CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 3,276Digital Marketing and Social MediaConsumer Behavior in Brand Consumption and IdentificationMarketing and Advertising Strategies

Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development and Validation

Open access
Hollebeek, Linda D., Glynn, Mark S., Brodie, Roderick J.·2014·Journal of Interactive Marketing
DOI 10.1016/j.intmar.2013.12.002
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

In the last three decades, an influential research stream has emerged which highlights the dynamics of focal consumer/brand relationships. Specifically, more recently the ‘consumer brand engagement’ (CBE) concept has been postulated to more comprehensively reflect the nature of consumers’ particular interactive brand relationships, relative to traditional concepts, including ‘involvement.’ However, despite the growing scholarly interest regarding the undertaking of marketing research addressing ‘engagement,’ studies have been predominantly exploratory in nature, thus generating a lack of empirical research in this area to date. By developing and validating a CBE scale in specific social media settings, we address this identified literature gap. Specifically, we conceptualize CBE as a consumer's positively valenced brand-related cognitive, emotional and behavioral activity during or related to focal consumer/brand interactions. We derive three CBE dimensions, including cognitive processing, affection, and activation. Within three different social media contexts, we employ exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses to develop a reliable, 10-item CBE scale, which we proceed to validate within a nomological net of conceptual relationships and a rival model. The findings suggest that while consumer brand ‘involvement’ acts as a CBE antecedent, consumer ‘self-brand connection’ and ‘brand usage intent’ represent key CBE consequences, thus providing a platform for further research…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.intmar.2013.12.002

Cites

106 of 106 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

2 of 29 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Interpretationown data

    Consumer conceptions of CBE are aligned with key findings addressing the engagement concept in prior research.

    “the qualitative study shows consumer conceptions of CBE are aligned with key findings addressing the 'engagement' concept in prior research (Brodie et al. 2011;Leeflang 2011).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Brodie et al. 2011

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Leeflang 2011 source

      The available Abstract describes the formalization of marketing and future developments, while the metadata lists customer engagement only as a keyword. Searches for consumer conceptions of CBE, qualitative findings, and the engagement concept found no passage addressing whether those conceptions align with prior research. (LLM, conf=0.71)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Findingown data

    An additional EFA including only the 10 retained CBE items suggested a three-factor solution, which explained 69.63% of the total variance.

    “In an additional EFA including only the 10 retained CBE items, the scree plot and the eigen values exceeding 1.0 concurred in suggesting the suitability of a threefactor solution for CBE, which explained 69.63% of the total variance.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    For non-engaging brands, respondents exhibited a substantially lower willingness to exert cognitive, emotional or behavioral activity in their brand interactions.

    “For these brands, the respondents exhibited a substantially lower willingness to exert cognitive, emotional or behavioral activity in their brand interactions”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    The scree plot was observed at three factors, corresponding to the hypothesized three-factor model of CBE.

    “we observed the scree in the scree plot at three factors; thus corresponding to our hypothesized three-factor model of CBE.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Cattell 1966 source
  • Findingown data

    The attained Cronbach alpha for cognitive processing in study 3 was .825.

    “The attained Cronbach alphas for the scale were: (i) Cognitive processing: .825;”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 11
  • May combine two claims. 14

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationcitation

    The research responds directly to the Marketing Science Institute's (MSI 2010), Leeflang's (2011), and Brodie et al.'s (2011) call for engagement-based scale development research.

    “As such, this research responds directly to the Marketing Science Institute's (MSI 2010), Leeflang's (2011), and Brodie et al.'s (2011) call for the undertaking of 'engagement'-based scale development research.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites MSI 2010

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Leeflang (2011) source

      The indexed Abstract describes a broad agenda for developing marketing research, and the keywords include customer engagement. Searches for engagement-based scale development and customer-engagement measures returned no passage in our copy calling for that research; the retrieved text does not establish the specific attribution to Leeflang. (LLM, conf=0.72)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Brodie et al. (2011)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The CBE scale is a reliable, 10-item scale.

    “we employ exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses to develop a reliable, 10-item CBE scale”
    • Also stated in: § Results · plain
      “resulting in a three-factor, 10-item CBE scale for further analysis.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingreasoning

    The item screening generated a reduced pool of 39 CBE items.

    “The item screening generated a reduced pool of 39 CBE items.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    The item screening retained 12 items for cognitive processing, 15 items for affection, and 12 items for activation.

    “we retained 12 items for the 'cognitive processing,' 15 items for the 'affection,' and 12 items for the 'activation' dimensions of CBE for further analysis.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Reliability analyses indicated the scale had good reliability: cognitive processing .753, affection .839, activation .776, and overall 10-item CBE scale .823.

    “Reliability (internal consistency) analyses using Cronbach's alpha indicated the scale had good reliability: (i) Cognitive processing: .753;(ii) Affection: .839;(iii) Activation: .776;and (iv) Overall 10-item CBE scale: .823.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The CBE scale attained Cronbach's alphas of .825 for cognitive processing, .907 for affection, .894 for activation, and .933 overall.

    “The attained Cronbach alphas for the scale were: (i) Cognitive processing: .825;(ii) Affection: .907; (iii) Activation: .894;and (iv) Overall CBE scale: .933.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Study 3 CFA results suggested excellent model fit: χ2(32)=97.994, p=0.000; χ2/df=3.06; GFI=.968; CFI=.984; RMSEA=.061; SRMR=.0278.

    “The results in Figure 1 suggested excellent model fit (Iacobucci 2010: p. 91): χ 2 (32) = 97.994(p=0.000); and χ 2 /df = 3.06.Further, GFI = .968;CFI = .984;RMSEA = .061;and SRMR = .0278;thus corroborating the excellent model fit to the data”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Iacobucci 2010 source
    • cites Bagozzi andYi 2012, 1998

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Bentler 1990 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    The regression weights for each item onto its intended factor were significant, and all standardized coefficients were .50 or greater, suggesting each item should remain in the model.

    “The regression weights (βs) for each of the items onto their intended factor were significant (e.g.AFFECTION → AFFEC.1: .895);and all standardized coefficients .50;suggesting that each of the items should remain in the model”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Hildebrandt 1987 source
    • cites Steenkamp and Van Trijp 1991 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Consumers' brand-related affection (.426) and activation (.402) exert a significant effect on brand usage intent, while cognitive processing (.045) does not.

    “Similarly, while we found consumers' brand-related 'affection' (.426) and 'activation' (.402) in specific consumer/brand interactions to exert a similar significant effect on individuals' ensuing 'brand usage intent,' consumers' level of 'cognitive processing' (.045) failed to produce a significant effect.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Discriminant validity was attained for 14 of the 15 possible construct pairs, with the exception of COG.PROC.-AFFEC.

    “which indicated that discriminant validity was attained for 14 of the 15 possible construct pairs; that is, with the exception of COG.PROC.-AFFEC.(Table 5).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Fornell and Larcker 1981a/b

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Each squared multiple correlation exceeded .50, indicating good item reliability.

    “Each of the squared multiple correlations exceeded .50;also indicating good item reliability.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Each item made a significant contribution to the measurement of its intended construct, contributing to the model's convergent validity.

    “The regression coefficients indicated that each of the items made a significant contribution to the measurement of its intended construct, thus contributing to the model's convergent validity.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The calibration sample fit statistics were χ2(243)=653.561, χ2/df=2.69, GFI=.824, CFI=.932, RMSEA=.078, SRMR=.0616; validation sample fit statistics were χ2(243)=666.7, χ2/df=2.77, GFI=.817, CFI=.938, RMSEA=.079, SRMR=.0516.

    “The fit statistics for the calibration sample are: χ 2 (243) = 653.561(p=0.000); and χ 2 /df = 2.69, GFI = .824;CFI = .932;RMSEA = .078;and SRMR = .0616;the validation sample: χ 2 (243) = 666.7 (p=0.000);χ 2 /df = 2.77, GFI = .817;CFI = .938;RMSEA = .079;and SRMR = .0516.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Highly similar results were attained across calibration and validation sub-samples, resembling full sample results.

    “Highly similar results were attained across both sub-samples (Table 6), which also exhibited significant resemblance to the results for the full sample (Alwin and Jackson 1981).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Alwin and Jackson 1981

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Engagement plays a central role in a nomological net of focal conceptual relationships.

    “Fourth, 'engagement' plays a central role in a nomological net of focal conceptual relationships (Brodie et al. 2011)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Brodie et al. 2011

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Study 3 confirmed the CBE scale as a valid, reliable and stable measurement instrument.

    “As such, study 3 confirmed the CBE scale representing a valid, reliable and stable measurement instrument.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    The consumer brand engagement (CBE) concept has been postulated to more comprehensively reflect the nature of consumers' particular interactive brand relationships, relative to traditional concepts including involvement.

    “more recently the 'consumer brand engagement' (CBE) concept has been postulated to more comprehensively reflect the nature of consumers' particular interactive brand relationships, relative to traditional concepts, including 'involvement.'”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Brodie et al. 2011

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Engagement reflects a motivational state that occurs by virtue of an individual's focal interactive experiences with a particular object or agent.

    “'engagement' reflects a motivational state (Van Doorn et al. 2010), which occurs by virtue of an individual's (i.e. the 'engagement subject') focal interactive experiences with a particular object or agent”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Van Doorn et al. 2010 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisenone given

    Studies on engagement have been predominantly exploratory, generating a lack of empirical research in this area to date.

    “studies have been predominantly exploratory in nature; thus generating a lack of empirical research in this area to date.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    CBE may be useful for scholars and managers seeking to predict specific consumer behavior outcomes.

    “and as such, may be useful for scholars and managers seeking to predict specific consumer behavior outcomes;”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    This paper contributes insights regarding the potential role of CBE in the advancement of the broader theoretical perspectives of relationship marketing, S-D logic and consumer culture theory.

    “Additionally, this paper contributes insights regarding the potential role of CBE in the advancement of the broader theoretical perspectives of relationship marketing, S-D logic and consumer culture theory, which are centered upon the importance of establishing and maintaining value-laden, interactive and co-creative consumer/brand interactions and relationships.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Consumers' CBE levels with a focal brand may fluctuate during and across brand interactions.

    “As a result, consumers' CBE levels with a focal brand may fluctuate: (i) During (i.e.within) a particular brand interaction; and (ii) Across brand interactions over time.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    Managerial cultivation of CBE is expected to generate enhanced consumer brand retention and loyalty outcomes.

    “Overall, we expect managerial cultivation of CBE to generate enhanced consumer brand retention and loyalty outcomes.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationnone given

    CBE represents a promising, under-explored concept to date.

    “Represents a promising, under-explored concept to date;”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    CBE has a positive effect on consumer self-brand connection and explains most of the variance observed for this construct.

    “thus indicating that not only does CBE have a positive effect on consumer 'self-brand connection,' but CBE explains most of the variance observed for this construct.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
25 of 25

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The selected social media brands (Facebook.com, Twitter.com, LinkedIn.com) are representative of social media contexts for studying CBE.

    “Within three different social media contexts, we employ exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses to develop a reliable, 10-item CBE scale”
    “we selected the brand Facebook.comfor investigation”
    “we selected the social media brand Twitter.com for investigation”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The causal direction is from consumer brand involvement through CBE to self-brand connection and brand usage intent, not the reverse.

    “we identified a mediating effect of CBE in the association between consumer brand 'involvement' and 'brand usage intent.'”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The nomological net includes all relevant mediating variables.

    “which implies there are no omitted mediating variables, and the mediating hypotheses are supported.”
3 of 3

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Study 1 is described as social-media-specific despite its unrestricted brand selection

    Minor

    The paper says it selected a social media setting for studies 1-3, but its Study 1 instructions allowed brands from any category; the reported selections include a television show.

  • Activation-self-brand squared correlation does not match its correlation

    Minor

    Table 5 reports a correlation of .86 for this pair, whose square is approximately .74, but places .46 in the corresponding squared-correlation cell.

    Reported 0.46 · recomputed 0.7396

  • Affection-brand-usage squared correlation does not match its correlation

    Minor

    Table 5 gives a correlation of .74 for this pair, implying a squared correlation of approximately .55 rather than the reported .46.

    Reported 0.46 · recomputed 0.5476

3 of 3

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 110 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Bezjian-Avery A., 1998, Journal of Advertising Research, 38, 23
  2. Menard Scott Longitudinal Research, 2e, Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences No. 76 2002 Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications
  3. Patterson Paul, Ting Yu., De Ruyter Ko Understanding Customer Engagement in Services 2006 AZMAC Proceedings Brisbane
  4. Prahalad Coimbatore K., 2004, Journal of Marketing, 68, 23

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Hollebeek, L. D., Glynn, M. S., & Brodie, R. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Waikato (NZ)
  • Auckland University of Technology (NZ)
  • University of Auckland (NZ)
Corresponding author
  • Hollebeek, Linda D.
  • Glynn, Mark S.
  • Brodie, Roderick J.
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Interactive Marketing
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2014-05
Volume
28
Issue
2
Pages
149-165
ISSN
  • 1094-9968 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-6653
DOI
10.1016/j.intmar.2013.12.002
OpenAlex
W2061289966
Cited by
3,276
References
110
Citations by year
2026: 392 · 2025: 370 · 2024: 349 · 2023: 398 · 2022: 363 · 2021: 334 · 2020: 316 · 2019: 259 · 2018: 196 · 2017: 159 · 2016: 92 · 2015: 41 · 2014: 7
FWCI
323.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Journal of Interactive Marketing (publishedVersion)
  • Tuwhera (Auckland University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Massey University
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Digital Marketing and Social Media
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Consumer Behavior in Brand Consumption and Identification
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Marketing and Advertising Strategies
Keywords
brand engagement, social media, scale development, consumer-brand relationships, consumer involvement, self-brand connection, cognitive processes, affect, activation, nomological network

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-11.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-11.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review