This document discusses how different types of rewards offered through loyalty programs can impact customers' perceived benefits of the programs and subsequent loyalty, based on customers' individual shopping orientations. It develops a conceptual framework using self-determination theory and purchase orientation theory. The framework posits that intrinsic rewards that match a customer's shopping orientation will positively impact their perceived benefits and loyalty, while extrinsic rewards that do not match their orientation will have little impact. The document reports on research testing this model through surveys of customers in grocery and perfume stores with different shopping orientations.

1. The effects of purchase orientations on perceived
loyalty programmes’ benefits and loyalty
Abstract
Purpose – This article dwells on theoretical, managerial, and
empirical knowledge to improve loyalty programme efficiency. We try
to understand how economic, hedonist, relational, convenience,
informational rewards enhance or undermine customers' perceived
programme benefits as well as subsequently loyalty according
individual shopping orientations (economical, hedonist, social-
relational, apathetic, brand/loyal).
Design/methodology/approach – The research uses self-
determination theory (SDT) and purchase orientations to classify types
of rewards in terms of their effect on perceived programme benefits
and loyalty. Scales are developed through exploratory and
confirmatory factor analysis. To validate the hypotheses, surveys in
two retail chains (grocery/perfumery) are used. Structural equation
modelling confirms the research model.
Findings –Perceived benefits and loyalty vary according to
purchase orientations, in line with the SDT. Intrinsic (extrinsic) rewards
motivate customers to act to obtain a benefit within (apart from) the
target of their purchase orientation and influences loyalty positively
(have low impact on loyalty).
1

2. Research limitations/implications – Further testing of reward
types, in(ex)trinsic motivation, across multiple contexts is necessary
for validity enhancement as it remains challenging to categorize
purchase orientations and rewards. It is necessary to precisely define
the degree of the relationship among an intrinsic purchase orientation
and perceived loyalty programmes' benefits as orientations might be
multidimensional.
Practical implications – Differentiation through tailored rewards
is necessary in markets with strong competition to appeal to different
segments. Differentiation could be achieved through nonmonetary
benefits. The principal role of loyalty programmes should be to identify
and segment customers as a means to improve resource allocations.
Originality/value – This is one of the pioneer articles in the use
of SDT in marketing research. SDT provides a multi-benefit framework
which identifies the different (non-) monetary rewards customers may
value (in)extrinsically when participating in loyalty programmes. The
development of scales which focus on rewards and the impact of
purchase orientations on loyalty programmes’ perceived benefits is
another contribution.
Keywords Loyalty programmes, rewards, self-determination
theory, purchase orientations, scale development.
Paper type Research Paper
2

3. Lars Meyer-Waarden, EM Strasbourg Business School, Humans
and Management in Society Institute (EA 1347), E-Mail:
meyerwaarden@em-strasbourg.eu, is a Professor at the EM
Strasbourg Business School (Humans and Management in Society
Institute, EA 1347) and the Center of Research in Management
Toulouse (EAC CNRS 5032). His main research interests are Customer
Relationship Management as well as Retailing Management.
Christophe Benavent, University Paris X, CEROS Institute. E-Mail:
christophe.benavent@gmail.com, is a Professor at the University Paris
X. His main research interests are Customer Relationship Management
as well as Social Media Marketing. He has published lots of articles
about these issues in international journals as Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science and Journal of Marketing Management.
Herbert Castéran, Ecole de Management, Strasbourg University,
Humans and Management in Society Institute (EA 1347). E-Mail:
herbert.casteran@gmail.com, is an Associate-Professor at the EM
Strasbourg Business School. His main research interests are Marketing
models and Customer Lifetime Value modelling.
3

4. Introduction
Many firms use customer relationship management instruments, in
which loyalty or frequency reward programmes represent key
marketing activities. For example, the French grocery retailer Carrefour
devotes approximately €80 million of its annual marketing
expenditures to managing its loyalty program. Furthermore, the
popularity of these programmes is evident in the number of
participants: 55% of the U.S. population, 81% of Canadians, 85% of
U.K. consumers, and 90% of French customers are enrolled in at least
one relational programme (Meyer-Waarden and Benavent, 2009).
Yet despite their prominence in the marketing mix and in
customers’ wallets, the benefits of loyalty cards remain uncertain.
Many researchers argue that in a competitive market, good loyalty
programmes simply get imitated, which means that the market
eventually returns to stasis, but with increased marketing costs—a
highly inefficient situation (Dowling and Uncles, 1997; Sharp and
Sharp, 1997; Leenheer et al., 2007; Liu, 2007; Meyer-Waarden, 2007;
Meyer-Waarden and Benavent, 2009; Cedrola and Memmo, 2010).
Furthermore, those researchers argue that the rewards commonly
provided in association with such programmes might not change
consumers’ motivations or behavioural patterns effectively. Yet little
research investigates customer perceptions on programme rewards
4

5. (Bridson et al., 2008; Mimouni-Chaabane and Volle, 2010; Meyer-
Waarden, 2013), even if studies suggest that loyalty programme
effectiveness depends on the design of those rewards (Kivetz and
Simonson, 2002; Yi and Jeon, 2003; Kivetz, 2005; Kivetz et al. 2006;
Demoulin and Zidda, 2008; Smith and Sparks, 2009a; Bagchi and Li,
2011; Drèze and Nunes, 2011).
This article therefore dwells on theoretical, managerial, and
empirical knowledge in order to improve loyalty programme efficiency
and differentiation. We try to understand how economic, hedonist,
relational, convenience, informational rewards enhance or undermine
customers' perceived programme benefits as well as subsequently
loyalty according individual shopping orientations (economical,
hedonist, social-relational, apathetic, brand/loyal). We first develop a
typology describing the relationships between individual shopping
orientations, rewards and the different levels of customers' perceived
programme benefits as well as loyalty. We provide a multi-benefit
conceptual framework, based on the self-determination theory (Deci,
1971; Deci and Ryan, 1985), as well as the purchase orientation
theory (Stone, 1954; Moschis, 1976), which identifies the different
monetary and non-monetary rewards customers may value when
participating in loyalty programmes. As one of our main theoretical
contributions, we introduce the concept of intrinsic and extrinsic
5

6. motivation into the discussion about rewards’ benefits, because we
posit that intrinsic or extrinsic motivation may be contingent on
customer heterogeneity and individual purchase motivations.
Accordingly, we develop conclusions pertaining to how differentiated
rewards, moderated by (ex)intrinsic consumer purchase orientations,
affect perceived loyalty programme benefits and loyalty. Intrinsic
(extrinsic) rewards motivate customers to act to obtain a benefit within
(apart from) the target of their purchase orientation and influences
loyalty positively (have low impact on loyalty). For example for
economical shoppers who are most motivated (intrinsically) by budget
optimizing economic rewards influence strongly loyalty intentions.
However, recognition and social relationships, hedonist, as well as
convenience rewards are extrinsic and have no impact on loyalty
intentions.
The ability to measure the perceived benefits of these rewards
offers researchers and managers a better capacity to study the
behavioural impacts of loyalty programmes. We secondly demonstrate
that the common belief stipulating that intrinsic rewards are not
material and extrinsic ones are, does not necessarily hold (Deci and
Ryan, 2000). For one customer, an intrinsic reward can be material or
immaterial and intrinsically motivating, depending on the purchasing
situation. Finally, our findings contribute to a better loyalty programme
6

7. management by recommending customer portfolio segmentation
through purchase orientations in order to target diverse (non)-
monetary rewards more accurately.
In this article we first present our conceptual framework and
hypotheses. Then the methodology and empirical investigation in
French grocery and perfumery chains are explained. We then present
the results, and finally, we discuss the theory development
implications, weaknesses and some further research directions.
Conceptual framework
We require a better understanding of how rewards influence
perceived benefits, and then affect loyalty. Therefore, we define the
concepts clearly and turn to theories pertaining to self-determination,
as well as purchase orientations to suggest some theoretical
possibilities for improving extant loyalty programmes.
Loyalty programmes, rewards and perceived benefits
Loyalty programmes comprise integrated systems of marketing
actions and communications that aim to increase loyalty, repeat
buying, and switching costs by providing economical, hedonist,
informational, functional, and sociological or relational rewards
(Gwinner et al., 1998; Gable et al., 2008). They are thought of as
activities that offer incentives (rewards) to customers based on
7

8. evidence of loyalty (purchase frequency or amounts). These rewards
refer to any abstract (e.g., virtue, pleasure, novelty, self-esteem) or
concrete (e.g., miles, points, discounts) stimuli granted by the loyalty
programme that launch consumers’ internal cognitive efforts and
thereby help (1) create perceived benefits, (2) improve economic
decision-making and motivation outcomes, and (3) strengthen the
intensity of approved purchase behaviours, such as loyalty (Tietje,
2002; Drèze and Nunes, 2006; Demoulin and Zidda, 2009; Drèze and
Nunes, 2011; Kwong, Soman and Ho, 2011).
The perceived benefit created by loyalty programme rewards is the
relationship between the consumer's perceived benefits in relation to
the perceived costs of receiving these benefits, and represents a
positive emotional response (e.g. such as subjective feelings of
pleasure or hedonic enjoyment) and a source of satisfaction and
motivation, because the rewards fulfill a desire or a goal (Zeithaml,
1988; Holbrook, 1996; Bagchi and Li, 2011). By categorizing the
different types of rewards that induce customer perceived benefit, we
can derive specific motivations that induce loyalty programme usage.
For example, utilitarian rewards tend to encompass three fields (Frisou
and Yildiz, 2011): economical rewards and monetary savings, which
correspond to an economic purchase motivation (e.g., price reductions,
purchase vouchers; Gable et al., 2008); convenience, in which case
8

9. they satisfy commodity motivations (e.g., facilitate purchase, reduce
purchasing time; Kwong et al, 2011); or informational rewards, which
are similar to exploration (Babin et al., 1994; Chitturi, et al., 2008;
Drèze and Nunes, 2011). In contrast, hedonistic rewards have more
emotional benefits (Holbrook and Hirschmann, 1982; Holbrook, 1996;
Arnold and Reynolds, 2003; Chitturi et al. 2008; Dagger and O'Brien,
2010) and correspond to motivations associated with giving or
receiving pleasure and entertainment (e.g., games, sweepstakes;
Mimouni-Chaabane and Volle; 2010). Recognition and social–relational
rewards enable people to gain status, be identified with a privileged
group, or establish a firm relationship, which makes their interactions
more interpersonal and helps the firm satisfy their needs better
(Gwinner et al., 1998; Hennig-Thurau et al., 2002; Lacey et al., 2007;
Drèze and Nunes, 2009; Lacey, 2009; Zhang and Wedel, 2009;
Morrisson and Huppertz, 2010).
Self-determination theory and purchase orientations
Motivation refers to the desire to engage in a goal-oriented
behaviour such as loyalty. Different theories about motivation exist.
Self-determination theory (SDT) is one of these particularly adapted
theories to study human behaviour (Deci, 1971). It suggests that
various rewards and contexts have differential effects on motivation.
Furthermore, the SDT indicates that the nature of the reward itself
9

10. determines whether motivation is intrinsic or extrinsic. Intrinsic
motivation occurs when people engage in an activity because it
provides an internal reward, that is, for its own sake. These rewards
increase the internal gratification associated with a behaviour and thus
the internal reasons for maintaining it. In contrast, extrinsic motivation
results from the offer of external rewards in exchange for the desired
behaviour. Therefore, people engage in the desired behaviour for a
reward other than their interest in the activity and feel pressure to
obtain the offered reward. Economic benefits are the most commonly
cited external reward in psychology research (Deci et al., 1999).
(Ex)Intrinsic motivations have varying impacts on behaviour. Both
motivation and behaviour (de)increase in the long term in response to
an intrinsic (extrinsic) reward. Empirical evidence also shows that
extrinsic rewards can undermine motivation and behaviours, but
intrinsic benefits tend to have a positive effect.
Applied to loyalty programmes, intrinsic rewards motivate people to
act to obtain a benefit that matches their individual purchase goals;
extrinsic incentives motivate them to act to obtain a benefit separate
from their purchase target. Heterogeneous intrinsic or extrinsic
motivations probably depend on customers’ individual characteristics
and purchase orientations, such that purchasers are not intrinsically
motivated by the same rewards (Deci and Ryan, 2000).
10

11. Purchase orientations refer to consumers’ mental predispositions
toward purchasing (Stone, 1954; Moschis, 1976; Kahn and
Schmittlein, 1989). They are based on people’s experiences and
personal value systems. Because such orientations are goal oriented,
they may explain various motivations, preferences, and behaviours
(e.g., search for information, purchase behaviour, loyalty).
Many orientations exist in the form of shopping goals, but most
typologies simplify this consideration by citing five main orientations
(Darden and Reynolds, 1971; Williams et al., 1978; Laaksonen, 1993;
Childers et al., 2001). The economic, budget-optimizing orientation
attempts to realize price economies (Babin et al., 1994; Gable et al.,
2008); a hedonist one aims to find pleasure through the potential
entertainment value and enjoyment of the fun and play arising from
the shopping experience (Hirschman and Holbrook, 1982; Arnold and
Reynolds, 2003; Chitturi et al. 2008; Dagger and O'Brien, 2010). An
apathetic or uninterested orientation implies efforts to decrease the
demands associated with purchasing (Mägi, 2003; Kwong et al, 2011);
these buyers dislike shopping and hope to purchase in an efficient,
timely manner to achieve their goals with minimal irritation (Babin et
al., 1994). The brand/store-loyal orientation (Dawson et al., 1990)
corresponds to a motive to remain loyal to favourite brands/stores and
gain reassurance about purchase choices to minimize uncertainty and
11

12. risk. This orientation implies a significant impact of habit and inertia.
Finally, shoppers with a social-relational orientation desire
personalized, privileged, interpersonal relationships with a brand or a
store (Lacey et al., 2007; Smith and Sparks, 2009b; Drèze and Nunes,
2009; Lacey, 2009; Morrisson and Huppertz, 2010; Zhang and Wedel,
2009).
Depending on these orientations, heterogeneous consumers are
differently motivated and develop coherent shopping strategies, such
as writing down a shopping list, making impulsive purchases,
comparing products and brochures, using loyalty cards, relying on
purchase vouchers, buying branded products, or searching for contacts
with sales staff (Darden and Reynolds, 1971; Babin et al., 1994;
Arnold and Reynolds, 2003).
Hypotheses
These ideas have significant implications for loyalty programmes,
because they suggest that extrinsic rewards might undermine some
consumers’ motivation and brand loyalty. In line with SDT, the intrinsic
motivation for loyalty programme usage and subsequently loyalty
should be largely goal oriented (i.e., to receive a particular reward)
and thus depend on the desired rewards that induce perceived benefits
(Daryanto et al., 2010; Drèze and Nunes, 2011), assuming they are
intrinsic and accord with the individual customers’ purchase
12

13. orientations (see Figure 1). Therefore, purchase behaviours depend on
specific perceived benefits, which must be coherent with individual and
heterogeneous customers’ motivations (McQuail, 1994).
Figure 1. Conceptual framework: How a loyalty programme works
(Ex)Intrinsic motivation for loyalty
programme usage according to
customer purchase orientation
- Economical, budget-optimizing
- Hedonist
- Apathetic
- Brand/store-loyal
- Social-relational
Perceived benefits of loyalty Loyalty:
programmes’ rewards
- Economy (Re)purchase
- Hedonism behaviour intensity
- Convenience (PI)
- Information Resistance to counter-
-Recognition & social persuasion (RCP)
relationship
Input Output (Efficiency)
Individual disparities in loyalty likely result from interpersonal
heterogeneity; customers have different purchase orientations and
should be differentially intrinsically motivated by various rewards that
induce different perceived benefits. Therefore, buyers devote unequal
effort to obtaining a given reward, according to the benefit they assign
to it in comparison with the associated expenses. Loyalty changes only
13

14. if consumers perceive that the benefit delivered by the rewards are
greater than the costs (e.g., joining expenses, switching costs) to gain
them (Vesel and Zabkar, 2009). The effect of loyalty programmes’
rewards on customer perceived benefits, as well as their loyalty, should
be moderated by individual customers’ purchase orientations and thus
their (intrinsic/extrinsic) motivation for various rewards. In turn, if the
reward corresponds to a customer’s purchase orientation, which
motivates him or her intrinsically to use the loyalty programme it
should relate positively to his or her perceived benefit and then should
have a persistent, positive impact on loyalty. In contrast, if the reward
does not correspond with a customer’s purchase orientation, it should
not motivate him or her extrinsically to use the loyalty program, and it
should not relate positively to his or her perceived benefit and then
should not have a persistent, positive impact on loyalty. We thus test
the moderating effect of purchase orientations on the link between
perceived benefits of rewards and loyalty. This general hypothesis
leads us to detail the testable sub hypotheses we summarize in Table
1.
Table I : Hypotheses about the impact of loyalty programmes' benefits
on loyalty, according to purchase orientations
Economical,
Purchase Brand/store-
Budget- Social-Relational Apathetic Hedonist
Orientation loyal
Optimizing
14

15. Economical,
Purchase Brand/store-
Budget- Social-Relational Apathetic Hedonist
Orientation loyal
Optimizing
Recog. &
H1a 0 H2a + H3a 0 H4a + H5a +
Rel.
Economy H1b + H2b 0 H3b 0 H4b 0 H5b 0
Hedonism H1c 0 H2c 0 H3c 0 H4c 0 H5c +
Benefit
Convenience H1d 0 H2d 0 H3d + H4d 0 H5d 0
Information H1e + H2e 0 H3e 0 H4e + H5e 0
“+”positive effect on loyalty, “0” no effect on loyalty
Among customers with an economical purchase orientation,
economic rewards that grant monetary savings and informational
benefits about good deals (e.g. flyers, brochures, e-mails about good
deals and monetary savings) should create intrinsic motivation as they
engage in an activity for its own sake (e.g. budget optimization). They
therefore positively influence loyalty (H1b).
In contrast, relational benefits c, such as recognition, status and
relationships, hedonist gratifications (H1c), such as entertainment or
games, convenience benefits (H1d) that reduce the time and effort
associated with shopping and informational benefits (H1e), are
external rewards in exchange for the desired behaviour, create
extrinsic motivation and do not influence loyalty.
Among customers with a social-relational purchase orientation,
relational benefits (H2a) that grant recognition, status and
relationships with a specific store, brand, and its sales staff should
create intrinsic motivation as they engage in an activity for its own
sake. They therefore positively influence loyalty (H2a). In contrast,
15

16. economic (H2b), hedonist (H2c), convenience (H2d) as well as
informational (H2e) benefits are external rewards in exchange for the
desired behaviour, create extrinsic motivation and do not influence
loyalty.
Among customers with an apathetic purchase orientation,
convenience benefits that reduce the time and efforts associated with
shopping should create intrinsic motivation as they engage in an
activity for its own sake. They therefore positively influence loyalty
(H3d). In contrast, relational (H3a), economic (H3b) as well as
hedonist benefits (H3c), and informational gratifications (H3e), are
external rewards in exchange for the desired behaviour, create
extrinsic motivation and do not influence loyalty.
Among customers with brand/store-loyal purchase orientation,
informational benefits (e.g. flyers, brochures, e-mails about good
deals, monetary savings and general information about the store or the
brand) about their favourite brands or stores probably create intrinsic
motivation. These benefits make them feel more comfortable and
minimize uncertainty as they signal that customers chose the right
brands or stores. Recognition and social relationships should also
create intrinsic motivation, because a stronger relationship with the
brand or the store increases their sense of trust and commitment,
which may offer a means to reduce risk perceptions (Morgan and Hunt,
16

17. 1994). Both rewards consequently influence loyalty positively (H4a and
H4e). In contrast, economic (H4b), hedonist (H4c), and convenience
benefits (H4d), are external rewards in exchange for the desired
behaviour, create extrinsic motivation and do not influence loyalty.
Among customers with a hedonist purchase orientation, hedonist
and relational benefits that give pleasure and relationships with a
specific store, brand, and its sales staff, should create intrinsic
motivation as they engage in an activity for its own sake. Indeed,
relationships are probably perceived as pleasant and should create
hedonist feelings. These type of rewards therefore positively influence
loyalty (H5a and H5c).In contrast, economic gratifications (H5b),
convenience (H5d) and informational benefits (H5e), are external
rewards in exchange for the desired behaviour, create extrinsic
motivation and do not influence loyalty.
At this stage though, we cannot establish precise predictions for
these effects, because it is not easy to define the degree of correlation
between a single shopping orientation and a single purchase goal.
These variables probably are multidimensional, because consumers
rarely pursue just one purchase target. To our knowledge, no
investigations have considered the relationship among loyalty
programme rewards, purchase orientations as well as intrinsic
motivation, and customer perceived benefits, as well as loyalty.
17

18. Therefore, we explore and evaluate the value of the general framework
(Table 1) that we use to test our research hypotheses. The empirical
findings cannot provide a test of a well-established priori theory;
rather, they represent a step toward building a theory.
Methodology and empirical investigation
We first developed our measure instruments and pretested them in
order to purify them by a measurement model analysis. We then
applied the scales to two sectors and investigated a sample loyalty
programme members of a grocery retailing hypermarket as well as a
perfumery chain, both located in Toulouse (a major south-western
French city). These sectors are completely opposite in terms of product
involvement (high involvement for the perfumery, low involvement for
the grocery retailing hypermarket) in order to see if our results hold in
these different consumption domains.
18

19. Measure development
The absence of directly applicable existing scales for each
construct required us to adapt or develop multi-item Likert scales
for this study. For perceived rewards’ benefits of the loyalty
programme, we adapted items from Arnold and Reynolds (2003),
and Hennig-Thurau et al. (2002); the purchase orientation items
were adapted from Laaksonen (1993). For our scale development,
we employ concept mapping and expert reviews to ensure the
scales apply to the specific contexts of the two loyalty programmes.
Furthermore, our scale development process follows the procedures
advocated by prior literature (Churchill, 1979).
Our qualitative study of 30 French loyalty programme managers
from different retailing sectors (e.g., grocery, perfumery, and other
specialized retailers) provided further insights into the rewards that
customers perceive when they participate in loyalty programmes, as
well as their common purchase orientations. Together, the literature
review and qualitative study suggested 20 items for measuring
perceived rewards’ benefit (Mimouni-Chaabane and Volle, 2010) and
25 items for purchase orientations.
In Table 2, we summarize the principal reward types offered by the
various programmes to members, which we classify according to
19

20. loyalty programme managers’ categorizations of benefits according the
five dimensions of perceived benefits
Table II : Typology of rewards offered by loyalty programmes to
members
Program Hedonism Recognition & Economy Convenience Information
social
relationship
Games, Personalization Purchase Priority check- Newsletter
sweepstakes, at check-out, vouchers, out, home with general
exchange mailing reductions at delivery information
points against birthday check-out about the
spa &special events (value reward/ store,
Grocery spent amount: personalized
3% mailings
according to
most bought
products and
good deals
Games, Mailing birthday Purchase Beauty services Newsletter
sweepstakes, & special vouchers, with general
exchange events reductions at information
points against check-out about the
cosmetics, (value reward/ store, mailings
Perfumery
beauty services spent amount: of news and
3%) personalized
beauty advice
as well as
good deals
Hedonist rewards pertain to all benefits that give pleasure, such as
games or sweepstakes. Recognition and social rewards include
personalization, privileges, status, or special events; the economic
benefits offer monetary savings, purchase vouchers or price
reductions. Convenience rewards attempt to decrease purchase time,
such as by offering priority check-out, and informational rewards entail
personalized mailings that provide information about the most bought
20

21. products or advice. We cannot necessarily classify rewards precisely
into single perceived benefit categories though, because in practice,
they may be multidimensional and satisfy several purchase targets
(e.g., priority checkout could deliver relational and functional benefits).
Loyalty consists of one behavioural dimension and one attitude
dimension (Dick and Basu, 1994). True loyalty entails purchase
intensity, accompanied by an underlying positive attitude and
resistance to counter-persuasion from competitors. We therefore
employ a five-item scale (Bruner et al., 2005) to measure purchase
intensity (PI) and resistance to counter-persuasion (RCP).
To test the research instrument and purify the measurement
instrument to optimize the data collection procedure for a much larger
sample, we pretested each scale with a random sample of loyalty
programme holders from the grocery retailer (N = 210) and the
perfumery (N = 120) in Toulouse (these respondents were not included
in the final study). All items used five-point Likert scales (1 = “strongly
disagree” to 5 = “strongly agree”), such that respondents indicated
their degree of agreement with a series of statements about the
stimulus object. We built our measurement model using exploratory
(EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with three scales
(Gerbing and Anderson, 1988).
Measurement model analysis
21

22. The purification of the pool of items pertaining to the three multi-
indicator constructs (purchase orientations, perceived reward benefits,
and loyalty) relied on using item-to-total correlations and EFA
(principal axis factor analysis with oblique rotation) in an iterative
process. Values with loadings close to or greater than 0.60 and factors
with eigenvalues greater than 1 are acceptable (Sharma, 1996). On
the basis of the EFA results, we performed three CFA with a new
sample of respondents, recruited in both retailing outlets (grocery N =
199, perfumery N = 101). We employed AMOS 5.0 for the three multi-
indicator constructs and confirm the EFA factor structures. Finally, our
measure purification results in 20 items for purchase orientations, 15
items for perceived loyalty programmes' benefits, and 5 items for
loyalty, as we show in Tables 3–5, respectively.
Table III : CFA: Purchase orientations
Loadings
“When doing Budget- Brand/store- Hedonist Social-Relational Apathetic
purchasing Optimizing loyal
(grocery,
cosmetics)”..
..
Items Gro- Perfu- Gro- Perfu- Gro- Perfu- Gro- Perfu- Grocery
cery mery cery mery cery mery cery mery
I often purchase
products on 0.811 0.889
promotion.
I do not pay
attention to
brands
0.714 0.778
reputation
I try to minimize
purchase 0.721 0.760
amounts
I always
research good 0.649 0.721
deals
22

23. I have my
preferred brands 0.832 0.777
I choose first
I always use my
loyalty card
0.672 0.772
I always choose
the same store
0.641 0.761
Product/on-
board quality is 0.692 0.862
important
Purchase
coupons give me 0.887 0.616
pleasure
I like to try new
products/destina 0.814 0.821
tions
It is a pleasure
to discover new 0.763 0.605
products
I look at
magazines to 0.624 0.710
get informed
I appreciate the
contact with 0.814 0.750
sales staff
I appreciate to
be close to the
store & have a 0.732 0.848
good
relationship
I appreciate to
be recognized as
a privileged
0.764 0.791
customer
I appreciate the
store’s paying
more attention 0.714 0.740
to me than
others
0.89
It is a chore
I buy in an 0.79
impulsive way
I know perfectly 0.74
in advance what
buy
I look to ads 0.63
before
purchasing
Variance
18% 22% 16% 20% 15% 18% 11% 11% 10%
extracted
Cronbach’s
0.73 0.90 0.78 0.85 0.77 0.75 0.82 0.71 0.83
alpha
2
Fit indices /sig RMSEA GFI AGFI CFI
Grocery 30.75/0.00 0.042 0.994 0.961 0.996
Perfumery 3.78/0.00 0.044 0.97 0.96 0.95
Notes: Complete EFA results available on request.
23

24. Table IV CFA: Perceived benefits from the loyalty programme
Factor The loyalty programme of firm X... Grocery Perfumery
gives me pleasure me as I participate in games 0.974 0.981
Hedonism gives me pleasure when I exchange points (miles) 0.963 0.924
creates pleasant distractions & surprises 0.929 0.922
Variance extracted by the factor 19% 23%
Cronbach’s alpha 0.96 0.76
makes me feel as if the store’s paying more
0.889 0.930
Recognition & attention to me than others
social makes me adhere to a group of privileged customers 0.771 0.734
relationship makes the store (airline) treating me as a privileged
0.768 0.900
customer
Variance extracted by the factor 16% 17%
Cronbach’s alpha 0.83 0.89
is the best means to reduce the purchase amount 0.844 0.932
Economy gives monetary advantages 0.702 0.913
allows me to make substantial economies 0.605 0.899
Variance extracted by the factor 13% 12%
Cronbach’s alpha 0.71 0.90
allows me to find more easily usual bought products 0.871 0.975
Convenience grants additional services 0.784 0.975
makes purchases easier and more practical 0.611 0.791
Variance extracted by the factor 12% 11%
Cronbach’s alpha 0.71 0.77
makes me choose new products 0.785 0.859
makes me discover good bargains& new ideas 0.660 0.827
Information
allows me to be well informed about news & general
0.615 0.746
information
Variance extracted by the factor 11% 10%
Cronbach’s alpha 0.77 0.82
2/sig 2.58/0.2 2.88/0.5
RMSEA< 0.05 0.04 0.04
GFI/ AGFI/ CFI  0.90 0.98/0.97 0.96/0.95
Notes: Complete EFA results available on request.
24

25. Table 1 Table V : CFA: Loyalty
Thanks to the loyalty program of firm X….. Grocery Perfumery
Purchase I increase me purchase frequency 0.91 0.85
Intensity I buy a larger variety of products in this
0.68 0.73
(PI) company
Variance extracted by the factor 42% 40%
Cronbach’s alpha 0.81 0.77
Resistan I return to the same shop 0.92 0.83
ce to I shop (book) less often in competitors’
0.80 0.79
counter companies.
persuasi I recommend this company to my family and
0.61 0.70
on (RCP) friends.
Variance extracted 38% 35%
Cronbach’s alpha 0.79 0.75
2
/sig 5.65/0.1 6.11/0.04
RMSEA < 0.05 0.03 0.03
GFI/ AGFI/  0.90 0.97/0.9
0.91/0.92
6
Notes: Complete EFA results available on request.
Regarding purchase orientations, we identify five grocery retailing
factors, consistent with prior literature (Laaksonen, 1993): (1)
economic, budget-optimizing, 2) brand/store-loyal, (3) hedonist, (4)
social-relational, and (5) apathetic or uninterested. Because the
perfumery domain should be more involving and hedonistic than
grocery retailing, it seems logical that we find no apathetic orientation
for it but instead identify only four dimensions. The extracted variance
is 70% and 74% in the grocery and perfumery sectors, respectively.
Regarding perceived loyalty programmes' benefits, we again
identify five dimensions (economy, hedonist, convenience, information,
recognition and social relationships; Hennig-Thurau et al., 2002;
25

26. Arnold and Reynolds, 2003; Mimouni-Chaabane and Volle, 2010), in
both the grocery and perfumery sectors. The extracted variance is 71%
and 72%, respectively.
Finally, for the loyalty scale, we uncover two factors, purchase
intensity (PI) and resistance against counter-persuasion (RCP), for
both sectors. The extracted variance is, respectively, 80% and 81%.
To assess the overall fit of the model, we investigated several fit
indices, as recommended (Fornell, and Larcker, 1981; Byrne, 2001).
The goodness-of-fit indexes (GFI) are greater than 0.9 for the multi-
2 2
indicator constructs (1 – for the null
model]); the GFI measures adjusted for degrees of freedom (AGFI),
which uses mean squares instead of total sums of squares in the
numerator and a denominator of (1 – GFI), are greater than .8.
Furthermore, the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), or
the mean of the squared residuals comparing the observed and
2
predicted covariance matrices, is less than 0
2
would indicate a lack
of satisfactory model fit. These indicators provide evidence of good
model fit for the three multi-indicator constructs.
To assess the adequacy of the measures, we also evaluate the
reliability of the individual items and the discriminant validity of all
constructs. Our measure of item reliability uses Cronbach's alpha; the
26

27. values are all greater than 0.7 for the purified scales, and all loadings
approach or exceed 0.7 with regard to the latent variable, which
indicates that more than 50 percent of the variance in the observed
variable can be explained by the corresponding construct. Thus, we
have evidence of good reliability and internal consistency. Each item
loaded significantly on its intended latent variable, which suggests all
items are adequate. We confirm the convergent validity of all scales
and sectors.
To assess the discriminant validity of the constructs, we first
examine the cross-loadings and find that the latent variables share
more variance with their respective items than with other latent
variables. All values representing the square root of the average
variance extracted (AVE) from each construct also are substantially
greater than all other correlations of the factor with other constructs.
The AVE for all constructs is greater than the generally accepted value
of 0.50. Thus, we confirm discriminant validity for all constructs and
unidimensionality for all purified measurement scales (see Tables 6–
10).
Table VI Discriminant and convergent validity: Purchase orientations
(Grocery)
Economical Brand/ Hedonist Social- Apathetic
store-loyal Relational
Economical 0.83*
Brand/store-
loyal 0.02 0.94*
Hedonist 0.33 0.16 0.79*
27

28. Social-
relational 0.17 0.07 0.31 0.89*
Apathetic 0.05 0.27 0.27 0.20 0.90*
Notes: Diagonal elements are the square roots of the AVE of the concerned
constructs or factor,
* p = 0.01.
Table VII Discriminant and convergent validity: Purchase
orientations (Perfumery)
Economical Brand/ Hedonist Social-
store-loyal Relational
Economical 0.90*
Brand/store-loyal 0.06 0.86*
Hedonist 0.22 0.16 0.80*
Social-relational 0.09 0.06 0.28 0.79*
Notes: Diagonal elements are the square roots of the AVE of the concerned
constructs or factor,
* p = 0.01.
Table VIII Discriminant and convergent validity: Perceived benefits
loyalty programme (Grocery)
Hedonism Recog. & Economy Conven. Inform.
Relationsh.
Hedonism 0.94*
Recognition& 0.24 0.95*
Relationship
Economy 0.12 0.14 0.93*
Convenience 0.23 0.04 0.18 0.91*
Information 0.11 0.15 0.19 0.19 0.94*
Notes: Diagonal elements are the square roots of the AVE of the concerned
constructs or factors.
*p = 0.01.
Table IX Discriminant and convergent validity: Perceived benefits
loyalty programme (Perfumery)
Hedonism Recogn. & Economy Conven. Inform.
Relationsh.
Hedonism 0.94*
Recognition& 0.29 0.92*
Relationship
Economy 0.02 0.04 0.97*
Convenience 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.92*
Information 0.1 0.17 0.12 0.13 0.94*
28

29. Notes: Diagonal elements are the square roots of the AVE of the concerned
constructs or factors.
*p = 0.01.
Table X Discriminant and convergent validity: Loyalty
PI RCP
Grocery Perfumery Grocery Perfumery
Purchase intensity (PI) 0.94* 0.92*
Resistance to counter- 0.19 0.13 0.98* 0.97*
persuasion (RCP)
Notes: Diagonal elements are the square roots of the AVE of the concerned
constructs or factors.
* p = 0.01.
Data collection
For the final survey, we gathered two samples of loyalty card
members of the grocery hypermarket (N = 2,001) and the perfumery
chain (N = 1,925). Respondents were randomly invited (in 2007) to
complete the questionnaire about a single loyalty programme at each
of the retailers during shopping trips, surveyed Monday–Saturday to
achieve greater representativeness. As a token of appreciation for
participating, respondents were offered chocolate from the grocery
retailer and perfume samples from the perfumery. After agreeing to
participate, respondents indicated their purchase orientations on the
20-item scale, then their perceived reward benefits from the loyalty
programmes on the 15-item scale. Finally, they revealed the impact of
29

30. the loyalty programmes’ perceived reward benefits on their loyalty,
according to the 5-item scale.
As the final sample characteristics in Table 11 show, more shoppers
were women for both the hypermarket (59%) and the perfumery
(70%). Almost half of the sample was between the ages of 25 and 44
years, and a wide range of professions was represented.
Table XI Sample characteristics
Level Grocery Perfumery
Female 59% 70%
Gender
Male 41% 30%
18-24 years 10% 8%
25-34 years 23% 20%
Age 35-44 years 24% 26%
45-64 years 28% 28%
65 years & more 15% 18%
Single 39% 36%
Marital
Married/Couple 60% 63%
Status
Other 1% 1%
Inactive 22% 22%
Worker 21% 7%
Liberal profession 7% 11%
Profession
Employee 23% 20%
Merchant 6% 11%
Executive 21% 29%
Purchase 1-50 € 8% 12%
expenditure 51-120 € 66% 49%
per purch. > 120 € 26% 39%
act
1-6 times/year 4% 64%
Purchase 1 times/month 14% 25%
frequency 2 times/month 60% 10%
>2 times/month 22% 1%
Card 1-2 years 18% 20%
membership > 2 years 82% 80%
In terms of purchase behaviour, most respondents spent between 51€
and 120€ per trip to the grocer (66%) and the perfumery (49%). Most
30

31. customers purchase twice per month from the grocery chain (60%) but
one to six times per year from the perfumery (64%). In both sectors,
more than 80% had been programme members for more than two
years, which implies they should be highly familiar with the functioning
and reward structure of the related loyalty schemes.
Results
We developed structural equation models (SEM) to test our
research hypotheses. To test how individual purchase orientations
moderate the relationship among loyalty programmes’ perceived
benefits, and loyalty (PI and RCP), we used multigroup SEM (AMOS
5.0). Furthermore, we compared the relaxed model against a
constrained model in which the parameters remain equal across the
cluster, using a likelihood test. We performed a multiple-group analysis
by splitting the samples by sector (Byrne, 2001).
Table XII Samples by sector
Validation/
Social- Brand/store-
hold-out Economical Apathetic Hedonist
Relational loyal
sample
Grocery 721 321 212 400 347
Perfumery 770 385 0 423 347
We first estimated a base model (without purchase orientations or
restrictions), then extended it by taking the different purchase
31

32. orientations into account (with a set of equality constraints), fit by
sector.
In both sectors and both extended models, the indexes of
adjustment are better than those for the base model (see Table 13).
Table XIII Indexes of fit
Grocery Perfumery
Extended Extended
Base Base
Model Model
2
CMIN  8500 6665 6665 897
p 0.8 0.7 0.48 0.41
df 1772 1732 1732 191
CMIN/df 4.79 3.85 3.8 4.7
RMSEA 0.06 0.048/ 0.04 0.04
GFI 0.5 0.90 0.7 0.92
AGFI 0.6 0.92 0.6 0.93
The GFI and AGFI are all greater than 0.9, and the RMSEA is less
2
than .05. Furthermore, the (CMIN) decreases from the base model
to the extended models, indicating a better fit of the more complex
models that include purchase orientations. Imposing restrictions in the
extended models across the two samples does not result in a
statistically significant worsening of the overall model fit. Therefore,
the model appears to apply across groups.
After selecting the final model that best fits the data, we interpret the
overall parameter estimates (standardized path coefficients to validate
the results across the two different product categories). All
hypothesized relationships (rewards  perceived benefits according to
intrinsic purchase orientation  PI/RCP) are statistically significant (p
32

33. < 0.01 or p < 0.05). However, some rewards that we did not anticipate
would be intrinsic are significant for some shopper types (see Tables
14 and 15).
Table XIV Grocery retailing: Impact of perceived benefits on loyalty
(standardized path coefficients)
Shopper Economical Social-Relational Apathetic Brand/store-loyal Hedonist
Perc. benefit PI RCP PI RCP PI RCP PI RCP PI RCP
-
Recog. & Rel. -0.074ns 0.72** 0.63** -0.17* -0.15* 0.097* 0.054* 0.22* 0.26*
0.097ns
Economy 0.74** 0.62** -0.089ns -0.057ns 0.087ns 0.083ns 0.027ns 0.049ns 0.089ns 0.025ns
Hedonism 0.017ns 0.013ns 0.043ns 0.047ns -0.022* -0.023* 0.022ns 0.086ns 0.83** 0.85ns
Conven. 0.047ns 0.032ns 0.025ns 0.088ns 0.95** 0.88** 0.037ns 0.055ns -0.32* -0.31*
Inform. 0.27** 0.32** 0.15ns 0.19ns 0.093ns 0.022ns 0.94** 0.91** 0.044* 0.015*
** p < 0.01,* p < 0.05, ns: not significant impact on dependant variables.
Table XV Perfumery: Impact of perceived benefits on loyalty
(standardized path coefficients)
Shopper Economical Social-Relational Brand/store-loyal Hedonist
Perceived
PI RCP PI RCP PI RCP PI RCP
benefit
Recog. &
Relation -0.06ns 0.07ns 0.38** 0.18** 0.22* 0.17* 0.21* 0.17*
Economy 0.66** 0.17** 0.02ns 0.21ns -0.25ns -0.12ns -0.20ns 0.19ns
Hedonist 0.85ns 0.38ns 0.044ns 0.029ns -0.88ns -0.19ns -0.90** 0.25**
Convenience -00.01ns 0.34ns -0.55ns 0.25ns 0.05ns 0.83ns -0.29ns 0.27ns
Informational 0.41** 0.16** 0.42ns 0.28ns 0.11** 0.05** 0.07* 0.25*
** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05, ns: not significant.
Economical, budget-optimizing shoppers are most motivated
(intrinsically) by economic rewards in terms of both PI and RCP
(grocery retailing b = 0.74, b = 0.62; perfumery: b = 0.66, b = 0.17;
p < 0.01). Informational rewards about good deals also increase their
PI and RCP (grocery retailing b = 0.27, b = 0.32; perfumery b = 0.41,
33

34. b = 0.16) and are highly significant (p < 0.01). We thus confirm H1b
and H1e. However, recognition and social relationships, hedonist, as
well as convenience rewards are extrinsic (p >0.1), as expected and in
support of H1a, H1c, and H1d, respectively.
For social-relational shoppers, who are intrinsically motivated by
their social relationships with sales staff and recognition as a privileged
customer, relational rewards influence PI and RCP strongly, as
expected in H2a (grocery: b = 0.72, b = 0.63; perfumery: b = 0.38, b
= 0.18; p < 0.01). Extrinsic economic, hedonist, convenience, and
informational rewards have no impact though (p > 0.1), so we confirm
H2b–e. These shoppers are indifferent to convenience devices that
shorten the shopping trip, because they are incompatible with their
intrinsic purchasing target.
Apathetic buyers appear only in the grocery retailing context;
because they perceive shopping as drudgery, their intrinsic motivation
is to make shopping effective and quick. Convenience rewards increase
their PI and RCP (b = 0.95, b = 0.88; p < 0.01), in support of H3d.
Economic (b = -0.087, b = -0.083; p > 0.1) and informational (b =
0.093, b = 0.022; p > 0.1) benefits are extrinsic and have no impact;
we thus find support for H3b and H3e. Recognition and social
relationships (b = -0.17, b = -0.15) as well as hedonist rewards (b = -
0.022, b = -0.023) even have a negative impact (p < 0.05). H3a and
34

35. H3c are not supported because results show negative effects. Even if
there is no support for theses hypotheses the results are remarkable as
they show that some rewards might eventually erode intrinsic interests
and undermine feelings of control, which can interfere with consumers’
motivations and loyalty (Deci and Ryan, 1985).
Brand/store-loyal shoppers hope to gain reassurance about
purchases, generally by gaining more information. Informational
rewards (e.g. information about good deals and general information
about the store or the brand; grocery: b = 0.94, b = 0.91; perfumery:
b = 0.11, b = 0.05; p < 0.01) as well as relational rewards (e.g. a
stronger relationship with the store or the brand increases trust, which
may offer a means to reduce risk perceptions; grocery: b = 0.097, b =
0.054; perfumery: b = 0.22, b = 0.17; p < 0.01) have a strong
influence on PI and RCP, in support of H4a and H4e. Finally, in support
of H4b, H4c and H4d, economic, hedonist, and convenience benefits
are not significant in either sectors (p > 0.1); that is, they are
extrinsic.
For hedonist customers, who are intrinsically motivated by
shopping pleasure, the hedonist rewards (grocery: b = 0.83, b = 0.85;
perfumery: b = 0.90, b = 0.25; p < 0.01) and social relationships
(grocery: b = 0.22, b = 0.26; perfumery: b = 0.21, b = 0.17; p <
0.05) have strong influences on PI and RCP. Relationships are probably
35

36. perceived as pleasant and should create hedonist feelings. These
results clearly support H5a and H5c. Informational benefits (grocery: b
= 0.044, b = 0.015; perfumery: b = 0.07, b = 0.25; p < 0.05),
contrary to our expectations, have a positive influence as well, perhaps
because they offer a means to gain information about hedonist
devices, events as well as to discover new ideas and products.
Regardless of the explanation, we must reject H5e. Convenience
rewards have either a negative significant impact on PI and RCP in the
grocery retailing context (b = -0.32, b = -0.31; p < 0.05) or are
insignificant in the perfumery (b = -0.29, b = 0.27; p > 0.1). The
negative signs for these rewards show again that there might be an
erosion of consumers’ motivations and loyalty. We thus reject H5d.
Economic rewards are insignificant (p > 0.1) and extrinsic in with
support H5b.
Discussion, academic and managerial implications
To improve knowledge about the effectiveness of loyalty
programmes, we have investigated how purchase orientations
moderate the relationship between perceived loyalty programmes'
benefits, motivation, and loyalty. Accordingly, we note the following:
Customers’ different intrinsic or extrinsic purchasing motivations or
orientations determine the perceived benefits from the loyalty
programme’s rewards and reinforce unique motivations and behaviours
36

37. (Deci, 1971). Customers reportedly develop different, coherent
purchase behaviours (including loyalty programme usage), because
they are not intrinsically motivated by the same targets. Intrinsic
rewards motivate them to act to obtain a benefit that falls within the
target of their purchase orientation and thus creates interest or
pleasure in the task. They also correspond positively to intrinsic
reinforcements and have a positive, long-term impact on purchase
behaviour and loyalty. Economic and informational rewards are
intrinsically most motivating for economical, budget-optimizing
shoppers and have the strongest impact on their loyalty. Social-
relational shoppers are intrinsically motivated by social relationships
which influence loyalty positively. For apathetic buyers convenience
rewards increase loyalty. Brand/store-loyal shoppers are intrinsically
motivated by informational as well as relational rewards which increase
loyalty.
In contrast, extrinsic rewards motivate customers to act to obtain a
benefit that is separate from the target of their purchase orientation
and do not influence their loyalty (Deci et al., 1999; Kivetz, 2005).
Our results challenge the widespread behaviourist belief about
conditioned behaviour (Skinner, 1976), applied in the development of
most loyalty programmes that rely on money and sales promotions to
motivate people. Extrinsic rewards that “buy” customers’ intrinsic
37

38. motivations to repurchase probably encourage them to focus narrowly
on the reward and attempt to obtain it as quickly as possible.
Therefore, it eventually might erode intrinsic interests and undermine
feelings of control, which can interfere with consumers’ motivations
(Deci and Ryan, 1985).
From an academic point of view, this study contributes to existing
knowledge about relationship marketing. First, we provide a multi-
benefit framework that identifies the different rewards benefits
customers may perceive when participating in loyalty programmes. In
addition to monetary aspects, members experience a range of
nonmonetary benefits, related to exploring the firm's products,
entertainment, or relational aspects. The ability to measure these
perceived rewards’ benefits offers researchers and managers a better
capacity to study the behavioural impacts of loyalty programmes.
Second, we demonstrate that the intrinsic or extrinsic nature of
rewards appears contingent on individual purchase motivations (Deci
and Ryan, 2000). For one customer, an intrinsic reward can be
material or immaterial and intrinsically motivating, depending on the
purchasing situation. Yet the same reward could be extrinsically
motivating for another customer or in another situation.
In turn, our findings have important implications for loyalty
programme managers. In particular, they should promote diverse
38

39. rewards, segment their customer portfolios, and achieve differentiation
through nonmonetary benefits. The perceived benefits associated with
loyalty programmes are diverse and relate to multiple consumer
motivations and purchase orientations. The absence of segmentation in
existing loyalty schemes therefore causes inefficiency, because strong
customer heterogeneity can result in programme failure. The principal
role of loyalty programmes should be to identify and segment
customers as a means to improve resource allocations. For example,
loyalty scheme managers might segment the target market according
to consumers’ purchase orientations and associated reward
preferences. A more thorough analysis of loyalty schemes’ effects and
detriments at the individual level thus is necessary, because consumer
characteristics influence the strength and direction of the impacts on
repurchase behaviour. With such information, firms can adopt tailored
strategies, using both monetary and nonmonetary incentives and
integrating functional and hedonistic features into loyalty programmes
to appeal to different segments and enhance their use. For example,
Tesco’s loyalty scheme demonstrates how success can be a function of
programme efficiency and data-driven customer behaviour and needs
knowledge (Humby et al., 2004).
Differentiation through intangible, nonmonetary benefits also is
possible in markets marked by strong competition and isomorphism
39

40. (Powell and DiMaggio, 1982). The differences among retailers’ offers
are few, the benefit of rewards is low, programmes are easily
exchangeable, and switching costs are minimal (Meyer-Waarden,
2007). Therefore, retailers, such as Tesco, that invest in rewards such
as personalized services or functional value-added information can
attain a difficult-to-imitate advantage.
Conclusions and future research directions
Our research suffers several limitations that further research should
consider. First, we find that for some purchase orientations, certain
rewards are intrinsic and affect behaviour, in contrast with our a priori
expectations; it remains challenging to define the degree of the
relationship among an intrinsic purchase orientation and perceived
loyalty programmes' benefits. Because purchase orientations are
multidimensional, segment overlaps likely exist (e.g., hedonist–
relational). Second, our results confirm just how difficult it is to classify
rewards exactly and uniquely to one category, because they can satisfy
several purchase targets at the same time. Our research shows that
intrinsic or an extrinsic motivation depend on the individual but it is
probable that is also varies within an individual, depending on mood
and circumstances (Smith and Sparks, 2009b). Additional research
should try to categorize purchase orientations and rewards more
precisely and to test motivation according to mood and circumstances.
40

41. Third, our analysis does not include the dynamics and value of
accumulated points or, more generally, dynamic rewards. A
longitudinal approach could offer a strong extension for further
research.
Although previous experimental investigations indicate that loyalty
scheme effectiveness depends on the program’s design (Kivetz and
Simonson, 2002; Yi and Jeon, 2003; Kivetz, 2005), few supporting
field data are available. More research and replications are necessary
to determine the psychological aspects of customer loyalty reward
schemes and individualized reward systems. Another critical concern
involves the applicability of self-determination theory (Deci, 1971) in
marketing. The SDT emerged from research in domains such as school
education for children or motivation of athletes; does it also hold in
purchasing contexts such as grocery retailing? Enhancement effects
accrue when people receive rewards for performing uninteresting
tasks, such as purchasing (Hitt et al., 1992). Perhaps intrinsic interest
in a task also declines when firms grant extrinsic rewards. More
experimental approaches that analyze how rewards influence purchase
behaviour are recommended, because different theoretical points of
view could help clarify this question.
41

42. References
Arnold, M. J., and Reynolds, K.E. (2003), "Hedonic shopping
motivations", Journal of Retailing, Vol. 79, No. 2, pp. 77-95.
Babin, B.J., Darden, W., and Griffin, M. (1994), "Work and/or fun:
Measuring hedonic and utilitarian shopping value", Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 20, pp. 644-656.
Bagchi R. and Li, X. (2011), "Illusionary Progress in Loyalty Programs:
Magnitudes, Reward Distances, and Step-Size Ambiguity", Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 37, No. 5, pp. 888-901.
Bridson, K., Evans, J., and Hickman, M. (2008), "Assessing the
relationship between loyalty program attributes, store satisfaction and
store loyalty", Journal of Retailing & Consumer Services, Vol. 15, No. 5,
pp. 364-374.
Bruner, G.C., James K.E., and Hensel P.J. (2005), Marketing scales
handbook: A compilation of multi-item measures for consumer
behavior and advertising 1998-2001, Chicago: American Marketing
Association.
Byrne, B. (2001), Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic
concepts, applications, and programming, Multivariate Applications
Series. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
42

43. Cedrola, E., and Memmo, S. (2010), "Loyalty marketing and loyalty
cards: a study of the Italian market", International Journal of Retail &
Distribution Management, Vol. 38, No. 3, pp. 205-225.
Childers, T.L., Carr C.L., Peck J., and Carson S. (2001), "Hedonic and
utilitarian motivations for online retail shopping behaviour", Journal
of Retailing, Vol. 77, No. 4, pp. 511-535.
Chitturi, R., Raghunathan, R., and Mahajan, V. (2008), "Delight by
design: The role of hedonic versus utilitarian benefits", Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 72, No.2, pp. 48 - 63.
Churchill, G.A., (1979), "A paradigm for developing better measures of
marketing constructs", Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18, No.
1, pp. 64–73.
Dagger, T. S., and O'Brien, T. K. (2010), "Does experience matter?",
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 44, No. 9/10, pp.1528-1552.
Darden, W.R. and Reynolds F. D. (1971), "Shopping orientations and
product usage rates", Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 8, pp.
505–508.
Daryanto, A., Ruyter, K., Wetzels, M., and Patterson, P. (2010),
"Service firms and customer loyalty programs: a regulatory fit
perspective of reward preferences in a health club setting", Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 38(5), pp. 604-616.
43

44. Dawson, A., Bloch, P.H., and Ridgway, N.M. (1990), "Shopping
motives, emotional states, and retail outcomes", Journal of Retailing,
Vol. 66, No. 4, pp. 408-427.
Deci, E.L. (1971), "Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic
motivation", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 18,
pp. 105-115.
Deci, E.L. and Ryan R.M. (1985), Intrinsic motivation and self-
determination in human behaviour, New York: Plenum.
Deci, E. L., Koestner R., and Ryan, R.M. (1999), "A meta-analytic
review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on
intrinsic motivation", Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 125, pp. 627–668.
Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (2000), "The 'what' and 'why' of goal
pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behaviour",
Psychological Inquiry, Vol. 11, pp. 227-268.
Demoulin, N. and Zidda, P. (2008), "On the impact of loyalty cards on
store loyalty: Does the customers’ satisfaction with the reward
scheme matter?", Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol.
15, No. 5, pp. 386-398.
Demoulin, N., and Zidda, P. (2009), "Drivers of Customers’ Adoption
and Adoption Timing of a New Loyalty Card in the Grocery Retail
Market", Journal of Retailing, Vol. 85, No. 3, pp. 391-405.
44

45. Dick, A.S. and Basu K. (1994), "Customer loyalty: Toward an
integrated conceptual framework", Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp.99-113.
Drèze, X. and Nunes J.C. (2011), "Recurring Goals and Learning: The
impact of successful Reward Attainment on Purchase Behavior",
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 48, No. 2, pp.103-115.
Drèze, X. and Nunes J.C. (2009), "Feeling Superior: The Impact of
Loyalty Program Structure on Consumers' Perceptions of Status",
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 35, No. 6, pp.890-905.
Drèze, X. and Nunes J.C. (2006), "The endowed progress effect: How
artificial advancement increases effort", Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 32, pp.504-512.
Dowling, G.R. and Uncles M. (1997), "Do Customer Loyalty Programs
Really Work?", Sloan Management Review , Vol. 38, No. 4, pp. 71-
82.
Fornell, C. and Larcker D.F. (1981), "Evaluating structural equation
models with unobservable variables and measurement error",
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp.39-50.
Frisou, J. and Yildiz, H. (2011), "Consumer Learning as a Determinant
of a Multi-partner Loyalty Program's Effectiveness: a Behaviorist and
45

46. Long-term Perspective", Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
Vol. 18, No. 1, pp.81-91.
Gable, M., Fiorito, S., and Topol, M. (2008), "An empirical analysis of
the components of retailer customer loyalty programs", International
Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp.32-
49.
Gerbing, D. and Anderson J. (1988), "An updated paradigm for scale
development incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment",
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp.186-192.
Gwinner, K. P., Gremler, D.D. and Bitner M.J. (1998), " Relational
benefits in service industries: The consumer's perspective", Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp.101-114.
Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner K.P., and Gremler, D.D. (2002),
"Understanding relationship marketing outcomes: An integration of
relational benefits and relationship quality", Journal of Service
Research, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp.230–248.
Hitt, D. D., Marriott, R. G., and Esser, J.K. (1992), "Effects of delayed
rewards and task interest on intrinsic motivation", Basic and Applied
Social Psychology, Vol.13, pp.405–414.
Holbrook, M. (1996), "Customer value: A framework for analysis and
research", Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 23, pp.138–142.
46

47. Holbrook, M. and Hirschmann, E.C. (1982), "Hedonic consumption:
emerging concepts methods and propositions", Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 46, No. 3, pp.92–102.
Humby, C., Hunt T., and Phillips T. (2004), Scoring points: How Tesco
is winning customer loyalty, London: Kogan Page.
Kahn, B.E. and Schmittlein D.C. (1989), "Shopping trip behavior: An
empirical investigation", Marketing Letters, Vol. 1, No. 4, pp.55-70.
Kivetz, R., Urminsky, O., and Zheng, Y. (2006), "The Goal-Gradient
Hypothesis Resurrected: Purchase Acceleration, Illusionary Goal
Progress, and Customer Retention", Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 43, No. 1, pp.39-51.
Kivetz, R. (2005), "Promotion reactance: The role of effort-reward
congruity", Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 31, pp.725–736.
Kivetz, R. and Simonson, I. (2002), "Earning the right to indulge:
Effort as a determinant of customer preferences toward frequency
program rewards", Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 39, No. 2,
pp.155-70.
Kwong, J. Y., Soman, D., and Ho, C. Y. (2011), "The role of
computational ease on the decision to spend loyalty program points",
Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp.146-156.
47

48. Laaksonen, M. (1993), "Retail patronage dynamics: Learning about
daily shopping behavior in contexts of changing retail structures",
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 28, No. 1/2, pp.3–17.
Lacey, R. (2009), "Limited influence of loyalty program membership on
relational outcomes", Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 26, No. 6,
pp.392-402.
Lacey R., Suh J., and Morgan R.M. (2007), "Differential Effects of
Preferential Treatment Levels on Relational Outcomes", Journal of
Service Research, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp.241–56.
Leenheer, J., Bijmolt, T.H.A., van Heerde, H. J., and Smidts A. (2007),
"Do loyalty programs enhance behavioral loyalty? A market-wide
analysis accounting for endogeneity", International Journal of
Research in Marketing, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp.31-47.
Liu, Y. (2007), "The long-term impact of loyalty programs on consumer
purchase behavior and loyalty", Journal of Marketing, Vol. 70, No. 4,
pp.19-35.
Mägi, A.W. (2003), "Share of wallet in retailing: the effects of customer
satisfaction, loyalty cards and shopper characteristics", Journal of
Retailing, Vol.79, No.2, pp. 97-106.
McQuail, D. (1994), Mass communication theory: An introduction, 3d
ed. London: Sage Publications.
48

49. Meyer-Waarden, L. (2007), "The effects of loyalty programs on
customer lifetime duration and share-of-wallet", Journal of Retailing,
Vol. 83, No. 2, pp.223-236.
Meyer-Waarden, L. and Benavent C. (2009), "Grocery retail loyalty
program effects: Self-selection or purchase behavior change?",
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 37, No. 3,
pp.345-358.
Meyer-Waarden, L. (2013), "The impact of reward personalisation on
frequent flyer programmes’ perceived value and loyalty", Journal of
Services Marketing, forthcoming in 2013.
Mimouni-Chaabane, A., and Volle, P. (2010), "Perceived benefits of
loyalty programs: Scale development and implications for relational
strategies", Journal of Business Research, Vol. 63, No. 1, pp.32-37.
Morrisson, O., and Huppertz, J. W. (2010), "External equity, loyalty
program membership, and service recovery", Journal of Services
Marketing, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp.244-254.
Moschis, G.P. (1976), Shopping orientations and consumer uses of
information, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 52, No. 2, pp.61-70
Morgan R. and Hunt S. (1994), "The commitment-trust theory of
relationship marketing", Journal of Marketing , Vol. 58, No. 3, pp. 20-
38.
49

50. Powell, W.W. and DiMaggio, P.J. (1982), "The iron cage revisited:
Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational
fields", American Sociological Review, Vol. 48, No. 2, pp.147-160.
Sharma S. (1996), Applied multivariate techniques, New York: John
Wiley and Sons.
Sharp, B. and Sharp A. (1997), "Loyalty programs and their impact on
repeat-purchase loyalty patterns", International Journal of Research
in Marketing, Vol. 14, pp.473-86.
Skinner, B.F. (1976), About behaviourism, New York: Vintage.
Smith, A. and Sparks, L. (2009a), "Reward Redemption Behaviour in
Retail Loyalty Schemes", British Journal of Management, Vol. 20,
pp.204–218
Smith A. and Sparks L. (2009b), "It's nice to get a wee treat if you've
had a bad week: Consumer motivations in retail loyalty scheme
points redemption", Journal of Business Research, Vol. 62, No. 5,
pp.542-547
Stone, G. P. (1954), "City shoppers and urban identification:
Observations on the social psychology of city life", American Journal
of Sociology, Vol. 60, No. 1, pp.36–45.
50

51. Tietje, B.C. (2002), "When do rewards have enhancement effects? An
availability valence approach", Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol.
12, No. 4, pp.363-373.
Vesel, P., and Zabkar, V. (2009), "Managing customer loyalty through
the mediating role of satisfaction in the DIY retail loyalty program",
Journal of Retailing & Consumer Services, Vol. 16, No. 5, pp.396-
406.
Williams, R.H., Painter J.J., and Nicholas H.R. (1978), "A policy
oriented typology of grocery shoppers", Journal of Retailing, Vol. 54,
No. 1, pp.27–43.
Yi, Y. and Jeon H. (2003), "The effects of loyalty programs on value
perception, program loyalty and brand loyalty", Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp.229-40.
Zeithaml V.A. (1988), "Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality, and
Value: A Means-End Model and Synthesis of Evidence", Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 52, pp.2-22.
Zhang, J. and Wedel, M. (2009), "The Effectiveness of Customized
Promotions in Online and Offline Stores", Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 46, No. 2, pp.190-206.
51