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 801–900 of 3,233
Chua, B., Kim, S., Hailu, T. B., Yu, J., Moon, H. G., & Han, H. (2023) · Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing · doi:10.1080/10548408.2023.2236652 · Cited by 39
“Thirdly, to boost customer stickiness with armchair travel, armchair travel practitioners could also focus on enhancing customer engagement by improving cognitive processing, affection, and activation (R. Chen et al., 2020; Hollebeek et al., 2014).”
BackgroundBapat, D. M., & Hollebeek, L. D. (2023) · Marketing Intelligence & Planning · doi:10.1108/mip-09-2022-0417 · Cited by 37
Self-citationPurchase intention of fashion brand retailers: a journey through consumer engagement and happiness
Rodríguez, P. G., Valiño, P. C., Ravina-Ripoll, R., & Henche, B. G. (2023) · Management Decision · doi:10.1108/md-04-2023-0541 · Cited by 39
Antecedents and consequences of fake reviews in a marketing approach: An overview and synthesis
Sahut, J., Laroche, M., & Braune, É. (2024) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2024.114572 · Cited by 44
Unravelling the customer journey: A conceptual framework and research agenda
Mele, C., Hollebeek, L. D., Bernardo, I. D., & Spena, T. R. (2024) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123916 · Cited by 71
Self-citationSheng, M. L., Natália, N., & Rusfian, E. Z. (2024) · Psychology and Marketing · doi:10.1002/mar.22165 · Cited by 46
Exploring customer engagement in tourism
Romero, J. (2017) · Journal Of Vacation Marketing · doi:10.1177/1356766717725561 · Cited by 38
“For instance, Hollebeek et al. (2014) include cognitive processing, affection and activation as CE dimensions.”
BackgroundQuem Lidera sua Opinião? Influência dos Formadores de Opinião Digitais no Engajamento
de Almeida, M. I. S., Limongi, R., Camilo-Junior, C. G., & Godoy, R. (2017) · Revista de Administração Contemporânea · doi:10.1590/1982-7849rac2018170028 · Cited by 38
Lopes, E. L., Freire, O. B. D. L., & Lopes, E. H. (2019) · Electronic Commerce Research and Applications · doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2019.100824 · Cited by 44
Negative emotions toward a financial brand: the opposite impact on brand love
Rodrigues, P. C. L., & Borges, A. P. (2020) · European Business Review · doi:10.1108/ebr-12-2018-0221 · Cited by 40
Fujita, M., Harrigan, P., Soutar, G. N., Roy, S. K., & Roy, R. (2020) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.07.050 · Cited by 42
Gligor, D. M., & Bozkurt, S. (2021) · Journal of Product & Brand Management · doi:10.1108/jpbm-12-2019-2692 · Cited by 41
Robertson, J., Ferreira, C. C., & Paschen, J. (2021) · Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ) · doi:10.1177/1839334921999487 · Cited by 41
Wei, K., & Xi, W. (2023) · Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing · doi:10.1108/jrim-02-2023-0045 · Cited by 40
Tourist engagement: Toward an integrated framework using meta-analysis
Rasul, T., Santini, F. D. O., Lim, W. M., Buhalis, D., Ramkissoon, H. R., Ladeira, W. J., Pinto, D. C., & Azhar, M. (2024) · Journal Of Vacation Marketing · doi:10.1177/13567667241238456 · Cited by 42
“Previous studies have suggested that CE has a positive effect on behavioral intentions (Brodie et al., 2011; Hollebeek et al., 2014).”
Roy, A., Das, M., Lim, W. M., & Kalai, A. (2025) · Journal of Global Marketing · doi:10.1080/08911762.2025.2449697 · Cited by 37
“Brand engagement is defined as the positive cognitive, emotional, and behavioral activity that a consumer participates during interactions with a brand (Hollebeek et al., 2014; Lim et al., 2022; Vivek et al., 2012).”
The role of online brand community engagement on positive or negative self-expression word-of-mouth
Loureiro, S. M. C., & Kaufmann, H. R. (2018) · Cogent Business & Management · doi:10.1080/23311975.2018.1508543 · Cited by 36
“Past research has suggested that the result of customer engagement could be the brand usage intent (Hollebeek et al., 2014), or firm performance (Kumar et al., 2010; Kumar & Pansari, 2016) or even interactive outcomes such as word-of-mouth, loyalty, and consumer retention through customers’ value…”
BackgroundConceptualising and measuring consumer authenticity online
Davis, R. A., Sheriff, K., & Owen, K. (2018) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.10.002 · Cited by 35
“For example, they can talk directly to someone in a store and can touch, feel and directly experience the brand from a rational as well as experiential perspective (Hollebeek et al., 2014).”
BackgroundThe value disruption of uncivil other-customers during online service recovery
Bacile, T. J., Krallman, A., Wolter, J. S., & Beachum, N. D. (2020) · Journal of Services Marketing · doi:10.1108/jsm-05-2019-0209 · Cited by 37
How Social Media Analytics Can Inform Content Strategies
Kordzadeh, N., & Young, D. K. (2020) · Journal of Computer Information Systems · doi:10.1080/08874417.2020.1736691 · Cited by 35
“From a theoretical standpoint, the content strategy process proposed in this study extended the SM analytics framework developed by He et al. 33 To do so, we integrated prior literature on user engagement 4,18,19,26,54 and SM analytics 11,28,33,55 synergistically.”
MethodSustaining customer engagement through social media brand communities
Riley, J. (2020) · Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science · doi:10.1080/21639159.2020.1766990 · Cited by 41
Children’s Engagement with Brands: From Social Media Consumption to Brand Preference and Loyalty
Gómez, P. N., Sánchez-Herrera, J., & Blanco, T. P. (2020) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su12229337 · Cited by 35
“[20] proposed a scale that adds value, [31] but it has not been validated to work with minors.”
BackgroundWang, T., Limbu, Y. B., & Fang, X. (2021) · Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing · doi:10.1108/jrim-03-2021-0065 · Cited by 35
Personal information disclosure on social networking sites
Aboulnasr, K., Tran, G. A., & Park, T. (2021) · Psychology and Marketing · doi:10.1002/mar.21595 · Cited by 38
Bozkurt, S., Gligor, D. M., Locander, J. A., et al. (2023) · Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing · doi:10.1108/jrim-08-2022-0242 · Cited by 35
Brand Engagement in Self-Concept: Scale Properties and the Global Nature of the Construct
Razmus, W., & Łaguna, M. (2017) · Current Psychology · doi:10.1007/s12144-017-9584-x · Cited by 35
“Such an understanding of consumer brand engagement is certainly interesting, but it still remains in the early stages of analyses (Hollebeek 2011a, 2011b; Hollebeek and Chen 2014) and in the phase of first attempts at developing a measurement instrument (Hollebeek et al. 2014).”
BackgroundRather, R. A., Parrey, S. H., Gulzar, R., & Rehman, S. U. (2022) · Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Insights · doi:10.1108/jhti-01-2022-0010 · Cited by 36
Brand anthropomorphism on Twitter: communication strategies and consumer engagement
Wu, L., Dodoo, N. A., & Choi, C. (2023) · Journal of Product & Brand Management · doi:10.1108/jpbm-12-2021-3787 · Cited by 34
Flecha-Ortiz, J. A., Santos‐Corrada, M., López, E., Dones, V., & Feliberty-Lugo, V. (2023) · Journal of Brand Management · doi:10.1057/s41262-023-00330-z · Cited by 45
“To observe whether these three dimensions explain CBE among TikTok users in Generation Z (Hollebeek et al. 2014; Brodie et al. 2013; Hollebeek 2011; Hollebeek and Macky 2019).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialChang, K., & Cheng, Y.-S. (2023) · International Journal of Hospitality Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2023.103604 · Cited by 34
Etourism advertising effectiveness: banner type and engagement as moderators
Muñoz‐Leiva, F., Liébana-Cabanillas, F. J., & Méndez, J. H. (2018) · Journal of Services Marketing · doi:10.1108/jsm-01-2017-0039 · Cited by 34
Linking relationship equity to brand resonance in a social networking brand community
Cheng, Y.-Y., Tung, W., Yang, M., & Chiang, C. (2019) · Electronic Commerce Research and Applications · doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2019.100849 · Cited by 42
Jha, B. (2019) · Global Business Review · doi:10.1177/0972150919848912 · Cited by 35
“The research conducted by Hollebeek, Glynn, and Brodie (2014) developed and validated a ‘consumer brand engagement’ (CBE) scale in specific social media settings.”
MethodDodoo, N. A., & Youn, S. (2020) · Telematics and Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.tele.2020.101514 · Cited by 40
Flaherty, S. J., McCarthy, M. B., Collins, A., McCafferty, C., & McAuliffe, F. M. (2021) · European Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1108/ejm-06-2019-0531 · Cited by 35
Examining drivers and outcomes of social media brand engagement
Leckie, C., Dwivedi, A., & Johnson, L. W. (2021) · Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics · doi:10.1108/apjml-07-2020-0488 · Cited by 46
Non-sponsored brand-related user-generated content: effects and mechanisms of consumer engagement
Davcik, N. S., Langaro, D., Jevons, C., & Nascimento, R. (2021) · Journal of Product & Brand Management · doi:10.1108/jpbm-06-2020-2971 · Cited by 34
Siuki, H., & Webster, C. M. (2021) · Psychology and Marketing · doi:10.1002/mar.21517 · Cited by 37
Building Brands for the Emerging Bicultural Market: The Appeal of Paradox Brands
Rodas, M. A., John, D. R., & Torelli, C. J. (2021) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1093/jcr/ucab037 · Cited by 37
Sustainable Consumption Patterns in Different Settings
Piligrimienė, Ž., Banytė, J., Dovalienė, A., Gadeikienė, A., & Korzilius, H. P. L. M. (2021) · Engineering Economics · doi:10.5755/j01.ee.32.3.28621 · Cited by 34
Consumer Brand Engagement Beyond the “Likes”
Razmus, W. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.692000 · Cited by 53
Vlachvei, A., Νόττα, Ο., & Koronaki, E. (2021) · Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing · doi:10.1108/jrim-12-2020-0275 · Cited by 37
Razmus, W., & Fortuna, P. (2022) · Journal of Consumer Behaviour · doi:10.1002/cb.2071 · Cited by 39
Mobile banking service quality and customer value co-creation intention: a moderated mediated model
Hijazi, R. (2022) · International Journal of Bank Marketing · doi:10.1108/ijbm-01-2022-0004 · Cited by 35
Linking technology readiness and customer engagement: an AI-enabled voice assistants investigation
Shah, T. R., Kautish, P., & Walia, S. K. (2023) · foresight · doi:10.1108/fs-10-2021-0195 · Cited by 40
Development and test of a multidimensional scale of blog engagement
Hopp, T., & Gallicano, T. D. (2016) · Journal of Public Relations Research · doi:10.1080/1062726x.2016.1204303 · Cited by 35
How advertising in offline media drives reach of and engagement with brands on Facebook
Voorveld, H. A. M., Araujo, T., Bernritter, S. F., Rietberg, E., & Vliegenthart, R. (2018) · International Journal of Advertising · doi:10.1080/02650487.2018.1454703 · Cited by 33
The levers of engagement: an exploration of governance in an online brand community
Cooper, T., Stavros, C., & Dobele, A. R. (2018) · Journal of Brand Management · doi:10.1057/s41262-018-0132-2 · Cited by 33
“…in addition to offering a comprehensive summary of extant definitions of engagement, sought to include the user’s psychological state to redefine consumer–brand engagement as ‘a consumer’s positively valenced brand-related cognitive, emotional and behavioural activity’ (Hollebeek 2014 p.154).”
BackgroundRules of (household) engagement: technology as manager, assistant and intern
Letheren, K., Russell‐Bennett, R., Mulcahy, R. F., & McAndrew, R. (2019) · European Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1108/ejm-10-2017-0759 · Cited by 36
Customer engagement with websites: a transactional retail perspective
Connell, C., Marciniak, R., Carey, L., & McColl, J. (2019) · European Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1108/ejm-10-2017-0649 · Cited by 36
Hayes, J. L., Britt, B., Applequist, J., Ramirez, A., & Hill, J. (2019) · Journal of Interactive Advertising · doi:10.1080/15252019.2019.1691093 · Cited by 33
“With the rise of social media, and the communication affordances offered to brands as a result, industry and academic research has renewed interest in understanding customer engagement behaviors, the behavioral manifestations of CBRs online (e.g., Hollebeek, Glynn, and Brodie 2014).”
BackgroundMishra, S., Ewing, M. T., & PITT, L. F. (2019) · Industrial Marketing Management · doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2019.10.005 · Cited by 33
de Carvalho, L. V., Azar, S., & Machado, J. C. (2020) · Journal of Marketing Management · doi:10.1080/0267257x.2020.1740293 · Cited by 42
Duong, G. H., Wu, W., & Le, L. H. (2020) · Journal of Brand Management · doi:10.1057/s41262-020-00196-5 · Cited by 33
“2006) and customer brand engagement literature (Hollebeek et al. 2014; Brodie et al. 2013), the thought of customers about the brand is likely to make them consume and contribute on the brand page.”
BackgroundInfluentialHollebeek, L. D., Clark, M. K., & Macky, K. A. (2020) · Recherche et Applications en Marketing (English Edition) · doi:10.1177/2051570720961986 · Cited by 41
“For example, H2HPs deliver messages or content to platform users and allow them to interact (Hollebeek et al., 2014).”
BackgroundSelf-citationExploring COBRAs, its antecedents and consequences in the context of banking brands
Mishra, A. S. (2021) · International Journal of Bank Marketing · doi:10.1108/ijbm-11-2020-0553 · Cited by 35
Sohail, M. S. (2022) · Journal of Marketing Analytics · doi:10.1057/s41270-021-00148-1 · Cited by 37
Buffering B2B service failure: The role of customer engagement
Sands, S., Campbell, C., Ferraro, C., & Plangger, K. (2022) · Industrial Marketing Management · doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2022.03.007 · Cited by 36
Engagement in vice food and beverage consumption: The role of perceived lack of control
Lunardo, R., Jaud, D. A., & Jaspers, E. D. T. (2022) · Psychology and Marketing · doi:10.1002/mar.21708 · Cited by 37
The role of social brand engagement on brand equity and purchase intention for fashion brands
Sang, V. M., Hương, G. N., & Ha, G. D. N. (2022) · Cogent Business & Management · doi:10.1080/23311975.2022.2143308 · Cited by 35
“Social brand engagement is considered a co-creative customer experience in which a consumer interacts with a focus agent/object (e.g., a brand), which then reflects the nature of the interacting brand relationships specific to consumers (Hollebeek et al., 2014).”
BackgroundThe Effect of Consumer Motivation to Play Games on Video Game-playing Engagement
Banytė, J., & Gadeikienė, A. (2015) · Procedia Economics and Finance · doi:10.1016/s2212-5671(15)00880-1 · Cited by 43
“There are few quantitative studies introducing original and statistically reliable scales to measure consumer engagement (Hollebeek et al., 2014; So, King, Sparks & Wang, 2014).”
Beyond the dyadic: customer engagement in increasingly networked environments
Hollebeek, L. D., Jaakkola, E., & Alexander, M. (2018) · Journal of service management · doi:10.1108/josm-05-2018-410 · Cited by 33
Self-citationSpanjaard, D., Garlin, F. V., & Mohammed, H. (2022) · Journal of Marketing Education · doi:10.1177/02734753221090419 · Cited by 33
“However, these authors measured engagement at the global level, using scales designed to gauge customer engagement (Hollebeek et al., 2014; Vivek et al., 2014) or ones measuring a very different conception of engagement (Schaufeli et al., 2002).”
BackgroundMir, I. A., & Salo, J. (2023) · Journal of Promotion Management · doi:10.1080/10496491.2023.2251461 · Cited by 46
“Brand engagement on social media (e.g. Instagram) was previously (See Hollebeek et al., 2014) claimed to be cognitive, affective, or behavioral.”
BackgroundElectronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) and customer brand engagement (CBE): Do they really go hand-in-hand?
Srivastava, M. C., Abhishek, S., & Pandey, N. (2023) · Electronic Commerce Research · doi:10.1007/s10660-023-09743-z · Cited by 36
Kini, A. N., Basri, S., & Hawaldar, I. T. (2024) · Journal of Open Innovation Technology Market and Complexity · doi:10.1016/j.joitmc.2024.100240 · Cited by 60
Bhandari, M. P., Bhattarai, C. R., & Mulholland, G. (2024) · Journal of Product & Brand Management · doi:10.1108/jpbm-02-2023-4373 · Cited by 33
Factors of continually using branded mobile apps: the central role of app engagement
Wu, L. (2015) · International Journal of Internet Marketing and Advertising · doi:10.1504/ijima.2015.072884 · Cited by 32
“Instead of being passive information recipients, contemporary consumers actively participate in the marketing process (Hollebeek et al., 2014; Pagani et al., 2011; Singh and Sonnenburg, 2012).”
BackgroundAnalysis of Tweet Form’s effect on users’ engagement on Twitter
Han, X., Xing-yu, G., & Peng, S. (2019) · Cogent Business & Management · doi:10.1080/23311975.2018.1564168 · Cited by 32
Building pharmaceutical relationship marketing and social media impact
Enyinda, C. I., Ogbuehi, A. O., & Mbah, C. H. N. (2018) · International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Marketing · doi:10.1108/ijphm-02-2017-0007 · Cited by 34
Customer engagement behaviour on social media platforms: A systematic literature review
Ajiboye, T., Harvey, J., & Resnick, S. M. (2019) · Journal of Customer Behaviour · doi:10.1362/147539219x15774563471801 · Cited by 37
Assessing stakeholder network engagement
Okazaki, S., Plangger, K. A., Roulet, T. J., & Menéndez, H. D. (2020) · European Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1108/ejm-12-2018-0842 · Cited by 34
Tempting Fate: Social Media Posts, Unfollowing, and Long-Term Sales
Wang, S. A., Greenwood, B. N., & Pavlou, P. A. (2020) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2020/15510 · Cited by 39
“First, although scholars note the value of social media in enhancing consumer-firm relationships (Hollebeek et al. 2014; Jahn and Kunz 2012), the impact of “firm-generated” social media on users’ decision to terminate the relationship, or the secondary implications thereof, has received scant…”
Measuring the consumer engagement related to social media: the case of franchising
Monge, M. E. C., & Ramírez‐Hurtado, J. M. (2021) · Electronic Commerce Research · doi:10.1007/s10660-021-09463-2 · Cited by 34
The Importance of Consumer Engagement In Brand Heritage Advertising
Scarpi, D. (2021) · Journal of Advertising Research · doi:10.2501/jar-2021-005 · Cited by 35
Sukendia, N. H. E. A. J. (2021) · Türk bilgisayar ve matematik eğitimi dergisi · doi:10.17762/turcomat.v12i3.1556 · Cited by 43
“Contrary to previous research on the correlation of customers‟ engagements and loyalties (Bowden, 2009), Van Doorn et al., 2010; Hollebeek et al., 2014), and the effect of e-service quality on loyalties (Ghalandari, 2012; Chen et al., 2013), this study determines that customers‟ loyalty has no…”
ResultSOCIAL MEDIA MARKETING AND PURCHASE INTENTION: EVIDENCE FROM KOSOVO
Emini, A., & Zeqiri, J. (2021) · Ekonomska misao i praksa · doi:10.17818/emip/2021/2.8 · Cited by 38
Outdoor-sports brands’ Instagram strategies: how message attributes relate to consumer engagement
Zhang, J. S., & Su, L. Y.-F. (2022) · International Journal of Advertising · doi:10.1080/02650487.2022.2135346 · Cited by 32
“…to be positively associated with the quality of consumers’ relationships with brands (gómez, Lopez, and Molina 2019); their ‘self-brand connection’ (Hollebeek, glynn, and Brodie 2014, p. 160); and their satisfaction with, trust in, sense of empowerment derived from, and emotional bonds with…”
BackgroundInfluentialSantos, S., Gonçalves, H. M., & Teles, M. (2022) · Psychology and Marketing · doi:10.1002/mar.21756 · Cited by 45
Japutra, A., Higueras‐Castillo, E., & Liébana-Cabanillas, F. J. (2022) · Journal of Strategic Marketing · doi:10.1080/0965254x.2022.2152476 · Cited by 35
Lu, K., Pang, F., & Shadiev, R. (2023) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-023-11591-1 · Cited by 40
“This finding is consistent with those reported in previous studies (Hepola et al., 2016; Hollebeek et al., 2014).”
ResultProsumers’ intention to co-create business value and the moderating role of digital media usage
Chatterjee, S., Mariani, M. M., & Wamba, S. F. (2023) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.113920 · Cited by 38
How to Make Influencer Advertising Engaging on Instagram: Emotional Storytelling in Sponsored Posts
Gross, J., Cui, Z., & von Wangenheim, F. (2023) · Journal of Interactive Advertising · doi:10.1080/15252019.2023.2211579 · Cited by 52
“Consumer involvement is defined as the levels of interest and personal relevance of a decision and has been identified as antecedents of consumer engagement behaviors (Hollebeek 2011; Hollebeek, Glynn, and Brodie 2014; Mittal 1995; Zaichkowsky 1985).”
BackgroundMotivating consumers for health and fitness: The role of app features
Stancu, V., Frank, D., Lähteenmäki, L., & Grunert, K. G. (2022) · Journal of Consumer Behaviour · doi:10.1002/cb.2108 · Cited by 37
Jang, Y. J., & Kim, E. (2022) · Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research · doi:10.1177/10963480221140019 · Cited by 31
“…voluntary participative activities (e.g., liking posts, leaving comments, and providing the information; Gruss et al., 2020), which are stimulated by cognitive (e.g., acquiring and sharing information) and emotional aspects (e.g., feeling emotional support) of engagement (Hollebeek et al., 2014).”
BackgroundLim, J. S., & Jiang, H. (2023) · Journal of Public Relations Research · doi:10.1080/1062726x.2023.2253941 · Cited by 33
“Previous research suggests that customer brand community engagement enhances brand loyalty (Brodie et al., 2013; Hollebeek et al., 2014; Kumar & Kumar, 2020; Laroche et al., 2012; Muniz & O’Guinn, 2001).”
BackgroundSeptianto, F., Mathmann, F., Hollebeek, L. D., & Higgins, E. T. (2023) · Journal of Advertising · doi:10.1080/00913367.2023.2255251 · Cited by 35
“…on social media (e.g., Meire et al. 2019), how to boost consumers ’ purchase intention for products or services advertised on social media (e.g., Hollebeek et al. 2014), the role of social media (e.g., advertising) content in influencing or empowering its users (Leong et al. 2019), and the…”
BackgroundSelf-citationHow consumers define brand relationships: a prototype analysis
Schreuder, P., Zeelenberg, M., & Pronk, T. (2023) · Journal of Product & Brand Management · doi:10.1108/jpbm-12-2022-4263 · Cited by 31
Kujur, F., & Singh, S. (2018) · Management Research Review · doi:10.1108/mrr-07-2017-0218 · Cited by 32
Suárez, M. G. (2019) · Administrative Sciences · doi:10.3390/admsci9010010 · Cited by 32
“…Immersion, passion, activation Vivek et al. (2014) USA Survey 247 students Multidimensional Conscious activation, enthusedparticipation, social connection Hollebeek et al. (2014) New Zealand Survey 194 students; 554 consumers Multidimensional Cognitive processing, affection,activation Table A4.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialConsumer engagement in village eco-tourism: A case of the cleanest village in Asia – Mawlynnong
Sharma, N., & Sarmah, B. (2019) · Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science · doi:10.1080/21639159.2019.1577692 · Cited by 34
Examining the Antecedents of Brand Engagement of Tourists Based on the Theory of Value Co-Creation
Xu, F. Z., Bai, Y., & Li, S. (2020) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su12051958 · Cited by 31
“Bolton [86] pointed that more attentions should be taken to brand engagement, which could optimize marketing performance [87,88].”
BackgroundImpact of patient portal behavioral engagement on subsistence consumers' wellbeing
Akareem, H. S., Ferdous, A. S., & Todd, M. (2020) · International Journal of Research in Marketing · doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2020.09.003 · Cited by 31
AbdelAziz, K., Saad, N. H. M., & Ramayah, T. (2021) · Journal of Islamic marketing · doi:10.1108/jima-09-2020-0294 · Cited by 31
Social media brand posts and customer engagement
Wang, Z. (2021) · Journal of Brand Management · doi:10.1057/s41262-021-00247-5 · Cited by 43
The impact of negative customer engagement on market-based assets and financial performance
Rahman, M., Faroque, A. R., Sakka, G., & Ahmed, Z. U. (2021) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.08.023 · Cited by 35
Remembering the FCB Grid: Thinking, Feeling, and Involvement in the Age of Social Media
Haley, E., & Pittman, M. (2022) · Journal of Advertising · doi:10.1080/00913367.2022.2026845 · Cited by 36
“Web ads for high-involvement products are more successful when the ad has a visual of the product (Flores, Chen, and Ross 2014), and video and photo ads have higher recall than textonly ads (Hsieh and Chen 2011).”
BackgroundEbrahimi, P., Khajeheian, D., Soleimani, M., Gholampour, A., & Fekete‐Farkas, M. (2022) · Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja · doi:10.1080/1331677x.2022.2106264 · Cited by 37
“Previous studies (Hollebeek et al., 2014; Kumar et al., 2010; Prentice et al., 2019; Santini et al., 2020) have confirmed the impact of consumer engagement on online consumer purchase behavior.”
BackgroundComparing content marketing strategies of digital brands using machine learning
Chen, Y. (2023) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-023-01544-x · Cited by 41
“…the fi elds of education (Baron et al., 2014), marketing (Bowden et al., 2017), information systems (Terkenli et al., 2020), and digital marketing (Breidbach and Brodie, 2017), and engagement can be de fi ned as an essential interactive element in brand or company promotion (Hollebeek et al., 2014).”
BackgroundTemerak, M. S., Winklhofer, H., & Hibbert, S. (2018) · Journal of business research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.03.029 · Cited by 30
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
