn 2001; Fournier 1998). The findings largely
support our underlying contention that personal reciprocity provides an alternative
path linking brand trust and brand loyalty to future purchase intentions.
Our results show that both brand trust and brand loyalty have a positive impact on
future purchase intentions, either directly or indirectly, through personal reciprocity.
The findings support the existing argument that trusting and committed customers
are more likely to repurchase from the same firm (Chaudhuri and Holbrook 2001;
Morgan and Hunt 1994). More significantly, it reveals that an alternative path exists
linking brand trust and brand loyalty to future purchase intentions via personal
reciprocity.
The findings have some interesting managerial implications. As personal reciprocity
can be leveraged to connect both brand trust and brand loyalty with future purchase
intentions, it is advisable that firms should design marketing strategies that promote
customers reciprocity. They should target those existing customers who have
confidence in and are committed to their brands. Through reciprocal relationships
with trusting and committed customers, firms can prevent them from being poached

Downloaded by [Bournemouth University] at 10:38 09 July 2015

Wu, Chan and Lau Does consumers personal reciprocity affect future purchase intentions?

by competitors more effectively.

Nevertheless, the hypothesised relationship between product familiarity and
personal reciprocity turned out to be non-significant. The possible explanation
for this non-significance is that those customers who are familiar with the product
category of printers have yet to patronise a particular brand. Therefore, it is less
likely that they have the reciprocal intentions with a particular brand without any
prior experience of patronising the brand.
Although every care has been taken with this study, some inherent problems
remain. First, the data were collected from printer users only. Although the focus
on a particular product category is a widely accepted practice in the study of
consumer-firm relationships, this might affect the potential generalisability of the
results, and caution should be employed when applying the results to other related
consumer product markets. Second, over 50% of the respondents were aged between
18 and 25, and the findings of this study predominantly represent this age group,
even though this reflects the reality of the demographic of printer users in Hong
Kong. In addition, as this is one of the first studies to use personal reciprocity as a
mediating variable in the relationships between brand trust, brand loyalty, product
familiarity, and future purchase intentions, we have kept the model relatively simple
and straightforward and have left out some variables that might have similar effects
either as dependent or independent variables. However, such a sacrifice at the early
stage of model development and testing should be generally considered acceptable.
For future studies, more antecedents and outcomes of personal reciprocity could
be identified and studied. For example, antecedents such as relationship benefits,
shared values, and communication effectiveness could be added to the model. With
respect to the outcomes, more relevant variables, such as the consumers propensity
to leave, cooperation, and overall satisfaction could be incorporated into the model.
Furthermore, it might be fruitful for future research to investigate the moderating
role of personal reciprocity in the relationships between brand trust, brand loyalty,
and brand outcomes. For example, personal reciprocity may play a moderating
role in the relationship between brand trust and overall satisfaction. Finally, for the
purpose of cross-validation, a comparative study could be conducted to investigate
the differences and similarities in the roles of personal reciprocity in different cultural
contexts, such as the US, Japan, and China.
In conclusion, this study represents one of the first attempts to investigate the
mediating role of personal reciprocity in the relationships between brand trust, brand
loyalty, product familiarity, and future purchase intentions. The findings have largely
supported our theoretical prediction that personal reciprocity provides an alternative
path linking brand trust and brand loyalty to future purchase intentions.

REFERENCES
Aaker, D. A. and Day, G S. (1990), Marketing Research, New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Aaker, D.A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand Name, New
York, NY: Free Press.
Ambler, T., Styles, C. and Wang, X. (1999), The Effect of Channel Relationships and Guanxi
on the Performance of Inter-province Export Ventures in the Peoples Republic of China,
International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 75-87.
Anderson, J. C. and Gerbing, D. W. (1988), Structural Modelling in Practice: A Review and
Recommended Two-step Approach, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103, No. 3, pp. 411-

357

Downloaded by [Bournemouth University] at 10:38 09 July 2015

358

JMM

Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 24

423.
Arbuckle, J. L. (1999), Amos 4.0 Users Guide, Small Waters Corporation.
Assal, H. (1998), Consumer Behaviour and Marketing Action, Cincinnati, OH: SouthWestern.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1995), Reflections on Relationship Marketing in Consumer Markets, Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 272-277.
Bendapudi, N. and Berry, L. L. (1997), Customers Motivations for Maintaining Relationships
with Service Providers, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 73, No. 1, pp. 15-37.
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.
Chaudhuri, A. and Holbrook, M. B. (2002), Product-class Effects on Brand Commitment and
Brand Outcomes: the Role of Brand Trust and Brand Affect, Journal of Brand Management,
Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 33-58.
Chen, X. P. and Chen, C. C. (2004), On the Intricacies of the Chinese Guanxi: A Process
Model of Guanxi Development, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp.
305-324.
Coulter, R. A., Price, L. L. and Feick, L. (2003), Rethinking the Origins of Involvement
and Brand Commitment: Insights from Postsocialist Central Europe, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 151-169.
Coupey, E., Irwin, J. R. and Payne, J. W. (1998), Product Category Familiarity and Preference
Construction, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 459-468.
Davies, G. and Chun, R. (2003), The Use of Metaphor in the Exploration of the Brand
Concept, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 19, No. 1-2, pp. 45-71.
Deighton, J., Henderson, C. M. and Neslin, S. A. (1994), The Effects of Advertising on Brand
Switching and Repeat Purchasing, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 2843.
Delgado-Ballester, E. and Munuera-Alemn, J. L. (2001), Brand Trust in the Context of
Consumer Loyalty, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35, No. 11/12, pp. 1238-1258.
De Wulf, K., Odekerken-Schrder, G. and Iacobucci, D. (2001), Investments in Consumer
Relationships: A Cross-country and Cross-industry Exploration, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 65, No. 4, pp. 33-50.
Dorsch, M. J. and Carlson, L. (1996), A Transaction Approach to
Understandingand Managing Customer Equity, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 35, No. 3, pp. 253-264.
Fajer, M. T. and Schouten, J. W. (1995), Breakdown and Dissolution of Person-brand
Relationships, Advanced in Consumer Research, Vol. 12, pp. 663-667.
Fournier, S. (1998), Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in
Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 343-373.
Fournier, S., Dobscha, S. and Mick, D. G. (1998), Preventing the Premature Death of
Relationship Marketing, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 76, No. 1, pp. 42-51.
Fournier, S. and Yao, J. L. (1997), Reviving Brand Loyalty: A Reconceptualization within
the Framework of Consumer-brand Relationships, International Journal of Research in
Marketing, Vol. 14, No. 5, pp. 451-472.
Frenzen, J. K. and Davis, H. L. (1990), Purchasing Behaviours in Embedded Markets,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 1-12.
Frey, J. H. (1989), Survey Research by Telephone, Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Second Edition.
Garbarino, E. and Johnson, M. S. (1999), The Different Roles of Satisfaction, Trust, and
Commitment in Customer Relationships, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63, No. 2, pp. 7087.
Gouldner, A. W. (1960), The Norm of Reciprocity: A Preliminary Statement, American
Sociological Review, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 161-78.
Grewal, D., Krishnan, R., Baker, J. and Borin, N. (1998), The Effect of Store Name, Brand
Name and Price Discounts on Consumers Evaluations and Purchase Intentions, Journal of

Downloaded by [Bournemouth University] at 10:38 09 July 2015

Wu, Chan and Lau Does consumers personal reciprocity affect future purchase intentions?

Retailing, Vol. 74, No. 3, pp. 331-352.

Hofstede, G. (1991), Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, London: McGrawHill.
Johnson, E. J. and Russo, J. E. (1984), Product Familiarity and Learning New Information,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 542-551.
Joy, A. (2001), Gift Giving in Hong Kong and the Continuum of Social Ties, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp. 239-256.
Jreskog, K. G. (1971), Statistical Analysis of Congeneric Tests, Psychometrika, Vol. 36, No.
2, pp. 109-133.
Lin, C., Wu, W-Y. and Wang, Z-F. (2000), A Study of Market Structure: Brand Loyalty and
Brand Switching Behaviour for Durable Household Appliance, International Journal of
Market Research, Vol. 42, No. 3, pp. 277-300.
Luk, S. T. K., Fullgrabe, L. and Li, S. C. Y. (1999), Managing Direct Selling Activities in China:
A Cultural Explanation, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 45, No. 3, pp. 257-266.
Macintosh, G. and Lockshin L. S. (1997), Retail Relationships and Store Loyalty: A Multilevel Perspective, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 14, No. 5, pp. 487497.
Miller, N. J. (2002), Contributions of Social Capital Theory in Predicting Rural Community
Inshopping behaviour, Journal of Social-Economics, Vol. 30, No. 6, pp. 475-493.
Moorman, C., Deshpand, R. and Zaltman, G. (1993), Factors Affecting Trust in Market
Relationships, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, No. 1, pp. 81-101.
Morais, D. B., Dorsch, M. J. and Backman, S. J. (2004), Can Tourism Providers Buy their
Customers Loyalty? Examining the Influence of Customer-provider Investments on
Loyalty, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 42, No. 3, pp. 235-243.
Morales, A.C. (2005), Giving Firms an E for Effort: Consumer Responses to High-effort
Firms, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 806-812.
Morgan, R. M. and Hunt, S. D. (1994), The Commitment-trust Theory of Relationship
Marketing, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, No. 3, pp. 20-38.
Oliver, R. L. (1999), Whence Consumer Loyalty?, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63 [Special
Issue], pp. 33-44.
Perrin-Martinenq, D. (2004), The Role of Brand Development on the Dissolution of the
Relationship between the Consumer and the Brand, Journal of Marketing Management,
Vol. 20, No. 9-10, pp. 1001-1023.
Regan, D. T. (1971), Effects of a Favour and Liking on Compliance, Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, Vol. 7, No. 6, pp. 627-39.
Richins, M. L. and Root-Shaffer, T. (1988), The Role of Involvement and Opinion Leadership
in Consumer Word-of-mouth: An Implicit Model Made Explicit, Advances in Consumer
Research, Vol. 15, pp. 32-36.
Schultz, D. E. and Bailey, S. (2000), Customer/brand Loyalty in an Interactive Marketplace,
Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 40, No. 3 (May/June), pp. 41-52.
Sheth, J. N. and Parvatiyar, A. (1995), Relationship Marketing in Consumer Markets:
Antecedents and Consequence, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 23, No.
4, pp. 255-271.
Simonson, I., Huber, J. and Payne, J. (1988), The Relationship between Prior Brand
Knowledge and Information Acquisition Order, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 14,
No. 4, pp. 566-578.
Sderland, M. (2002), Customer Familiarity and its Effects on Satisfaction and Behavioural
Intentions, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 19, No. 10, pp. 861-879.
Stern, B. B., Thompson, C. J. and Arnold E. J. (1998), Narrative Analysis of a Marketing
Relationship: the Consumers Perspective, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp.
195-214.
Stone, M. and Woodcock, N (1995), Relationship marketing, London: Kogan Page.
University of Hong Kong (1999), Home Computers and Networking in Hong Kong,
Telecommunications Research Project, Centre of Asian Studies, University of Hong Kong.

359

360

JMM

Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 24

Warrington, P. and Shim, S. (2000), An Empirical Investigation of the Relationship between

Product Involvement and Brand Commitment, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 17, No. 9,
pp. 761-782.
Westwood, R., Chan, A. and Linstead, S. (2004), Theorizing Chinese People Employment
Relations Comparatively: Exchange, Reciprocity and the Moral Economy, Asia Pacific
Journal of Management, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 365-389.
Yau, O. H. M., Chan, T. S. and Lau, K. F. (1999). Influence of Chinese Cultural Values on
Consumer Behaviour: a Proposed Model of Gift-purchasing Behaviour in Hong Kong,
Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 97-116.

Downloaded by [Bournemouth University] at 10:38 09 July 2015

ABOUT THE AUTHORS AND CORRESPONDENCE

Wei-ping Wu is an Associate Professor at the Department of Marketing, Hong Kong
Baptist University. He graduated with a PhD degree from University of Ulster, United
Kingdom. His current research interests are interorganisatonal business networks,
internationalisation and performance, and relationship marketing. He has published
in such journals as Journal of International Business Studies, Journal of Management
Studies, International Journal of Human Resource Management and Asia Pacific
Journal of Management.
Corresponding Author: Wei-ping Wu Ph.D., Associate Professor, Department of
Marketing, School of Business, Hong Kong Baptist University, Kowloon Tong,
Hong Kong.
T +852 3411 5209
F +852 3411 5586
E tigerwu@hkbu.edu.hk
T. S. Chan earned his D.B.A. degree at Indiana University; he is the Shun Hing Chair
Professor of Marketing and Associate Vice President at Lingnan University, Hong
Kong. His current research interests include comparative consumer behaviour and
management localisation issues.
T. S. Chan, DBA, Professor, Department of Marketing and International Business,
Lingnan University, 8 Castle Peak Road, Hong Kong.
T +852 2616 8302
F +852 2467 3049
E chants@ln.edu.hk
Heng Hwa Lau earned his MPhil degree from Lingnan University, Hong Kong. He
works as a manager at the Operations Department of Casino Lisboa, Macau.
Heng Hwa Lau, Operations Department, Casino Lisboa, Lisboa Road, Macau.
T +853 6612 1065
F +853 2856 2932
E oliverlau@stdmnet.com