Consumer brand engagement, satisfaction and

brand loyalty: a comparative study between

functional and emotional brand relationships
Teresa Fernandes and Mariana Moreira
Faculty of Economics, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to understand differences in consumer brand engagement (CBE) according to the functional or emotional
nature of consumer–brand relationships and its direct and/or indirect impact on brand loyalty (BL). Additionally, the study aims to compare CBE and
Satisfaction as predictors of BL, considering the two types of consumer–brand relationships.
Design/methodology/approach – A cross-sectional survey was applied to two independent samples. Respondents of one of the samples were
asked to recall a brand with which they had a functional relationship, while the other respondents were asked to consider a brand with which they
had an emotional relationship. To test research hypotheses, a causal model using SEM was developed.
Findings – Results validate CBE as a three-dimensional construct, stronger for emotional than functional brand relationships and show its significant
Downloaded by UNIVERSIDADE DO PORTO At 10:50 22 March 2019 (PT)

direct and indirect impact on BL. Through a comparative analysis, findings also prove that the effects of CBE on BL, directly or indirectly through
Satisfaction, are stronger for emotional relationships, while Satisfaction is a stronger direct predictor of BL for functional brand relationships.
Originality/value – Addressing calls to focus on the impact of specific brand types on engagement, this study allows a better understanding of the
moderating role of functional and emotional relationships on CBE. This study further adds to the existing body of knowledge by establishing the mediating
role of Satisfaction and comparing the contribution of CBE and Satisfaction to BL according to the nature of consumer–brand relationships. Overall, our
findings enhance knowledge on how consumers engage with and become loyal to brands, offering important implications for brand managers.
Keywords Satisfaction, Consumer–brand relationships, Brand loyalty, Consumer brand engagement, Functional brands, Emotional brands
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction and brands started to focus on a more relational perspective

Brand loyalty, the core of brand equity (Keller, 1993), is a driving
force of competitive advantage, as it helps firms develop long-
term relationships with consumers (Hwang and Kandampully,
2012). Defined by Oliver (1999, p. 34) as:
A deeply held commitment to rebuy or patronize a preferred product or
service consistently in the future, despite situational influences and
marketing efforts having the potential to cause switching behavior.
Loyalty is commonly acknowledged in the literature as a
dimensional construct (Rundle-Thiele and Bennett, 2001),
categorized as behavioral, attitudinal or a combination of both.
For several decades, researchers have considered perceived
quality, switching costs and especially satisfaction, fundamental to
brand loyalty (Bowden, 2009a, 2009b; Kandampully et al.,
2015). According to Delgado-Ballester and Munuera-Alemán
(2001), this perspective reflects a psychological orientation of the
literature (Fournier and Yao, 1997), more concerned with
cognitive decision-making processes and less focused in a
sociological view of brand loyalty (BL). But given the new role of
consumers as co-owners and co-creators of the brand
(Kandampully et al., 2015; Gong, 2018), the emphasis shifted,
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on
Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/1061-0421.htm
(Delgado-Ballester and Munuera-Alemán, 2005), where much of
a brand’s value is a result of external relationships (Keller, 1993),
namely brand–consumer relationships. As such, today loyalty
paradigms encompass fresh concepts (Kandampully et al., 2015),
with recent studies identifying other potential determinants, such
as brand trust (Delgado-Ballester and Munuera-Alemán, 2001,
2005), brand love (Bergkvist and Bech-Larsen, 2010; Carroll and
Ahuvia, 2006), brand experience (Brakus et al., 2009; Payne et al.,
2009) and, particularly from 2014 onwards, brand engagement
(Hollebeek et al., 2014; Dessart et al., 2015).
Consumer brand engagement (CBE) has been defined as a
consumer’s cognitive, emotional, behavioral, co-creative
brand-related activities related to specific interactions
(Hollebeek et al., 2014) and is expected to have a significant
role in building increasingly experiential relationships with
consumers, namely brand relationships (Dessart et al., 2015).
CBE implies a deeper, relationship-based level and, thus, may be
a better predictor of loyalty-related outcomes than other
The authors would like to thank all three anonymous reviewers and the
guest editors for their (in)valuable feedback throughout the review process.
Further, the authors express their gratitude to the attendees at the CBR
conference for their insightful comments during the developmental stages
of this article.

Received 24 August 2017

Journal of Product & Brand Management
Revised 17 January 2018
28/2 (2019) 274–286 9 May 2018
© Emerald Publishing Limited [ISSN 1061-0421] 5 July 2018
[DOI 10.1108/JPBM-08-2017-1545] Accepted 6 August 2018

274
 Consumer brand engagement
Teresa Fernandes and Mariana Moreira
conventional constructs such as quality or satisfaction, which fail
to capture the depth of consumer–brand relationships (Hollebeek,
2011). Satisfaction is conceptualized as a transaction-specific,
cognitive judgment, linked to the expectancy disconfirmation
paradigm (Carroll and Ahuvia, 2006), while engagement refers to
a broader relational, multidimensional concept “comprising
cognitive, emotional, and/or behavioral dimensions” (Brodie et al,
2011, p. 260). As such, CBE has significant and growing
importance for the management of brands (Hollebeek et al.,
2014) and can help companies create an emotionally loyal
customer base (Kandampully et al., 2015). However, research
corroborating the dominant contribution of CBE to loyalty is still
missing and is mainly exploratory, with the few existing
quantitative studies (Dwivedi, 2015; Calder et al., 2016b; So et al.,
2016a) focusing on very specific contexts and adopting not only a
narrow perspective of the loyalty concept, but also very different
operationalizations of CBE. Therefore, additional efforts to
validate the impact of CBE over BL are still needed.
Downloaded by UNIVERSIDADE DO PORTO At 10:50 22 March 2019 (PT)
Additionally, consumers tend to feel more loyal to what they feel
connected with, attached to and love (Hwang and Kandampully,
2012), so consumer–brand relationships may influence BL
(Carrol and Ahuvia, 2006). Fournier’s (1998) seminal work
highlights the diversity of consumer–brand relationships, which
can be conceptualized according to several criteria, including
functional and/or symbolic benefits (Hwang and Kandampully,
2012). Primarily utilitarian-based relationships value the brand for
its functional role, associated with objective benefits and inherent
characteristics of brand attributes. Emotional considerations focus
on symbolic benefits, that satisfy consumer’s high-level needs and
engage them in additional meaningful ways (Hwang and
Kandampully, 2012; Keller, 2012).
The brand relationship paradigm has been successful given its
relevance for understanding BL (Albert and Merunka, 2013). It
is also reasonable to expect that the different nature of consumer–
brand relationships may lead to different levels of CBE (Dessart
et al., 2016; Hollebeek et al., 2014; Simon et al., 2016). However,
research so far has been inconclusive on which type of brands are
more conductive to CBE: though some brands may have limited
potential to engage consumers (namely functional brands), CBE
may not be limited to high-involvement, emotional categories
(Bergkvist and Bech-Larsen, 2010; Hollebeek et al., 2014; Vivek
et al., 2014). Though in general people only feel emotionally
attached to a few brands, if any (Ahuvia et al., 2014), these may also
include low or moderate involvement brands (Bagozzi et al., 2016).
Yet to the best of our knowledge, no quantitative study regarding
the different nature of consumer–brand relationships and its impact
on CBE has been developed. Hence, the purpose of our study is to
understand differences in CBE according to the functional or
emotional nature of consumer–brand relationships and its direct
and/or indirect impact on BL. Additionally, the study aims to
compare CBE and satisfaction as predictors of BL, considering the
two types of consumer–brand relationships defined in this study.
2. Theoretical framework and research
hypotheses
2.1 The concepts of engagement and consumer brand
engagement
Consumer engagement is receiving increasing attention in the
broader academic marketing literature as having a significant
275
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 28 · Number 2 · 2019 · 274–286
role in building increasingly experiential relationships with
consumers, namely brand relationships (Dessart et al., 2015).
In one of the most comprehensive definitions in the
literature, Brodie et al. (2011) consider engagement as a highly
context-dependent psychological state, comprising cognitive,
emotional and behavioral dimensions, that plays a center role in
the process of relational exchange. Furthermore, engagement
reflects motivation, has varying intensity and a valence (Brodie
et al., 2011) and results from an individual’s (the “engagement
subject”) interactive experiences with a focal object (the
“engagement object”), which may include product offerings,
organizations or a focal brand (Hollebeek, 2011). Several
authors (Dessart et al., 2015; Hollebeek et al., 2014; Leckie
et al., 2016; Bowden et al., 2017) also stress the multi-
dimensional view of engagement.
Engagement has gained significant attention in the branding
literature, following a recent scholarly emphasis shift towards a
broader, relational orientation (Vivek et al., 2014), centered on the
importance of establishing interactive consumer–brand
relationships (Fetscherin and Heinrich, 2014; Hollebeek et al.,
2014). Within this emerging research stream, which encompasses
other concepts such as brand trust, brand experience and brand
love (Brakus et al., 2009; Carroll and Ahuvia, 2006; Delgado-
Ballester and Munuera-Alemán, 2005), CBE is gaining
momentum since it more comprehensively reflects the dynamics
of focal brand relationships when compared with traditional
concepts (Dwivedi, 2015). Early conceptualizations of CBE
(Hollebeek, 2011) emphasize the relationship between the
consumer and the brand (France et al., 2016). Focusing on brands
as objects of engagement, Hollebeek et al. (2014) validate three
CBE dimensions: cognitive processing (cognitive CBE), affection
(emotional CBE) and activation (behavioral CBE). Regarding
consumer-brand interactions, cognitive processing is defined as “a
consumer’s level of brand-related thought processing and
elaboration”; affection refers to “a consumer’s degree of positive
brand-related affect”; and activation to “a consumer’s level of
energy, effort and time spent on a brand”. In their study on online
brand communities, Dessart et al. (2015) further deepen this
conceptualization by presenting sub-dimensions of CBE, namely
enthusiasm and enjoyment (affective), attention and absorption
(cognitive) and sharing, learning and endorsing (behavioral), thus
corroborating CBE as a multi-dimensional concept (Bowden et al.,
2017; Vivek et al., 2014). Table I provides an overview of the main
conceptualizations of CBE.
2.2 Consumer brand engagement, satisfaction and
brand loyalty
CBE has a significant role and growing importance for the
management of brands (Hollebeek et al., 2014) and can help
companies create an emotionally loyal customer base
(Kandampully et al., 2015). In his seminal work, Oliver (1999,
p. 34) defines loyalty as “a deeply held commitment” to
repatronize a preferred brand, “despite situational influences
and marketing efforts having the potential to cause switching
behavior”. Therefore, in the context of consumer–brand
relationships, loyalty encompasses not only repeated purchases,
but also positive internal dispositions towards the brand
(Delgado-Ballester and Munuera-Alemán, 2005). Conceptual
work claims that since CBE generates positive attitudes
towards the brand, it may make consumers feel more loyal
 Consumer brand engagement
Teresa Fernandes and Mariana Moreira
Table I Overview of the main conceptualizations of CBE in the literature
Author(s) Concept
Sprott et al. (2009) Brand Engagement in self-concept
Hollebeek (2011) Customer Brand Engagement
Hollebeek et al. (2014) CBE
Dwivedi (2015) CBE
Calder et al. (2016a) Brand Engagement
(Hollebeek, 2011; Vivek et al., 2012) through interactive brand
experiences beyond purchase and an enduring psychological
connection (Brodie et al., 2011). Because of its interactive and
Downloaded by UNIVERSIDADE DO PORTO At 10:50 22 March 2019 (PT)
immersive nature, CBE leads to intense relational bonds with a
brand, which consumers may wish to sustain in the future
(Dwivedi, 2015) through loyalty intentions such as repatronage
and advocacy (Vivek et al., 2012). As such, the “commitment
and connection of the highly engaged customer is expected to
be influential in their loyalty behavior” (France et al., 2016, p.
127). However, though CBE is expected to predict BL (Dessart
et al., 2015) and to generate increased brand retention
(Hollebeek et al., 2014), the literature is mainly conceptual or
qualitative, and limited empirical evidence exists about the role
CBE plays in loyalty development (So et al., 2016a). France
et al. (2016) investigated the impact of CBE upon BL, and So
et al. (2014) showed that engagement affects loyalty toward
tourism brands. In a social media context, Jahn and Kunz
(2012), Hutter et al. (2013), Dessart (2017), and Carvalho and
Fernandes (2018) concluded that consumer’s active
engagement positively impacts BL and other loyalty-related
outcomes. Therefore, to corroborate the results gained by
extant studies in the field, considering a wide range of brands, it
is expected that:
H1. CBE has a positive direct impact on BL.
As CBE implies a deeper, relationship-based level, it may be a
better predictor of loyalty-related outcomes than other
conventional constructs such as satisfaction (So et al., 2016a),
which fail to capture the depth of consumer–brand relationships
(Hollebeek, 2011). Satisfaction is defined as “a customer’s
overall evaluation of the performance of an offering to-date”
(Gustafsson et al., 2005, p. 210) or as “a global evaluative
judgment about product usage/consumption” (Westbrook,
1987, p. 260) and relates to a transaction-specific, cognitive
judgment, linked to the expectancy/disconfirmation paradigm
(Carrol and Ahuvia, 2006). Researchers generally agree that
satisfaction consists of an overall post-hoc evaluation, following
consumption, arising after brand interactions (Hollebeek et al.,
2014). CBE, contrary to satisfaction, is a highly personal and
motivational state (Calder et al., 2016b) that focuses on
consumer’s cognitive, emotional and behavioral dynamics
during specific brand interactions. Hence, satisfaction has been
considered an engagement consequence, with an expected
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 28 · Number 2 · 2019 · 274–286
Definition
An individual difference representing consumers’ propensity to include important brands
as part of how they view themselves
The level of an individual customer’s motivational, brand-related and context-dependent
state of mind characterized by specific levels of cognitive, emotional and behavioral
activity in direct brand interactions
A consumer’s positively valence brand-related cognitive, emotional and behavioral
activity during or related to focal consumer/brand interactions
Consumers’ positive, fulfilling, brand-use-related state of mind, that is characterized by
vigor, dedication and absorption
Psychological state that occurs by virtue of interactive, co-creative customer experiences
with a focal agent/object, under a specific set of context-dependent conditions
positive relationship between the two (Brodie et al., 2011;
Hollebeek et al., 2014).
The “historically dominant customer satisfaction paradigm”
still prevails in the literature as the most effective predictor of
marketing outcomes such as loyalty (Bowden, 2009b, p. 574),
limiting a more complete understanding of how consumer–
brand relationships and CBE may also play a role. Yet some
researchers suggest that satisfying consumers may not be
sufficient to explain certain behaviors (Carrol and Ahuvia,
2006), as satisfaction is a mere fulfillment response (Oliver,
1999), that only measures a post-purchase rational assessment,
based on prior expectations, without considering the
psychological meaning of consumption experiences and brand
interactions. As such, traditional metrics as satisfaction alone
should not be considered as a proxy for enduring loyalty
(Bennett and Rundle-Thiele, 2004), which further demands
emotional depth and “a different conceptual plane [. . .] that
transcends satisfaction” (Oliver, 1999, p. 34). According to
Bowden (2009b, p. 591):
A reliance on generalized satisfaction metrics [. . .] at the expense of a more
detailed examination of customers’ consumption responses, which is
inclusive of measures of affect, may therefore be misleading at best and
completely inadequate at worst.
However, corroboration of the contribution of CBE to BL
beyond satisfaction is yet to be undertaken through causal
research. To the best of our knowledge, only Dwivedi (2015),
Calder et al. (2016b), and So et al. (2016a) have investigated
related topics. Dwivedi (2015) draws on a conceptualization of
CBE bases on the organizational psychology domain and
empirically investigates the influence of CBE on loyalty
intentions when compared with the explanation attained jointly
by perceived value, quality and satisfaction. The study concludes
that CBE exerts a strong direct effect on loyalty intentions, after
controlling for the effects of those three key judgments.
Specifically, results suggest CBE as the strongest predictor
among the specified antecedents, explaining significantly more
variation in loyalty intentions. Calder et al. (2016b) define
engagement as “a multilevel, multidimensional construct that
emerges from the thoughts and feelings about one or more rich
experiences involved in reaching a personal goal” and develop a
flexible engagement scale based on five broad categories of
experiences: interaction, transportation, discovery, identity and
civic-orientation. The authors then compare the explanatory
power of this scale with a fixed-scale measure of satisfaction and
276
 Consumer brand engagement
Teresa Fernandes and Mariana Moreira
conclude that not only did engagement incrementally explain
consumption beyond satisfaction, but was also a superior
predictor of consumption. Finally, So et al. (2016a)
conceptualize engagement as a higher-order reflective construct
comprising five first-order factors based on the organizational
psychology domain and explore its linkages with traditional
antecedents of BL. Beyond providing insight into the process of
loyalty formation, the study compares the explanatory power of
BL using three constructs (brand evaluation, trust and
engagement) and concludes that engagement was the strongest
predictor of BL, representing superior explanatory power.
Hence, increasingly marketers are moving beyond
satisfaction (Carrol and Ahuvia, 2006) and focusing on
engagement as a complement or even an alternative to
satisfaction (Calder et al., 2016b; So et al., 2016a). Therefore,
this study tests the potential dominant role of CBE over
Satisfaction in explaining BL. Furthermore, this study
addresses not only the direct effects of CBE on BL, but also the
Downloaded by UNIVERSIDADE DO PORTO At 10:50 22 March 2019 (PT)
indirect effects, mediated by Satisfaction. As such, it is
expected that:
H2. CBE is a stronger direct predictor of BL than
Satisfaction.
H3. CBE has a positive indirect impact on BL, mediated by
Satisfaction.
However, besides the different definitions of engagement
adopted, the three studies previously mentioned strictly
focused on very specific product categories, namely
telecommunication providers, newspapers and tourism brands,
respectively, thus potentially incurring in context specificity
bias. Further, these studies mainly adopted a limited,
behavioral approach to BL, did not account for different brand
categories or compared the moderating role of consumer–
brand relationships. Yet these relationships may lead to
different levels of CBE (Dessart et al., 2016; Hollebeek et al.,
2014; Simon et al., 2016) and, hence, different impacts on BL.
However, research so far has been inconclusive on which type
of brands are more conductive to CBE: though some brands
may have limited potential to engage consumers (e.g.
functional brands), CBE may not be limited to high-
involvement, emotional categories (Bergkvist and Bech-
Larsen, 2010; Hollebeek et al., 2014; Vivek et al., 2014). As
such, this remains an important, yet under researched, facet of
brand management.
2.3 The functional versus emotional nature of
consumer–brand relationships
Part of today’s brand success lies on the development of
relationships between brands and consumers (Veloutsou and
Moutinho, 2009), and in the past three decades, an influential
research stream has emerged associated with the dynamics of
consumer–brand relationships (Hollebeek et al., 2014).
However, the early academic literature (Grönroos, 1996) did
not recognize the role of brands as relationship builders,
particularly in consumer markets. The traditional approach
focused on the marketing mix elements alone, based on the
original need of individuals to make transactions (Veloutsou,
2007; Pansari and Kumar, 2017). Only later on researchers
recognized that the brand relationship is a long-lasting bond
277
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 28 · Number 2 · 2019 · 274–286
between the brand and the consumer, and that brands
(including product brands) are entities with their own
personality, with which consumers can relate to (Veloutsou and
Moutinho, 2009). Consumers therefore engage in certain types
of relationships with brands (Veloutsou, 2007), similar to
personal and intimate relations they form with other people
(Esch et al., 2006; Fournier and Alvarez, 2012): some people
we are passionate about, some we just like, and some we are
indifferent to (Pawle and Cooper, 2006). One of the first
studies on the topic was the seminal work of Fournier (1998),
according to which a brand can be treated as an active
contributing partner in a dyadic relationship that exists between
the person and the brand. The brand–consumer relationship
might take several forms, depending on the manner in which
individuals develop relationships: Fournier’s (1998) study
identifies 15 forms of relationships, ranging from arranged and
convenience marriages to friendships. The association can be
“voluntary versus imposed, long term versus short term, public
versus private, formal versus informal, distant versus close and
symmetric versus asymmetric” (Veloutsou and Moutinho,
2009, p. 316), which highlights the diversity of consumer–
brand relationships.
The relationship process can generate cognitive benefits as
well as positive affect and emotions that result in a bond
between the brand and the consumer (Fournier, 1998). As
such, consumers may relate with brands not only for their
utilitarian values, but also for their symbolic benefits
(Albert and Merunka, 2013; Bairrada et al., 2018), which
viewed broadly may correspond to the archetypal constructs of
reason and emotion (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2002). Among
several criteria, it is thus possible to conceptualize consumer–
brand relationships according to their functional and/or
symbolic benefits (Fetscherin and Heinrich, 2014; Hwang and
Kandampully, 2012). This distinction is drawn from social
psychology research (Clark, 1984), where two types of
relationships are asserted, namely exchange and communal
relationships. Though not necessarily mutually exclusive,
exchange relationships focus on economic factors and offer
primarily utilitarian benefits, while communal relationships
mainly involve feelings about other people and transcend self-
interest (Esch et al., 2006). This framework, with appropriate
adjustments, has also proven powerful for understanding brand
relationships (Fournier and Alvarez, 2012). As such, adapting
this framework to a commercial setting, primarily utilitarian-
based relationships can be seen as valuing the brand for its
functional role, associated with objective benefits, such as
efficiency or reliability and inherent characteristics of brand
attributes (e.g. price, design and quality). In a similar vein,
emotional considerations focus on symbolic benefits, on the
social desirability of the brand and its self-expressive value, that
satisfy consumer’s high-level needs and engage them in
additional meaningful ways (Hwang and Kandampully, 2012;
Keller, 2012). This emotional dimension of the bond is an
important part of the relationship. It can grow to a level where
consumers may form a passionate emotional attachment to
brands, which can be characterized as brand love (Bagozzi
et al., 2016; Batra et al., 2012; Carroll and Ahuvia, 2006). A
strong emotional bond inspires “loyalty beyond reason” and
becomes more crucial as differentiation solely based on
functional benefits (stronger, newer, cheaper) loses ground
 Consumer brand engagement
Teresa Fernandes and Mariana Moreira
with increasing technological advances (Pawle and Cooper,
2006).
The nature of consumer–brand relationships may lead to
different levels of CBE (Dessart et al., 2016; Hollebeek et al.,
2014). Consumers who develop primarily a functional-based
brand relationship do so for its utilitarian value, which mainly
relates with purchase and performance. Conversely, consumers
who develop primarily an emotional-based brand relationship
do so mainly for its symbolic value, beyond purchase and are
thus expected to be highly involved and to develop a
psychological bond with the brand. Hence, these consumers
will be more willing to invest time, effort and affection on
brand-related interactions beyond consumption (Keller, 2012)
and are more likely to exhibit CBE regarding thoughts, feelings
and behaviors, than those establishing functional, commercial
relationships. Accordingly, it is expected that:
H4. CBE (i.e. its cognitive, affective and behavioral
Downloaded by UNIVERSIDADE DO PORTO At 10:50 22 March 2019 (PT)
dimensions) is stronger for emotional consumer–brand
relationships when compared to functional consumer–
brand relationships.
Moreover, consumer–brand relationships may lead not only to
different levels of CBE, but also to different impacts on BL.
Yet, empirical knowledge on the contribution of brand
relationships to loyalty development is still very limited and
recent (Veloutsou, 2015). The few existing research attempts
have analyzed the impact of brand relationship quality on the
linkage between BL and engagement (So et al., 2016b) and
brand experience (Francisco-Maffezzolli et al., 2014), as well as
the effect of brand relationship strength on the linkages of trust,
satisfaction and brand evaluation with BL (Veloutsou, 2015).
However, these studies have only analyzed the mediating role of
brand relationships and have not considered the nature of
those relationships (namely, functional versus emotional
relationships), beyond their quality and strength. Hence, there
is no research investigating if the nature of consumer–brand
relationships may act as a moderator. Yet, it is reasonable to
expect that their functional/emotional orientation will change
the nature and strength of the relationship between variables
such as CBE or satisfaction, and BL. Namely, as emotional
relationships are expected to lead to higher levels of CBE, these
should influence BL to a greater extent when compared with
functional relationships. As such:
H5. The (direct and indirect) impact of CBE on BL is
stronger for emotional than for functional consumer-
brand relationships.
Accordingly, Figure 1 depicts the research framework.
3. Research methodology
A cross-sectional survey was applied to two independent
convenience samples, a justifiable approach, utilized in most
engagement research. Respondents were invited by mail and
through social media to participate in a web-based self-
administered survey about the relationships established with
brands. To get meaningful results (Fetscherin et al., 2014),
brands were self-selected: respondents of one sample were
asked to recall a brand with which they had a functional
278
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 28 · Number 2 · 2019 · 274–286
Figure 1 Research framework
relationship, while the other respondents were asked to
consider a brand with which they had an emotional
relationship. The survey included a definition of both types of
consumer–brand relationships according to the literature
(Bhat and Reddy, 1998; Fournier, 1998; Hwang and
Kandampully, 2012; Keller, 2012). Accordingly, when the
consumer primarily values the brand for its functional role,
associated with objective benefits, such as efficiency or
reliability, and inherent characteristics of brand attributes (e.g.
price, design, quality), the consumer-brand relationship was
characterized as “functional”. Conversely, when the consumer
primarily values the brand for its symbolic benefits, for the
social desirability of the brand and its self-expressive value,
which satisfy consumer’s high-level needs and engage them in
additional meaningful ways, the consumer-brand relationship
was considered as “emotional”.
Though acknowledging that some relationships may
incorporate both components (functional and emotional), it is
the relative balance between the two that matters (Chaudhuri
and Holbrook, 2002), and thus, this research distinguishes
between primarily functional or emotional relationships.
Respondents then completed the questionnaire with reference
to the brand they had identified.
The survey included questions about CBE, considering its
three-dimensions, Satisfaction and BL, which was examined in
terms of repeat purchases and willingness to recommend the
brand (Oliver, 1999; Yoo and Donthu, 2001), incorporating
both attitudinal and behavioral measures (Rundle-Thiele and
Bennett, 2001). All variables were measured using scales
adapted from the literature (Table II), measured with a seven-
point Likert scale, ranging from “totally disagree” to “totally
agree”. A causal model was developed using structural
equation modelling (SEM) in AMOS 22.0.
Data collection sorted 655 valid answers (320 for functional
brands and 335 for emotional brands). The most represented
brand categories include soft drinks, fashion and apparel,
technology and grocery shops, corresponding to a large
spectrum of categories and industries, enhancing external
validity and generalizability of results. Respondents declared
having an emotional relationship with brands such as Apple (7
per cent), Nike (6 per cent), Coke (3 per cent), Samsung (3 per
cent) and Adidas (2 per cent), while functional relationships
were identified with, for example, Apple (7.5 per cent), Zara (4
per cent), Nivea (2 per cent), Nestlé (2 per cent) and a couple
of local supermarkets (3 per cent to 4 per cent). Overall, brands
reported on the two samples were different, but there were also
similarities (e.g. Apple was the most referred to in both),
 Consumer brand engagement Journal of Product & Brand Management
Teresa Fernandes and Mariana Moreira Volume 28 · Number 2 · 2019 · 274–286

Table II Measurement scales, reliability and dimensionality statistics

Model constructs Full Sample** Functional Brands** Emotional Brands**

COGNITIVE CBE
(Hollebeek et al. 2014; Dwivedi, 2015) a = 0.81; AVE = 0.64; CR = 0.88 a = 0.83; AVE = 0.67; CR = 0.89 a = 0.79; AVE = 0.61; CR = 0.86
COG1: I think a lot about [brand] 0.811 0.820 0.800
COG2: [Brand] stimulates my interest 0.756 0.794 0.724
COG3: When I use [brand] I forget everything 0.793 0.800 0.772
COG4: Time flies when I interact with [brand] 0.847 0.853 0.831
COG5: It’s difficult to detach myself when using
[brand]* – – –
AFFECTIVE CBE
(Hollebeek et al. 2014; Dwivedi, 2015) a = 0.89; AVE = 0.71; CR = 0.92 a = 0.90; AVE = 0.72; CR = 0.93 a = 0.89; AVE = 0.69; CR = 0.92
AFF1: [Brand] inspires me 0.838 0.851 0.821
AFF2: I am proud of using [brand] 0.882 0.905 0.862
AFF3: I use [brand] with total dedication 0.786 0.802 0.769
AFF4: Using [brand] makes me happy 0.859 0.844 0.870
AFF5: I feel enthusiastic about [brand] 0.829 0.831 0.826
Downloaded by UNIVERSIDADE DO PORTO At 10:50 22 March 2019 (PT)

BEHAVIORAL CBE
(Hollebeek et al. 2014; Dwivedi, 2015) a = 0.83; AVE = 0.61; CR = 0.86 a = 0.81; AVE = 0.64; CR = 0.88 a = 0.75; AVE = 0.58; CR = 0.85
BEH1: I spend a lot of time using [brand] 0.733 0.741 0.723
BEH2: [Brand] is one I often use in [category] 0.799 0.849 0.776
BEH3: Within [category] I always use [brand] 0.846 0.858 0.826
BEH4: I feel like using [brand] 0.748 0.753 0.724
BEH5: I’d like to stick with [brand] despite some
problems with it * – – –
BRAND LOYALTY
(Yoo and Donthu, 2001; Dwivedi, 2015) a = 0.86; AVE = 0.66; CR = 0.91 a = 0.88; AVE = 0.69; CR = 0.92 a = 0.85; AVE = 0.64; CR = 0.90
LOY1: I would recommend [brand] to friends 0.820 0.829 0.810
LOY2: I will buy [brand] again 0.784 0.821 0.751
LOY3: I will not buy another brand if [brand] is
present in the store 0.742 0.748 0.737
LOY4: I am faithful to [brand] 0.840 0.866 0.823
LOY5: I am committed to [brand] 0.872 0.879 0.864
SATISFACTION
(Dwivedi, 2015) a = 0.90; AVE = 0.77; CR = 0.93 a = 0.91; AVE = 0.79; CR = 0.94 a = 0.89; AVE = 0.76; CR = 0.93
SAT1: I did the right thing when I bought [brand] 0.911 0.912 0.910
SAT2: I am satisfied with [brand] 0.864 0.869 0.858
SAT3: [Brand] meets my expectations 0.880 0.899 0.860
SAT4: My choice was a wise one 0.859 0.868 0.852
Notes: *Items removed due to weak factor loadings; **all standardized factor loadings are significant (p < 0.000); full sample: x 2(142) = 417.738, p < 0.00
(x 2/df = 2.942, CFI = 0.974, TLI = 0.958, RMSEA = 0.054; SRMR = 0.053); functional brands: x 2(142) = 356.357, p < 0.00 ( x 2/df = 2.510, CFI = 0.963, TLI = 0.941,
RMSEA = 0.068; SRMR = 0.064); emotional brands: x 2(142) = 308.186, p < 0.00 ( x 2/df = 2.170, CFI = 0.968, TLI = 0.948, RMSEA = 0.059; SRMR = 0.048)

highlighting that classifying a brand as emotional or functional
is a highly subjective matter, subject to multiple interpretations
(Hollebeek, 2013). Though consumers are expected to form
stronger relationships for some product categories than for
others (Fetscherin et al., 2014; Veloutsou, 2007), their
attitudes towards brands vary mainly due to their subjective
perceptions about the self-concept role of the brand, with self-
expressive brands resulting in more powerful emotional
responses (Carroll and Ahuvia, 2006). Respondents were
predominantly women (72 per cent), young (16-24 years old:
50.7 per cent; 24-34: 28.2 per cent; 44-64: 21.1 per cent) and
had a bachelor’s (40 per cent), master’s (28.4 per cent) or PhD
(9.4 per cent) degree (while the remaining 22.2 per cent only
completed high school). Respondents profiles were similar in
both data sets, as required for comparability of functional (72.5
per cent women; mean age: 28; bachelor’s degree: 41.9 per
cent) and emotional (62.7 per cent women, mean age: 29;
bachelor’s degree: 38.2 per cent) groups.
4. Research findings
4.1 Measurement model evaluation
Composite measures of identified factors were unidimensional
and demonstrated good scale reliability (Nunnally, 1978). Two
items (COG5 and BEH5) reduced scale reliability because of
weak factor loadings and were removed. Internal reliability tests

279
 Consumer brand engagement Journal of Product & Brand Management
Teresa Fernandes and Mariana Moreira Volume 28 · Number 2 · 2019 · 274–286

showed strong Cronbach’s alpha (ranging from 0.81 to 0.90),
Composite Reliability (CR) and Average Variances Extracted
(AVE), with estimates above recommended minimums of 0.70
and 0.50, respectively (Fornell and Lacker, 1981; Bagozzi and
Yi, 1988). Overall fit indices indicate the robustness of the
resulting first-order measurement model (Table II) according
to accepted standards (Hu and Bentler, 1999; Tabachnick and
Fidell, 2007; Hair et al., 2017).
Convergent and discriminant validity were demonstrated by
factor loadings and pairwise correlations between factors,
respectively. All factor loadings were statistically significant
(p < 0.01), supporting convergent validity. Moreover,
estimated pairwise correlations between factors:
did not exceed 0.85 and were significantly less than one
(Bagozzi and Yi, 1988); and
the square root of AVE for each construct was higher than
the correlations between them (Fornell and Larcker,
1981), supporting discriminant validity (Anderson and
Downloaded by UNIVERSIDADE DO PORTO At 10:50 22 March 2019 (PT)
examination) was significantly different from the freely
estimated model. The difference was significant (p = 0.000),
indicating discriminant validity. Moreover, the correlation
between the two constructs was within two standard errors
(SE) of unity (SE = 0.012, p = 0.001), offering further support
for discriminant validity between the constructs (Anderson and
Gerbing, 1988).
After establishing the strength and psychometric properties
of the scales underpinning the first-order model, a second-
order factor analysis was performed to test the higher-order
factor measurement model, considering the model
dimensions as first-order indicators of CBE. The overall
index score has a standardized Cronbach’s alpha of 0.870.
The second-order standardized factor loadings were all
positive, higher than 0.50 and significant (p < 0.01). The
affective dimension (0.923) emerged as the most important
dimension of CBE, followed by the cognitive (0.897) and
behavioral (0.834) components. Overall indices suggest

a good fit of data (Figure 2), supporting a reflective

Gerbing, 1988), except for Satisfaction and BL
(Table III).
Therefore, a chi-square test was performed (Anderson and
Gerbing, 1988) to examine whether a restricted model (where
the correlation was fixed to 1 for the pair of constructs under
measurement model.
4.2 Predictive validity of consumer brand engagement
The predictive validity of CBE regarding BL (H1 to H3) was
examined in two steps. First, a base model was estimated,

Table III Means, reliabilities and correlations of model constructs

Model constructs Mean SD a CR AVE Cognitive Affective Behavioral Satisfaction Loyalty
Cognitive CBE 3.653 1.70 0.812 0.878 0.644 0.802
Affective CBE 4.346 1.74 0.892 0.923 0.705 0.786 0.840
Behavioral CBE 5.252 1.52 0.826 0.863 0.613 0.586 0.652 0.783
Satisfaction 5.565 1.25 0.898 0.932 0.774 0.402 0.549 0.701 0.879
Loyalty 5.240 0.65 0.860 0.907 0.661 0.451 0.554 0.712 0.875 0.813
Notes: Diagonals are the square root of AVE of each factor. Correlations on the off-diagonal; p < 0.01 for all correlations

Figure 2 Results for the higher-order model of CBE

I think a lot about [brand]

0.811
[Brand] stimulates my interest 0.756

0.793
COGNITIVE
When I use [brand] I forget everything DIMENSION
0.847
Time flies when I interact with [brand]
0.897

[Brand] inspires me 0.838

I am proud of using [brand] 0.882

0.923
0.786 AFFECTIVE CBE
I use [brand] with total dedication
0.859 DIMENSION
Using [brand] makes me happy
0.829
I feel enthusiastic about [brand] 0.834

I spend a lot of time using [brand]

0.733
[Brand] is one I often use in [category] 0.799
BEHAVIORAL
Within [category] I always use [brand] 0.846 DIMENSION
0.748
I feel like using [brand]

Notes: All standardized coefficients are significant (p < 0.05); χ2(39) =

100.965, p < 0.00 (χ2/df = 2.589, CFI = 0.988, TLI = 0.976, RMSEA = 0.049,
SRMR = 0.026

280
 Consumer brand engagement
Teresa Fernandes and Mariana Moreira
specifying CBE as the sole antecedent of BL, without including
Satisfaction. Results show acceptable model fit (Model 1,
Figure 3), providing support for H1.
Second, the base model was augmented by further
including Satisfaction as an antecedent of BL (H2) and
addressing its mediating effect (H3). The augmented model
indexes suggest a good fit (Model 2, Figure 3). Model 2
explains 93.3 per cent of BL variability and 44.4 per cent of
Satisfaction variability, with a significant total effect of CBE
on BL ( b = 0.634). Results further show Satisfaction as an
outcome of CBE ( b = 0.576), with Satisfaction having in
turn a positive impact on BL ( b = 0.896). The results of a
bootstrap analysis (Preacher and Hayes, 2004) based on
3,000 samples suggest that Satisfaction mediates the CBE to
BL path (indirect effect = 0.516; 95 per cent[CI] = 0.434 to
0.604; p = 0.001). Yet, though failing to provide support for
H2, results also show there is still a significant direct path
from CBE to BL ( b = 0.118), even when Satisfaction is
Downloaded by UNIVERSIDADE DO PORTO At 10:50 22 March 2019 (PT)
included in the model. Hence, findings suggest both a direct
and indirect positive impact of CBE on BL, with Satisfaction
partially mediating the relationship between both constructs,
providing support for H1 and H3.
Figure 3 Results for the predictive validity of CBE regarding brand
loyalty
281
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 28 · Number 2 · 2019 · 274–286
4.3 The moderating role of the nature of consumer–
brand relationships
To test the moderating role of the nature of consumer brand
relationships (H4 and H5), multi-group analysis was used
(Byrne, 2004). Before conducting comparison across groups, a
factor analysis with each data set was performed separately
(Table II). In both groups, factor loadings exhibited a similar
pattern, were significant, demonstrated good internal
consistency and scale reliability (Steenkamp and Baumgartner,
1998). Overall indices for both subsamples suggest acceptable
fit to data.
4.3.1 H4 testing results
To verify H4, a latent mean analysis (Byrne et al., 1989) was
conducted to determine whether significant differences
between CBE dimensions means exist according to the
functional or emotional nature of consumer–brand
relationships. Three types of invariance (i.e. configural, metric
and scalar invariance) required for latent mean analysis were
assessed (Steenkamp and Baumgartner, 1998).
First, a baseline, unconstrained measurement model was
specified based on both data sets. A good fit to data ( x 2(254) =
664.547, p < 0.00 ( x 2/df = 2.340, CFI = 0.965, TLI = 0.943,
RMSEA = 0.045, SRMR = 0.070) indicates configural
invariance. When compared with a fully constrained model, the
quality of model adjustment was not significantly different
(D x 2(17) = 21.868, p = 0.190), suggesting metric invariance.
Through a similar procedure, scalar invariance was also
assessed. The x 2 difference was significant (D x 2(39) = 100.498,
p = 0.000), suggesting evidence of variance. However, in these
cases, Steenkamp and Baumgartner (1998) recommend the
assessment of changes in other fit parameters. A comparison of
these indices indicated that they were virtually identical to those
of the unconstrained model (CFI = 0.960, TLI = 0.940,
RMSEA = 0.047, SRMR = 0.070), suggesting scalar
invariance.
As the three invariance tests were satisfied, the latent mean
analysis was conducted (Table IV). The analysis was
performed by constraining the latent means of the emotional
group to zero, so that the estimated latent means of the
functional group represent the mean differences between the
two groups. Results based on z-tests show statistically
significant differences, with all CBE dimensions (particularly,
affection) being less intensive for functional over emotional
relationships. Thus, though functional brands are also able to
generate CBE, consumers tend to feel more engaged with
brands with which they have a primarily emotional connection.
Table IV Comparison of latent mean scores by the nature of brand
relationship
CBE Dimensions Mean difference Estimate (F-E) SE Za
Cognitive "0.601 0.091 "6.620*
Affective "1.055 0.099 "10.867*
Behavioural "0.747 0.108 "6.883*
Notes: *Significant at p < 0.000; F(E): functional (emotional) group; SE:
standard error; Z: critical ratio; aZ0.975 = 1.96
 Consumer brand engagement
Teresa Fernandes and Mariana Moreira
4.3.2 H5 testing results
To test H5, moderation tests were conducted to determine
whether the strength of the hypothesized paths were different
between functional and emotional brand relationships. Cross-
validation of the causal model was achieved by testing three types
of invariance (i.e. configural, metric and factor variance) following
Steenkamp and Baumgartner (1998) recommendations.
Unconstrained models based on both the functional and the
emotional brands data sets were specified. Results for Model 1
show a good fit to the data (x 2(190) = 507.766, p < 0.00 (x 2/df =
2.672, CFI = 0.964, TLI = 0.942, RMSEA = 0.048, SRMR =
0.062), indicating configural invariance.
After specifying a fully constrained model, the quality of
model adjustment was not significantly different when
compared with the unconstrained model (D x 2(14) = 14.270,
p = 0.430), suggesting metric invariance. Factor invariance was
also established (D x 2(18) = 17.978, p = 0.457). Next, both
models at path level were compared by constraining the CBE to
Downloaded by UNIVERSIDADE DO PORTO At 10:50 22 March 2019 (PT)
BL path to be equal for both sample. The x 2 difference
(D x 2(1) = 3.928, p < 0.05) indicates that the direct path
between CBE and BL is significantly higher for emotional
brands ( b = 0.698) when compared to functional brands ( b =
0.645), partially supporting H5.
The same procedure was developed for Model 2. After
specifying the unconstrained model ( x 2(312) = 732.910, p <
0.00 ( x 2/df = 2.349, CFI = 0.961, TLI = 0.943, RMSEA =
0.045, SRMR = 0.065), which again indicates configural
invariance, metric (D x 2(17) = 21.015, p = 0.226) and factor
invariance (D x 2(23) = 24.165, p = 0.395) were also established.
Next, both models at path level were compared (Table V) by
constraining each of the path models (the CBE to Satisfaction
path and the Satisfaction to BL path) one at a time. The x 2
difference (D x 2(1) = 5.459, p = 0.019) indicates that the direct
path between CBE and Satisfaction is significantly higher for
emotional brands ( b = 0.697) when compared to functional
brands ( b = 0.634). Furthermore, given the x 2 difference
(D x 2(1) = 4.862, p = 0.027), the direct path between
Satisfaction and BL is significantly higher for functional brands
( b = 0.893) when compared to emotional brands ( b = 0.854).
A bootstrap analysis based on 3,000 samples suggests that
Satisfaction mediates the CBE to BL path, both for functional
(indirect effect = 0.495; 95 per cent[CI] = 0.393 to 0.612; p =
0.001) and emotional brands (indirect effect = 0.538; 95 per
cent[CI] = 0.410 to 0.696; p < 0.001). Though there is also a
significant direct path from CBE to BL ( b = 0.107 and b =
0.113, p < 0.05, respectively), there is an indirect impact,
mediated by Satisfaction, stronger for emotional brands.
Table V Causal moderating effects: functional and emotional brand relationships
Functional brands
Structural paths b SE
Model 1
CBE ! Brand loyalty 0.645 0.054
Model 2
CBE ! Satisfaction 0.634 0.046
Satisfaction ! Brand loyalty 0.893 0.070
Notes: *Significant at p < 0.05; b : path coefficient; SE: standard error; Z: critical ratio; aZ0.975 = 1.96
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 28 · Number 2 · 2019 · 274–286
Analyzing critical ratios (CR), the conclusions are similar
(Table V). Regarding Model 1, the CBE to BL path is
significantly higher for emotional vs. functional brands (CR =
"1.998). Regarding Model 2, the CBE to Satisfaction path is
significantly higher for emotional versus functional brands
(CR = 2.349), and the Satisfaction to BL path is significantly
higher for functional versus emotional brands (CR = "2.170).
5. Conclusions
CBE is a relatively new concept in marketing, which has been
attracting attention from academics and practitioners,
promising to significantly advance knowledge on consumer–
brand relationships (Dessart, 2017). However, despite recent
developments, much remains to be understood about both
phenomena and the interplay between them, as well as about
the managerial value of CBE. On one hand, research has so far
been inconclusive on which types of brand relationships are
more conductive of CBE. On the other hand, although the
relationship between CBE and BL has been claimed extensively
in the literature, research has been predominantly conceptual
and has still not provided robust evidence regarding how these
variables relate to each other. Moreover, the few existing
empirical studies lack generalizability (Hollebeek et al., 2014),
focus on social media engagement (Dessart, 2017) and/or are
limited to a particular brand, industry or context (Dwivedi,
2015), and hence fail to examine the impact of consumer-
brand relationships. Yet, given its relational nature, CBE may
be a complement or even a better predictor of BL than other
conventional judgments (such as Satisfaction), and the nature
of brand relationships may play a moderating role in the
strength of these connections. Therefore, addressing calls to
focus on the impact of specific brand types on engagement
(Dessart et al., 2016; Hollebeek et al., 2014; Simon et al.,
2016), this study allows for a better understanding of the
moderating role of functional and emotional brands on CBE
and on its direct and/or indirect impact on BL. This study
further adds to the existing body of knowledge by empirically
establishing the independent contribution of CBE to BL and
the mediating role played by Satisfaction, globally and for both
types of brands, thus contributing to an emerging research
topic and demonstrating the value of CBE. To the best of our
knowledge, no study has previously analyzed the moderating
effect of consumer–brand relationships, or the mediating role of
Satisfaction on the contribution of CBE to BL, across a large
variety of brand categories.
In line with previous studies (Dessart et al., 2016; Hollebeek
et al., 2014), results validate CBE as a three-dimensional
Emotional brands
p-value b SE p-value Za
< 0.001 0.698 0.070 < 0.001 1.998*
< 0.001 0.697 0.059 < 0.001 2.349*
< 0.001 0.854 0.071 < 0.001 "2.170*
282
 Consumer brand engagement
Teresa Fernandes and Mariana Moreira
construct, comprised of its cognitive, emotional and behavioral
components. While assessing CBE’s predictive validity,
findings show a significant impact of CBE on BL (Figure 3,
Model 1), even when Satisfaction is included as an antecedent
in the analysis (Figure 3, Model 2). Though Satisfaction,
traditionally regarded as fundamental to BL, plays a major role,
the direct effect of CBE on BL was still globally significant.
These results are at odds with previous studies developed in
very specific contexts which supported a dominant
contribution of CBE to BL (Calder et al., 2016b; Dwivedi,
2015; So et al., 2016a). Yet, they corroborate other researchers
(Bowden, 2009; Carrol and Ahuvia, 2006), who are moving
beyond satisfaction and focusing on the contribution that CBE
also has to BL. Notably, in addition to this direct impact,
results suggest that CBE significantly influences Satisfaction,
which in turn leads to BL (Figure 3, Model 2), establishing
Satisfaction as a significant mediator and supporting the
positive indirect impact of CBE on BL.
Downloaded by UNIVERSIDADE DO PORTO At 10:50 22 March 2019 (PT)
Furthermore, while analyzing the differences in CBE
according to the functional or emotional nature of consumer–
brand relationships, this study concludes that CBE is stronger
for emotional than functional relationships in all its dimensions
(Table IV). Thus, though CBE can be extended to “mundane”
brands (Vivek et al., 2014), consumers tend to feel more
engaged with brands with which they have a primarily
emotional connection (Hwang and Kandampully, 2012).
Moreover, through a multi-group analysis, the effect of CBE on
BL proved to be stronger for emotional brands (Table V,
Model 1). Again, when Satisfaction was included as an
antecedent in the analysis (Table V, Model 2), the direct effect
of CBE on BL was still significant for both brands, with the
impact of Satisfaction on BL proving to be significantly
stronger for functional brands. The study also concludes that
CBE is particularly impactful on Satisfaction for emotional
brands, while Satisfaction has a stronger role in the
development of BL for functional brands (Table V, Model 2).
As Satisfaction relates to a post-purchase rational assessment
and a cognitive judgment linked to prior expectations, it is
expected to exert a stronger effect on loyalty to functional,
utilitarian-based brands, mainly valued for their performance
attributes. When considering emotional brands, primarily
valued for their symbolic meanings, CBE, a relationship-based
concept that moves beyond mere purchase, is expected to have
a stronger impact on BL when compared to Satisfaction.
Hence, though significant for both brands, the indirect effect of
CBE on BL is overall stronger for emotional brands, leading to
a stronger total effect of engagement when compared with
functional brands. As such, findings suggest that BL can be
strengthened combining both purchase-based (Satisfaction)
and beyond-purchase based (CBE) variables, thus expanding
existing theory and providing empirical evidence (so far largely
lacking) that supports the contribution of CBE to the BL
literature.
Overall, our findings enhance knowledge on how consumers
engage with and become loyal to brands, offering important
implications for brand managers. Though brands are
increasingly investing in engaging consumers, uncertainties
remain on the return of these efforts. This study suggests that,
beyond the dominant role of Satisfaction, CEB can also
contribute to enhance BL, thus establishing its managerial
283
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 28 · Number 2 · 2019 · 274–286
value to brands. When Satisfaction is increasingly becoming a
basic, minimum requirement of being in the game rather than a
driving factor (Pansari and Kumar, 2017), this study shows
that not only CBE incrementally explains BL together with
Satisfaction, but also impacts Satisfaction as a significant
predictor of BL, particularly when brands are able to evoke an
affective relationship with consumers. Yet, though to a lesser
extent, also functional brands can benefit from engaging their
customers, as loyalty to these brands is strengthened not only
directly (and strongly) through Satisfaction, but also indirectly
through CBE. Hence, for brand managers, CBE may represent
a competitive advantage, particularly if focus is given to the
symbolic benefits of the brand and to brand “meaningfulness”,
instead of merely focusing on price or quality. Beyond primary
transactional needs, the exchange process now demands the
establishment of relational bonds between consumers and
brands, and simply satisfying customers is no longer enough to
make them loyal, even for utilitarian products.
Challenged by a highly competitive environment characterized
by consumers’ switching behaviors, and by the “increasingly
interactive and experiential nature of consumer relationships [. . .]
beyond core purchase situations” (Dessart et al., 2015, p. 28),
brands may retain and commit consumers through entertaining,
co-creating and stimulating experiences outside core transactions
(Merrilees, 2016). These may lead to cognitive, affective and
behavioral manifestations of CBE, which in turn may increase
Satisfaction and BL. Moreover, and considering the significant
impact of social media, brands should use it to complement
traditional forms of engagement by promoting online consumer
interactions, product information and content sharing; even
among individuals who are not actual customers of the brand but
nevertheless fell engaged with it. This can be accomplished
through, for example, virtual brand communities (Hollebeek
et al., 2017; Dessart, 2017; Gong, 2018), together with other
connective tools that establish consumers’ psychological
ownership and incentivize them to voluntarily contribute to
marketing functions (Harmeling et al., 2017).
Moreover, traditionally managers have used marketing
research data to measure satisfaction as a key performance
indicator. This research shows that, given the role of CBE as a
direct and indirect predictor of BL, engagement should also be
regularly measured. Through the scale used in this study, brand
managers can better examine overall engagement and its
dimensions and identify effects of their engagement strategies
while monitoring them over time. Managers can further gain
insights into consumers’ CBE levels, their cognitions, emotions
and behaviors during brand interactions and how they vary
across segments. This may then be applied in designing
targeted engagement strategies (e.g. to gain their conscious
attention, to let them know more about the brand, to elicit
enjoyable experiences, to develop reciprocal interactions) to
generate enhanced loyalty outcomes. The scale also allows
managers to understand the different relevance of each CBE
dimension according to the nature of consumer–brand
relationships, with the affective dimension being particularly
variable (Table IV). Yet, the study mainly proves that, whether
brand relationships are predominantly functional or emotional
in nature, increasing CBE levels creates value for both the firm
and the consumer, enhancing BL directly or indirectly through
Satisfaction.
 Consumer brand engagement
Teresa Fernandes and Mariana Moreira
Some limitations and opportunities for future research need to
be acknowledged. The study characterized brand relationships
according to their primarily utilitarian or symbolic value from the
consumer’s point of view. However, other dimensions can be
considered to characterize these relationships (Fournier, 1998;
Keller, 2012), as well as other brand outcomes and CBE
mediators. Furthermore, brands were self-selected by
respondents (and not pre-determined by researchers); however,
this implied having no control over the characteristics of selected
brands, and may encompass some favorability bias, which can
lead to over-estimated measures of CBE, Satisfaction and BL. In
addition, data were collected using a convenience sample, which
warrants caution in generalizing results and calls for further cross-
validation. Moreover, this study only included existing customers
of self-selected brands; future studies could also examine
potential customers. Another limitation lies in the cross-sectional
nature of the research. The study investigates a single point in
time and includes consumers from a single, Western European
Downloaded by UNIVERSIDADE DO PORTO At 10:50 22 March 2019 (PT)
country. Given that culture is expected to play a significant role in
determining whether the nature of brand relationships is
considered functional or emotional, and in adopting distinctive
CBE styles and behaviors (Gong, 2018; Hollebeek, 2018), future
research is advised to replicate this study in different countries
and cultures. Additionally, given that engagement is a context-
dependent construct (Hollebeek, 2011), future research is
encouraged to develop a comparative analysis of CBE in, for
example, online and offline settings. Finally, though discussions
around the conceptualization of CBE seem consistent, its
dimensionality and measurement still raise some debate
(Dessart et al., 2016), with some researchers questioning its
multidimensional (France et al., 2016) and reflective nature
(Hepola et al., 2017). Therefore, future research is encouraged to
examine different CBE measurement scales.
References
Ahuvia, A., Bagozzi, R. and Batra, R. (2014), “Psychometric
vs. C-OAR-SE measures of brand love: a reply to Rossiter”,
Marketing Letters, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 235-243.
Albert, N. and Merunka, D. (2013), “The role of brand love in
consumer-brand relationships”, Journal of Consumer
Marketing, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 258-266.
Anderson, J. and Gerbing, D. (1988), “Structural equation
modeling in practice – a review and recommended two-Step
approach”, Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-423.
Bagozzi, R. and Yi, Y. (1988), “On the evaluation of structural
equation models”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 74-94.
Bagozzi, R., Batra, R. and Ahuvia, A. (2016), “brand love:
development and validation of a practical scale”, Marketing
Letters, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Bairrada, C., Coelho, F. and Coelho, A. (2018), “Antecedents
and outcomes of brand love: utilitarian and symbolic Brand
qualities”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52 Nos 3/4,
pp. 656-682.
Batra, R., Ahuvia, A. and Bagozzi, R. (2012), “brand love”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 76 No. 2, pp. 1-16.
Bennett, R. and Rundle-Thiele, S. (2004), “Customer
satisfaction should not be the only goal”, Journal of Services
Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 514-523.
284
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 28 · Number 2 · 2019 · 274–286
Bergkvist, L. and Bech-Larsen, T. (2010), “Two studies of
consequences and actionable antecedents of brand love”,
Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 17 No. 7, pp. 504-518.
Bhat, S. and Reddy, S. (1998), “Symbolic and functional
positioning of brands”, Journal of Consumer Marketing,
Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 32-43.
Bowden, J. (2009a), “The process of customer engagement: a
conceptual framework”, Journal of Marketing Theory and
Practice, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 63-74.
Bowden, J. (2009b), “Customer engagement: a framework for
assessing customer-brand relationships: the case of the
restaurant industry”, Journal of Hospitality Marketing and
Management, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 574-596.
Bowden, J., Conduit, J., Hollebeek, L., Luoma-aho, V. and
Solem, B. (2017), “Engagement valence duality and
spillover effects in online Brand communities”, Journal of
Service Theory and Practice, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 877-897.
Brodie, R., Hollebeek, L., Juric, B. and Ilic, A. (2011),
“Customer engagement: conceptual domain, fundamental
propositions, and implications for research”, Journal of
Service Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 252-271.
Brakus, J., Schmitt, B. and Zarontello, L. (2009), “Brand
experience: what is it? How is it measured? Does it affect
loyalty?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 73 No. 3, pp. 52-68.
Byrne, B. (2004), “Testing for multi-group invariance using
AMOS graphics: a road less traveled”, Structural Equation
Modeling: a Multidisciplinary Journal, Vol. 11 No. 2,
pp. 272-300.
Byrne, B., Shavelson, R. and Muthen, B. (1989), “Testing for
the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: the
issues of partial measurement invariance”, Psychological
Bulletin, Vol. 105 No. 3, pp. 456-466.
Calder, B., Isaac, M. and Malthouse, E. (2016b), “How to
capture consumer experiences: a context-specific approach
to measuring engagement - predicting consumer behavior
across qualitatively different experiences”, Journal of
Advertising Research, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 39-52.
Calder, B., Malthouse, E. and Maslowska, E. (2016a), “Brand
marketing, big data and social innovation as future research
directions for engagement”, Journal of Marketing Management,
Vol. 32 Nos 5/6, pp. 579-585.
Carroll, B. and Ahuvia, A. (2006), “Some antecedents and
outcomes of brand love”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 17 No. 2,
pp. 79-89.
Carvalho, A. and Fernandes, T. (2018), “Understanding
customer Brand engagement with virtual social communities:
a comprehensive model of drivers, outcomes and moderators”,
Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 26 Nos 1/2,
pp. 23-37.
Chaudhuri, A. and Holbrook, M. (2002), “Product-class
effects on Brand commitment and Brand outcomes: the role
of Brand trust and Brand affect”, Journal of Brand
Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 33-58.
Clark, M. (1984), “Record keeping in two types of
relationships”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Vol. 47, pp. 549-557.
Delgado-Ballester, E. and Munuera-Alemán, L. (2001),
“Brand trust in the context of Brand loyalty”, European
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 Nos 11/12, pp. 1238-1258.
 Consumer brand engagement
Teresa Fernandes and Mariana Moreira
Delgado-Ballester, E. and Munuera-Alemán, L. (2005), “Does
Brand trust matter to Brand equity”, Journal of Product &
Brand Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 187-196.
Dessart, L. (2017), “Social media engagement: a model of
antecedents and relational outcomes”, Journal of Marketing
Management, Vol. 33 Nos 5/6, pp. 375-399.
Dessart, L., Veloutsou, C. and Morgan-Thomas, A. (2015),
“Consumer engagement in online Brand communities: a
social media perspective”, Journal of Product & 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.
Dwivedi, A. (2015), “A higher-order model of consumer Brand
engagement and its impact on loyalty intentions”, Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 24, pp. 100-109.
Esch, F., Langner, T., Schmitt, B. and Geus, P. (2006), “Are
Downloaded by UNIVERSIDADE DO PORTO At 10:50 22 March 2019 (PT)
brands forever? How Brand knowledge and relationships
affect current and future purchases”, Journal of Product &
Brand Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 98-105.
Fetscherin, M. and Heinrich, D. (2014), “Consumer Brand
relationships: a research landscape”, Journal of Brand
Management, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 366-371.
Fetscherin, M., Boulanger, M., Gonçalves, C. and Quiroga, G.
(2014), “The effect of product category on consumer Brand
relationships”, Journal of Product & Brand Management,
Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 78-89.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D. (1981), “Structural equation
models with unobservable variables and measurement
error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 3,
pp. 382-388.
Fournier, S. (1998), “Consumers and their brands: developing
relationship theory in consumer research”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 343-373.
Fournier, S. and Alvarez, C. (2012), “Brands as relationship
partners: warmth, competence and in-Between”, Journal of
Consumer Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 177-185.
Fournier, S. and Yao, J. (1997), “Reviving Brand loyalty: a
reconceptualization within the framework of consumer-
brand relationships”, International Journal of Research in
Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 451-472.
France, C., Merrilees, B. and Miller, D. (2016), “An integrated
model of customer-brand engagement: drivers and
consequences”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 23 No. 2,
pp. 119-213.
Francisco-Maffezzolli, E., Semprebon, E. and Prado, P.
(2014), “Construing loyalty through Brand experience: the
mediating role of Brand relationship quality”, Journal of
Brand Management, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 446-458.
Gong, T. (2018), “Customer Brand engagement behavior in
online Brand communities”, Journal of Services Marketing,
Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 286-299.
Grönroos, C. (1996), “Relationship marketing: strategic and
tactical implications”, Management Decision, Vol. 34 No. 3,
pp. 5-14.
Gustafsson, A., Johnson, M. and Roos, I. (2005), “The effects of
customer satisfaction, relationship commitment dimensions,
and triggers on customer retention”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 69 No. 4, pp. 210-218.
285
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 28 · Number 2 · 2019 · 274–286
Hair, J., Babin, B. and Krey, N. (2017), “Covariance-Based
structural equation modeling in the journal of advertising:
review and recommendations”, Journal of Advertising,
Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 163-177.
Harmeling, C., Moffett, J., Arnold, M. and Carlson, B. (2017),
“Toward a theory of customer engagement marketing”, Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 312-335.
Hepola, J., Karjaluoto, H. and Hintikka, A. (2017), “The effect
of sensory Brand experience and involvement on Brand
equity directly and indirectly through consumer Brand
engagement”, Journal of Product & Brand Management,
Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 282-293.
Hollebeek, L. (2011), “Demystifying customer Brand
engagement: exploring the loyalty nexus”, Journal of Marketing
Management, Vol. 27 Nos 7/8, pp. 785-807.
Hollebeek, L. (2013), “The customer engagement/value
interface: an exploratory investigation”, Australasian
Marketing Journal, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 17-24.
Hollebeek, L. (2018), “Individual-level cultural consumer
engagement styles: conceptualization, propositions and
implications”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 35 No. 1,
pp. 42-71.
Hollebeek, L., Glynn, M. and Brodie, R. (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., Juric, B. and Tang, W. (2017), “Virtual Brand
community engagement practices: a refined typology and
model”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 31 No. 3,
pp. 204-217.
Hwang, J. and Kandampully, J. (2012), “The role of emotional
aspects in younger consumer-brand relationships”, Journal of
Product & Brand Management, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 98-108.
Hu, L. and Bentler, P. (1999), “Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in
covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus
new alternatives”, Structural Equation Modeling: a
Multidisciplinary Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-55.
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 & Brand Management, Vol. 22
Nos 5/6, pp. 342-351.
Jahn, B. and Kunz, W. (2012), “How to transform consumers
into fans of your Brand”, Journal of Service Management,
Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 344-361.
Kandampully, J., Zhang, T. and Bilgihan, A. (2015),
“Customer loyalty: a review and future directions with a
special focus on the hospitality industry”, International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 27
No. 3, pp. 379-414.
Keller, K. (1993), “Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing
customer-based Brand equity”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57
No. 1, pp. 1-22.
Keller, K. (2012), “Understanding the richness of Brand
relationships: research dialogue on brands as intentional
agents”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 2,
pp. 186-190.
Leckie, C., Nyadzayo, M. and Johnson, L. (2016), “Antecedents
of consumer Brand engagement and Brand loyalty”, Journal of
Marketing Management, Vol. 32 Nos 5/6, pp. 558-578.
 Consumer brand engagement
Teresa Fernandes and Mariana Moreira
Merrilees, B. (2016), “Interactive Brand experience pathways to
customer-brand engagement and value co-creation”, Journal of
Product & Brand Management, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 402-408.
Nunnally, J. (1978), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New
York, NY.
Oliver, R. (1999), “Whence consumer loyalty?”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 63 No. 4, pp. 33-44.
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.
Payne, A., Storbacka, K., Frow, P. and Knox, S. (2009), “Co-
creating brands: diagnosing and designing the relationship
experience”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 62 No. 3,
pp. 379-389.
Pawle, J. and Cooper, P. (2006), “Measuring emotion –
Lovemarks, the future beyond brands”, Journal of Advertising
Research, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 38-48.
Preacher, I. and Hayes, A. (2004), “SPSS and SAS procedures
Downloaded by UNIVERSIDADE DO PORTO At 10:50 22 March 2019 (PT)
for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models”,
Behavior Research Methods, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 717-731.
Rundle-Thiele, S. and Bennett, R. (2001), “A Brand for all
seasons? A discussion of Brand loyalty approaches and their
applicability for different markets”, Journal of Product &
Brand Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 25-37.
Simon, C., Brexendorf, T. and Fassnacht, M. (2016), “The
impact of external social and internal personal forces on
consumers’ Brand community engagement on Facebook”,
Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 25 No. 5,
pp. 409-423.
So, K., King, C. and Sparks, B. (2014), “Customer
engagement with tourism brands: scale development and
validation”, Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, Vol. 38
No. 3, pp. 304-329.
So, K., King, C., Sparks, B. and Wang, Y. (2016a), “The role
of customer engagement in building consumer loyalty to
tourism brands”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 55 No. 1,
pp. 64-78.
So, K., King, C., Sparks, B. and Wang, Y. (2016b),
“Enhancing customer relationships with retail service
brands: the role of customer engagement”, Journal of Service
Management, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 170-193.
Sprott, D., Czellar, S. and Spangenberg, E. (2009), “The
importance of a general measure of Brand engagement on
market behavior: development and validation of a scale”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 92-104.
Steenkamp, J. and Baumgartner, H. (1998), “Assessing
measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research”,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 78-90.
Tabachnick, B. and Fidell, L. (2007), Using Multivariate
Statistics, 5th ed., Allyn and Bacon, New York, NY.
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
286
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 28 · Number 2 · 2019 · 274–286
Veloutsou, C. (2007), “Identifying the dimensions of the
product-brand and consumer relationship”, Journal of
Marketing Management, Vol. 23 Nos 1/2, pp. 7-26.
Veloutsou, C. (2015), “Brand evaluation, satisfaction and trust
as predictors of Brand loyalty: the mediator-moderator effect
of Brand relationships”, Journal of Consumer Marketing,
Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 405-421.
Veloutsou, C. and Moutinho, L. (2009), “Brand relationships
through Brand reputation and Brand tribalism”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 62 No. 3, pp. 314-322.
Vivek, S., Beatty, S. and Morgan, R. (2012), “Customer
engagement: exploring customer relationships beyond
purchase”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 20
No. 2, pp. 122-146.
Vivek, S., Beatty, S., Dalela, V. and Morgan, R. (2014), “A
generalized multidimensional scale for measuring customer
engagement”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice,
Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 401-420.
Westbrook, R. (1987), “Product/consumption-based affective
responses and postpurchase processes”, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 258-270.
Yoo, B. and Donthu, N. (2001), “Developing and validating a
multidimensional consumer-based Brand equity scale”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Further reading
Brodie, R., Ilic, A., Juric, B. and Hollebeek, L. (2013),
“Consumer engagement in a virtual Brand community: an
exploratory analysis”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66
No. 1, pp. 105-114.
Veloutsou, C. (2009), “Brands as relationship facilitators in
consumer markets”, Marketing Theory, Vol. 9 No. 1,
pp. 127-130.
About the authors
Teresa Fernandes is an Assistant Professor of Marketing at
the Faculty of Economics, University of Porto, Portugal. She
holds a PhD in Business Management, University of Porto,
Portugal. Her main research focus is on consumer
relationships and social media marketing. Teresa Fernandes is
the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
tfernandes@fep.up.pt
Mariana Moreira is a former Master student at Faculty of
Economics, University of Porto, Portugal. She holds a Master
in Marketing degree from Faculty of Economics, University of
Porto, Portugal.