Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 516

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Exploring positively- versus negatively-valenced brand engagement: a conceptual model

D. Hollebeek, Linda, Chen, Tom·2014·Journal of Product & Brand Management

Abstract

Purpose: – After gaining traction in business practice the “brand engagement” (BE) concept has transpired in the academic marketing/branding literature. BE has been defined as the level of a consumer's “cognitive, emotional and behavioral investment in specific brand interactions”. Although pioneering research provides exploratory insights, the majority of literature to-date addresses consumers' specific positively-valenced BE; thus largely overlooking potential negatively-valenced manifestations of this emerging concept and their ensuing implications. The purpose of this paper is to propose a novel BE conceptualization that extends to cover focal negatively-valenced, in addition to positively-valenced BE expressions, thus providing a more comprehensive theoretical model of BE. Specifically, while positively-valenced BE addresses consumers' favorable/affirmative cognitive, emotional and behavioral brand-related dynamics during focal brand interactions (e.g. brand-usage); negatively-valenced BE, by contrast, is exhibited through consumers' unfavorable brand-related thoughts, feelings, and behaviors during brand interactions. Design/methodology/approach: – Drawing on netnographic methodology, the authors develop a conceptual model addressing the key characteristics of consumers' positively-/negatively-valenced BE, and derive a set of key BE triggers and consequences. Findings: – Based on their analyses the authors develop a conceptual model, which addresses consumers' positively/negatively valenced BE, and key antecedents and consequences. Research limitations/implications: – Future research is required, which tests and validates the proposed model for specific categories and brands using large-scale, quantitative analyses. Practical implications: – Generating enhanced managerial understanding of positively/negatively valenced BE, this research contributes to guiding managerial decision making regarding the management of specific brands. Originality/value: – By proposing a conceptual model incorporating positively-/negatively-valenced BE, this paper extends current insights in the branding/marketing literatures, thus contributing to managers and scholars.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1108/jpbm-06-2013-0332

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 13 references

Cited by

See all 516

Metadata

Authors
D. Hollebeek, L., & Chen, T.
Venue
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Publisher
Emerald
Published
2014-03-11
Volume
23
Issue
1
Pages
62-74
ISSN
1061-0421 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2010335529
Cited by
516
References
13
FWCI
70.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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.

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Exploring positively- versus negatively-valenced brand engagement: a conceptual model. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1108/jpbm-06-2013-0332
The paper
D. Hollebeek, L., & Chen, T. (2014). Exploring positively- versus negatively-valenced brand engagement: a conceptual model. Journal of Product & Brand Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/jpbm-06-2013-0332

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.