See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/343107014

The Influence of Social Media Marketing on Consumers' Purchase Decision:

Investigating the Effects of Local and Nonlocal Brands

Preprint  in  Journal of International Consumer Marketing · July 2020

DOI: 10.1080/08961530.2020.1795043

CITATIONS READS

0 1,265

2 authors:

Mehedi Hasan M. Sadiq Sohail

Victoria University of Wellington King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals
3 PUBLICATIONS   5 CITATIONS    129 PUBLICATIONS   2,923 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Online Training System View project

Service Quality View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mehedi Hasan on 28 April 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The influence of social media marketing on consumers’
purchase decision: investigating the effects of local and
nonlocal brands
Please cite this article as: Hasan, M., & Sohail, M. S. (2020). The Influence of Social Media
Marketing on Consumers’ Purchase Decision: Investigating the Effects of Local and Nonlocal
Brands. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 1-18.

Mehedi Hasana
KFUPM, Management & Marketing, KFUPM Business School, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia
Sohail, M Sadiqb,*
KFUPM, Management & Marketing, KFUPM Business School, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia

Abstract

Growing usage of social media has provided marketers a better space to engage with customers.
However, research examining effects of social media marketing from the perspective of branding,
has been relatively unexplored. Further, few researches on international branding have investigated
the influence of brand’s localness/non-localness on consumer-brand relationships. The purpose of
this paper is to increase an understanding of the antecedents of social media marketing and their
effects on purchase intention, as well as the moderating influence of local and nonlocal brands on
these relationships. Data were collected online from 343 social media users in Saudi Arabia. The
research model was empirically tested using structural equation modeling. The findings support
most of the proposed direct and moderating effects. Brand trust, brand community, brand
awareness and interaction were found to influence purchase intention. Brand origin had a
moderating effect in the relationships between brand trust and interaction with purchase intention.
The proposed framework contributes to social media marketing and branding research by
integrating the contingent effect of brand localness and non-localness. Detailed discussion of the
theoretical and practical implications concludes the paper.

Keywords: social media marketing; purchase intention; brand loyalty; local brand;
nonlocal brand

1
Introduction

The enormous popularity of social media amongst consumers, as well as business, has

transformed the traditional means of conducting business and marketing (Nambisan and Baron,

2007; Turban, Bolloju, and Liang, 2010). Consumers are increasingly engaging in social media

such as Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Instagram, etc. and spend more time on such platforms,

resulting in an increasing amount of communication through social media (Hutter et al. 2013;

Schivinski and Dabrowski 2015; Islam, Rahman, and Hollebeek 2018). Consumers have gained

the power to influence the direction of the branding process (Constantinides and Fountain 2008;

Hutter et al. 2013). The rising popularity and shift of power are the cornerstone of businesses

operating in the social media platform (Gamboa and Gonçalves 2014). Social media has reshaped

the living style of individual and business of conducting activities in the digital arena (Ngai et al.

2015).

Increasing presence and participation of consumers/customers in social media poses both

opportunities and challenges to the marketers, as consumers base their purchase decisions on peer

interaction in social media (Hutter et al. 2013). Purchase behavior and brand loyalty have been

drawing the attention of marketing researchers for a long time (Oliver 1999; Chaudhuri and

Holbrook 2001; Bennett and Rundle-Thiele 2002). In the context of social media, few past studies

have examined the dimensions of social media, which provide marketers with remarkable

opportunities to reach customers (Barger, Peltier, and Schultz 2016; Godey et al. 2016) or build

brand trust (Sohail, Hasan, and Sohail 2020). Nevertheless, from the standpoint of branding

literature, researches investigating the consequences of social media marketing (SMM) is still

exploratory and lacks empirical evidence (Hollebeek, Glynn, and Brodie 2014). Further, despite

extensive studies documenting the importance of consumer-brand relationships, a few studies on

2
international branding have investigated the influence of brand’s localness/non-localness on

consumer-brand relationships (Sichtmann, Davvetas, and Diamantopoulos 2018). Thus, in this

study, brand origin (i.e., localness/non-localness) is included as moderating effects on the linkage

between customers' purchase intention and its determinants.

In addressing this important area of research, the main objective of the research is to

investigate the antecedents of purchase intention in SMM from a different geographic context and

cultural perspective. While past studies have examined only a few elements of social media-based

branding items such as brand community (Laroche, Habibi, and Richard 2013) and brand

awareness (Hutter et al. 2013), to our best knowledge, few studies have been undertaken to

combine these predictors of purchase intention to examine the moderating effect of brand

localness/non-localness on the relationship between purchase intention and its antecedents. In

addition, few studies have been conducted to examine how these determinants affect the brand's

social media presence and help to build consumer brand loyalty by influencing their purchase

decision. From a theoretical perspective, the results of this study contribute to our understanding

of the purchasing decision formation process while selecting local or non-local brands, and of how

this purchasing decision process influences in forming long-term customer loyalty towards the

brands. For managers, this study is of value, as it indicates the critical need for companies to

manage customers purchasing decisions in SMM.

Review of Literature

Social media marketing activities

In recent times, organizations have been increasingly using social media to engage

customers with their brands (Okazaki et al. 2015). Yet, many have failed to achieve brand loyalty

as they have not been able to build brand relationships in the SMM setting (Fournier and Lee

3
2009). SMM is a type of online marketing that uses the cultural context of society to meet

communication and branding objectives (Tuten 2009). Social media converts consumers to

marketers as they generate, edit, create, and share online information about organizations and

brands (Hartmann and Apaolaza-Ibáñez 2012). Several benefits of SMM to marketers have been

reported in the literature, for example, enabling two-way communication (L. M. Davis 2010) and

reduced efforts to search for information (Laroche, Habibi, and Richard 2013).

Several theoretical perspectives have been proposed to explore the brand influence on

purchase intention. Extant social media research has developed and used a large number of theories

to study the behavior of social media users. Undertaking a systematic review of the literature

covering 46 reviewed articles, a study identified 35 theories and grouped them into three groups

of theories- personal behavior, social behavior, and mass communication (Ngai et al. 2015).

Drawing from this literature and consolidating from relevant studies, we have identified variables

affecting SMM. This study has extracted some relational variables relevant to the research setting

and developed a conceptual framework for testing with the hypothesized relationships.

Development of hypotheses

Brand trust

Incorporating different perspectives ( Moorman, Deshpande, and Zaltman 1993; Morgan and

Hunt 1994; Doney and Cannon 1997; Chaudhuri and Holbrook 2001; Sirdeshmukh, Singh, and

Sabol 2002; Erdem and Swait 2004), brand trust can be defined as the confidence a product, brand,

or service builds on the customer’s ability to rely on the brand to perform its stated functions.

Brand trust reflects the perception of brand reliability (Erdem and Swait 2004). It is a necessary

component in formulating successful marketing intimacy (Morgan and Hunt 1994; Urban, Sultan,

and Qualls 2001; Herbst et al. 2011).

4
 The connection between trust and purchase intention has been studied frequently in the past

in the context of online shopping. Liu et al. (2005) examined individual consumers' assumptions

of privacy and how it is linked to his or her purchase intentions to shape online purchases. Liu et

al. (2005) showed that trust was an important factor to influence consumers' purchase intention for

online purchase decisions. In an online shopping context, Kuan and Bock (2007) scrutinized the

relationship between trust and purchase intention in the grocery shopping context and found a

positive relationship. Lee and Jeong (2014) in the multi-channel banking scenario, found that

consumer trust in offline banking services motivated the consumer to use online banking services

of the offline bank. Further, Zboja and Voorhees (2006) scrutinized the consumers’ perception of

brand trust and repurchase intention and showed that brand trust was evidently related to

consumers' level of satisfaction and repurchase intention. In social media, the presence of

marketers develops an acquaintance, which could presumably influence purchase intention. Hence,

the hypothesis,

H1: Brand trust in social media positively influences consumer purchase intention.

Brand community:

A brand community is "a focused, non-geographically bound community, based on an

organized set of social links among the enthusiasts of a brand" (Muniz and O’Guinn 2001). A

social media-based brand community is the combination of brand community and social media-

based interactions. A social media-based brand community is the subset of "virtual brand

community" or "online brand community"; however, the main difference is their platform of

interactions.

Several companies are employing social media sites, because of their popularity in recent

times, to build brand communities based on social networking sites (Muniz and O’Guinn 2001;

5
Kaplan and Haenlein 2010; Essamri, McKechnie, and Winklhofer 2019; Yasin, Porcu, and

Liébana-Cabanillas 2019). Brands such as Aston Martin, besides their offline brand community's

existence attempt to uphold their online presence to connect with their consumers online, and

thereby enhance their brand communities' members' interaction on social media sites such as

Facebook (Essamri, McKechnie, and Winklhofer 2019). The sites help users with a feeling of

independence and facilitate them to interact in various languages, topics, and issues, which flourish

an ambiance that facilitates the open-access of messages and information (Rheingold 1991;

Lenhart and Madden 2007; Yasin, Porcu, and Liébana-Cabanillas 2019). Such kind of brand

communities that are built for integrating information rather than for only business purposes

excerpts the utmost effect on members' feelings and purchase intentions (Algesheimer, Dholakia,

and Herrmann 2005; Wirtz et al. 2013; Le and Duong 2020). The increasing acceptance of

customers' online brand communities and their motivation to engage in such communities are

likely to influence their purchase intention. Hence, we posit,

H2: Social media-based brand communities positively influence consumer purchase

intention.

Brand awareness

Brand awareness is defined as the ability of a customer to recognize and recall a brand in

different scenarios (Aaker 1991). Brand awareness comprises two elements, brand recognition,

and brand recall. Consumer ability to recall a brand name exactly after seeing a product category

is called brand recall, and brand recognition is consumers' ability to recognize a product when

there is a brand cue. Further, Hoeffler and Keller (2002) distinguished brand depth from brand

width and established the relationship with brand awareness. Depth refers to the means of making

a customer recall or remember a brand easily, while width denotes a situation wherein at the time

6
of purchase, the brand name comes to the mind of the consumer instantly. When the brand depth

and width work at the same time in consumers' minds, consumers will choose to purchase the

brand. This implies that the product has high brand awareness. Additionally, brand name is the

most vital factor in brand awareness (Davis, Golicic, and Marquardt 2008). Therefore, brand

awareness will influence purchase intention through brand association, and a product positive

brand image help in the marketing activities (Keller 1993).

Prior research has also highlighted that as customers tend to purchase a familiar and

renowned product, brand awareness plays an important role to influence purchase intention (Keller

1993; Macdonald and Sharp 2000; Martins et al. 2019). To differentiate a brand from a product

category and formulate purchase decisions, brand awareness helps customers (Percy and Rossiter

1992). Brand awareness exerts a strong influence on product selection and can act as a prior

consideration base in a product cue (Hoyer and Brown 1990; Dabbous and Barakat 2020).

Therefore, we posit the link between awareness of the brand through social media and purchase

intention.

H3: Social media-based brand awareness positively influences consumer purchase intention.

Interaction:

Social media platform-based interaction is dramatically changing the way information

sharing among the brands with their consumers (Gallaugher and Ransbotham 2010; Kaplan and

Haenlein 2010). Social media interaction occurs within the users who own/use such brands that

are associated with social media platforms for sharing their thought and idea related to the brand

or product with similar people who own or use similar products or brands (Muntinga, Moorman,

and Smit 2011; Martín-Consuegra et al. 2019). Daugherty, Eastin, and Bright (2008) stated that

social interaction helps marketers to generate user-inspired themes. The interaction in social media

7
facilitates the customer to share their idea as well as offer a platform for conversation. Thus, we

hypothesize:

H4: Interaction in social network positively affect consumer purchase intention.

Emotional attachment:

Consumer behavior literature has recognized that consumers develop emotional attachments

with marketable entities, such as material possessions (Kleine et al. 2004), gifts (Mick and Demoss

1990), places (Williams et al. 1992), celebrities (Thomson 2006) and brands (Slater 2000; Percy,

Hansen, and Randrup 2004). These attachments are developed so that people fulfill experiential,

symbolic, and emotional needs (Joo-Park, Kim, and Cardona Forney 2006). For example, Slater

(2000) recognized that consumers demonstrate favorable emotional attachments towards brands

such as Coca-Cola and Hallmark. Likewise, Percy, Hansen, and Randrup (2004) identified that

consumers demonstrate feelings of love and warmth towards brands such as Dove and Sensex.

With the increasing prominence of social media in people’s lives, users are developing emotional

connections with their preferred social media brands (Jenkins-Guarnieri, Wright, and Johnson

2013; Harrigan et al. 2017; Dwivedi et al. 2018).

During the product selection stage, the actual emotional factor plays a dominant role over

functional factors, depending on the product category (Pawle and Cooper 2006). These researchers

also found that emotional factors, supported by sensuality, have the overall strongest influence

purchase intention. To create strong brand intimacy, emotional intimacy works as a key trigger for

strengthening consumer-brand relationships (Pawle and Cooper 2006). Consumers’ emotional

attachment with brands in social media makes them feel passionate about the brand (Dwivedi et

al. 2018). Such an emotional attachment through interactions in social media could presumably

lead to purchase intentions. This leads to the hypothesis,

8
 H5: Social media-based emotional attachment positively influences consumers’ purchase

intention.

Moderating effect of local and nonlocal brands

In the global branding literature, the concept of brand origin as local and non-local has

been emerging (Winit et al. 2014). There is a plethora of research defining the local and nonlocal

or foreign brands. Local brands are those originating from a consumer’s home country (Eckhardt

2005; Morimoto and Chang 2009); or those available only within a limited geographic region

(Dimofte, Johansson, and Ronkainen 2008). Nonlocal or foreign brands have been defined as those

brands having a market presence in multiple countries (Dimofte, Johansson, and Ronkainen 2008)

or brands that are owned by multinational firms marketing in a centrally coordinated and

standardized manner (Özsomer and Altaras 2008).

Prior researches have investigated the influence of the brand’s globalness and localness on

consumers’ brand preference and /or identification. But findings have been mixed. A research

using several brands across multiple product categories and with samples from two nations, a

mature market (Austria) and an emerging market (Bulgaria), revealed that both perceived brand

globalness and localness have positive effects on consumer-brand identification (Sichtmann,

Davvetas, and Diamantopoulos 2019). A few other studies have shown consumer perceptions of

local and nonlocal brands are different (Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra 1999; Batra et al. 2000; Liu,

Tsai, and Tao 2020). Some studies have concluded that consumers prefer non-local brands as they

provide better customer value and carry a prestigious image of international recognition and have

a competitive advantages of high-quality standardized products (Alden et al., 1999; Kapferer,

2002; Özsomer, 2012; Steenkamp, 2014). The preference for non-local brands have also been

9
supported by other studies (Steenkamp, Batra, and Alden 2003; Davvetas, Sichtmann, and

Diamantopoulos 2015).

On the other hand, a few studies have reported that consumers prefer local brands due to

the strong connections they felt with the local brands (Schuiling and Kapferer, 2004; Strizhakova

and Coulter, 2015). Local culture plays a critical role in shaping consumer behavior (Petersen et

al., 2015) and individual identity (Samli 2013). The preference for local brands over non-local

brands and products might be because of consumers' cultural integrity and identity, (Steenkamp

and De Jong 2010).

On the basis of the above evidences and given that there is a lack of research addressing

the effect of local and nonlocal brands on SMM influences and consumer purchase intentions, we

expect the moderating impact of brand origin on the influences of SMM antecedents and consumer

purchase intentions. Thus, the following hypothesis,

H6: Brand origin (local or nonlocal) moderates the relationship between social media-

based brand trust (H6a), brand community (H6b), brand awareness (H6c), interaction (H6d),

emotional attachment (H6e) and consumer purchase intention.

Brand loyalty

When a consumer is consistently preferring to purchase a brand, despite the existence of

several other brands, a consumer is known to exhibit brand loyalty. A high level of satisfaction

leads both emotional and rational loyalty through which there is a good possibility that the satisfied

customer will become a loyal customer (Berry and Carbone 2007). Brand loyalty also results in

the inclination to pay more for the desired brand even though similar other brands are available

and to recommend the same brands to others.

10
 Brand loyalty is important as the number of firms serving the same customer segment and

offering similar products or services are increasing. An absence of brand loyalty will lead to

consumers switching to competitors' offerings or brands. Past research has confirmed that brand

loyalty tends to demonstrate an intention to buy a brand a primary choice (Yoo, Donthu, and Lee

2000). The attitudinal theory proposes that brand loyalty is characterized by a favorable attitude

towards a brand and a repeat purchase intention over time (Rossiter and Percy 1991). Social media

engagement and interaction presumably will create a favorable attitude and will lead to purchase

intention. Hence the hypothesis,

H7: The purchase intention of the customer through social media has a positive influence

on brand loyalty.

Research model

Based on the proposed hypotheses, a research model depicting the antecedents of SMM

and their effect on purchase intention is drawn. SMM antecedents comprise five constructs: (1)

brand trust (2) brand community (3) brand awareness, (4) interaction, and (5) emotional

attachment. These SMM antecedents are the independent variable of purchase intention. Purchase

intention influences brand loyalty. Additionally, this model incorporates the moderating effect of

brand origin on SMM antecedents in consumer purchase intention. The conceptual framework is

presented in Figure 1.

11
 ‘

Figure 1: Conceptual framework

Methods

Research setting

This research attempts to understand the impact of SMM on consumers’ purchase intention

in an emerging Arabian Gulf economy, Saudi Arabia. In the Arab world, social media users have

been growing exponentially, particularly after the so-called Arab spring (Bruns, Highfield, and

Burgess 2013). Despite the increasing usage of social media, there is a paucity of exploration of

SMM, especially in Saudi Arabia. A recent study examined the factors affecting consumer

attitudes towards social media marketing and the use of social media (Sohail and Al-Jabri 2017).

Moreover, according to a survey by McKinsey & Company, (2018), Saudi consumers prefer

quality over quantity (66% of the consumers value quality over price) and are especially attracted

by international brands. Nevertheless, it has been observed that the consumers' behavior has been

12
changing in recent years in the Arab world in general, and especially in Saudi Arabia. Consumers

are more concerned about the prices and, thus, demonstrate less loyalty to the brand.

The e-commerce market in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region is particularly

promising and represents the emerging trend in Saudi Arabia. Its growth is even one of the largest

in the world according to an Ipsos survey conducted in 2018 (CIGI 2018). The total value of the

e-commerce market for consumer goods in the country was estimated at $ 6.36 billion in 2018, a

15% increase over the previous year (Ipsos 2018). For example, 64% of Saudis now report buying

a product or service online every month. A behavior strongly focused on their mobile phones with

51% of internet users making their purchases smartphones and barely 24% on a computer (Ipsos

2018). This is mainly due to the predominance of a young and connected population (86.8% of

households have access to the internet) that seeks to save time and money, but also by the arrival

in Saudi Arabia of new secure online payment methods (Nordea Trade 2019). Besides, Saudi

Internet users are the most active and active in the MENA region on social networks. For example,

they account for 9% of global Snapchat users according to the Crowd Analyzer (2020) Institute.

There are mainly men, interested in Arabic content news or fashion. It is common for these internet

users to subscribe to one or more brand-owned accounts and to come in contact with them directly

through this according to a study conducted by Salford University in 2017 (Helal 2017). The

researchers highlighted the positive impact of social media on the development of companies

located in the country, particularly in terms of communication with customers and business

partners. Thus, it is worth researching how consumer behavior is changing in Saudi Arabia, which

may resemble the Arab world.

To date, the authors have not found any comprehensive study, which examined the brand-

related and social motives behind social media usage and the contingent effect on purchase

13
intention and brand loyalty. From a contextual perspective, it has been found that SMM culture

makes a distinction between conservatism, which is represented by a traditional mass advertising

approach and modernism which is encapsulated in a more open and flexible approach to SMM

(Felix, Rauschnabel, and Hinsch 2017). This study adds value not only to building theory but also

to managerial practice by enhancing contextual knowledge of digital consumer behavior. Although

considered a traditional society, Saudi Arabia has a long-standing relationship with the Western

world and the wide diffusion of technologies (Sohail and Al-Jabri 2014). This study provides

valuable information for developing effective entry and growth strategies by globalizing service

firms targeting the Arab region and other emerging markets.

Measurement and survey instrument

The authors studied the relevant pieces of literature to device the construct and identify

questionnaire items. All the measured construct items selected for this study were adopted from a

well-established scale. To measure three items were borrowed for the construct brand trust from

Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001). The brand community was assessed using five items from Zha,

Ju and Wang (2006). Brand awareness was measured using three items from the work of Yoo,

Donthu and Lee (2000). Four items were adopted from Kim and Ko (2012) to measure the

interaction. Ten items were adopted from Thomson, MacInnis and Park (2005) to measure

emotional attachment. Purchase intention was measured using three items adapted from

Jarvenpaa, Tractinsky and Vitale (2000). Finally, brand loyalty was assessed by borrowing five

items from Aaker (1991) and Yoo, Donthu and Lee (2000). A five-point Likert-type scale ranging

from 5 (strongly agree) to 1 (strongly disagree) was employed to record all these responses.

14
Data collection

The sample was collected from across the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The questionnaires

were distributed using social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, Facebook Messenger,

WhatsApp, and other similar platforms. To ensure that the sample must be collected from all

around Saudi Arabia, respondents were asked to provide their cell phone numbers. To deal with

the time limitation, the social media platform was used to collect the data, and the responses were

collected for 24 days. In total, 343 respondents participated in this study, and 314 valid responses

were collected. An Arabic version of the questionnaire (verified to match with the English version

by back translation) was used when finding out that the respondents were not comfortable with the

English version, and a pilot test was conducted among 20 people before distributing both the

English and the Arabic version questionnaire to verify the reliability of both versions.

This study was restricted to the respondents who had purchased at least one product of the

brand of which brand page they followed and who had experienced in following the brand page

for at least three months. Each respondent answered a questionnaire that included questions

(among others) on background demographics, and psychographics. Then each participant was

asked whether they used social media. On receiving a negative answer, the online system

automatically stopped generating further questions to be answered and thanked the participants for

participation. Respondents were asked to name their favorite brand and marked whether their

favorite brand they named is either the local or the non-local brands. During the data screening

process, the name of the brands that the respondents mentioned were checked for accuracy of brand

localness or non-localness. Furthermore, each participant answered questions covering brand trust,

brand community, brand awareness, interaction, emotional attachment, purchase intention, and

brand loyalty.

15
Results

Descriptive statistics

Table 1 describes the demographic profile of the respondents. As mentioned earlier, the

final sample comprised of 314 completed and usable responses. The respondents aged between 26

to 30 years were over one-third (38.10 percent). Almost 33 percent of the respondents were aged

16 to 25 years old. That means two-thirds of the respondents were between 16 to 30 years of age.

Among the respondents, 42 percent were married, and the rest were single. On educational status,

27 percent of the respondents were their graduates, 41 percent were from undergraduate and the

rest are from high school or under. On nationality, 65.6 percent were from Saudi and the rest were

non-Saudis. Further, the highest percentage of participants used Twitter (22 percent) and

WhatsApp (21.8 percent) and among all the respondents, 43 percent spent two to five hours per

day on social media. Among the participants, nonlocal brands (69.70 percent) were more popular

than local brands (30.30 percent).

Table 1: Demographic Profile

Frequency Percent
Age
16-20 19 6.1
21-25 84 26.8
26-30 120 38.2
31-40 76 24.2
41 and above 10 3.2
Gender
Male 235 74.8
Female 79 25.2
Marital Status
Single 182 58
Married 132 42
Level of education
School or College or under 97 30.89
Undergraduate 130 41.40
Graduate 87 27.71
Nationality
Saudi 206 65.6

16
 Non-Saudi 108 34.4
Social media name
Facebook 40 12.7
Instagram 52 16.6
Twitter 69 22
YouTube 38 12.1
WhatsApp 68 21.7
Facebook Messenger 16 5.1
LinkedIn 12 3.8
others 19 6
Frequency of use of social media
< 1 Hour per day 53 16.9
2-5 hours per day 135 43
6-9 hours per day 72 22.9
< 10 Hours per day 38 12.1
Once in a week 10 3.2
Not very often 6 1.9
Local/Nonlocal
Local Brand 95 30.3
Nonlocal Brand 219 69.7

Normality, validity, and reliability of measures

For data analysis, SPSS-20 and AMOS-24 software were employed. Skewness and kurtosis

showed absolutes values of less than 1, indicating that the data were normally distributed (Hair Jr

et al. 2010). On further examination of the values of skewness and kurtosis, these were found to

be close to zero, indicating that the assumptions of multivariate normality are not violated.

Although recent research suggested that common method variance (CMV) does not carry

a serious threat for survey research (Fuller et al. 2016), the same priori procedures were followed

in this research to test for potential CMV. Because the data were self-reported and collected from

the same source, common method bias (CMB) could be present in the data. Therefore, to control

the common method variance, both procedural remedies and ex-ante approaches were

implemented. First, during the questionnaire designing phase, each scale was systematically

17
evaluated to minimize the ambiguity and vagueness, and the questions were presented to the

respondents in a randomized manner (Malhotra, Kim, and Patil 2006). Second, in the explanatory

verbal statement of the questionnaire, respondents were guaranteed the confidentiality and

anonymity of their identity. Third, Harman's one-factor and maker variable tests were performed

as suggested by (Podsakoff et al. 2003). Common method variance (CMV) poses a serious threat

if an unrotated single factor test resulted in one factor that accounts for more than 50 percent of

the variance (Podsakoff et al. 2003). In the present study, Harman's single factor test results

showed that the first factor accounted for 17.28 percent (i.e. < 50 percent) of the variance and

indicated that common method variance is unlikely to be a major issue in this study. However, due

to its insensitivity, Harman's single factor test is considered inefficient in assessing CMV

(Podsakoff et al. 2003). Furthermore, the marker variable test was conducted as suggested by

Podsakoff et al. (2003). Marker variable results showed that all the adjusted variables and items

correlations are below the 0.30 threshold, which indicates that common method variance is

unlikely to be present in this study (Bagozzi and Yi 1988; Lindell and Whitney 2001; Lages and

Piercy 2012).

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed to determine the factor structure of the

constructs. During the EFA, the maximum likelihood extraction method with varimax rotation was

used. The EFA resulted in a six-factor solution after multiple iterations. In this study, Six-factor

with Eigenvalues greater than 1.0 combined explained 65.08 percent of the variance. However,

from the brand community (BCOM), one item (BCOM5) was dropped and two items (EMNAT1

and EMNAT2) were also dropped from the construct of emotional attachment since the loading

was less than 0.50. Moreover, Bartlett's test of Sphericity and 'Kaiser-Mayer-Olkin' (KMO)

measures of sampling adequacy were also assessed to determine the degree of correlation among

18
the variables. The test results were significant (p<0.001). A good degree of correlation (>0.50) was

found in the KMO results (0.826).

After conducting EFA to purify and validate the measures, Cronbach's alphas were

calculated for the scale items to assess the internal consistency of each construct (Rosner and

Cronbach 1960). Table 2 demonstrates the descriptive statistics and Cronbach's alphas for each

construct. Cronbach's alphas for each of the construct exceeded the recommended value of 0.70

(Cronbach 1951), confirming the satisfactory level of internal consistency for each construct.

Table 2: Factor loadings and psychometric properties

Latent Items Factor CA Mean Std. AVE CR
Construct loading Deviation
Brand Trust 0.813 3.609 0.864 0.695 0.872
BTR1 0.826
BTR2 0.853
BTR3 0.822
Brand Community 0.730 3.785 0.834 0.663 0.887
BCOM1 0.857
BCOM2 0.817
BCOM3 0.824
BCOM4 0.757
Brand Awareness 0.865 2.895 0.965 0.708 0.879
BARNS1 0.817
BARNS2 0.811
BARNS3 0.893
Interaction 0.866 3.522 0.760 0.643 0.878
INTR1 0.807
INTR2 0.815
INTR3 0.833
INTR4 0.750
Emotional Attachment 0.880 3.625 0.832 0.509 0.892
EMNAT3 0.689
EMNAT4 0.658
EMNAT5 0.763
EMNAT6 0.681
EMNAT7 0.757
EMNAT8 0.652
EMNAT9 0.780
EMNAT10 0.718
Purchase Intention 0.798 3.612 0.609 0.693 0.871

19
 PURINT1 0.800
PURINT2 0.860
PURINT3 0.837
Brand Loyalty 0.837 2.903 0.935 0.603 0.884
BL1 0.779
BL2 0.801
BL3 0.746
BL4 0.787
BL5 0.768
Notes: AVE > 0.5; CR>0.7; Cronbach’s alpha >0.8 (Nunnally, 1978; Fornell and Larcker, 1981).

To further validate the survey questionnaire, content, convergent, discriminant validity test

was performed. in the content validity test, a two-stage development and judgment procedures

were followed (Lynn 1986). All the items used in this study were adopted from the previous study,

confirming the development of content validity. Three experts from the author's institution were

asked to assess the validity of the items and measurements to confirm the judgment process of

content validity. A few minor changes were done in the phrasings of two questions after the

evaluation of the items and measurements by the experts. To assess the convergent validity,

composite reliability (CR), Cronbach alpha's (CA), and average variance extracted was measured.

The means, standard deviation (SD), CA, CR, and AVE are demonstrated in Table 2. From Table

2, the CR values are more than the suggested value of 0.70 (Nunnally 2010), suggesting the

reliability of the construct. AVE is an assessing criterion of convergent and discriminant validity.

Table 2 demonstrates that all the AVE scores range from 0.508 to 0.708, which are more than the

suggested value of 0.50 (Fornell and Larcker 1981). Thus, the convergent validity of the constructs

was substantiated.

By comparing AVE values with the squared correlation between each pair of construct and

constructing a 95% confidence interval around the inter-construct correlations (Fornell and

Larcker 1981), the discriminant validity of the model was measured. The AVE exceeded all the

20
corresponding construct correlations, indicating that the discriminant validity of the constructs was

established (Fornell and Larcker 1981).

Results of the structural model

The model fit of the constructs was assessed (Hair Jr et al. 2010). The model fit indices of

the constructs should reach the desired standard before they can be judged for model fitness. χ2/df

(CMIN/DF), GFI, AGFI, CFI, and RMSEA are some of the subset indices of model fit which are

well-established and suggested by the SEM researchers (Lee and Jeong 2014; Mahrous and

Abdelmaaboud 2017). Table 3 shows (without brand origin as a moderating factor) that every

model-fit index meets the recommended value requirement from previous studies, exhibiting an

adequate fit to the collected data.

Table 3: Fit indices for the measurement models.

Fit indices Suggested Value Recommended by Measurement Model
Author (Present Study)
χ2/df <3 Fox and Hayduk 1.860
(1989)
Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) >0.9 Scott (1995) 0.912
Adjusted for degrees of freedom >0.8 Scott (1995) 0.801
(AGFI)
Normed Fit Index (NFI) >0.9 Bentler and Bonett 0.931
(1980)
Comparative Fit Index (CFI) >0.9 Bagozzi and Yi 0. .903
(1988)
Root Mean Square Error <0.08 Bagozzi and Yi 0.053
Estimation (RMSEA) (1988)

Hypothesis testing

The structural model results, without considering the moderating effect, presented in Table

4 demonstrate that H1-H4 and H7 are supported by the data. H1, H2, H3, H4, and H5 examined

the effect of brand trust, brand community, brand awareness, brand image, interaction, and

emotional attachment. Brand trust, brand community, brand awareness, and interaction positively

affect purchase intention, thus supporting H1, H2, H3, and H4. The results also show that purchase

21
intention has a significant positive effect on brand loyalty, supporting the hypothesis H7. The

results demonstrated that emotional attachment does not have any significant effect on purchase

intention; thus, hypothesis H5 is rejected.

Table 4: Hypotheses testing results

Hypotheses β p-Value Decision
H1: Brand Trust ---> Purchase Intention 0.178 0.002 Supported
H2: Brand Community ---> Purchase 0.205 0.001 Supported
Intention
H3: Brand Awareness ---> Purchase Intention 0.139 0.000 Supported
H4: Interaction ---> Purchase Intention 0.192 0.006 Supported
H5: Emotional Attachment ---> Purchase 0.084 0.134 Not supported
Intention
H7: Purchase Intention ---> Brand Loyalty 0.233 0.000 Supported

Moderating effect of brand origin

To test the moderating effect of brand origin on the path relationships between brand trust,

brand community, brand awareness, interaction, and emotional attachment on purchase intention,

the sample was split into two groups: local (n=118) and nonlocal (n=196). The model (with brand

origin as a moderating factor) exhibited a reasonable overall fit: χ2/df (CMIN/DF) = 2.078, GFI=

0.914, AGFI= 0.811, CFI= 0.826, and RMSEA= 0.059. A multi-group analysis was run, which

compared differences in path coefficients of the corresponding structural paths for local and

nonlocal sample groups (Zhou, Jin, and Fang 2014). The p-value of the chi-square difference test

was significant (Unconstrained: χ2/df= 12.26/8; constrained: χ2/df =32.12/19, p-value: 0.047);

thus, the model differed across groups. As shown in Table 5, the significant impact of brand trust

(local: β=0.087, nonlocal: β=0.233) and interaction (local: β= 0.326, nonlocal: β=0.166) on

purchase intention varied across brand origin and supporting H6a and H6d. On the other hand, the

effect of brand awareness (local: β= 0.194, nonlocal: β=0.110), brand community (local: β=0.135,

22
nonlocal: β=0.022) and emotional attachment (local: β= 0.027, nonlocal: β=0.063) on purchase

intention did not vary across brand origin, resulting in lack of support for H6b, H6c, and H6e.

Table 5: Path comparison results across the brand origin

Hypotheses Local β Nonlocal β p- Decision Interpretation
β Differences Value
H6a: Brand 0.087 0.233** -0.146 0.002 Supported The positive
Trust ---> relationship
Purchase between
Intention purchase
intention and
brand trust is
only significant
for nonlocal
brand
H6b: Brand 0.135 0.022 0.113 0.195 Not No differences
Community Supported
--->
Purchase
Intention
H6c: Brand 0.194 0.110 0.084 0.244 Not No differences
Awareness - Supported
--> Purchase
Intention
H6d: 0.326** 0.166 0.160 0.051 Supported The positive
Interaction - relationship
--> Purchase between
Intention purchase
intention and
interaction is
stronger for
local brand

H6e: 0.027 0.063 -0.036 0.472 Not No differences

Emotional Supported
Attachment
--->
Purchase
Intention
* p < 0.050, ** p < 0.010, *** p < 0.001

23
Discussion and Implications

The primary objective of this research was to examine the antecedents of SMM and their

influence on consumer purchase intention, as well as the consequent impact on brand loyalty.

Additionally, the study also examined the moderating effect of brand localness and non-localness

on the relationship between antecedents of SMM and purchase intention. Our findings indicate

that brand trust, brand awareness, interaction, brand community, have a significant positive

influence on purchase intention. This finding is in line with previous studies that SMM positively

influences brand purchasing behavior and builds brand loyalty (Kardaras, Karakostas, and

Papathanassiou 2003; Casaló, Flavián, and Guinalíu 2010; Laroche, Habibi, and Richard 2013;

Laroche et al. 2012). Marketers can use the social media platform to influence consumer purchase

intention and create brand loyalty. A few but limited, studies have concluded that social media-

based marketing and branding is not an ideal strategy to reach customers (Kaplan and Haenlein

2010; Fournier and Avery 2011). This study suggests marketers having a virtual presence in social

media can help in engaging and interacting with the brand community, which will help in creating

brand awareness and trust, ultimately influencing the purchase decision. The findings provide both

theoretical and managerial implications.

The theoretical and practical implication

There are several theoretical implications for research and practice emerging from this

study. First, though the role of brand trust, brand community, brand awareness, interaction, and

emotional attachment has been extensively used in prior literature on social commerce, little

research has been done to combine brand trust, brand community, brand awareness, interaction,

and emotional attachment to examine their effects on purchase intention simultaneously and to

scrutinize the transaction experience on these constructs. Hence, developing a research model

24
based on the literature of social media to explain purchase intention, which enhances the

understanding of the antecedents of purchasing behavior in a social media context, is the

contribution of this study. Furthermore, the previous studies have mainly focused on only a few

elements of social media-based branding items such as brand community (Laroche, Habibi, and

Richard 2013) and brand awareness (Hutter et al. 2013).

Previous studies showed that branding activities can influence purchase decisions, but our

study reveals how this can happen and the manner in which this relation can lead to brand loyalty

by demonstrating the direct relationships of the antecedents of purchasing behavior in SMM. This

has been largely neglected in previous studies. By incorporating more variables to the model, this

study describes the branding process in virtual communities. Besides, while practitioners may still

doubt the benefits of using social media as a platform for marketing channel to motivate customers,

our findings underpin the importance of social media as a vehicle and as an integral part of

designing marketing strategies.

The positive effects of the antecedents of social media-based consumers' engagement on

purchase intention and brand loyalty forms a strong logical reasoning for using social media to

manage consumer-brand relationship activities. Brand managers should not use social media as a

marketing tool simply because other brand managers are using it; rather, brand managers should

use SMM as a source for obtaining in-depth insight information about consumers’ preferences and

behavioral intention and pattern. Brand managers should focus on designing their marketing

strategies that would nurture consumer-brand engagement in social media by improving brand

trust, brand community, brand awareness, interaction, and purchase intention, and, in turn, improve

the economic prospects of the brands' firm. This can be done by letting the consumers engage in

social media communities by likes, comments, and posts and generating contents, which will help

25
the marketers to know more about the consumers and their preferences and to design appropriate

marketing tools.

Second, although prior studies on SMM have focused on purchase intention (e.g. Hutter et

al., 2013; Alalwan, 2018; Lindh et al., 2020) this study has investigated the moderating effect of

brand localness and non-localness on purchasing behavior antecedents in a social media setting.

The findings of this study suggested that the relationship between brand trust and interaction, and

behavioral intention are contingent on consumer online product choice of local and non-local

origin. This findings added new dimensions to the SMM research and dictate that consumer brand

trust and brand interaction varies based on whether the brand has a local or non-local origin and

reveal that consumer exerts strong brand trust on the non-local brands whereas brand interaction

demonstrates that consumers show more interactions with a local brand compared to non-local

brands. From a practical perspective, the findings suggest that brand trust and interactions are

important factors in stimulating consumer purchase intention in the case of local and non-local

brands. If the practitioners are dealing with non-local products, they should first of all focus on

creating brand trust. Once the desired level of brand trust is achieved, SMM practitioners should

encourage customers to visit sellers' websites automatically, as recommended by Chiu et al.,

(2012). Hence, SMM practitioners can encourage frequent usage by providing incentives (e.g. gift

and bonuses) and develop customers' sites for more customer interactions with the brands.

Third, our research shows that social media marketing-based purchase decision indeed

influences consumer brand loyalty. The finding of the study suggests that emotional attachment

does not have any bearing on the purchase intention. The plausible explanation could be consumers

develop an emotional attachment with a brand in the long run and, thus, develop loyalty towards

the brand. The research effectively theorized and empirically showed that brand trust, brand

26
community, brand awareness, and interaction are the antecedents of purchasing behavior and

contributing to consumer brand loyalty. Our study complements the findings of previous research

by Hutter et al., (2013) and extends Hutter et al., (2013) findings by demonstrating that brand's

social media presence helps to build consumer brand loyalty by influencing their purchase

decision. Since attaining a new customer is more expensive than retaining an old customer, from

practical perspectives, SMM practitioners could emphasize on sustainable long-term customer-

brand relationships by focusing on the antecedents of purchase intentions and building brand

loyalty. Moreover, concerning the relationship between customer purchase intention and brand

loyalty, which can be redefined as a long-term behavioral variable, the two factors connect each

other very intensely. Thus, the practitioners should focus on improving the antecedents of purchase

intention which, eventually, affect long term consumer behaviors. Since SMM influence these

factors, taking social media marketing into account is the best possible choice.

Finally, the results of the moderating effect of brand localness and non-localness on the

relationship between purchase intention and its antecedents in SMM indicated that brand

community and brand awareness have a strong non-significant effect on purchase intention for

customers preference with brand localness. Although for brand non-localness, these relationships

were found to be very weak. These findings provide a possible explanation for the mixed results

of Demiray and Burnaz (2019) Dabbous and Barakat (2020) Llonch-Andreu, López-Lomelí, and

Gómez-Villanueva (2016) and Anderson and Srinivasan (2003). While the effect of brand

community and brand awareness on purchase intention becomes stronger as customers' preference

for brand localness increases, brand localness or non-localness does not have any bearing on

emotional attachment and purchase intention relationship. Moreover, the results showed that the

brand community is the most important predictor of customers' purchase intention. From a

27
management perspective, customers' participation in the SMM brand community should be given

higher priority to motivate customers' purchase decisions.

Limitations and future research

While the findings of this study provide several theoretical and practical implications, there

are some limitations, which offer further scope for future research. First, the study is undertaken

in a single (Saudi Arabia) cultural and social setting. Even within the MENA region, cultures and

lifestyles differ among countries, so the results may differ outside Saudi Arabia. Therefore, it is

suggested that future studies cross-cultural in nature may be undertaken to enhance the

generalizability of findings by empirically examining the effect of SMM on purchase behavior

within MENA or even globally. Second, future researchers are also urged to investigate whether

the relational effect of brand localness/non-localness on purchase intention and its antecedents are

enduring over time. Due to the cross-sectional nature of our study, our findings cannot reveal the

impact of brand localness/non-localness on relationship duration which, however, is a key aspect

of this relationship types. Consumer-brand relationships are dynamic in nature and often follow

trajectories identified by peaks and lows over time (Fournier 1998). Examining whether brand

localness/non-localness predict these trajectories through longitudinal study design would also be

valuable for long-term brand strategy development for motivating consumer purchasing decision.

Third, this study adopted five variables as antecedents of purchase intention to explain the

formation mechanism of purchase intention. Because purchase intention antecedents are

multidimensional concepts, other dimensions should be examined (Hsiao and Chen 2018) such as

brand experience and brand attitude. All these promising questions are left for future research to

explore.

28
References:
Aaker, D. 1991. Managing Brand Equity. Journal of Marketing 56, no. 2: 125.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Aaker%2C+D.+A.+%28199
1%29.+Managing+brand+equity.+New+York%3A+Free+Press.&btnG=.
Alalwan, A.A. 2018. Investigating the Impact of Social Media Advertising Features on Customer
Purchase Intention. International Journal of Information Management 42 (October 1): 65–
77.
Alden, D.L., J.B.E.M. Steenkamp, and R. Batra. 1999. Brand Positioning through Advertising in
Asia, North America, and Europe: The Role of Global Consumer Culture. Journal of
Marketing 63, no. 1 (January 13): 75–87.
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/002224299906300106.
Algesheimer, R., U.M. Dholakia, and A. Herrmann. 2005. The Social Influence of Brand
Community: Evidence from European Car Clubs. Journal of Marketing 69, no. 3 (July): 19–
34.
Anderson, R.E., and S.S. Srinivasan. 2003. E-Satisfaction and E-Loyalty: A Contingency
Framework. Psychology and Marketing 20, no. 2 (February): 123–138.
http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/mar.10063.
Bagozzi, R.P., and Y. Yi. 1988. On the Evaluation of Structural Equation Models. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science 16, no. 1 (March): 74–94.
Barger, V., J.W. Peltier, and D.E. Schultz. 2016. Social Media and Consumer Engagement: A
Review and Research Agenda. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing 10, no. 4
(October 10): 268–287.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Barger%2C+V.%2C+Peltier
%2C+J.W.+and+Schultz%2C+D.E.+%282016%29%2C+“Social+media+and+consumer+e
ngagement%3A+a+review+and+research+agenda”%2C+Journal+of+Research+in+Interacti
ve+Marketing%2C+Vol.+10+No.
Batra, R., V. Ramaswamy, D.L. Alden, J.-B.B.E.M. Steenkamp, and S. Ramachander. 2000.
Effects of Brand Local and Nonlocal Origin on Consumer Attitudes in Developing
Countries. Journal of Consumer Psychology 9, no. 2: 83–95.
Bennett, R., and S. Rundle-Thiele. 2002. A Comparison of Attitudinal Loyalty Measurement
Approaches. Journal of Brand Management 9, no. 3 (January): 193–209.
Berry, L.L., and L.P. Carbone. 2007. Build Loyalty through Experience Management. Quality
Progress 40, no. 9: 26–32.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Build+loyalty+through+expe
rience+management&btnG=.
Bruns, A., T. Highfield, and J. Burgess. 2013. The Arab Spring and Social Media Audiences.
American Behavioral Scientist 57, no. 7 (July 17): 871–898.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764213479374.
Casaló, L. V., C. Flavián, and M. Guinalíu. 2010. Determinants of the Intention to Participate in
Firm-Hosted Online Travel Communities and Effects on Consumer Behavioral Intentions.
Tourism Management 31, no. 6: 898–911.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261517710000828.
Chaudhuri, A., and M.B. Holbrook. 2001. The Chain of Effects from Brand Trust and Brand
Affect to Brand Performance: The Role of Brand Loyalty. Journal of Marketing 65, no. 2
(April): 81–93.

29
Chiu, C.M., M.H. Hsu, H. Lai, and C.M. Chang. 2012. Re-Examining the Influence of Trust on
Online Repeat Purchase Intention: The Moderating Role of Habit and Its Antecedents. In
Decision Support Systems, 53:835–845. North-Holland.
CIGI. 2018. Centre for International Governance Innovation: CIGI-Ipsos Global Survey on
Internet Security and Trust. https://www.cigionline.org/internet-survey-2018.
Constantinides, E., and S.J. Fountain. 2008. Web 2.0: Conceptual Foundations and Marketing
Issues. Journal of Direct, Data and Digital Marketing Practice 9, no. 3 (January): 231–244.
Cronbach, L.J. 1951. Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests. Psychometrika 16,
no. 3 (September): 297–334. http://link.springer.com/10.1007/BF02310555.
Crowd Analyzer. 2020. State of Social Media Report in MENA Region 2020 - Crowd Analyzer.
https://www.crowdanalyzer.com/reports/state-of-social-media-report-in-mena-region-2020.
Dabbous, A., and K.A. Barakat. 2020. Bridging the Online Offline Gap: Assessing the Impact of
Brands’ Social Network Content Quality on Brand Awareness and Purchase Intention.
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 53 (March 1): 101966.
Daugherty, T., M.S. Eastin, and L. Bright. 2008. Exploring Consumer Motivations for Creating
User-Generated Content. Journal of Interactive Advertising 8, no. 2 (March): 16–25.
Davis, D.F., S.L. Golicic, and A.J. Marquardt. 2008. Branding a B2B Service: Does a Brand
Differentiate a Logistics Service Provider? Industrial Marketing Management 37, no. 2:
218–227. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019850107000223.
Davis, L.M. 2010. Social Media Marketing: An Hour a Day. TECHNICAL COMMUNICATION
57, no. 1: 110.
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=CZcS7JZEqrMC&oi=fnd&pg=PT7&dq=E
vans,+D.+(2012),+Social+Media+Marketing:+An+Hour+a+Day,+John+Wiley+%26+Sons,
+Indianapolis,+IN.&ots=YZu-j00B7d&sig=zVRmcnK0SZNhrxV_siQ1r8HgMSg.
Davvetas, V., C. Sichtmann, and A. Diamantopoulos. 2015. The Impact of Perceived Brand
Globalness on Consumers’ Willingness to Pay. International Journal of Research in
Marketing 32, no. 4: 431–434.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167811615000646.
Demiray, M., and S. Burnaz. 2019. Exploring the Impact of Brand Community Identification on
Facebook: Firm-Directed and Self-Directed Drivers. Journal of Business Research 96
(March 1): 115–124. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S014829631830568X.
Doney, P.M., and J.P. Cannon. 1997. An Examination of the Nature of Trust in Buyer-Seller
Relationships. Journal of Marketing 61, no. 2 (April 19): 35–51.
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/002224299706100203.
Dwivedi, A., L.W. Johnson, D.C. Wilkie, and L. De Araujo-Gil. 2018. Consumer Emotional
Brand Attachment with Social Media Brands and Social Media Brand Equity. European
Journal of Marketing, June 10.
Erdem, T., and J. Swait. 2004. Brand Credibility, Brand Consideration, and Choice. Journal of
Consumer Research 31, no. 1 (June 1): 191–198. https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article-
abstract/31/1/191/1812026.
Essamri, A., S. McKechnie, and H. Winklhofer. 2019. Co-Creating Corporate Brand Identity
with Online Brand Communities: A Managerial Perspective. Journal of Business Research
96 (March 1): 366–375.
Felix, R., P.A. Rauschnabel, and C. Hinsch. 2017. Elements of Strategic Social Media
Marketing: A Holistic Framework. Journal of Business Research 70 (January): 118–126.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.05.001.

30
Fornell, C., and D.F. Larcker. 1981. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable
Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research 18, no. 1 (February 28):
39. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/002224378101800104.
Fournier, S. 1998. Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in Consumer
Research. Journal of Consumer Research 24, no. 4 (March 1): 343–353.
https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article-lookup/doi/10.1086/209515.
Fournier, S., and J. Avery. 2011. The Uninvited Brand. Business Horizons 54, no. 3 (May): 193–
207. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0007681311000024.
Fournier, S., and L. Lee. 2009. Getting Brand Communities Right. Harvard Business Review 87,
no. 4. www.hbr.org.
Fuller, C.M., M.J. Simmering, G. Atinc, Y. Atinc, and B.J. Babin. 2016. Common Methods
Variance Detection in Business Research. Journal of Business Research 69, no. 8 (August):
3192–3198. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.12.008.
Gallaugher, J., and S. Ransbotham. 2010. Social Media and Customer Dialog Management at
Starbucks. MIS Quarterly Executive 9, no. 4: 197–212.
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&profile=ehost&scope=site&authtype=c
rawler&jrnl=15401960&asa=Y&AN=58657257&h=MfvSjqbE0HcMgEOKGMs0hD%2BH
M4ik7DmgJ9yjaYl1gHjoMYKlpqoD7ia3r2Pwx1yI%2Bvjnd4TVOB%2FWrw61rNlPsw%3
D%3D&crl=c.
Gamboa, A.M., and H.M. Gonçalves. 2014. Customer Loyalty through Social Networks:
Lessons from Zara on Facebook. Business Horizons 57, no. 6: 709–717.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0007681314000950.
Godey, B., A. Manthiou, D. Pederzoli, J. Rokka, G. Aiello, R. Donvito, and R. Singh. 2016.
Social Media Marketing Efforts of Luxury Brands: Influence on Brand Equity and
Consumer Behavior. Journal of Business Research 69, no. 12 (December): 5833–5841.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.181.
Hair Jr, J.F., W.C. Black, B.J. Babin, and R.E. Anderson. 2010. Multivariate Data Analysis:
International Version. Prentice Hall.
Harrigan, P., U. Evers, M. Miles, and T. Daly. 2017. Customer Engagement with Tourism Social
Media Brands. Tourism Management 59: 597–609.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261517716301753.
Hartmann, P., and V. Apaolaza-Ibáñez. 2012. Consumer Attitude and Purchase Intention toward
Green Energy Brands: The Roles of Psychological Benefits and Environmental Concern.
Journal of Business Research 65, no. 9: 1254–1263.
Helal, M. 2017. An Investigation of the Use of Social Media for E-Commerce amongst Small
Businesses in Saudi Arabia. http://usir.salford.ac.uk/42451/1/M Helal_PhD Thesis.pdf.
Herbst, K.C., E.J. Finkel, D. Allan, G. Gra´, and G.M. Fitzsimons. 2011. On the Dangers of
Pulling a Fast One: Advertisement Disclaimer Speed, Brand Trust, and Purchase Intention.
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, Inc. • 38. http://business.ftc.gov/.
Hoeffler, S., and K.L. Keller. 2002. Building Brand Equity through Corporate Societal
Marketing. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 21, no. 1: 78–89.
Hollebeek, L.D., M.S. Glynn, and R.J. Brodie. 2014. Consumer Brand Engagement in Social
Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development and Validation. Journal of Interactive
Marketing 28, no. 2 (May): 149–165.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Hollebeek%2C+Glynn%2C+
%26+Brodie%2C+2014&btnG=.

31
Hoyer, W.D., and S.P. Brown. 1990. Effects of Brand Awareness on Choice for a Common,
Repeat-Purchase Product The Effcet of Effort on Sales Performance and Job Satisfaction
View Project. Article in Journal of Consumer Research.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/24098643.
Hsiao, K.-L., and C.-C. Chen. 2018. What Drives Smartwatch Purchase Intention? Perspectives
from Hardware, Software, Design, and Value. Telematics and Informatics 35, no. 1 (April
1): 103–113. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0736585317305804.
Hutter, K., J. Hautz, S. Dennhardt, and J. Füller. 2013. Journal of Product & Brand Management
Article Information:),"The Impact of User Interactions in Social Media on Brand
Awareness and Purchase Intention: The Case of MINI on Facebook". Journal of Product &
Brand Management 22: 342–351. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/.
Ipsos. 2018. Ipsos: Predictions for 2018 (January 8, 2018) Global/National: 1–23.
https://www.ipsos.com/en/ipsos-predictions-2018.
Islam, J.U., Z. Rahman, and L.D. Hollebeek. 2018. Consumer Engagement in Online Brand
Communities: A Solicitation of Congruity Theory. Internet Research 28, no. 1 (February 6):
23–45. https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/IntR-09-2016-0279/full/html.
Jarvenpaa, S., N. Tractinsky, and M. Vitale. 2000. Consumer Trust in an Internet Store.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT 1, no. 1/2: 45–71.
Jenkins-Guarnieri, M.A., S.L. Wright, and B. Johnson. 2013. Development and Validation of a
Social Media Use Integration Scale. Psychology of Popular Media Culture 2, no. 1: 38–50.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Jenkins-
Guarnieri%2C+M.A.%2C+Wright%2C+S.L.+and+Johnson%2C+B.+%282013%29%2C+“
Development+and+validation+of+a+social+media+use+integration+scale”%2C+Psycholog
y+of+Popular+Media+Culture%2C+Vol.+2+No.+1.
Joo Park, E., E. Young Kim, and J. Cardona Forney. 2006. A Structural Model of Fashion‐
oriented Impulse Buying Behavior. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An
International Journal 10, no. 4 (October): 433–446.
https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/13612020610701965/full/html.
Kaplan, A.M., and M. Haenlein. 2010. Users of the World, Unite! The Challenges and
Opportunities of Social Media. Business Horizons 53, no. 1 (January): 59–68.
www.elsevier.com/locate/bushor.
Kardaras, D., B. Karakostas, and E. Papathanassiou. 2003. The Potential of Virtual Communities
in the Insurance Industry in the UK and Greece. International Journal of Information
Management 23, no. 1: 41–53.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0268401202000671.
Keller, K.L. 1993. Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity.
Journal of Marketing 57, no. 1 (January 19): 1.
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/002224299305700101.
Kim, A.J., and E. Ko. 2012. Do Social Media Marketing Activities Enhance Customer Equity?
An Empirical Study of Luxury Fashion Brand. Journal of Business Research 65, no. 10:
1480–1486.
Kleine, S., S. Baker, S. Schultz Kleine, and S. Menzel Baker. 2004. An Integrative Review of
Material Possession Attachment. Academy of Marketing Science Review 2004, no. 01: 1.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=(Kleine+and+Baker,+2004)&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5.
Kuan, H.H., and G.W. Bock. 2007. Trust Transference in Brick and Click Retailers: An
Investigation of the before-Online-Visit Phase. Information and Management 44, no. 2:

32
 175–187. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378720606001376.
Lages, C.R., and N.F. Piercy. 2012. Key Drivers of Frontline Employee Generation of Ideas for
Customer Service Improvement. Journal of Service Research. http://jsr.sagepub.com.
Laroche, M., M.R. Habibi, M.-O. Richard, and R. Sankaranarayanan. 2012. The Effects of Social
Media Based Brand Communities on Brand Community Markers, Value Creation Practices,
Brand Trust and Brand Loyalty. Computers in Human Behavior 28, no. 5 (September):
1755–1767. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563212001203.
Laroche, M., M.R. Habibi, and M.-O.O. Richard. 2013. To Be or Not to Be in Social Media:
How Brand Loyalty Is Affected by Social Media? International Journal of Information
Management 33, no. 1 (February): 76–82.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=To+be+or+not+to+be+in+so
cial+media%3A+How+brand+loyalty+is+affected+by+social+media%3F&btnG=.
Le, L.H., and G.H. Duong. 2020. Engagement in the Online Brand Community: Impacts of
Cultural Traits. Journal of International Consumer Marketing 32, no. 2 (March 14): 146–
158.
Lee, S., and M. Jeong. 2014. Enhancing Online Brand Experiences: An Application of Congruity
Theory. International Journal of Hospitality Management 40: 49–58.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278431914000516.
Lenhart, A., and M. Madden. 2007. Teens, Privacy and Online Social Networks: How Teens
Manage Their Online Identities and Personal Information in the Age of MySpace. Pew
Internet American Life Project: 1–45. http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2007/Teens-
Privacy-and-Online-Social-Networks.aspx.
Lindell, M.K., and D.J. Whitney. 2001. Accounting for Common Method Variance in Cross-
Sectional Research Designs. Journal of Applied Psychology 86, no. 1: 114–121.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12032562.
Lindh, C., E. Rovira Nordman, S. Melén Hånell, A. Safari, and A. Hadjikhani. 2020.
Digitalization and International Online Sales: Antecedents of Purchase Intent. Journal of
International Consumer Marketing (February 10): 1–12.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08961530.2019.1707143.
Liu, C., J.T. Marchewka, J. Lu, and C.-S. Yu. 2005. Beyond Concern—a Privacy-Trust-
Behavioral Intention Model of Electronic Commerce. Information & Management 42, no. 2
(January): 289–304.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378720604000151.
Liu, Y., W.S. Tsai, and W. Tao. 2020. The Interplay Between Brand Globalness and Localness
for Iconic Global and Local Brands in the Transitioning Chinese Market. Journal of
International Consumer Marketing 32, no. 2 (March 14): 128–145.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08961530.2019.1658556.
Llonch-Andreu, J., M.Á. López-Lomelí, and J.E. Gómez-Villanueva. 2016. How Local/Global Is
Your Brand? International Journal of Market Research 58, no. 6 (November): 795–813.
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.2501/IJMR-2016-046.
Lynn, M.R. 1986. Determination and Quantification of Content Validity. Nursing Research 35,
no. 6: 382–386. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1988-06371-001.
Macdonald, E.K., and B.M. Sharp. 2000. Brand Awareness Effects on Consumer Decision
Making for a Common, Repeat Purchase Product: A Replication. Journal of Business
Research 48, no. 1: 5–15.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148296398000708.

33
Mahrous, A.A., and A.K. Abdelmaaboud. 2017. Antecedents of Participation in Online Brand
Communities and Their Purchasing Behavior Consequences. Service Business 11, no. 2
(June 1): 229–251.
Malhotra, N.K., S.S. Kim, and A. Patil. 2006. Common Method Variance in IS Research: A
Comparison of Alternative Approaches and a Reanalysis of Past Research. Management
Science 52, no. 12 (December): 1865–1883.
http://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/mnsc.1060.0597.
Martín-Consuegra, D., E. Díaz, M. Gómez, and A. Molina. 2019. Examining Consumer Luxury
Brand-Related Behavior Intentions in a Social Media Context: The Moderating Role of
Hedonic and Utilitarian Motivations. Physiology and Behavior 200 (March 1): 104–110.
Martins, J., C. Costa, T. Oliveira, R. Gonçalves, and F. Branco. 2019. How Smartphone
Advertising Influences Consumers’ Purchase Intention. Journal of Business Research 94:
378–387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.12.047.
McKinsey & Company. 2018. Competing in the Middle East’s Consumer Sector | McKinsey.
https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/middle-east-and-africa/navigating-a-perfect-
storm-in-the-middle-easts-consumer-sector.
Mick, D.G., and M. Demoss. 1990. Self-Gifts: Phenomenological Insights from Four Contexts.
Journal of Consumer Research 17, no. 3: 322. https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article-
abstract/17/3/322/1822552.
Moorman, C., R. Deshpande, and G. Zaltman. 1993. Factors Affecting Trust in Market Research
Relationships. Journal of Marketing 57, no. 1 (January 19): 81.
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/002224299305700106.
Moorman, C., G. Zaltman, and R. Deshpande. 1992. Relationships between Providers and Users
of Market Research: The Dynamics of Trust within and between Organizations. Journal of
Marketing Research 29, no. 3 (August 20): 314.
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/002224379202900303.
Morgan, R.M., and S.D. Hunt. 1994. The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship Marketing.
Journal of Marketing 58, no. 3 (July 28): 20.
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/002224299405800302.
Muniz, A.M., and T.C. O’Guinn. 2001. Brand Community. Journal of Consumer Research 27,
no. 4: 412–432. https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article-abstract/27/4/412/1810411.
Muntinga, D.G., M. Moorman, and E.G. Smit. 2011. Introducing COBRAs: Exploring
Motivations for Brand-Related Social Media Use. International Journal of Advertising 30,
no. 1.
Nambisan, S., and R.A. Baron. 2007. Interactions in Virtual Customer Environments:
Implications for Product Support and Customer Relationship Management. Journal of
Interactive Marketing 21, no. 2 (January): 42–62.
https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1094996807700282.
Ngai, E.W.T., K.L.K. Moon, S.S. Lam, E.S.K. Chin, and S.S.C. Tao. 2015. Social Media
Models, Technologies, and Applications: An Academic Review and Case Study. Industrial
Management and Data Systems 115, no. 5 (June 8): 769–802.
Nordea Trade. 2019. Advertising and Marketing in France - Buying and Selling - Nordea Trade
Portal. Nordea Trade. https://www.nordeatrade.com/en/explore-new-market/saudi-
arabia/marketing.
Nunnally, J. 2010. Psychometric Theory 3E.
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=_6R_f3G58JsC&oi=fnd&pg=PR21&dq=N

34
 unnally,+JC,+Bernstein,+IH.+Psychometric+theory+(3rd+Ed.)+New+York:+McGraw-
Hill.+Inc.+1994.&ots=MXQEHwVyKg&sig=PX3LPAqUVtojCrmcOgitcfv0LhU.
Okazaki, S., A.M. Díaz-Martín, M. Rozano, and H.D. Menéndez-Benito. 2015. Using Twitter to
Engage with Customers: A Data Mining Approach. Internet Research 25, no. 3 (June 1):
416–434.
Oliver, R.L. 1999. Whence Consumer Loyalty? Journal of Marketing 63, no. SUPPL. (October
6): 33–44. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00222429990634s105.
Pawle, J., and P. Cooper. 2006. Measuring Emotion - Lovemarks, the Future beyond Brands.
Journal of Advertising Research.
http://www.journalofadvertisingresearch.com/content/46/1/38.abstract.
Percy, L., F. Hansen, and R. Randrup. 2004. How to Measure Brand Emotion. Admap.
https://research.cbs.dk/en/publications/how-to-measure-brand-emotion.
Percy, L., and J.R. Rossiter. 1992. A Model of Brand Awareness and Brand Attitude Advertising
Strategies. Psychology & Marketing 9, no. 4: 263–274.
Podsakoff, P.M., S.B. MacKenzie, J.Y. Lee, and N.P. Podsakoff. 2003. Common Method Biases
in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies.
Journal of Applied Psychology.
https://psycnet.apa.org/journals/apl/88/5/879.html?uid=2003-08045-010.
Rheingold, H. 1991. Virtual Reality: Exploring the Brave New Technologies. Kazdin 531, no.
2000: 8. https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=583339.
Rosner, B., and L.J. Cronbach. 1960. Essentials of Psychological Testing. The American Journal
of Psychology 73, no. 2 (June): 323. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1419921?origin=crossref.
Rossiter, J.R., and L. Percy. 1991. Emotions and Motivations in Advertising. Advances in
Consumer Research 18, no. 1: 100–111. http://www.acrwebsite.org/search/view-
conference-proceedings.aspx?Id=7146.
Samli, A.C. 2013. International Consumer Involvement in Purchase Decisions. In International
Consumer Behavior in the 21st Century, 121–134. New York, NY: Springer New York.
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-1-4614-5125-9_12.
Schivinski, B., and D. Dabrowski. 2015. The Impact of Brand Communication on Brand Equity
through Facebook. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing 9, no. 1 (March 9): 31–53.
https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/JRIM-02-2014-0007/full/html.
Sichtmann, C., V. Davvetas, and A. Diamantopoulos. 2018. The Relational Value of Perceived
Brand Globalness and Localness. Journal of Business Research, November.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014829631830506X.
———. 2019. The Relational Value of Perceived Brand Globalness and Localness. Journal of
Business Research 104 (November 1): 597–613.
Sirdeshmukh, D., J. Singh, and B. Sabol. 2002. Consumer Trust, Value, and Loyalty in
Relational Exchanges. Journal of Marketing 66, no. 1 (January): 15–37.
Slater, J.S. 2000. Collecting The Real Thing: A Case Study Exploration of Brand Loyalty
Enhancement Among Coca-Cola Brand Collectors. Advances in Consumer Research 27, no.
1: p362-369. http://www.acrwebsite.org/search/view-conference-
proceedings.aspx?Id=8388.
Sohail, M.S., and I. Al-Jabri. 2017. Evolving Factors Influencing Consumers’ Attitudes Toward
Social Media Marketing and Their Impact on Social Media Usage. International Journal of
Marketing, Communication and New Mediano. 2: 3–25.
http://u3isjournal.isvouga.pt/index.php/ijmcnm/article/viewFile/237/139.

35
Sohail, M.S., and I.M. Al-Jabri. 2014. Attitudes towards Mobile Banking: Are There Any
Differences between Users and Non-Users? Behaviour & Information Technology 33, no. 4
(April 3): 335–344. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0144929X.2013.763861.
Sohail, M.S., M. Hasan, and A.F. Sohail. 2020. The Impact of Social Media Marketing on Brand
Trust and Brand Loyalty. International Journal of Online Marketing 10, no. 1 (January):
15–31. https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ORw-FXcAAAAJ&hl=en&authuser=5.
Steenkamp, J.B.E.M., R. Batra, and D.L. Alden. 2003. How Perceived Brand Globalness Creates
Brand Value. Journal of International Business Studies 34, no. 1 (January): 53–65.
Steenkamp, J.B.E.M., and M.G. De Jong. 2010. A Global Investigation into the Constellation of
Consumer Attitudes toward Global and Local Products. Journal of Marketing 74, no. 6
(November): 18–40.
Thomson, M. 2006. Human Brands: Investigating Antecedents to Consumers’ Strong
Attachments to Celebrities. Journal of Marketing.
Thomson, M., D.J. MacInnis, and C.W. Park. 2005. The Ties That Bind: Measuring the Strength
of Consumers’ Emotional Attachments to Brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology 15, no.
1: 77–91.
Turban, E., N. Bolloju, and T.-P. Liang. 2010. Social Commerce. In Proceedings of the 12th
International Conference on Electronic Commerce Roadmap for the Future of Electronic
Business - ICEC ’10, 33. New York, New York, USA: ACM Press.
https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2389382.
Tuten, T. 2009. Advertising 2.0: Social Media Marketing in a Web 2.0 World. Choice Reviews
Online 46, no. 08: 46-4549-46–4549.
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=F7BzCgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=t
uten+2008+social+media&ots=prVU3c5BEi&sig=3suORBK_4OyukI1Dtf50soxBSO0.
Urban, G.L., F. Sultan, and W.J. Qualls. 2001. Placing Trust at the Center of Your Internet
Strategy. MIT Sloan Management Review 42, no. 1: 39–48.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/40964353.
Williams, D.R., M.E. Patterson, J.W. Roggenbuck, and A.E. Watson. 1992. Beyond the
Commodity Metaphor: Examining Emotional and Symbolic Attachment to Place. Leisure
Sciences 14, no. 1 (January 1): 29–46.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01490409209513155.
Winit, W., G. Gregory, M. Cleveland, and P. Verlegh. 2014. Global vs Local Brands: How
Home Country Bias and Price Differences Impact Brand Evaluations. International
Marketing Review 31, no. 2 (April 8): 102–128.
https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/IMR-01-2012-0001/full/html.
Wirtz, J., A. den Ambtman, J. Bloemer, C. Horváth, B. Ramaseshan, J. van de Klundert, Z.
Gurhan Canli, and J. Kandampully. 2013. Managing Brands and Customer Engagement in
Online Brand Communities. Ed. Lerzan Aksoy. Journal of Service Management 24, no. 3
(June 14): 223–244.
https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/09564231311326978/full/html.
Yasin, M., L. Porcu, and F. Liébana-Cabanillas. 2019. The Effect of Brand Experience on
Customers’ Engagement Behavior within the Context of Online Brand Communities: The
Impact on Intention to Forward Online Company-Generated Content. Sustainability
(Switzerland) 11, no. 17 (August 26): 4649. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/17/4649.
Yoo, B., N. Donthu, and S. Lee. 2000. An Examination of Selected Marketing Mix Elements and
Brand Equity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 28, no. 2: 195–211.

36
 Zboja, J.J., and C.M. Voorhees. 2006. The Impact of Brand Trust and Satisfaction on Retailer
Repurchase Intentions. Journal of Services Marketing 20, no. 6: 381–390.
Zha, J.X., F.H. Ju, and L.S. Wang. 2006. Customer Satisfaction in E-Commerce: An Exploration
of Its Antecedents and Consequences. In ICMIT 2006 Proceedings - 2006 IEEE
International Conference on Management of Innovation and Technology, 1:540–544.
Zhou, Z., X.-L. Jin, and Y. Fang. 2014. Moderating Role of Gender in the Relationships between
Perceived Benefits and Satisfaction in Social Virtual World Continuance. Decision Support
Systems 65, no. C (September): 69–79.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167923614001444.

37

View publication stats