The DOI matches its Crossref record; 105 of the 110 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 2 of the 29 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development and Validation
Open accessAbstract
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…
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
49 Own result · 21 Own interpretation · 9 No full text of the sources · 8 Sources not found · 8 Own method · 7 No basis given · 2 Couldn’t confirm · 1 Not checked yet · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Insert Table 2 about here
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Brodie et al. 2011
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Could not verifycites Leeflang 2011 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
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)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Results
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For these brands, the respondents exhibited a substantially lower willingness to exert cognitive, emotional or behavioral activity in their brand interactions”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Insert Table 2 about here
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“we observed the scree in the scree plot at three factors; thus corresponding to our hypothesized three-factor model of CBE.”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Results
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Cattell 1966 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The attained Cronbach alphas for the scale were: (i) Cognitive processing: .825;”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Insert Figure 1 about here
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The fit statistics for the re-estimated model were as follows: χ 2 (53) = 464.9(p=0.000); and χ 2 /df = 8.72, GFI = .865;CFI = .922;RMSEA = .118;and SRMR = .048;thus indicating a worse fit, relative to the three-factor model.”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Insert Figure 1 about here
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the audio recorded findings suggested that consumers predominantly equated their 'engagement' with their selected brands to specific brand interactions.”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Insert Table 2 about here
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“while consumer brand 'involvement' acts as a CBE antecedent”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the results indicated that for perceived 'highly engaging' brands consumers, typically, appeared willing to exert considerable cognitive, emotional and behavioral activity in their brand interactions”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Insert Table 2 about here
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We derive three CBE dimensions, including cognitive processing, affection, and activation.”
- Also stated in: § CBE Conceptual Development · plain
“we propose three CBE dimensions, which correspond to the generic cognitive, emotional and behavioral nature of 'engagement.'”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § CBE Conceptual Development · plain
- Probably not a substantial claim. 11
- It may state two separate claims as one. 14
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Brand usage intent
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites MSI 2010
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Could not verifycites Leeflang (2011) sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
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)
- Not matchedcites Brodie et al. (2011)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Abstract
plainn = 200- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Results · plain
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The item screening generated a reduced pool of 39 CBE items.”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Results
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The attained Cronbach alphas for the scale were: (i) Cognitive processing: .825;(ii) Affection: .907; (iii) Activation: .894;and (iv) Overall CBE scale: .933.”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Insert Figure 1 about here
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Insert Figure 1 about here
What the sources say
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“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”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Insert Figure 1 about here
What the sources say
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Hypothesis Testing Results
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Model Results
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Fornell and Larcker 1981a/b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Each of the squared multiple correlations exceeded .50;also indicating good item reliability.”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Model Results
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Model Results
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Insert Table 5 about here
plainn = 278- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Insert Table 5 about here
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Alwin and Jackson 1981
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boostedn = 278- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Fourth, 'engagement' plays a central role in a nomological net of focal conceptual relationships (Brodie et al. 2011)”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Table 1 about here
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Brodie et al. 2011
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As such, study 3 confirmed the CBE scale representing a valid, reliable and stable measurement instrument.”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Insert Figure 1 about here
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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.'”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Brodie et al. 2011
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
In the paper
“'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”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Table 1 about here
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Van Doorn et al. 2010 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“studies have been predominantly exploratory in nature; thus generating a lack of empirical research in this area to date.”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and as such, may be useful for scholars and managers seeking to predict specific consumer behavior outcomes;”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Brand usage intent
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Brand usage intent
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Contributions, Limitations & Implications Academic Implications
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Overall, we expect managerial cultivation of CBE to generate enhanced consumer brand retention and loyalty outcomes.”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Managerial Implications
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Represents a promising, under-explored concept to date;”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Brand usage intent
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Hypothesis Testing Results
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
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.”
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.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Study 2: CBE Measurement Assessment & Scale Dimensionality
“We selected a social media setting in studies 1-3”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Study 1: Consumer Conceptions of 'Consumer Brand Engagement' (CBE)
“We instructed the participants to select a brand in any category that is 'highly engaging' to them”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“| Activation | .72 | .67 | .75 | .69 | .46 | .49 | | Self-Brand | .84 | .74 | .86 | .86 | .75 | .45 |”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Brand usage intent
Reported 0.46 · recomputed 0.7396
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“| Affection | .84 | .85 | .76 | .57 | .74 | .46 | | Activation | .72 | .67 | .75 | .69 | .46 | .49 | | Self-Brand | .84 | .74 | .86 | .86 | .75 | .45 | | Connection | | | | | | | | Brand Usage | .67 | .64 | .74 | .70 | .67 | .76 |”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Brand usage intent
Reported 0.46 · recomputed 0.5476
Citations
Cites
Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.2307/3151312 · Cited by 109,314
Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1177/002224378101800104 · Cited by 109,190
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173 · Cited by 91,532
(1975) · PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) · Cited by 36,737
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/brm.40.3.879 · Cited by 34,117
On the Evaluation of Structural Equation Models
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1007/bf02723327 · Cited by 26,163
Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity
Keller, K. L. (1993) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1177/002224299305700101 · Cited by 24,648
Structural Equations with Latent Variables
Bollen, K. A. (1989) · Wiley series in probability and statistics · doi:10.1002/9781118619179 · Cited by 17,944
Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media
Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010) · Business Horizons · doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003 · Cited by 17,875
Structural Equations with Latent Variables.
Clogg, C. C., & Bollen, K. A. (1991) · Contemporary Sociology A Journal of Reviews · doi:10.2307/2072165 · Cited by 17,475
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- Bezjian-Avery A., 1998, Journal of Advertising Research, 38, 23
- Menard Scott Longitudinal Research, 2e, Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences No. 76 2002 Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications
- Patterson Paul, Ting Yu., De Ruyter Ko Understanding Customer Engagement in Services 2006 AZMAC Proceedings Brisbane
- Prahalad Coimbatore K., 2004, Journal of Marketing, 68, 23
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Understanding customer experience throughout the customer journey
Lemon, K. N., & Verhoef, P. C. (2016) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1509/jm.15.0420 · Cited by 5,765
Sokolova, K., & Kefi, H. (2020) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.01.011 · Cited by 1,650
The Role of Live Streaming in Building Consumer Trust and Engagement with Social Commerce Sellers
Wongkitrungrueng, A., & Assarut, N. (2020) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.08.032 · Cited by 1,477
Social media marketing efforts of luxury brands: Influence on brand equity and consumer behavior
Godey, B., Manthiou, A., Pederzoli, D., Rokka, J., Aiello, G., Donvito, R., & Singh, R. K. (2016) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.181 · Cited by 1,910
Consumer engagement in online brand communities: a social media perspective
Dessart, L., Veloutsou, C. A., & Morgan‐Thomas, A. (2015) · Journal of Product & Brand Management · doi:10.1108/jpbm-06-2014-0635 · Cited by 1,516
Transforming the Customer Experience through New Technologies
Hoyer, W. D., Kroschke, M., Schmitt, B. H., Kraume, K., & Shankar, V. (2020) · Journal of Interactive Marketing · doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2020.04.001 · Cited by 1,288
“Customer engagement stresses consumers' active and interactive role with a brand and has been examined in technology contexts (Hollebeek, Glynn, & Brodie, 2014; Hughes, Swaminathan, & Brooks, 2019; Pansari & Kumar, 2017; van Doorn et al., 2010).”
BackgroundHollebeek, L. D., Srivastava, R. K., & Chen, T. (2016) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1007/s11747-016-0494-5 · Cited by 1,127
“2009), social media (Hollebeek et al. 2014), and public transportation (Jaakkola and Alexander 2014), the limited generalizability of these findings is concerning.”
BackgroundInfluentialSelf-citationHollebeek, L. D., & Macky, K. (2019) · Journal of Interactive Marketing · doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2018.07.003 · Cited by 978
“Within broader content marketing, DCM represents those activities executed through digital (online) platforms, including the company website, virtual communities, blogs, vlogs, social media, mobile apps, and so on (Breidbach, Brodie, and Hollebeek 2014; Gensler et al. 2013; Rowley 2008).”
BackgroundSelf-citationCustomer engagement with tourism social media brands
Harrigan, P., Evers, U., Miles, M., & Daly, T. (2017) · Tourism Management · doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2016.09.015 · Cited by 813
“Customer engagement is characterised by repeated interactions between a customer and an organization that strengthen the emotional, psychological or physical investment a customer has in the brand and the organization (Hollebeek et al., 2014; Phang, Zhang, & Sutanto, 2013).”
BackgroundMcLean, G., & Wilson, A. M. (2019) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2019.07.002 · Cited by 726
The Role of Social Media Content Format and Platform in Users’ Engagement Behavior
Shahbaznezhad, H., Dolan, R., & Rashidirad, M. (2021) · Journal of Interactive Marketing · doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2020.05.001 · Cited by 618
Consumer behavior in social commerce: A literature review
Zhang, K. Z. K., & Benyoucef, M. (2016) · Decision Support Systems · doi:10.1016/j.dss.2016.04.001 · Cited by 631
Online brand community engagement: Scale development and validation
Baldus, B. J., Voorhees, C. M., & Calantone, R. J. (2014) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.09.035 · Cited by 611
“…the compelling, intrinsic motivations to continue interacting with an online brand community 11 dimensions/ 42 items 2 qualitative/ 4 quantitative ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ Hollebeek et al. (2014) Consumer brand engagement is “a consumer's positively valenced cognitive, emotional and behavioral brand-related…”
BackgroundMethodCapturing consumer engagement: duality, dimensionality and measurement
Dessart, L., Veloutsou, C. A., & Morgan‐Thomas, A. (2016) · Journal of Marketing Management · doi:10.1080/0267257x.2015.1130738 · Cited by 704
“This definition conceptualises engagement as a state composed of explicit manifestations (Hollebeek et al., 2014; Vivek et al., 2014).”
BackgroundInfluentialMeasuring Consumers’ Engagement With Brand-Related Social-Media Content
Schivinski, B., Christodoulides, G., & Dąbrowski, D. (2016) · Journal of Advertising Research · doi:10.2501/jar-2016-004 · Cited by 544
“A 2014 study addressed the need for an instrument to capture consumers’ engagement with brands on social media by developing a scale to measure such engagement in a brand community (Hollebeek, Glynn, and Brodie, 2014).”
BackgroundSocial media and consumer engagement: a review and research agenda
Barger, V. A., Peltier, J. W., & Schultz, D. E. (2016) · Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing · doi:10.1108/jrim-06-2016-0065 · Cited by 647
Castillo, D. J., & Sánchez‐Fernández, R. (2019) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.07.009 · Cited by 676
“…studies have empirically validated the influence of brand engagement regarding concepts related to behavioral intention, such as brand usage intent (Hollebeek et al ., 2014), behavioral intention to loyalty (Dwivedi, 2015; So et al ., 2014), or brand loyalty (Leckie et al ., 2018; So et al .,…”
Customer engagement in social media: a framework and meta-analysis
de Oliveira Santini, F., Ladeira, W. J., Pinto, D. C., Herter, M. M., Sampaio, C. H., & Babin, B. J. (2020) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1007/s11747-020-00731-5 · Cited by 523
Harrigan, P., Evers, U., Miles, M. P., & Daly, T. (2017) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.11.046 · Cited by 558
Social media engagement behavior
Dolan, R. M., Conduit, J., Frethey‐Bentham, C., Fahy, J., & Goodman, S. (2019) · European Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1108/ejm-03-2017-0182 · Cited by 564
Brand value co-creation in a digitalized world: An integrative framework and research implications
Ramaswamy, V., & Ozcan, K. (2015) · International Journal of Research in Marketing · doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2015.07.001 · Cited by 571
Phua, J., Jin, S. A., & Kim, J. (2016) · Telematics and Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.tele.2016.06.004 · Cited by 595
Islam, J. U., & Rahman, Z. (2017) · Telematics and Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.tele.2017.01.004 · Cited by 606
“The urge for customer engagement research in online brand communities is extensively conceded in the marketing literature (Brodie et al., 2013; Hollebeek et al., 2014; Dessart et al., 2015).”
BackgroundZhang, M., Guo, L., Hu, M., & Liu, W. (2016) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2016.04.010 · Cited by 555
Past, present, and future of customer engagement
Lim, W. M., Rasul, T., Kumar, S., & Ala, M. (2021) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.11.014 · Cited by 640
Customer engagement in service
Kumar, V., Rajan, B., Gupta, S., & Pozza, I. D. (2017) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1007/s11747-017-0565-2 · Cited by 609
“…engagement concepts such as customer engagement (Kumar et al. 2010; Pansari and Kumar 2017; Verhoef et al. 2010), customer engagement behaviors (Van Doorn et al. 2010), consumer brand engagement (Hollebeek et al. 2014), and customer engagement marketing (Harmeling et al. 2017), among others.”
BackgroundInfluencer Marketing Effectiveness
Leung, F. F., Gu, F. F., Li, Y., Zhang, J. Z., & Palmatier, R. W. (2022) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1177/00222429221102889 · Cited by 696
Antecedents of consumer brand engagement and brand loyalty
Leckie, C., Nyadzayo, M. W., & Johnson, L. W. (2016) · Journal of Marketing Management · doi:10.1080/0267257x.2015.1131735 · Cited by 520
“Despite significant recent interest in CBE, this area remains underexplored (Brodie et al., 2011; Hollebeek et al., 2014), and more empirical evidence is required to provide a coherent picture of how CBE works (Gambetti et al.”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialCustomer engagement and social media: Revisiting the past to inform the future
Lim, W. M., & Rasul, T. (2022) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.04.068 · Cited by 427
De Vries, N. J., & Carlson, J. (2014) · Journal of Brand Management · doi:10.1057/bm.2014.18 · Cited by 418
See now, act now: How to interact with customers to enhance social commerce engagement?
Xue, J., Liang, X., Xie, T. F., & Wang, H. (2020) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2020.103324 · Cited by 468
The four pillars of tertiary student engagement and success: a holistic measurement approach
Bowden, J., Tickle, L., & Naumann, K. (2019) · Studies in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03075079.2019.1672647 · Cited by 471
Does gamification affect brand engagement and equity? A study in online brand communities
Xi, N., & Hamari, J. (2020) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.11.058 · Cited by 497
“…the degree of interest the person has or wishes to have in interacting with the focus of their engagement, named conscious attention (Vivek et al., 2014), the duration of focus (So et al., 2014), or the brand -related thought processing and elaboration in brand interaction (Hollebeek et al., 2014).”
Cheung, M. L., Pires, G. D., & Rosenberger, P. J. (2020) · Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics · doi:10.1108/apjml-04-2019-0262 · Cited by 519
Hapsari, R. D. V., Clemes, M. D., & Dean, D. (2017) · International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences · doi:10.1108/ijqss-07-2016-0048 · Cited by 501
Consumer engagement in online brand communities: a solicitation of congruity theory
Islam, J. U., Rahman, Z., & Hollebeek, L. D. (2017) · Internet Research · doi:10.1108/intr-09-2016-0279 · Cited by 423
Self-citationZollo, L., Filieri, R., Rialti, R., & Yoon, S. (2020) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.05.001 · Cited by 445
Customer experience and engagement in tourism destinations: the experiential marketing perspective
Rather, R. A. (2019) · Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing · doi:10.1080/10548408.2019.1686101 · Cited by 421
“…and variables have been examined as the consequences of CE in extant research, incorporating brand usage intention and self-brand connection (Hollebeek et al., 2014), brand trust and co-creation (Rather, Hollebeek, & Islam, 2019), repatronage intent and brand experience (Islam et al.,…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSocial media engagement: a model of antecedents and relational outcomes
Dessart, L. (2017) · Journal of Marketing Management · doi:10.1080/0267257x.2017.1302975 · Cited by 441
“…(e.g. Vivek, Beatty, & Morgan, 2012), focus on a small set of variables (e.g. Malthouse Calder, Kim, & Vandenbosch, 2016), or include too few brands or products (e.g. Hollebeek et al., 2014), calling for an extension of the generalisability of this stream of research (Hollebeek et al., 2016).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialMcLean, G., Osei-Frimpong, K., & Barhorst, J. B. (2020) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.11.045 · Cited by 403
Onofrei, G., Filieri, R., & Kennedy, L. (2021) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.12.031 · Cited by 443
Li, M.-W., Teng, H.-Y., & Chen, C.-Y. (2020) · Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management · doi:10.1016/j.jhtm.2020.06.015 · Cited by 348
Yadav, M. K., & Rahman, Z. (2017) · Telematics and Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.tele.2017.06.001 · Cited by 352
“Present study follows current scale development studies in online social media literature (e.g. Baldus et al., 2015; DeVellis, 2016; Hollebeek et al., 2014) and previous scale development studies (Churchill, 1979; Gerbing and Anderson, 1988).”
BackgroundActor Engagement in Networks: Defining the Conceptual Domain
Brodie, R. J., Fehrer, J. A., Jaakkola, E., & Conduit, J. (2019) · Journal of Service Research · doi:10.1177/1094670519827385 · Cited by 398
“CE research has commonly drawn on relationship marketing/management and S-D logic foundations, with a focus on empirically exploring and measuring engagement, its antecedents, outcomes, and dynamics (e.g., Dessart, Veloutsou, and Morgan-Thomas 2015; Hollebeek, Glynn, and Brodie 2014).”
BackgroundInfluentialSelf-citationArghashi, V., & Yüksel, C. (2021) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102756 · Cited by 392
Algharabat, R., Rana, N. P., Alalwan, A. A., Baabdullah, A. M., & Gupta, A. K. (2019) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.01.016 · Cited by 430
“The concept of customer brand engagement Even though the notion of engagement has been investigated from different disciplines, there is an increasing attention by marketing scholars regarding CBE issues over the social media area (Hollebeek et al., 2014).”
BackgroundResultInfluentialBrand Communication in Social Media: A Research Agenda
Voorveld, H. A. M. (2019) · Journal of Advertising · doi:10.1080/00913367.2019.1588808 · Cited by 453
Customer engagement and online reviews
Thakur, R. (2017) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2017.11.002 · Cited by 413
Islam, J. U., Hollebeek, L. D., Rahman, Z., Khan, I., & Rasool, A. (2019) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.05.018 · Cited by 406
Self-citationSocial media and sports: driving fan engagement with football clubs on Facebook
Vale, L., & Fernandes, T. (2017) · Journal of Strategic Marketing · doi:10.1080/0965254x.2017.1359655 · Cited by 355
“Facebook includes items associated with e.g. ‘liking’, reviewing and sharing content, ‘facilitating text, pictorial, video, gaming and other forms of communication’ (Hollebeek et al., 2014, p. 155).”
BackgroundJiang, H., Cheng, Y., Yang, J., & Gao, S. (2022) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2022.107329 · Cited by 362
On the relationship between consumer-brand identification, brand community, and brand loyalty
Coelho, P. S., Rita, P., & Santos, Z. R. (2018) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.03.011 · Cited by 403
“In marketing literature, one can find engagement definitions using a diversity of foci, such as brand, organization, community, advertising or online engagement, and even different subjects, as consumer or customer (Hollebeek et al., 2014).”
BackgroundUnderstanding the use of Virtual Reality in Marketing: A text mining-based review
Loureiro, S. M. C., Guerreiro, J., Eloy, S., Langaro, D., & Panchapakesan, P. (2018) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.10.055 · Cited by 338
Tajvidi, M., Wang, Y., Hajli, N., & Love, P. E. D. (2017) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.11.006 · Cited by 345
Shanahan, T., Tran, T. P., & Taylor, E. (2018) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.10.007 · Cited by 366
AlFarraj, O., Alalwan, A. A., Obeidat, Z. M., Baabdullah, A., Aldmour, R., & Al-Haddad, S. (2021) · Review of International Business and Strategy · doi:10.1108/ribs-07-2020-0089 · Cited by 311
Chandra, S., Shirish, A., & Srivastava, S. C. (2022) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.1080/07421222.2022.2127441 · Cited by 315
“Prior management research has shown that enhanced customer engagement not only helps retain customers [56], it also impacts firms’ performance outcomes [57].”
BackgroundTourism-based customer engagement: the construct, antecedents, and consequences
Rather, R. A., Hollebeek, L. D., & Islam, J. U. (2019) · Service Industries Journal · doi:10.1080/02642069.2019.1570154 · Cited by 353
“correspond to the concept’s tripartite (cognitive, emotional, behavioral) dimensionality (see also Harrigan et al., 2017, 2018; Hollebeek et al., 2014; Islam & Rahman, 2016; Rather & Sharma, 2016, 2017; So et al., 2012).”
BackgroundSelf-citationKaur, H., Paruthi, M., Islam, J. U., & Hollebeek, L. D. (2019) · Telematics and Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.tele.2019.101321 · Cited by 332
Self-citationMolinillo, S., Anaya‐Sánchez, R., & Liébana-Cabanillas, F. J. (2019) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2019.04.004 · Cited by 379
Customers’ motivation to engage with luxury brands on social media
Bazi, S., Filieri, R., & Gorton, M. (2020) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.02.032 · Cited by 332
Rather, R. A. (2021) · Journal of Destination Marketing & Management · doi:10.1016/j.jdmm.2021.100564 · Cited by 353
Beckers, S. F. M., van Doorn, J., & Verhoef, P. C. (2017) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1007/s11747-017-0539-4 · Cited by 362
“Hollebeek et al. (2014) Empirical ✓ ✓ ✓ Consumer brand engagement positively impacts self-brand connection and brand usage intent.”
BackgroundMerz, M. A., Zarantonello, L., & Grappi, S. (2017) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.08.018 · Cited by 338
The influence of brand experience and service quality on customer engagement
Prentice, C., Wang, X., & Loureiro, S. M. C. (2019) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.04.020 · Cited by 367
Cao, D., Meadows, M., Wong, D. L., & Xia, S. (2020) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.06.025 · Cited by 384
“The richness of social networking sites becomes increasingly important in the fashion context as it can foster social and interactive experiences beyond core purchase behaviour (Malthouse & Hofacker, 2010; Hollebeek, Glynn, & Brodie, 2014).”
Omni-channel marketing, integrated marketing communications and consumer engagement
Payne, E. H. M., Peltier, J. W., & Barger, V. A. (2017) · Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing · doi:10.1108/jrim-08-2016-0091 · Cited by 294
Exploring Social Media Engagement Behaviors in the Context of Luxury Brands
Pentina, I., Guilloux, V., & Micu, A. C. (2018) · Journal of Advertising · doi:10.1080/00913367.2017.1405756 · Cited by 349
Rather, R. A., Hollebeek, L. D., & Rasoolimanesh, S. M. (2022) · Journal of Travel Research · doi:10.1177/0047287521997572 · Cited by 289
“Thus, while involvement is traditionally viewed as a CE antecedent (Hollebeek, Glynn, and Brodie 2014), we derive more granular insight by showing that a customer’s involvement level affects the strength of his or her association of CX–cocreation and revisit intent.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citationInfluence of e-WOM engagement on consumer purchase intention in social commerce
Yusuf, A. S., Hussin, A. R. C., & Busalim, A. H. (2018) · Journal of Services Marketing · doi:10.1108/jsm-01-2017-0031 · Cited by 291
Algharabat, R., Rana, N. P., Dwivedi, Y. K., Alalwan, A. A., & Qasem, Z. (2017) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2017.09.011 · Cited by 297
“Therefore, according to Hollebeek et al. (2014), previous research on engagement literature covers: brands, offerings, organizations and organizational activities occurring beyond purchase (Patterson et al., 2006; van Doorn et al., 2010), while consumer engagement and brand engagement often reflect…”
BackgroundResultInfluentialA meta‐analysis of customer engagement behaviour
Barari, M. M., Ross, M., Quach, S., & Surachartkumtonkun, J. (2020) · International Journal of Consumer Studies · doi:10.1111/ijcs.12609 · Cited by 305
Customers’ service-related engagement, experience, and behavioral intent: Moderating role of age
Rather, R. A., & Hollebeek, L. D. (2021) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102453 · Cited by 327
Self-citationReplaced by a Robot: Service Implications in the Age of the Machine
McLeay, F., Osburg, V., Yoganathan, V., & Patterson, A. (2020) · Journal of Service Research · doi:10.1177/1094670520933354 · Cited by 300
Simon, F. L., & Tossan, V. (2018) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.12.050 · Cited by 301
Understanding Customer Engagement and Loyalty: A Case of Mobile Devices for Shopping
Thakur, R. (2016) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.06.004 · Cited by 290
Consumer engagement in social media brand communities: A literature review
Santos, Z. R., Cheung, C. M. K., Coelho, P. S., & Rita, P. (2021) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102457 · Cited by 340
Consumer emotional brand attachment with social media brands and social media brand equity
Dwivedi, A., Johnson, L. W., Wilkie, D. C. H., & Gil, L. D. A. (2018) · European Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1108/ejm-09-2016-0511 · Cited by 332
Chu, S., Chen, H., & Gan, C. (2020) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.01.036 · Cited by 268
Brand experience and brand loyalty: is it a matter of emotions?
Mostafa, R. B., & Kasamani, T. (2020) · Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics · doi:10.1108/apjml-11-2019-0669 · Cited by 334
The influence of identity-driven customer engagement on purchase intention
Prentice, C., Han, X., Hua, L.-L., & Hu, L. (2019) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.12.014 · Cited by 296
Zooming out: actor engagement beyond the dyadic
Alexander, M. J., Jaakkola, E., & Hollebeek, L. D. (2018) · Journal of Service Management · doi:10.1108/josm-08-2016-0237 · Cited by 259
“From the zoomed out, meta-level view, it is possible to view multiple service ecosystems and reveal how engagement can fluidly transition into disengagement (Naumann et al., 2017), and/or convert or evolve from, or into, the other (Echeverri & Skålén, 2011; Hollebeek et al., 2014).”
BackgroundInfluentialSelf-citationZheng, R., Li, Z., & Na, S.-G. (2022) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2022.103015 · Cited by 352
An integrated model of customer-brand engagement: Drivers and consequences
France, C., Merrilees, B., & Miller, D. (2016) · Journal of Brand Management · doi:10.1057/bm.2016.4 · Cited by 256
“The empirical models of Hollebeek et al (2014) and Dwivedi (2015) both identify consequences of customer-brand engagement relating to behaviour intentions, specifically brand usage intent and loyalty intent (respectively).”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialIdentifying influencers on social media
Harrigan, P., Daly, T. M., Coussement, K., Lee, J. A., Soutar, G. N., & Evers, U. (2020) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102246 · Cited by 328
Trust transfer in social media brand communities: The role of consumer engagement
Liu, L., Lee, M., Liu, R., & Chen, J. (2018) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.02.006 · Cited by 288
“In contrast, engagement describes one’s motivational state when participating in interactive activities (Hollebeek et al., 2014), and focuses more on people’s intrinsic motivation than on their evaluations (Wefald & Downey, 2009).”
BackgroundLoureiro, S. M. C., Romero, J., & Bilro, R. G. (2019) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.09.038 · Cited by 298
Engaging customers in value co-creation or co-destruction online
Zhang, T. C., Lu, C., Torres, E. N., & Chen, P. (2018) · Journal of Services Marketing · doi:10.1108/jsm-01-2017-0027 · Cited by 270
Marketing research on Mobile apps: past, present and future
Stocchi, L., Pourazad, N., Michaelidou, N., Tanusondjaja, A., & Harrigan, P. (2021) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1007/s11747-021-00815-w · Cited by 292
Fernandes, T., & Moreira, M. (2019) · Journal of Product & Brand Management · doi:10.1108/jpbm-08-2017-1545 · Cited by 329
Consumer engagement via interactive artificial intelligence and mixed reality
Sung, E., Bae, S., Han, D. D., & Kwon, O. (2021) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102382 · Cited by 274
Examining online social brand engagement: A social presence theory perspective
Osei-Frimpong, K., & McLean, G. (2017) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2017.10.010 · Cited by 270
“Item Factor Loading CR AVE Brand Usage Intent (Hollebeek et al., 2014) 0.885 0.660 It makes sense to use brand X following my engagement with the brand 0.704 Even if another brand has the same features as brand X, I would prefer to use brand X 0.872 If there is another brand as good as brand X, I prefer to use brand X…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSocial media influencers: A route to brand engagement for their followers
Delbaere, M., Michael, B., & Phillips, B. J. (2020) · Psychology and Marketing · doi:10.1002/mar.21419 · Cited by 301
Terms of engagement: Analyzing public engagement with organizations through social media
Smith, B. G., & Gallicano, T. D. (2015) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.05.060 · Cited by 230
Virtual brand community engagement practices: a refined typology and model
Hollebeek, L. D., Jurić, B., & Tang, W. (2017) · Journal of Services Marketing · doi:10.1108/jsm-01-2016-0006 · Cited by 258
Self-citationRather, R. A., & Hollebeek, L. D. (2019) · International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management · doi:10.1108/ijchm-10-2017-0627 · Cited by 261
Self-citationCustomer engagement behaviour on social commerce platforms: An empirical study
Busalim, A. H., Ghabban, F. M., & Hussin, A. R. C. (2020) · Technology in Society · doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101437 · Cited by 284
Strategic drivers, anticipated and unanticipated outcomes of customer engagement
Hollebeek, L. D., Conduit, J., & Brodie, R. J. (2016) · Journal of Marketing Management · doi:10.1080/0267257x.2016.1144360 · Cited by 238
“…relationships within broader nomological networks, which, despite having received initial conceptual and empirical attention from scholars (e.g. Hollebeek et al., 2014), have yielded limited insight to date, particularly with respect to focal unanticipated or undesirable outcomes, which are…”
BackgroundInfluentialSelf-citationIslam, J. U., & Rahman, Z. (2016) · Journal of Internet Commerce · doi:10.1080/15332861.2015.1124008 · Cited by 264
“The results of the study provide an empirical support to previous research (Hollebeek 2011a; Vivek, Beatty, and Morgan 2012; Hollebeek et al. 2014; So et al. 2014) by large that being involved with the community/brand plays an important role in engaging customers in an organization-customer…”
BackgroundResultAntecedents and consequences of customer brand engagement in integrated resorts
Ahn, J., & Back, K. (2018) · International Journal of Hospitality Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.05.020 · Cited by 247
Metadata
- 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.
- 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
- 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
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- 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 › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › 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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (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
