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

www.emeraldinsight.com/1746-5664.htm

Driving brand
The role of consumer-brand loyalty
engagement towards driving
brand loyalty
Mediating effect of relationship quality 987
Kishalay Adhikari and Rajeev Kumar Panda Received 18 March 2019
Revised 22 June 2019
School of Management, National Institute of Technology, Rourkela, India Accepted 17 July 2019

Abstract
Purpose – The present research attempts to empirically examine the influence of consumer-brand
engagement, its potent antecedents, and relationship quality towards creating and enhancing brand loyalty of
automobile brands in Indian context.
Design/methodology/approach – Primary data through survey questionnaires were used to gather
empirical data from 443 automobile consumers, out of which 417 samples were included in the final analysis.
Structural equation modelling technique was used for assessing the hypothesized direct and indirect
relationships among the constructs.
Findings – The empirical findings exhibit consumer involvement and brand interactivity contributes
positively and significantly towards consumer-brand engagement, while self-brand image congruity does not
significantly influence consumer-brand engagement. Further, mediation analysis results show that
relationship quality partially mediates the linkage between consumer-brand engagement and brand loyalty.
Research limitations/implications – The outcomes of this research may provide novel insights and
contribute to the limited body of knowledge regarding consumer-brand engagement. In addition, the findings
may assist the automobile brand managers and market strategists to design strategies aimed at developing
long-term consumer relationships.
Originality/value – This empirical research assesses the mediating effect of relationship quality in the
linkage between consumer-brand engagement and brand loyalty for automobile brands, and to the best of our
knowledge, has not been attempted by prior researchers in this domain.
Keywords Consumer-brand engagement, Brand interactivity, Relationship quality,
Consumer involvement, Brand loyalty
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Automobile brands traditionally have moderate consumer loyalty rate; with an average
brand enjoying a loyalty rating of 42.58 per cent (J and L Marketing, 2017). In this context,
the vitality of consumer retention enhances because of average product costs over $40,000
and the replacement cycle occurs mostly after four or more years (Forbes, 2011). The need
and desire to improve these figures are rather strong among the global automobile brands.
Global Automotive Executive Survey conducted by KPMG (2017) revealed 83 percent of the
executives consider that the industry will undergo major business model disruption in the
coming five years. Also, the survey reports points every third car-owner strongly believes
they would no longer own cars by the year 2025, which makes a strong case for creating and Journal of Modelling in
Management
maintaining brand loyalty. For addressing this situation, automobile brands need to think Vol. 14 No. 4, 2019
pp. 987-1005
beyond the conventional ways of attracting potential consumers and retaining the existing © Emerald Publishing Limited
1746-5664
ones. Keeping this backdrop in mind, consumer-brand engagement has emerged a crucial DOI 10.1108/JM2-03-2019-0067
JM2 concept to maintain and build lasting consumer relationships. According to Levine et al.
14,4 (2001), “stimulating a consumer’s engagement with a brand is the only way to increase
brand loyalty, and therefore, the best measure of current and future performance.” Similar
notions suggest engagement works as a catalyst that converts prospects to consumers,
consumers to loyal consumers, and loyal consumers to brand advocates” (Duffy Agency,
2015).
988 The concept of engagement is not new; however, its adoption in the branding literature
has gained momentum in recent times. Foundational works in consumer-brand engagement
(Hollebeek, 2011; Vivek et al., 2012; Gambetti et al., 2012; France et al., 2016; Dessart et al.,
2016; Fernandes and Moreira, 2019; Singh and Srivastava, 2019) render both theoretical and
empirical support towards its significant and positive linkage to brand loyalty. Based on
extant literature review, research models of Vivek et al. (2012), Brodie et al. (2013), Hollebeek
and Chen (2014), Dwivedi (2015) and Islam et al. (2018) have been found rational in assessing
consumer-brand engagement and consequent outcomes. The application of consumer-brand
engagement has been majorly confined to the service sector (France et al., 2016; Leckie et al.,
2016; Jarvi, 2019) and predominantly online behaviour (Hollebeek and Chen, 2014; Loureiro
et al., 2017; Gong, 2018; Pongpaew et al., 2017; Harrigan et al., 2018; Machado et al., 2019).
However, there are seminal works that highlight the vitality of consumer-brand engagement
with respect to concerning the manufacturing sector (Dwivedi, 2015; Risitano et al., 2017).
Further, empirical research studies (Thaichon and Quach, 2015; Choi et al., 2017) in the
engagement domain have pointed out relationship quality holds the potential to enhance
brand loyalty. Despite this denotation, there appears to be a dearth of studies, which
empirically supports the contribution of relationship quality towards inducing brand
loyalty. Along the same lines, the mediating role of relationship quality in the linkage
between consumer-brand engagement and brand loyalty still remains under-explored,
especially in the manufacturing context. To effectively address these research gaps, the
present study makes a novel attempt to empirically validate the influence of consumer-
brand engagement on creating and enhancing brand loyalty in the automobile brands in the
Indian context. Also, this research examines the mediating effect of relationship quality in
the linkage between consumer-brand engagement and brand loyalty. The following sections
cover the literature review, hypothesis formulation, methodology, findings and discussion.

Literature review
Consumer-brand engagement
The emerging concept of consumer-brand engagement finds its theoretical roots from the
domain of relationship marketing and interactive service marketing. Specifically, Vargo and
Lusch’s (2008) service-dominant logic (S-D logic) that facilitates marketing relationships
established on two facets- consumers’ interactivity and co-creative experiences with diverse
stakeholders such as companies and fellow consumers remain the core reason behind the
growing attention towards consumer-brand engagement concept. Recent works suggest
that conceptualization of consumer-brand engagement needs to reckon both psychological
and behavioural dimensions (Machado et al., 2019; Fernandes and Moreira, 2019;
Algharabat et al., 2019; Islam et al., 2018). In particular, So et al. (2014) argues that theoretical
sphere of consumer-brand engagement requires something more than just evaluating
consumer-brand engagement, as consumers’ participation in consumer-brand engagement
activities does not reflect true engagement with the respective brand. For instance, a
consumer may show him/her engagement towards a brand through participation in brand
discussion forums for various reasons e.g. product information needs, but they might not be
actually engaged or connected with the brand at a psychological level. True consumer-brand
engagement, therefore, requires an imperishable psychological connection with the brand, in Driving brand
addition to mere behavioural participation. Hollebeek and Chen (2014, p. 154) define loyalty
consumer-brand engagement as “consumer’s positively valence brand-related emotional,
cognitive and behavioural activity during or related to focal consumer/brand interaction.” In
this definition, consumer-brand engagement process comprises of the hierarchical effects of
cognitive processing, affection and activation. Cognitive-processing relates to the brand-
oriented thoughts that the consumer processes during the brand/consumer interaction;
while affection refers to the degree of positive brand-related affect in specific brand/ 989
consumer interactions. Finally, activation exhibits time, energy and effort that are invested
in specific brand/consumer interactions. Enhanced levels of consumer-brand engagement
has substantially conducive towards attainment of brand performance outcomes such as
sales growth, reduced operational costs, positive word-of-mouth, brand referrals, superior
profitability and brand loyalty (Singh and Srivastava, 2019; Algharabat et al., 2019; Fang,
2017; Dwivedi, 2015; Hollebeek and Chen, 2014; Bijmolt et al., 2010; Sawhney et al., 2005).
The potential antecedents of consumer-brand engagement are discussed in the following
section that forms a base for conceptualizing the hypothesized model.

Brand interactivity
The concept of brand interactivity is relatively novel and deals with the consumers’
perception regarding the willingness and true desire of the brand to integrate with them
(France et al., 2016; Shao et al., 2015). In this respect, continuous communication from
the brand-side projects the brand’s eagerness to interact and relate to the consumers.
The evaluation of brand interactivity from the consumer perspective occurs at two
broad levels, technical assistance provided by the brand for facilitating interaction and
showing a genuine inclination to nurture connectedness. From the consumer
perspective, brand interactivity becomes utmost important in the engagement arena,
where interaction is the focal point of consumer-brand engagement (Brodie et al., 2011;
Lawrence et al., 2013; De Vries and Carlson, 2014; Merrilees, 2016; France et al., 2018).
Consumers are getting actively involved in more and more interactions with respective
brands (Merz et al., 2009; Islam et al., 2018; Fernandes and Moreira, 2019), as a result,
enhanced brand interaction has a positive influence over customer-brand relationship
(Jee and Lee, 2002; Islam et al., 2018).
Conceptual evidences of the effect of interactivity are highlighted in the prior research
studies on brand engagement (Brodie et al., 2011; Schultz, 2017; France et al., 2018). Prior
qualitative studies highlight that highly consumers willingly become involved in two-way
conversations and more personalized relationships with highly interactive brands (Sawhney
et al., 2005; Islam and Rahman, 2017; Schultz, 2017). Once the consumer perceives the brand
as interactive, that feeling of being welcomed gets inculcated within them, and hence, they
are motivated to engage with the brand. Following this logic, Merrilees and Fry (2003) put
forward the notion consumers develop a sense of value and trust regarding the brand, which
further strengthens the consumer-brand relationship, and, in turn, leads to engagement
state. Despite strong conceptual grounds and theoretical reasoning, brand interactivity has
remained empirically under-explored antecedent of consumer-brand engagement. Therefore,
in the present study, brand interactivity is included to provide a novel perspective that it has
a positive and direct effect on consumer-brand engagement. Hence, the following hypothesis
is postulated:

H1. Brand interactivity positively and significantly relates to consumer-brand

engagement.
JM2 Consumer involvement. Prior research studies have pointed that consumer involvement as a
14,4 common antecedent of brand engagement (Algharabat et al., 2018; Harrigan et al., 2018; De
Vries and Carlson, 2014; Mollen and Wilson, 2010). Further, it denotes the degree of
consumers’ perception regarding the importance of the object (in this context, brand) as per
their needs, interests and basic values (Russell-Bennett et al., 2007). In low involvement
cases, consumers often mentally process and use existing informational cues regarding
990 various products (Gordon et al., 1998). Contrastingly, consumers who exhibit high
involvement with a brand, search for extra elabourative brand-oriented information, are
highly involved/engaged in the process of final decision making, are more informed
regarding the differentiation among brands of similar product category and exhibit more
inclination and preference towards respective brands (Hollebeek and Chen, 2014; Kaufmann
et al., 2016; Harrigan et al., 2018). Prior researchers provide evidence that consumers with a
heightened level of involvement show intensified levels of engagement (Wirtz et al., 2013;
Hepola et al., 2017 Algharabat et al.,2018). As proposed by interdependence theory, this kind
of relationship (engagement) offers more benefits and rewards to the consumers (Kelley and
Thibaut, 1978). Therefore, we propose the hypothesis that:

H2. Consumer involvement contributes positively and significantly towards consumer-

brand engagement.

Self-brand image congruency

Self-brand image congruency refers to the fit how a consumer perceives about him/her and
accordingly relates that to the image of the specific brand (Sirgy, 1982). This concept draws
from self-congruence theory and explains that in conditions where the extent of congruence
is high, it would exhibit favourable influence on consumers’ brand preference and positive
behavioural intention in both online and offline context (Kressmann et al., 2006; Loureiro
et al., 2017; Moliner et al., 2018; Tan et al., 2018). Accordingly, self-image congruency has
been considered as a vital determinant for social network and mobile services adoption (De
Vries and Carlson, 2014; Tuskej and Podnar, 2018). To demonstrate the positive linkage
between self-brand congruency and consumer engagement, Andonova et al. (2015) carried
out an experimental design procedure. Subsequently, based on the above arguments, self-
brand image congruency may significantly influence consumer-brand engagement in the
social network context. The compatible match between consumers’ self-image and the brand
image motivates the consumer for proactive thinking, feeling a sense of satisfaction, thus,
being actively engaged with the brand. Hence, the following hypothesis is formulated:

H3. Self-brand image congruency positively and significantly contributes towards

consumer-brand engagement.

Linkage between relationship quality, consumer-brand engagement and brand loyalty

Smit et al. (2007) refers relationship quality as an indicator of the strength and depth of the
relationship between the consumer and the brand. The foundational works of Fournier
(1998) classifies relationship quality into three distinct categories such as affective and
socio-emotive attachments (love, passion and self-connection), cognitive beliefs (intimacy
and brand partner quality) and behavioural ties (interdependence, trust and commitment).
Prior studies in the relationship marketing literature concretely establish the linkage
between relationship quality indicators such as trust (Erkmen and Hancer, 2019; Hudson
et al., 2016; Nyffenegger et al., 2015; Brodie et al., 2011) and satisfaction (Fetscherin et al.,
2019; Van Doorn et al., 2010) significantly contributes towards enhancing consumer-brand Driving brand
engagement. Along the same lines, Hollebeek and Brodie (2009) conceptually argues that loyalty
consumer-brand engagement is a direct precursor of relationship quality. Vivek et al. (2012)
rightly points out that consumer-brand engagement effectively contribute in creating a
favourable brand attitude that reflects through consumers’ trust and affective commitment.
In a recent research, Brodie et al. (2013) found that consumers of virtual brand communities
who are highly engaged show a tendency to show positive relationship quality indicators 991
such as affective commitment, increased trust and enhanced satisfaction. Empirical
evidence mostly in western countries suggests relationship quality provides various
relational benefits such as consumer retention (Nataraj and Rajendran, 2018; Thaichon and
Quach, 2015; Hennig-Thurau and Hansen, 2000), continuity of the existing relationship (Kim
and Cha, 2002), decreased inclination towards quitting the relationship (Ulaga and Eggert,
2006) and brand loyalty (Choi et al., 2017; Giovanis et al., 2015; Valta, 2013). Further, prior
researchers found RQ elements such as trust and satisfaction are prime antecedents of brand
loyalty (Smit et al., 2007; Moliner, 2009). Thus, we posit the following hypothesis that:

H4a. Consumer-brand engagement has a positive and significant linkage with

relationship quality.
Brand loyalty represents consumers’ strong commitment to repurchase a preferred brand on
a continuous basis regularly (Oliver, 1999). Based on this logic, brand loyalty denotes
purchase-related consequence of an engaged relationship between the consumer and the
brand. Contrastingly, consumer-brand engagement, which comprises of cognitive,
behavioural and affective components summarize consumers’ connection with the brand
even after purchase, which extends beyond the exchange relationship (Vivek et al., 2012).
Prior researchers provide empirical evidences that consumer-brand engagement
significantly predicts brand loyalty and purchase intention (Carvalho, and Fernandes, 2018;
Coelho et al., 2018; Leckie et al., 2018; France et al., 2016; Hollebeek and Brodie, 2009). This
evidence also suggests that the previously mentioned relationships indicate deep
psychological connection among consumers and brands, however, also show interactive
experience beyond the mere brand purchase. Sprott et al. (2009) propose that consumer-
brand engagement influences crucial elements of consumer knowledge, perception and
attitude regarding the brand attributes, thereby, affects brand loyalty. Recent works of Jahn
and Kunz (2012) and Carvalho and Fernandes, 2018 show fan page engagement of Facebook
users has a positive influence on brand loyalty components that includes brand
commitment, positive word-of-mouth and intention to buy. In a similar vein, So et al. (2016)
empirically highlights that consumer-brand engagement influences customers’ loyalty in
the context of a tourism brand. Hence, we examine the following hypothesis:

H4b. Relationship quality has a positive and significant linkage with brand loyalty.
The linkage of the above-mentioned sub-hypotheses provides a foundational base for
investigating the mediation effect (Baron and Kenny, 1986; Cheung, 2007) of relationship
quality in the linkage between consumer-brand engagement and brand loyalty (Figure 1).
Therefore, we posit the hypothesis that:

H4c. Relationship quality mediates the positive linkage between consumer-brand

engagement and brand loyalty.
H4c. Consumer-brand engagement positively and significantly relates to brand loyalty.
JM2 Methodology
14,4 Sampling procedure
To empirically examine the hypothesized research model, primary data collection was carried
out through structured questionnaires. As the objective of the research was to investigate the
brand loyalty of existing automobile consumers, subsequently, the target respondents involved
who had purchased a car in the past year. The respondents were assured regarding the
992 confidentiality of the information provided during the survey. Car owners are considerably
increasing and showing great potential in Tier-2 and Tier-3 cities. However, the major
automobile penetration still exists in the Tier-1 and metro cities (Mint Research Report, 2018).
According to the Central Govt. seventh pay commission implemented in 2017, there are three
categories, namely, Category X (population of 50 lakh and above); Category Y (population
between 5 and 50 lakh); and category Z (population below 5 lakh). In common parlance, these
are called Tier-1, Tier-2 and Tier-3 cities, respectively. The respondent selection for the present
study was carried out from three Tier-1 and metro cities of India, i.e. Delhi, Bangalore and
Mumbai, which based on their sales volumes during the period April 2015-March 2016 (Team-
BHP reports, 2016). Hence, our research sample adequately represents the Indian car buyers’
population – as the selected cities have a large and diverse population. The absence of reliable
sampling frame for probability-based sampling technique and recommendations of prior
researchers compelled to use snowball and convenience sampling methods for data collection
(Chang et al., 2015; Agrebi and Jallais, 2015). Distribution of questionnaires among the
respondents was carried out using personal emails and social media platforms. The survey
period ranged from 18 August 2018 to 18 October 2018. Because of the unavailability of
funding for the study, survey participants did not receive any monetary incentive. In total, 519
car buyers were approached to participate in the questionnaire survey, but only 443 responses
were received. The presence of missing values prompted for eliminating 26 responses, which
yielded 417 usable responses for final data analysis. Regarding the adequate sample size in
SEM, various management researchers consider 200-500 sample size as adequate for
conducting SEM (Hinkin, 1995; Schumacher and Lomax, 1996). Based on the recommended
guidelines, 417 sample size used in the present research exceeds the threshold level, thereby
seem sufficient for drawing meaningful conclusions. The sample taken for final analysis
comprises the approximately equal distribution of genders (male = 58.91 per cent,
female = 41.09 per cent), while, the respondents’ median age was 31 years. Respondents’ income
level was categorized into four groups, namely, where 59 (15.25 per cent) respondents and 85
(21.96 per cent) respondents fall under the category of fewer than 5 lakhs and 5-8 lakhs,
respectively. The income category of 10-15 lakhs involved 106 (27.39 per cent) respondents,
whereas 137 (35.40 per cent) respondents were earning an income level of greater than 12 lakhs.
Table I shows the demographic characteristics of the respondents.

Relationship
Brand Quality
H1
Interactivity H4a
H4b

Consumer CBE
Involvement H2 Brand loyalty
Figure 1. H4c
Hypothesized Self-brand
research mode image congruity H3
Questionnaire development Driving brand
At the initial level, the research questionnaire needs to ensure adequate content validity. In this loyalty
regard, the measurement items of the questionnaire for this study minutely followed the
literature. Bharati and Chaudhury (2004) suggest content validity explains the
comprehensiveness and representativeness of the research constructs. The scales for
measuring consumer-brand engagement were drawn from the study of Hollebeek and Chen
(2014), while, questions related to relationship quality were adapted from Nyffenegger et al.
(2015). Measurement items dealing with brand interactivity and self-brand image congruity
993
were based on the works of France et al. (2016). Finally, the indicators of consumer involvement
and brand loyalty were taken from the research works of Dwivedi (2015) and France et al.
(2016). The assessment of psychometric properties of scale followed the standard procedure
(Hair et al., 2010). Table II shows the measurement items used in the final questionnaire.

Assessment of common method bias

The present research incorporated e-survey questionnaire for conducting the data collection
procedure, nevertheless, a lacuna exists in terms of measurement errors and common method
variance with survey scales. In most cases, such errors can introduce bias and hamper the
estimation of the linkage between constructs. Therefore, the present study conducts common
method bias estimation through AMOS software Version 22 using two methods, namely,
Harman’s single factor test and unmeasured latent method construct (Harman, 1976; Byrne,
2010). These methods examine the presence of common method bias in the data set, thereby,
highlighting the appropriateness and reliability of the empirical results.

Evaluation of Harman’s single factor test

Podsakoff et al. (2003) suggest Harman’s single-factor test (HSFT) to assess the presence of
common method bias in the data set. In the present study, exploratory factor analysis
technique involving extraction process of principal component and orthogonal rotation,
specifically, varimax rotation indicated seven factors. These extracted seven factors exhibit
eigenvalues greater than 1, therefore, provides evidence for the absence of any single
dominant factor. These extracted factors account for 69.648 per cent variance, where, the
first factor explains 27.643 per cent of the cumulative variance; hence, it is lower than the 50
per cent recommended criterion (Harman, 1976).
More recently, researchers are quite content to use Harman’s single factor test along with
confirmatory factor analysis because of two main advantages- highly accurate and robust
results (Craighead et al., 2011). The prime logic behind this accuracy and robustness of

Demographic profile Frequency (% of the total)

Median age 31
Gender
Male 248 (64.08)
Female 139 (35.92)
Income distribution (in Rs.)
Less than 5 lakhs 59 (15.25) Table I.
5-10 lakhs 85 (21.96) Demographic
10-15 lakhs 106 (27.39) characteristics of the
Above 15 lakhs 137 (35.40) respondents
JM2 Construct
14,4
Brand interactivity
994
Consumer involvement
Self-brand image congruity
Consumer-brand engagement
Relationship quality
Brand loyalty
Table II.
Questionnaire used
in the data analysis
Measurement items
BIN1 Automobile Brand [X] often listens to what I have to say
BIN2 Automobile Brand [X] motivates me for directly communicating
with it
BIN3 Automobile Brand [X] responds to my queries in a quick and
efficient manner
CINV1 I am interested a lot in Automobile Brand [X]
CINV2 I am fascinated by Automobile Brand [X]
CINV3 I am personally involved with Automobile Brand [X]
SBIC1 Automobile Brand [X] reflects who I am
SBIC2 Automobile Brand [X] resembles to me in true sense
SBIC3 Automobile Brand [X] is a lot like me
CBE1 Automobile Brand [X] makes me feel positive and happy
CBE2 Automobile Brand [X] makes me think about it
CBE3 Automobile Brand [X] makes me feel proud
CBE4 Automobile Brand [X] keeps me engrossed while dealing with it
RQ1 Automobile Brand [X] treats me in a special way rather than just
other consumer
RQ2 Automobile Brand [X] exactly meets my expectations
RQ3 Automobile Brand [X] is honest and reliable
RQ4 Automobile Brand [X] is safe and secure to use
RQ5 I am consistently satisfied with the decision to use Automobile
Brand [X]
RQ6 Automobile Brand [X] can always count on me
RQ7 I will stay with Automobile Brand [X] through good and bad times
BL1 I would definitely recommend Automobile Brand [X] to family and
peers
BL2 I am willing to continue using Automobile Brand [X] in future
BL3 I will stick to Automobile Brand [X] even if I get better deals on
other automobile brands
BL4 I would spread good things about Automobile Brand [X] while
talking to my friends

confirmatory factor analysis procedure relates to the fact that it allows for model fit indices of
both hypothesized models (single-factor and multi-factor). Also, provides a chi-square (x 2)
difference test to point out the discrepancies (if any) between the respective models. In a situation,
where the model fit indices and x 2 differences of both the models, evidently show that single-
factor model is significantly not as better performing compared to the multi-factor model, then
the presence of common method bias in the data set can be assumed to be null (Byrne, 2016).
Table III exhibits good model fit for the measurement model as all the model-fit values
are conforming to the recommended levels. The significant differences between the x 2
values of single-factor and multi-factor models clearly highlight that the single-factor model
indicates a bad fit compared to the multi-factor model. Hence, the multi-factor model is more
reliable in terms of good fit in this case. In addition, the rest of the model-fit values exceed
the threshold limit of index difference of 0.001 (Byrne, 2016).

Procedure of unmeasured latent method construct

The estimation of common-method bias through unmeasured latent method construct (ULMC)
method can be done using two distinct approaches. The first approach suggests forming a
Model-fit index Multi-factor Single factor
Driving brand
values model model Difference (D) loyalty
CMIN 351.328 635.229 283.871
Df 230 249 19
CMIN/DF 1.528 2.551 14.94
CFI 0.966 0.891 0.075
GFI 0.914 0.873 0.041 995
AGFI 0.888 0.846 0.042
IFI 0.966 0.892 0.074
NFI 0.908 0.833 0.075
RMR 0.058 0.621 0.563
RMSEA 0.042 0.071 0.029 Table III.
Notes: CFI-comparative fit index; GFI-goodness-of-fit index; AGFI-adjusted goodness-of-fit index; IFI- Evaluation of
incremental fit index; NFI-normed fit index; RMR-root mean square residual; and RMSEA-root mean square common method bias
error of approximation using HSFT

measurement model with a common latent factor appended to it. Also, all the measurement
items are loaded additionally to their respective theoretical factor (Lindell and Whitney, 2001).
Further, the coefficients between the path that links the common latent factor and respective
measurement items were equally constrained, the reason for this being, the effect of common-
method bias would be similar across the items. Subsequently, the critical estimation of both the
measurement models adequately proves the non-existence of common-method bias as the
respective models are statistically different. Table IV indicates the model-fit values for the
measurement model (with and without common latent factor). Based on these values, it can be
interpreted that both the measurement models are significantly different from each other.
Moreover, the difference of x 2 estimation (D x 2)* indicates the value of 9.047 having 1 degree of
freedom that is higher than the threshold level > 3, therefore, exhibits a significant change in
the respective measurement model (Hair et al., 2012). In addition, DCFI = 0.016, DRMR = 0.007,
DRMSEA = 0.003 values are all higher than the recommended level i.e. 0.001. Consequently, the
overall comparison of model fit indices along with low path coefficients does not exhibit
extreme influence on the measurement items.
The additional approach for common method bias assessment, as suggested by Bryne
(2010), required the measurement models (with common latent factor) and measurement
model (without common latent factor) to be evaluated individually. Meanwhile, their std.
path coefficients values were also recorded separately. Table V clearly points out that the
difference between the std. path coefficients actually varies among 0.070-0.146, which

Measurement model Measurement model

Model-fit indices (with common latent factor) (without common latent factor)

x2 342.311 351.358
Df 229 230
CMIN/DF 1.495 1.528 Table IV.
CFI 0.965 0.966
RMSEA 0.045 0.042
Model-fit indices for
SRMR 0.065 0.058 measurement models
(with and without
Note: Calculation of x 2 difference D x 2/Ddf = (351.358
342.311)/(230
229) = 9.047/1 = 9.047 CLF)
JM2 Measurement Standardized estimates (without common Standardized estimates (with
14,4 item latent factor) common latent factor) Change

BIN1 0.783 0.777 0.006

BIN2 0.716 0.713 0.003
BIN3 0.636 0.634 0.002
RQ1 0.668 0.662 0.006
996 RQ2 0.805 0.804 0.001
RQ3 0.859 0.855 0.004
RQ4 0.860 0.857 0.003
RQ5 0.860 0.853 0.007
RQ6 0.617 0.601 0.016
RQ7 0.648 0.643 0.005
BL1 0.870 0.866 0.004
BL2 0.739 0.735 0.004
BL3 0.754 0.748 0.006
BL4 0.805 0.798 0.007
CBE1 0.821 0.818 0.003
CBE2 0.798 0.794 0.004
CBE3 0.818 0.817 0.001
CBE4 0.830 0.826 0.004
CINV1 0.828 0.819 0.009
CINV2 0.765 0.764 0.001
CINV3 0.721 0.719 0.002
SBIC1 0.762 0.755 0.007
SBIC2 0.909 0.907 0.002
Table V.
SBIC3 0.745 0.740 0.005
Estimating common
method bias through Note: Change indicates the difference between the standardized estimates (with and without common
ULMC latent factor)

implies a common latent factor can explain the maximum variance of 2.13 per cent
(0.146*0.146 = 0.0213) for a measurement item. In total, the minimal differences in std. path
coefficients extend empirical support to the argument of the non-existence of common
method bias in the present data set.

Results and discussion

Applying the structural equation modelling approach, the measurement model results
(CMIN = 351.358, df = 230, CMIN/df = 1.528, CFI = 0.966, GFI = 0.914, RMSEA = 0.058) indicate
good model fit. Table VI exhibits the reliability and validity measures for the variables under
study. The standardized factor loading values exceed the threshold values (0.50) (Nunnally and
Bernstein, 1994). Composite reliability (CR) and average variance explained (AVE) are
significantly higher than the recommended level of 0.70 and 0.50, respectively (Fornell and
Larcker, 1981). Table VII shows the model achieves adequate discriminant validity.
The structural model results (CMIN = 390.052, df = 244, CMIN/df = 1.599, CFI = 0.959, GFI =
0.906, TLI = 0.953, RMSEA = 0.044, RMR = 0.079) suggest that the model fits the data well (Hair
et al., 2010). The results of the research show that brand interactivity (b = 0.219, t-values = 3.913,
p-value < 0.01) emerges as the key antecedents of consumer-brand engagement, therefore,
supporting H1 (Table VIII). This finding is in line with prior researchers (France et al., 2016;
Hollebeek and Chen, 2014). The significant linkage between brand interactivity and consumer-
brand engagement reiterates the importance of interactive exchanges between the brands and the
 Standardized Composite
Driving brand
Construct Measurement item factor loadings reliability Average variance extracted loyalty
Brand interactivity BIN1 0.783 0.816 0.596
BIN2 0.716
BIN3 0.636
Relationship quality RQ1 0.668 0.877 0.643
RQ2 0.805 997
RQ3 0.859
RQ4 0.860
RQ5 0.863
RQ6 0.617
RQ7 0.648
Brand loyalty BL1 0.870
BL2 0.739 0.904 0.654
BL3 0.754
BL4 0.805
Consumer-brand engagement CBE1 0.821 0.902 0.697
CBE2 0.798
CBE3 0.818
CBE4 0.830
Consumer involvement CINV1 0.828 0.756 0.510
Table VI.
CINV2 0.765
CINV3 0.721 Reliability and
Self-brand image congruity SBIC1 0.762 0.849 0.655 validity measures for
SBIC2 0.909 the construct and
SBIC3 0.745 items

Construct BINT RQ BL CBE CINV SBIC

BINT 0.772
RQ 0.396 0.802
BL 0.473 0.569 0.809
CBE 0.436 0.566 0.515 0.835
CINV 0.108 0.128
0.014 0.161 0.714
SBIC 0.054 0.181 0.026 0.060 0.046 0.809

Notes: Diagonal values in italics represent square root of the AVE values; BINT-brand interactivity; RQ- Table VII.
relationship quality; BL-brand loyalty; CBE-consumer-brand engagement; CINV-consumer involvement; Discriminant validity
and SBIC-self-brand image congruity of the constructs

consumer. In this context, consumers perceive that the automobile brand effectively responds to
their specific requirements and participates in a two-way conversation. Accordingly, consumers
feel that the automobile brand is more open to personalized relationships, therefore, they also
reciprocate in the same manner. Consequently, brand interactivity emerges as a vital determinant
of consumer-brand engagement in the modern-day branding domain. The construct of consumer
involvement (b = 0.472, t-values = 6.097, p-value < 0.001) indicates maximum importance
towards predicting consumer-brand engagement, supporting H2, which clearly highlights that
involvement of the consumers plays a crucial role in shaping engagement. This finding seems
interesting as consumers perceive the automobile brand is highly valuable and relevant,
therefore, they search for informational cues of the respective brand. In addition, this finding
JM2 Construct
14,4 Research hypotheses relationships Standardized b values t-value Decision

H1 BIN ! CBE 0.219 3.913** Supported

H2 CINV ! CBE 0.472 6.097*** Supported
H3 SBIC ! CBE 0.030 0.508 Not supported
H4a CBE ! RQ 0.605 9.467*** Supported
998 H4b RQ ! BL 0.362 4.871*** Supported
H4c CBE ! BL (RQ)# 0.563 4.579*** Supported
Table VIII. Notes: #Mediator in parenthesis; ***p < 0.001 and **p < 0.01; BINT-brand interactivity; RQ-relationship
Empirical results of quality; BL-brand loyalty; CBE-consumer-brand engagement; CINV-consumer involvement; and SBIC-self-
hypothesis testing brand image congruity

contributed towards empirical validation of the consumer involvement and consumer-brand

engagement linkage, as pointed by Brodie et al. (2011) in the theoretical literature. The results
further provide the notion that self-brand image congruency (b = 0.030, t-values = 0.508, p-
value > 0.05) do not significantly contribute to consumer-brand engagement. This finding
contradicts the outcomes of Leckie et al. (2016), as we did not find any support for the significant
linkage of self-brand image congruency towards consumer-brand engagement. A plausible
explanation for this finding can be consumers’ perceptions regarding automobile brands do not
extend beyond the conventional utility function. Specifically, consumers do not attach their self-
characteristics to the automobile brand as they still think vehicles only serve the purpose of
transport. Further, self-brand image connections take considerable time to develop, in this sense,
repeat buyers or long-term users of automobile brands tend to associate more with the respective
brand.
The mediating analysis results show relationship quality partially mediates the linkage
between consumer-brand engagement and brand loyalty (Table IX). This empirical finding
is unique and the major novelty of the present research. Consumers’ perceptions regarding
relationship quality indicators such as trust, affective commitment and satisfaction
(together clubbed as relationship quality in this research) enhance the effect of consumer-
brand engagement towards creating and enhancing brand loyalty of automobile brands.
Hence, it is clearly evident that consumers value the long-term relationship that goes beyond
just the mere purchase of the automobile brand. Therefore, the construct of relationship
quality becomes highly important in inducing loyalty among automobile consumers.

Theoretical implications
The present research offers novel insights into the existing brand engagement and specifically
to the brand engagement literature in multiple ways. First, our research provides empirical

Structural
relationship Total effects Direct effect Indirect effect Sobel’s Z value Mediation type

CBE ! RQ 0.605** 0.605** – – –

RQ ! BL 0.362** 0.362** – – –
CBE ! BL (RQ)# 0.563** 0.344** 0.219** 4.316** Partial
Table IX.
Mediation effects of Notes: #Mediator in parenthesis; **p < 0.001; RQ-relationship quality; BL-brand loyalty; and CBE-
CBE, RQ and BL consumer-brand engagement
validation of the conceptually rich consumer-brand engagement concept, thereby addressing Driving brand
the vacuum pointed by prior scholars in this domain (Brodie et al., 2011; Wirtz et al., 2013; loyalty
Hollebeek and Chen, 2014; Dwivedi, 2015; Pongpaew et al., 2017). To effectively address this
issue, we formulated and empirically tested a hypothesized model involving the potent
antecedents, namely, brand interactivity, consumer involvement and self-brand image
congruency; while, relationship quality acts as a mediator and the consequence-brand loyalty.
The findings affirm brand interactivity and consumer involvement significantly drive
consumer-brand engagement in the context of automobile brands. However, the contribution of 999
self-brand image congruency towards enhancing consumer-brand engagement lacked
empirical support. Subsequently, these findings highlight the importance of effective
interaction and involvement with the consumers, which improves the understanding of the
academicians regarding the consumer-brand engagement antecedents.
Second, our research lends strong evidence of the vitality of relationship quality as a
mediator between consumer-brand engagement and brand loyalty, thereby extending the
knowledge about engagement theory. The significance of this finding raises manifold, as it
provides cues for the possible inclusion of relationship quality in the conceptually direct
linkage between consumer-brand engagement and brand loyalty (Nyffenegger et al., 2015;
France et al., 2016; So et al., 2016). Accordingly, mediating effect of relationship quality
supports the notion that consumers act as partners with brands, thus, substantiating the
theoretical underpinnings of consumer-brand engagement.

Implications for managerial practice

The empirical validation of the potent antecedents of consumer-brand engagement in the
manufacturing sector (automobile brand context) responds to the recent research call by
consumer-brand engagement experts (Wirtz et al., 2013; Hollebeek, 2011). Automobile brands
should understand that consumers are duly interested in gaining information, interacting and
engage in discussions, therefore, brand managers should specifically know the different factors
that influence consumer-brand engagement. Based on the findings, we deduce that consumer
involvement and brand interactivity are significant predictors of consumer-brand engagement in
the context of automobile brands. Accordingly, brand managers may use this finding to develop
consumer-oriented strategies to drive involvement of existing and potential consumers. Further,
the study also affirms the mediating effect of relationship quality in the relationship between
consumer-brand engagement and brand loyalty, which may provide insights to the automobile
managers to redesign their engagement tactics. In the long run, effective and targeted consumer-
brand engagement strategies would definitely contribute towards creating and enhancing a loyal
base of consumers for the automobile brands.
This research provides some insightful implications for managerial purposes. First, we
empirically examined the conceptual model with the automobile brands to establish consumer-
brand engagement promotes relational consequences such as brand loyalty (less switching
behaviour). Subsequently, this may assist the automobile brand managers and strategists for
devising solutions, which handles consumers who are experimental and portray switching
tendencies. The research findings exhibit that consumer-brand engagement positively influences
brand loyalty. Accordingly, specific strategies to drive engagement towards the brand may
include promoting and monitoring virtual brand communities across the different social media
platforms (e.g. encouraging Facebook “likes” and Instagram “followers”). In addition,
relationship-building strategies such as offering loyalty points redeemable for discounted fuel
fillings and virtual test drives may ensure higher engagement among the consumers.
Second, empirical assessment of the potent antecedents of consumer-brand engagement aids
the managers with strategic tools, which, ultimately, influences engagement with the focal brands.
JM2 In this regard, practitioners may formulate customized programmes such as services discounts,
14,4 gift cards and experiential content to strengthen the consumer-brand relationships. The findings of
this study indicate consumer involvement and brand interactivity positively affects consumer-
brand engagement, therefore, automobile brands may invest their resources to enhance consumer
involvement. These organizations must seek to fortify the bond between consumers and brands
through meeting the consumers’ preferences, interests and values by carrying out adequate
1000 consumer research and devising brand communication strategies targeted at the consumers.
Finally, the findings affirm relationship quality plays a crucial role in the linkage between
consumer-brand engagement and brand loyalty; hence, automobile brands may take cues and
redesign their engagement initiatives. To put this into practice, managers may adopt
mechanisms such as consumer feedback system and satisfaction scores that inculcate a feeling
of trust and importance among the consumers. Consequently, the product development team
may acquire indispensable information through such initiatives that support product
improvements and innovation. In the long run, these initiatives hold high value towards
creating and enhancing a loyal base of consumers for automobile brands.

Limitations and future research directions

Like all empirical research studies, the present research also bears some limitation that requires
heedful and methodological interpretation of the outcomes. Firstly, this research was carried out in
the Indian context, therefore, the generalizability of results is contextually limited. Future
researchers can examine cross-country samples to address this limitation. Secondly, the sample
size used in the research was adequate; still, unidimensionality of samples (majorly male-
dominated) could inculcate bias in the data set. Future studies can consider equal approximation of
both genders and multi-age group variations to tackle this sampling issue. Thirdly, the research
investigated brand interactivity, self-brand image congruency, and consumer involvement as
potent antecedents of consumer-brand engagement, however, further works can explore other
consumer-brand engagement antecedents such as brand characteristics, brand involvement and
brand orientation, which can offer better insights for the diverse stakeholders. Finally, the authors
recommend for conducting focus-group discussions and face-to-face interviews of automobile
users to minutely understand the intricacies of consumer-brand engagement.

References
Agrebi, S. and Jallais, J. (2015), “Explain the intention to use smartphones for mobile shopping”, Journal
of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 16-23.
Algharabat, R., Rana, N.P., Alalwan, A.A., Baabdullah, A. and Gupta, A. (2019), “Investigating the
antecedents of customer brand engagement and consumer-based brand equity in social media”,
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, (In Press).
Algharabat, R., Rana, N.P., Dwivedi, Y.K., Alalwan, A.A. and Qasem, Z. (2018), “The effect of telepresence,
social presence and involvement on consumer brand engagement: an empirical study of non-profit
organizations”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 40, pp. 139-149.
Andonova, Y., Miller, E.G. and Diamond, W.D. (2015), “The relationships among self-brand congruence,
brand attachment, customer engagement, and brand loyalty”, in Ideas in Marketing: Finding the
New and Polishing the Old, Springer, Cham, pp. 816-816.
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173.
Bharati, P. and Chaudhury, A. (2004), “An empirical investigation of decision-making satisfaction in
web-based decision support systems”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 187-197.
Bijmolt, T.H., Leeflang, P.S., Block, F., Eisenbeiss, M., Hardie, B.G., Lemmens, A. and Saffert, P. (2010), Driving brand
“Analytics for customer engagement”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 341-356.
loyalty
Brodie, R.J., Hollebeek, L.D., Juric, B. and Ilic, A. (2011), “Customer engagement: conceptual domain,
fundamental propositions, and implications for research”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 14 No. 3,
pp. 252-271.
Brodie, R.J., Ilic, A., Juric, B. and Hollebeek, L. (2013), “Consumer engagement in a virtual brand
community: an exploratory analysis”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 105-114.
1001
Byrne, B.M. (2010), Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications and
Programming, Routledge, New York, NY.
Byrne, B.M. (2016), Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and
Programming, Routledge, New York, NY.
Carvalho, A. and Fernandes, T. (2018), “Understanding customer brand engagement with virtual social
communities: a comprehensive model of drivers, outcomes and moderators”, Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 26 Nos 1/2, pp. 23-37.
Chang, S.C., Sun, C.C., Pan, L.Y. and Wang, M.Y. (2015), “An extended TAM to explore behavioural
intention of consumers to use M-Commerce”, Journal of Information and Knowledge
Management, Vol. 14 No. 22, p. 1550014.
Cheung, M.W. (2007), “Comparison of approaches to constructing confidence intervals for mediating
effects using structural equation models”, Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary
Journal, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 227-246.
Choi, Y.G., Ok, C.M. and Hyun, S.S. (2017), “Relationships between brand experiences, personality traits,
prestige, relationship quality, and loyalty: an empirical analysis of coffeehouse brands”,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 1185-1202.
Coelho, P.S., Rita, P. and Santos, Z.R. (2018), “On the relationship between consumer-brand identification,
brand community, and brand loyalty”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 43, pp. 101-110.
Craighead, C.W., Ketchen, D.J., Dunn, K.S. and Hult, G.T. “M. (2011), “addressing common method variance:
guidelines for survey research on information technology, operations, and supply chain
management”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 578-588.
De Vries, N.J. and Carlson, J. (2014), “Examining the drivers and brand performance implications of
customer engagement with brands in the social media environment”, Journal of Brand
Management, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 495-515.
Dessart, L., Veloutsou, C. and Morgan-Thomas, A. (2016), “Capturing consumer engagement: duality,
dimensionality and measurement”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 32 Nos 5/6, pp. 399-426.
Duffy Agency (2015), “What is online engagement?”, available at http://duffy.agency/insight/what-is-
online-engagement/
Dwivedi, A. (2015), “A higher-order model of consumer Brand engagement and its impact on loyalty
intentions”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 24, pp. 100-109.
Erkmen, E. and Hancer, M. (2019), “Building brand relationship for restaurants: an examination of
other customers, brand image, trust, and restaurant attributes”, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 1469-1487.
Fang, Y.H. (2017), “Beyond the usefulness of branded applications: insights from consumer–brand
engagement and self-construal perspectives”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 40-58.
Fernandes, T. and Moreira, M. (2019), “Consumer brand engagement, satisfaction and brand loyalty: a
comparative study between functional and emotional brand relationships”, Journal of Product
and Brand Management, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 274-286.
Fetscherin, M., Guzman, F., Veloutsou, C. and Cayolla, R.R. (2019), “Latest research on brand
relationships: introduction to the special issue”, Journal of Product and Brand Management,
Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 133-139.
JM2 Forbes (2011), “Cars with the most brand loyal buyers”, available at: www.forbes.com/sites/
jimgorzelany/2011/10/13/cars-with-the-most-brand-loyal-buyers/#142323914984
14,4
Fornell, C.G. 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.
Fournier, S. (1998), “Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in consumer
research”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 343-373.
1002 Fournier, S. (1998), Special Session Summary Consumer Resistance: societal Motivations, Consumer
Manifestations, and Implications in the Marketing Domain, ACR North American Advances.
France, C., Grace, D., Merrilees, B. and Miller, D. (2018), “Customer brand co-creation behavior: conceptualization
and empirical validation”, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 334-348.
France, C., Merrilees, B. and Miller, D. (2016), “An integrated model of customer-brand engagement:
drivers and consequences”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 119-136.
Gambetti, R.C., Graffigna, G. and Biraghi, S. (2012), “The grounded theory approach to consumer-brand
engagement”, International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 54 No. 5, pp. 659-687.
Giovanis, A., Athanasopoulou, P. and Tsoukatos, E. (2015), “The role of service fairness in the service
quality–relationship quality–customer loyalty chain: an empirical study”, Journal of Service
Theory and Practice, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 744-776.
Gong, T. (2018), “Customer brand engagement behavior in online brand communities”, Journal of
Services Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 286-299.
Gordon, M.E., McKeage, K. and Fox, M.A. (1998), “Relationship marketing effectiveness: the role of
involvement”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 443-459.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Babin, B.J. and Black, W.C. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global
Perspective, Vol. 7, Pearson, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., and Babin, B.J. Anderson, R. E. and Tatham, R. L. (2012), “Multivariate data
analysis”, 7th ed., Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Harrigan, P., Evers, U., Miles, M.P. and Daly, T. (2018), “Customer engagement and the relationship
between involvement, engagement, self-brand connection and brand usage intent”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 88, pp. 388-396.
Hennig-Thurau, T. and Hansen, U. (2000), Relationship Marketing – Some Reflections on the State-of-
the-Art of the Relational Concept’ in Relationship Marketing, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 3-27.
Hepola, J., Karjaluoto, H. and Hintikka, A. (2017), “The effect of sensory brand experience and
involvement on brand equity directly and indirectly through consumer brand engagement”,
Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 282-293.
Hinkin, T.R. (1995), “A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 967-988.
Hollebeek, L.D. (2011), “Demystifying customer brand engagement: exploring the loyalty nexus”,
Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 27 Nos 7/8, pp. 785-807.
Hollebeek, L.D. and Brodie, R.J. (2009), “Wine service marketing, value co-creation and involvement:
research issues”, International Journal of Wine Business Research, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 339-353.
Hollebeek, L.D. and Chen, T. (2014), “Exploring positively-versus negatively-valenced brand engagement:
a conceptual model”, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 62-74.
Hudson, S., Huang, L., Roth, M.S. and Madden, T.J. (2016), “The influence of social media interactions
on consumer–brand relationships: a three-country study of brand perceptions and marketing
behaviors”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 27-41.
Islam, J.U. and Rahman, Z. (2017), “The impact of online brand community characteristics on customer
engagement: an application of Stimulus-Organism-Response paradigm”, Telematics and
Informatics, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 96-109.
Islam, J.U., Rahman, Z. and Hollebeek, L.D. (2018), “Consumer engagement in online brand Driving brand
communities: a solicitation of congruity theory”, Internet Research, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 23-45.
loyalty
J and L Marketing (2017), available at: www.jandlmarketing.com/thought-leadership/need-know-
loyalty-marketing-not-enough-increase-market-share/
Jahn, B. and Kunz, W. (2012), “How to transform consumers into fans of your brand”, Journal of Service
Management, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 344-361.
Jarvi, H. (2019), “Customer engagement in the hotel industry: perceptions of hotel staff and guests”,
International Journal of Business Innovation and Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 109-127.
1003
Jee, J. and Lee, W.N. (2002), “Antecedents and consequences of perceived interactivity: an= exploratory
study”, Journal of Interactive Advertising, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 34-45.
Kaufmann, H.R., Loureiro, S.M.C. and Manarioti, A. (2016), “Exploring behavioural branding, brand love
and brand co-creation”, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 516-526.
Kelley, H.H. and Thibaut, J.W. (1978), Interpersonal Relations: A Theory of Interdependence, John Wiley
and Sons, NJ.
Kim, W.G. and Cha, Y. (2002), “Antecedents and consequences of relationship quality in hotel industry”,
International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 321-338.
KPMG (2017), available at: https://home.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/cl/pdf/2017-01-kpmg-chile-advisory-
global-automotive-survey.pdf
Kressmann, F., Sirgy, M.J., Herrmann, A., Huber, F., Huber, S. and Lee, D.J. (2006), “Direct and indirect effects
of self-image congruence on brand loyalty”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 59 No. 9, pp. 955-964.
Lawrence, B., Fournier, S. and Brunel, F. (2013), “When companies don’t make the ad: a multimethod
inquiry into the differential effectiveness of consumer-generated advertising”, Journal of
Advertising, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 292-307.
Leckie, C., Nyadzayo, M.W. and Johnson, L.W. (2016), “Antecedents of consumer brand engagement
and brand loyalty”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 32 Nos 5/6, pp. 558-578.
Leckie, C., Nyadzayo, M.W. and Johnson, L.W. (2018), “Promoting brand engagement behaviors and loyalty
through perceived service value and innovativeness”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 1,
pp. 70-82.
Levine, R., Locke, C., Searls, D. and Weinberger, D. (2001), The Cluetrain Manifesto: The End of
Business as Usual, Perseus Publishing, Cambridge, MA.
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., Gorgus, T. and Kaufmann, H.R. (2017), “Antecedents and outcomes of online brand
engagement: the role of brand love on enhancing electronic-word-of-mouth”, Online Information
Review, Vol. 41 No. 7, pp. 985-1005.
Machado, J.C., Vacas-de-Carvalho, L., Azar, S.L., André, A.R. and dos Santos, B.P. (2019), “Brand gender
and consumer-based brand equity on facebook: the mediating role of consumer-brand
engagement and brand love”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 96, pp. 376-385.
Merrilees, B. (2016), “Interactive brand experience pathways to customer-brand engagement and value
co-creation”, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 402-408.
Merrilees, B. and Fry, M.L. (2003), “E-trust: the influence of perceived interactivity on e- retailing users”,
Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 123-128.
Merz, M.A., He, Y. and Vargo, S.L. (2009), “The evolving brand logic: a service-dominant logic
perspective”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 328-344.
Mint Research Report (2018), available at: www.livemint.com/Industry/bo42kmJCtW2WDi6l2yj4yN/
Ludhiana-Surat-now-among-top-10-cities-buying-luxury-cars.html
Moliner, M.A. (2009), “Loyalty, perceived value and relationship quality in healthcareservices”, Journal
of Service Management, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 76-97.
JM2 Moliner, M.Á., Monferrer-Tirado, D. and Estrada-Guillén, M. (2018), “Consequences of customer engagement
and customer self-brand connection”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 387-399.
14,4
Mollen, A. and Wilson, H. (2010), “Engagement, telepresence and interactivity in online consumer
experience: Reconciling scholastic and managerial perspectives”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 63 Nos 9/10, pp. 919-925.
Nataraj, B. and Rajendran, R. (2018), “Impact of relationship quality on customer retention – a study
with reference to retail banking in India”, International Journal of Business and Information,
1004 Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 93-117.
Nunnally, J.C. and Bernstein, I.H. (1994), Psychometric Theory, 3rd ed., McGraw Hill Publishing, New York,
NY.
Nyffenegger, B., Krohmer, H., Hoyer, W.D. and Malaer, L. (2015), “Service brand relationship quality:
hot or cold?”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 90-106.
Oliver, R.L. (1999), “Whence consumer loyalty?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63 No. 4_suppl1, pp. 33-44.
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.
Pongpaew, W., Speece, M. and Tiangsoongnern, L. (2017), “Social presence and customer brand engagement
on facebook brand pages”, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 262-281.
Risitano, M., Romano, R., Sorrentino, A. and Quintano, M. (2017), “The impact of consumer-Brand
engagement on Brand experience and behavioural intentions: an Italian empirical study”, British
Food Journal, Vol. 119 No. 8, pp. 1884-1896.
Russell-Bennett, R., McColl-Kennedy, J.R. and Coote, L.V. (2007), “Involvement, satisfaction, and Brand loyalty
in a small business services setting”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 60 No. 12, pp. 1253-1260.
Sawhney, M., Verona, G. and Prandelli, E. (2005), “Collaborating to create: the internet as a platform for
customer engagement in product innovation”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 4-17.
Schultz, C.D. (2017), “Proposing to your fans: which brand post characteristics drive consumer
engagement activities on social media brand pages?”, Electronic Commerce Research and
Applications, Vol. 26, pp. 23-34.
Schumacher, R.E. and Lomax, R.G. (1996), A Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling, Mahwah, NJ.
Shao, W., Jones, R.G. and Grace, D. (2015), “Brandscapes: contrasting corporate-generated versus
consumer-generated media in the creation of brand meaning”, Marketing Intelligence and
Planning, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 414-443.
Singh, S. and Srivastava, S. (2019), “Engaging consumers in multichannel online retail environment: a
moderation study of platform type on interaction ”, Journal of Modelling in Management, Vol. 14
No. 1, pp. 49-76.
Sirgy, M.J. (1982), “Self-concept in consumer behavior: a critical review”, Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 287-300.
Smit, E., Bronner, F. and Tolboom, M. (2007), “Brand relationship quality and its value for personal
contact”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 60 No. 6, pp. 627-633.
So, K.K.F., King, C. and Sparks, B. (2014), “Customer engagement with tourism brands: scale development
and validation”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 304-329.
So, K.K.F., King, C., Sparks, B.A. and Wang, Y. (2016), “The role of customer engagement in building
consumer loyalty to tourism brands”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 64-78.
Sprott, D., Czellar, S. and Spangenberg, E. (2009), “The importance of a general measure of brand
engagement on market behavior: development and validation of a scale”, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 92-104.
Tan, T.M., Salo, J., Juntunen, J. and Kumar, A. (2018), “A comparative study of creation of self-brand
connection amongst well-liked, new, and unfavorable brands”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 92,
pp. 71-80.
Team-BHP reports (2016), available at: www.team-bhp.com/forum/indian-car-scene/178868-city-wise- Driving brand
car-sales-india-april-2015-march-2016-a.html
loyalty
Thaichon, P. and Quach, T.N. (2015), “From marketing communications to brand management: factors
influencing relationship quality and customer retention”, Journal of Relationship Marketing,
Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 197-219.
Tuskej, U. and Podnar, K. (2018), “Consumers’ identification with corporate brands: brand prestige,
anthropomorphism and engagement in social media”, Journal of Product and Brand
Management, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 3-17. 1005
Ulaga, W. and Eggert, A. (2006), “Relationship value and relationship quality: broadening the
nomological network of business-to-business relationships”, European Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 40 Nos 3/4, pp. 311-327.
Valta, K.S. (2013), “Do relational norms matter in consumer-brand relationships?”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 98-104.
Van Doorn, J., Lemon, K.N., Mittal, V., Nass, S., Pick, D., Pirner, P. and Verhoef, P.C. (2010), “Customer
engagement behavior: theoretical foundations and research directions”, Journal of Service
Research, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 253-266.
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2008), “Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 1-10.
Vivek, S.D., Beatty, S.E. and Morgan, R.M. (2012), “Customer engagement: exploring customer relationships
beyond purchase”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 122-146.
Wirtz, J., Den Ambtman, A., Bloemer, J., Horváth, C., Ramaseshan, B., Van De Klundert, J. and
Kandampully, J. (2013), “Managing brands and customer engagement in online brand
communities”, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 223-244.

Further reading
Kang, Y.S., Hong, S. and Lee, H. (2009), “Exploring continued online service usage behavior: the roles of
self-image congruity and regret”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 111-122.
Harrigan, P., Evers, U., Miles, M. and Daly, T. (2017), “Customer engagement with tourism social media
brands”, Tourism Management, Vol. 59, pp. 597-609.
Hopwood, A.G. (2007), “Whither accounting research?”, The Accounting Review, Vol. 82 No. 5,
pp. 1365-1374.
Lambe, C.J., Spekman, R.E. and Hunt, S.D. (2000), “Interimistic relational exchange: conceptualization and
propositional development”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 212-225.
Vernuccio, M., Pagani, M., Barbarossa, C. and Pastore, A. (2015), “Antecedents of brand love in online
network-based communities. A social identity perspective”, Journal of Product and Brand
Management, Vol. 24 No. 7, pp. 706-719.

Corresponding author
Kishalay Adhikari can be contacted at: kishalayadhikary@gmail.com

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