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 1,301–1,400 of 3,233
Sombultawee, K., & Wattanatorn, W. (2022) · Electronic Commerce Research and Applications · doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2022.101167 · Cited by 21
Customer engagement design in industrial innovation
Hollebeek, L. D., Keeling, D. I., & de Ruyter, K. (2022) · Industrial Marketing Management · doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2022.07.010 · Cited by 19
Self-citationCustomer engagement and sharing behaviors: Toward a contingent curvilinear perspective
Taylor, A., Carlson, J., Liao, Y., & Rahman, M. M. (2022) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.08.048 · Cited by 22
Social media engagement in the maritime industry during the pandemic
Koh, L. Y., Ng, C., Wang, X., & Yuen, K. F. (2023) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122553 · Cited by 18
Laurence, L., Hermawan, A., Bernarto, I., & Antonio, F. (2023) · International Journal of Computer Games Technology · doi:10.1155/2023/2648097 · Cited by 26
“In this case, a game is an object that gamers engage with by playing time after time, and there is favoritism for a brand [59].”
BackgroundNie, J., Wang, X., & Yang, C. (2023) · Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.3390/bs13070545 · Cited by 17
“Some scholars expanded the research framework to incorporate the social elements of CE [65,67], which entails socializing with others in virtual communities [72,73].”
BackgroundPrasad, K., Tomar, A. S., De, T., et al. (2022) · International Journal of Professional Business Review · doi:10.26668/businessreview/2022.v7i6.1030 · Cited by 15
Paredes-Corvalan, D., Pezoa-Fuentes, C., Silva-Rojas, G., Rojas, I. C. S., & Castillo‐Vergara, M. (2023) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e16881 · Cited by 20
Counterfeit brands and Machiavellianism: Consequences of counterfeit use for social perception
Razmus, W., Grabner‐Kräuter, S., & Adamczyk, G. (2023) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2023.103579 · Cited by 21
Liu, Y., Zhang, M., Hu, M., & Qiao, T. (2024) · Service Industries Journal · doi:10.1080/02642069.2024.2312352 · Cited by 15
“Studies on customer engagement behaviors highly emphasize the driving force of interactive experiences (Hollebeek et al., 2014).”
Pang, J., Fu, X., & Qi, Y. (2024) · International Journal of Hospitality Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2024.103764 · Cited by 15
Changani, S., & Kumar, R. (2024) · Global Business Review · doi:10.1177/09721509241245558 · Cited by 19
Ardiansyah, Y., Harrigan, P., Soutar, G. N., & Daly, T. M. (2018) · Journal of Interactive Advertising · doi:10.1080/15252019.2018.1437854 · Cited by 16
Lee, N., & Seltzer, T. (2018) · Journal of Communication Management · doi:10.1108/jcom-11-2017-0129 · Cited by 15
Engagement in the Online Brand Community: Impacts of Cultural Traits
Le, L. H., & Duong, G. H. (2019) · Journal of International Consumer Marketing · doi:10.1080/08961530.2019.1649992 · Cited by 15
“Consumer engagement can be direct (as buying behavior) or indirect (as referring, influencing and feedback) (Pansari and Kumar 2017), can include cognitive processing, affection, and activation (Hollebeek et al. 2014), or in another approach, can consist of participation, trust, and commitment (Hammedi et al.”
BackgroundInfluentialLoureiro, S. M. C. (2020) · International Journal of Fashion Design Technology and Education · doi:10.1080/17543266.2020.1758799 · Cited by 17
“One of the most common drivers of customer engagement considered in past research was involvement (Hollebeek et al., 2014), but here the”
BackgroundConsumer-Brand Engagement With E-Commerce Market Place Brands
Mohanty, P. K., & Dey, D. K. (2020) · Journal of Electronic Commerce in Organizations · doi:10.4018/jeco.2020070102 · Cited by 17
Binsawad, M. (2020) · Multimedia tools and applications · doi:10.1007/s11042-020-09620-z · Cited by 17
El rol del eWOM en la comunicación de RSC en redes sociales
Aguirre, C., de Maya, S. R., Palazón, M. M. C. P. C., & Orejuela, A. R. (2021) · Anagramas - Rumbos y sentidos de la comunicación · doi:10.22395/angr.v19n38a2 · Cited by 15
Trivedi, J. P. (2021) · Journal of Electronic Commerce in Organizations · doi:10.4018/jeco.2021070104 · Cited by 15
Customer engagement value: process, limitations and future research
ElHamd, E. A., Shamma, H. M., Saleh, M. M., & Khodary, E. E. (2021) · Journal of Modelling in Management · doi:10.1108/jm2-12-2020-0319 · Cited by 15
Pattnaik, P. N., & Shukla, M. K. (2021) · Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration · doi:10.1108/apjba-03-2021-0123 · Cited by 18
Presti, L. L., & Maggiore, G. (2021) · Quality & Quantity · doi:10.1007/s11135-021-01249-w · Cited by 15
The Role of Social Media Usage and Engagement on Purchase Intentions for Fashion Brands
Thanasi-Boçe, M., Zeqiri, J., & Kurtishi-Kastrati, S. (2022) · International Journal of E-Services and Mobile Applications · doi:10.4018/ijesma.300269 · Cited by 15
“It is defined in the literature as involvement with a brand (Hollebeek et al., 2014), commitment to a brand through interactive experiences (Hudson et al.”
BackgroundImplications of the use of social media for pre-purchase information searches for automobiles
Mahrous, A. A. (2016) · International Journal of Technology Marketing · doi:10.1504/ijtmkt.2016.077361 · Cited by 15
Social Media Content Analysis in the Higher Education Sector
de Oliveira, L. G., & Figueira, Á. (2015) · International Journal of Web Portals · doi:10.4018/ijwp.2015040102 · Cited by 15
Conceptualizing the social media communication impact on consumer based brand equity
Zailskaitė-Jakštė, L., & Kuvykaitė, R. (2016) · Trends Economics and Management · doi:10.13164/trends.2016.25.68 · Cited by 13
Antecedents and consequences of brand loyalty
Gupta, S., Schivinski, B., & Brzozowska-Woś, M. (2017) · BIROn (Birkbeck, University of London) · Cited by 16
Journal of Brand Management – Year end review 2016
Powell, S. M. (2016) · Journal of Brand Management · doi:10.1057/s41262-016-0021-5 · Cited by 15
“More recently, the concept of customer or consumer brand engagement (CBE) is an area of increased interest along with the development of some early conceptual models (see Hollebeek, 2011a, b; Gambetti et al, 2012; Hollebeek et al, 2014).”
BackgroundA Framework for Categorizing Social Media PostsPreprint
Tafesse, W., & Wien, A. H. (2016) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2824385 · Cited by 14
Insights into customer engagement in a mobile app context: review and research agenda
Sharma, S., & Sharma, A. (2024) · Cogent Business & Management · doi:10.1080/23311975.2024.2382922 · Cited by 17
“ce behavioral responses signify energy, effort, and time spent (Hollebeek & glynn, 2014) towards or during app interaction by the customer. when an app is selected for usage, it refers to app adoption behavior, which does not affirm engagement (Mclean, 2018), but post-adoption, continued…”
InfluentialToward D2A : Enhancing Luxury Fashion With Seamless and Immersive Phygital Customer Experiences
Massi, M., Piancatelli, C., Vocino, A., & Rojas‐Méndez, J. I. (2025) · International Journal of Consumer Studies · doi:10.1111/ijcs.70045 · Cited by 14
Digital doppelgänger: navigating consumer brand engagement in the metaverse
Khan, J., Meng, T., & Abbass, A. (2025) · Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing · doi:10.1108/jrim-07-2024-0344 · Cited by 15
Customer Experience in E-Commerce: A Systematic Review of Metrics, Models, and the Role of AI
Mittameedi, S. K., Dogra, V., & Sayal, A. (2025) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2025.3600729 · Cited by 17
“[9], [44], 154428 VOLUME 13, 2025 Authorized licensed use limited to the terms of the applicable license agreement with IEEE.”
Zahran, I., & Aljuhmani, H. Y. (2025) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su17177888 · Cited by 20
Peltier, J. W., Dahl, A. J., Drury, L., Khan, T., & Wang, C. (2025) · Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing · doi:10.1108/jrim-03-2025-0135 · Cited by 22
Social media content, customer engagement and brand equity: US versus Korea
Lee, J., & Park, C. H. (2022) · Management Decision · doi:10.1108/md-12-2020-1595 · Cited by 26
Manohar, S., Kumar, R., Saha, R., & Mittal, A. (2022) · Society and Business Review · doi:10.1108/sbr-09-2021-0159 · Cited by 27
Diaa, N. M. (2022) · The Business & Management Review · doi:10.24052/bmr/v13nu02/art-31 · Cited by 19
“According to research carried out (Brodie , et al., 2011), customer engagement (CE) functions as a strategic factor and makes a significant contribution to the achievement of superior performance outcomes (Hollebeek, et al., 2014).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialConsumer engagement with self-driving cars: a theory of planned behavior-informed perspective
Hollebeek, L. D., Menidjel, C., Itani, O. S., et al. (2022) · Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics · doi:10.1108/apjml-08-2022-0654 · Cited by 19
Self-citationHuang, S., Xu, H. Y., Adam, N. A., Fu, Q., Ahmad, A., Daniela, Z., & Bădulescu, D. (2022) · Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.3390/bs13010032 · Cited by 17
“[68], who contended that CE refers to a specific psychological state of a customer with a focal agent (a specific organization or brand) in response to interactive, co-creative customer experience with the focal agent.”
BackgroundRyding, D., Boardman, R., & Konstantinou, R. (2023) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-14961-0_28 · Cited by 14
Gálvez-Ruíz, P., Moreno, F. C., Puyana, M. G., González‐Serrano, M. H., & Fernández, J. G. (2023) · Academia Revista Latinoamericana de Administración · doi:10.1108/arla-01-2023-0014 · Cited by 14
Levesque, N., & Pons, F. (2023) · Journal of theoretical and applied electronic commerce research · doi:10.3390/jtaer18040088 · Cited by 26
The bright and dark sides of online customer engagement on brand love
Siu, N. Y., Zhang, J., & Yeung, R. S.-P. (2023) · Journal of Consumer Marketing · doi:10.1108/jcm-01-2022-5118 · Cited by 16
Music to the ears: the role of sonic branding in advertising
Kemp, E., Cho, Y., Bui, M., & Kintzer, A. (2023) · International Journal of Advertising · doi:10.1080/02650487.2023.2273645 · Cited by 22
Satar, M. S., Rather, R. A., Shahid, S., Islam, J. U., Parrey, S. H., & Khan, I. M. (2024) · Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics · doi:10.1108/apjml-08-2023-0754 · Cited by 17
Berendt, J., Uhrich, S., Borah, A., & Kilduff, G. J. (2024) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1177/00222437241248414 · Cited by 16
“…propose that brand rivalry perceptions can increase consumer engagement, which has been de fi ned as a “ consumer ’ s positively valenced brand-related cognitive, emotional and behavioral activity during or related to focal consumer/brand interactions ” (Hollebeek, Glynn, and Brodie 2014, p. 154).”
Digital Content Marketing and EWOM: A Mediational Serial Approach
Hasani, V. V., Zeqiri, J., Todorovik, T., Jaziri, D., & Toska, A. (2023) · Business Systems Research Journal · doi:10.2478/bsrj-2023-0010 · Cited by 14
Influential and Worthy: A Video-centric Exploration of Travel Influencers’ Value Chain Logic
Guo, S., Deng, N., & He, Z. (2024) · Journal of Travel Research · doi:10.1177/00472875241249428 · Cited by 15
“The concept of engagement initially appeared in disciplines like psychology, sociology, and organizational behavior (Brodie et al., 2011; L. D. Hollebeek et al., 2014), which all emphasize the subject’s highly interactive nature (L. Hollebeek, 2011).”
Self as source: The interplay of sharing eWOM with consumer engagement and incentive acceptance
Levy, S., & Gvili, Y. (2024) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2024.103926 · Cited by 19
Demystifying customer engagement in B2B markets
Srivastava, M. C., Sivaramakrishnan, S., & Pandey, N. (2024) · Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing · doi:10.1108/jbim-08-2023-0481 · Cited by 17
Sarkis, N., Maalouf, N. J. A., & Lakiss, R. E. (2024) · Cogent Business & Management · doi:10.1080/23311975.2024.2419501 · Cited by 14
“…key components. creating a content strategy that comprises a mix of promotional and engaging content tailored to the target audience is crucial (hollebeek et al., 2014). selecting the exact platforms based on where the target audience is most active ensures effective reach and engagement…”
Deciphering Word-of-Mouth Marketing Campaign Reach
Groeger, L., & Buttle, F. A. (2016) · Journal of Advertising Research · doi:10.2501/jar-2016-043 · Cited by 16
Jabreel, M., Huertas, A., & Moreno, A. (2018) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0206572 · Cited by 17
Akram, S., & Kortam, W. (2020) · Business and Management Studies · doi:10.11114/bms.v6i3.5021 · Cited by 16
“…as an exterior factor, scholars indicate that engagement of the client emanates from recurrent and pleasurable interactions between clients and objects of engagement, e.g., brands and communities (Brodie et al., 2013; Hollebeek et al., 2014; Mollen and Wilson, 2010; Van Doorn et al., 2010).”
BackgroundInfluentialBismoaziiz, B., Suhud, U., & Saparuddin, S. (2021) · International Journal of Business and Social Science Research · doi:10.47742/ijbssr.v2n2p3 · Cited by 21
Theory of dogmatism, personality traits and shopping behavior
Paul, J., Gupta, S., & Tyagi, S. (2021) · European Management Journal · doi:10.1016/j.emj.2021.10.009 · Cited by 14
Development of a brand community engagement model: a service-dominant logic perspective
Haverila, K. C., Haverila, M. J., & McLaughlin, C. (2022) · Journal of Consumer Marketing · doi:10.1108/jcm-01-2021-4390 · Cited by 14
A Content Marketing Framework to Analyze Customer Engagement on Social Media
Balio, S., & Casais, B. (2021) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-9020-1.ch016 · Cited by 15
How businesswomen engage customers on social media?
Fatima, N., & Ali, R. (2022) · Spanish Journal of Marketing - ESIC · doi:10.1108/sjme-09-2021-0172 · Cited by 20
“2 Social media as a tool for customer engagement SM and customer engagement have become important considerations for marketers to develop any marketing and business strategy (Vinerean and Opreana, 2021; Hollebeek et al., 2014).”
BackgroundA conceptual framework for co-creating memorable experiences: the metaphor of the journey
Angeloni, S. (2022) · Journal of Consumer Marketing · doi:10.1108/jcm-03-2022-5230 · Cited by 22
Yang, R., Wibowo, S., Mubarak, S., & Rahamathulla, M. (2023) · Journal of Marketing for HIGHER EDUCATION · doi:10.1080/08841241.2023.2204466 · Cited by 14
“In general, behavioural engagement is the outcome of affective and cognitive engagements (Henrie et al., 2015; Hollebeek et al., 2014; Ng et al., 2020), and reflects the intermediate stage (i.e. action) of behaviour change (Jakubowski & Dembo, 2004).”
Policy and Marketing Strategies for Digital Media
Valcke, P., & Ausloos, J. (2014) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781315794303 · Cited by 13
Duffett, R. G. (2016) · The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries · doi:10.1002/j.1681-4835.2016.tb00523.x · Cited by 14
“…focused on the examination of online consumers’ attitudes and usage (Kuisma et al., 2010; Punj, 2011; Mina, 2012; De Haan et al., 2013); and, more recently, social media (Malthouse et al., 2013; Maxwell, 2013; Weinberg et al., 2013; Hardwick et al., 2014; Hollebeek et al., 2014; Liu et al., 2015).”
BackgroundAchieving mobile social media popularity to enhance customer acquisition
Du, H. S., Ke, X., He, W., Chu, S. K. W., & Wagner, C. (2019) · Internet Research · doi:10.1108/intr-01-2018-0014 · Cited by 15
I’ve got an idea! Exploring the antecedents of suggestion sharing in consumer services
Burnham, T. A. (2020) · Journal of Services Marketing · doi:10.1108/jsm-08-2019-0312 · Cited by 14
Consumer Engagement in the Digital Era: Its Nature, Drivers, and Outcomes
Weitzl, W., & Einwiller, S. (2018) · The Handbook of Communication Engagement · doi:10.1002/9781119167600.ch31 · Cited by 14
van Berlo, Z. M. C., & Chen, X. (2024) · Journal of Interactive Advertising · doi:10.1080/15252019.2024.2335398 · Cited by 13
“In their seminal paper, for example, Hollebeek, Glynn, and Brodie (2014) identified three main dimensions of consumer brand engagement: cognitive processing, affection, and activation.”
InfluentialBrand, L., Anderski, M., & Ströbel, T. (2024) · Journal of Brand Management · doi:10.1057/s41262-024-00374-9 · Cited by 13
“…customers’ cognitive (i.e. mental processing and contemplation related to a brand) and behavioural activity (i.e. explicit behavioural manifestations in relation to a brand occurring beyond purchase) related to specific brand interactions (Hollebeek et al. 2014, 2019, 2021; Nyadzayo et al. 2020).”
Seller experience assessment in online marketplace: a scale development study
Kumar, A., Sikdar, P., & Saha, R. (2021) · Benchmarking An International Journal · doi:10.1108/bij-06-2020-0305 · Cited by 15
Shah, M. U., & Jan, M. F. (2021) · SAGE Open · doi:10.1177/21582440211067233 · Cited by 14
“The role of tourism destination was also assessed along with trust, usage intention, satisfaction, brand experience, customer loyalty and electronic word of mouth and co creation (Hollebeek et al., 2014; Rather, 2018b, Rather, 2020; Rather, Hollebeek et al., 2019).”
BackgroundSocial media in politics: how to drive engagement and strengthen relationships
Abid, A., Harrigan, P., Wang, S., Roy, S. K., & Harper, T. (2022) · Journal of Marketing Management · doi:10.1080/0267257x.2022.2117235 · Cited by 17
“Therefore, they represent the behavioural dimension of customer engagement (Tafesse & Wien, 2018), the other two being emotional and cognitive (Hollebeek et al., 2014).”
BackgroundChen, X.-X., Su, X.-F., Lin, W.-H., Xu, A.-X., Chen, J., & Zheng, Q.-J. (2022) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su142113914 · Cited by 14
Issues, Publics, Organizations, and Personal Networks: Toward an Integrated Issue Engagement Model
Qu, Y., & Saffer, A. J. (2023) · Journal of Public Relations Research · doi:10.1080/1062726x.2023.2227300 · Cited by 13
“Studies of employee engagement (e.g., Kahn, 1990; Men, 2012) and consumer engagement (Brodie et al., 2011, 2013; Hollebeek, 2011a, 2011b; Hollebeek et al., 2014) suggest that engagement is multidimensional, embodying in one’s cognition, feelings, and behavior.”
BackgroundSmart mirror fashion technology for better customer brand engagement
Wang, M., Marsden, J., & Thomas, M. A. (2023) · International Journal of Fashion Design Technology and Education · doi:10.1080/17543266.2023.2243485 · Cited by 14
“However to accommodate CBE within an online context and unify both physical and virtual domains, a revised set of dimensions emerged: cognitive processing (CP), affective reactions (AF), and behavioral responses (AC) (Algharabat et al., 2020; Hollebeek et al., 2014).”
InfluentialMy, N. S., Nguyen, L. T. V., & Pham, H. (2023) · Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics · doi:10.1108/apjml-01-2023-0061 · Cited by 13
Rehman, U., Abbasi, A. Z., Ting, D. H., Hassan, M. C., & Khair, N. (2023) · IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management · doi:10.1109/tem.2023.3347231 · Cited by 13
“Hollebeek et al. [62] derive three consumer brand engagement dimensions, including cognitive processing (cognitive), affection (emotional), and activation (behavioral).”
BackgroundMalodia, S., Filieri, R., Otterbring, T., & Dhir, A. (2024) · British Journal of Management · doi:10.1111/1467-8551.12823 · Cited by 26
Smart Experience and Green Health Tourism: The Moderating Role of Content Marketing
sardari, Z. A., Mohamadabadi, T. A., Nazarian-Jashnabadi, J., Tesoriere, G., & Campisi, T. (2024) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su16114546 · Cited by 15
Amankona, D., Kai-gang, Y., & Kampamba, C. (2024) · Management Matters · doi:10.1108/manm-03-2024-0015 · Cited by 15
Influencer storefronts: impact of social media advertising disclosures on purchases
Al-Hasan, A. (2024) · Journal of Systems and Information Technology · doi:10.1108/jsit-09-2023-0205 · Cited by 13
Bridging the digital divide in STEM education: Strategies and best practices
Joseph, O. B., & Uzondu, N. C. (2024) · Engineering Science & Technology Journal · doi:10.51594/estj.v5i8.1378 · Cited by 36
How ephemeral content marketing fosters brand love and customer engagement
Nguyen, K. M., Nguyen, N. T., Pham, T. T. X., Tran, N. H. M., Cap, N. C. B., & Nguyen, V. K. (2025) · Spanish Journal of Marketing - ESIC · doi:10.1108/sjme-04-2024-0089 · Cited by 14
Jiang, H.-L., Lu, L.-H., Yuen, T. W., & Liu, Y. (2025) · Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management · doi:10.1080/19368623.2025.2484282 · Cited by 13
“Engagement is widely recognized as a means to foster individual participation and enhance adoption intentions through experience, interaction, and connection between the individual and the object – in this case, the VA (Bitrián et al., 2021; Hollebeek et al., 2014; Xie-Carson et al., 2023).”
Share of time in omnichannel retailing: Definition and measurement
Rahman, S. M., Carlson, J., Chowdhury, N. H., Gudergan, S. P., Wetzels, M. G. M., & Grewal, D. (2025) · Journal of Retailing · doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2025.04.001 · Cited by 15
Belaïd, S., Mrad, S. B., Lacœuilhe, J., & Petrescu, M. (2017) · Journal of Marketing Analytics · doi:10.1057/s41270-017-0024-4 · Cited by 13
“Surveys were analysed using principal components analysis (PCA) to identify brand benefits’ dimensions (Churchill 1979; De Vellis 1991; Hollebeek et al. 2014).”
MethodExploring the Relationship Between Social Media and Social Influence
Usman, A., & Okafor, S. (2019) · Advances in marketing, customer relationship management, and e-services book series · doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-7344-9.ch004 · Cited by 13
Dropout management in online learning systems
Dash, R., Ranjan, K. R., & Rossmann, A. (2021) · Behavior and Information Technology · doi:10.1080/0144929x.2021.1910730 · Cited by 10
“…2001) and can be a powerful tool in shaping learning behaviour. eWOM communication is expressed by quantitative ratings, for example, star ratings, numerical rating, likes and dislikes (Hollebeek, Glynn, and Brodie 2014) as well as by qualitative viewpoints, for example, comments and feedback.”
BackgroundSangkil Moon, A., Jalali, N. Y., & Song, R. (2021) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.11.004 · Cited by 14
Udiono, T., & Maryani, M. (2021) · International Conference on Cybernetics and Intelligent System (ICORIS) · doi:10.1109/icoris52787.2021.9649444 · Cited by 13
The influence of social media and brand equity on business-to-business marketing
Fagundes, L., Munaier, C. G. E. S., & Crescitelli, E. (2022) · Revista de Gestão · doi:10.1108/rege-07-2021-0114 · Cited by 13
What causes social media users to engage and mimic virtual influencers? The role of self-congruity
Suprawan, L., & Pojanavatee, S. (2022) · Innovative Marketing · doi:10.21511/im.18(4).2022.13 · Cited by 13
“Furthermore, consumer engagement can be viewed in three dimensions: cognitive, emotional, and behavioral, which explain consumers’ interactions with an object (Hollebeek et al., 2014).”
BackgroundFilipović, J., & Arslanagić-Kalajdžić, M. (2023) · European Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1108/ejm-03-2021-0158 · Cited by 13
The dynamic approach to business models
Nyström, A., & Mustonen, M. (2017) · AMS Review · doi:10.1007/s13162-017-0103-x · Cited by 13
Investigating the Role of Customer Brand Engagement and Relationship Quality on Brand Loyalty
Nagaraj, S., & Singh, S. (2018) · International Journal of E-Business Research · doi:10.4018/ijebr.2018070103 · Cited by 13
Exploring the Role of NVivo Software in Marketing Research
Moi, L., Frau, M., & Cabiddu, F. (2018) · MERCATI & COMPETITIVITÀ · doi:10.3280/mc2018-004005 · Cited by 14
“We ran the third Word Frequency at Behavioral/Activation node (see Table 7).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialOnline Brand Experience: Drivers and Consequences
Pratomo, L. A., & Magetsari, O. N. N. (2018) · Jurnal Dinamika Manajemen · doi:10.15294/jdm.v9i2.15192 · Cited by 14
Msallati, A. (2021) · Journal of Innovations in Digital Marketing · doi:10.51300/jidm-2021-31 · Cited by 17
“Consumer engagement behavior is seen as a result of the extent of consumers’ involvement level, it points out important aspects such as how much productrelated information users need to make a response (Hollebeek et al., 2014).”
BackgroundInfluentialThe nature of peer‐initiated brand communities on social media platforms
Wong, A. (2021) · Journal of Consumer Behaviour · doi:10.1002/cb.1978 · Cited by 13
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
