The DOI matches its Crossref record; 105 of the 110 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 2 of the 29 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development and Validation
Open accessAbstract
In the last three decades, an influential research stream has emerged which highlights the dynamics of focal consumer/brand relationships. Specifically, more recently the ‘consumer brand engagement’ (CBE) concept has been postulated to more comprehensively reflect the nature of consumers’ particular interactive brand relationships, relative to traditional concepts, including ‘involvement.’ However, despite the growing scholarly interest regarding the undertaking of marketing research addressing ‘engagement,’ studies have been predominantly exploratory in nature, thus generating a lack of empirical research in this area to date. By developing and validating a CBE scale in specific social media settings, we address this identified literature gap. Specifically, we conceptualize CBE as a consumer's positively valenced brand-related cognitive, emotional and behavioral activity during or related to focal consumer/brand interactions. We derive three CBE dimensions, including cognitive processing, affection, and activation. Within three different social media contexts, we employ exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses to develop a reliable, 10-item CBE scale, which we proceed to validate within a nomological net of conceptual relationships and a rival model. The findings suggest that while consumer brand ‘involvement’ acts as a CBE antecedent, consumer ‘self-brand connection’ and ‘brand usage intent’ represent key CBE consequences, thus providing a platform for further research…
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
49 Own result · 21 Own interpretation · 9 No full text of the sources · 8 Sources not found · 8 Own method · 7 No basis given · 2 Couldn’t confirm · 1 Not checked yet · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“the qualitative study shows consumer conceptions of CBE are aligned with key findings addressing the 'engagement' concept in prior research (Brodie et al. 2011;Leeflang 2011).”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Insert Table 2 about here
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Brodie et al. 2011
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Could not verifycites Leeflang 2011 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The available Abstract describes the formalization of marketing and future developments, while the metadata lists customer engagement only as a keyword. Searches for consumer conceptions of CBE, qualitative findings, and the engagement concept found no passage addressing whether those conceptions align with prior research. (LLM, conf=0.71)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In an additional EFA including only the 10 retained CBE items, the scree plot and the eigen values exceeding 1.0 concurred in suggesting the suitability of a threefactor solution for CBE, which explained 69.63% of the total variance.”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Results
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For these brands, the respondents exhibited a substantially lower willingness to exert cognitive, emotional or behavioral activity in their brand interactions”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Insert Table 2 about here
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“we observed the scree in the scree plot at three factors; thus corresponding to our hypothesized three-factor model of CBE.”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Results
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Cattell 1966 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The attained Cronbach alphas for the scale were: (i) Cognitive processing: .825;”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Insert Figure 1 about here
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The fit statistics for the re-estimated model were as follows: χ 2 (53) = 464.9(p=0.000); and χ 2 /df = 8.72, GFI = .865;CFI = .922;RMSEA = .118;and SRMR = .048;thus indicating a worse fit, relative to the three-factor model.”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Insert Figure 1 about here
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the audio recorded findings suggested that consumers predominantly equated their 'engagement' with their selected brands to specific brand interactions.”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Insert Table 2 about here
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“while consumer brand 'involvement' acts as a CBE antecedent”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the results indicated that for perceived 'highly engaging' brands consumers, typically, appeared willing to exert considerable cognitive, emotional and behavioral activity in their brand interactions”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Insert Table 2 about here
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We derive three CBE dimensions, including cognitive processing, affection, and activation.”
- Also stated in: § CBE Conceptual Development · plain
“we propose three CBE dimensions, which correspond to the generic cognitive, emotional and behavioral nature of 'engagement.'”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § CBE Conceptual Development · plain
- Probably not a substantial claim. 11
- It may state two separate claims as one. 14
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“As such, this research responds directly to the Marketing Science Institute's (MSI 2010), Leeflang's (2011), and Brodie et al.'s (2011) call for the undertaking of 'engagement'-based scale development research.”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Brand usage intent
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites MSI 2010
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Could not verifycites Leeflang (2011) sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The indexed Abstract describes a broad agenda for developing marketing research, and the keywords include customer engagement. Searches for engagement-based scale development and customer-engagement measures returned no passage in our copy calling for that research; the retrieved text does not establish the specific attribution to Leeflang. (LLM, conf=0.72)
- Not matchedcites Brodie et al. (2011)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we employ exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses to develop a reliable, 10-item CBE scale”
- Also stated in: § Results · plain
“resulting in a three-factor, 10-item CBE scale for further analysis.”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Abstract
plainn = 200- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Results · plain
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The item screening generated a reduced pool of 39 CBE items.”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we retained 12 items for the 'cognitive processing,' 15 items for the 'affection,' and 12 items for the 'activation' dimensions of CBE for further analysis.”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Reliability (internal consistency) analyses using Cronbach's alpha indicated the scale had good reliability: (i) Cognitive processing: .753;(ii) Affection: .839;(iii) Activation: .776;and (iv) Overall 10-item CBE scale: .823.”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Results
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The attained Cronbach alphas for the scale were: (i) Cognitive processing: .825;(ii) Affection: .907; (iii) Activation: .894;and (iv) Overall CBE scale: .933.”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Insert Figure 1 about here
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The results in Figure 1 suggested excellent model fit (Iacobucci 2010: p. 91): χ 2 (32) = 97.994(p=0.000); and χ 2 /df = 3.06.Further, GFI = .968;CFI = .984;RMSEA = .061;and SRMR = .0278;thus corroborating the excellent model fit to the data”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Insert Figure 1 about here
What the sources say
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“The regression weights (βs) for each of the items onto their intended factor were significant (e.g.AFFECTION → AFFEC.1: .895);and all standardized coefficients .50;suggesting that each of the items should remain in the model”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Insert Figure 1 about here
What the sources say
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Similarly, while we found consumers' brand-related 'affection' (.426) and 'activation' (.402) in specific consumer/brand interactions to exert a similar significant effect on individuals' ensuing 'brand usage intent,' consumers' level of 'cognitive processing' (.045) failed to produce a significant effect.”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Hypothesis Testing Results
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“which indicated that discriminant validity was attained for 14 of the 15 possible construct pairs; that is, with the exception of COG.PROC.-AFFEC.(Table 5).”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Model Results
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Fornell and Larcker 1981a/b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Each of the squared multiple correlations exceeded .50;also indicating good item reliability.”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Model Results
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The regression coefficients indicated that each of the items made a significant contribution to the measurement of its intended construct, thus contributing to the model's convergent validity.”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Model Results
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The fit statistics for the calibration sample are: χ 2 (243) = 653.561(p=0.000); and χ 2 /df = 2.69, GFI = .824;CFI = .932;RMSEA = .078;and SRMR = .0616;the validation sample: χ 2 (243) = 666.7 (p=0.000);χ 2 /df = 2.77, GFI = .817;CFI = .938;RMSEA = .079;and SRMR = .0516.”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Insert Table 5 about here
plainn = 278- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Highly similar results were attained across both sub-samples (Table 6), which also exhibited significant resemblance to the results for the full sample (Alwin and Jackson 1981).”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Insert Table 5 about here
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Alwin and Jackson 1981
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boostedn = 278- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Fourth, 'engagement' plays a central role in a nomological net of focal conceptual relationships (Brodie et al. 2011)”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Table 1 about here
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Brodie et al. 2011
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As such, study 3 confirmed the CBE scale representing a valid, reliable and stable measurement instrument.”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Insert Figure 1 about here
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“more recently the 'consumer brand engagement' (CBE) concept has been postulated to more comprehensively reflect the nature of consumers' particular interactive brand relationships, relative to traditional concepts, including 'involvement.'”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Brodie et al. 2011
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
In the paper
“'engagement' reflects a motivational state (Van Doorn et al. 2010), which occurs by virtue of an individual's (i.e. the 'engagement subject') focal interactive experiences with a particular object or agent”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Table 1 about here
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Van Doorn et al. 2010 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“studies have been predominantly exploratory in nature; thus generating a lack of empirical research in this area to date.”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and as such, may be useful for scholars and managers seeking to predict specific consumer behavior outcomes;”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Brand usage intent
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Additionally, this paper contributes insights regarding the potential role of CBE in the advancement of the broader theoretical perspectives of relationship marketing, S-D logic and consumer culture theory, which are centered upon the importance of establishing and maintaining value-laden, interactive and co-creative consumer/brand interactions and relationships.”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Brand usage intent
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As a result, consumers' CBE levels with a focal brand may fluctuate: (i) During (i.e.within) a particular brand interaction; and (ii) Across brand interactions over time.”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Contributions, Limitations & Implications Academic Implications
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Overall, we expect managerial cultivation of CBE to generate enhanced consumer brand retention and loyalty outcomes.”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Managerial Implications
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Represents a promising, under-explored concept to date;”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Brand usage intent
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“thus indicating that not only does CBE have a positive effect on consumer 'self-brand connection,' but CBE explains most of the variance observed for this construct.”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Hypothesis Testing Results
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
The selected social media brands (Facebook.com, Twitter.com, LinkedIn.com) are representative of social media contexts for studying CBE.
“Within three different social media contexts, we employ exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses to develop a reliable, 10-item CBE scale”
“we selected the brand Facebook.comfor investigation”
“we selected the social media brand Twitter.com for investigation”
The paper relies on this without support.
The causal direction is from consumer brand involvement through CBE to self-brand connection and brand usage intent, not the reverse.
“we identified a mediating effect of CBE in the association between consumer brand 'involvement' and 'brand usage intent.'”
The paper relies on this without support.
The nomological net includes all relevant mediating variables.
“which implies there are no omitted mediating variables, and the mediating hypotheses are supported.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Study 2: CBE Measurement Assessment & Scale Dimensionality
“We selected a social media setting in studies 1-3”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Study 1: Consumer Conceptions of 'Consumer Brand Engagement' (CBE)
“We instructed the participants to select a brand in any category that is 'highly engaging' to them”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“| Activation | .72 | .67 | .75 | .69 | .46 | .49 | | Self-Brand | .84 | .74 | .86 | .86 | .75 | .45 |”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Brand usage intent
Reported 0.46 · recomputed 0.7396
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“| Affection | .84 | .85 | .76 | .57 | .74 | .46 | | Activation | .72 | .67 | .75 | .69 | .46 | .49 | | Self-Brand | .84 | .74 | .86 | .86 | .75 | .45 | | Connection | | | | | | | | Brand Usage | .67 | .64 | .74 | .70 | .67 | .76 |”
§ Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development & Validation > Brand usage intent
Reported 0.46 · recomputed 0.5476
Citations
Cites
Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.2307/3151312 · Cited by 109,314
Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1177/002224378101800104 · Cited by 109,190
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173 · Cited by 91,532
(1975) · PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) · Cited by 36,737
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/brm.40.3.879 · Cited by 34,117
On the Evaluation of Structural Equation Models
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1007/bf02723327 · Cited by 26,163
Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity
Keller, K. L. (1993) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1177/002224299305700101 · Cited by 24,648
Structural Equations with Latent Variables
Bollen, K. A. (1989) · Wiley series in probability and statistics · doi:10.1002/9781118619179 · Cited by 17,944
Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media
Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010) · Business Horizons · doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003 · Cited by 17,875
Structural Equations with Latent Variables.
Clogg, C. C., & Bollen, K. A. (1991) · Contemporary Sociology A Journal of Reviews · doi:10.2307/2072165 · Cited by 17,475
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- Bezjian-Avery A., 1998, Journal of Advertising Research, 38, 23
- Menard Scott Longitudinal Research, 2e, Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences No. 76 2002 Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications
- Patterson Paul, Ting Yu., De Ruyter Ko Understanding Customer Engagement in Services 2006 AZMAC Proceedings Brisbane
- Prahalad Coimbatore K., 2004, Journal of Marketing, 68, 23
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Understanding customer experience throughout the customer journey
Lemon, K. N., & Verhoef, P. C. (2016) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1509/jm.15.0420 · Cited by 5,765
Sokolova, K., & Kefi, H. (2020) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.01.011 · Cited by 1,650
The Role of Live Streaming in Building Consumer Trust and Engagement with Social Commerce Sellers
Wongkitrungrueng, A., & Assarut, N. (2020) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.08.032 · Cited by 1,477
Social media marketing efforts of luxury brands: Influence on brand equity and consumer behavior
Godey, B., Manthiou, A., Pederzoli, D., Rokka, J., Aiello, G., Donvito, R., & Singh, R. K. (2016) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.181 · Cited by 1,910
Consumer engagement in online brand communities: a social media perspective
Dessart, L., Veloutsou, C. A., & Morgan‐Thomas, A. (2015) · Journal of Product & Brand Management · doi:10.1108/jpbm-06-2014-0635 · Cited by 1,516
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
