The DOI matches its Crossref record; 105 of the 110 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 2 of the 29 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development and Validation
Open accessAbstract
In the last three decades, an influential research stream has emerged which highlights the dynamics of focal consumer/brand relationships. Specifically, more recently the ‘consumer brand engagement’ (CBE) concept has been postulated to more comprehensively reflect the nature of consumers’ particular interactive brand relationships, relative to traditional concepts, including ‘involvement.’ However, despite the growing scholarly interest regarding the undertaking of marketing research addressing ‘engagement,’ studies have been predominantly exploratory in nature, thus generating a lack of empirical research in this area to date. By developing and validating a CBE scale in specific social media settings, we address this identified literature gap. Specifically, we conceptualize CBE as a consumer's positively valenced brand-related cognitive, emotional and behavioral activity during or related to focal consumer/brand interactions. We derive three CBE dimensions, including cognitive processing, affection, and activation. Within three different social media contexts, we employ exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses to develop a reliable, 10-item CBE scale, which we proceed to validate within a nomological net of conceptual relationships and a rival model. The findings suggest that while consumer brand ‘involvement’ acts as a CBE antecedent, consumer ‘self-brand connection’ and ‘brand usage intent’ represent key CBE consequences, thus providing a platform for further research…
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
49 Own result · 21 Own interpretation · 9 No full text of the sources · 8 Sources not found · 8 Own method · 7 No basis given · 2 Couldn’t confirm · 1 Not checked yet · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“the qualitative study shows consumer conceptions of CBE are aligned with key findings addressing the 'engagement' concept in prior research (Brodie et al. 2011;Leeflang 2011).”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Insert Table 2 about here
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Brodie et al. 2011
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Could not verifycites Leeflang 2011 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The available Abstract describes the formalization of marketing and future developments, while the metadata lists customer engagement only as a keyword. Searches for consumer conceptions of CBE, qualitative findings, and the engagement concept found no passage addressing whether those conceptions align with prior research. (LLM, conf=0.71)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In an additional EFA including only the 10 retained CBE items, the scree plot and the eigen values exceeding 1.0 concurred in suggesting the suitability of a threefactor solution for CBE, which explained 69.63% of the total variance.”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Results
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For these brands, the respondents exhibited a substantially lower willingness to exert cognitive, emotional or behavioral activity in their brand interactions”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Insert Table 2 about here
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“we observed the scree in the scree plot at three factors; thus corresponding to our hypothesized three-factor model of CBE.”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Results
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Cattell 1966 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The attained Cronbach alphas for the scale were: (i) Cognitive processing: .825;”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Insert Figure 1 about here
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The fit statistics for the re-estimated model were as follows: χ 2 (53) = 464.9(p=0.000); and χ 2 /df = 8.72, GFI = .865;CFI = .922;RMSEA = .118;and SRMR = .048;thus indicating a worse fit, relative to the three-factor model.”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Insert Figure 1 about here
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the audio recorded findings suggested that consumers predominantly equated their 'engagement' with their selected brands to specific brand interactions.”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Insert Table 2 about here
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“while consumer brand 'involvement' acts as a CBE antecedent”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the results indicated that for perceived 'highly engaging' brands consumers, typically, appeared willing to exert considerable cognitive, emotional and behavioral activity in their brand interactions”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Insert Table 2 about here
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We derive three CBE dimensions, including cognitive processing, affection, and activation.”
- Also stated in: § CBE Conceptual Development · plain
“we propose three CBE dimensions, which correspond to the generic cognitive, emotional and behavioral nature of 'engagement.'”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § CBE Conceptual Development · plain
- Probably not a substantial claim. 11
- It may state two separate claims as one. 14
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“As such, this research responds directly to the Marketing Science Institute's (MSI 2010), Leeflang's (2011), and Brodie et al.'s (2011) call for the undertaking of 'engagement'-based scale development research.”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Brand usage intent
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites MSI 2010
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Could not verifycites Leeflang (2011) sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The indexed Abstract describes a broad agenda for developing marketing research, and the keywords include customer engagement. Searches for engagement-based scale development and customer-engagement measures returned no passage in our copy calling for that research; the retrieved text does not establish the specific attribution to Leeflang. (LLM, conf=0.72)
- Not matchedcites Brodie et al. (2011)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we employ exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses to develop a reliable, 10-item CBE scale”
- Also stated in: § Results · plain
“resulting in a three-factor, 10-item CBE scale for further analysis.”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Abstract
plainn = 200- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Results · plain
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The item screening generated a reduced pool of 39 CBE items.”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we retained 12 items for the 'cognitive processing,' 15 items for the 'affection,' and 12 items for the 'activation' dimensions of CBE for further analysis.”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Reliability (internal consistency) analyses using Cronbach's alpha indicated the scale had good reliability: (i) Cognitive processing: .753;(ii) Affection: .839;(iii) Activation: .776;and (iv) Overall 10-item CBE scale: .823.”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Results
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The attained Cronbach alphas for the scale were: (i) Cognitive processing: .825;(ii) Affection: .907; (iii) Activation: .894;and (iv) Overall CBE scale: .933.”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Insert Figure 1 about here
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The results in Figure 1 suggested excellent model fit (Iacobucci 2010: p. 91): χ 2 (32) = 97.994(p=0.000); and χ 2 /df = 3.06.Further, GFI = .968;CFI = .984;RMSEA = .061;and SRMR = .0278;thus corroborating the excellent model fit to the data”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Insert Figure 1 about here
What the sources say
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“The regression weights (βs) for each of the items onto their intended factor were significant (e.g.AFFECTION → AFFEC.1: .895);and all standardized coefficients .50;suggesting that each of the items should remain in the model”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Insert Figure 1 about here
What the sources say
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Similarly, while we found consumers' brand-related 'affection' (.426) and 'activation' (.402) in specific consumer/brand interactions to exert a similar significant effect on individuals' ensuing 'brand usage intent,' consumers' level of 'cognitive processing' (.045) failed to produce a significant effect.”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Hypothesis Testing Results
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“which indicated that discriminant validity was attained for 14 of the 15 possible construct pairs; that is, with the exception of COG.PROC.-AFFEC.(Table 5).”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Model Results
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Fornell and Larcker 1981a/b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Each of the squared multiple correlations exceeded .50;also indicating good item reliability.”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Model Results
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The regression coefficients indicated that each of the items made a significant contribution to the measurement of its intended construct, thus contributing to the model's convergent validity.”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Model Results
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The fit statistics for the calibration sample are: χ 2 (243) = 653.561(p=0.000); and χ 2 /df = 2.69, GFI = .824;CFI = .932;RMSEA = .078;and SRMR = .0616;the validation sample: χ 2 (243) = 666.7 (p=0.000);χ 2 /df = 2.77, GFI = .817;CFI = .938;RMSEA = .079;and SRMR = .0516.”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Insert Table 5 about here
plainn = 278- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Highly similar results were attained across both sub-samples (Table 6), which also exhibited significant resemblance to the results for the full sample (Alwin and Jackson 1981).”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Insert Table 5 about here
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Alwin and Jackson 1981
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boostedn = 278- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Fourth, 'engagement' plays a central role in a nomological net of focal conceptual relationships (Brodie et al. 2011)”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Table 1 about here
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Brodie et al. 2011
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As such, study 3 confirmed the CBE scale representing a valid, reliable and stable measurement instrument.”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Insert Figure 1 about here
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“more recently the 'consumer brand engagement' (CBE) concept has been postulated to more comprehensively reflect the nature of consumers' particular interactive brand relationships, relative to traditional concepts, including 'involvement.'”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Brodie et al. 2011
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
In the paper
“'engagement' reflects a motivational state (Van Doorn et al. 2010), which occurs by virtue of an individual's (i.e. the 'engagement subject') focal interactive experiences with a particular object or agent”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Table 1 about here
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Van Doorn et al. 2010 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“studies have been predominantly exploratory in nature; thus generating a lack of empirical research in this area to date.”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and as such, may be useful for scholars and managers seeking to predict specific consumer behavior outcomes;”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Brand usage intent
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Additionally, this paper contributes insights regarding the potential role of CBE in the advancement of the broader theoretical perspectives of relationship marketing, S-D logic and consumer culture theory, which are centered upon the importance of establishing and maintaining value-laden, interactive and co-creative consumer/brand interactions and relationships.”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Brand usage intent
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As a result, consumers' CBE levels with a focal brand may fluctuate: (i) During (i.e.within) a particular brand interaction; and (ii) Across brand interactions over time.”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Contributions, Limitations & Implications Academic Implications
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Overall, we expect managerial cultivation of CBE to generate enhanced consumer brand retention and loyalty outcomes.”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Managerial Implications
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Represents a promising, under-explored concept to date;”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Brand usage intent
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“thus indicating that not only does CBE have a positive effect on consumer 'self-brand connection,' but CBE explains most of the variance observed for this construct.”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Hypothesis Testing Results
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
The selected social media brands (Facebook.com, Twitter.com, LinkedIn.com) are representative of social media contexts for studying CBE.
“Within three different social media contexts, we employ exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses to develop a reliable, 10-item CBE scale”
“we selected the brand Facebook.comfor investigation”
“we selected the social media brand Twitter.com for investigation”
The paper relies on this without support.
The causal direction is from consumer brand involvement through CBE to self-brand connection and brand usage intent, not the reverse.
“we identified a mediating effect of CBE in the association between consumer brand 'involvement' and 'brand usage intent.'”
The paper relies on this without support.
The nomological net includes all relevant mediating variables.
“which implies there are no omitted mediating variables, and the mediating hypotheses are supported.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Study 2: CBE Measurement Assessment & Scale Dimensionality
“We selected a social media setting in studies 1-3”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Study 1: Consumer Conceptions of 'Consumer Brand Engagement' (CBE)
“We instructed the participants to select a brand in any category that is 'highly engaging' to them”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“| Activation | .72 | .67 | .75 | .69 | .46 | .49 | | Self-Brand | .84 | .74 | .86 | .86 | .75 | .45 |”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Brand usage intent
Reported 0.46 · recomputed 0.7396
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“| Affection | .84 | .85 | .76 | .57 | .74 | .46 | | Activation | .72 | .67 | .75 | .69 | .46 | .49 | | Self-Brand | .84 | .74 | .86 | .86 | .75 | .45 | | Connection | | | | | | | | Brand Usage | .67 | .64 | .74 | .70 | .67 | .76 |”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Brand usage intent
Reported 0.46 · recomputed 0.5476
Citations
Cites
Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.2307/3151312 · Cited by 109,314
Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1177/002224378101800104 · Cited by 109,190
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173 · Cited by 91,532
(1975) · PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) · Cited by 36,737
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/brm.40.3.879 · Cited by 34,117
On the Evaluation of Structural Equation Models
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1007/bf02723327 · Cited by 26,163
Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity
Keller, K. L. (1993) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1177/002224299305700101 · Cited by 24,648
Structural Equations with Latent Variables
Bollen, K. A. (1989) · Wiley series in probability and statistics · doi:10.1002/9781118619179 · Cited by 17,944
Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media
Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010) · Business Horizons · doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003 · Cited by 17,875
Structural Equations with Latent Variables.
Clogg, C. C., & Bollen, K. A. (1991) · Contemporary Sociology A Journal of Reviews · doi:10.2307/2072165 · Cited by 17,475
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- Bezjian-Avery A., 1998, Journal of Advertising Research, 38, 23
- Menard Scott Longitudinal Research, 2e, Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences No. 76 2002 Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications
- Patterson Paul, Ting Yu., De Ruyter Ko Understanding Customer Engagement in Services 2006 AZMAC Proceedings Brisbane
- Prahalad Coimbatore K., 2004, Journal of Marketing, 68, 23
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 701–800 of 3,233
Li, H., & Tu, X. (2023) · Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics · doi:10.1108/apjml-04-2023-0300 · Cited by 65
Liu, X., Kim, T.-H., & Lee, M. (2025) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su17094106 · Cited by 82
A Multi-Valenced Perspective on Consumer Engagement Within a Social Service
Naumann, K., Bowden, J., & Gabbott, M. (2017) · The Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice · doi:10.1080/10696679.2016.1270772 · Cited by 44
“In addition, engagement research mainly focuses on how it operates within a commercial context despite the nature of engagement being contextually contingent (Hollebeek, Glynn and Brodie 2014).”
BackgroundCreating Stronger Brands Through Consumer Experience and Engagement
Calder, B. J., Hollebeek, L. D., & Malthouse, E. C. (2017) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-61985-9_10 · Cited by 45
Self-citationSystematic mapping on social media and its relation to business
Nicolás, C., Urrutia, A., Valenzuela‐Fernández, L., & Gil-Lafuente, J. (2018) · European Research on Management and Business Economics · doi:10.1016/j.iedeen.2018.01.002 · Cited by 49
Enhancing Brand Awareness, Reputation and Loyalty: The Role of Social Media
Chierici, R., Bosco, B. D., Mazzucchelli, A., & Chiacchierini, C. (2018) · International journal of business management · doi:10.5539/ijbm.v14n1p216 · Cited by 44
“In recent years, firms have been focusing their attention especially on social media in order to understand if and how these new tools contribute to improving customer loyalty (Hollebeek et al., 2014; Yoshida et al., 2018).”
BackgroundExamining the effects of CE and BE on consumers’ purchase intention toward green apparels
Joshi, Y., & Srivastava, A. P. (2019) · Young Consumers Insight and Ideas for Responsible Marketers · doi:10.1108/yc-01-2019-0947 · Cited by 48
Strategies to Improve Health Communication: Can Health Professionals Be Heroes?
Jenkins, E. L., Ilicic, J., Molenaar, A., Chin, S., & McCaffrey, T. A. (2020) · Nutrients · doi:10.3390/nu12061861 · Cited by 49
“However, based on the findings of our scoping review [28] these analyses focus only on the results relating to trustworthiness, authenticity, and message appeals [16,37,38].”
BackgroundSeriously Engaged Consumers: Navigating between Work and Play in Online Brand Communities
de Almeida, S. O., Scaraboto, D., Fleck, J. P. D. S., & Dalmoro, M. (2018) · Journal of Interactive Marketing · doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2018.05.006 · Cited by 51
Power Brand Defense Up, My Friend! Stimulating Brand Defense through Digital Content Marketing
Sawaftah, D., Aljarah, A., & Lahuerta-Otero, E. (2021) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su131810266 · Cited by 49
“Then, we debate literature on brand defense, behavioral engagement, and age generation, and claim the study hypotheses through an online survey of 237 USA social media users using measurement scales of behavioral engagement [28] and brand defense [21].”
BackgroundMethodShah, Z., & Wei, L. (2022) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.882705 · Cited by 63
“In addition, perceived benefits such as perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, and satisfaction affect the customer attitudes and behaviors to brand engagement via the SNSs (Hollebeek et al., 2014; Hsieh and Chang, 2016).”
BackgroundHow gamification elements benefit brand love: the moderating effect of immersion
Tsou, H., & Putra, M. T. (2023) · Marketing Intelligence & Planning · doi:10.1108/mip-04-2023-0143 · Cited by 55
Content marketing research: A review and research agenda
Bubphapant, J., & Brandão, A. (2023) · International Journal of Consumer Studies · doi:10.1111/ijcs.12984 · Cited by 67
Customer Engagement in Utilitarian vs. Hedonic Service Contexts
Barrett, J. A. M., Jaakkola, E., Heller, J., & Brüggen, E. C. (2024) · Journal of Service Research · doi:10.1177/10946705241242901 · Cited by 51
“…contexts, including but not limited to hospitality, fashion, social media, and brand communities (e.g., Alvarez-Mil´an et al., 2018; Breidbach et al., 2014; Groeger et al., 2016; Hollebeek et al., 2014), whereas utilitarian services have received comparatively little attention (Fehrer et al. 2018).”
InfluentialDigital Engagement: Opportunities and Risks for Sponsors
Scheinbaum, A. C. (2016) · Journal of Advertising Research · doi:10.2501/jar-2016-040 · Cited by 42
Engaging customers through online and offline referral reward programs
Wirtz, J., Orsingher, C., & Cho, H. (2019) · European Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1108/ejm-10-2017-0756 · Cited by 43
Social media brand engagement practices
Osei-Frimpong, K., McLean, G., & Famiyeh, S. (2019) · Information Technology and People · doi:10.1108/itp-05-2018-0220 · Cited by 59
Ogunmokun, O. A., Unverdi‐Creig, G. I., Said, H. K., Avcí, T., & Eluwole, K. K. (2020) · Journal of Public Affairs · doi:10.1002/pa.2100 · Cited by 41
Co-creating consistent brand identity with employees in the hotel industry
Chung, S.-Y., & Byrom, J. W. (2020) · Journal of Product & Brand Management · doi:10.1108/jpbm-08-2019-2544 · Cited by 52
Prediction of customer engagement behaviour response to marketing posts based on machine learning
Dai, Y., & Wang, T. (2021) · Connection Science · doi:10.1080/09540091.2021.1912710 · Cited by 47
“Some dimensions are related to customers’ inner state, which cannot be directly discerned from observational data, and in these cases, questionnaires and psychophysiological measures would be used to collect such data (Alhabash et al., 2019; Hollebeek et al., 2014).”
BackgroundHuang, Q., Jin, J., Lynn, B. J., & Men, L. R. (2021) · Public Relations Review · doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2021.102064 · Cited by 43
“Cognitive engagement was defined as thoughts or cognitive processing (Hollebeek et al., 2014) and was operationalized as seven types of message content of publics comments on companies’ posts (e.g., “Requesting help or information”) (Ginossar, 2008; Men & Tsai, 2012).”
MethodYang, J., & Jiang, M. (2021) · Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing · doi:10.1108/jrim-03-2020-0048 · Cited by 48
Gani, M. O., Roy, H., Rahman, M. S., Faroque, A. R., Gupta, V., & Prova, H. T. (2022) · International Journal of Spa and Wellness · doi:10.1080/24721735.2022.2096292 · Cited by 50
“A positive relationship between social media influence on customer engagement has also been found by Baldus et al. (2015) and Hollebeek et al. (2014).”
BackgroundResultKwon, S., & Ha, S. (2022) · Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing · doi:10.1108/jrim-07-2021-0183 · Cited by 41
Gamify, engage, build loyalty: exploring the benefits of gameful experience for branded sports apps
Habachi, S., Matute, J., & Palau‐Saumell, R. (2023) · Journal of Product & Brand Management · doi:10.1108/jpbm-07-2022-4070 · Cited by 51
e-commerce website customer engagement: Delineating the role of UTAUT, vividness, and compulsion
Taheri, B., Yousaf, A., Gannon, M. J., & Mishra, A. (2024) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2024.103835 · Cited by 58
From screen to reality: How AR drives consumer engagement and purchase intention
Yang, J., & Lin, Z.-B. (2024) · Journal of Digital Economy · doi:10.1016/j.jdec.2024.07.001 · Cited by 49
Liao, J., & Chen, J. (2024) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2024.114937 · Cited by 74
Operationalizing thought leadership for online B2B marketing
Barry, J. M., & Gironda, J. T. (2017) · Industrial Marketing Management · doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2017.11.005 · Cited by 45
What to say on social media and how
Wu, J., Chen, J., Chen, H., Dou, W., & Shao, D. (2019) · Journal of Service Theory and Practice · doi:10.1108/jstp-11-2018-0243 · Cited by 42
Nagaraj, S., & Katkam, B. S. (2019) · Young Consumers Insight and Ideas for Responsible Marketers · doi:10.1108/yc-12-2018-0902 · Cited by 54
Examining the influence of user-generated content on the fashion consumer online experience
Vazquez, D., Cheung, J., Nguyen, B., Dennis, C., & Kent, A. (2020) · Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management · doi:10.1108/jfmm-02-2020-0018 · Cited by 46
Huang, C.-C., & Chen, S.-E. (2021) · Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism · doi:10.1080/1528008x.2020.1864565 · Cited by 51
“, sensory experience and emotional engagement (Bowden, 2009; Brodie et al., 2011, 2013; Dessart et al., 2015; Hollebeek et al., 2014; Kang & Fiore, 2014; Sashi, 2012; So et al., 2014; Vivek et al., 2012).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialZimand-Sheiner, D., Kol, O., & Levy, S. (2021) · Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing · doi:10.1108/jrim-12-2019-0210 · Cited by 46
Colucci, M., & Pedroni, M. (2021) · Journal of Consumer Culture · doi:10.1177/14695405211033665 · Cited by 42
“Academic research has mainly focused on the perspective of the influencers (e.g. Findlay, 2017) and consumers (e.g. Hollebeek et al., 2014).”
BackgroundBozkurt, S., Gligor, D. M., & Gligor, N. (2021) · Journal of Marketing Analytics · doi:10.1057/s41270-021-00146-3 · Cited by 46
Alam, S. S., Masukujjaman, M., Makhbul, Z. K. M., Ali, M. H., Ahmad, I., & Mamun, A. A. (2023) · Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism · doi:10.1080/1528008x.2023.2167762 · Cited by 44
“Some related instances include recommendations, assisting other customers, writing reviews, blog-ging, co-creation, and participation in brand communities (Hollebeek et al., 2014).”
Toward a better understanding of key determinants and consequences of masstige consumption
Boisvert, J., Christodoulides, G., & Khan, M. S. (2023) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.113871 · Cited by 44
Lavoye, V., Sipilä, J., Mero, J., & Tarkiainen, A. (2023) · Journal of Services Marketing · doi:10.1108/jsm-04-2022-0137 · Cited by 41
Gvili, Y., & Levy, S. (2023) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.114131 · Cited by 51
Driving destination brand engagement: The role of traveler participation
Cheung, M. L., Leung, W. K. S., Taheri, B., & Tse, S. Y. (2023) · International Journal of Tourism Research · doi:10.1002/jtr.2594 · Cited by 40
Lee, J., Walter, N., Hayes, J. L., & Golan, G. J. (2024) · Social Media + Society · doi:10.1177/20563051241269269 · Cited by 57
“Hollebeek et al. (2014) further note that this consumer engagement leads to positive brand outcomes (e.g., positive word-of-mouth, purchase intention) and influencer outcomes (e.g., increased attractiveness and likeability).”
Zane, D. M., Smith, R. W., & Reczek, R. W. (2019) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1093/jcr/ucz035 · Cited by 41
Perceptions and practices of media engagement: A global perspective
Chan‐Olmsted, S. M., & Wolter, L. (2018) · The International Journal on Media Management · doi:10.1080/14241277.2017.1402183 · Cited by 40
“, 2014), cost reductions (Hollebeek et al., 2014), and brand referrals (Hollebeek et al.”
BackgroundInfluentialSugathan, P., Rossmann, A., & Ranjan, K. R. (2018) · European Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1108/ejm-04-2016-0228 · Cited by 47
The Relationship Between Customer Engagement, Satisfaction, and Loyalty
Al-Dmour, H. H., Ali, W. K., & Al-Dmour, R. (2019) · International Journal of Customer Relationship Marketing and Management · doi:10.4018/ijcrmm.2019040103 · Cited by 50
Creevey, D., Kidney, E., & Mehta, G. (2019) · Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing · doi:10.1080/10548408.2019.1624242 · Cited by 42
“Alternatively, consumer engagement is defined by Hollebeek, Glynn, and Brodie (2014) as a consumer’s (i.e. not necessarily having made the purchase) positively-valenced cognitive, emotional and behavioural brand-related activity during, or related to, specific interactions between brand and…”
BackgroundSharma, S., Singh, G., & Aiyub, A. S. (2019) · Journal of Internet Commerce · doi:10.1080/15332861.2019.1695180 · Cited by 39
“Satisfaction differs from engagement in that engagement is more of a motivational state during participation in interactive activities (Hollebeek, Glynn, and Brodie 2014); it is more about intrinsic motivation than evaluation (Welfald and Downey 2009).”
BackgroundTrabucchi, D., Bellis, P., Marco, D. D., Buganza, T., & Verganti, R. (2020) · European Journal of Innovation Management · doi:10.1108/ejim-05-2020-0171 · Cited by 42
“(Chesbrough, 2003), alongside articles dealing more specifically with the importance of engaging customers, consumers or users in innovation processes (Vargo and Lusch 2004; Von Hippel 2005; Payne et al., 2008; Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004; Brodie et al., 2013; Hollebeek et al., 2014).”
BackgroundOltra, I., Izquierdo, C. C., & Cabezudo, R. S. J. (2021) · Tourism Management Perspectives · doi:10.1016/j.tmp.2021.100843 · Cited by 40
More of the same? Effects of volume and variety of social media brand engagement behavior
Schaefers, T., Falk, T., Kumar, A., & Schamari, J. (2021) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.06.033 · Cited by 39
Molina-Prados, A., Muñoz‐Leiva, F., & Prados‐Peña, M. B. (2021) · Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management · doi:10.1108/jfmm-12-2020-0275 · Cited by 48
Barriers to Using Social Commerce
Atiyah, A. G., & Zaidan, R. A. (2022) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-19-6509-8_7 · Cited by 40
Wong, A., & Wong, J. (2024) · Journal of Services Marketing · doi:10.1108/jsm-05-2023-0183 · Cited by 44
Effects of relationship types on customers’ parasocial interactions
Lee, S. A., & Lee, M. (2017) · Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology · doi:10.1108/jhtt-09-2016-0053 · Cited by 39
“Building on prior social media and relationship marketing literature (e.g., Habibi et al., 2014; Hollebeek et al., 2014; Morgan and Hunt, 1994; Palmatier et al., 2006), this study provided a better understanding of relationship marketing in the hotel social media platforms.”
BackgroundResultInfluentialEngagement within a service system: a fuzzy set analysis in a higher education setting
Sim, M., Conduit, J., & Plewa, C. (2018) · Journal of service management · doi:10.1108/josm-08-2016-0232 · Cited by 39
Employee brand engagement on social media: Managing optimism and commonality
Pitt, C., Botha, E., Ferreira, J. J., & Kietzmann, J. (2018) · Business Horizons · doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2018.04.001 · Cited by 46
Raising generation ‘A’: a case study of millennial tobacco company marketing in Indonesia
Astuti, P. A. S., Assunta, M., & Freeman, B. (2018) · Tobacco Control · doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2017-054131 · Cited by 41
Health and fitness online communities and product behaviour
Dessart, L., & Duclou, M. (2019) · Journal of Product & Brand Management · doi:10.1108/jpbm-12-2017-1710 · Cited by 44
Robertson, J., Ferguson, S. L., Eriksson, T., & Näppä, A. (2019) · Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing · doi:10.1080/1051712x.2019.1603354 · Cited by 39
“It is observable in the literature that stakeholders are active participants in the brand engagement process (L. D. Hollebeek, Glynn, and Brodie 2014) and their psychological investment in the brand is thus a major influencing element in the engagement experience.”
BackgroundPromoting Consumer Engagement in Online Communities through Virtual Experience and Social Identity
Chuang, Y.-W. (2020) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su12030855 · Cited by 63
“[70] stated that consumer engagement is the evaluation of perception, emotion, and behavior when consumers interact with other consumers or brands.”
BackgroundThe Role of Consumer Engagement in Behavioral Loyalty through Value Co-Creation in Fitness Clubs
Behnam, M., Sato, M., & Baker, B. J. (2021) · Sport Management Review · doi:10.1080/14413523.2021.1880772 · Cited by 46
“Although multiple consumer engagement conceptualizations and dimensionalities have been introduced (e.g., Hollebeek et al., 2014; Vivek et al., 2014), Hollebeek et al.’s (2014) tri-dimensional (cognitive, affective, and activation) conceptualization has been most widely adopted.”
BackgroundInfluentialBozkurt, S., Gligor, D., & Hollebeek, L. (2021) · Psychology & Marketing · doi:10.1002/mar.21549 · Cited by 27
Self-citationDiscovering meaningful engagement through interaction between customers and service robots
Hyun, Y., Hlee, S., Park, J. J., & Chang, Y. (2022) · Service Industries Journal · doi:10.1080/02642069.2022.2088738 · Cited by 41
“In most cases, these constitutive elements of CE are streamlined into cognitive, emotional, and behavioral dimensions (Brodie et al., 2011; Hollebeek, 2011; Hollebeek et al., 2014; Mollen & Wilson, 2010).”
BackgroundSweiss, N., Obeidat, Z., Al-dweeri, R., Ahmad, A. M. K., Obeidat, A. M., & Alshurideh, M. (2021) · Journal of Marketing Communications · doi:10.1080/13527266.2021.1931942 · Cited by 12
“Customer engagement refers to a customer’s positively valence activities related to a product or a customer and a brand interaction (Hollebeek, Glynn, and Brodie 2014).”
BackgroundInfluentialJiang, H., Cheng, Y., Park, K., & Zhu, W. (2022) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su14042359 · Cited by 36
Sohaib, M., Mlynarski, J., & Wu, R. T. (2022) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su15010746 · Cited by 91
Engaging with intelligent voice assistants for wellbeing and brand attachment
Prentice, C., Loureiro, S. M. C., & Guerreiro, J. (2023) · Journal of Brand Management · doi:10.1057/s41262-023-00321-0 · Cited by 40
“Consumer engagement is a multidimensional concept aggregating cognitive, emotional, and behavioral dimensions (e.g., van Doorn et al. 2010; Brodie et al. 2011; Hollebeek et al. 2014) and can be related to a range of business-related outcomes (Prentice et al.”
BackgroundSevero, E. A., de Guimarães, J. C. F., Wanderley, L. S. O., Gueiros, M. M. B., & Jabbour, C. J. C. (2023) · Environmental Development · doi:10.1016/j.envdev.2023.100865 · Cited by 38
Xiao, Q., Huang, W., Qu, L., & Li, X. (2024) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2024.104136 · Cited by 48
Conceptualising Engagement in a Consumer-to-Consumer Context
Abdul-Ghani, E., Hyde, K. F., & Marshall, R. (2018) · Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ) · doi:10.1016/j.ausmj.2018.06.004 · Cited by 49
Revisiting the importance of casual dining experience quality: an empirical study
Hussein, A. S. (2018) · International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences · doi:10.1108/ijqss-04-2017-0041 · Cited by 45
Analysing Consumer-Brand Engagement Through Appreciative Listening on Social Network Platforms
Pina, L. S., Loureiro, S. M. C., Rita, P., Sarmento, E. M., Bilro, R. G., & Guerreiro, J. (2019) · Journal of Promotion Management · doi:10.1080/10496491.2019.1557805 · Cited by 38
Store love in single brand retailing: the roles of relevant moderators
Sarkar, A., Sarkar, J. G., & Bhatt, G. (2019) · Marketing Intelligence & Planning · doi:10.1108/mip-05-2018-0148 · Cited by 38
Electronic Word of Mouth engagement in social commerce platforms: An empirical study
Ali, Y. S., Hussin, A. R. C., & Dahlan, H. M. (2019) · Information Development · doi:10.1177/0266666919867488 · Cited by 38
Trivedi, J., Soni, S., & Kishore, A. (2020) · Journal of Promotion Management · doi:10.1080/10496491.2020.1829774 · Cited by 39
The role of need for cognition in consumers' mental imagery: a study of retail brand's Instagram
Huang, R., & Ha, S. (2020) · International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management · doi:10.1108/ijrdm-04-2020-0146 · Cited by 38
Xiao-hua, C., Wen-ya, L., & Joo, D. (2021) · Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management · doi:10.1016/j.jhtm.2021.06.013 · Cited by 39
Customer experience research: intellectual structure and future research opportunities
Silva, J. H. O., Mendes, G. H. D. S., Miguel, P. A. C., Amorim, M. P. C., & Teixeira, J. (2021) · Journal of Service Theory and Practice · doi:10.1108/jstp-08-2020-0193 · Cited by 40
Levy, S., Gvili, Y., & Hino, H. (2021) · Journal of theoretical and applied electronic commerce research · doi:10.3390/jtaer16070144 · Cited by 46
“En-gagement is a three-dimensional concept comprised of cognitive processing, affection, and activation [15].”
InfluentialGandhi, M. L., & Kar, A. K. (2022) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121829 · Cited by 38
Stephen, A. T., Sciandra, M. R., & Inman, J. J. (2015) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2683314 · Cited by 38
“…context has been conceptualized as a multidimensional construct reflecting consumers’ brand-related cognitive, affective, and behavioral actions (Hollebeek, Glynn, and Brodie 2014), with dimensions indicating various levels of intensity of consumers’ interactions with brands (Vivek, Beatty,…”
How does personalization affect brand relationship in social commerce? A mediation perspective
Tran, T. P., van Solt, M., & Zemanek, J. E. (2020) · Journal of Consumer Marketing · doi:10.1108/jcm-12-2017-2499 · Cited by 44
Chuah, S. H., Aw, E. C., & Tseng, M. (2020) · Internet Research · doi:10.1108/intr-01-2020-0025 · Cited by 41
Wallace, E., Torres, P., Augusto, M., & Stefuryn, M. (2021) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.06.058 · Cited by 39
“In line with the literature, online consumer brand engagement was considered a second-order construct (e.g., Hollebeek et al., 2014); it includes the following dimensions: cognitive (OCBECog), affective (OCBEAff), and active (OCBEAct).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialWang, X., Aisihaer, N., & Aihemaiti, A. (2022) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1021256 · Cited by 52
“With the popularity of live streaming, consumers have more and more choices for self-entertainment, and the online influence economy is also growing (Hollebeek et al., 2014).”
BackgroundSatar, M. S., Rather, R. A., Parrey, S. H., Khan, H., & Rasul, T. (2023) · Service Industries Journal · doi:10.1080/02642069.2023.2191953 · Cited by 37
“For instance, published research argued the direct influence of CBE on CBX (Islam et al., 2019; Hollebeek et al., 2014) or exposing CVC’s effect on CBX (Prebensen & Xie, 2017; Sugathan & Ranjan, 2019).”
InfluentialPing, Y., Li, Y., & Zhu, J. (2024) · Electronic Commerce Research · doi:10.1007/s10660-024-09813-w · Cited by 39
“…time, commitment has been framed as both an antecedent and consequence of customer engagement [4, 12] given that customer engagement can be explicitly operationalized as consisting of the same three parts: cognitive processing (CP), affection (i.e., emotion), and activation (i.e., behavior) [21].”
Does your style engage? Linguistic styles of influencers and digital consumer engagement on YouTube
Munaro, A. C., Barcelos, R. H., Maffezzolli, E. C. F., Rodrigues, J. P. S., & Paraíso, E. C. (2024) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2024.108217 · Cited by 54
Smith, B. G., Štumberger, N., Guild, J., et al. (2017) · Public Relations Review · doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.04.010 · Cited by 37
Evolving roles and structures of triadic engagement in healthcare
Keeling, D. I., Laing, A. W., & de Ruyter, K. (2017) · Journal of service management · doi:10.1108/josm-09-2016-0249 · Cited by 37
“The marketing and care literatures converge on engagement as three-dimensional with cognitive, affective and behavioural components with a central role in exchange (Brodie et al. 2013, Carman et al. 2013, Hollebeek et al. 2014, Wolff et al. 2015).”
BackgroundImpact of interactive eReferral on tourists behavioral intentions
Htibat, A. A., & Garanti, Z. (2019) · Marketing Intelligence & Planning · doi:10.1108/mip-08-2018-0348 · Cited by 38
Seeing light in the dark: Investigating the dark side of social media and user response strategies
Sands, S., Campbell, C., Ferraro, C., & Mavrommatis, A. (2019) · European Management Journal · doi:10.1016/j.emj.2019.10.001 · Cited by 39
Visitor Engagement, Relationship Quality, and Environmentally Responsible Behavior
Zhou, X., Chengcai, T., Lv, X., & Xing, B. (2020) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph17041151 · Cited by 39
“Visitor engagement is characterized by repeated interactions between visitors and a destination so as to strengthen the psychological, emotional, and behavioral inputs from visitors [36].”
BackgroundInfluentialThe impact of brand familiarity, customer brand engagement and self-identification on word-of-mouth
Acharya, A. (2020) · South Asian Journal of Business Studies · doi:10.1108/sajbs-07-2019-0126 · Cited by 47
How gamified branded applications drive marketing effectiveness?
Tseng, T. H., Hsieh, S. H., & Lee, C. T. (2021) · Marketing Intelligence & Planning · doi:10.1108/mip-09-2020-0407 · Cited by 39
Yesiloglu, S., Memery, J., & Chapleo, C. (2021) · Internet Research · doi:10.1108/intr-01-2020-0038 · Cited by 40
Tuguinay, J. A., Prentice, C., & Moyle, B. (2021) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102830 · Cited by 45
“Results with customer engagement and loyalty were consistent with other research findings (Ahn & Back, 2018; Hollebeek, et al., 2014).”
MethodResultFready, S., Vel, P., & Nyadzayo, M. W. (2022) · Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing · doi:10.1108/jbim-01-2021-0074 · Cited by 37
Ghosh, T., Sreejesh, S., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2022) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.04.017 · Cited by 42
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
