The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/2040-7122.htm

Brand
Young consumers’ motivational engagement
drivers of brand engagement behavior on social
media sites
behavior on social media sites
A synthesized U&G and TAM framework 351
Bela Florenthal Received 15 May 2018
Revised 25 July 2019
Department of Marketing and Management Sciences, Accepted 25 July 2019
William Paterson University, Wayne, New Jersey, USA

Abstract
Purpose – A comprehensive operational framework is proposed to explain young consumers’
(i.e. generations Y and Z) engagement with brands on social media sites (SMSs). This paper aims to synthesize
two motivational theories: uses and gratifications (U&G) theory and the technology acceptance model (TAM).
Design/methodology/approach – A selective literature review was conducted to examine recent
publications related to young consumers’ brand-driven engagement behavior on SMSs in which either TAM
or U&G theory was applied. A three-stage method was used: an initial search was followed by vertical and
horizontal searches and then a targeted search of scholarly publications. At each stage, the university’s
library databases and Google Scholar were searched for relevant, mainly peer-reviewed articles, using
appropriate filters and keywords. The articles’ references and the studies that cited those articles were added
to the initially identified research pool (vertical search), coupled with publications of a similar nature based on
keywords (horizontal search). The final stage, the targeted search, involved identifying and adding specific
articles (e.g. literature reviews and integrated models).
Findings – After a review of a significant number of U&G and TAM studies, similarities and differences of
the two theories were identified, and an integrated operational framework was developed. Based on empirical
findings of existing U&G and TAM studies, testable propositions were presented.
Research limitations/implications – The proposed hybrid model and the associated propositions
provide a research opportunity to empirically examine how young consumers’ motivational (i.e. motivating
and demotivating) drivers, normative influence, perceived value and attitudes (toward brand content and
engagement) predict intention or actual brand-related behavior on SMSs.
Practical implications – Much of current research indicates that generations Y and Z (“digital natives”)
spend considerably more time on SMSs than any of the older generations (“digital immigrants”). Thus, brands
that aim to target this cohort need to develop successful engagement strategies (e.g. gamification and
influencer marketing) on current and emerging SMSs. The suggested conceptualization provides guidelines
for companies to effectively use such communication strategies to motivate young people to engage with their
brands on sites such as Twitter, Instagram and Facebook.
Originality/value – A review of TAM research indicates that it lacks rich motivating/demotivating constructs,
and thus borrows from other theories to complement this weakness. An examination of U&G frameworks,
particularity Ducoffe (1996)-based models, indicates that these frameworks mainly test engagement with social
media advertising but seldom other types of brand-driven engagement on SMSs. In addition, many U&G studies
focus less than TAM studies do on outcome variables such as behavioral intentions and behavior. Thus, the
authors propose a synthesized U&G and TAM framework that mitigates both theories’ weaknesses and builds on
their strengths, enriching the growing research on brand-driven engagement behavior via SMSs.
Keywords Social media marketing, Social networking sites, Social media advertising,
Brand equity, Young consumers, Brand choice, Technology acceptance model, Journal of Research in Interactive
Marketing
Uses and gratifications theory, TAM, U&G, Social media sites, Brand engagement, Brand interaction, Vol. 13 No. 3, 2019
pp. 351-391
Generation Y, Generation Z © Emerald Publishing Limited
2040-7122
Paper type Conceptual paper DOI 10.1108/JRIM-05-2018-0064
JRIM Introduction
13,3 Since the emergence of social media sites (SMSs) in early the 2000s, generations Y (i.e.
Millennials) and Z (i.e. the iGeneration) have been the leading cohort to embrace and use
these sites (Fietkiewicz, 2017), with individuals aged 19 to 23 reported as the main users
(88 per cent) of SMSs in 2018 (Pew Research Center, 2018). Called “digital natives,” the
younger generations (e.g. teens) are found to engage with other individuals, institutions,
352 and brands on SMSs by actively contributing (e.g. supporting causes), sharing (e.g.
posting accomplishments), and searching for content (Anderson and Jiang, 2018;
Triantafillidou and Siomkos, 2018). Early on, the main purpose of these sites for the
younger population was to socialize, i.e. increase their bonding and sense of belonging
with friends and family members (Triantafillidou and Siomkos, 2018). Later, as more
companies opened accounts on SMSs, brand engagement strategies tailored toward
younger people started to emerge (Berthon et al., 2012; El-Haddadeh et al., 2012;
Fietkiewicz et al., 2016; Hanan et al., 2018).
Research on the usage of SMSs (e.g. Facebook, Twitter and Instagram), particularly
related to brand engagement by young cohorts, have been increasingly applying conceptual
frameworks of TAM and U&G theory. The use of U&G theory provides an understanding
of the motivating drivers for users’ engagement on SMSs. These drivers include hedonic
(e.g. entertainment), utilitarian (e.g. information seeking and/or sharing) and social (e.g.
interpersonal utility) motivators (Baek et al., 2011; Celebi, 2015; Hunt et al., 2012). TAM-
related frameworks, in contrast, place less of an emphasis on the variety of motivators but
provide a richer conceptualization of outcome variables such as behavioral intention and
behavior (Casalo et al., 2010; Curran and Lennon, 2011; Dumpit and Fernandez, 2017;
Wamba et al., 2017).
To capitalize on the strengths of the two theories, a new stream of research integrates the
U&G and TAM frameworks. One example is a framework that was developed for e-
shopping behavior, whereby concepts from both theories were tested (Lim, 2015). Another
study integrated the U&G and TAM models to assess usage of mobile advertising (Lin et al.,
2017). Finally, a hybrid model of U&G and TAM was developed to examine an e-learning
tool (Florenthal, 2016). In keeping with such research, a synthesized U&G–TAM framework
is proposed here to understand what motivates and demotivates the young generation’s
brand-driven engagement behavior. In particular, Ducoffe’s (1996) extended U&G model is
integrated with TAM2 to understand what might influence Y and Z generations’
engagement with brands via SMSs.
The proposed framework contributes to the existing literature on brand
engagement in three ways. First, Ducoffe’s (1996) model, which has been applied
mainly to social media advertising, has not yet been extended to engagement with
brands on SMSs. The proposed conceptualization suggests that it can be extended to
any brand-driven social media engagement behavior (SMEB) since SMS advertising
is one form of such engagement. Second, demotivators have rarely been examined in
relation to brand-driven engagement behavior. The suggested framework includes
one demotivator (i.e. irritation) to capture the negative valence of SMEB. Third, the
combination of TAM and U&G proposed in this paper is unique as it addresses two
facets of social influence on brand-driven SMEB: interpersonal utility and subjective
norms. Most previous models focus on only one in relation to SMEB. These facets are
particularly relevant to young users “who are active on SM platforms and whose
brand preferences are heavily influenced by their friends and peers” (Chahal and
Rani, 2017, p. 312).
Theoretical background Brand
Brand communities and brand pages on social media sites engagement
Social media can be described as a vehicle of content that is generated, modified, discussed, and
behavior on social
shared by individuals and communities through highly interactive platforms that employ mobile
and web-based technologies (Florenthal and Chao, 2015, p. 43). media sites
As such, SMSs include a variety of interactive websites, such as blogs and microblogs
(e.g. Twitter), social networks (e.g. Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat), brand community 353
web pages, review and rating sites, and game- and video-sharing platforms (Baccarella et al.,
2018; Bolton et al., 2013; Cvijikj and Michahelles, 2013; Colton, 2018).
SMSs have taken center stage for brands that wish to engage with their stakeholders
(Chao and Florenthal, 2016) and have become one of the main communication channels that
builds the consumer–brand relationship while promoting the brand’s online presence,
products, and services (El-Haddadeh et al., 2012; Han and Cho, 2013; Mamic and Almaraz,
2013; Morra et al., 2018). The key to a successful strategy on SMSs is to find ways to engage
the target audience (Athwal et al., 2018). For example, this could be done through
storytelling or real-time interaction. Termed social media marketing, this strategy involves
“the utilization of social media technologies, channels, and software to create, communicate,
deliver and exchange offerings that have value for an organization’s stakeholders” and has
become an integral part of the modern business environment (Alalwan et al., 2017, p. 1178).
With respect to consumers as stakeholders, the two types of marketing efforts are:
(1) communication between companies and consumers (e.g. brand pages and
embedded ads on SMSs); and
(2) brand-driven communication among consumers (e.g. brand communities and
sponsored/paid mentions of products by influencers).

Creating, maintaining, and connecting with consumers on brand pages is a social media
marketing strategy that many companies use to strengthen their relationship with their
target segments (Halaszovich and Nel, 2017; Morra et al., 2018). Brand pages are profile
pages of brands and products created by companies on SMSs (Sicilia et al., 2016). They are
company-driven, and companies initiate communication by posting content in the form of
photos, video, messages, and quizzes (de Vries et al., 2012), thus providing the opportunity
for consumers to engage with the featured product or brand-related content (Beukeboom
et al., 2015). These brand pages contain a brand’s contact and website information as well as
information about new products and services, promotions, and events. “Liking” or
“following” the page constitutes consumers’ becoming members of the brand page.
Followers then can “like” a brand’s information that appears on their SMS’s feeds, comment
on it, or share it; these are all forms of engagement (de Vries et al., 2012; Sicilia et al., 2016).
Brand communities are another form of engagement, through which consumers
successfully connect to a brand, individual members of the community, and the community
as a collective entity (Dessart et al., 2016). These relationships can affect consumers’
behavior toward the brand, such as loyalty (Dessart et al., 2015). Compared to brand pages,
brand communities attract more involved consumers (i.e. admirers and enthusiasts), who
engage in ongoing communication with other “like minded” participants, exchanging
positive comments and brand-related visuals such as photos or videos (Zahoor and Qureshi,
2017; Zheng et al., 2015; Vohra and Bhardwaj, 2019). These communities are characterized
as specialized, cyberspace communities in which brand admirers can exchange “their
experiences with, and feelings toward, particular brands” (Islam et al., 2018, p. 23).
Consumers’ participation and interaction with brands via brand pages or brand
JRIM communities can enhance brand equity (Morra et al., 2018). Bruhn et al. (2012) explained that
13,3 consumer-based brand equity associated with brand image is strengthened when both
companies and consumers generate content on SMSs; company-focused communication has
an impact on functional brand image, and consumer-generated content influences hedonic
brand image. They demonstrated that consumer–brand engagement on social media
platforms can improve functional and hedonic brand image, which are dimensions of brand
354 equity.

Social media engagement behavior

Although not a novel concept, for the past several years, consumer (customer) engagement
has been reexamined and reconceptualized in the marketing field (Dessart et al., 2016). More
recently, Pansari and Kumar (2017) proposed a comprehensive framework with two types of
customer engagement: direct and indirect. A somewhat different approach was presented by
Hollebeek et al. (2016), who argue that customer engagement should comprise three broad
dimensions: (a) customer knowledge sharing, (b) customer learning, and (c) customer–
resource integration. There is a consensus among researchers that definitions and
conceptualizations of consumer (customer) engagement vary based on the researcher’s
perspective (i.e. attitudinal and/or behavioral), valence (positive and/or negative), scope (i.e.
transactional and/or non-transaction), context (i.e. brand community and/or brand pages),
focal object of engagement (i.e. brands and/or individuals; firm- and/or consumer-initiated
communication), and type of channel (i.e. physical and/or digital; Beckers et al., 2018;
Dessart et al., 2015; Dolan et al., 2016; Eigenraam et al., 2018; Kumar and Pansari, 2016;
Chahal and Rani, 2017).
Early research on consumer engagement with brands relied on van Doorn et al.’s (2010)
definition: “Customer engagement behaviors go beyond transactions, and may be
specifically defined as a customer’s behavioral manifestations that have a brand or firm
focus, beyond purchase, resulting from motivational drivers” (p. 254). This perspective
narrows the concept of engagement to non-transactional behaviors (i.e. actions and
practices). Hollebeek et al. (2014) presented a broader approach to consumer-brand
engagement, defining it as “a consumer’s positively balanced brand-related cognitive,
emotional and behavioral activity during or related to focal consumer/brand interactions”
(p. 154), and thus introduced two additional dimensions, cognitive and affective.
With the pervasiveness of the Internet and the rise in the usage of SMSs, consumers have
been exposed to numerous ways to engage with brands online (e.g. liking, commenting,
sharing, and posting content; Tsai and Men, 2017; Triantafillidou and Siomkos, 2018). New
approaches to consumers’ online (i.e. digital) brand engagement have been added to the
existing ones (see Table I for a select review). In this regard, many studies take a behavioral
approach to consumer/customer–brand engagement (see also Eigenraam et al., 2018 and
Dessart et al., 2015 for reviews) that include conceptual dimensions that vary from three to
seven.
Schivinski et al. (2016) developed a measure of consumer behavioral engagement with
brand content on SMSs that uses three positive facets: (a) consumption, (b) contribution and
(c) creation (or co-creation). Dolan et al. (2016) further developed this concept by adding
negatively valent facets of (a) dormancy, (b) detachment, (c) negative contribution and (d) co-
destruction. In addition, they differentiated active and passive engagements: co-creation,
positive/negative contribution, and co-destruction represent active forms of engagement
while consumption, dormancy, and detachment are considered passive forms.
The focal object of engagement received significant attention in the marketing literature.
Dessart et al. (2016) provide an elaborate list of studies divided into four broad categories of
Concept Definition Dimensions Focus Online Channels Source

Consumer-brand “A consumer’s positively balanced brand- Three dimensions: (a) cognitive Consumer-to-social Facebook, Twitter, Hollebeek et al. (2014)
engagement (CEB) related cognitive, emotional and behavioral processing, (b) affection, and (c) media brand and LinkedIn
activity during or related to focal activation relationship
consumer/brand interactions” (p. 154)
Customer “The process of developing a cognitive, Four dimensions: (a) interaction Customer Website Demangeot and
engagement affective and behavioral commitment to an engagement, (b) activity engagement with Broderick (2016)
active relationship with the website” (p. engagement, (c) behavioral retail websites
820) engagement, (d) communication
engagement
Consumer ‘The state that reflects consumers’ Three dimensions: (a) cognitive, (b) Engagement with Online Brand Dessart et al. (2016)
engagement individual dispositions toward engagement affective, and (c) behavioral brand, online Communities
foci, which are context-specific. community, and (OBCs)
Engagement is expressed through varying individual members
levels of affective, cognitive, and
behavioral manifestations that go beyond
exchange situations’ (p. 409)
Social media “Social media engagement behaviors go Seven types of engagement: (a) co- Brand-related Social Media Dolan et al. (2016)
engagement beyond transactions, and may be creation, (b) positive contribution, behavior
behavior (SMEB) specifically defined as a customer’s (c) consumption, (d) dormancy, (e)
behavioral manifestations that have a detachment, (f) negative
social media focus [adapted], beyond contribution and (g) co-destruction
purchase, resulting from motivational
drivers” (p. 265)
Online customer “Customer engagement may be defined as Three dimensions: (a) cognitive, (b) Brand engagement Facebook Marbach et al. (2016)
engagement (OCE) a multidimensional concept, reflecting a affective, and (c) behavioral
psychological state occurring by virtue of
interactive customer experiences with focal
objects within service relationships” (p.
503)
Consumer’s’ “A set of brand-related online activities on Three dimensions: (a) Brand-related Social Media Schivinski et al. (2016)
engagement with the part of the consumer that vary in the consumption, (b) contribution, and activities
brand-related social degree to which the consumer interacts (c) creation
media content with social media and engages in the
(CEBSC) consumption, contribution, and creation of
media content” (p. 66)
(continued)
behavior on social
Brand

engagement concepts
355

online consumer
media sites

Summary of select
Table I.
engagement
 13,3

356
JRIM

Table I.
Concept Definition Dimensions Focus Online Channels Source

Customer Uses Hollebeek’s et al. (2014) definition Three distinct dimensions: (a) Intention to “like” a Facebook Halaszovich and Nel
engagement cognitive processing, (b) emotional fan page (2017)
behavior (CEB) aspects (affection), and (c)
activation
Consumer “A behavioral construct with hierarchical Two dimensions: (a) consuming Types of Social Network Tsai and Men (2017)
engagement activity levels, from passive message and (b) contributing engagement Sites
consumption (e.g., viewing videos and activities on brand
pictures, reading product reviews) to active pages
content contributing which includes two-
way conversation, participation, and online
recommendation (e.g., responding to
comments and other SNS posts, posting
one’s own product reviews, uploading user-
created videos and pictures)” (p. 6)
Social media Van Doorn’s et al. (2010) definition of CEB: Three hierarchical dimensions: (a) Consumers’ Online Facebook Vale and Fernandes
engagement “customers’ behavioral manifestations consumption, (b) contribution and Brand-Related (2018)
behavior (SMEB) toward a brand or firm, beyond purchase, (c) creation Activities (COBRA)
resulting from motivational drivers” (p.
254)
Digital customer “Consumers’ online, behavioral Five distinct types of digital Empirical (vs. All digital Eigenraam et al.
engagement manifestations of brand engagement that engagement practices: (a) for fun conceptual) platforms (2018)
go beyond purchase” (p. 104) practices, (b) learning practices, (c) approach; Practices
customer feedback, (d) work for a (vs. motivations)
brand, (e) talk about a brand
Customer Uses van Doorn’s (2010) definition Two types: (a) word-of-mouth and Customer initiated General and Social Beckers et al. (2018)
engagement (b) voice vs. firm-initiated Media
engagement
Customer Uses Hollebeek and Chen’s (2014) Three dimensions: (a) emotional (b) Customer Facebook Hinson et al. (2019)
engagement definition: “a consumer’s positively cognitive and (c) behavioral engagement on a
valenced brand-related cognitive, brand page
emotional and behavioral activity during
or related to focal consumer/brand
interaction” (p. 207)
consumer engagement: (a) brand, firm, or organization; (b) a(n) (online) brand community; (c) Brand
other foci (i.e. focal objects); and (d) multiple foci on and offline. On SMSs, when joining engagement
brand pages, consumers have been shown to engage with brand content as the focal object behavior on social
(Halaszovich and Nel, 2017; Schivinski et al., 2016). For instance, Tsai and Men (2017)
specify several possible ways for consumers to engage with brand content, from passive
media sites
activities (e.g. viewing images and video clips, and reading product reviews) to active ones
(e.g. responding to comments, posting product reviews, and uploading user-created images
or video clips).
357
This paper uses Dolan et al.’s (2016) definition of SMEB, in which brand content is the
focal object. They presented an SMEB typology that includes passive/active and positive/
negative dichotomies of online engagement practices, with seven dimensions. Their
typology is broader than that of other conceptualizations; others refer to only positive or
active engagements (Hollebeek et al., 2014; Tsai and Men, 2017). In addition, Dolan et al.
(2016) postulated that “motivational drivers” are antecedents of SMEB, which is consistent
with van Doorn et al.’s (2010) definition. Such a definition benefits the conceptual framework
presented in this paper, which synthesizes two motivational theories, U&G and TAM, and
proposes motivating and demotivating antecedents to explain consumers’ brand-related
SMEB.

Young consumers’ brand-related social media engagement behavior

Generation Y (i.e. Millennials) are individuals who were born between 1977 and 1993, while
Generation Z (i.e. iGeneration) includes those who were born after 1993 (Turner, 2015).
Defined as “digital natives,” these generations grew up with and rely heavily on digital
technologies (i.e. the Internet) for professional, educational, and personal purposes
(Fietkiewicz et al., 2016; Roblek et al., 2018; Salajan et al., 2010). A recent study of the
Internet’s influences on these two generations, revealed positive outcomes (i.e. problem
solving skills, proactive study, global awareness and collaboration) and negative outcomes
(i.e. reduced concentration, depression, isolation and increased laziness; Issa and Isaias,
2016).
Generations Y and Z are similar in that their members are advanced in using information
technology, especially the use of SMSs (Hanan et al., 2018). According to Fietkiewicz (2017),
they most frequently visit Facebook, YouTube, and Instagram, and, less often, Twitter and
Pinterest. The study also indicates that the Y and Z generations are motivated to use SMSs
to receive more “likes,” while older generations (i.e. digital immigrants) are motivated more
by staying in touch with friends and family. Being adventurous:
younger generations tend to discover and occupy new media forms, such as Instagram, and
simultaneously exhibit an increasing tendency to move away from established platforms, such as
Facebook and Twitter (Fietkiewicz et al., 2018, p. 197).
Since the introduction of social media, many young consumers have evolved into active
participants who create, consume, and share content on multiple SMSs (Hanna et al., 2011;
PrakashYadav and Rai, 2017). Bolton et al. (2013) present six ways in which “digital natives”
might interact on SMSs: contributing, sharing, consuming, searching, participating, and
playing. A more recent categorization of how SMSs can be used by young generations was
presented by Baccarella et al. (2018). They suggest seven broad functionalities: (a) sharing,
(b) presence (users’ knowledge of others’ accessibility), (c) conversations, (d) identity, (e)
relationships (i.e. connectivity), (f) groups (i.e. communities) and (g) reputation (users’
knowledge of others’ standing). Thus, SMSs provide a rich digital environment for young
generations to engage with other individuals and organizations. Although both cohorts are
JRIM keen on engaging with content on SMSs, it appears that Generation Y prefers to curate and
13,3 share information while Generation Z likes to create its own content and collaborate with
others (PrakashYadav and Rai, 2017). In addition, Generation Z prefers to communicate with
images while Generation Y uses text to communicate (PrakashYadav and Rai, 2017).
Young consumers, who have become the dominant force in the marketplace, also
influence companies’ marketing strategies related to products and services on SMSs where
358 communication and offerings are customized to meet this cohort’s needs (Ansari and Mela,
2003; Berry et al., 2010; Burnasheva et al., 2018; Salleh et al., 2017). These young consumers
are being targeted by companies who aim to engage them on and offline, increase their
loyalty and monitor their communication for reputational damages (e.g. negative eWord-of-
Mouth (eWOM); Ek Styvén and Foster, 2018; Rissanen and Luoma-Aho, 2016). Through
SMSs, marketers can disseminate information to the young generations easily, quickly,
directly, and cost effectively (Hanan et al., 2018). Rissanen and Luoma-Aho (2016)
demonstrated that young consumers’ engagement behavior related to brands on SMSs can
vary by degree (active/passive engagement or disengagement) and valence (positive,
neutral, or negative). They also identified underlying motivators (e.g. self-branding, gaining
knowledge, and fulfilling needs) that segment this population into distinct groups (e.g. self-
branders, benefiters, and upgraders). Thus, adding to the growing body of research that
focuses on the young cohort (Chahal and Rani, 2017), the present study aims to propose a
conceptualization that explains which “motivational drivers” (van Doorn et al., 2010, p. 254)
underpin this cohort’s brand-related engagement behavior.

Motivational drivers of consumers’ brand-related social media engagement behavior

Since almost the very beginning of the consumption of SMSs (i.e. the early 2000s),
researchers have been trying to understand the underlying motivational drivers of this
behavior (boyd and Ellison, 2008; Karahanna et al., 2015). The early research grappled with
questions such as why individuals are motivated to publicly display personal information
and socialize on Friendster and MySpace (boyd, 2008; Donath and boyd, 2004).
Understanding what motivates the usage of SMSs benefits companies in the design and
implementation of effective strategies (e.g. social media advertising, eWOM, and customer
relations management) that can engage their stakeholders (Alalwan et al., 2017; Jin et al.,
2017).
To explain consumers’ engagement with brands on SMSs, studies have examined
various motivational drivers. Some conceptualize motivational drivers as integral to brand
engagement (Baldus et al., 2015; Dessart et al., 2015) while others treat them as antecedents
(Song et al., 2017; Vale and Fernandes, 2018). In addition, multiple terms have been used to
describe drivers, including motivations (Enginkaya and Yilmaz, 2014), motives (Rissanen
and Luoma-Aho, 2016), drivers (Smith and Gallicano, 2015), benefits (Park and Kim, 2014)
and gratifications (Simon and Tossan, 2018).
Underlying theories (e.g. U&G theory, Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, TAM and the
Elaboration Likelihood Model) determine the selection of motivational drivers (Athwal et al.,
2018; Bianchi and Andrews, 2018; Cao et al., 2013; Halaszovich and Nel, 2017). A
comprehensive review of theories that are used “to study the socio-psychological behavior of
social media users and other stakeholders, such as marketing people and customers” was
presented by Ngai et al. (2015, p. 34). They divided the theories applied to investigating the
use of SMSs into three categories: personal behavior (TAM), social behavior (Social Capital
Theory), and mass communication (U&G theory). They proposed a causal chain framework
that treats motivators as antecedents that directly and indirectly affect behavioral outcomes
(e.g. customer relationships).
 In this paper, the behavioral outcome is consumer engagement behavior with brand Brand
pages on SMSs, while the motivational drivers are considered antecedents to predict such engagement
behavior. Brand pages (as opposed to brand communities) are the focal object of this study behavior on social
for several reasons. First, the ease of joining and leaving brand pages attracts a larger
consumer base than brand communities with diverse levels of commitment (Gruner et al., media sites
2014; Wang et al., 2018; Zaglia, 2013). Park and Kim (2014) differentiate between brand
community members “who have strong associations with others” (p. 461) and those engaged
with brand’s SMSs who “are emotionally connected to the brand but have loose associations
359
with one another” (p. 461). Thus, the motivators of a brand page’s users usually do not
coincide with those of a brand community because deeper connections frequently develop
among brand community members (Sicilia et al., 2016). In developing a scale of online brand
community engagement, Baldus et al. (2015) tapped into intrinsic motivators such as
helping, seeking assistance, and validation of brand community users. However, such
relational motivators may not be salient for brand page users; instead, users could be
motivated to obtain information and seek enjoyment of promotional deals when using brand
pages (Muk and Chung, 2014; Park and Kim, 2014). Thus, the more a brand page’s
properties deviate from that of the brand’s community site, the more dissimilar the
motivating drivers are to use each site.
Second, promotional posts might demotivate some social media users from engaging
with brand pages since they experience irritation by such intrusions (Ferreira and Barbosa,
2017; Taylor et al., 2011). These users might feel overwhelmed and ignore the brand page
messages (Bright et al., 2015). Such a demotivator is less prevalent in research on brand
communities, which emphasizes mainly positive social gratifications, such as task and
social empathism, impression management, and civic mindedness (Simon and Tossan,
2018). Therefore, the causal chain framework proposed in this paper relates motivating and
demotivating drivers to young consumers’ brand-related SMEB.

Uses and gratification theory

“The U&G theory is considered to be one of the most effective paradigms for identifying
motivations underlying media use in mass communication studies” (Halaszovich and Nel,
2017, p. 122). Apart from the field of communication, its applications have been published in
education (Florenthal, 2018), marketing (Shao and Ross, 2015; Vale and Fernandes, 2018),
management (Azar et al., 2016; Halaszovich and Nel, 2017), hospitality (Aluri et al., 2016),
computer science (Choi, 2016; Leiner et al., 2018), and information technology (Athwal et al.,
2018; Song et al., 2017) outlets. U&G theory aims to identify cognitive and affective needs
that can be fulfilled by the use of and engagement with particular media channels and
content (Park et al., 2009; Ruggiero, 2000; Tsao and Steffes-Hansen, 2008). Users actively
select the media and engage in content that gratifies them the most and that helps them to
achieve their goals (Ko et al., 2005; Urista et al., 2009).
Early research of “new media” (i.e. the Internet) adopted U&G theory to uncover
underlying motivational drivers of its users (Papacharissi and Rubin, 2000; Stafford et al.,
2004). Such research was followed by studies that examined the motivators of engagement
with specific platforms, such as websites and SMSs (Alhabash et al., 2012; Florenthal, 2015;
Lee and Ma, 2012), and their features (Jin et al., 2017; Leiner et al., 2018). Identifying drivers
that motivate engagement with brand pages and brand communities on SMSs is one of the
latest streams of research that uses the U&G paradigm (Athwal et al., 2018; Shao and Ross,
2015).
A criticism of U&G theory is that it does not provide a finite number of motivational
antecedents that explain the selection or use of all media platforms (Athwal et al., 2018;
JRIM Florenthal, 2018). Indeed, studies have identified numerous drivers that motivate usage of
13,3 SMSs and engagement with brands on these sites (Table II). Thus, the focal object of
engagement (e.g. individuals’ content, brand page content and brand advertisement),
practices of engagement (e.g. viewing, sharing, and posting), and type of medium
(e.g. Facebook, Twitter and Instagram) contribute to determining the type and number of
motivational antecedents.
360 Table II depicts the variation in motivational concepts that underline engagement with
and on SMSs. Motivations, motives, and gratifications are the most frequently used terms
that capture the drivers of engagement with brands or other individuals on SMSs. Although
Facebook has been the most researched medium for U&G applications, no consensus on the
number and type of motivational antecedents has been achieved. For instance, to explain the
use of Facebook, Leiner et al. (2018) suggested nine gratifications, whereas Hunt et al. (2012)
examined only four motives. Moreover, even if the number of motivational concepts is the
same, the types deviate. Status seeking is a motivator of engagement with brand pages on
Facebook in Shao and Ross’s (2015) study, whereas trust is the focus of Azar et al. (2016).
Nevertheless, three common motivators, information seeking, entertainment, and
socialization, are found to be central to engagement with SMSs in general, and in particular
with brand pages on these sites (Table II).
One reason for such variation in motivational antecedents is that the theoretical
conceptualizations of consumer engagement on SMSs (with each other and/or with brands)
are still evolving (Shao and Ross, 2015). In addition, U&G studies examine a simplified
causal chain in which antecedents such as motivations and gratifications directly relate to
actual or intended engagement with SMSs (Choi, 2016; Holton et al., 2014; Jin et al., 2017) or
brands via those sites (Kujur and Singh, 2017; Song et al., 2017; Vale and Fernandes, 2018).
A richer, multi-stage causal model, however, can be developed to predict brand-related
SMEB.

Ducoffe’s model
Ducoffe (1996) enhanced U&G theory by suggesting a causal chain model to assess
consumers’ perceived value from and attitude toward online advertising. This model has
been adopted by researchers to investigate consumers’ engagement with brand advertising
embedded in websites (An and Kim, 2007; Logan, 2013; Zha et al., 2015) and mobile
applications (Cheng et al., 2009; Le and Nguyen, 2014; Lin et al., 2016). Shaheen et al. (2017),
for instance, applied Ducoffe’s framework to examine mobile advertising, such as promotions
sent through short-message services. In addition, Ducoffe’s model and its variations have
been implemented to study engagement with advertising on SMSs (Table II).
The main premise of Ducoffe’s (1996) model is that “consumers derive value from a
communication when consumers and advertisers exchange benefits and costs from digital
media” (Florenthal et al., 2012, p. 64). The original model contained three antecedents –
entertainment, informativeness, and irritation – that explain the value of and attitudes
toward online advertising (Ducoffe, 1996); the first two are considered benefits, and the third
is a cost that “consumers derive from advertising” (Ducoffe, 1996, p. 22). The entertainment
benefit captures consumers’ fulfillment of escapism, diversion, aesthetic enjoyment, and/or
emotional release needs while engaging online with an ad (Ducoffe, 1996). The same ad will
be more beneficial to consumers if it provides relevant information of product alternatives
(Gvili and Levy, 2016). Thus, informativeness is the second antecedent in this model, which
reflects information-learning and -seeking behavior on the Internet (Lin, 2006; Luo, 2002).
When consumers are annoyed with an ad and/or feel manipulated, they experience
 Brand
Motivational
Source Concept Dimensions Type of SMS Type/s of SMEB engagement
behavior on social
Engagement with SMSs
Baek et al. (2011) Motivations/ Information sharing Facebook Sharing links related to: media sites
Motives Convenience News
Entertainment Entertainment
Passing time
Interpersonal utility
Job
Organization
361
Control
Zhang et al. (2011) Gratifications Social surveillance Facebook Time spent per day
Entertainment Number of friends
Recognition Number of groups
Emotional support Number of applications
Network extension Log-in frequency
Maintenance
Hunt et al. (2012) Motives Information seeking Facebook Status updates
Interpersonal utility Updating one’s profile
Self-expression picture
Entertainment Posting pictures
Using the like function
Commenting on others’
content
Sending messages
Chatting
Using boxes
Using notes
Top news function
People you may know
function
Search function
Audio features
Videos features
Notifications
Events
Lee and Ma (2012) Gratifications Information seeking Facebook Sharing
Socializing Twitter
Entertainment Renren
Status seeking YouTube
Holton et al. (2014) Motivations/ Information sharing Twitter Frequency of sharing
Motives Information seeking hyperlinks
Interpersonal utility
Convenience
Entertainment
Passing time
Social support
Control
Promoting work
Florenthal (2015) Motives Interpersonal communication LinkedIn Frequency of use:
Online identity None-use
Information Light use
Career advancement Heavy use
Choi (2016) Motivations Surveillance Social networking News reading
Socializing sites News posting Table II.
Getting recognition News endorsing Select U&G related
Entertainment studies of SMEB’s
(continued) motivating factors
JRIM
13,3 Motivational
Source Concept Dimensions Type of SMS Type/s of SMEB

Jin et al. (2017) Motivations Socializing Facebook Image-driven

Entertainment Instagram interaction
Self-status seeking Pinterest
Information seeking
362 Leiner et al. (2018) Gratifications Relaxation Facebook Contribution
Pastime Consumption
Social interaction Gaming
Communication Friend management
Entertainment Group coordination
Information
Self-portrayal
Escapism
Social surveillance

Engagement with Brands on SMSs

Cvijikj and Motivations Entertainment Facebook brand Like
Michahelles (2013) Information pages Comment
Remuneration Share
Interaction duration
Muk and Chung Factors Utilitarian values Brand page on Intention to join
(2014) Hedonic values social networking
Belongingness sites
Subjective norms
Shao and Ross Motivations Socializing Facebook brand Liking
(2015) Entertainment page community Integration
Information seeking Involvement
Status seeking Posting
Aluri et al. (2016) Gratification factors Perceived informativeness SMSs embedded in Browsing
Perceived enjoyment a website:
Perceived social interaction Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Azar et al. (2016) Motivations/ Social influence Brand fan pages on Likes
Motives Search for information Facebook Comments
Entertainment Shares
Trust Created content
Reward
Dolan et al. (2016) Gratifications Information Brand-related social Co-creation
Entertainment media Positive contribution,
Remunerative Consumption
Relational Dormancy
Detachment
Negative contribution
Co-destruction
Halaszovich and Gratification factors Intention to stay informed Facebook page Like
Nel (2017)
Kujur and Singh Motivations Vividness Social networking Participation
(2017) Interactivity advertising Engagement
Information Brand pages on
Entertainment SNSs
Incentive
Table II. (continued)
 Brand
Motivational engagement
Source Concept Dimensions Type of SMS Type/s of SMEB
behavior on social
Song et al. (2017) Motivators Functional benefits (information Brand page on Participation media sites
seeking, convenience) social networking Commitment
Hedonic benefit (entertainment) sites
Economic benefit (reward)
Intrinsic benefit (interaction) 363
Athwal et al. (2018) Gratifications Affective (aesthetic appreciation Luxury brands on Following
(sought and and entertainment) Facebook, Connecting
obtained) Cognitive (information source) Instagram, and
Twitter
Vale and Fernandes Motivations/ Information Facebook fan pages Consumption
(2018) Drivers Entertainment of football clubs Contribution
Personal identity Creation
Integration
Social interaction
Empowerment
Remuneration
Brand love

Engagement with Advertising on SMSs

Dao et al. (2014) Beliefs Informativeness Facebook Perceived value of
Entertainment YouTube social media
Credibility advertising
Purchase intention in
the social media
environment
Ha et al. (2014) Sub-values/ Informativeness Facebook Perceived value of
Gratification Entertainment KakaoTalk mobile SNS advertising
opportunities Irritation Attitude toward mobile
SNS advertising
Celebi (2015) Motives/ Privacy concern Facebook Facebook feature use
Motivations Informativeness and entertainment Attitude toward
Invasiveness Facebook advertising
Quality of life, structure time, and Behavior toward
peer influence Facebook advertising
Self-brand congruity
Dehghani et al. Factors Informativeness YouTube Advertising value
(2016) Entertainment Brand awareness
Irritation
Customization
Gvili and Levy Perceptual Informativeness Facebook LinkedIn Attitude toward eWOM
(2016) antecedents Entertainment Pinterest
Irritation
Credibility
Kim et al. (2016) Factors Informativeness Facebook Clicking on ads
Irritation Joining brand pages
Entertainment
Lee and Hong Qualities Emotional appeal Facebook Intention to express
(2016) Informativeness empathy
Advertising creativity
(continued) Table II.
JRIM
13,3 Motivational
Source Concept Dimensions Type of SMS Type/s of SMEB

Ferreira and Factors Informativeness Facebook eWOM (opinion

Barbosa (2017) Irritation seeking, opinion giving,
Entertainment and opinion passing)
Ad avoidance
364 (cognitive, affective,
and behavioral)
Martínez-Navarro Perceptions Perceived enjoyment Facebook eWOM
and Bigné (2017) Perceived credibility Website visit intention
Hamouda (2018) Predictors Informativeness Facebook Social media
Credibility advertising value
Entertainment Attitude toward social
Table II. media advertising

irritation, which devalues the ad and leads to skepticism and/or avoidance of the ad’s
messages (Baek and Morimoto, 2012).
Ducoffe (1996) related the three antecedents directly to perceived advertising value and
indirectly to users’ attitudes toward web-based advertising. Advertising value is “a
subjective evaluation of the relative worth or utility of advertising to consumers”
(Ducoffe, 1996, p. 1). Value increases when a consumer’s hedonic (i.e. entertainment) and
utilitarian (i.e. informativeness) needs are fulfilled and decreases when the ad is costly (i.e.
irritating to consumers; Murillo, 2017). Bennett et al. (2008) added a fourth benefit to
Ducoffe’s model, credibility, which refers to users’ perceived authenticity of the online ad.
All four drivers (three motivating and one demotivating) and their relationships to
advertising value and attitude are applicable to investigating brand-related SMEB. To
support this theoretical advancement, the U&G literature review (Table II) is divided into
three parts: (a) engagement with SMSs, (b) engagement with brands on SMSs and (c)
engagement with ads on SMSs. The majority of studies conceptualize entertainment and
informativeness drivers (e.g. information and information seeking) as antecedents. Ferreira
and Barbosa (2017) used all three of Ducoffe’s (1996) factors to compare consumers’ attitude
toward Facebook ads and brand posts.
Credibility served as an antecedent only in social media advertising studies (Dao et al.,
2014; Gvili and Levy, 2016; Hamouda, 2018). Trust, a comparable concept, was used to
examine consumers’ interaction with brands on Facebook (Azar et al., 2016). Aggressive
postings and invasion of privacy can reduce a brand’s credibility and lower users’
willingness to engage with that brand on SMSs (Fournier and Avery, 2011). In contrast,
perceived credibility that results from a high brand reputation or brand equity will
encourage users’ brand interaction on SMSs (de Matos and Rossi, 2008). Thus, brands using
SMSs to target young consumers should focus on building their credibility and making their
claims sound truthful and believable (Colton, 2018).
Ducoffe’s (1996) concept of irritation as a demotivator has not been examined in non-
advertising U&G models; only positive motivational contributors to engagement have been
studied (Table II). Brand-related SMEB also includes negative behaviors (e.g. dormancy, and
detachment; Dolan et al., 2016). Annoyance with advertising content has been found to
negatively affect users’ commitment to a Facebook brand page and to reduce word-of-mouth
(WOM) activities (Hutter et al., 2013). Applying irritation as a demotivator can enrich the
consumer–brand SMEB conceptualization and explain negative behaviors.
 All four antecedents, entertainment, informativeness, credibility, and irritation, have Brand
been proposed to explain engagement on SMSs where the focal object is either engagement
advertisements or brand pages (Athwal et al., 2018; Cvijikj and Michahelles, 2013; Kim et al., behavior on social
2016; Martínez-Navarro and Bigné, 2017). Therefore, Ducoffe’s (1996) model or a variation of
it can serve as a conceptual framework to explain any consumers’ brand-driven SMEB. media sites
A weakness of Ducoffe’s (1996) model is that it does not include behavioral outcomes.
Therefore, researchers tend to extend the model by adding behavioral intentions
(e.g. intention to express empathy and website visit intention) and actual behavior
365
(e.g. Facebook features use and behavior toward Facebook advertising; Celebi, 2015; Lee and
Hong, 2016; Martínez-Navarro and Bigné, 2017). U&G studies also fall short in
conceptualizing mediating variables (e.g. attitude; Song et al., 2017; Vale and Fernandes,
2018). One common practice to compensate for the shortcomings of the U&G approach
(e.g. the lack of mediators) and Ducoffe’s (1996) model (e.g. the lack of behavioral variables)
is to synthesize them with other theories, such as the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) and
TAM. Lin et al. (2017) proposed a mobile advertising framework that integrates Ducoffe’s
model with TAM concepts, and Ahmed and Raziq (2018) and Muk and Chung (2014)
developed theoretical frameworks related to SMS engagement behavior, drawing on U&G
and TRA. TAM and its variations (i.e. TAM2 and TAM3; Wirtz and Göttel, 2016) are
popular frameworks that have been “widely utilized in social media research” (Ngai et al.,
2015, p. 34). These theories can complement U&G and Ducoffe’s models and mitigate their
shortcomings in explaining brand-driven SMEB.

Technology acceptance models

Built on Fishbein and Ajzen (1975)’s TRA, TAM has been developed and widely
implemented to assess “user behavior across a broad range of computing technologies and
user populations” (Davis et al., 1989, p. 985). Perceived usefulness (PU), perceived ease of use
(PEU), and behavioral intentions are the key concepts of TAM that provide insight into how
information and communication technologies are adopted by individuals (Lin et al., 2017;
Venkatesh et al., 2007). PEU captures a user’s belief that a specific technology is effortless to
use (Venkatesh et al., 2003). “The extent to which a potential adopter views the target
technology as offering better value over alternative methods of carrying out the same task”
encapsulates the PU concept (del Barrio-García et al., 2015, p. 130). Both PEU and PU explain
intention to adopt (behavioral intention) or actual adoption (behavior) of a technology
(Gurtner et al., 2014).
TAM has been successfully applied to social media technologies from online brand
communities to sponsored advertisements on SMSs (see Table III for a select summary). To
accommodate characteristics of SMSs, researchers have modified TAM by adding
dependent and independent variables from other disciplines (Table III). In explaining
intention to continue using, recommending, and joining SMSs, Curran and Lennon (2011)
added enjoyment, social influence, and drama to their TAM-based conceptualization.
Likewise, when applying TAM to examine Facebook intention to use and actual use,
Rauniar et al. (2014) added critical mass, capabilities, and perceived playfulness to their
framework. More recently, Bianchi and Andrews (2018) proposed the addition of a
motivating variable, enjoyment, to their TAM-based framework of engagement with retail
brands on SMSs.
Online technologies, such as SMSs, can serve utilitarian and hedonic purposes (Wu and
Lu, 2013). PU captures the utilitarian factor of an online system, such as Blackboard
(Wamba et al., 2017). To depict the hedonic aspects of social media use, additional
motivational concepts, such as perceived enjoyment and perceived playfulness (Perreault
JRIM Motivational
13,3 Source Concept Antecedents SMS Type Outcome Constructs

Casalo et al. Beliefs/ Perceived usefulness Firm-hosted Intention to participate

(2010) Motivators Perceived ease of use online travel Intention to use the product
Identification communities Intention to recommend the
Subjective norms brand
366 Perceived behavioral
control
Attitude
Paris et al. (2010) Beliefs/ Trust Facebook Intention to attend an event
Motivations Expected relationship
Perceived enjoyment
Perceived ease of use
Perceived usefulness
Attitude
Curran and Factors/Beliefs Ease of use SNs (e.g., Intention to continue using
Lennon (2011) Usefulness Facebook) SN
Enjoyment Intention to recommend SN
Social influence Intention to join other SNs
Drama Intention to stop using SNs
Attitude toward SN
El-Haddadeh Factors Consumers’ perceived SM Trust of organization
et al. (2012) ease of use in SM Loyalty in product/service
Consumers’ perceived Organizations’ advertising
usefulness of SM strategy
Corporate communication
Rauniar et al. Drivers Perceived ease of use Facebook Intention to use
(2014) Critical mass Actual use
Capabilities
Perceived playfulness
Perceived usefulness
Lin and Kim Components Intrusiveness concerns Sponsored Purchase intent
(2016) Privacy concerns advertising on
Perceived usefulness SM
Perceived ease of use
Attitude toward ads
Dumpit and Drivers Internet reliability YouTube Behavioral intention to use
Fernandez (2017) Internet speed Actual system use
Perceived usefulness
Perceived ease of use
Subjective norms
Perceived playfulness
Wamba et al. Motivations Perceived ease of use SM tools Intention to use SM
(2017) Perceived enjoyment
Perceived playfulness
Image
Perceived usefulness
Bianchi and Motivating Perceived usefulness Retail brand on Attitude toward
Andrews (2018) factors/ Compatibility SM engagement
Motivations Enjoyment Intention to engage
Table III. Credibility Intention to purchase
Select TAM Peer communication
conceptualizations
for SMEB Notes: SM = social media; SN = social network
and Mosconi, 2018; Wirtz and Göttel, 2016), have been introduced into the TAM literature. In Brand
some cases, PU and hedonic concepts (e.g. perceived enjoyment and perceived playfulness) engagement
independently influence attitude or behavioral intentions (Curran and Lennon, 2011; Wamba behavior on social
et al., 2017). In other situations, the hedonic motivators directly influence PU (Paris et al.,
media sites
2010; Rauniar et al., 2014). Thus, PU can be conceptualized as an antecedent or a mediator
between hedonic and behavioral constructs.
Engagement with a brand on SMSs may result from hedonic or utilitarian motivators. 367
Companies tap into the two motivating categories with their communication strategies on
SMSs when promoting their products and services, encouraging feedback, or inviting others
to share content (Assimakopoulos et al., 2017; El-Haddadeh et al., 2012; Hanna et al., 2011).
Followers can enjoy a humorous commercial on YouTube (hedonic aspect) or provide
feedback on a service experience (utilitarian aspect). Consequently, an extended version of
TAM that includes hedonic motivators will be more appropriate to capture all aspects of
brand-driven SMEB.
To extend TAM, we propose to integrate it with Ducoffe’s (1996) model. First, such an
integrated framework will remedy TAM’s lack of a hedonic antecedent. Ducoffe’s (1996)
perceived entertainment, which refers to “experience of fun, pleasure, and enjoyment during
media usage” (Florenthal et al., 2012, p. 64), serves as a hedonic motivator. Second, both
TAM’s PU and Ducoffe’s perception of advertising value “[tap] into the benefit and
usefulness of engagement with a technology” (Florenthal, 2016, p. 161). Third, attitude is a
key construct in the two models, capturing different facets of SMEB: Ducoffe’s model
depicts an attitude toward the brand while TAM taps into an attitude toward engagement
with the medium. Finally, TAM includes behavioral concepts (intention and behavior) that
are missing from Ducoffe’s model. In conclusion, we propose a conceptual framework of
brand-driven SMEB that synthesizes these two motivational theories because they have
been widely implemented in social media studies and mitigate each other’s shortcomings.

Conceptual framework
The conceptual synthesis of the two motivational models was based on a three-stage
literature review (Figure 1). First, an initial interdisciplinary search for the U&G and TAM
conceptual frameworks developed for the use of online technologies, including SMSs, was
conducted. A university’s library databases and Google Scholar were searched for relevant,
mainly peer-reviewed, articles, using appropriate filters and keywords. Then, a systematic
vertical and horizontal snowball searching method was used to increase the number of
publications. The vertical search included a backward and forward search of references.
Relevant references of the initial set of articles (backward search) and studies that cited the

Added Articles based on Targeted Search

Added Articles based on Vertical and

Horizontal Search

A Subset of Articles
based on Figure 1.
Initial Three stages of the
Search search method
JRIM initially found papers (forward search) were added to the existing set of published
13,3 manuscripts. The horizontal search involved finding articles that exhibited similarities to
the initial set of publications by using appropriate databases, filters, and keywords. In the
final stage, i.e. the targeted search, specific articles were identified and added to complement
the existing pool of references. These articles included literature reviews of SMSs and
published U&G and TAM integrated frameworks.
368 Through borrowing from other theories, both U&G and TAM have been extended to
examine the use of SMSs (Halaszovich and Nel, 2017; Hunt et al., 2012; Wang and Scheepers,
2012; Wirtz and Göttel, 2016). Concepts derived from motivational theories, such as
perceived playfulness and perceived enjoyment, have been repeatedly included in extended
frameworks of TAM to account for the hedonic nature of SMSs (Dumpit and Fernandez,
2017; Wamba et al., 2017). To capture the social aspect of SMSs, social motivation, peer
communication, and social influence were added to TAM (Bailey et al., 2018; Bianchi and
Andrews, 2018; Curran and Lennon, 2011). Similarly, Ducoffe’s (1996) model has been
supplemented with numerous motives, such as interpersonal utility, passing time, and
customization, as well as with outcome constructs, such as satisfaction, behavioral intention,
and actual behavior (Aluri et al., 2016; Celebi, 2015; Dehghani et al., 2016).
No studies, however, have integrated the two theories with respect to brand-driven
SMEB. A limited number of studies have begun to synthesize U&G with TRA or TAM to
explain online consumer behavior such as intention to join brand pages (Muk and Chung,
2014) and to interact with social media advertising (Ahmed and Raziq, 2018). Florenthal
(2016) proposed a U&G–TAM framework to assess an e-learning tool and interactive
assignments, and concluded that “motivational concepts, credibility, irritation, and
perceived value should be considered for inclusion in TAM-related frameworks when
interactive online learning technologies are investigated” (p. 167).
The e-shopping model developed by Lim (2015) is another example of a synthesis of
theories. It includes PU and PEU from TAM, alongside Ducoffe’s (1996) entertainment and
irritation concepts, and posits that attitude is an overlapping concept between the two
theories. Lim (2015) found that the combined U&G–TAM model showed a “higher degree of
explanatory power” when compared to a basic model that does not integrate the two
theories (p. 202). Finally, Lin et al. (2017) merged TAM and U&G to measure intention to use
mobile advertising, thus combining Ducoffe’s informativeness, entertainment, irritation, and
credibility with TAM’s PU and PEU. The result indicates that antecedents from both
theories explain attitude and intention to engage with mobile advertising.
The aforementioned studies demonstrate that U&G can be complemented with TRA or
TAM. The utilitarian, hedonic, and social antecedents drawn from these theories can serve
as predictors to TAM’s attitude and intention and/or behavior related to consumers’
engagement with a brand online. U&G’s perceived value overlaps with TAM’s perceived
usefulness; meanwhile, attitude toward engagement with a brand (U&G) and with the
medium (TAM) can co-exist in the same model. To build on this understanding and advance
this stream of research, we propose a broad U&G–TAM conceptualization for assessment of
brand-driven SMEB. Figure 2 presents the integrated conceptualization; the blue font
denotes U&G concepts and the red font indicates TAM concepts.
The proposed model has four main parts: motivational drivers (motivators and
demotivators), social media engagement value (SMEV), attitude, and behavioral intention/
behavior. The definition of each concept included in the U&G–TAM framework and
associated sources are shown in Table IV. Motivating drivers (e.g. entertainment,
informativeness, and subjective norms) and demotivating drivers (e.g. irritation) are
suggested as antecedents based on Ducoffe’s (1996) work and the TAM literature.
 Motivators/Demotivators Value Attitude Behavioral Intention Brand
(U&G & TAM2) (U&G) (U&G or TAM2) and/or Behavior (TAM2) engagement
behavior on social
media sites

369
U&G Attitude
U&G Drivers (P1 – P3): toward Brand Brand-driven SMEB
- Entertainment Content (P6) (TAM2 Intention
- Informativeness and/or Behavior):
- Irritation U&G Social Media - Co-creation
- Credibility Engagement - Positive Contribution
- Interpersonal Utility (SMEV) Value (P4 - Consumption
& P5) - Search
TAM2
TAM2 Driver (P1 – P3): - Dormancy
Attitude
- Subjective Norm - Detachment
toward
- Negative Contribution
Engagement
- Co-destruction
with an SMS
(P6)
Figure 2
Conceptual model of
young consumers’
brand-driven SMEB

Meanwhile, TAM’s behavioral intention and actual behavior are presented as outcomes.
The two mediators, value and attitude, reflect both the theories. SMEV mediates the
drivers–attitude relationship and reflects Ducoffe’s perceived value and TAM’s perceived
usefulness. Attitude is the second mediator in the proposed causal chain. Both attitude
toward brand content (U&G) and attitude toward engagement with SMSs (TAM) mediate
the value–engagement relationship (actual or intentional). The propositions delineated in
Table V correspond to the suggested relationship chain. The framework and its
corresponding propositions focus on young consumers’ engagement with brands on SMSs.
As stated above, this cohort (Y and Z generations) spends more time on SMSs than older age
groups and is currently the main target of the business community on these communication
channels.

Conceptual and empirical support of the proposed relationships

Motivational drivers and social media engagement value
As presented in Table IV, SMEV is an extension of the perceived advertising value concept
introduced by Ducoffe (1996). When applied to social media research, it was renamed social
media advertising value (i.e. the value of social network advertising) and studied in the
context of consumers’ engagement with brand ads on SMSs (Dao et al., 2014; Hamouda,
2018; Muk and Chung, 2014). It can, however, be repurposed to measure consumers’ utility
from brand content promoted on SMSs. For instance, Ferreira and Barbosa (2017), compared
consumers’ perceived value of advertising when exposed to brand content generated via ads
versus brand pages on Facebook. Therefore, in the proposed framework, SMEV replaces
Ducoffe’s original advertising value, but preserves its meaning without limiting it to a
specific brand content promoted on SMSs.
Studies based on Ducoffe’s (1996) model that focus on online engagement have
repeatedly shown that all four motivational drivers (entertainment, informativeness,
JRIM Concept Definition Source
13,3
Motivating/Demotivating “The properties of a medium that amplify or Ha et al. (2014, p. 1334)
Drivers (i.e., Motivators/ attenuate the opportunities for deriving
Demotivators) gratification from that medium”
Entertainment A social media property that provides users Florenthal et al. (2012)
with the opportunity to fulfill their need for
370 fun, pleasure, and enjoyment during
engagement with brand-driven content
Informativenerss A social media property that provides users Lin (2006)
with the opportunity to fulfill their need for
seeking and learning information during
engagement with brand-driven content
Irritation A social media property that causes users to Baek and Morimoto (2012)
be annoyed with or feel manipulated by
brand-driven content
Credibility A social media property that provides users Bennett et al. (2008)
with the opportunity to fulfill their need for
authenticity of brand-driven content
Interpersonal Utility A social media property that provides users Celebi (2015)
with the opportunity to fulfill their social
needs during engagement with brand-
driven content
Subjective Norm Social media users’ perception of the Casalo et al. (2010); Celebi
expectations of others regarding their (2015)
engagement behavior related to brand-
driven content
Social Media Engagement “A subjective evaluation of the relative Ducoffe (1996, p. 1)
Value worth or utility of [brand-driven social
media engagement] to consumers”
Attitude toward Brand Social media users’ positive or negative Fishbein and Ajzen (1975)
Content feelings (evaluative affect) toward brand
content
Attitude toward Social Social media users’ positive or negative Fishbein and Ajzen (1975)
Media Engagement feelings (evaluative affect) toward brand-
Table IV.
Behavior driven engagement behavior
Conceptual Brand-driven Social Social media users’ brand-related Dolan et al. (2016)
framework: Media Engagement behavioral intention or behavior
Concepts, definitions, Intention or Behavior manifestations, beyond purchase, resulting
and sources from motivational drivers

irritation, and credibility) contribute to perceived value (Table V). Users of all ages, but
particularly the younger ones, derive value from engagement with brands on SMSs
when motivated by informativeness, entertainment, and credibility (Propositions 1a–1c
(P1a–P1c); Ha et al., 2014; Martínez-Navarro and Bigné, 2017). In contrast, individuals’
perceived irritation as caused by such engagement usually results in a lower perceived
value (P1d; Dehghani et al., 2016; Gvili and Levy, 2016). Because each SMS might
possess unique features (e.g. YouTube channels versus Facebook Stories), some
researchers choose only the motiving/demotivating drivers from Ducoffe’s
conceptualization that are relevant (Dehghani et al., 2016; Logan, 2013; Martínez-
Navarro and Bigné, 2017) while others examine all four in relation to perceived value
(Murillo, 2017). In both cases, the accumulated scholarly work provides strong support
for the first four propositions.
Constructs and Relations Proposition/s TAM-related Support U&G-related Support

Motivating/ P1a: Young consumers’ perceived entertainment of brand-driven Paris et al. (2010) Florenthal et al. (2012)
Demotivating Drivers ! engagement will increase their perceived SMEV. Kim et al. (2013) Logan (2013)
SMEV P1b: Young consumers’ perceived informativeness of brand- Shu (2014) Dao et al. (2014)
driven engagement will increase their perceived SMEV. Lim (2015) Ha et al. (2014)
P1c: Young consumers’ perceived credibility of brand-related Bailey et al. (2018) Lim (2015)
content will increase their perceived SMEV. Dehghani et al. (2016)
P1d: Young consumers’ perceived irritation from brand-driven Florenthal (2016)
engagement will decrease their perceived SMEV. Gvili and Levy (2016)
P1e: Young consumers’ perceived interpersonal utility from Martínez-Navarro and Bigné (2017)
brand-driven engagement will increase their perceived SMEV. Murillo (2017)
Hamouda (2018)
P1f: Young consumers’ subjective norm related to brand-driven
engagement will increase their SMEV.
Motivating/ P2a: Young consumers’ perceived entertainment of brand-driven Curran and Lennon (2011) Taylor et al. (2011)
Demotivating Drivers ! engagement will contribute to their positive attitude toward brand Taylor et al. (2011) Ha et al. (2014)
Attitude content and/or engagement with a corresponding SMS. Lim (2015) Le and Nguyen (2014)
P2b: Young consumers’ perceived informativeness of brand- Florenthal (2016) Celebi (2015)
driven engagement will contribute to their positive attitude Bianchi and Andrews (2018) Lim (2015)
toward brand content and/or engagement with a corresponding Zha et al. (2015)
SMS. Florenthal (2016)
P2c: Young consumers’ perceived credibility of brand-related Gvili and Levy (2016)
content will contribute to their positive attitude toward that brand Kim et al. (2016)
content and/or engagement with a corresponding SMS. Lee and Hong (2016)
P2d: Young consumers’ perceived irritation from brand-driven Kujur and Singh (2017)
engagement will contribute to their negative attitude toward Lin et al. (2017)
brand content and/or engagement with a corresponding SMS. Murillo (2017)
Shaheen et al. (2017)
Abu-Ghosh et al. (2018)
P2e: Young consumers’ perceived interpersonal utility from
brand-driven engagement will contribute to their positive attitude
toward brand content and/or engagement with a corresponding
SMS.
P2f: Young consumers’ subjective norm related to brand-driven
engagement will contribute to their positive attitude toward brand
content and/or engagement with a corresponding SMS.
(continued)

TAM framework:
Table V.
behavior on social
Brand

371

Propositions
Integrated U&G and
media sites
engagement
 13,3

372
JRIM

Table V.
Constructs and Relations Proposition/s TAM-related Support U&G-related Support

Motivating/ P3a: Young consumers’ perceived entertainment of brand-driven Koufaris (2002) Casalo et al. (2010)
Demotivating Drivers ! engagement will contribute to their positive engagement intention Kim et al. (2013) Baek et al. (2011)
Brand-driven SMEB and/or behavior on a corresponding SMS. Dumpit and Fernandez (2017) Zhang et al. (2011)
P3b: Young consumers’ perceived informativeness of brand- Wamba et al. (2017) Florenthal et al. (2012)
driven engagement will contribute to their positive engagement Hunt et al. (2012)
intention and/or behavior on a corresponding SMS. Lee and Ma (2012)
P3c: Young consumers’ perceived credibility of brand-related Kim et al. (2013)
content will contribute to their positive engagement intention and/ Cvijikj and Michahelles (2013)
or behavior on a corresponding SMS. Ha et al. (2014)
P3d: Young consumers’ perceived irritation from brand-driven Holton et al. (2014)
engagement will contribute to their negative engagement Celebi (2015)
intention and/or behavior on a corresponding SMS. Shao and Ross (2015)
Aluri et al. (2016)
Azar et al. (2016)
Choi (2016)
Kim et al. (2016)
Jin et al. (2017)
Vale and Fernandes (2018)
P3e: Young consumers’ perceived interpersonal utility from
brand-driven engagement will contribute to their positive
intention and/or behavior on a corresponding SMS.
P3f: Young consumers’ subjective norm related to brand-driven
engagement will contribute to their positive intention and/or
behavior on a corresponding SMS.
SMEV ! Attitude P4: Young consumers’ perceived SMEV will contribute to their Casalo et al. (2010) Ha et al. (2014)
positive attitude toward brand content and/or engagement with a Paris et al. (2010) Lim (2015)
corresponding SMS. Curran and Lennon (2011) Zha et al. (2015) Gvili and Levy (2016)
Rauniar et al. (2014) Murillo (2017)
Lin and Kim (2016) Hamouda (2018)
Wirtz and Göttel (2016)
Lin et al. (2017)
Bailey et al. (2018)
Bianchi and Andrews (2018)
(continued)
Constructs and Relations Proposition/s TAM-related Support
SMEV ! Brand-driven P5: Young consumers’ perceived SMEV will contribute to their Paris et al. (2010)
SMEB positive intention and/or behavior on a corresponding SMS. Kim et al. (2013) Morgan-Thomas
and Veloutsou (2013)
Rauniar et al. (2014)
Shu (2014)
Wirtz and Göttel (2016)
Dumpit and Fernandez (2017)
Wamba et al. (2017)
Attitude ! Brand- P6: Young consumers’ positive (negative) attitude toward brand Arteaga and Duarte (2010)
driven SMEB content and/or engagement with a corresponding SMS will Casalo et al. (2010)
contribute to their positive (negative) intention and/or behavior on Paris et al. (2010)
that SMS. Curran and Lennon (2011)
Wang and Scheepers (2012)
Lim (2015)
Lin and Kim (2016)
Wirtz and Göttel (2016)
Lin et al. (2017)
Bianchi and Andrews (2018)
Table V.
U&G-related Support
Florenthal et al. (2012)
Dehghani et al. (2016)
Ha et al. (2014)
Martínez-Navarro and Bigné (2017)
Dao et al. (2014)
Lim (2015)
Ha et al. (2014)
Lee and Hong (2016)
Shaheen et al. (2017)
Kujur and Singh (2017)
Hamouda (2018)
behavior on social
Brand
373
media sites
engagement
JRIM U&G studies that examine interactions on SMSs have added the social driver (i.e.
13,3 interpersonal utility) to their models (Aluri et al., 2016; Choi, 2016; Holton et al., 2014; Vale
and Fernandes, 2018). Stafford et al. (2004, p. 259) argue that social gratification has emerged
as an “entirely new” and “unique” dimension of the Internet. The social dimension, however,
varies across U&G studies. According to Papacharissi and Rubin (2000), it encompasses
gratifications related to affection, social interaction, expressive needs, and surveillance.
374 Some U&G studies examine only one facet of interpersonal utility, namely, social interaction
(i.e. socializing, building relationships, fulfilling sense of belonging need, and seeking
support) in regard to engagement on SMSs (Dolan et al., 2016; Lee and Ma, 2012; Vale and
Fernandes, 2018). Conversely, others focus on social surveillance (Zhang et al., 2011).
Because the suggested framework was developed with a focus on young consumers,
interpersonal utility (IU) was added to complement the four original motivational drivers of
Ducoffe’s (1996) model. The social aspect of SMSs alleviates young consumers’ feelings of
loneliness and enhances their perceived sense of belonging to and identification with
reference groups (e.g. friends; Lopez et al., 2019; Chahal and Rani, 2017). Loneliness
significantly affects young adults (i.e. Generation Z and young Millennials) and could
negatively affect their personal development (Asher and Paquette, 2003; Lou et al., 2012).
Therefore, socializing online has been shown to reduce this cohort’s sense of loneliness and
increase their sense of belonging (Apaolaza et al., 2013; Nowland et al., 2018). The IU-SMEV
(P1e) relationship has been mainly ignored by U&G researchers. However, a study by
Ha et al. (2014) provides an example in which such a relationship is acknowledged but is
assumed to be mediated by entertainment.
Although TAM did not include motivational concepts in its original form, more recent
research on online technologies has added hedonic positive motivational drivers, enjoyment,
and playfulness (Wamba et al., 2017; Wirtz and Göttel, 2016). These drivers are equivalent to
U&G’s entertainment driver since both capture the fun, enjoyment, and pleasure of the
engagement experience (Florenthal et al., 2012; Kim et al., 2013). Although it is not very
common, the enjoyment/playfulness-PU association can be found in TAM studies.
Paris et al. (2010) discovered that perceived enjoyment has a direct effect on the PU of
attending Facebook events. In addition, perceived credibility has been linked to PU for
engagement on microblogs (Shu, 2014). Thus, the TAM literature supports P1a and P1c.
Subjective norms, which refer to “the expectations of others regarding the person’s
behavior” (Celebi, 2015, p. 899), have been applied in TAM research related to engagement
on SMSs and have been associated with PU, i.e. SMEV (Wirtz and Göttel, 2016). Bailey et al.
(2018) provide an example of such a relationship, hypothesizing that social influence
positively affects the perceived usefulness of social media. In addition, an earlier study on
mobile user engagement behavior proposes a similar association, suggesting that social
motivation positively influences perceived value (Kim et al., 2013).
Based on U&G and TAM research (Table V), we can assume that young consumers who
are motivated to engage with brand-driven content via SMSs to fulfill their need for
entertainment, informativeness, and interpersonal utility, as well as to comply with a
subjective norm, will do so because they perceive value from such engagement. These
consumers will also perceive value from brand-driven engagement if they believe that they
are engaging with a credible brand on an SMS. Irritating experiences of brand-driven
engagement will result in a diminished SMEV.

Motivational drivers and attitude

Originally, Ducoffe (1996) assumed only an indirect relationship between the four
motivational drivers and attitude toward an ad. However, extended models that include
direct motivators/demotivators–attitude relationships have become widespread in the U&G Brand
literature (Logan, 2013; Murillo, 2017). Some conceptual models even eliminate the perceived engagement
advertising value and hypothesize a direct relationship between the antecedent drivers and behavior on social
attitude (An and Kim, 2007; Zha et al., 2015). As presented in Table V, a significant body of
research supports P2a–P2d. Most prevalent are the relationships of entertainment–attitude media sites
and informativeness–attitude, which have been demonstrated for many online technologies
(Celebi, 2015; Kim et al., 2016; Lee and Hong, 2016). Recent mobile advertising studies lend
additional support to these connections (Ha et al., 2014; Le and Nguyen, 2014; Lin et al.,
375
2017). The impact of credibility on attitude has also been investigated for young consumers
within and outside the United States (Gvili and Levy, 2016; Murillo, 2017; Shaheen et al.,
2017). The negative influence of irritation on attitude has been found in studies on online
advertising, e-learning, and e-shopping (Florenthal, 2016; Le and Nguyen, 2014; Lim, 2015).
Finally, the social aspect of online engagement behavior related to attitude (P2e) was
established in the context of social media advertising in general (Taylor et al., 2011), and in
the particular context of Facebook advertising (Celebi, 2015).
The motivation–attitude association is also found in TAM studies. Studies mainly
support P2a, which associates entertainment with attitude toward the brand or engagement
with the brand. One example is a study that revealed a direct effect of perceived enjoyment
from using an SMS on the attitude toward a brand (Curran and Lennon, 2011). In support of
P2c and P2d, a hybrid model of an e-learning technology indicated that credibility and
irritation (U&G) influence Millennials’ attitudes toward using SMSs (TAM; Florenthal,
2016). Moreover, the subjective norm–attitude relationship (P2f) was demonstrated in Lim’s
(2015) study of e-shopping behavior.
Although the U&G literature lends stronger support to the impact of motivating and
demotivating drivers on attitude, TAM reinforces the influence of hedonic and social
motivators on attitude. Thus, the accumulated evidence substantiates the assumption that
attitude toward brand content and/or toward brand-driven social media engagement
behavior can be enhanced through fulfillment of entertainment, informativeness and social
needs, as well as perceived credibility, and can be reduced by the experience of irritation.

Motivational drivers and social media engagement behavior

The influence of various types of motivating and demotivating antecedents on behavioral
intention and behavior appear only in some extended models based on Ducoffe’s (1996)
conceptualization. More frequently, the motivational drivers–engagement relationship is
examined in the general U&G literature, and specifically in the context of SMSs (Choi, 2016;
Cvijikj and Michahelles, 2013; Shao and Ross, 2015). P3a–P3d suggest two types of
relationships: (a) drivers–intention, and (b) drivers–behavior. The U&G literature supports
these propositions, showing the direct influence of entertainment, informativeness,
credibility, interpersonal utility (e.g. socializing and social integration), and irritation on
either the intention to engage with brand content or actual brand-driven engagement
behavior on SMSs (Aluri et al., 2016; Holton et al., 2014; Hunt et al., 2012; Kim et al., 2016; Lee
and Ma, 2012; Sago, 2010).
Both perceived playfulness and enjoyment have been associated with behavioral
intentions in the TAM literature (Wamba et al., 2017). In Dumpit and Fernandez’s (2017)
conceptualization of TAM, perceived playfulness is associated with intention to use social
media technologies (P3a). In another TAM study, enjoyment was found to be a direct
antecedent to a shopper’s intention to return to an online retail site (Koufaris, 2002).
Research on mobile technologies provides additional support for the relationship between
motivators and behavioral intention: hedonic (P3a), utilitarian (P3b and P3c), and social
JRIM (P3e) drivers are shown to have a significant influence on intention to engage with mobile
13,3 technologies (Kim et al., 2013). In their study on student engagement with social media
content, Dumpit and Fernandez (2017) showed that subjective norms significantly influence
usage intentions, which supports P3f.
Thus, both streams of research validate the motivational drivers–engagement-related
propositions. Young consumers’ brand-driven engagement on SMSs will be influenced by
376 whether they will be entertained and/or informed. They will be less motivated to engage if
such engagement causes irritation, and will be more enthusiastic about engaging with
credible content. Furthermore, fulfillment of social needs (i.e. interpersonal utility) and
compliance with subjective norms will positively contribute to young consumers’ intentional
and/or actual SMEB.

Social media engagement value and attitude

Perceived value/usefulness and attitude, and their relationship, are central in the U&G and
TAM literature, which supports P4 (Brackett and Carr, 2001; Davis et al., 1989). Ducoffe’s
(1996) value–attitude relationship holds across numerous Internet technologies. Both
Ha et al. (2014) and Murillo (2017) stipulate such a relationship for mobile advertising, while
others argue for it to be present in e-commerce and eWOM communication (Gvili and Levy,
2016; Lim, 2015). The association between PU and attitude toward a technology is
documented in countless TAM studies (Table V).
PU has been conceptualized either as an antecedent of attitude (Curran and Lennon, 2011)
or as a mediator between attitude and motivational constructs (Bailey et al., 2018; Paris et al.,
2010). In U&G, an attitude is formed toward an ad; in TAM, the attitude is formed toward
the use of technology. In terms of brand-driven SMEB, both approaches are applicable.
Thus, young consumers can develop an attitude toward brand content and the
corresponding SMS. For instance, a young person can hold a positive attitude toward
Facebook and toward the content that a certain brand posts on Facebook. The greater value
this person perceives from brand-driven engagement on Facebook, the more positive their
attitude will be toward that content and Facebook.

Social media engagement value and brand-driven social media engagement behavior
The value–engagement relationship (P5) has been added to Ducoffe’s (1996) conceptualization
in recent studies (Table V). A direct value–behavioral intention relationship for social media
advertising was documented in Vietnam (Dao et al., 2014), and an indirect relationship between
the value of ads on YouTube and purchase intention was reported by Dehghani et al. (2016).
Similarly, perceived value has been hypothesized to have an impact on intention and
purchasing behavior for mobile advertising (Ha et al., 2014). Furthermore, a study on
consumers’ engagement with brand-generated content reveals that value from such content can
increase behaviors such as website visits and eWOM (Martínez-Navarro and Bigné, 2017).
TAM studies also validate this relationship (Table V). A review of the TAM literature on
SMSs showed that PU is frequently associated with end usage (Wirtz and Göttel, 2016).
More specifically, Kim et al. (2013) conceptualized that perceived value directly affects
intention to engage with mobile technologies; meanwhile, Rauniar et al. (2014) suggested
that PU affects intention to use Facebook. As such, this literature supports P5, which puts
forth that consumers who perceive value or usefulness from brand-driven engagement
behavior on SMSs will be more inclined to participate in such engagement.
Attitude and brand-driven social media engagement behavior Brand
The attitudinal literature, from which both U&G and TAM arise, well documents the direct engagement
attitude–behavioral intention association as well as the indirect effect of attitude on behavior behavior on social
via behavioral intention (Table V). Behavioral intention is often considered a mediator
between attitude and behavior (Rauniar et al., 2014). For instance, Lim (2015), drawing on media sites
both U&G and TAM research, demonstrated that e-purchase intention mediates the
relationship between attitude toward e-shopping and actual e-purchase. A similar
association was supported for mobile advertising: attitude toward mobile ads received via
377
short-message services was proven to affect intention to view the ads and the subsequent
actual viewing behavior (Shaheen et al., 2017).
Behavioral intention also has served as an outcome variable in TAM and U&G studies.
Casalo et al. (2010) and Lin and Kim (2016) examined intention to participate in online travel
communities hosted by brands and associated it with attitude toward such participation.
Likewise, a mobile advertising model developed by Lin et al. (2017) considered purchase
intention as an outcome variable that is directly influenced by attitude toward an ad. The
attitude–behavior association, however, has been conceptualized in fewer studies. For
example, Kujur and Singh (2017) applied U&G theory and found that attitude serves as a
partial mediator between motivational drivers (e.g. information and entertainment) and
consumers’ participation in and engagement with social networks.
The direct attitude–behavior association is illustrated in a TAM-related literature review
of social media studies (Wirtz and Göttel, 2016). Moreover, an empirical study by Teo (2016)
that investigates antecedents of Facebook usage among Thai university students finds a
significant direct influence of attitude on usage behavior. Overall, the accumulated U&G
and TAM research provides strong evidence for P6, which delineates the attitude–
engagement relationship. A positive attitude formed toward brand-driven posts and toward
corresponding SMSs will result in young consumers’ intention to engage and actual
engagement with the brand-driven content.
To summarize, the proposed associations are supported in a variety of online contexts,
websites, mobile applications, and SMSs. Ducoffe’s (1996) model was extended mostly to
advertising-driven social media engagement behavior. The rationale for the U&G–TAM
framework presented in this paper is to further extend this model to any brand-driven
engagement behavior. Negative aspects of engagement (e.g. detachment) are rarely
examined in the existing U&G or TAM studies, and in most studies, only one social factor is
investigated. The proposed framework allows us to address negative brand-driven
engagement behavior, adding irritation as a demotivating antecedent. Notably, subjective
norms (TAM) capture a different social facet than interpersonal utility (U&G). The proposed
conceptualization includes both to address the need to socialize and the influence of social
pressure on young consumers to engage with brand-driven content on SMSs. To
complement the above discussion, the findings of mainly recent empirical studies that
support the proposed relationships in diverse online contexts are summarized in an
Appendix.

Discussion and implications

Theoretical implications
The main contribution of this paper is to propose a conceptual framework for young
consumers’ brand-driven engagement behavior that integrates the U&G and TAM
literature. A handful of previous studies have made similar attempts with implications for
online technologies. A simplified framework was introduced by Lin et al. (2017), within
which the four U&G motivators, informativeness, entertainment, irritation and credibility,
JRIM as well as TAM’s PU, are treated as independent variables that contribute directly to
13,3 generations Y and Z’s attitude toward mobile advertising and indirectly to their purchase
intentions.
Another framework for the assessment of a young cohort’s use of the e-learning tool
suggests viewing perceived value as a mediator between two U&G motives, irritation and
credibility and attitude toward using this tool (a TAM concept; Florenthal, 2016). A
378 comparable but more elaborate model has been tested for the e-shopping behavior of young
consumers (75 per cent are 30 years old or younger). Lim (2015) proposes to view TAM’s PU
as a partial mediator between entertainment gratification (U&G) and attitude toward e-
shopping. These examples indicate that researchers have begun to integrate U&G and TAM
concepts to develop testable models for emerging technologies.
With respect to SMSs, both theories provide ample support for their adequacy to assess
such communication channels. This common ground allows for easy integration of the two
into a hybrid model. The young consumers’ brand engagement on SMSs has been tested
within each theory but not across both. This paper thus recommends an examination of
young consumers’ willingness to engage with brands on SMSs with a conceptualization that
bridges the two theories. Researchers who study, for instance, how generations Y and Z
engage with brands on SMSs such as YouTube or Instagram, could benefit from the
proposed framework. As noted, this cohort is known to spend time viewing, sharing, and
creating content. Their motivating and demotivating drivers, normative influence, perceived
value and/or usefulness and attitudes (toward brand content and engagement) can be
assessed to explain intention or actual behavior.

Directions for future research

PEU has a direct influence on PU in the original TAM. The proposed framework omits it
because its target population, generations Y and Z, is digital natives who grew up with
access to the Internet and feel very comfortable using SMSs. Nevertheless, researchers who
study complex interfaces have added PEU as an independent variable to proposed models.
For example, PEU was hypothesized to explain PU in an e-shopping environment
(Lim, 2015). Notably, e-commerce websites, which are designed by companies, vary in their
complexity, and thus justify ease of use as a relevant variable. In this regard, in the context
of a firm-hosted online travel community, Casalo et al. (2010) found that PEU influenced
both PU and attitude toward using the site.
The proposed framework includes social constructs from U&G (interpersonal utility) and
TAM (subjective norm) consistent with SMS engagement research. Subjective norms,
however, are not included in all TAM studies related to the usage of SMSs (Lin and Kim,
2016; Paris et al., 2010; Rauniar et al., 2014; Wamba et al., 2017). A study that included such a
construct found that it did not have a significant impact on the outcome variable
(Curran and Lennon, 2011). Thus, for some brand-driven engagements on SMSs, subjective
norms might be excluded from U&G–TAM models based on their relevance to the type of
engagement and the type of media.
With respect to U&G theory, not all models include the social facet when examining
attitude and behavior related to social media brand engagement (Dehghani et al., 2016;
Gvili and Levy, 2016; Le and Nguyen, 2014; Murillo, 2017), particularly with respect to
advertising content. One explanation is that not all brand engagements, e.g. clicking on
Facebook ads, are driven by the social tendency of users (Kim et al., 2016). Another
explanation is that the entertainment drive might include the social need. Ha et al. (2014)
found a significant relationship between the social attribute of SMSs and entertainment.
Hunt et al. (2012) noted that entertainment has a significant positive effect on interpersonal
communication and directly contributes to the use of Facebook’s interactive features. Brand
Papacharissi and Rubin (2000) demonstrated that, when entertainment and interpersonal engagement
utility are included in a regression model, entertainment has no significant influence on the behavior on social
formation of users’ Internet affinity. These results have been confirmed in other studies of
engagement with SMSs (Lee and Ma, 2012; Shao and Ross, 2015). In conclusion, since a media sites
young cohort is the focus of the proposed framework, both entertainment and social drivers
are included. However, empirical tests of the propositions might reveal that, in some cases,
these drivers are interchangeable.
379
Ducoffe (1996) introduced irritation as a demotivator that influences ad value and
attitude. It is included in the proposed conceptualization to address some of the negative
aspects of engagement (e.g. detachment). It can be argued that irritation is an emotional
state. So far, other emotional states, positive or negative, have rarely been examined as
antecedents in U&G or TAM frameworks. Jin et al. (2017) combined U&G (e.g.
entertainment and information seeking) and consumption emotion (e.g. anger, worry, and
optimism) theories to test the engagement of Facebook, Instagram, and Pinterest users. In
addition, Straker and Wrigley (2016) presented the case of Burberry, in which emotions were
used to develop successful digital strategies. Thus, to expand the proposed framework,
further investigation into emotional states, particularly negative ones, and their influence on
engagement is recommended. Understanding the underlying emotions of brand-driven
engagement behavior can aid companies in tailoring successful emotive-level marketing
practices and prevent negative emotion-driven behaviors on SMSs (Price et al., 2015).

Practical implications
The proposed framework serves corporations that would like to have young consumers
engage with their brands on SMSs. To develop successful communication strategies,
companies need to create value for young consumers by fulfilling their needs for
entertainment, informativeness, interpersonal utility, and credibility. To appeal to the Y and
Z generations and evoke hedonic and social motivational drivers, gamification strategies
should be considered. Brands should use “game elements in a non-game context to trigger a
behavioral change via enjoyable and interactive experiences” (Chen, 2018, p. 28). The Ice
Bucket Challenge for ALS is one such example. To participate, individuals were asked to tag
five friends on SMSs and challenge them to either post a video clip in which they pour a
bucket of ice water on their head or donate to the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Association
(Tan et al., 2016). This game-like campaign raised 35 times more monetary donations than
the association raised in the previous year (Koohy and Koohy, 2014).
Burberry is known for its successful campaigns of engaging its target segment via SMSs
(Price et al., 2015). Their campaigns evoke informativeness when introducing new
interactive promotions on SMSs (e.g. a personalized bottle of fragrance). When they
encourage customers to share their personalized product on SMSs, they tap into the
interpersonal utility drive. The Burberry “Kisses” campaign was designed to build strong
connections with Burberry’s customers and achieve credibility, while fulfilling
entertainment needs when these kisses were shared on YouTube and sent to special friends.
This generation is less tolerant of irritating communication strategies, which will
diminish the value derived from brand engagement. Dull or uninteresting brand content on
SMSs can cause irritation and result in disengagement behavior (Kim et al., 2016).
Additional studies support the relationship between engagement (time spent, ambiguous
information and self-representation) and negative emotions of Facebook users (Jin et al.,
2017; Tandoc et al., 2015). Thus, companies should monitor the frequency and type of
content that they post on their SMSs.
JRIM Normative influence has been proposed to directly and indirectly influence young
13,3 generations’ brand-driven SMEB. Consequently, companies could use reference groups in
their marketing campaigns on SMSs to maximize such influence. Reference groups are
defined as “actual or imaginary individual[s] or group[s] conceived of having significant
relevance upon an individual’s evaluations, aspirations, or behavior” (Park and Lessig, 1977,
p. 102). Social media influencers are reference groups that marketers can target for
380 normative influence on the SMEB of young consumers. For example, fashionista Chiara
Ferragni is “an Italian fashion influencer known for her blog “The Blonde Salad”, which has
8.2 million Instagram followers” (Audrezet et al., 2019, p. 1). Influencer marketing campaigns
pay influential people (e.g. celebrities, industry experts, and micro-celebrities) who are active
online to promote brand-related messages on SMSs (Gretzel, 2018; Jerslev, 2016). Kylie
Jenner, for instance, is an influencer who has 86.2 million followers on Instagram and is paid
between $100,000 and $300,000 by companies for a single sponsored post (Izea, 2017).
Normative influence practice through influencer marketing has been proven to be
successful. A study found that 40 per cent of respondents who were exposed to usage of a
product by influencers ended up purchasing that product (Swant, 2016).
Attitude toward the brand content and SMEB is determined by SMEV and by young
consumers’ motivators and demotivators. Relevant content coupled with game-like
engagement could contribute to the positive attitude of this cohort. These young adults
spend a significant amount of time on game consoles, and gamifying the brand
experience on SMSs may have a significant added value and elevate their attitude toward
the brand and the engagement. In addition, the normative motivator through influencer
marketing positively affects the young cohort’s attitude toward the content when it is
perceived to be authentic, and results in greater connectedness with these influencers
(Jerslev, 2016). Positive and negative sentiments can serve as indicators of social media
users’ attitudes and can be measured by companies to assess influencer marketing
performance (Gretzel, 2018).
The model suggests that motivating and demotivating antecedents, value, and attitude
contribute to behavioral intentions and the actual behavior of the young cohort in relation to
brand-driven SMEB. Communication strategies should be formulated with these
relationships in mind. Young consumers will continue interacting with brands on SMSs if
their attitude is positive, they find the interaction beneficial and valuable, and the experience
is gratifying. To support such continuous behavior, companies need to satisfy the
utilitarian, hedonic, social, and normative needs of this cohort while emphasizing the
credibility of the content and reducing any negative (e.g. irritation) effects.

References
Abu-Ghosh, D.H., Al-Dmour, H., Alalwan, A.A. and Al-Dmour, R.H. (2018), “Factors affecting Jordanian
consumers’ attitudes towards Facebook advertising: case study of tourism”, Emerging Markets
from a Multidisciplinary Perspective, Springer, Berlin, pp. 285-302.
Ahmed, Q.M. and Raziq, M.M. (2018), “The social media advertising model (SMAM): a theoretical
framework”, Journal of Managerial Sciences, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 117-144.
Alalwan, A.A., Rana, N.P., Dwivedi, Y.K. and Algharabat, R. (2017), “Social media in marketing: a
review and analysis of the existing literature”, Telematics and Informatics, Vol. 34 No. 7,
pp. 1177-1190.
Alhabash, S., Park, H., Kononova, A., Chiang, Y.-H. and Wise, K. (2012), “Exploring the motivations of
Facebook use in Taiwan”, CyberPsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, Vol. 15 No. 6,
pp. 304-311.
Aluri, A., Slevitch, L. and Larzelere, R. (2016), “The influence of embedded social media channels on Brand
travelers’ gratifications, satisfaction, and purchase intentions”, Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, engagement
Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 250-267.
behavior on social
An, D. and Kim, S.H. (2007), “A first investigation into the cross-cultural perceptions of internet
advertising: a comparison of Korean and American attitudes”, Journal of International media sites
Consumer Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 49-65.
Anderson, M. and Jiang, J. (2018), “Teens’ social media habits and experiences”, Pew Research Center,
available at: www.pewinternet.org/2018/11/28/teens-and-their-experiences-on-social-media/ 381
Ansari, A. and Mela, C.F. (2003), “E-customization”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 40 No. 2,
pp. 131-145.
Apaolaza, V., Hartmann, P., Medina, E., Barrutia, J.M. and Echebarria, C. (2013), “The relationship
between socializing on the Spanish online networking site Tuenti and teenagers’ subjective
wellbeing: the roles of self-esteem and loneliness”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 29 No. 4,
pp. 1282-1289.
Arteaga, S.R. and Duarte, H.A. (2010), “Motivational factors that influence the acceptance of moodle
using TAM”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 1632-1640.
Asher, S.R. and Paquette, J.A. (2003), “Loneliness and peer relations in childhood”, Current Directions in
Psychological Science, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 75-78.
Assimakopoulos, C., Antoniadis, I., Kayas, O.G. and Dvizac, D. (2017), “Effective social media
marketing strategy: Facebook as an opportunity for universities”, International Journal of Retail
and Distribution Management, Vol. 45 No. 5, pp. 532-549.
Athwal, N., Istanbulluoglu, D. and McCormack, S.E. (2018), “The allure of luxury brands’ social media
activities: a uses and gratifications perspective”, Information Technology and People, available
at: https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-1101-2018-0017
Audrezet, A., De Kerviler, G. and Moulard, J.G. (2019), “Authenticity under threat: when social media
influencers need to go beyond self-presentation”, Journal of Business Research, In press.
Azar, S.L., Machado, J.C., Vacas-de-Carvalho, L. and Mendes, A. (2016), “Motivations to interact with
brands on Facebook–towards a typology of consumer–brand interactions”, Journal of Brand
Management, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 153-178.
Baccarella, C.V., Wagner, T.F., Kietzmann, J.H. and McCarthy, I.P. (2018), “Social media? It’s serious!
Understanding the dark side of social media”, European Management Journal, Vol. 36 No. 4,
pp. 431-438.
Baek, K., Holton, A., Harp, D. and Yaschur, C. (2011), “The links that bind: uncovering novel
motivations for linking on Facebook”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 27 No. 6,
pp. 2243-2248.
Baek, T.H. and Morimoto, M. (2012), “Stay away from me”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 41 No. 1,
pp. 59-76.
Bailey, A.A., Bonifield, C.M. and Arias, A. (2018), “Social media use by young Latin American
consumers: an exploration”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 43, pp. 10-19.
Baldus, B.J., Voorhees, C. and Calantone, R. (2015), “Online brand community engagement: scale
development and validation”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 68 No. 5, pp. 978-985.
Beckers, S.F.M., van Doorn, J. and Verhoef, P.C. (2018), “Good, better, engaged? The effect of company-
initiated customer engagement behavior on shareholder value”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 366-383.
Bennett, S., Maton, K. and Kervin, L. (2008), “The ‘digital natives’ debate: a critical review of the
evidence”, British Journal of Educational Technology, Vol. 39 No. 5, pp. 775-786.
Berry, L.L., Bolton, R.N., Bridges, C.H., Meyer, J., Parasuraman, A. and Seiders, K. (2010),
“Opportunities for innovation in the delivery of interactive retail services”, Journal of Interactive
Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 155-167.
JRIM Berthon, P.R., Pitt, L.F., Plangger, K. and Shapiro, D. (2012), “Marketing meets web 2.0, social media,
and creative consumers: implications for international marketing strategy”, Business Horizons,
13,3 Vol. 55 No. 3, pp. 261-271.
Beukeboom, C.J., Kerkhof, P. and de Vries, M. (2015), “Does a virtual like cause actual liking? How
following a brand’s Facebook updates enhances brand evaluations and purchase intention”,
Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 32, pp. 26-36.
382 Bianchi, C. and Andrews, L. (2018), “Consumer engagement with retail firms through social media: an
empirical study in Chile”, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 46
No. 4, pp. 364-385.
Bolton, R.N., Parasuraman, A., Hoefnagels, A., Migchels, N., Kabadayi, S., Gruber, T., Komarova
Loureiro, Y. and Solnet, D. (2013), “Understanding generation Y and their use of social media: a
review and research agenda”, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 245-267.
Boyd, D.M. (2008), “Why youth (heart) social network sites: the role of networked publics in teenage
social life”, in Buckingham, D. (Ed.), Youth, Identity, and Digital Media, MIT Press, Cambridge,
MA, pp. 119-142.
Boyd, D.M. and Ellison, N.B. (2008), “Social network sites: definition, history, and scholarship”, Journal
of Computer-Mediated Communication, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 210-230.
Brackett, L.K. and Carr, B.N.J. (2001), “Cyberspace advertising vs. other media: consumer vs. mature
student attitudes”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 41 No. 5, pp. 23-32.
Bright, L.F., Kleiser, S.B. and Grau, S.L. (2015), “Too much Facebook? An exploratory examination of
social media fatigue”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 44, pp. 148-155.
Bruhn, M., Schoenmueller, V. and Schäfer, D.B. (2012), “Are social media replacing traditional media in
terms of brand equity creation?”, Management Research Review, Vol. 35 No. 9, pp. 770-790.
Burnasheva, R., GuSuh, Y. and Villalobos-Moron, K. (2018), “Millennials’ attitudes toward online
luxury buying behavior in South Korea: a q-methodology approach”, Asian Business Research,
Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 1-13.
Cao, H., Jiang, J., Oh, L.-B., Li, H., Liao, X. and Chen, Z. (2013), “A Maslow’s hierarchy of needs analysis
of social networking services continuance”, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 24 No. 2,
pp. 170-190.
Casalo, L.V., Flavián, C. and Guinalíu, M. (2010), “Determinants of the intention to participate in firm-
hosted online travel communities and effects on consumer behavioral intentions”, Tourism
Management, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 898-911.
Celebi, S.I. (2015), “How do motives affect attitudes and behaviors toward internet advertising and
Facebook advertising?”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 51, pp. 312-324.
Chahal, H. and Rani, A. (2017), “How trust moderates social media engagement and brand equity”,
Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 312-335.
Chao, M.C.-H. and Florenthal, B. (2016), “A comparison of global companies’ performance on Twitter
and Weibo”, International Journal of Business Environment, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 242-264.
Chen, Y.-R.R. (2018), “Strategic donor engagement on mobile social networking sites for mobile
donations: a study of millennial WeChat users in China”, Chinese Journal of Communication,
Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 26-44.
Cheng, J.M.-S., Blankson, C., Wang, E.S.-T. and Chen, L.S.-L. (2009), “Consumer attitudes and
interactive digital advertising”, International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 501-525.
Choi, J. (2016), “Why do people use news differently on SNSs? An investigation of the role of
motivations, media repertoires, and technology cluster on citizens’ news-related activities”,
Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 54, pp. 249-256.
Colton, D.A. (2018), “Antecedents of consumer attitudes’ toward corporate blogs”, Journal of Research
in Interactive Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 94-104.
Curran, J.M. and Lennon, R. (2011), “Participating in the conversation: exploring usage of social media Brand
networking sites”, Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 21-38. engagement
Cvijikj, I.P. and Michahelles, F. (2013), “Online engagement factors on Facebook brand pages”, Social behavior on social
Network Analysis and Mining, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 843-861.
media sites
Dao, W., Nhat Hanh Le, A., Ming-Sung Cheng, J. and Chao Chen, D. (2014), “Social media advertising
value: the case of transitional economies in Southeast Asia”, International Journal of Advertising,
Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 271-294.
383
Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P. and Warshaw, P.R. (1989), “User acceptance of computer technology: a
comparison of two theoretical models”, Management Science, Vol. 35 No. 8, pp. 982-1003.
de Matos, C.A. and Rossi, C.A.V. (2008), “Word-of-mouth communications in marketing: a meta-
analytic review of the antecedents and moderators”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 578-596.
de Vries, L., Gensler, S. and Leeflang, P.S.H. (2012), “Popularity of brand posts on brand fan pages: an
investigation of the effects of social media marketing”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 26
No. 2, pp. 83-91.
Dehghani, M., Niaki, M.K., Ramezani, I. and Sali, R. (2016), “Evaluating the influence of YouTube
advertising for attraction of young customers”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 59,
pp. 165-172.
del Barrio-García, S., Arquero, J.L. and Romero-Frías, E. (2015), “Personal learning environments
acceptance model: the role of need for cognition, e-learning satisfaction and students’
perceptions”, Educational Technology and Society, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 129-141.
Demangeot, C. and Broderick, A.J. (2016), “Engaging customers during a website visit: a model of
website customer engagement”, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management,
Vol. 44 No. 8, pp. 814-839.
Dessart, L., Veloutsou, C. and Morgan-Thomas, A. (2015), “Consumer engagement in online brand
communities: a social media perspective”, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 24
No. 1, pp. 28-42.
Dessart, L., Veloutsou, C. and Morgan-Thomas, A. (2016), “Capturing consumer engagement: duality,
dimensionality and measurement”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 32 Nos 5/6,
pp. 399-426.
Dolan, R., Conduit, J., Fahy, J. and Goodman, S. (2016), “Social media engagement behaviour: a uses and
gratifications perspective”, Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 24 Nos 3/4, pp. 261-277.
Donath, J. and Boyd, D.M. (2004), “Public displays of connection”, BT Technology Journal, Vol. 22 No. 4,
pp. 71-82.
Ducoffe, R.H. (1996), “Advertising value and advertising on the web”, Journal of Current Issues and
Research in Advertising, Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 21-35.
Dumpit, D.Z. and Fernandez, C.J. (2017), “Analysis of the use of social media in higher education
institutions (HEIs) using the technology acceptance model”, International Journal of Educational
Technology in Higher Education, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 1-16.
Eigenraam, A.W., Eelen, J., Van Lin, A. and Verlegh, P.W.J. (2018), “A consumer-based taxonomy of
digital customer engagement practices”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 44, pp. 102-121.
Ek Styvén, M. and Foster, T. (2018), “Who am I if you can’t see me? The ‘self’ of young travellers as
driver of eWOM in social media”, Journal of Tourism Futures, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 80-92.
El-Haddadeh, R., Weerakkody, V. and Peng, J. (2012), “Social networking services adoption in corporate
communication: the case of China”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 25
No. 6, pp. 559-575.
Enginkaya, E. and Yilmaz, H. (2014), “What drives consumers to interact with brands through social
media? A motivation scale development study”, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences,
Vol. 148, pp. 219-226.
JRIM Ferreira, F. and Barbosa, B. (2017), “Consumers’ attitude toward Facebook advertising”, International
Journal of Electronic Marketing and Retailing, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 45-57.
13,3
Fietkiewicz, K. (2017), “Jumping the digital divide: how do ‘silver surfers’ and ‘digital immigrants’ use
social media?”, Networking Knowledge: Journal of the MeCCSA Postgraduate Network, Vol. 10
No. 1, pp. 5-26.
Fietkiewicz, K.J., Lins, E., Baran, K.S. and Stock, W.G. (2016), “Inter-generational
384 comparison of social media use: investigating the online behavior of different
generational cohorts”, Paper presented at the 49th HI International Conference on
System Sciences, Koloa, HI.
Fietkiewicz, K.J., Lins, E. and Budree, A. (2018), “Investigating the generation-and gender-dependent
differences in social media use: a cross-cultural study in Germany, Poland and South Africa”, in
Meiselwitz, G. (Ed.), Social Computing and Social Media, Springer International Publishing,
Cham, Vol. 10914, pp. 183-200.
Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory
and Research, Addison-Wesley, Boston, MA.
Florenthal, B. (2015), “Applying uses and gratifications theory to students’ LinkedIn usage”, Young
Consumers, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 17-35.
Florenthal, B. (2016), “The value of interactive assignments in the online learning environment”,
Marketing Education Review, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 154-170.
Florenthal, B. (2018), “Students’ motivation to participate via mobile technology in the classroom: a
uses and gratifications approach”, Journal of Marketing Education, available at: https://doi.org/
10.1177/0273475318784105
Florenthal, B., Arling, P.A., Skinner, D., King, K.W. and Rondeau, P.J. (2012), “Enhancing the traditional
IMC recruitment plan to gauge the impact of vodcast usage on students’ attitudes and
behavioral intentions”, International Journal of Integrated Marketing Communications, Vol. 4
No. 1, pp. 61-77.
Florenthal, B. and Chao, M.C.-H. (2015), “Corporate communicative engagement in microblogging:
cross-cultural analysis of Weibo and Twitter”, in Burkhalter, J.N. and Wood, N.T. (Eds),
Maximizing Commerce and Marketing Strategies through Micro-Blogging, GI Global, Hershey,
PA, pp. 40-66.
Fournier, S. and Avery, J. (2011), “The uninvited Brand”, Business Horizons, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 193-207.
Gretzel, U. (2018), “Influencer marketing in travel and tourism”, in Sigala, M. and Gretzel, U. (Eds),
Advances in Social Media for Travel, Tourism and Hospitality: New Perspectives, Practice and
Cases, Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 147-156.
Gruner, R.L., Homburg, C. and Lukas, B.A. (2014), “Firm-hosted online brand communities and new
product success”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 29-48.
Gurtner, S., Reinhardt, R. and Soyez, K. (2014), “Designing mobile business applications for different
age groups”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 88, pp. 177-188.
Gvili, Y. and Levy, S. (2016), “Antecedents of attitudes toward eWOM communication: differences
across channels”, Internet Research, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 1030-1051.
Ha, Y.W., Park, M.-C. and Lee, E. (2014), “A framework for mobile SNS advertising effectiveness: user
perceptions and behaviour perspective”, Behaviour and Information Technology, Vol. 33 No. 12,
pp. 1333-1346.
Halaszovich, T. and Nel, J. (2017), “Customer-brand engagement and Facebook fan-page ‘like’-
intention”, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 120-134.
Hamouda, M. (2018), “Understanding social media advertising effect on consumers’ responses: an
empirical investigation of tourism advertising on Facebook”, Journal of Enterprise Information
Management, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 426-445.
Han, K.J. and Cho, C.-H. (2013), “Twitter as a tool for corporate communication: exploring interactive Brand
communication patterns between fortune 500 companies and Twitter users”, International engagement
Journal of Online Marketing, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 68-83.
behavior on social
Hanan, H., Wee, H., Aminudin, N. and Hamid, Z.A. (2018), “Effectiveness of social media campaigns in
improving participation of younger generations in beach-cleaning programs”, Advanced Science media sites
Letters, Vol. 24 No. 12, pp. 9266-9269.
Hanna, R., Rohm, A. and Crittenden, V.L. (2011), “We’re all connected: the power of the social media
ecosystem”, Business Horizons, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 265-273.
385
Hinson, R., Boateng, H., Renner, A. and Kosiba, J.P.B. (2019), “Antecedents and consequences of
customer engagement on Facebook: an attachment theory perspective”, Journal of Research in
Interactive Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 204-226.
Hollebeek, L.D. and Chen, T. (2014), “Exploring positively-versus negatively-valenced brand
engagement: a conceptual model”, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 23 No. 1,
pp. 62-74.
Hollebeek, L.D., Glynn, M.S. and Brodie, R.J. (2014), “Consumer brand engagement in social media:
conceptualization, scale development and validation”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 28
No. 2, pp. 149-165.
Hollebeek, L.D., Srivastava, R.K. and Chen, T. (2016), “SD logic–informed customer engagement:
integrative framework, revised fundamental propositions, and application to CRM”, Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, pp. 1-25.
Holton, A.E., Baek, K., Coddington, M. and Yaschur, C. (2014), “Seeking and sharing: motivations for
linking on Twitter”, Communication Research Reports, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 33-40.
Hunt, D., Atkin, D. and Krishnan, A. (2012), “The influence of computer-mediated communication
apprehension on motives for Facebook use”, Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media,
Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 187-202.
Hutter, K., Hautz, J., Dennhardt, S. and Füller, J. (2013), “The impact of user interactions in social media
on brand awareness and purchase intention: the case of MINI on Facebook”, Journal of Product
and Brand Management, Vol. 22 Nos 5/6, pp. 342-351.
Islam, J.U., Rahman, Z. and Hollebeek, L.D. (2018), “Consumer engagement in online brand
communities: a solicitation of congruity theory”, Internet Research, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 23-45.
Issa, T. and Isaias, P. (2016), “Internet factors influencing generations Y and Z in Australia and
Portugal: a practical study”, Information Processing and Management, Vol. 52 No. 4,
pp. 592-617.
Izea (2017), “The power of your everyday influencer is stronger than celebrities”, available at: https://
izea.com/2017/02/03/micro-influencers/
Jerslev, A. (2016), “In the time of the microcelebrity: celebrification and the YouTuber Zoella”,
International Journal of Communication, Vol. 10, pp. 5233-5251.
Jin, Y., Lin, J.-S., Gilbreath, B. and Lee, Y.-I. (2017), “Motivations, consumption emotions, and temporal
orientations in social media use: a strategic approach to engaging stakeholders across
platforms”, International Journal of Strategic Communication, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 115-132.
Karahanna, E., Xu, S.X. and Zhang, N. (2015), “Psychological ownership motivation and use of social
media”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 185-207.
Kim, Y., Kang, M., Choi, S.M. and Sung, Y. (2016), “To click or not to click? Investigating antecedents of
advertisement clicking on Facebook”, Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal,
Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 657-667.
Kim, Y.H., Kim, D.J. and Wachter, K. (2013), “A study of mobile user engagement (MoEN): engagement
motivations, perceived value, satisfaction, and continued engagement intention”, Decision
Support Systems, Vol. 56, pp. 361-370.
JRIM Ko, H., Chang-Hoan, C. and Roberts, M.S. (2005), “Internet uses and gratifications: a structural equation
model of interactive advertising”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 57-70.
13,3
Koohy, H. and Koohy, B. (2014), “A lesson from the ice bucket challenge: using social networks to
publicize science”, Frontiers in Genetics, Vol. 5, p. 430.
Koufaris, M. (2002), “Applying the technology acceptance model and flow theory to online consumer
behavior”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 205-223.
386 Kujur, F. and Singh, S. (2017), “Engaging customers through online participation in social networking
sites”, Asia Pacific Management Review, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 16-24.
Kumar, V. and Pansari, A. (2016), “Competitive advantage through engagement”, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 53 No. 4, pp. 497-514.
Le, T.D. and Nguyen, B.-T.H. (2014), “Attitudes toward mobile advertising: a study of mobile web
display and mobile app display advertising”, Asian Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 19
No. 2, pp. 87-103.
Lee, C.S. and Ma, L. (2012), “News sharing in social media: the effect of gratifications and prior
experience”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 331-339.
Lee, J. and Hong, I.B. (2016), “Predicting positive user responses to social media advertising: the roles of
emotional appeal, informativeness, and creativity”, International Journal of Information
Management, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 360-373.
Leiner, D.J., Kobilke, L., Rueß, C. and Brosius, H.-B. (2018), “Functional domains of social media
platforms: structuring the uses of Facebook to better understand its gratifications”, Computers
in Human Behavior, Vol. 83, pp. 194-203.
Lim, W.M. (2015), “Antecedents and consequences of e-shopping: an integrated model”, Internet
Research, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 184-217.
Lin, C.A. (2006), “Predicting webcasting adoption via personal innovativeness and perceived utilities”,
Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 228-238.
Lin, C.A. and Kim, T. (2016), “Predicting user response to sponsored advertising on social media via the
technology acceptance model”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 64, pp. 710-718.
Lin, C.-W., Hsu, Y.-C. and Lin, C.-Y. (2017), “User perception, intention, and attitude on mobile
advertising”, International Journal of Mobile Communications, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 104-117.
Lin, T.T., Paragas, F. and Bautista, J.R. (2016), “Determinants of mobile consumers’ perceived value of
location-based advertising and user responses”, International Journal of Mobile
Communications, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 99-117.
Logan, K. (2013), “And now a word from our sponsor: do consumers perceive advertising on traditional
television and online streaming video differently?”, Journal of Marketing Communications,
Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 258-276.
Lopez, C., Hartmann, P. and Apaolaza, V. (2019), “Gratifications on social networking sites: the role of
secondary school students’ individual differences in loneliness”, Journal of Educational
Computing Research, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 58-82.
Lou, L.L., Yan, Z., Nickerson, A. and McMorris, R. (2012), “An examination of the reciprocal
relationship of loneliness and Facebook use among first-year college students”, Journal of
Educational Computing Research, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 105-117.
Luo, X. (2002), “Uses and gratifications theory and e-consumer behaviors: a structural equation
modeling study”, Journal of Interactive Advertising, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 34-41.
Mamic, L.I. and Almaraz, I.A. (2013), “How the larger corporations engage with stakeholders through
Twitter”, International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 55 No. 6, pp. 851-872.
Marbach, J., Lages, C.R. and Nunan, D. (2016), “Who are you and what do you value? Investigating the
role of personality traits and customer-perceived value in online customer engagement”, Journal
of Marketing Management, Vol. 32 Nos 5/6, pp. 502-525.
Martínez-Navarro, J. and Bigné, E. (2017), “The value of marketer-generated content on social network Brand
sites: media antecedents and behavioral responses”, Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, engagement
Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 52-72.
behavior on social
Morgan-Thomas, A. and Veloutsou, C. (2013), “Beyond technology acceptance: brand relationships and
online brand experience”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 21-27. media sites
Morra, M.C., Ceruti, F., Chierici, R. and Di Gregorio, A. (2018), “Social vs traditional media
communication: brand origin associations strike a chord”, Journal of Research in Interactive
Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 2-21.
387
Muk, A. and Chung, C. (2014), “Driving consumers to become fans of brand pages: a theoretical
framework”, Journal of Interactive Advertising, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 1-10.
Murillo, E. (2017), “Attitudes toward mobile search ads: a study among Mexican millennials”, Journal of
Research in Interactive Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 91-108.
Ngai, E.W.T., Tao, S.S.C. and Moon, K.K.L. (2015), “Social media research: theories, constructs, and
conceptual frameworks”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 35 No. 1,
pp. 33-44.
Nowland, R., Necka, E.A. and Cacioppo, J.T. (2018), “Loneliness and social internet use: pathways to
reconnection in a digital world?”, Perspectives on Psychological Science, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 70-87.
Pansari, A. and Kumar, V. (2017), “Customer engagement: the construct, antecedents, and
consequences”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 294-311.
Papacharissi, Z. and Rubin, A.M. (2000), “Predictors of internet use”, Journal of Broadcasting and
Electronic Media, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 175-196.
Paris, C.M., Lee, W. and Seery, P. (2010), “The role of social media in promoting special events:
acceptance of Facebook ‘events’”, in Gretzel, U., Law, R. and Fuchs, M. (Eds), Information and
Communication Technologies in Tourism, Springer, Vienna, pp. 531-541.
Park, C.W. and Lessig, V.P. (1977), “Students and housewives: differences in susceptibility to reference
group influence”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 102-110.
Park, H. and Kim, Y.-K. (2014), “The role of social network websites in the consumer–brand
relationship”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 460-467.
Park, N., Kee, K.F. and Valenzuela, S. (2009), “Being immersed in social networking environment:
Facebook groups, uses and gratifications, and social outcomes”, CyberPsychology and Behavior,
Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 729-733.
Perreault, M.-C. and Mosconi, E. (2018), “Social media engagement: Content strategy and metrics
research opportunities”, Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 51st HI International
Conference on System Sciences, available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10125/50339
Pew Research Center (2018), “Social media fact sheet”, available at: www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/
social-media/
PrakashYadav, G. and Rai, J. (2017), “The generation Z and their social media usage: a review and
a research outline”, Global Journal of Enterprise Information System, Vol. 9 No. 2,
pp. 110-116.
Price, R.A., Wrigley, C. and Straker, K. (2015), “Not just what they want, but why they want it:
traditional market research to deep customer insights”, Qualitative Market Research: An
International Journal, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 230-248.
Rauniar, R., Rawski, G., Yang, J. and Johnson, B. (2014), “Technology acceptance model (TAM) and
social media usage: an empirical study on Facebook”, Journal of Enterprise Information
Management, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 6-30.
Rissanen, H. and Luoma-Aho, V. (2016), “(Un) willing to engage? First look at the engagement types
of millennials”, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 21 No. 4,
pp. 500-515.
JRIM Roblek, V., Mesko, M., Dimovski, V. and Peterlin, J. (2018), “Smart technologies as social innovation and
complex social issues of the Z generation”, Kybernetes, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 91-107, available at:
13,3 https://doi.org/10.1108/K-09-2017-0356
Ruggiero, T.E. (2000), “Uses and gratifications theory in the 21st century”, Mass Communication and
Society, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 3-37.
Sago, B. (2010), “The influence of social media message sources on millennial generation consumers”,
388 International Journal of Integrated Marketing Communications, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 7-18.
Salajan, F.D., Schönwetter, D.J. and Cleghorn, B.M. (2010), “Student and faculty inter-generational
digital divide: fact or fiction?”, Computers and Education, Vol. 55 No. 3, pp. 1393-1403.
Salleh, M.S.M., Mahbob, N.N. and Baharudin, N.S. (2017), “Overview of ‘generation Z’ behavioural
characteristic and its effect towards hostel facility”, International Journal of Real Estate Studies,
Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 59-67.
Schivinski, B., Christodoulides, G. and Dabrowski, D. (2016), “Measuring consumers’ engagement with
brand-related social-media content: development and validation of a scale that identifies levels of
social-media engagement with brands”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 64-80.
Shaheen, M., Lodhi, R.N., Mahmood, Z. and Abid, H. (2017), “Factors influencing consumers’ attitude,
intention and behavior towards short message service-based mobile advertising in Pakistan”,
IUP Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 24-44.
Shao, W. and Ross, M. (2015), “Testing a conceptual model of Facebook brand page communities”,
Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 239-258.
Shu, W. (2014), “Continual use of microblogs”, Behaviour and Information Technology, Vol. 33 No. 7,
pp. 666-677.
Sicilia, M., Palazon, M. and Lopez, M. (2016), “Brand pages as a communication tool: a state of the art
and a research agenda”, in De Pelsmacker, P. (Ed.), Advertising in New Formats and Media:
Current Research and Implications for Marketers, Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley,
pp. 169-188.
Simon, F. and Tossan, V. (2018), “Does brand-consumer social sharing matter? A relational framework
of customer engagement to brand-hosted social media”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 85,
pp. 175-184.
Smith, B.G. and Gallicano, T.D. (2015), “Terms of engagement: analyzing public engagement with
organizations through social media”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 53, pp. 82-90.
Song, M., Wang, N., Zhang, X. and Qiao, L. (2017), “Factors motivating customers’ SNS brand page
behaviors: a comparison between China and Korea”, Pacific Asia Journal of the Association for
Information Systems, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 25-50.
Stafford, T.F., Stafford, M.R. and Schkade, L.L. (2004), “Determining uses and gratifications for the
internet”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 259-288.
Straker, K. and Wrigley, C. (2016), “Emotionally engaging customers in the digital age: the case study
of ‘burberry love’”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal,
Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 276-299.
Swant, M. (2016), “Twitter says users now trust influencers nearly as much as their friends”,
ADWEEK, available at: www.adweek.com/digital/twitter-says-users-now-trust-influencers-
nearly-much-their-friends-171367/
Tan, X., Lu, Y. and Tan, Y. (2016), “Why should I donate? Examining the effects of reputation, peer
influence, and popularity on charitable giving over social media platforms”, Examining the
Effects of Reputation, Peer Influence, and Popularity on Charitable Giving Over Social Media
Platforms (August 8, 2016).
Tandoc, E.C., Jr, Ferrucci, P. and Duffy, M. (2015), “Facebook use, envy, and depression among college
students: is facebooking depressing?”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 43, pp. 139-146.
Taylor, D.G., Lewin, J.E. and Strutton, D. (2011), “Friends, fans, and followers: do ads work on social Brand
networks?”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 258-275. engagement
Teo, T. (2016), “Modelling Facebook usage among university students in Thailand: the role of behavior on social
emotional attachment in an extended technology acceptance model”, Interactive Learning
Environments, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 745-757. media sites
Triantafillidou, A. and Siomkos, G. (2018), “The impact of Facebook experience on consumers’
behavioral brand engagement”, Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 2,
pp. 164-192. 389
Tsai, W.-H.S. and Men, L.R. (2017), “Consumer engagement with brands on social network sites: a
cross-cultural comparison of China and the USA”, Journal of Marketing Communications,
Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 2-21.
Tsao, J.C. and Steffes-Hansen, S. (2008), “Predictors for internet usage of teenagers in the United States:
a multivariate analysis”, Journal of Marketing Communications, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 171-192.
Turner, A. (2015), “Generation Z: technology and social interest”, The Journal of Individual Psychology,
Vol. 71 No. 2, pp. 103-113.
Urista, M.A., Qingwen, D. and Day, K.D. (2009), “Explaining why young adults use Myspace and
Facebook through uses and gratifications theory”, Human Communication, Vol. 12 No. 2,
pp. 215-229.
Vale, L. and Fernandes, T. (2018), “Social media and sports: driving fan engagement with football clubs
on Facebook”, Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 37-55.
Van Doorn, J., Lemon, K.N., Mittal, V., Nass, S., Pick, D., Pirner, P. and Verhoef, P.C. (2010), “Customer
engagement behavior: theoretical foundations and research directions”, Journal of Service
Research, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 253-266.
Venkatesh, V., Davis, F.D. and Morris, M.G. (2007), “Dead or alive? The development, trajectory and
future of technology adoption research”, Journal of the Association for Information Systems,
Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 267-286.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B. and Davis, F.D. (2003), “User acceptance of information
technology: toward a unified view”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 425-478.
Vohra, A. and Bhardwaj, N. (2019), “Customer engagement in an e-commerce brand community: an
empirical comparison of alternate models”, Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, Vol. 13
No. 1, pp. 2-25.
Wamba, S.F., Bhattacharya, M., Trinchera, L. and Ngai, E.W.T. (2017), “Role of intrinsic and extrinsic
factors in user social media acceptance within workspace: assessing unobserved heterogeneity”,
International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 1-13.
Wang, S.S., Lin, Y.-C. and Liang, T.-P. (2018), “Posts that attract millions of fans: the effect of brand-
post congruence”, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, Vol. 28, pp. 73-85.
Wang, Z. and Scheepers, H. (2012), “Understanding the intrinsic motivations of user acceptance of
hedonic information systems: towards a unified research model”, Communications for the
Association for Information Systems, Vol. 30 No. 17, pp. 255-274.
Wirtz, B.W. and Göttel, V. (2016), “Technology acceptance in social media: review, synthesis and
directions for future empirical research”, Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, Vol. 17 No. 2,
pp. 97-115.
Wu, J. and Lu, X. (2013), “Effects of extrinsic and intrinsic motivators on using utilitarian, hedonic, and
dual-purposed information systems: a meta-analysis”, Journal of the Association for Information
Systems, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 153-191.
Zaglia, M.E. (2013), “Brand communities embedded in social networks”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 66 No. 2, pp. 216-223.
Zahoor, S.Z. and Qureshi, I.H. (2017), “Social media marketing and brand equity: a literature review”,
IUP Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 47-64.
JRIM Zha, X., Li, J. and Yan, Y. (2015), “Advertising value and credibility transfer: attitude towards web
advertising and online information acquisition”, Behaviour and Information Technology, Vol. 34
13,3 No. 5, pp. 520-532.
Zhang, Y., Tang, L.S.-T. and Leung, L. (2011), “Gratifications, collective self-esteem, online emotional
openness, and traitlike communication apprehension as predictors of Facebook uses”,
CyberPsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, Vol. 14 No. 12, pp. 733-739.
Zheng, X., Cheung, C.M.K., Lee, M.K.O. and Liang, L. (2015), “Building brand loyalty through user
390 engagement in online brand communities in social networking sites”, Information Technology
and People, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 90-106.

Corresponding author
Bela Florenthal can be contacted at: florenthalb@wpunj.edu
Appendix Brand
engagement
Supported behavior on social
Relationships Theory relationships Context Sources media sites
Motivating/ TAM P1a, P1e and P1f Social Media Bailey et al. (2018)
Demotivating Drivers
! Value 391
U&G P1a, P1b and P1c Social Media Ads Hamouda (2018)
U&G P1a E-shopping Lim (2015)
U&G P1a - P1d Mobile Ads Murillo (2017)
Motivating/ TAM P2a Social Media Bailey et al. (2018)
Demotivating Drivers
! Attitude
TAM P2c and P2e Social Media Bianchi and Andrews (2018)
U&G P2a and P2b Mobile Ads Murillo (2017), Kujur and
Singh (2017), Lin et al. (2017)
U&G P2a and P2e Internet and Celebi (2015)
Facebook Ads
U&G P2a - P2d Facebook Ads Abu-Ghosh et al. (2018), Lin
et al. (2017), Shaheen et al.
(2017)
U&G P2a - P2c Web Ads Zha et al. (2015)
TAM/ P2a, P2d, and P2f E-shopping Lim (2015)
U&G
Motivating/ TAM P3a Social Media Wamba et al. (2017)
Demotivating Drivers
! Behavioral
Intention or Behavior
TAM P3f Social Media Dumpit and Fernandez
(2017)
U&G P3a and P3b Social Media Kujur and Singh (2017)
U&G P3b and P3e Facebook, Vale and Fernandes (2018;
Internet and Celebi (2015)
Facebook Ads
U&G P3a and P3e Social Media Choi (2016)
U&G P3d Facebook Ads Kim et al. (2016)
U&G P3c Facebook Azar et al. (2016)
Value ! Attitude TAM P4 Social Media, Bailey et al. (2018), Lin et al.
Mobile Ads (2017)
U&G P4 Social Media Ads Hamouda (2018)
U&G/ P4 E-shopping Lim (2015)
TAM
Value ! Behavioral TAM P5 Social Media Wamba et al. (2017)
Intention or Behavior
TAM P5 Social Media Dumpit and Fernandez
(2017)
U&G P5 Social Media Martínez-Navarro and Bigné
(2017)
Attitude ! TAM P6 Social Media, Bailey et al. (2018), Bianchi
Table AI.
Behavioral Intention Mobile Ads and Andrews (2018), Lin
or Behavior et al. (2017) Recent empirical
U&G P6 Social Media Hamouda (2018), Shaheen studies that support
Ads, Mobile Ads, et al. (2017), Zha et al. (2015) the proposed
Web Ads relationships