Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 192

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Why people use online social media brand communities: A consumption value theory perspective

Kaur, Puneet, Dhir, Amandeep, Rajala, Risto, Dwivedi, Yogesh·2018·Online Information Review
DOI 10.1108/oir-12-2015-0383
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Purpose: The success and survival of any form of online community relies on the presence and active participation of its users. Hence, ensuring active user participation and retaining existing users is a key concern of the moderators of online communities. To address these challenges, the purpose of this paper is to investigate the epistemic, emotional, and social values that influence users’ intention to continue using an online social media brand community. Moreover, the study also investigates the differences in the influence of the investigated constructs and users’ various activity levels. Design/methodology/approach: This study utilized the consumption value theory framework for testing the relationship between different measures. An empirical analysis of the consumption values of 577 users in an online social media brand community was accomplished using structural equation modeling. Findings: The study findings revealed that emotional and social values exert partial influence in predicting users’ intention to continue using online social media brand communities. In particular, social enhancement and playfulness predict users’ continuation intentions. Moreover, the results show that the influence of the investigated constructs (except playfulness) is consistent across users with various activity levels in online social media brand communities. Research limitations/implications: These findings pave the way for further theoretical and practical considerations of the role of consumption values in resolving challenges of user participation and retention. However, there are still some open gaps concerning the generalizability of the findings as well as other factors that could potentially influence the user intentions. Future studies should validate the findings by recruiting diverse users in terms of their age and cultural background. Practical implications: The study findings are of special relevance for the service operators interested in practicing user-centric innovation. Moreover, the findings can help online social media brand community managers to kick start user-centric innovation activities in their community. Originality/value: The study provides a novel perspective on the challenges of assessing users’ consumption behavior. The perceived values have been conceptualized using the constructs of social influence, problem solving, playfulness, social enhancement, and social interaction.

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/oir-12-2015-0383

Cites

12 of 12 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 12 references

Research works printed but not linked: 61

  1. 1988, Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach, Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411, 10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 1995, The partial least squares (PLS) approach to causal modeling: personal computer adaptation and use as illustration, Technology Studies, 2, 285
  3. Boyd, D. (2008), “Taken out of context: American teen sociality in networked publics”, (unpublished dissertation), University of California-Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.
  4. 1992, Alternative ways of assesssing model fit, Sociological Methods and Research, 21, 136
  5. 1959, Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix, Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81, 10.1037/h0046016 · DOI · Paper page
  6. 2014, Exploring the commercial value of social networks, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 27, 576, 10.1108/JEIM-05-2013-0019 · DOI
  7. 1998, Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling, MIS Quarterly, 22, 7
  8. 2013, Online engagement factors on Facebook brand pages, Social Network Analysis and Mining, 3, 843, 10.1007/s13278-013-0098-8 · DOI · Paper page
  9. 2009, Virtual communities: a marketing perspective, Online Communities and Social Network, 47, 185
  10. 2016, Why do young people avoid photo tagging? A new service avoidance scale, Social Science Computer Review, 35, 480
  11. 2016, Age and gender differences in photo tagging gratifications, Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 630, 10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.044 · DOI · Paper page
  12. 2017, Understanding the relationship between intensity and gratifications of Facebook use among adolescents and young adults, Telematics and Informatics, 34, 350, 10.1016/j.tele.2016.08.017 · DOI
  13. 2015, Why do we tag photographs on Facebook? Proposing a new gratifications scale, New Media & Society, 19, 502
  14. 2016, Why do adolescents untag photos on Facebook?, Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 1106
  15. 2017, Do psychosocial attributes of well-being drive intensive Facebook use?, Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 520, 10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.023 · DOI
  16. 2017, Do educational affordances and gratifications drive intensive Facebook use among adolescents?, Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 40, 10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.014 · DOI
  17. 2004, A social influence model of consumer participation in network- and small-group-based virtual communities, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21, 241, 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2003.12.004 · DOI · Paper page
  18. 1981, Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error, Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39, 10.1177/002224378101800104 · DOI · Paper page
  19. 2008, Brand community members as a source of innovation, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25, 608, 10.1111/j.1540-5885.2008.00325.x · DOI · Paper page
  20. 2012, Customer engagement in a Facebook brand community, Management Research Review, 35, 857, 10.1108/01409171211256578 · DOI · Paper page
  21. 2014, The roles of brand community and community engagement in building brand trust on social media, Computers in Human Behavior, 37, 152, 10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.016 · DOI · Paper page
  22. 2014, Brand communities based in social media: how unique are they? Evidence from two exemplary brand communities, International Journal of Information Management, 34, 123, 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2013.11.010 · DOI · Paper page
  23. 2014, Consumer behaviour on Facebook, EuroMed Journal of Business, 9, 252
  24. 2012, The impact of online community position on online game continuance intention: do game knowledge and community size matter?, Information & Management, 49, 292, 10.1016/j.im.2012.09.002 · DOI
  25. 1999, Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives, Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1
  26. Joinson, A.N. (2008), “Looking at, looking up or keeping up with people? Motives and use of Facebook”, paper presented at the CHI 2008, Florence. · DOI · Paper page
  27. 2014, Influence of consumer attitude toward online brand community on revisit intention and brand trust, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 21, 581, 10.1016/j.jretconser.2014.04.002 · DOI · Paper page
  28. 2014, Consumer-brand engagement on Facebook: liking and commenting behaviors, Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 8, 203, 10.1108/JRIM-12-2013-0081 · DOI · Paper page
  29. 2014, Enhancing consumer-brand relationships on restaurant Facebook fan pages: maximizing consumer benefits and increasing active participation, International Journal of Hospitality Management, 36, 145, 10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.08.015 · DOI · Paper page
  30. Kaur, A. (2016a), “Underpinnings of user participation in innovation on online communication platforms. Published”, Doctoral Dissertation, Aalto University, Finland.
  31. 2016, Underpinnings of user participation in service provider-hosted online communities, Service Science, 8, 249, 10.1287/serv.2016.0136 · DOI
  32. 2011, Investigating the intention to purchase digital items in social networking communities: a customer value perspective, Information & Management, 48, 228, 10.1016/j.im.2011.05.004 · DOI · Paper page
  33. 2010, Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling
  34. Koroleva, K., Krasnova, H. and Günther, O. (2010), “Stop spamming me! – exploring information overload on Facebook”, paper presented at the 16th Americas Conference on Information Systems, Lima.
  35. 2013, Relationships among community interaction characteristics, perceived benefits, community commitment, and oppositional brand loyalty in online brand communities, International Journal of Information Management, 33, 948, 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2013.08.005 · DOI · Paper page
  36. 2013, To be or not to be in social media: how brand loyalty is affected by social media, International Journal of Information Management, 22, 76
  37. 2012, The effects of social media based brand communities on brand community markers, value creation practices, brand trust and brand loyalty, Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 1755, 10.1016/j.chb.2012.04.016 · DOI · Paper page
  38. 2011, Intention to continue using Facebook fan pages from the perspective of social capital theory, CyberPsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14, 565, 10.1089/cyber.2010.0472 · DOI · Paper page
  39. 2010, The influence of extro/introversion on the intention to pay for social networking sites, Information & Management, 47, 150, 10.1016/j.im.2010.01.003 · DOI · Paper page
  40. 2002, Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences and their consequences: a triumph of faith - a failure of analysis, Human Relations, 55, 89, 10.1177/0018726702551004 · DOI · Paper page
  41. 2000, Building stronger brands through online communities, Sloan Management Review, 41, 43
  42. 2015, Why do teens spend real money in virtual worlds? A consumption values and developmental psychology perspective on virtual consumption, International Journal of Information Management, 35, 124, 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2014.10.004 · DOI
  43. 2014, Driving consumers to become fans of brand pages: a theoretical framework, Journal of Interactive Advertising, 14, 1, 10.1080/15252019.2014.880828 · DOI
  44. 2000, Measuring the customer experience in online environments: a structural modelling approach, Marketing Science, 19, 22, 10.1287/mksc.19.1.22.15184 · DOI · Paper page
  45. 1978, Psychometric Theory
  46. 2010, The influence of hedonic and utilitarian motivations on user engagement: the case of online shopping experiences, Interacting with Computers: Special Issue on User Experience, 22, 344
  47. 2009, Being immersed in social networking environment: Facebook groups, uses and gratifications, and social outcomes, Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 12, 729, 10.1089/cpb.2009.0003 · DOI · Paper page
  48. 2000, Online Communities: Designing Usability, Supporting Sociability
  49. 1993, The Virtual Community
  50. 2014, Key drivers of consumer loyalty to Facebook fan pages, Online Information Review, 38, 362, 10.1108/OIR-05-2013-0101 · DOI
  51. 2012, A private versus a public space: anonymity and buying decorative symbolic goods for avatars in a virtual world, Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 2227, 10.1016/j.chb.2012.06.030 · DOI
  52. 2011, Understanding Web 2.0 service models: a knowledge-creating perspective, Information & Management, 48, 178
  53. 1991, Why we buy what we buy: a theory of consumption values, Journal of Business Research, 22, 159, 10.1016/0148-2963(91)90050-8 · DOI · Paper page
  54. 2012, Self-disclosure and student satisfaction with Facebook, Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 624, 10.1016/j.chb.2011.11.008 · DOI · Paper page
  55. 1994, Consumption values and the choice of marketing electives: treating students like customers, Journal of Marketing Education, 16, 26, 10.1177/027347539401600204 · DOI
  56. 2010, User acceptance of hedonic digital artifacts: a theory of consumption values perspective, Information and Management, 47, 53, 10.1016/j.im.2009.10.002 · DOI · Paper page
  57. 2005, Democratizing Innovation
  58. 2014, Consumer engagement with self-expressive brands: brand love and WOM outcomes, Journal of Product and Brand Management, 23, 33, 10.1108/JPBM-06-2013-0326 · DOI · Paper page
  59. 2013, Brand communities embedded in social networks, Journal of Business Research, 66, 216, 10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.07.015 · DOI · Paper page
  60. 2015, Building brand loyalty through user engagement in online brand communities in social networking sites, Information, Technology & People, 28, 90, 10.1108/ITP-08-2013-0144 · DOI · Paper page
  61. 2011, Understanding online community user participation: a social influence perspective, Internet Research, 21, 67, 10.1108/10662241111104884 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

See all 192

Metadata

Authors
Kaur, P., Dhir, A., Rajala, R., & Dwivedi, Y.
Venue
Online Information Review
Publisher
Emerald
Published
2018-04-09
Volume
42
Issue
2
Pages
205-221
ISSN
1468-4527 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1108/oir-12-2015-0383
OpenAlex
W2759262298
Cited by
192
References
12
FWCI
34.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.emerald.com/insight/site-policies (tdm)

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: Why people use online social media brand communities: A consumption value theory perspective. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1108/oir-12-2015-0383
The paper
Kaur, P., Dhir, A., Rajala, R., & Dwivedi, Y. (2018). Why people use online social media brand communities: A consumption value theory perspective. Online Information Review. https://doi.org/10.1108/oir-12-2015-0383

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.