The DOI matches its Crossref record; 104 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
2 of 29 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged · 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)
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- 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
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIn 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
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesA 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
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA 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
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesThe 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
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA 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
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesThe 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
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- 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.
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt 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
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt 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
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt 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
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt 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
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt 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
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt 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.
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt 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
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt 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
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt 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
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt 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.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt 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.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt 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.
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably 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
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt 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.
Study 1 is described as social-media-specific despite its unrestricted brand selection
MinorThe 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.
“We selected a social media setting in studies 1-3”
“We instructed the participants to select a brand in any category that is 'highly engaging' to them”
Activation-self-brand squared correlation does not match its correlation
MinorTable 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
“| Activation | .72 | .67 | .75 | .69 | .46 | .49 | | Self-Brand | .84 | .74 | .86 | .86 | .75 | .45 |”
Affection-brand-usage squared correlation does not match its correlation
MinorTable 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
“| 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 |”
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
Flagged first, then by citations
6 of the 110 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
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
Items 901–1,000 of 3,233
The impact of brand value co-creation on perceived CSR authenticity and brand equity
Muniz, F., & án, F. G. (2023) · Journal of Product & Brand Management · doi:10.1108/jpbm-02-2023-4340 · Cited by 36
How do innovators stay innovative? A longitudinal case analysis
Tuzovic, S., Wirtz, J., & Heracleous, L. (2018) · Journal of Services Marketing · doi:10.1108/jsm-02-2017-0052 · Cited by 30
“Customer engagement, in particular, has gained considerable attention among practitioners and in the academic community (Brodie et al., 2011, 2016; Hollebeek et al., 2014, 2016) and has been emphasized many times as a success driver of service innovation (Chen et al., 2016).”
BackgroundSeeking Micro-influencers for Brand Promotion
Gan, T., Wang, S., Liu, M., et al. (2019) · ACM International Conference on Multimedia (ACM MM) · doi:10.1145/3343031.3351080 · Cited by 30
“Since these micro-influencers are considered to be more cost effective, generate higher social media engagement, and have certain knowledge in the product domain and hence are more trustworthy compared to celebrity influencers [6, 17, 24].”
BackgroundMultiple identities of a festival
Masiello, B., Bonetti, E., & Izzo, F. (2020) · International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management · doi:10.1108/ijchm-11-2018-0937 · Cited by 30
Audience response to endemic and non-endemic sponsors of esports events
Rogers, R. P., Farquhar, L., & Mummert, J. (2020) · International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship · doi:10.1108/ijsms-09-2019-0107 · Cited by 33
Mapping methods of research on consumer engagement with brands on social media: A literature review:
Martínek, P. (2021) · Methodological Innovations · doi:10.1177/2059799120985384 · Cited by 2
Bilro, R. G., Loureiro, S. M. C., & Angelino, F. J. D. A. (2021) · Journal of Creative Communications · doi:10.1177/0973258621992644 · Cited by 35
“…relevance of distinct stakeholders’ engagement, such as consumers, shareholders, providers or students, from various viewpoints (Loureiro et al, 2020c), and engagement between companies and consumers (e.g., Brodie et al., 2011; Hollebeek et al., 2014; Loureiro et al., 2020b; Sprott et al., 2009).”
BackgroundImpact of Brand Engagement on Behavioral Loyalty, Brand Equity and WOM Through Attitudinal Loyalty
Goyal, A., & Verma, P. (2021) · Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing · doi:10.1080/08974438.2021.1956667 · Cited by 35
“Ten items were adopted from Hollebeek, Glynn, and Brodie (2014) scale to measure brand engagement.”
MethodHollebeek, L. D., Sprott, D. E., Urbonavičius, S., Sigurðsson, V., Clark, M. K., Riisalu, R., & Smith, D. L. (2022) · Psychology and Marketing · doi:10.1002/mar.21647 · Cited by 33
Self-citationConsumer brand engagement concept and measurement: Toward a refined approach
Lourenço, C. E., Hair, J. F., Zambaldi, F., & Ponchio, M. C. (2022) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2022.103053 · Cited by 46
International students’ engagement in their university’s social media
Fujita, M., Harrigan, P., & Soutar, G. N. (2017) · International Journal of Educational Management · doi:10.1108/ijem-12-2016-0260 · Cited by 35
Stakeholder engagement through gamification
Seiffert‐Brockmann, J., Weitzl, W., & Henriks, M. (2017) · Journal of Communication Management · doi:10.1108/jcom-12-2016-0096 · Cited by 30
The Role of Social Capital in Shaping Consumer Engagement within Online Brand Communities
Bowden, J., Conduit, J., Hollebeek, L. D., Luoma‐aho, V., & Solem, B. A. A. (2018) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781119167600.ch33 · Cited by 32
Self-citationSharma, D. R., & Singh, B. (2021) · Vision The Journal of Business Perspective · doi:10.1177/0972262921992593 · Cited by 55
“Though in its nascent stage the research in the area of customer engagement also confirms that customer engagement leads to repeat purchase behaviour (Bowden, 2009; Hollebeek et al., 2014; Van Doorn et al., 2010).”
BackgroundDriving Force Behind Consumer Brand Engagement
Mittal, G., & Bansal, R. (2023) · Advances in marketing, customer relationship management, and e-services book series · doi:10.4018/978-1-6684-8312-1.ch012 · Cited by 29
Consumer Brand Engagement Fostered by Cause-Related Marketing in Emotional and Functional Brands
Pereira, D., Silva, J., & Casais, B. (2024) · Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing · doi:10.1080/10495142.2024.2329258 · Cited by 42
“In interactive and dynamic business environments, CBE is a strategic tool for improving corporate performance and brand management (Hollebeek et al., 2014; Islam & Rahman, 2016).”
Experiential Marketing to Gen Z: Fine-Tuning Brand Experience Through Virtual Reality
Bogicevic, V., Liu, S. Q., Kandampully, J. A., Seo, S., & Rudd, N. A. (2024) · Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research · doi:10.1177/10963480241256564 · Cited by 32
Does using a green gaming system make people more environmentally friendly?
Zhang, Z., Niu, P., Li, C., & Feng, Y. (2024) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2024.108392 · Cited by 31
Customer engagement with a service provider and context: an empirical examination
Sim, M., & Plewa, C. (2017) · Journal of Service Theory and Practice · doi:10.1108/jstp-03-2016-0057 · Cited by 28
Šerić, M., & Vernuccio, M. (2019) · Current Issues in Tourism · doi:10.1080/13683500.2019.1637403 · Cited by 29
Online brand communities’ contribution to digital business models
Kucharska, W. (2019) · Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing · doi:10.1108/jrim-05-2018-0063 · Cited by 41
Social media engagement, service complexity, and experiential quality in US hospitals
Lee, Y., In, J., & Lee, S. (2020) · Journal of Services Marketing · doi:10.1108/jsm-09-2019-0359 · Cited by 35
A human touch and content matter for consumer engagement on social media
Park, H., & Jiang, Y. (2020) · Corporate Communications An International Journal · doi:10.1108/ccij-01-2020-0033 · Cited by 34
Examining the antecedents and consequences of mobile travel app engagement
Tian, Z., Shi, Z., & Cheng, Q. (2021) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0248460 · Cited by 31
“The items we used to measure the variables were adapted from previous studies and slightly modified to fit the travel app context [13,24,39,41,42].”
BackgroundMethodVieira, V. A., Liu, R. L., & de Mello, V. G. (2021) · The Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice · doi:10.1080/10696679.2021.2004379 · Cited by 31
“…as a part of the self-concept and the rationality behind it is that by incorporating branded self-schemas (that is a component of the self-concept), consumers can display stable information constructions about themselves, instead of connecting with just a specific brand (Hollebeek et al., 2014).”
BackgroundAmani, D. (2022) · Cogent Business & Management · doi:10.1080/23311975.2022.2031432 · Cited by 31
“Recent seminal work in customer engagement argues that social media brand engagement drives other behavioral intents such as brand loyalty, brand commitment, brand identification, etc. (Hollebeek et al., 2014).”
BackgroundInfluentialGamification in Tourism: A Design Framework for the TRIPMENTOR Project
Roinioti, E., Pandia, E., Konstantakis, M., & Skarpelos, Y. (2022) · Digital · doi:10.3390/digital2020012 · Cited by 29
Fan, X., Jiang, X., & Deng, N. (2022) · Journal of Travel Research · doi:10.1177/00472875221141879 · Cited by 29
“To measure consumer engagement (including cognitive engagement [CE] and affective engagement [AE]), we adapted a seven-item consumer engagement scale (Hollebeek et al., 2014).”
Menidjel, C., Hollebeek, L. D., Urbonavičius, S., & Sigurðsson, V. (2023) · Journal of Services Marketing · doi:10.1108/jsm-04-2022-0122 · Cited by 37
Self-citationRodríguez‐Ardura, I., Meseguer‐Artola, A., & Fu, Q. (2023) · Online Information Review · doi:10.1108/oir-04-2022-0208 · Cited by 33
Antecedents and consequences of corporate reputation: A dataset
Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Iuklanov, D. (2023) · Data in Brief · doi:10.1016/j.dib.2023.109079 · Cited by 29
The central role of consumer–brand engagement in product and service brand contexts
Ndhlovu, T., & Maree, T. (2023) · Journal of Marketing Analytics · doi:10.1057/s41270-023-00241-7 · Cited by 51
“…al. 2014), as evidenced by studies revealing CBE as a predictor of consumer behaviours such as loyalty, brand usage intent, re-patronage intent, and word-of-mouth (Fernandes and Moreira 2019; France et al. 2016; Hollebeek et al. 2014; Islam and Rahman 2016b; Islam et al. 2019; Vivek et al. 2014).”
Kéfi, H., Besson, E., Zhao, Y., & Farran, S. (2023) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2023.103890 · Cited by 31
Fan Engagement Behavior: Validation of a Theory-Based Scale
Yoshida, M., Biscaia, R., Uhrich, S., Gordon, B. S., Huettermann, M., & Nakazawa, M. (2023) · Journal of Sport Management · doi:10.1123/jsm.2023-0075 · Cited by 28
Walter, N., Föhl, U., & Zagermann, L. (2024) · Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising · doi:10.1080/10641734.2024.2366198 · Cited by 38
“Consequently, Hollebeek, Glynn, and Brodie (2014, 154) define customer brand engagement as “[a] consumer’s positively valenced brand-related cognitive, emotional and behavioral activity during or related to customer/brand interactions.””
Using Augmented Reality to Strengthen Consumer/Brand Relationships: The Case of Luxury Brands
Arya, V., Sethi, D., & Hollebeek, L. D. (2024) · Journal of Consumer Behaviour · doi:10.1002/cb.2419 · Cited by 35
Self-citationAI-Generated News Content: The Impact of AI Writer Identity and Perceived AI Human-Likeness
Lee, D. C., Jhang, J., & Baek, T. H. (2025) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2025.2477739 · Cited by 37
“Engagement encompasses a range of emotional, cognitive, and behavioral responses that extend beyond mere transactional interactions (Hollebeek et al., 2014).”
Jayapal, J. (2025) · Journal of Promotion Management · doi:10.1080/10496491.2025.2525099 · Cited by 35
“In online environments, where direct interpersonal interactions are absent, engagement is a key determinant of perceived value and overall satisfaction with the shopping experience (Hollebeek et al., 2014).”
Dual effect of sensory experience: engagement vs diversive exploration
Lashkova, M., Martín, C. A., & Izquierdo, C. C. (2019) · International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management · doi:10.1108/ijrdm-09-2018-0204 · Cited by 30
Beyond Social Media Engagement: Holistic Digital Engagement and a Social Identity Perspective
Farhat, K., Aslam, W., & Mokhtar, S. S. M. (2021) · Journal of Internet Commerce · doi:10.1080/15332861.2021.1905474 · Cited by 33
“Various themes of engagement in marketing have emerged such as customer engagement, brand engagement, CBE, customer engagement behavior, online brand community engagement, and online engagement (e.g., Hollebeek, Glynn, and Brodie 2014; Sprott, Czellar, and Spangenberg 2009; Van Doorn 2011).”
BackgroundInfluentialA validation of the modified democratic e-governance website evaluation model
Lee, T., Lee-Geiller, S., & Lee, B. (2021) · Government Information Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.giq.2021.101616 · Cited by 28
Ferreira, A. G., Crespo, C. F., & Mendes, C. (2021) · International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship · doi:10.1108/ijsms-12-2020-0211 · Cited by 28
Maziashvili, M., Pleśniak, A., & Kowalik, I. (2022) · International Review of Administrative Sciences · doi:10.1177/00208523221079746 · Cited by 38
“In recent marketing literature, researchers have given signi fi cant attention to the role of digital tools in engaging customers in the branding process (Hollebeek et al., 2014).”
BackgroundTendencias emergentes en la literatura sobre el compromiso del cliente: un análisis bibliométrico
Duque, P., & Oliva, E. J. D. (2022) · Estudios Gerenciales · doi:10.18046/j.estger.2022.162.4528 · Cited by 48
“…Doorn et al. (2010) 445 44,5 985 1165 2633 Brodie et al. (2011) 422 46,9 873 1104 2510 Brodie et al. (2013) 331 47,3 833 1065 2382 Hollebeek et al. (2014) 287 47,8 615 747 1459 Vivek et al. (2014) 276 34,5 NR 639 1433 Bowden (2014) 222 20,2 NR 467 1264 Hollebeek (2010) 194 21,6…”
BackgroundRealizing the economic and circular potential of sharing business models by engaging consumers
Bruyne, M.-J. D., & Verleye, K. (2022) · Journal of service management · doi:10.1108/josm-08-2021-0318 · Cited by 31
Negative customer engagement behaviour in a service context
Do, D. K. X., & Bowden, J. (2023) · Service Industries Journal · doi:10.1080/02642069.2022.2159945 · Cited by 29
“…with a service brand/firm that results in value co-creation (Brodie et al., 2011); a customer’s cognitive, affective and behavioural activity in a brand interaction (Hollebeek et al., 2014); and a customer’s investment of operant and operand resources in a service system (Hol-lebeek et al., 2019).”
Investigating the Impact of Online Brand Communities on Online Customer Engagement and Brand Loyalty
Gupta, R., Kumar, V., Kaushik, A. K., Gupta, D. D., & Sindhwani, R. (2023) · Journal of Global Marketing · doi:10.1080/08911762.2023.2180789 · Cited by 36
Hsu, L., & Hu, S.-Y. (2023) · Current Psychology · doi:10.1007/s12144-023-04634-w · Cited by 41
“Academic research on customer engagement has mostly focused on the development and definition of scales (Brodie et al., 2013; Hollebeek et al., 2014; Jaakkola & Alexander 2014).”
Role of multidimensional customer brand engagement on customer behavior for online grocery shopping
Park, J., Hong, E., Ahn, J., & Hyun, H. (2023) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2023.103380 · Cited by 34
Construction and validation of the customer social participation in brand communities scale
Kamboj, S., & Sarmah, B. (2017) · Internet Research · doi:10.1108/intr-01-2017-0011 · Cited by 28
Colladon, A. F., Grippa, F., & Innarella, R. (2019) · Tourism Management Perspectives · doi:10.1016/j.tmp.2019.100588 · Cited by 36
The impact of customer engagement on customer happiness
de Azambuja, G. P., Peña, G. A. R., & Vargas, E. G. T. (2023) · Journal of Consumer Behaviour · doi:10.1002/cb.2147 · Cited by 28
Customer Journey Value: A Conceptual Framework
Hollebeek, L. D., Urbonavičius, S., Sigurðsson, V., Arvola, R., & Clark, M. K. (2023) · Journal of Creating Value · doi:10.1177/23949643231157155 · Cited by 38
“Given CE’s intra-interaction scope (e.g., Khan et al., 2020), its levels may fluctuate across a customer’s brand interactions (Hollebeek et al., 2014), revealing its discrete interactional nature.”
BackgroundMethodSelf-citationHow Ephemerality Features Affect User Engagement with Social Media Platforms
Lehrer, C., Constantiou, I., Matt, C., & Heß, T. (2023) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2023/17085 · Cited by 32
Huang, M., Saleh, M. S. M., & Zolkepli, I. A. (2024) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e25948 · Cited by 28
“Overall, consumer-brand engagement reflects the intention of consumers to spend time and energy to recognise the brand, which is considered to be a relevant indicator to evaluate the effect of brand-consumer connection [41].”
BackgroundZheng, L., & Xu, Y. (2024) · International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship · doi:10.1108/ijsms-01-2024-0030 · Cited by 42
Guerreiro, M., Pinto, P. S. L. G. D. S., Ramos, C. M. Q., Matos, N., Golestaneh, H., Sequeira, B. D., Pereira, L. N., Agapito, D., Martins, R., & Wikesjö, M. (2024) · Mundo FESC · doi:10.18089/tms.20240401 · Cited by 58
Exploring purchase intention in metaverse retailing: Insights from an automotive platform
Zhang, H., Lv, Y., Zhang, Z., Hollebeek, L. D., Behl, A., & Urbonavičius, S. (2024) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2024.104144 · Cited by 28
Self-citationBrand love and customer brand engagement for masstige: a cross-cultural perspective
Shahid, S., Husain, R., Islam, J. U., & Hollebeek, L. D. (2025) · Journal of Product & Brand Management · doi:10.1108/jpbm-07-2024-5370 · Cited by 34
Self-citationEl-Shihy, D. A. M., & Awaad, S. (2025) · Future Business Journal · doi:10.1186/s43093-025-00529-3 · Cited by 29
“The measurement scales included BGC adapted from Yoo et al. [46], UGC from Cheung and Thadani [6], SME from Hollebeek et al. [15], and purchase intentions from Spears and Singh [38].”
Mental health message appeals and audience engagement: Evidence from Australia
Yap, J. E., Zubcevic‐Basic, N., Johnson, L. W., & Lodewyckx, M. A. (2017) · Health Promotion International · doi:10.1093/heapro/dax062 · Cited by 27
“Thus, future research could address the relationship between message appeals and audience engagement through a more diverse range of audience engagement measures (Neiger et al., 2012; Hollebeek et al., 2014; Vivek et al., 2014).”
BackgroundThe influence of goal attainment and switching costs on customers’ staying intentions
Temerak, M. S., & El‐Manstrly, D. (2019) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.05.020 · Cited by 24
Innovating the customer loyalty program with social media
He, W., Tian, X., & Wang, F. (2019) · Journal of Enterprise Information Management · doi:10.1108/jeim-10-2018-0224 · Cited by 27
Loo, P. T. (2020) · Tourism Management Perspectives · doi:10.1016/j.tmp.2020.100657 · Cited by 30
Loyalty towards telco service providers: the fundamental role of consumer brand engagement
Ooi, S. K., Yeap, J. A. L., & Low, Z. (2020) · European Business Review · doi:10.1108/ebr-10-2019-0271 · Cited by 30
Customer engagement and performance in social media: a managerial perspective
Boujena, O., Ulrich, I., Manthiou, A., & Godey, B. (2021) · Electronic Markets · doi:10.1007/s12525-020-00450-3 · Cited by 30
Branded content experience in social media settings: a consumer culture theory perspective
Waqas, M., Hamzah, Z. L., & Salleh, N. A. M. (2022) · Journal of Brand Management · doi:10.1057/s41262-021-00268-0 · Cited by 28
The invisible leash: when human brands hijack corporate brands' consumer relationships
Giertz, J. N., Hollebeek, L. D., Weiger, W. H., & Hammerschmidt, M. (2022) · Journal of service management · doi:10.1108/josm-06-2021-0211 · Cited by 27
Self-citationKumar, N., Panda, R. K., & Adhikari, K. (2022) · Service Industries Journal · doi:10.1080/02642069.2022.2062327 · Cited by 27
“However, Harrigan et al. (2017) contend that CE conceptualizations that do not directly relate to the cognitive, affective, and behavioral aspects still enclose these components and can be primarily associated with the CE dimensions developed by Hollebeek et al. (2014).”
BackgroundWong, I. A., Lin, Z., & Zhang, X. (2022) · Journal Of Vacation Marketing · doi:10.1177/13567667221101412 · Cited by 27
“This premise resonates closely with engagement theory to af fi rm a relationship between usage of ICT and engagement of the speci fi c technology, social media in particular (Hollebeek et al., 2014).”
BackgroundInfluentialSoltani-Nejad, N., Rastegar, R., & Jahanshahi, M. (2022) · Tourism Recreation Research · doi:10.1080/02508281.2022.2100194 · Cited by 30
“…of my awareness of the brand, if another brand is identical to brand X, it seems better to use brand X. 0.78 20.12 2.12 1.08 1.50 Engagement with MAOEL which was in line with the fi ndings of Algesheimer et al., (2010), Chu & Kim, (2011), Evanschitzky et al., (2012), and Hollebeek et al., (2014).”
InfluentialHussein, A. S., Sumiati, S., Hapsari, R. D. V., & Bakar, J. A. (2022) · The TQM Journal · doi:10.1108/tqm-11-2021-0344 · Cited by 27
Towards an integrated framework to measure user engagement with interactive or physical products
Jiménez, I. A. C., Acevedo, J. S. G., Marcolin, F., Vezzetti, E., & Moos, S. (2022) · International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing (IJIDeM) · doi:10.1007/s12008-022-01087-6 · Cited by 31
“[63] Marketing Consumer brand engagement Multi Cognitive, emotional, behavioural”
BackgroundHow customers respond to social media advertising
Yang, P., Li, K., & Ji, C. (2022) · Marketing Intelligence & Planning · doi:10.1108/mip-09-2022-0397 · Cited by 32
Antecedents and consequences of consumer hope for digital payment apps services
Bapat, D. M., & Khandelwal, R. (2022) · Journal of Services Marketing · doi:10.1108/jsm-12-2021-0456 · Cited by 42
Nusair, K., Karatepe, O. M., Okumuş, F., Alfarhan, U. F., & Shi, F. (2023) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102701 · Cited by 38
Engagement in online communities: implications for consumer price perceptions
Nguyen, L., Conduit, J., Lu, V., & Hill, S. R. (2016) · Journal of Strategic Marketing · doi:10.1080/0965254x.2015.1095224 · Cited by 27
“A multidimensional scale of online community engagement was adapted from Hollebeek, Glynn, and Brodie (2014), capturing the members’ cognition, affection and activation toward the online community.”
MethodExamining the dilution of the consumer-brand relationship on Facebook: the saturation issue
Ramadan, Z. B. (2017) · Qualitative Market Research An International Journal · doi:10.1108/qmr-07-2016-0064 · Cited by 32
A strategic approach to self-branding
Evans, J. R. (2017) · Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science · doi:10.1080/21639159.2017.1360146 · Cited by 27
“…brand stories • Study with 166 southwest uS undergraduates • Model of social media and brands • Questions to consider in assessing the consumer-social media impact on brands hollebeek et al. (2014) • brand engagement in social media • Multiple studies conducted • engagement stages • Model of…”
BackgroundYasin, M., Porcu, L., & Liébana-Cabanillas, F. (2019) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su11174649 · Cited by 31
Cognitive computing on unstructured data for customer co-innovation
Chen, S., Kang, J. S., Liu, S., & Sun, Y. (2019) · European Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1108/ejm-01-2019-0092 · Cited by 27
Stuck Online: When Online Engagement Gets in the Way of Offline Sales
Bar-Gill, S., & Reichman, S. (2015) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2021/15267 · Cited by 24
When enough is not enough: behavioral and motivational paths to compulsive social media consumption
Lervik-Olsen, L., Andreassen, T. W., & Fennis, B. M. (2023) · European Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1108/ejm-12-2022-0898 · Cited by 36
Tang, X., Hao, Z., & Li, X. (2024) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1297369 · Cited by 47
A contingency-based approach to service robot design: Role of robot capabilities and personalities
Balaji, M. S., Sharma, P., Jiang, Y., Zhang, X., Walsh, S. T., Behl, A., & Jain, K. (2024) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123257 · Cited by 27
Danmaku consistency reduces consumer purchases during live streaming: A dual‐process model
Zhang, N., & Ruan, C. (2024) · Psychology and Marketing · doi:10.1002/mar.22074 · Cited by 27
Żyminkowska, K., & Zachurzok-Srebrny, E. (2025) · Journal of theoretical and applied electronic commerce research · doi:10.3390/jtaer20030184 · Cited by 45
Weiger, W. H., Wetzel, H. A., & Hammerschmidt, M. (2019) · European Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1108/ejm-10-2017-0777 · Cited by 32
Volunteer engagement: conceptual extensions and value-in-context outcomes
Conduit, J., Karpen, I. O., & Tierney, K. D. (2019) · Journal of Service Theory and Practice · doi:10.1108/jstp-06-2018-0138 · Cited by 27
Vazquez, E. E. (2020) · Electronic Markets · doi:10.1007/s12525-020-00394-8 · Cited by 29
“Although content on SMPs is largely positive, negative content about products also exist in the form of bad reviews and product or service complaints (Hollebeek et al. 2014).”
BackgroundFacilitation of “strong” branded application outcomes – the self-concept perspective
Tseng, T. H. (2020) · Journal of Product & Brand Management · doi:10.1108/jpbm-03-2020-2783 · Cited by 28
Bozkurt, S., & Gligor, D. (2021) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102448 · Cited by 27
Introducing relational dialectics on actor engagement in the social media ecosystem
Tsiotsou, R. H. (2020) · Journal of Services Marketing · doi:10.1108/jsm-01-2020-0027 · Cited by 27
Romero, J., Ruiz‐Equihua, D., Loureiro, S. M. C., & Casaló, L. V. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.659994 · Cited by 29
“Engaged customers tend to feel satisfaction (Brodie et al., 2013; Fehrer et al., 2018), become loyal (Hollebeek, 2011; Dwivedi, 2015), and say positive things about the firm (Vivek et al., 2012; Hollebeek et al., 2014; McLean and Wilson, 2019).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialMundel, J., & Yang, J. (2021) · Journal of Interactive Advertising · doi:10.1080/15252019.2021.1958274 · Cited by 28
RODRIGUES, I. M. F. M., Lopes, J. M., Borges, A. P., Oliveira, J., & Oliveira, M. (2021) · Administrative Sciences · doi:10.3390/admsci11030092 · Cited by 34
“Having previously verified that customer engagement can be influenced by several factors (Kotler et al. 2019), it was also confirmed that this is usually analyzed in a downward way (company to consumer) (Bowden 2009; Hollebeek et al. 2014).”
BackgroundLiu, Y. (2022) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.805393 · Cited by 32
“CBE was measured with six items adopted by Hollebeek et al. (2014).”
MethodWork Motivation in the Public Service: A Scale Development Based on the Self-Determination Theory
Xu, C. (2022) · SAGE Open · doi:10.1177/21582440221091263 · Cited by 44
“Following the methods in existing studies (e.g., Hollebeek et al., 2014; Sung et al., 2019), the research team compiled the items based on a qualitative analysis of the interviews.”
MethodDigital consumer engagement: examining the impact of native advertising exposure in a social network
Sussman, K. L., Bright, L. F., & Wilcox, G. B. (2022) · Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing · doi:10.1108/jrim-10-2021-0265 · Cited by 35
Virtual brand experience in digital reality advertising: Conceptualization and measurement
Lee, H., & Cho, C.-H. (2022) · Journal of Consumer Behaviour · doi:10.1002/cb.2126 · Cited by 35
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
