Review of the theoretical underpinnings of loyalty programs
Authors:
- Conor M. HendersonCHConor M. Henderson
- Joshua T. BeckJBJoshua T. Beck
- Robert W. PalmatierRPRobert W. Palmatier
- 21 March 2011
- journal article
- review article
- Published by Wiley in Journal of Consumer Psychology
- Vol. 21 (3) , 256-276
Abstract
A review of the extant literature reveals that the theoretical underpinnings of the majority of loyalty program research rest on psychological mechanisms from three specific domains—status, habit, and relational. We propose that to understand how loyalty programs actually work, a broader, more holistic research perspective is needed to account for the simultaneous effects across these three theoretical domains as well as both cross‐customer and temporal effects. The contribution of this approach is a fresh research agenda advanced in 15 research propositions.Keywords
This publication has 100 references indexed in Scilit:
- Half the Thrill Is in the Chase: Twisted Inferences from Embodied Cognitions and Brand EvaluationJournal of Consumer Research, 2010
- Paying to belong: When does rejection trigger ingratiation?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2010
- Schadenfreude as a consumption‐related emotion: Feeling happiness about the downfall of another's productJournal of Consumer Psychology, 2009
- Leveling up and down: The experiences of benign and malicious envy.Emotion, 2009
- Consumer Gift Systems: Figure 1Journal of Consumer Research, 2006
- Cues of being watched enhance cooperation in a real-world settingBiology Letters, 2006
- Communality as a Dimension of Service RelationshipsJournal of Consumer Psychology, 1996
- Mood as a Determinant of Postconsumption Product Evaluations: Mood Effects and Their Dependency on the Affective Intensity of the Consumption ExperienceJournal of Consumer Psychology, 1992
- The four elementary forms of sociality: Framework for a unified theory of social relations.Psychological Review, 1992
- Prestige and Culture: A Biosocial Interpretation [and Comments and Replies]Current Anthropology, 1975