Consumer Emotional Brand Attachment With Social Media Brands and Social Brand Equity

European Journal of Marketing
Consumer emotional brand attachment with social media brands and social media
brand equity
Abhishek Dwivedi, Lester W. Johnson, Dean Charles Wilkie, Luciana De Araujo-Gil,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Abhishek Dwivedi, Lester W. Johnson, Dean Charles Wilkie, Luciana De Araujo-Gil, (2018)
"Consumer emotional brand attachment with social media brands and social media brand equity",
European Journal of Marketing, https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-09-2016-0511
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-09-2016-0511
Downloaded by Universitas Indonesia At 21:43 23 March 2019 (PT)
Downloaded on: 23 March 2019, At: 21:43 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 125 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2282 times since 2018*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2015),"Consumer engagement in online brand communities: a social media perspective", Journal
of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 24 Iss 1 pp. 28-42 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/
JPBM-06-2014-0635">https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-06-2014-0635</a>
(2012),"Are social media replacing traditional media in terms of brand equity
creation?", Management Research Review, Vol. 35 Iss 9 pp. 770-790 <a href="https://
doi.org/10.1108/01409171211255948">https://doi.org/10.1108/01409171211255948</a>
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:602779 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0566.htm
Consumer
Consumer emotional brand emotional
attachment with social media brand
attachment
brands and social media
brand equity
Abhishek Dwivedi Received 15 September 2016
Revised 17 October 2017
Charles Sturt University, Albury, Australia 28 April 2018
Accepted 15 May 2018
Lester W. Johnson
Swinburne University, Hawthorn, Australia
Dean Charles Wilkie

The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia, and
Luciana De Araujo-Gil
Universidad Diego Portales, Santiago, Chile
Abstract
Purpose – The ever-growing popularity of social media platforms is evidence of consumers engaging
emotionally with these brands. Given the prominence of social media in society, the purpose of this paper is to
understand social media platforms from a “brand” perspective through examining the effect of consumers’
emotional attachment on social media consumer-based brand equity (CBBE).
Design/methodology/approach – This paper develops a model that outlines how emotional brand
attachment with social media explains social media CBBE via shaping consumer perceptions of brand
credibility and consumer satisfaction. An online survey of 340 Australian social media consumers provided
data for empirical testing. The inclusion of multiple context-relevant covariates and use of a method-variance-
adjusted data matrix, as well as an examination of an alternative model, adds robustness to the results.
Findings – The findings of this paper support the conceptual model, and the authors identify strong
relationships between the focal variables. A phantom model analysis explicates specific indirect effects of
emotional brand attachment on CBBE. The authors also find support for a fully mediated effect of emotional
brand attachment on social media brand equity. Further, they broaden the nomological network of emotional
brand attachment, outlining key outcomes.
Research limitations/implications – This paper offers a conceptual mechanism (a chain-of-effects) of
how consumer emotional brand attachment with social media brands translates into social media CBBE. It
also finds that a brand’s credibility as well as its ability to perform against consumer expectations (i.e.
satisfaction) are equally effective in translating emotional brand attachment into social media CBBE.
Practical implications – Social media brands are constantly challenged by rapid change and ongoing
criticism over such issues as data privacy. The implications from this paper suggest that managers should
make investments in creating (reinforcing) emotional connections with social media consumers, as this will
favorably impact CBBE by way of a relational mechanism, that is, via enhancing credibility and consumer
satisfaction.
Social implications – Lately, social media in general has suffered from a crisis of trust in society. The
enhanced credibility of social media brands resulting from consumers’ emotional attachments will potentially
serve to enhance its acceptance as a credible form of media in society.
Originality/value – Social media platforms are often examined as brand-building platforms. This paper European Journal of Marketing
adopts a different perspective, examining social media platforms as brands per se and the effects of emotional © Emerald Publishing Limited
0309-0566
attachments that consumers develop towards these. This paper offers valuable insights into how consumers’ DOI 10.1108/EJM-09-2016-0511
EJM emotional attachments drive vital brand judgments such as credibility and satisfaction, ultimately
culminating into social media CBBE.
Keywords Emotional brand attachment, Consumer satisfaction, Brand credibility,
Consumer-based brand equity, Social media brands
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
The proliferation of social media in society has been unprecedented. Monthly active users of
LinkedIn, Twitter, Instagram and Facebook are in the vicinity of 100 million, 320 million,
400 million and 1.6 billion, respectively (Adweek, 2016). Altogether, these figures highlight
that users are engaging with social media brands at a higher rate than ever before. Social
media brands enable their consumers to pursue a wide variety of interests, ranging from
seeking entertainment to inter-personal networking to self-expression, thereby addressing
consumers’ psychological and social needs (Heinonen, 2011; Quan-Haase and Young, 2010).
Today, social media brands are generating favorable experiences for consumers in a
technology-mediated environment that were not possible in a time without social media.
In an era where consumers are increasingly seeking favorable brand experiences across
consumption domains (Brakus et al., 2009), social media brands are ideally positioned to
provide rich sensory, affective and cognitive experiences to their users. In this research, we
focus on the emotional aspect of consumers’ social media experience. Our focus
complements the ethos and objectives of the current Special Issue, addressing the role that
emotions play in consumer behavior towards social media technology. Specifically, we seek
to examine the emotional attachment that consumers develop towards social media brands.
It is increasingly being recognized that consumers’ emotional attachments towards brands
help explain consumer behaviors, such as consumer advocacy (Hudson et al., 2015;
VanMeter et al., 2015), as well as brand loyalty and performance (Park et al., 2010; Thomson
et al., 2005). Despite the early understanding that emotional brand attachments can influence
brand outcomes, little is known about how emotional attachment with social media brands
help explain consumer behavior towards these brands.
Prior research has examined the role of emotional aspects such as affection on social
media brand usage intentions (Hollebeek et al., 2014), and the role of social media attachment
on consumer-to-consumer advocacy in social media (VanMeter et al., 2015); however, some
knowledge gaps persist. For instance, there is little insight into how emotional attachments
may shape holistic brand judgments, such as consumer-based brand equity (Pappu et al.,
2005; Yoo and Donthu, 2001). According to the Marketing Magazine, some of the world’s
most-valued social media brands such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube have brand
values in billions of dollars (Androich, 2013). Our investigation will help practitioners
understand the underlying consumer-perceptual dynamics that perhaps form a basis for
such financial valuations.
In the present paper, we develop a conceptual framework linking emotional brand
attachment to consumer-based brand equity (CBBE) of social media brands. The framework
is mediational, that is, the effect of emotional brand attachment on CBBE is argued to flow
through consumer perceived brand credibility and consumer satisfaction. Brand credibility
and consumer satisfaction represent two vital brand judgments that potentially form the
basis of consumer–brand relationships. Moreover, such judgments can originate from
consumers’ emotional (affective) attachments. Studies have shown that positive affect can
enhance credibility judgments (Fournier, 1998; Kim and Villegas, 2009) as well as feelings of
satisfaction (Homburg et al., 2006; Pham, 1998). This is because feelings can serve as sources
of information that guide decision-making (Pham, 1998; Pham et al., 2001), complementing Consumer
research in psychology that highlights the role of affect in individual decision-making (Isen, emotional
2001; Lerner et al., 2015). Thus, in our mediational framework, the effect of emotional brand brand
attachment on CBBE materializes via brand credibility and consumer satisfaction, thereby
generating new insights.
attachment
Through our research, we seek to offer important practical, academic and societal
contributions. From a practical standpoint, we offer a mechanism through which CBBE is
generated in social media platforms per se. There is an increasing recognition that social
media platforms are virtual “third places” (Köhl and Götzenbrucker, 2014; McArthur and
White, 2016) where consumers congregate and spend significant amount of time. Our
findings clearly inform social media practitioners about how user emotional attachments
culminate into CBBE development in such virtual gathering sites that have become integral
to users; our results have far reaching implications for ongoing usage and loyalty towards
these platforms. From an academic standpoint, we contribute to the emergent literature
on emotional brand attachment. The nomological network of the construct is yet to be fully
established (Park et al., 2006), and our study represents an effort in that direction,
explicating novel nomological relationships. Further, by validating Thomson et al.’s (2005)
emotional brand attachment conceptualization in a social media context per se, we advance
the understanding of consumer emotional connections with social media platforms. Finally,
from a societal perspective, our findings may help address a worrying trend towards a
perceived lack of user trustworthiness in social media (Lichtermann, 2016; Scott, 2017). Our
findings suggest that with the development of favorable emotional connections between
users and social media brands, perceived credibility (trust) of social media brands is likely to
improve. Next, we present the conceptual foundations of our study.
Conceptual foundations
Attachment theory
Emotional attachments were first investigated in the context of parent–child connections.
Bowlby (1988) defined attachment as a disposition to seek proximity and contact with
another individual who is the object of attachment. Individuals normally engage in
proximity-seeking behavior towards the attachment object, as it offers a safe haven, and
when this attachment object is lost, a sense of grief and separation agony ensues (Berman
and Sperling, 1994; Hazan and Shaver, 1994). Interpersonal attachment is associated with
stronger feelings of dependency, closeness, love, affection and passion (Aron and Westbay,
1996; Collins and Read, 1990). It appears that strong interpersonal attachment is a
fundamental necessity that continues through adulthood (Hazan and Shaver, 1994).
In consumer behavior, it is recognized that consumers develop emotional attachments
with marketable entities, such as material possessions (Kleine and Baker, 2004), gifts (Mick
and DeMoss, 1990), places (Williams et al., 1992), celebrities (Thomson, 2006) and brands
(Percy et al., 2004; Slater, 2000). These attachments are developed so that people fulfil
experiential, symbolic and emotional needs (Park et al., 2006). For instance, Slater (2000)
identified that consumers show feelings of love and warmth towards brands such as Coca-
Cola and Hallmark. Similarly, Percy et al. (2004) observed that consumers show favorable
emotions towards product brands such as Dove and Sansex. With the increasing
prominence of social media in people’s lives, users are developing emotional connections
with their preferred social media brands (Harrigan et al., 2017; Jenkins-Guarnieri et al., 2013).
We review this literature next.
EJM Attachment with social media platforms
Consumers’ emotional connections with social media platforms in general have been
investigated largely in the information systems literature, and examinations in the
marketing discipline remain sparse. Social media is relatively new, emerging mainly in the
early 2000s. Before this timeframe, research mainly examined users’ emotional states in
computer-mediated environments.
Early research into users’ emotional connections with technology platforms evolved from
research examining user emotional connections in computer-mediated environments. Davis
et al. (1992) were among the first to study emotional connections in such environments,
observing that user enjoyment had a positive effect on software usage intentions. Within an
online shopping context, Mummalaneni (2005) observed that shoppers’ emotional states of
pleasure and arousal affected web purchase behavior as well as satisfaction with online
shopping. Agarwal and Karahanna (2000) found that users may experience heightened
enjoyment in their usage of IT (web) platforms. Similarly, Dholakia et al. (2004) found that
users in a web-based networked community (e.g. web-based chat rooms or UseNet groups)
may form a sense of belonging with the community. O’Brien and Toms (2008) observed that
users experience diverse favorable emotions, such as enjoyment, fun and physiological
arousal, when engaging with web-based technology.
Research examining emotional connections with social media platforms per se gained
momentum in the 2010s. This stream of research examined the diverse emotions that users
experience when using social media. Koch et al. (2012) report that organizational users
demonstrated positive emotional responses (e.g. happiness and comfort) when using
organizational social networking sites. A study of Facebook users by Chiu et al. (2013) found
that a feeling of well-being (e.g. experiencing pleasant emotions when in Facebook) affected
user loyalty towards the platform.
Köhl and Götzenbrucker (2014) found that social media users tend to experience positive
emotions such as warmth and cosiness when interacting with their preferred social media
platforms and that these platforms allow users a form of self-expression. Similarly, Oh et al.
(2014) observed that social media use has favorable psychological implications in that
positive affect (emotions) experienced by social media users was positively associated with
perceived life satisfaction.
Within the management and marketing disciplines, emotional connections with social
media brands have also been highlighted (Harrigan et al., 2017; Hollebeek et al., 2014;
VanMeter et al., 2015). Hollebeek et al. (2014) conceptualize and measure consumer brand
engagement in social media which includes an emotional component called affection. The
study reports that affection with social media exerted positive impacts on user self-brand
connection with a social media platform as well as ongoing usage intentions. Harrigan et al.
(2017) examined customer engagement with tourism social media brands, such as Lonely
Planet, Airbnb and TripAdvsior, and observed that absorption with social media represents
an emotional aspect of engagement reflecting pleasant state in which users feel happy and
engrossed. Similarly, VanMeter et al. (2015) conceptualize and measure user attachment to
social media. A focal aspect of user attachment is enjoyment which reflects the role of social
media in helping consumers to enjoy and relax. Lowe and Johnson (2017) examine how
emotional aspects help toward shaping consumer engagement within virtual communities.
More recently, multiple studies have reported the effect of users’ emotional connections
with social media platforms on outcomes, such as attitudes towards social media platforms
(Teo, 2016), satisfaction with the use of social media (Lee, 2016), sense of value (Zhang et al.,
2017) and active user participation in a platform (Gharib et al., 2017).
To summarize this section, consumers tend to develop emotional attachments with Consumer
brands. The literature on social media attachments in particular highlights the role of emotional
consumers’ emotional attachments with social media brands, with favorable implications for
the ongoing use of social media.
brand
attachment
Conceptualizing emotional brand attachment
We conceptualize emotional brand attachment as the bond which connects a consumer to a
brand characterized by feelings of affection, connection and passion (Thomson et al., 2005).
Affection refers to consumer feelings of peace, love and friendliness towards a brand.
Connection reflects feelings of being attached and bonded with a brand, whereas passion
denotes feelings such as consumer delight and captivation with a brand (Thomson et al.,
2005).
In the present study, we adopted Thomson et al.’s (2005) three-dimensional
conceptualization for two main reasons. First, the dimensions of affection, connection and
passion as outlined by Thomson et al. (2005) are conceptually consistent with various
emotions as outlined in the previous literature. Affection is conceptually consistent with
emotions of brand love (Batra et al., 2012), affection-based engagement (Hollebeek et al.,
2014), comfort (Koch et al., 2012), as well as, warmth and cosiness (Köhl and Götzenbrucker,
2014). Connection seems to conceptually reflect facets of affective commitment (Gharib et al.,
2017) and a sense of belonging (Dholakia et al., 2004). Similarly, passion conceptually
overlaps with emotions of pleasure and arousal (Mummalaneni, 2005), enjoyment (Davis
et al., 1992; VanMeter et al., 2015), enthusiasm (Zhang et al., 2017), as well as a state of
absorption (Harrigan et al., 2017). Hence, Thomson et al.’s (2005) conceptualization
represents a holistic (yet parsimonious) approach to representing consumers’ emotional
attachment with brands.
Second, Thomson et al.’s (2005) conceptualization has been validated across diverse
contexts, capturing consumer attachments with movies (Dunn and Hoegg, 2014), virtual
avatars (Suh et al., 2011), product brands (Read et al., 2011), brand extensions (Fedorikhin
et al., 2008), service (festival) brands (Hudson et al., 2015), retailer brands (Dolbec and
Chebat, 2013) and corporate brands (So et al., 2013) as well as across consumers’ self-
authenticating contexts (Guèvremont and Grohmann, 2016). Thus, the conceptualization has
received adequate empirical scrutiny. Further, the use of a consistent conceptualization is
beneficial to the advancement of knowledge.
In addition, we conceive emotional brand attachment at a higher (second-order) level of
abstraction which is reflected via the three dimensions of affection, connection and passion.
We adopt a reflective measurement stance, as we consider the three dimensions as a subset
of possibly a broader array of expressed emotions (e.g. love and intimacy) which reflect
underlying attachment (Fournier, 1998); this implies that the three dimensions of affection,
connection and passion likely co-vary, as these express an underlying emotional state.
Therefore, a higher-order reflective conceptualization of emotional brand attachment seems
appropriate.
Hypotheses development
Emotional brand attachment and brand credibility
Emotions possess the capability to shape consumer beliefs, thereby influencing consumer
perceptions of trust towards a preferred brand (Yim et al., 2008). Insights from interpersonal
relationships help explain the underlying dynamics of how emotional brand attachment
may influence brand credibility. Johnson and Rusbult (1989) suggest that relational partners
may engage in devaluation of alternative partners to maintain commitment to an existing
EJM relationship. We argue that similar processes may apply to consumer–brand relationships
(Shimp and Madden, 1988). Johnson and Rusbult (1989) offer a two-fold reasoning; the first
entails a motivational logic, whereby when an individual’s beliefs are in conflict with their
existing relationships and they experience changes in cognitions that are directed towards
maintaining these relationships. Reducing the perceived appeal of an alternative partner is
one way to reduce the internal conflict. For consumer-brand relationships, we argue that to
maintain ongoing emotionally laden relationships, consumers may devalue alternative
brands. That is, to protect an ongoing commitment, a consumer may disparage some
attributes of competing brands, thereby maintaining exclusivity in ongoing relationships
(Fournier, 1998).
Second, individuals presently in committed relationships are usually happy and,
therefore, may use the present relationship as a benchmark to judge alternative partners.
Hence, committed partners are more likely to judge alternatives as falling short of
expectations (Johnson and Rusbult, 1989). We expect similar dynamics in consumer-
brand relationships. Loureiro et al. (2012) observe that consumers’ emotional connections
with a brand positively impact brand trust, which is a vital aspect of brand credibility.
We conceptualize brand credibility as the “believability of the product position
information contained in a brand” (Erdem and Swait, 2004, p. 191), including believability
of whether a brand has the ability and the willingness to deliver on promises. Hence,
emotionally attached consumers, by way of proximity-seeking behavior, may show
cognitive rigidity and reject information that challenges or is inconsistent with one’s
beliefs (Park et al., 2006). This results in biased information processing and selective
attention to positive information about a preferred brand (Park et al., 2006). Such biasing
effects of positive feelings have been reported in consumer evaluation of affect-laden
advertisements (Edell and Burke, 1987). The potential positive relationship between
emotional brand attachment and brand credibility receives support from Fournier (1998,
p. 350), whereby consumers’ emotional attachments with entities may lead to a sense of
“predictability, security, and constancy” with those entities and which may be perceived
as lacking in other alternatives. Others also observe a similar relationship between
emotional attachment and company credibility (Kim and Villegas, 2009). Hence, we
hypothesize:
H1. Emotional brand attachment has a direct positive impact on brand credibility.
Emotional brand attachment and consumer satisfaction

Consumer satisfaction is defined as pleasurable fulfilment (Oliver, 1999), meaning that a
consumer senses that consumption fulfils some needs, desires and/or goals and that this
fulfilment is pleasurable. Thus, satisfaction is “the consumer’s sense that consumption
provides outcomes against a standard of pleasure versus displeasure” (Oliver, 1999, p.34)
and reflects a post-consumption evaluative judgment of a brand (Aurier and N’Goala,
2010). Social media consumption comprises diverse facets, such as engaging in ongoing
synchronous peer-to-peer interactions, self-expression, as well as consuming member-
supplied content. Hence, it is highly experiential in nature, requiring a holistic (overall)
measure that captures the totality of individual social media experience. Forming
emotional attachments can enhance individual well-being, and such attachments with
social media brands likely lead to favorable social interactions and gratification of
experiential and symbolic needs (Park et al., 2006), such as experiencing enjoyable
interactions and enrichment of one’s self (say, via belongingness to a particular social
media community) that shape a sense of overall satisfaction.
Objects of attachment provide contentment and relaxation to consumers by way of Consumer
fulfilling needs and wants (Oliver, 1999). Further, consumers’ emotional brand attachment emotional
likely reinforces perceptions of superiority of a preferred brand vis-à-vis competing brands
(Johnson and Rusbult, 1989), further leading to enhanced satisfaction. Moreover, an integral
brand
component of consumer experiences with a brand is the affective element that reflects attachment
consumers’ emotional experiences (Brakus et al., 2009). Brakus et al. (2009) argue that
experiences may provide value and utility to consumers similar to utilitarian attributes and
observed that brand experience predicts consumer satisfaction. We expect that emotional
brand attachment offers added value to consumers by way of gratifying fundamental needs,
likely influencing consumer satisfaction.
We derive additional support for the role of emotional attachment in shaping consumer
satisfaction judgment from the information processing literature which is based on the
premise that feelings are sources of information that guide decision-making (Pham, 1998;
Pham et al., 2001). Consumers apparently adopt a “how-do-I-feel-about-it” heuristic when
making judgments about consumption episodes, meaning that positive feelings generally
lead to favorable evaluations (Pham, 1998). Such affect-initiated judgments may materialize
through spreading-activation mechanisms of consumer brand associations in consumer
memory of a brand (Keller, 1993). Individual affective states are represented theoretically as
“emotion nodes” (or chunks of emotional information) in consumer memory (Forgas, 1994).
During a consumption experience, when consumers invoke the feeling heuristic, the
emotional nodes are primed and the inherent emotional information spreads to other
associations, ultimately influencing judgment formation. Overall, it seems that consumers
can make satisfaction (or dissatisfaction) judgments based on the valence of their feelings
(Homburg et al., 2006; Pham, 1998). Hence, we expect that emotional brand attachment will
positively influence consumer satisfaction and hypothesize:
H2. Emotional brand attachment has a direct positive impact on consumer satisfaction.
Emotional brand attachment and consumer-based brand equity

How emotional brand attachment may influence CBBE can be understood using the concept
of brand knowledge and its workings. Brand knowledge is conceptualized as a network of
brand associations in consumer memory that vary in terms of their strength, uniqueness or
favorability (Keller, 1993); the totality of these associations are reflective of CBBE. Aaker
(1991) conceived CBBE mainly in terms of consumers’ brand awareness, associations,
perceived quality and brand loyalty. Later, based on Keller’s and Aaker’s
conceptualizations, Yoo and Donthu (2001) empirically formalized CBBE in terms of three
dimensions – brand awareness/associations, perceived quality and brand loyalty.
Accordingly, we conceive CBBE as a latent higher-order abstraction which is jointly
reflected by the three dimensions.
Brand associations can be conceived as emotional impressions in addition to the product
and non-product-related associations (Supphellen, 2000). These emotional impressions refer
to consumers’ emotional reactions to brand-related stimuli which are stored in memory.
That is, emotional brand attachments can lead to the formation of affect-laden memories
which likely enhance the salience (i.e. prominence) of brand associations (Fedorikhin et al.,
2008), and enhanced brand salience is a vital part of CBBE (Romaniuk and Sharp, 2004).
Also, higher levels of emotional attachments may create points-of-difference (Keller, 1993)
that distinguish a preferred brand from its alternatives, subsequently enhancing CBBE.
Furthermore, via spreading-activation mechanisms of memory structures (Keller, 1993),
emotional attachments likely reinforce or strengthen existing brand associations and brand
EJM beliefs. This dynamic is observed in advertising, whereby advertisement-evoked emotions
influence consumer memory (Friestad and Thorson, 1986), as well as brand attitude (Kim
et al., 1998) and purchase likelihood (Aaker et al., 1986). Attachment is a relational construct,
and consequently, will shape commitment (i.e. loyalty) towards a brand (Aaker, 1991;
Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001). Higher levels of emotional brand attachment should result
in enhanced proximity-maintenance behaviors and a willingness to invest cognitive and
financial resources towards the attachment object (Fedorikhin et al., 2008). Hence,
consumers are less likely to seek alternatives and more likely to demonstrate brand loyalty
(Thomson et al., 2005). Hence, we hypothesize:
H3. Emotional brand attachment has a direct positive impact on consumer-based brand
equity.
Brand credibility and consumer-based brand equity

Brand credibility refers to the believability of a brand’s intention at a given time (Erdem
et al., 2002). This believability is first built on the consumers’ perceptions as to whether a
brand has the ability to deliver what it promises – its clarity of positioning (Erdem and
Swait, 1998), and second, on trust – the feeling of confidence and reassurance that the brand
will meet their expectations (Delgado-Ballester and Luis Munuera-Alemán, 2001). Thus, we
conceive brand credibility as a higher-order abstraction encompassing the dimensions of
clarity of positioning and brand trust.
Brand credibility increases CBBE by reducing information costs and perceived risks
(Erdem and Swait, 1998). Links can also be conceived between brand credibility and each of
the three dimensions of CBBE. First, each of the experiences that lead to the building of trust
can be associations stored in the consumer’s mind. The ability to judge the clarity of the
brand’s positioning can only come from the storage of associations based on a brand’s past
marketing activities (Erdem and Swait, 1998). We argue that a brand being perceived as less
risky is an association which derives from brand credibility. Accordingly, Pappu and
Quester (2006) note that brand credibility should lead to stronger and more favorable
associations. For example, consumers who see Facebook as being more credible might
associate the attribute of “photo sharing” and related benefits, more strongly than
consumers who perceive Facebook to be less credible.
Further, credibility associated with a brand signals (unobservable) quality to a consumer,
thereby enhancing consumers’ subjective assessments or perceptions of quality (Baek et al., 2010;
Erdem et al., 2002). Hence, brands perceived as being credible are likely perceived to be higher in
quality. Finally, brand credibility is critical to creating a long-term relationship with a consumer,
as loyalty is often built on trust and continually delivering on promises made (Reichheld and
Schefter, 2000). The role of credibility in driving brand loyalty also comes from its ability to
reduce feelings of vulnerability and risk associated with the usage of a brand (Erdem and Swait,
1998), which is important within the consumption context of social media brands, given the
inherent risks and concerns associated with this rapidly evolving technology (Aydin and Özer,
2005). Thus, credibility, built through trust and clarity of purpose, leads to brand loyalty.
Considering these arguments, we hypothesize:
H4. Brand credibility has a direct positive impact on consumer-based brand equity.
Consumer satisfaction and consumer-based brand equity

To build CBBE, a brand must continually provide experiences that satisfy consumer needs
and desires as this will likely sustain the relationship (Sweeney and Swait, 2008). Often,
satisfaction is linked to brand loyalty, as loyalty is one of the ways in which consumers can Consumer
express their satisfaction with a brand (Delgado-Ballester and Luis Munuera-Alemán, 2001). emotional
Oliver (1999) clearly positions satisfaction as an antecedent of loyalty through providing
several conceptual bases as to why this is the case. These include that satisfaction is a
brand
temporal state whereas loyalty is built on continual experiences and that satisfaction can attachment
exist without loyalty, but rarely can loyalty exist without satisfaction. Some research
supports the view that satisfaction explains loyalty (Jamal and Anastasiadou, 2009).
Consumer satisfaction can also be linked to the two other dimensions of CBBE. First,
each positive experience of satisfaction with a brand can create a learned association (Van
Osselaer and Janiszewski, 2001). Similarly, highly satisfied consumers are more likely to
store positive brand associations in their mind than are less satisfied consumers (Pappu and
Quester, 2006). For example, consumers who are highly satisfied with LinkedIn’s usability
are more likely to have a positive association than those who are less satisfied. Finally,
satisfaction with a consumption outcome can lead to the consumer associating a brand’s
attributes with that of an ideal attribute combination, leading to higher levels of preference
(Carpenter and Nakamoto, 1989).
A conceptual link exists also between satisfaction and perceived quality. However, there
is debate as to whether perceived quality is an antecedent or consequence of satisfaction
(Pappu and Quester, 2006; Olsen, 2002). Those who argue that quality is an antecedent claim
that perceived quality is an evaluation of attribute performance and that satisfaction is the
feeling that results from this evaluation (Olsen, 2002). For example, the quality of the usage
experience with the social media brand will determine the consumer’s level of satisfaction.
The other view asserts that perceived quality is an evaluative judgment, based on perceived
performance and satisfaction gained from using the brand’s current products or services
(Keller, 1993). In this scenario, highly satisfied consumers would be more likely to believe
that the quality of the usage experience with the social media brand will be greater than that
of a less satisfied user (Pappu and Quester, 2006). We adopt this view given our objective of
understanding the relationship between consumer satisfaction and CBBE (Pappu and
Quester, 2006). Hence, we hypothesize as follows (and our conceptual model is presented in
Figure 1).
H5. Consumer satisfaction has a direct positive impact on consumer-based brand
equity.
Mediated effects
We conceptualize emotional brand attachment as exerting mediated (indirect) influences on
CBBE via relationship-based mechanisms (processes) involving brand credibility and
consumer satisfaction. Brand credibility and consumer satisfaction are relational constructs
(Baek et al., 2010; Garbarino and Johnson, 1999), and we expect these to transmit the effects
of emotional brand attachment indirectly on CBBE. First, we expect a credibility-building
pathway to CBBE. That is, once emotional brand attachment shapes brand credibility, it
likely affects consumers’ knowledge of a social media brand, thereby impacting CBBE.
Second, once consumers perceive a sense of satisfaction with a social media brand resulting
from their emotional attachment, it will likely result in formation/strengthening of brand
associations in memory (Van Osselaer and Janiszewski, 2001), thus impacting CBBE.
Therefore, strong emotional connections with social media brands can enhance CBBE
through improved brand credibility and consumer satisfaction. Such indirect effects of
emotional attachment are conceived as mediational pathways, whereby brand credibility
EJM Clarity of
Brand trust positioning
Affection
Aff
ffection Brand Awareness /
credibility associations
H4 +
H1 +
Emotional brand H3 + Consumer-based Perceived

Connection quality
attachment brand equity
H2 + H5 +
Consumer Brand
Passion satisfaction loyalty
Covariates:
Figure 1. Category involvement, perceived differentiation, brand attitude, self-
Hypothesized model brand congruence, relationship proneness and extraversion.
and consumer satisfaction each mediate the effects of emotional brand attachment on CBBE.
Hence, we hypothesize:
H6. Brand credibility significantly mediates the effect of emotional brand attachment
on consumer-based brand equity.
H7. Consumer satisfaction significantly mediates the effect of emotional brand
attachment on consumer-based brand equity.
Research design
We collected cross-sectional data using a self-administered web survey of 340 Australian
social media users. A commercial research firm was hired to supply data from consumers
who enrolled voluntarily on their panel. The respondents were asked to nominate one social
media brand that they used the most and were presented with a listing of 15 social media
brands such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, LinkedIn and Tumblr as well as an “Other”
option. The nominated brand was then auto-populated in the survey. The survey used
multiple data-validation checks to ensure valid data. First, the respondents were prevented
from taking the survey twice. Second, the respondents who entered nonsense data in the
“Other” option when nominating brands were eliminated. Third, those respondents who
selected exactly the same rating point on a pre-specified set of statements were eliminated
(such respondents were treated as not paying adequate attention to the content of the
statements). Fourth, respondents were eliminated if they incorrectly addressed the item
“Please select Slightly Disagree if you read this question”, as this signaled that such
respondents were not paying adequate attention. All eliminated cases were duly substituted
with valid cases by the research firm.
We addressed through questionnaire design various response and non-response biases
that might exist in cross-sectional surveys. Common method variance (bias) was a main
concern, given the self-administered nature of our survey. We split the questionnaire using
section headers and sub-introductions, avoided mixing of items across constructs and
refrained from using negatively-worded items (Podsakoff et al., 2003). We also checked that Consumer
the items did not contain hidden cues to respondents, as well as ensured respondent emotional
anonymity and confidentiality (Podsakoff et al., 2003). In addition, we collected data on a
“marker” variable (Lindell and Whitney, 2001) that was theoretically unrelated to the
brand
substantive variables of the study. The marker variable was the respondents’ “use of public attachment
transport” (Dwivedi et al., 2015). We empirically examined the severity of common method
variance post hoc (presented later).
Further, we formatted the questionnaire such that the items measuring the key
antecedent and dependent variables were placed furthest from each other. For instance, the
items measuring emotional brand attachment and CBBE were well separated and
interspersed with items pertaining to the covariates. This design aspect creates theoretical/
cognitive separation between the antecedent and dependent variables, thereby minimizing
potential self-generated validity (Feldman and Lynch, 1988). Importantly, we placed the
items measuring CBBE before the items measuring brand attitude (a covariate) to
potentially minimize a brand halo effect (Yoo and Donthu, 2001), whereby respondent
perceptions become biased when expressing overall attitudes before evaluating specific
details that might contribute towards those attitudes (e.g. quality perceptions).
We minimized the potential influence of social desirability bias by ensuring that
respondents were aware of the voluntary nature of their participation as well as ensuring
complete anonymity. These aspects, along with the self-administered nature of our survey,
minimized potential acquiescence/disacquiescence bias (Jaffe and Pasternak, 1997). Finally,
items were worded in accordance with their conventional usage (i.e. there were no double-
barreled questions), potentially minimizing respondent confusion that may lead to response
errors (Malhotra, 2006).
We operationalized the constructs using five-point Likert-scaled “Strongly Agree” to
“Strongly Disagree” items. Emotional brand attachment was operationalized as a three-
dimensional measure using seven items adapted from Thomson et al. (2005) and Malär et al.
(2011): affection (two items), connection (two items) and passion (three items). Consumer-
based brand equity was measured via awareness/associations (five items; Yoo and Donthu,
2001), perceived quality (four items; Spry et al., 2011) and brand loyalty (three items; Yoo
and Donthu, 2001). Consumer satisfaction was measured using four items adapted from the
literature (Aurier and N’Goala, 2010; Homburg et al., 2006). Brand credibility was
operationalized as a two-dimensional construct measured via brand trust (four items;
Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001) and clarity of positioning (three items; Pappu and Cornwell
(2014). Credibility is normally operationalized as similar to brand trust. However, we
augmented the conceptualization to include clarity of positioning that reflects “the extent to
which people know what to expect from an entity” (Simmons and Becker-Olsen, 2006,
p. 155). Clarity of positioning relates to the strength of associations in consumer memory.
Loosely held associations may be prone to competitive interference especially in mature
categories such as social media. Consumers normally use a repertoire of social media
brands, with each brand providing distinct set of benefits. Thus, we argue that clarity
regarding what a brand stands for, how it is positioned, signals credibility to users.
We also collected data on multiple covariates so that the relationships between the
hypothesized antecedents and consequences are less biased; this also helps us address
omitted variable bias (Bollen and Bauldry, 2011). The covariates were: brand attitude (two
items; Yoo and Donthu, 2001), perceived differentiation (two items; Netemeyer et al., 2004),
relationship proneness (three items; De Wulf et al., 2001), extraversion (two items; Gosling,
et al., 2003; Rammstedt and John, 2007), actual self-brand congruence (two items; Sirgy,
Grewal, Mangleburg, Park, Chon, Claiborne, Johar and Berkman, 1997) and (enduring)
EJM involvement with the social media category (four items; Yoo and Donthu, 2001). We used
structural equation modelling (SEM) with IBM SPSS AMOS 21.0 for data analysis.
Analysis and results

In all, 64 cases were eliminated based on the respondent-attention check, and 37 cases were
eliminated based on the respondents’ second attempts at the survey. In all, we received 340
complete and valid questionnaires. Our sample comprised 60 per cent female consumers
(detailed sample demographics are reported in Table I). This gender representation is not
unusual, as female users normally dominate social media usage as compared to men (Sensis,
2017). Age-groups were broadly represented in the sample; the youngest age-group
comprised around 7 per cent of the sample, whereas the oldest age-group attained a 13 per
cent representation. Regarding education, around 33 per cent of the respondents had
attained a College Certificate/Diploma or a Trade Qualification, and approximately 40 per
cent of the respondents had attained an Undergraduate or Postgraduate degree. Income-
wise, around 40 per cent of the respondents earned between A$40K to A$100K; other
income-groups were reasonably represented in the sample.
Around 74 per cent of the respondents nominated Facebook as their most used brand.
This high representation of Facebook in the sample is consistent with results from the
Sensis Social Media Report 2017 (Sensis, 2017) that notes Facebook was used by 71 per cent
Demographics No. (%) (Approximately)
Gender
Male 135 40
Female 205 60
Age
18 to 24 years old 23 7
65 years old and over 45 13
Education
Completed Year 10 or less 27 7.9
Completed Year 11 or 12 64 18.8
College Certificate or Diploma 75 22.1
Trade qualification 38 11.2
Undergraduate degree 77 22.6
Postgraduate degree 57 16.8
Rather not say 2 0.6
Income
Less than $40,000 per annum 51 15
$40,001-$60,000 per annum 51 15
$60,001-$80,000 per annum 36 10.6
$80,001-$100,000 per annum 51 15
Table I. $100,001-$150,000 per annum 63 18.5
Sample demographic Above $150,000 per annum 37 10.9
profile Rather not say 51 15
of surveyed online users. Other nominated brands comprised brands, such as Instagram, Consumer
Twitter, Google Plus, WhatsApp and LinkedIn. emotional
Next, we examined potential common method variance in the data using the “marker” variable
test (Lindell and Whitney, 2001). The smallest positive correlation of the marker with a substantive
brand
variable purportedly serves as a proxy for the effect of method variance (Lindell and Whitney, attachment
2001). This smallest positive correlation observed was 0.11 (p < 0.05). Using the Lindell–Whitney
adjustment formula, an “adjusted” correlation matrix was created that partialled-out the effects of
the marker variable. This adjusted correlation matrix was used for SEM analysis.
Measurement model
A ten-factor measurement model was specified and estimated using Confirmatory Factor
Analysis (CFA); the model revealed an acceptable fit to data: Chi-square, x 2 (851) = 1307.76
(p < 0.05); Normed x 2 = 1.54; CFI = 0.93; TLI = 0.92; RMSEA = 0.040. The standardized
item factor loadings exceeded the threshold of 0.50 (Hair et al., 2010), except for one item.
This item was “I would not use another brand of social media if [Brand X] was available”,
corresponding to brand loyalty. The weak brand loyalty item implies loyalty to one and only
one brand (as was perhaps the objective in Yoo and Donthu’s (2001) operationalization of
loyalty). However, this statement might not adequately reflect the notion of loyalty to social
media in present times when consumers may use multiple social media brands depending
on the objective of use (e.g. professional networking via LinkedIn versus hobby-based
content sharing at Pinterest). We deleted this weak item.
The measurement model was re-estimated, which fit the data adequately: x 2 (809) = 1247.60,
p = 0.044; Normed x 2 = 1.54; CFI = 0.93; TLI = 0.93; RMSEA = 0.040). The standardized item
factor-loadings, Cronbach’s alpha, Composite Reliability and Average Variance Extracted (AVE)
estimates are reported in Table II. Composite Reliability and Cronbach’s alpha estimates exceed
0.70 for all constructs, indicating acceptable reliability. We observed acceptable convergent
validity since all the standardized item factor-loadings are highly significant, and fall within the
acceptable range of 0.65-0.92, exceeding 0.50 (Hair et al., 2010). Similarly, construct AVE estimates
exceeded 0.50, thus supportive of convergent validity.
The factor scores (means), standard deviations, bivariate product-moment correlations
and the square-root of AVE estimates are reported in Table III. Construct scores (out of 5.0)
range from 2.51-4.10 and corresponding standard deviations range from 0.62-0.98. All
bivariate correlations are significant (p < 0.01) and positive. The discriminant validity
criterion is satisfied as the square-root of AVE (as reported in Table III along the upper
diagonal) for any given construct exceeds the standardized correlation coefficient of that
construct with all other constructs (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).
Next, we examined our three higher-order measures. Emotional brand attachment was
significantly measured by the first-order dimensions of affection (standardized factor loading
b = 0.96, 95 per cent Confidence Interval, CI = 0.93-0.99, p < 0.01), connection (b = 0.94, 95 per
cent CI = 0.90-0.97, p < 0.01) and passion (b = 0.97, 95 per cent CI = 0.94-0.99, p < 0.01). Brand
Credibility was significantly measured by brand trust (b = 0.94, 95 per cent CI = 0.91-0.98, p <
0.01) and clarity of positioning (b = 0.82, 95 per cent CI = 0.72-0.88, p < 0.01). Finally, CBBE was
significantly measured via awareness/associations (b = 0.88, 95 per cent CI = 0.85-0.90, p < 0.01),
perceived quality (b = 0.86, 95 per cent CI = 0.80-0.91, p < 0.01) and brand loyalty (b = 0.93, 95
per cent CI = 0.88-0.98, p < 0.01). Overall, we observe acceptable construct validity in our study.
Structural model
We estimated our hypothesized structural model, and a significant Chi-square was obtained,
x 2 (826) = 1190.55 (p < 0.05). However, an improper estimate in the form of a negative error
EJM
Standardized Composite
Constructs and items loading (sig.) reliability AVE
Affection 0.86 0.75

I feel that I love [Brand X] 0.90** – –
My feelings towards [Brand X] can be characterized by affection 0.83** – –
Connection 0.86 0.76
My feelings towards [Brand X] can be characterized by a sense of
personal connection 0.87** – –
I feel attached with [Brand X] 0.87** – –
Passion 0.88 0.70
I am passionate about [Brand X] 0.87** – –
My feelings towards [Brand X] can be characterized by delight 0.83** – –
I feel captivated by [Brand X] 0.81** – –
Awareness/associations 0.94 0.75

I can easily recognize [Brand X] 0.92** – –
Some characteristics of [Brand X] come to mind quickly 0.89** – –
I am very well aware of [Brand X] 0.86** – –
I have no difficulty in imagining [Brand X] in my mind 0.83** – –
I can quickly recall the symbol or logo of [Brand X] 0.83** – –
Perceived quality 0.90 0.70
[Brand X] offers excellent features 0.85** – –
[Brand X] offers very consistent quality 0.84** – –
[Brand X] offers a high quality experience 0.83** – –
[Brand X] is very reliable 0.82**
Brand loyalty 0.77 0.63
I feel loyal to [Brand X] 0.85** – –
[Brand X] is usually my first choice 0.73** – –
Clarity of positioning 0.84 0.64
[Brand X] conveys a clear image in all its actions 0.84** – –
[Brand X] communicates what it stands for 0.83** – –
[Brand X] has an image that is easy to understand 0.73** – –
Brand trust 0.91 0.78
[Brand X] is an honest brand 0.90** – –
I think that [Brand X] is a safe brand 0.88** – –
I trust [Brand X] as a brand of social media 0.86** – –
I rely on [Brand X] 0.65** – –
Consumer satisfaction 0.89 0.73
[Brand X] meets my expectations 0.88** – –
I am satisfied with [Brand X] 0.87** – –
I did the right thing when I signed up with or subscribed to [Brand X] 0.82** – –
Relationship proneness 0.83 0.62
Generally, I am someone who likes to be a regular user of social media 0.83** – –
Generally, I am someone who is willing to ‘go the extra mile’ to use
social media 0.79** – –
Table II. Generally, I am someone who wants to be a steady customer of social
Reliability and media 0.75** – –
validity estimates (continued)
Consumer
emotional
Standardized Composite
Constructs and items loading (sig.) reliability AVE
brand
attachment
Involvement 0.87 0.62
I am very involved with social media 0.86** – –
I use social media very often 0.79** – –
Social media is very important to me 0.79** – –
I consider myself a social media expert 0.70** – –
Self-brand congruence 0.81 0.67
The personality of [Brand X] is consistent with how I see myself (my
actual self) 0.87** – –
The personality of [Brand X] is a mirror image of me (my actual self) 0.77** – –
Extraversion 0.76 0.62
I see myself as extraverted, enthusiastic 0.82** – –

I see myself as someone who is outgoing, sociable 0.75** – –
Brand attitude 0.87 0.77
I like [Brand X] very much 0.91** – –
[Brand X] is very desirable 0.85** – –
Perceived differentiation 0.84 0.72
[Brand X] really stands out from other brands of social media 0.90** – –
[Brand X] is unique from other brands of social media 0.80** – –
Notes: **Significance at 0.01 level; AVE refers to Average Variance Extracted Table II.
variance was observed on the residual term of the ultimate dependent variable CBBE. This
estimate seemed very small in magnitude (error variance = 0.000, p = 0.95, 95 per cent CI =
0.010-0.018). Importantly, this estimate was non-significant, indicating that the offending
estimate might not have arisen because of model-misspecification (Dillon et al., 1987). We
have a small sample size relative to the number of observed variables which might have
caused the offending estimate (Kline, 2011). Our sample size comprises 340 cases with 42
observed variables, the ratio of which is less than the generally accepted sample size to an
observed variable ratio of 10:1. To obtain a proper solution, we fixed the offending estimate
to an arbitrarily small positive value (i.e. 0.005), as recommended (Hair et al., 2010). The
model was re-estimated, it converged, and a proper solution was obtained. The re-estimated
structural model fit the data adequately: x 2 (827) = 1191.32, p < 0.01; Normed x 2 = 1.44;
CFI = 0.94; TLI = 0.94; RMSEA = 0.036).
Emotional brand attachment had a significant positive impact on brand credibility
(standardized path coefficient, b = 0.72, 95 per cent CI = 0.60-0.82, Critical Ratio, CR = 8.83,
p < 0.01), supporting H1. The structural parameter estimates are reported in Table IV
(Panel A). Consumer satisfaction was significantly explained by emotional brand
attachment ( b = 0.54, 95 per cent CI = 0.42-0.64, CR = 8.30, p < 0.01), supporting H2. Brand
credibility exerted a significant impact on CBBE ( b = 0.31, 95 per cent CI = 0.11-0.54, CR =
2.77, p < 0.01) and satisfaction directly impacted CBBE ( b = 0.63, 95 per cent CI = 0.50-0.76,
CR = 6.21, p < 0.01). Thus, H4 and H5 are supported. Our model explained a total of 95 per
cent of the variation (95 per cent CI = 91-96 per cent) in CBBE. The direct effect of emotional
brand attachment on CBBE was seemingly significant at first ( b = 0.21, 95 per cent CI =
EJM
estimates
Table III.
and validity
Sample descriptives,
bivariate correlations
Construct Factor Score (Mean) S.D. AFF CON PAS COP TRT SAT AWR QUL LOY DIF FIT EXT ATT REL INV
Affection (AFF) 2.51 0.93 0.87

Connection (CON) 2.79 0.98 0.79a 0.87
Passion (PAS) 2.62 0.89 0.82 0.77 0.84
Clarity of Positioning (COP) 3.52 0.70 0.47 0.43 0.46 0.80
Brand trust (TRT) 3.30 0.74 0.50 0.49 0.51 0.57 0.88
Consumer satisfaction (SAT) 3.87 0.64 0.44 0.42 0.46 0.54 0.61 0.86
Awareness/associations (AWR) 4.10 0.62 0.35 0.36 0.40 0.39 0.31 0.53 0.87
Quality (QUL) 3.69 0.66 0.44 0.41 0.48 0.51 0.61 0.67 0.55 0.84
Loyalty (LOY) 3.56 0.84 0.54 0.56 0.55 0.50 0.55 0.63 0.49 0.49 0.79
Perceived differentiation (DIF) 3.80 0.78 0.46 0.41 0.45 0.37 0.31 0.40 0.47 0.43 0.47 0.85
Self-brand congruence (FIT) 3.02 0.83 0.58 0.61 0.60 0.41 0.52 0.47 0.30 0.43 0.55 0.33 0.82
Extraversion (EXT) 3.09 0.91 0.33 0.32 0.36 0.24 0.23 0.23 0.29 0.27 0.28 0.36 0.27 0.79
Brand attitude (ATT) 3.50 0.81 0.66 0.65 0.73 0.49 0.58 0.63 0.46 0.55 0.63 0.46 0.60 0.39 0.88
Relationship proneness (REL) 2.90 0.83 0.62 0.61 0.62 0.38 0.43 0.43 0.41 0.44 0.53 0.42 0.51 0.47 0.66 0.79
Involvement (INV) 3.32 0.92 0.51 0.49 0.48 0.31 0.33 0.41 0.48 0.34 0.52 0.42 0.42 0.36 0.55 0.71 0.79
Notes: aAll correlations are significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed); Square root of the average-variance-extracted (AVE) estimates are typed in italic along the
diagonal; S.D. refers to standard deviation
Hypothesis
Consumer
support/path emotional
Estimated path b 95% CI significance brand
Panel A: Hypothesized model results
attachment
Emotional brand attachment ! Brand credibility 0.72** 0.60-0.82 Supported
Emotional brand attachment ! Consumer satisfaction 0.54** 0.42-0.64 Supported
Emotional brand attachment ! Consumer-based brand 0.21n.s. 0.03-0.40 Not supported
equity (CBBE)
Brand credibility ! CBBE 0.31** 0.11-0.54 Supported
Consumer satisfaction ! CBBE 0.63** 0.50-0.76 Supported
Total indirect effect
Emotional brand attachment (EBA) ! CBBE 0.57** 0.42-0.77 –
Specific indirect effects
EBA ! CBBE via Brand credibility a
0.09** 0.03-0.18 Supported

EBA ! CBBE via Consumer satisfaction 0.14** 0.09-0.21 Supported
Panel B: Alternative model results
Emotional brand attachment ! Brand credibility 0.74** 0.61-0.84 Supported
Emotional brand attachment ! Consumer satisfaction 0.56** 0.44-0.68 Supported
Emotional brand attachment ! Brand loyalty 0.40** 0.17-0.61 Supported
Brand credibility ! Brand loyalty 0.14n.s. 0.07-0.45 Not supported
Consumer satisfaction ! Brand loyalty 0.35** 0.19-0.53 Supported
Specific indirect effect Table IV.
EBA ! LOY via Consumer satisfaction 0.12** 0.06-0.20 Supported Parameter estimates
Notes: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; n.srefers to non-significant. 95% CI refers to the 95% Confidence Interval of the hypothesized
obtained using bootstrapping procedure (conducted with 5,000 sub-samples); aunstandardized coefficients and alternative
are obtained and reported for specific indirect effects; “ b ” refers to the standardized path (beta) coefficient models
0.03-0.40, CR = 2.12, p < 0.05); however, the 95 per cent CI around the path estimate
included a zero point, indicating non-significance. Thus, H3 is not supported. This result is
interesting, as the lack of a significant direct effect from emotional brand attachment to
CBBE suggests a fully mediated pathway.
Mediation analysis
The mediated effect of emotional brand attachment on CBBE via brand credibility and
consumer satisfaction is now examined. The overall indirect effect of CBBE was assessed by
examining the 95 per cent CI around total indirect effect using a bootstrapping procedure
(using 5,000 bootstrap samples) (Preacher and Hayes, 2008). We observed that the
standardized total indirect effect of emotional brand attachment on CBBE was positive and
significant (i.e. total indirect effect = 0.57, 95 per cent CI = 0.42-0.77, p < 0.01), thus
indicating a presence of full mediation via both brand credibility and satisfaction (total
unstandardized indirect effect = 0.23 p < 0.01; 95 per cent CI = 0.16-0.34). For obtaining
specific indirect effects via the individual mediators, we conducted a phantom model
analysis (Macho and Ledermann, 2011).
Phantom models
A specific indirect effect in question is specified as a total effect in a phantom model analysis
(Macho and Ledermann, 2011). A phantom model is typically added to the main model and
EJM is made up of entirely latent variables whose parameters are constrained. Given the presence
of two mediated paths from emotional brand attachment to CBBE, two phantom models
were specified corresponding to each specific indirect effect. Bootstrapping was conducted
with 5,000 samples to obtain the confidence intervals. First, the specific (unstandardized)
indirect effect of emotional brand attachment on CBBE via brand credibility was examined.
We observed a significant effect, that is, specific indirect effect = 0.09; bootstrap
significance, p < 0.01; 95 per cent CI = 0.03-0.18. Second, we examined the specific indirect
effect via consumer satisfaction and observed a significant result: specific indirect effect =
0.14; p < 0.01; 95 per cent CI = 0.09-0.21. This analysis suggests that each mediator
independently mediates the effect of emotional brand attachment on CBBE, thereby
supporting H6 and H7.
Alternative model
We examined an alternative model, whereby brand loyalty was specified as the only
ultimate dependent variable (with awareness/associations and perceived quality specified as

covariates). This model was specified given earlier examinations that report loyalty as a
direct outcome of emotional brand attachment (So et al., 2013; Thomson et al., 2005) based on
the proximity-seeking behavior of emotionally attached users (Park et al., 2006). The
alternative structural model fits the data well: x 2 (814) = 1206.12, p < 0.01; Normed x 2 =
1.48; CFI = 0.94; TLI = 0.93; RMSEA = 0.038). The hypothesized and the alternative models
did not differ significantly in terms of model fit (i.e. D x 2 = 14.8; D degrees-of-freedom = 13).
We observed that all the direct paths were significant except for the direct effect of brand
credibility on brand loyalty which was non-significant (p = 0.14). The alternative model
explained 63 per cent of the variation in loyalty (95 per cent CI = 46-77 per cent). The
relevant parameter estimates of the alternative model are reported in the second panel of
Table IV. Further, the presence of a significant direct effect of emotional brand attachment
on loyalty suggests partial mediation consumer satisfaction. Given the lack of a significant
direct effect of brand credibility on loyalty, the mediated effect of emotional brand
attachment on brand loyalty via brand credibility does not seem to hold. Hence, we
examined the specific indirect effect of emotional brand attachment on loyalty only via
consumer satisfaction using a phantom model; this effect was significant (i.e. specific
indirect effect = 0.12, p < 0.01; 95 per cent CI = 0.06-0.20). These results indicate that
emotional brand attachment, in addition to a direct effect, exerts an additional indirect effect
on loyalty which flows through consumer satisfaction. Both the alternative and
hypothesized models are comparable in terms of their fit to data. However, considering the
amount of variation explained in the ultimate dependent variable CBBE as per the
hypothesized model, and the support obtained for the mediation-based pathways (i.e. H6
and H7), the findings provide added confidence in the nomological relationships as per our
hypothesized model.
Discussion
The surge in popularity of social media platforms and associated emotional attachments
that users develop towards these necessitate an enquiry into the inherent dynamics of
emotional attachments, as well as the consequences for other user perceptions. Adopting a
“brand” perspective on social media platforms, we set out to examine the relationships
between consumers’ emotional brand attachment (EBA) with social media brands and how
that shapes consumer brand knowledge which is normally conceived of as CBBE. Our first
contribution is that we explicate a process by which EBA shapes social media CBBE. Using
two relationship-based pathways, we demonstrate that EBA impacts social media CBBE via
consumer perceptions of brand credibility and consumer satisfaction. These results support Consumer
the notion of brands as (anthropomorphic) relational partners of consumers (Fournier, 1998). emotional
We also observed that the effects are fully mediated, presenting an interesting result. The
first path is a credibility-based pathway; we note that EBA exerts a positive impact on social
brand
media equity via brand credibility. A theoretical implication of this finding is that consumer attachment
emotional connections with brands translate into CBBE via a conceptual mechanism or a
chain-of-effects. That is, EBA affects brand credibility via selective processing and attention
towards a preferred brand vis-à-vis competing alternatives (Park et al., 2006), which in turn
affects CBBE. Our process unifies explanatory influences that have been previously
observed independently – the effect of consumers’ emotional connections on perceptions of
brand trust (Loureiro et al., 2012) and company credibility (Kim and Villegas, 2009), as well
as reported relationships between brand credibility and facets of CBBE (Baek et al., 2010;
Erdem and Swait, 1998).
The second mediated pathway presents consumer satisfaction as a mediator which helps
translate emotional attachments into social media CBBE. We note that in the first instance,
EBA exerts a positive influence on consumer satisfaction by virtue of providing added value
and utility to consumers, and in the second instance, the generated satisfaction influences
CBBE. From a theoretical perspective, we unite independent streams of research
investigating the relationships of EBA with consumer satisfaction (e.g. Homburg et al., 2006)
and consumer satisfaction with CBBE (Pappu and Quester, 2006). In addition, both the
mediated pathways appear to be comparable in terms of magnitude. That is, the specific
indirect effects of EBA on social media CBBE via brand credibility and consumer
satisfaction were similar in strength (given the overlap in confidence intervals of the
respective specific indirect effects). A theoretical implication is that the trust and clarity of
brand meaning (i.e. credibility) as well as a brand’s ability to perform against consumer
expectations (i.e. satisfaction) are equally effective in translating EBA into CBBE.
Our second contribution is that we broaden the nomological network of EBA, especially
in regard to brand outcomes. Thomson et al. (2005) examine psychological outcomes of EBA
such as emotional security and proximity maintenance, whereas Park et al. (2010) examine
brand outcomes such as brand purchase. We add to this literature by specifying two novel
brand outcomes – brand credibility and consumer satisfaction. From a consumer-brand
relationship perspective, we support EBA as a vital antecedent to developing consumer
relationships. Our results pertaining to the direct effects of EBA on brand outcomes are
consistent with some early advertising literature that highlighted the role of emotions in
shaping consumer outcomes. For instance, consumer emotions generated from an
advertisement can shape brand attitudes (Kim et al., 1998) as well as brand purchase
likelihood (Aaker et al., 1986). We are also consistent with prior research that reports
emotional connections with social media may shape marketing outcomes, such as consumer
advocacy (VanMeter et al., 2015) and brand usage intentions (Hollebeek et al., 2014). In
comparing our hypothesized model with an alternative loyalty-based model, we observed
that EBA exerted a direct as well as an indirect effect on user loyalty, explaining significant
variation in the outcome. This suggests that emotional attachment with social media brands
can directly influence long-term use of social media brands.
Our finding of a fully mediated link between EBA and CBBE is interesting. We find
support for a process view of CBBE generation for social media brands. We observed that
the direct effect of EBA on CBBE was non-significant, which suggests that users’ emotional
attachment with a social media brand will not likely affect social media CBBE directly.
Instead, emotional attachments exert an indirect influence on CBBE through credibility- and
satisfaction-enhancing mechanisms. This means that, theoretically, credibility and
EJM satisfaction must be generated before CBBE can subsequently materialize. This underscores
the importance of the two vital judgments as precursors of social media CBBE, shedding
light on how consumers’ emotional brand attachment with social media brands works to
build social media brand equity. We are consistent with the view that consumers respond
emotionally to multi-sensory (technology-based social media) environments (Schreuder
et al., 2016) and that these emotions can trigger subsequent judgments and decision-making
(Isen, 2001; Pham, 1998). More broadly, we add force to the view that emotions can be
reliable predictors of human behavior (Gaur et al., 2014).
Some useful managerial implications emerge from our findings. Social media brands are
often criticized for decisions that affect credibility and impact satisfaction; however, these
decisions are often necessary in order to maintain the purpose of these brands. The need to
facilitate personal relationships between users requires providing personal information.
How this information is then used by these social media brands often leads to trust concerns
(Reid, 2012). The competitive need to rapidly evolve from a technology perspective means
that the user experience changes frequently, which may lead to feelings of frustration
towards a brand (Reid, 2012). The trade-off between the need to generate advertising
revenue with the negative effect of forcing users to see advertisements can further affect
users’ experience (Liffreing, 2016). Our findings suggest that managers of social media
brands can reduce the impact of these decisions and its effect on social media CBBE by
building emotional attachment. Building attachment has the dual benefit of shaping
consumer perceptions of brand credibility and brand satisfaction with almost equal potency.
To build a brand’s level of attachment, delivering on consumer expectations is an obvious
priority given that this is critical to building a relationship (Reichheld and Schefter, 2000).
Also central to relationship building is creating emotion-based associations (Roberts, 2004).
Therefore, managers must make investments that will help engender emotional connections
with a social media brand. As an example, the adoption of virtual experiential technology
will change the user experience and has significant potential to increase the emotional
attachment (Luo et al., 2011). Further, as consumers are co-creators of personal experiences
in an online setting (Köhl and Götzenbrucker, 2014), managers must provide such
affordances to consumers; this may require investment towards building synchronous and
asynchronous capabilities within social media platforms. In addition, consumers’ social
media experience represents a multisensory consumption context, for instance, comprising a
combination of visual (e.g. photo sharing), audio (e.g. music) elements. By actively
embedding multisensory elements within social media platforms, social media firms will
likely enhance multisensory stimulation of their users, as this can lead to emotional arousal
(Schreuder et al., 2016), potentially facilitating emotional attachment building.
Social media brands may need to do more than focus on relationship building given
continual criticisms. As such, managers may benefit from considering the broader
nomological network presented in our study. There is a need for social media brands to be
more transparent in terms of how they intend to use the personal data collected. Drawing
from insights into brand communities (Schau et al., 2009), engaging users to participate in
the policy setting and the development of the platform may help them feel a greater sense of
control of their data, which should lead to improvements in consumer attachment. The
importance of this co-creation activity was evident in the backlash Facebook experienced
when it stopped users from voting on changes to privacy policies in December 2012 (Reid,
2012). Similarly, using personal data collected to better tailor content and identify relevant
advertisements should lead to positive user experiences – a recent decision by Facebook to
prioritize posts by family and friends over advertisements is consistent with this strategy
and reinforces its positioning (Mosseri, 2016). What managers need to consider is how these
decisions flow through the broader nomological network. That is, the effect of such Consumer
decisions should lead to improvements in emotional attachment, which then translate into emotional
increases in brand credibility and consumer satisfaction and, finally, result in enhanced
CBBE. Only by considering the complete effect of a decision can that effect be properly
brand
assessed. attachment
Finally, enhancement in social media CBBE has multiple strategic and financial
implications. Social media brands that have developed a large user base with strong
emotional connections are likely to generate high financial valuations, potentially in the
billions of dollars (Androich, 2013). Microsoft’s acquisition of Skype for over $8 billion in
2011 is a case in point (Bright, 2011). Further, earned advertising represents a major source
of revenue for social media firms. Social media brands that develop strong brand equity
among their users are likely to command higher advertising revenues. Moreover, high
equity social media brands can potentially extend into other categories, such as paid
services. For instance, Skype’s paid VoIP (internet telephony) services, and the recently
launched YouTube Red channel providing advertisement-free music represent such

revenue-generating extensions based on the foundation of established equity among their
users.
Our results have societal implications as well. Lately, it is being reported that social
media is not regarded as being trustworthy by people (Lichtermann, 2016; Scott, 2017). For
instance, in Australia where this study is conducted, few people seem to trust social media in
general (The Australian, 2017). Thus, despite high usage of social media, there seems to be a
latent crisis of credibility afflicting social media. Our results may help address this issue to
some extent. The observed positive impact of emotional brand attachment on consumer
perceived brand credibility implies that with the development of favorable emotional
connections between users and social media brands, perceived credibility (trust) of social
media brands is likely to improve. Such enhanced credibility associated with social media
per se has favorable ramifications for society at large given the pervasive use of social media
technology as a tool for dissemination of information in society. In an era of “fake news”
(Visontay, 2017), enhanced credibility associated with social media brands will likely serve
to enhance its potential acceptance by more members of society as a credible source of
information.
Limitations and future research

We acknowledge some limitations of our study that potentially highlight avenues for future
research. First, we adopted a cross-sectional perspective on EBA with social media brands.
Consumer attachment with social media brands may evolve overtime with the progression
of a consumer-brand relationship. That is, the dimensionality of EBA may evolve, such that
the first-order factor loadings of the construct are expected to change with the evolving
consumer-brand relationship. Second, we focused on examining consumer-to-brand
relationships within a social media setting. Future research may consider investigating how
consumer-to-consumer interactions enhance consumer attachment with social media
brands. Another potentially interesting avenue of research is how emotional contagion
effects in social media may shape EBA. Emotional contagion refers to the flow of emotions
from one person to another with a receiver “catching” the emotions that a sender displays
(Schoenewolf, 1990). There is emerging support that emotional contagion effects may exist
in social networks (Kramer et al., 2014); modelling such effects will add an additional layer of
understanding to emotional attachment with social media brands. Third, we did not
measure users’ emotional attachments with the content of social media. Users may develop
emotional attachments with the inherent content of social media, and it would be useful to
EJM segregate users’ content-based attachment and platform-based attachment to obtain a
clearer picture of the phenomenon. Similarly, others factors such as social media usage and
perceived value of a platform may help translate the effects of emotional attachment on
social media CBBE, and these relationships can examined in future research. Finally, our
findings are predominantly relevant to social media brands. Given the emergent state of
research into EBA, future research may consider replicating our model across other contexts
in order to enhance external validity. A related avenue could be to explore whether the
hypothesized relationships vary across research contexts. For example, Belaid and Behi
(2011) did not observe a relationship between EBA and consumer satisfaction, whereas we
do. Such results could be potentially attributed to the product category context. Belaid and
Behi (2011) examine the relationship in the context of utilitarian products (i.e. car batteries),
whereas we examine experiential services (i.e. online social media). Overall, emotional brand
attachment represents a promising research area allowing immense opportunities to further
our understanding of how consumers’ emotional attachments shape brand behavior.
References
Aaker, D.A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Aaker, D.A., Stayman, D.M. and Hagerty, M.R. (1986), “Warmth in advertising: measurement, impact,
and sequence effects”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 365-381.
Adweek (2016), “Here’s how many people are on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and other big social
networks”, 4 April, available at: www.adweek.com/digital/heres-how-many-people-are-on-
facebook-instagram-twitter-other-big-social-networks/ (accessed 10 October 2017).
Agarwal, R. and Karahanna, E. (2000), “Time flies when you’re having fun: cognitive absorption and
beliefs about information technology usage”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 665-694.
Androich, A. (2013), “What are the most valuable social media brands in the world?”, Marketing
Magazine Canada, 19 April, available at: www.marketingmag.ca/media/what-are-the-most-
valuable-social-media-brands-in-the-world-76887 (accessed 21 March 2016).
Aron, A. and Westbay, L. (1996), “Dimensions of the prototype of love”, Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, Vol. 70 No. 3, pp. 535-551.
Aurier, P. and N’Goala, G. (2010), “The differing and mediating roles of trust and relationship
commitment in service relationship maintenance and development”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 303-325.
Aydin, S. and Özer, G. (2005), “The analysis of antecedents of customer loyalty in the turkish mobile
telecommunication market”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 39 Nos 7/8, pp. 910-925.
Baek, T.H., Kim, J. and Yu, J.H. (2010), “The differential roles of brand credibility and Brand prestige in
consumer Brand choice”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 7, pp. 662-678.
Batra, R., Ahuvia, A. and Bagozzi, R.P. (2012), “Brand love”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 76 No. 2,
pp. 1-16.
Belaid, S. and Behi, A.T. (2011), “The role of attachment in building consumer-brand relationships: an
empirical investigation in the utilitarian consumption context”, Journal of Product & Brand
Management, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 37-47.
Berman, W.H. and Sperling, M.B. (1994), “The structure and function of adult attachment”, in Sperling,
M.B. and Berman, W.H. (Eds ), Attachment in Adults: Clinical and Developmental Perspectives,
Guildford Press, New York and London, pp. 3-28.
Bollen, K.A. and Bauldry, S. (2011), “The three CS in measurement models: causal indicators, composite
indicators and covariates”, Psychological Methods, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 265-284.
Bowlby, J. (1988), A Secure Base: Parent-Child Attachment and Healthy Human Development, Basic
Books Inc., Publishers, New York, NY.
Brakus, J.J., Schmitt, B.H. and Zarantonello, L. (2009), “Brand experience: what is it? How is it Consumer
measured? Does it affect loyalty?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 73 No. 3, pp. 52-68.
emotional
Bright, p. (2011), “Microsoft buys Skype for $8.5 billion. Why, exactly?”, 5 October, available at: www.
wired.com/2011/05/microsoft-buys-skype-2/ (accessed 10 October 2017). brand
Carpenter, G.S. and Nakamoto, K. (1989), “Consumer preference formation and pioneering advantage”, attachment
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 285-298.
Chaudhuri, A. and Holbrook, M.B. (2001), “The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect to
brand performance: the role of brand loyalty”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 65 No. 2, pp. 81-93.
Chiu, C.M., Cheng, H.L., Huang, H.Y. and Chen, C.F. (2013), “Exploring individuals’ subjective well-
being and loyalty towards social network sites from the perspective of network externalities: the
Facebook case”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 539-552.
Collins, N.L. and Read, S.J. (1990), “Adult attachment, working models, and relationship quality in
dating couples”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 58 No. 4, pp. 644-663.
Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P. and Warshaw, P.R. (1992), “Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use
computers in the workplace”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 14, pp. 1111-1132.
De Wulf, K., Odekerken-Schröder, G. and Iacobucci, D. (2001), “Investments in consumer relationships:
a cross-country and cross-industry exploration”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 65 No. 4, pp. 33-50.
Delgado-Ballester, E. and Luis Munuera-Alemán, J. (2001), “Brand trust in the context of consumer
loyalty”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 Nos 11/12, pp. 1238-1258.
Dholakia, U.M., Bagozzi, R.P. and Pearo, L.K. (2004), “A social influence model of consumer
participation in network- and small-group-based virtual communities”, International Journal of
Research in Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 241-263.
Dillon, W.R., Mulani, N. and Kumar, A. (1987), “Offending estimates in covariance structure analysis:
comments on the causes of and solutions to Heywood cases”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 101
No. 1, pp. 126-135.
Dolbec, P.Y. and Chebat, J.C. (2013), “The impact of a flagship vs a brand store on Brand attitude, Brand
attachment and Brand equity”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 89 No. 4, pp. 460-466.
Dunn, L. and Hoegg, J. (2014), “The impact of fear on emotional brand attachment”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 152-168.
Dwivedi, A., Johnson, L.W. and McDonald, R.E. (2015), “Celebrity endorsement, self-brand connection and
consumer-based brand equity”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 449-461.
Edell, J. and Burke, M.C. (1987), “The power of feelings in understanding advertising effects”, Journal of
Erdem, T. and Swait, J. (1998), “Brand equity as a signaling phenomenon”, Journal of Consumer
Psychology, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 131-157.
Erdem, T. and Swait, J. (2004), “Brand credibility, brand consideration, and choice”, Journal of
Erdem, T., Swait, J. and Louviere, J. (2002), “The impact of Brand credibility on consumer price
sensitivity”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 1-19.
Fedorikhin, A., Park, C.W. and Thomson, M. (2008), “Beyond fit and attitude: the effect of emotional
attachment on consumer responses to brand extensions”, Journal of Consumer Psychology,
Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 281-291.
Feldman, J.M. and Lynch, J.G. (1988), “Self-generated validity and other effects of measurement on
belief, attitude, intention and behavior”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 73 No. 3, pp. 421-435.
Forgas, J.P. (1994), “The role of emotion in social judgments: an introductory review and an affect
infusion model (AIM)”, European Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 1-24.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
EJM Fournier, S. (1998), “Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in consumer
research”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 343-353.
Friestad, M. and Thorson, E. (1986), “Emotion-eliciting advertising: effects on long term memory and
judgment”, NA-Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 13, pp. 111-116.
Garbarino, E. and Johnson, M.S. (1999), “The different roles of satisfaction, trust, and commitment in
customer relationships”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63 No. 2, pp. 70-87.
Gaur, S.S., Herjanto, H. and Makkar, M. (2014), “Review of emotions research in marketing, 2002-2013”,
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 917-923.
Gharib, R.K., Philpott, E. and Duan, Y. (2017), “Factors affecting active participation in B2B online
communities: an empirical investigation”, Information & Management, Vol. 54 No. 4,
pp. 516-530.
Gosling, S.D., Rentfrow, P.J. and Swann, W.B. (2003), “A very brief measure of the big-five personality
domains”, Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 37 No. 6, pp. 504-528.
Guèvremont, A. and Grohmann, B. (2016), “The brand authenticity effect: situational and individual-
level moderators”, Vol. 50 Nos 3/4, pp. 602-620.

Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B. and Anderson, R.E. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed., Prentice
Hall International, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Harrigan, P., Evers, U., Miles, M. and Daly, T. (2017), “Customer engagement with tourism social media
brands”, Tourism Management, Vol. 59, pp. 597-609.
Hazan, C. and Shaver, P.R. (1994), “Attachment as an organizational framework for research on close
relationships”, Psychological Inquiry, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
Heinonen, K. (2011), “Consumer activity in social media: managerial approaches to consumers’ social
media behavior”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 10 No. 6, pp. 356-364.
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.
Homburg, C., Koschate, N. and Hoyer, W.D. (2006), “The role of cognition and affect in the formation of
customer satisfaction: a dynamic perspective”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 70 No. 3, pp. 21-31.
Hudson, S., Roth, M.S., Madden, T.J. and Hudson, R. (2015), “The effects of social media on emotions,
Brand relationship quality, and word of mouth: an empirical study of music festival attendees”,
Tourism Management, Vol. 47, pp. 68-76.
Isen, A.M. (2001), “An influence of positive affect on decision making in complex situations: theoretical
issues with practical implications”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 75-85.
Jaffe, E.D. and Pasternak, H. (1997), “A note on the response effects of laboratory-versus respondent-
located computer-administered questioning”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 26 No. 3,
pp. 237-243.
Jamal, A. and Anastasiadou, K. (2009), “Investigating the effects of service quality dimensions and
expertise on loyalty”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 43 Nos 3/4, pp. 398-420.
Jenkins-Guarnieri, M.A., Wright, S.L. and Johnson, B. (2013), “Development and validation of a social
media use integration scale”, Psychology of Popular Media Culture, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 38-50.
Johnson, D.J. and Rusbult, C.E. (1989), “Resisting temptation: devaluation of alternative partners as a
means of maintaining commitment in close relationships”, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 57 No. 6, pp. 967-980.
Keller, K.L. (1993), “Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity”, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
Kim, J., Lim, J.S. and Bhargava, M. (1998), “The role of affect in attitude formation: a classical
conditioning approach”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 26 No. 2,
pp. 143-152.
Kim, Y. and Villegas, J. (2009), “Effect of emotional attachment to a brand on credibility of information Consumer
sources”, Proceedings of the American Academy of Advertising, Cincinnati, Ohio, available at: http://
search.proquest.com/openview/fee5f5d8b8242dbf28d452a57cc1bc26/1?pq-origsite=gscholarandcbl=
emotional
40231 brand
Kleine, S.S. and Baker, S.M. (2004), “An integrative review of material possession attachment”, attachment
Academy of Marketing Science Review, Vol. 2004, pp. 1-35.
Kline, R.B. (2011), Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, Guilford Press, New York,
NY.
Koch, H., Gonzalez, E. and Leidner, D. (2012), “Bridging the work/social divide: the emotional response
to organizational social networking sites”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 21
No. 6, pp. 699-717.
Köhl, M.M. and Götzenbrucker, G. (2014), “Networked technologies as emotional resources? Exploring
emerging emotional cultures on social network sites such as Facebook and Hi5: a trans-cultural
study”, Media, Culture & Society, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 508-525.
Kramer, A.D.I., Guillory, J.E. and Hancock, J.T. (2014), “Experimental evidence of massive-scale
emotional contagion through social networks”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
of the United States of America, Vol. 111 No. 24, pp. 8788-8790, available at: www.pnas.org/
content/111/24/8788.full
Lee, S.H. (2016), “Factors influencing the social networking service user’s value perception and word of
mouth decision of corporate post with special reference to the emotional attachment”,
Information Technology and Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 15-27.
Lerner, J.S., Li, Y., Valdesolo, P. and Kassam, K.S. (2015), “Emotion and decision making”, Annual
Review of Psychology, Vol. 66, pp. 799-823.
Liffreing, I. (2016), “Facebook’s ad-block strategy might alienate consumers, but platforms will
replicate their plan anyway”, 11 August, available at: www.campaignlive.com/article/facebooks-
ad-block-strategy-alienate-consumers-platforms-will-replicate-plan-anyway/1405359 (accessed 8
September 2016).
Lindell, M.K. and Whitney, D.J. (2001), “Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional
research designs”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 1, pp. 114-121.
Loureiro, S.M.C., Ruediger, K.H. and Demetris, V. (2012), “Brand emotional connection and loyalty”,
Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 13-27.
Lowe, B. and Johnson, D. (2017), “Diagnostic and prescriptive benefits of consumer participation in
virtual communities of personal challenge”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51 Nos 11/12,
pp. 1817-1835.
Luo, M.M., Chen, J.S., Ching, R.K. and Liu, C.C. (2011), “An examination of the effects of virtual
experiential marketing on online customer intentions and loyalty”, The Service Industries
Journal, Vol. 31 No. 13, pp. 2163-2191.
Macho, S. and Ledermann, T. (2011), “Estimating, testing, and comparing specific effects in structural
equation models: the phantom model approach”, Psychological Methods, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 34-43.
Malär, L., Krohmer, H., Hoyer, W.D. and Nyffenegger, B. (2011), “Emotional brand attachment and
Brand personality: the relative importance of the actual and the ideal self”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 75 No. 4, pp. 35-52.
Malhotra, N.K. (2006), “Questionnaire design and scale development”, in Grover, R. and Vriens, M.
(Eds), The Handbook of Marketing Research: Uses, Misuses, and Future Advances, Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 83-94.
McArthur, J.A. and White, A.F. (2016), “Twitter chats as third places: conceptualizing a digital
gathering site”, Social Media þ Society, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 1-9.
Mick, D.G. and DeMoss, M. (1990), “Self-gifts: phenomenological insights from four contexts”, Journal
of Consumer Research, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 322-332.
EJM Mosseri, A. (2016), “Building a better news feed for you”, Facebook Newsroom, 29 June, available at:
http://newsroom.fb.com/news/2016/06/building-a-better-news-feed-for-you/ (accessed 8
September 2016).
Mummalaneni, V. (2005), “An empirical investigation of web site characteristics, consumer
emotional states and on-line shopping behaviors”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58 No. 4,
pp. 526-532.
Netemeyer, R.G., Krishnan, B., Pullig, C., Wang, G., Yagci, M., Dean, D., Ricks, J. and Wirth, F. (2004),
“Developing and validating measures of facets of customer-based brand equity”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 209-224.
O’Brien, H.L. and Toms, E.G. (2008), “What is user engagement? A conceptual framework for defining
user engagement with technology”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and
Technology, Vol. 59 No. 6, pp. 938-955.
Oh, H.J., Ozkaya, E. and LaRose, R. (2014), “How does online social networking enhance life satisfaction? The
relationships among online supportive interaction, affect, perceived social support, sense of
community, and life satisfaction”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 30, pp. 69-78.
Oliver, R.L. (1999), “Whence consumer loyalty?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63, pp. 33-44.
Olsen, S.O. (2002), “Comparative evaluation and the relationship between quality, satisfaction, and
repurchase loyalty”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 240-249.
Pappu, R. and Cornwell, T.B. (2014), “Corporate sponsorship as an image platform: understanding the
roles of relationship fit and sponsor-sponsee similarity”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, Vol. 42 No. 5, pp. 490-510.
Pappu, R. and Quester, P. (2006), “Does customer satisfaction lead to improved brand equity? An
empirical examination of two categories of retail brands”, Journal of Product & Brand
Management, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 4-14.
Pappu, R., Quester, P.G. and Cooksey, R.W. (2005), “Consumer-based brand equity: improving the
measurement-empirical evidence”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 14 No. 3,
pp. 143-154.
Park, C.W., MacInnis, D.J. and Priester, J.R. (2006), “Beyond attitudes: attachment and consumer
behavior”, Seoul National Journal, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 3-36.
Park, C.W., MacInnis, D.J., Priester, J., Eisingerich, A.B. and Iacobucci, D. (2010), “Brand attachment
and brand attitude strength: conceptual and empirical differentiation of two critical Brand
equity drivers”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 74 No. 6, pp. 1-17.
Percy, L. Hansen, F. and Randrup, R. (2004), “How to measure brand emotion”, AdMap (World
Advertising Research Centre), November, pp. 32-34, available at: www.larrypercy.com/pdf/
admap.pdf (accessed 21 March 2016).
Pham, M.T. (1998), “Representativeness, relevance, and the use of feelings in decision making”, Journal
of Consumer Research, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 144-160.
Pham, M.T., Cohen, J.B., Pracejus, J.W. and Hughes, G.D. (2001), “Affect monitoring and the primacy of
feelings in judgment”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 167-188.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Preacher, K.J. and Hayes, A.F. (2008), “Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and
comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models”, Behavior Research Methods, Vol. 40
No. 3, pp. 879-891.
Quan-Haase, A. and Young, A.L. (2010), “Uses and gratifications of social media: a comparison of
facebook and instant messaging”, Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, Vol. 30 No. 5,
pp. 350-361.
Rammstedt, B. and John, O.P. (2007), “Measuring personality in one minute or less: a 10-item short Consumer
version of the big five inventory in English and German”, Journal of Research in Personality,
Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 203-212.
emotional
Read, W., Robertson, N. and McQuilken, L. (2011), “A novel romance: the technology acceptance model
brand
with emotional attachment”, Australasian Marketing Journal, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 223-229. attachment
Reichheld, F.F. and Schefter, P. (2000), “E-loyalty: your secret weapon on the web”, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 78 No. 4, pp. 105-113.
Reid, A. (2012), “Is Facebook eroding trust?”, Campaign UK, 6 December, available at: www.
campaignlive.co.uk/article/facebook-eroding-trust/1162733 (accessed 8 September 2016).
Roberts, K. (2004), Lovemarks: The Future beyond Brands, Powerhouse Books, New York, NY.
Romaniuk, J. and Sharp, B. (2004), “Conceptualizing and measuring brand salience”, Marketing Theory,
Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 327-342.
Schau, H.J., Muñiz, A.M., Jr and Arnould, E.J. (2009), “How brand community practices create value”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 73 No. 5, pp. 30-51.
Schoenewolf, G. (1990), “Emotional contagion: behavioral induction in individuals and groups”,

Modern Psychoanalysis, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 49-61.
Schreuder, E., van Erp, J., Toet, A. and Kallen, V.L. (2016), “Emotional responses to multisensory
environmental stimuli: a conceptual framework and literature review”, SAGE Open, Vol. 6 No. 1,
pp. 1-19.
Scott, C. (2017), “Audience trust in social media as a news source is falling, Reuters survey finds”, 16
June, available at: www.journalism.co.uk/news/audience-trust-in-social-media-as-news-source-
is-falling-reuters-survey-finds-/s2/a705797/ (accessed 5 October 2017).
Sensis (2017), “Sensis social media report 2017: chapter 1 – Australian and social media”, 22 June,
available at: www.sensis.com.au/asset/PDFdirectory/Sensis_Social_Media_Report_2017-
Chapter-1.pdf (accessed 23 September 2017).
Shimp, T.A. and Madden, T.J. (1988), “Consumer-object relations: a conceptual framework
based analogously on Sternberg’s triangular theory of love”, in Houston, M.J. (Ed.), NA -
Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 15, No. 1, Association for Consumer Research,
Provo, UT, pp. 163-168.
Simmons, C.J. and Becker-Olsen, K.L. (2006), “Achieving marketing objectives through social
sponsorships”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 70 No. 4, pp. 154-169.
Sirgy, M.J., Grewal, D., Mangleburg, T.F., Park, J.-O., Chon, K.-S., Claiborne, C.B., Johar, J.S. and
Berkman, H. (1997), “Assessing the predictive validity of two methods of measuring self-image
congruence”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 229-241.
Slater, J.S. (2000), “Collecting brand loyalty: a comparative analysis of how coca cola and hallmark use
collecting behavior to enhance brand loyalty”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 28,
pp. 362-369.
So, J.T., Grant Parsons, A. and Yap, S.F. (2013), “Corporate branding, emotional attachment and brand
loyalty: the case of luxury fashion branding”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management:
An International Journal, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 403-423.
Spry, A., Pappu, R. and Cornwell, B.T. (2011), “Celebrity endorsement, brand credibility and brand
equity”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 45 No. 6, pp. 882-909.
Suh, K., S., Kim, H. and Suh, E., K. (2011), “What if your avatar looks like you? Dual-congruity
perspectives for avatar use”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 711-729.
Supphellen, M. (2000), “Understanding core Brand equity: guidelines for in-depth elicitation of brand
associations”, International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 319-338.
Sweeney, J. and Swait, J. (2008), “The effects of brand credibility on customer loyalty”, Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 179-193.
EJM Teo, T. (2016), “Modelling Facebook usage among university students in Thailand: the role of
emotional attachment in an extended technology acceptance model”, Interactive Learning
Environments, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 745-757.
The Australian (2017), “One in 10 Australians trust social media”, 09 October 2013, available at: www.
theaustralian.com.au/business/technology/one-in-10-australians-trust-social-media/news-story/
2f27595892fc85ddf1839b4f7c8a1902 (accessed 5 October 2017).
Thomson, M. (2006), “Human brands: investigating antecedents to consumers’ strong attachments to
celebrities”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 70 No. 3, pp. 104-119.
Thomson, M., MacInnis, D.J. and Park, C.W. (2005), “The ties that bind: measuring the strength of
consumers’ emotional attachments to brands”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 15 No. 1,
pp. 77-91.
Lichtermann, J. (2016), “Americans don’t have much trust in social media as a source of news, a new
report says”, 18 April, available at: www.niemanlab.org/2016/04/americans-dont-have-much-
trust-in-social-media-as-a-source-of-news-a-new-report-says/ (accessed 5 October 2017).
Van Osselaer, S.M. and Janiszewski, C. (2001), “Two ways of learning brand associations”, Journal of
VanMeter, R.A., Grisaffe, D.B. and Chonko, L.B. (2015), “Of “likes” and “pins”: the effects of consumers’
attachment to social media”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 32, pp. 70-88.
Visontay, R. (2017), “There’s no simple cure for the problem of fake news”, The Sydney Morning Herald,
4 July, available at: www.smh.com.au/comment/theres-no-simple-cure-for-the-problem-of-fake-
news-20170702-gx33hu.html (accessed 5 October 2017).
Williams, D.R., Patterson, M.E., Roggenbuck, J.W. and Watson, A.E. (1992), “Beyond the commodity
metaphor: examining emotional and symbolic attachment to place”, Leisure Sciences, Vol. 14
No. 1, pp. 29-46.
Yim, C.K., Tse, D.K. and Chan, K.W. (2008), “Strengthening customer loyalty through intimacy and
passion: roles of customer-firm affection and customer-staff relationships in services”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 45 No. 6, pp. 741-756.
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.
Zhang, M., Guo, L., Hu, M. and Liu, W. (2017), “Influence of customer engagement with company social
networks on stickiness: mediating effect of customer value creation”, International Journal of
Information Management, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 229-240.
About the authors

Abhishek Dwivedi (PhD) is a Senior Lecturer in Marketing at the School of Management and
Marketing, Charles Sturt University. His general research interests include brand equity, consumer-
brand relationships, celebrity endorsements and social entrepreneurship. Some of his research
appears in the Journal of Business Research, Journal of Retailing & Consumer Services, the Journal of
Brand Management, the Journal of Product and Brand Management, the International Journal of
Advertising and the European Journal of Marketing. Abhishek Dwivedi is the corresponding author
and can be contacted at: adwivedi@csu.edu.au
Lester W. Johnson is a Professor of Marketing at Swinburne University of Technology. He has a
BA from the University of New Hampshire and an MA and PhD from the University of Connecticut.
Dr Johnson’s research focuses on customer satisfaction and consumer behavior in services. He has
published in the Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Journal of Retailing, International
Journal of Research in Marketing, Journal of Service Research, Journal of Advertising Research,
European Journal of Marketing, Journal of International Marketing and numerous other marketing
and business journals as well as three books.
Dean Charles Wilkie is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Adelaide. His research focuses on
strategic marketing with an emphasis on pharmaceutical brand and product management. He has
published in the Journal of Brand Management, the European Journal of Marketing, Marketing Consumer
Letters and the Journal of Marketing Management. His qualifications include a BCom and MCom as
well as ten years’ professional experience in brand management. His PhD is from the University of emotional
Sydney with a thesis addressing order of entry effects. brand
Dr Luciana De Araujo-Gil is an Associate Professor at Universidad Diego Portales in Santiago, attachment
Chile. Since 2014, she has served as the Regional Editor from South America at Luxury Research
Journal. In the past Dr Gil was a Lecturer at the Nanyang Business School, Singapore, and at the
Unimonte University in Brazil. She received her PhD from Michigan State University in the USA. She
has published in the Journal of Business Research, the Journal of Consumer Behavior, the Journal of
Consumer Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior.
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

Consumer Emotional Brand Attachment With Social Media Brands and Social Brand Equity

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Consumer Emotional Brand Attachment With Social Media Brands and Social Brand Equity

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

European Journal of Marketing

Downloaded on: 23 March 2019, At: 21:43 (PT)

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Dean Charles Wilkie

Emotional brand attachment and consumer satisfaction

Emotional brand attachment and consumer-based brand equity

Brand credibility and consumer-based brand equity

Consumer satisfaction and consumer-based brand equity

Emotional brand H3 + Consumer-based Perceived

Analysis and results

Demographics No. (%) (Approximately)

Affection 0.86 0.75

Awareness/associations 0.94 0.75

I see myself as extraverted, enthusiastic 0.82** – –

Affection (AFF) 2.51 0.93 0.87

0.09** 0.03-0.18 Supported

ultimate dependent variable (with awareness/associations and perceived quality speciﬁed as

launched YouTube Red channel providing advertisement-free music represent such

Limitations and future research

level moderators”, Vol. 50 Nos 3/4, pp. 602-620.

Schoenewolf, G. (1990), “Emotional contagion: behavioral induction in individuals and groups”,

About the authors

You might also like