Consumer emotional brand attachment with social

media brands and social media brand equity

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
varianceadjusted 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 formof media
in society.

Originality/value – Social media platforms are often examined as brand-building platforms. This paper adopts a different perspective,
examining social media platforms as brands per se and the effects of emotional attachments that consumers develop towards these. This
paper offers valuable insights into how consumers’ 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 research in psychology that highlights the role of affect in individual
decision-making (Isen,2001; Lerner et al.,2015). Thus, in our mediational framework, the effect of emotional
brand attachment on CBBE materializes via brand credibility and consumer satisfaction, thereby generating new
insights.

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.

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 brands. The literature on
social media attachments in particular highlights the role of consumers’ emotional attachments with social
media brands, with favorable implications for the ongoing use of social media.

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’
selfauthenticating 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 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
consumerbrand 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 membersupplied 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 fulfilling needs and wants (
Oliver, 1999). Further, consumers’ emotional brand attachment 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 component of consumer experiences with a brand is the affective element
that reflects 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 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 express their satisfaction with a brand (Delgado-Ballester and
Luis Munuera-Alemán, 2001). 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 temporal state
whereas loyalty is built on continual experiences and that satisfaction can 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 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 the items did not contain hidden cues to respondents, as well as ensured respondent 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 substantive variables of the study. The marker variable
was the respondents’“use of public 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
doublebarreled 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 threedimensional 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). Consumerbased 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) involvement with the social
media category (four items; Yoo and Donthu, 2001). We used structural equation modelling (SEM) with
IBMSPSS 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.
Incomewise, 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 of surveyed online users.
Demographics No. (%) (Approximately)
Gender
Male 135 40
Female 205 60
Age
18 to 24 years old 23 7
25 to 34 years old 75 22
35 to 44 years old 72 21
45 to 54 years old 48 14
55 to 64 years old 77 23
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
$100,001-$150,000 per annum 63 18.5
Above $150,000 per annum 37 10.9
Rather not say 51 15

Other nominated brands comprised brands, such as Instagram, Twitter, Google Plus, WhatsApp and LinkedIn.

Next,weexaminedpotentialcommonmethodvarianceinthedatausingthe“marker” variable test ( Lindell and

Whitney, 2001). The smallest positive correlation of the marker with a substantive variable purportedly serves
as a proxy for the effect of method variance (Lindell and Whitney, 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 (851) = 1307.76 (p < 0.05); Normed x2 = 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 (809) = 1247.60, p = 0.044; Normed
x2= 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 =0.94,95per 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, x2 (826) = 1190.55
(p < 0.05). However, an improper estimate in the form of a negative error 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: x2 (827) = 1191.32, p < 0.01; Normed x = 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 =_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 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 onthe proximity-seeking behavior of emotionally attached users (Park et al.,2006).
The alternative structural model fits the data well: x2 (814) = 1206.12, p < 0.01; Normed x = 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 x2 = 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 the notion of brands as (anthropomorphic) relational
partners of consumers ( Fournier, 1998). 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 media equity via brand credibility. A theoretical implication of this finding is that consumer 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 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 decisions should lead to improvements in emotional
attachment, which then translate into 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 assessed.

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 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.