The Effects of Regulatory Fit On Customer Brand Engagement

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/296693565
The effects of regulatory fit on customer brand engagement: an experimental

study of service brand activities in social media
Article in Journal of Marketing Management · March 2016

DOI: 10.1080/0267257X.2016.1145723
CITATIONS READS
79 1,912
2 authors, including:
Birgit Solem
University College of Southeast Norway
17 PUBLICATIONS 460 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Birgit Solem on 16 October 2017.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Marketing Management
ISSN: 0267-257X (Print) 1472-1376 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjmm20
The effects of regulatory fit on customer brand

engagement: an experimental study of service
brand activities in social media
Birgit Andrine Apenes Solem & Per Egil Pedersen
To cite this article: Birgit Andrine Apenes Solem & Per Egil Pedersen (2016): The
effects of regulatory fit on customer brand engagement: an experimental study
of service brand activities in social media, Journal of Marketing Management, DOI:
10.1080/0267257X.2016.1145723
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2016.1145723
Published online: 02 Mar 2016.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 31
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjmm20
Download by: [Buskerud & Vestfold University College ] Date: 29 March 2016, At: 23:51
JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT, 2016
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2016.1145723
The effects of regulatory fit on customer brand engagement:

an experimental study of service brand activities in social
media
Birgit Andrine Apenes Solema and Per Egil Pedersenb
a
Department of Business and Management, University College of Southeast Norway, Borre, Norway;
Downloaded by [Buskerud & Vestfold University College ] at 23:51 29 March 2016
b
Center for Service Innovation, Norwegian School of Economics/Department of Business and Management,
University College of Southeast Norway, Borre, Norway
ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

When utilising social media to establish customer–brand relation- Received 19 June 2015
ships beyond exchange, service brands must understand which Accepted 11 December 2015
activities stimulate customer brand engagement (CBE) and brand KEYWORDS
preference. Founded in ideas from regulatory engagement theory, Customer brand
this study examines regulatory fit as a key driver of CBE and brand engagement; brand value
value experience. Regulatory fit theory assumes that promotion experience; regulatory fit
orientation, focusing on attaining a desired end state, fits with theory; regulatory
eager and active customer strategies while prevention orientation, engagement theory; field
focusing on avoiding an undesired end state, fits with vigilant and experiment
watchful customer strategies. This experimental study of a Nordic
insurance firm’s Facebook brand activities (n = 429) identified
positive regulatory fit, non-fit and simple effects on psychologi-
cally anchored (emotional, cognitive and intentional) and beha-
vioural (‘likes’, comments) CBE dimensions. Consistent with
regulatory fit theory, the study found that a prevention-oriented
brand activity best evoked positive cognitive CBE among custo-
mers applying vigilant strategies. Opposing existing theory, pro-
motion-oriented brand activity best evoked positive emotional CBE
regardless of customer strategy and a prevention-oriented brand
activity best evoked positive intentional CBE among those apply-
ing eager strategies, The findings contribute to a better under-
standing the multidimensionality of CBE and the role of fit in
regulatory engagement theory. The findings are also of direct
relevance to how service firms should engage their customers,
and show that service providers can benefit from the use of
prevention-oriented activities in social media if such activities are
in accordance with their brand values.
Introduction
As research on branding has extended to the domain of services, attention has shifted to
the comparison of customers’ evaluation of services versus products (Zeithaml, 1981).
The strategic building of service brands is considered to be more difficult than the
building of product brands, due to the intangibility, the co-production and the
CONTACT Birgit A. A. Solem Birgit.A.Solem@hbv.no Department of Business and Social Sciences, University
College of Southeast Norway, Boks 4, 3199 Borre, Norway
© 2016 Westburn Publishers Ltd.
2 B. A. A. SOLEM AND P. E. PEDERSEN
performance variability inherent in service delivery (Becker, Berry & Parasuraman, 1992;
Cummins & Weiss, 1998). Rather than relying on physical attributes to aid customer
engagement, service brands (e.g. telecommunications, banking, insurance) must rely on
intangible cues (Crosby & Stephens, 1987). Thus, the firm and its relationships extending
beyond the exchange process are critical in brand building (Kaltcheva, Patino, Laric,
Pitta, & Imparato, 2014; Vivek, Beatty, Dalela, & Morgan, 2014) and the encouragement of
customer engagement.
Furthermore, customers perceive several service types to encompass high levels of
complexity, uncertainty and risk related to service outcomes (Eisingerich & Bell, 2007;
Percy & Rosenbaum-Elliott, 2012). These perceptions (e.g. of insurance services) may be
coupled with customers’ negative motives (i.e. negatively motivated services).
Negatively motivated services are services that customers buy only because they feel
they have to, with the goal of problem solving or avoidance (Percy & Rosenbaum-Elliott,
2012). Given these characteristics of certain services, firms providing them often struggle
to find appropriate communication strategies when planning brand activities. According
to Camarero (2007), guidelines for brand communication should be developed for
specific types of service.
In a broader context, customer brand engagement (CBE) has received
considerable recent attention (Gambetti & Graffigna, 2010; Hollebeek, 2011a,
2011b). Arguably, social media channels are especially relevant for the
establishment of CBE beyond exchange, as these interactive two-way
communication platforms encourage customers’ participation (Brodie, Ilic, Juric, &
Hollebeek, 2013; Dessart, Morgan-Thomas, & Veloutsou, 2015; Fournier & Avery, 2011;
Gummerus, Liljander, Weman, & Pihlström, 2012; Jahn & Kunz, 2012). Social media
provide the opportunity for a firm to become more customer-centric, and to
encourage CBE via certain brand activities (Hoffman & Novak, 2012; Kaplan &
Haenlein, 2010; Schamari & Schaefers, 2015). Social media also allow service brands
to use content and pictures to depict situations in which customers may find
themselves, thereby building mental constructs of their services before they are
used (Laroche, Habibi, Richard, & Sankaranarayanan, 2012). This approach can
reduce customers’ perceptions of uncertainty and risk. However, current insight
into CBE processes in social media is limited, and few studies have investigated
factors explaining CBE in this context (Dessart et al., 2015; Hsu, Chiang, & Huang,
2012; Jahn & Kunz, 2012; Schamari & Schaefers, 2015). Thus, more empirical evidence
is required to provide a coherent picture of how CBE is affected, particularly in the
arena of social media.
The main purpose of the present research was to examine regulatory fit as a key
driver of CBE and brand preference (i.e. brand value experience) in a social media
context – specifically, a Nordic insurance firm’s brand activities on Facebook.
Regulatory fit theory (Higgins, 2005; Higgins, Cesario, Hagiwara, Spiegel, & Pittman,
2010) assumes that individuals’ promotion orientation focusing on attaining a desired
end state fits with eager strategies, while individuals’ prevention orientation focusing on
avoiding an undesired end state fits with vigilant strategies. In this study, one
promotion-oriented and one prevention-oriented activity targeting customer groups
that apply eager and vigilant strategies, respectively, were introduced to measure
regulatory fit. Regulatory fit is suggested to affect psychologically anchored (i.e.
JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT 3
emotional, cognitive and intentional1) CBE dimensions, as well as CBE behaviours (i.e.
Facebook ‘likes’ and comments).
This examination of the effects of regulatory fit on CBE is also rooted in regulatory
engagement theory, which argues that regulatory fit (among several factors) drives
engagement strength and subsequently affect value experience through motivational
force intensity (Higgins & Scholer, 2009). Regulatory fit theory assumes that customers
engage more strongly in ‘fitting’ than in ‘non-fitting’ situations (Higgins, 2006; Higgins &
Scholer, 2009). Other researchers claim that the strength of engagement is not restricted
to depend solely on cognitive processes, but also comprises emotional engagement
(Pham & Avnet, 2009; Shah & Higgins, 2001). This study seeks to demonstrate that CBE is
a multidimensional concept, comprising more than cognitive engagement (Dessart
et al., 2015; Hollebeek, Glynn, & Brodie, 2014). Thus, it provides a better understanding
of how regulatory fit explains different dimensions of emotional, cognitive, intentional
and behavioural CBE, as well as brand value experience.
This research aims to test whether the theoretical assumptions of regulatory fit- and
regulatory engagement hold (1) for CBE, considered as a multidimensional concept; (2)
in the interactive context of social media where CBE is stimulated through certain brand
activities; and (3) for intangible and negatively motivated services. Thus, the principles of
Popper (1963) are applied to test the precepts of regulatory fit and regulatory
engagement theories under the most critical conditions possible: the context of a
brand offering intangible and negatively motivated services. The findings provide
theoretical insight as well as practical insight on the relative benefits of practitioners’
use of promotion- and prevention-oriented activities for customers applying eager and
vigilant strategies, particularly in social media.
In the next section of this paper, the main concepts and hypotheses regarding the
effects of regulatory fit on CBE and brand value experience are presented. The methods
and findings are then described. The paper concludes with a discussion of the
theoretical and managerial implications of the findings, as well as study limitations
and future research possibilities.
Theoretical framework
Customer brand engagement
The concept of engagement has received considerable attention in several academic
disciplines (e.g. educational psychology and organisational behaviour), although it has
appeared only recently in the marketing literature (Gambetti & Graffigna, 2010;
Hollebeek, 2011a, 2011b). Marketing researchers argue that engagement can entail
specific subjects (e.g. users, customers, consumers) and objects (e.g. products, firms,
firm activities, media channels) (Gambetti & Graffigna, 2010; Hollebeek, 2011a, 2011b;
Hollebeek et al., 2014; Patterson, Ting, & De Ruyter, 2006; Van Doorn et al., 2010). The
focus of this study is on CBE, that is, the engagement of customers (subjects) in relation
to brand activities (objects).
Research on CBE has focused on various underlying (and often single) components of
this concept (Kaltcheva et al., 2014). Higgins (2006) and Higgins and Scholer (2009)
examined the strength of engagement by focusing on its cognitive aspects, arguing that
the state of engagement is characterised by a subject’s interest in and involvement and

occupation with an object. Heath (2009) explored the emotional aspects of engagement
related to advertisements. Other researchers have focused on the physical aspects of
engagement (e.g. Gummerus et al., 2012; Kumar et al., 2010; Van Doorn et al., 2010;
Verhoef, Reinartz, & Krafft, 2010; Wallace, Buil, & de Chernatony, 2014). For example, Van
Doorn et al. (2010, p. 254) posited that customer engagement behaviours could be
defined as ‘a customer’s behavioural manifestations that have a brand or firm focus,
beyond purchase, resulting from motivational drivers’.
Challenging existing research perspectives, and inspired by organisational behaviour
research (Kahn, 1990; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2003), another group of researchers has
considered CBE as a multidimensional psychological state (Algesheimer, Dholakia, &
Herrmann, 2005; Brodie, Hollebeek, Juric, & Ilic, 2011; Brodie et al., 2013; Dessart et al.,
2015; De Villiers, 2015; Dwivedi, 2015; Hollebeek, 2011a, 2011b; Mollen & Wilson, 2010;
Patterson et al., 2006; Vivek, Beatty, & Morgan, 2012). For example, Hollebeek (2011a, p.
555) defined CBE as ‘the levels of a customer’s cognitive, emotional and behavioural
investment in specific brand interactions’.
The perspective adopted in this study aligns most closely with the views of Hollebeek
(2011a, 2011b) and Brodie et al. (2011), as CBE is considered to be a multidimensional
(emotional, cognitive and intentional) – and fluctuating – psychological state that is
context dependent and process based. It is considered to generate two-way co-creating
interactions between customers and brand activities. Following Van Doorn et al. (2010)
and Gummerus et al. (2012), CBE is also argued to comprise engagement behaviour
beyond exchange (e.g. Facebook ‘likes’ and comments). In line with this research and
that of others (Calder, Malthouse, & Schaedel, 2009; Reitz, 2012; Vivek, 2009; Vivek et al.,
2014), CBE is thus conceptualised in this study as including both a state and a
behavioural component, each consisting of separate engagement dimensions. It is
defined as a customer’s psychological state of emotional, cognitive and intentional
investment, and his or her behaviour reflecting investment with brand activities.
Following the reasoning of Hollebeek et al. (2014), emotional CBE is conceptualised as
the customer’s degree of positive brand activity-related affect, and cognitive CBE as the
customer’s levels of brand activity-related thought processing and elaboration.
Intentional CBE refers to a customer’s interest in devoting energy, effort and time to a
brand activity. Based on Van Doorn et al. (2010) and Wallace et al. (2014), behavioural
CBE is conceptualised as a customer’s behavioural and physical brand-related activities
(i.e. Facebook ‘likes’ and comments).
Although researchers often focus on the positive valence of engagement, one can
also be engaged negatively with a firm or a brand (i.e. negative word-of-mouth
behaviour in social media) (Van Doorn, 2011; Vivek et al., 2014). Few authors have
discussed the valence of engagement explicitly (e.g. Hollebeek, L & Chen, 2014). In
line with Hollebeek et al. (2014), this study involves the examination of engagement
with positive valence.
Brand value experience

Within the framework of regulatory engagement theory, Higgins and Scholer (2009)
define (positive or negative) value experience as the strength of attraction to or
repulsion from an object. Thus, value experience is considered to be an attitudinal

concept and a consequence of engagement, explained by basic distinctions such as
‘good’ and ‘bad’, ‘like’ and ‘dislike’ (Eagly & Chaiken, 1995). Extending this concept,
brand value experience is considered in this study to comprise customers’ attraction to
or repulsion from a brand, in comparison with competing brands – in other words, it is
an element of customer-perceived brand equity reflecting customer preference (Lassar,
Mittal, & Sharma, 1995; Shocker & Aaker, 1993). According to Keller (1993), brand value
experience can usefully be examined from the perspective of a customer’s knowledge of
and familiarity and associations with a particular brand. In this study, brand value
experience is also conceptualised and examined as a direct positive effect of
regulatory fit.
Regulatory fit
Most studies testing regulatory fit predictions to date have applied regulatory focus
theory (Higgins, 1997; Motyka et al., 2014). This theory has rapidly gained
prominence in efforts to explain consumers’ decisions. It proposes a fundamental
distinction between the motivational orientations of promotion and prevention
(Florack, Keller, & Palcu, 2013), with promotion-oriented individuals considered to
be approach focused and prevention-oriented individuals considered to be
avoidance focused (Higgins, 1997).2 Promotion orientation is likely related to the
pursuit of advancement and accomplishment, whereas prevention orientation is
likely related to the pursuit of security and protection (Idson, Liberman, & Higgins,
2004). These orientations can reflect individuals’ chronic predispositions or be
situationally induced (Camacho, Higgins, & Luger, 2003). Thus, an individual’s
orientation can shift between situations, tasks, or contexts, despite his or her
chronic habituation toward promotion or prevention (Luo, Reinaker, Phang, & Fang,
2014). In this study, customers’ promotion- and prevention-oriented activities (and
thus modes) are considered to be induced by a firm’s/brand’s activities.
Higgins (2005) describes regulatory fit as the match between an individual’s
motivational orientation and the strategy used to sustain it, with promotion
orientation characterised by greater eagerness and prevention orientation
characterised by greater vigilance. These two strategies differ in the individual being
active and eager, versus being more passive and watchful.
Regulatory fit theory proposes that a person’s current orientation is sustained under
conditions of regulatory fit and disrupted under conditions of non-fit; a match between
orientation toward a goal and the strategy used to approach that goal increases task
motivation (Higgins, 2000, 2005). Aaker and Lee (2006) define regulatory fit as the
persuasive benefit derived from the logical fit between a message and a customer’s
orientation, which is argued to improve the effectiveness of advertisement messaging. In
this study, diverse CBE dimensions and brand value experience related to a service brand’s
social media activity are expected to be enhanced under conditions of fit relative to
conditions of non-fit.
Hypotheses
The study hypotheses were developed by drawing on the regulatory engagement
theory argument that the strength of cognitive engagement is affected by regulatory
fit (among other factors) in a psychological engagement process, leading to positive
value experience (Higgins, 2006; Higgins & Scholer, 2009). A main assumption is that
individuals experiencing regulatory fit engage positively in terms of emotional,
cognitive, intentional and behavioural investment in a brand activity, in line with the
multidimensional view of CBE (Dessart et al., 2015; Hollebeek et al., 2014) and evidence
from a meta-analysis showing that regulatory fit has different effects on evaluation,
behavioural intention and behaviour (Motyka et al., 2014). The dual structure of the
study hypotheses reflects the dual interaction effects of regulatory fit, which requires
promotion–eagerness and prevention–vigilance matches.
In line with Pham and Avnet (2009), the strength of engagement is not considered to
depend solely on the cognitive process in this study. Regulatory fit is also considered to
influence emotional engagement, reflected in customers’ positive feelings related to a
certain brand activity (Shah & Higgins, 2001). Customers applying eager strategies in social
media are assumed to become emotionally engaged in promotion-oriented service brand
activities (i.e. to adopt a promotion-oriented mode), whereas those applying vigilant
strategies, acting in a more passive and watchful manner, are assumed to become
emotionally engaged by prevention-oriented brand activities (i.e. to adopt a prevention-
oriented mode). Based on these arguments, hypotheses H1a and H1b were developed:
H1a: For customers applying eager strategies, the adoption of a promotion orientation
will positively affect the strength of emotional CBE.
H1b: For customers applying vigilant strategies, the adoption of a prevention orienta-
tion will positively affect the strength of emotional CBE.
Similarly, and in line with the main arguments of regulatory engagement theory
(Higgins, 2006; Higgins & Scholer, 2009), regulatory fit is considered to positively affect
cognitive engagement. Customers applying eager strategies in social media are assumed
to become cognitively engaged by promotion-oriented service brand messages, and
those applying vigilant strategies are assumed to become cognitively engaged by
prevention-oriented messages. The cognitive CBE state is reflected in the customer’s
interest in the service brand activity. Thus, the following hypotheses were developed:
will positively affect the strength of cognitive CBE.
tion will positively affect the strength of cognitive CBE.
As intentions, reflecting customer’s interest in devoting energy, effort and time to an

activity is considered to be an important dimension of CBE (Patterson et al., 2006;
Hollbeek et al., 2014; Solem & Pedersen, 2015) and a prerequisite for engagement
behaviour, customers applying eager strategies in social media are assumed to intend
to act (e.g. comment on or share) in relation to promotion-oriented service brand
messages. Conversely, customers applying vigilant strategies are assumed to intend to

act in relation to prevention-oriented messages. Thus, the following hypotheses were
developed:
will positively affect the strength of intentional CBE.
tion will positively affect the strength of intentional CBE.
CBE is considered in this study to have a behavioural component, supporting the views
of several researchers (e.g. Gummerus et al., 2012; Kumar et al., 2010; Van Doorn et al.,
2010; Verhoef et al., 2010; Wallace et al., 2014). It is taken to reflect engagement
behaviour beyond exchange, exemplified by Van Doorn et al. (2010) as customers’
word of mouth and blog posts. In line with De Vries, Gensler, and Leeflang (2012) and
Wallace et al. (2014), Facebook ‘likes’ and comments were used to examine customers’
behavioural CBE in this study, based on the following hypotheses:
will positively affect the strength of behavioural CBE.
tion will positively affect the strength of behavioural CBE.
Finally, regulatory fit is argued to increase the intensity of customers’ brand value

experience in reaction to the brand and its activities (Higgins, 2006; Higgins & Scholer,
2009), affecting the preference for that brand in comparison with other brands. In two
experiments evaluating the impact of regulatory focus on brand choice and category–
brand associations, Florack and Scarabis (2006) found that regulatory fit prevented
customers from considering a change to a new provider offering the same products/
services. Thus, the following hypotheses were developed:
will positively affect brand value experience.
tion will positively affect brand value experience.
Methods and findings

An online field study was used to examine the effects of regulatory fit on CBE
dimensions and brand value experience. The ultimate objective of this experiment was
to guide the design of service brand activities for the achievement of maximum impact.
Design and participants

The field experiment had a 2 × 2 (promotion vs. prevention orientations × eager vs.
vigilant customer strategies) between-subject design. CBE (i.e. emotions, cognitions,
intentions and behaviour) and brand value experience served as the dependent
variables. Four randomised groups were defined according to treatment condition
(promotion–eager, promotion–vigilant, prevention–eager and prevention–vigilant).
The study hypotheses were tested in the interactive social media context of
Facebook, a highly relevant CBE setting. As online research opportunities are
becoming more accessible, regulatory fit studies can be performed in such settings
just as well as in classrooms or laboratories (Motyka et al., 2014). The experiment was
conducted on 10–13 February 2015 in close cooperation with a Nordic insurance firm,
taken to be representative of firms offering intangible and negatively motivated services.
Subjects were the firm’s Facebook customers/followers.
Procedure
Inspired by experiments conducted by Lee and Aaker (2004) and Cesario, Grant, and
Higgins (2004), this study involved the manipulation of motivational orientation using
two firm-sponsored Facebook posts with content reflecting promotion and prevention
orientations, respectively. The promotion-oriented post was approach focused,
highlighting the awarding of cinema tickets to select customers responding to the
post on the topic of the ongoing extreme weather. The depiction of cinema chairs
was used to guide strategic focus on the reward (Appendix 1). The prevention-oriented
post was avoidance focused, providing advice about injury prevention related to fires
caused by electrical household equipment. This message was supported by a picture of
a burning house (Appendix 2). Prior to the study, the brand activity posts were pretested
with 16 third-year college students (8 men, 8 women; age 19–35 years). The students
were asked to consider whether they perceived the posts as promotion or prevention
oriented. Then, they were asked to complete a questionnaire soliciting data on CBE,
brand value experience and demographic characteristics. The students’ constructive
feedback was used to improve the content and messages of the posts, and to refine
the questionnaire.
The two posts were published simultaneously on 10 February 2015, and produced a
substantial number of responses reflecting behavioural engagement. The promotion-
oriented post reached 21,968 individuals, and received a total of 288 ‘likes’, comments
and/or shares. The prevention-oriented post reached 30,032 individuals, and received a
total of 551 ‘likes’, comments and/or shares (Table 1). The prevention-oriented post
generated far more clicks and shares than the promotion-oriented post, although the
percentages of ‘likes’ were almost the same (Table 1). As a percentage of post clicks,
more comments were left on the promotion-oriented post than on the prevention-
Table 1. Overall behavioural customer brand engagement related to the two Facebook posts.
Promotion-oriented Behavioural response in % Prevention-oriented Behavioural response in %
activity post of post clicks activity post of post clicks
Post clicks 497 946
Likes 188 37.8 377 39.9
Comments 90 18.1 88 9.3
Shares 10 2.0 86 9.1
Results stemming from the Nordic insurance firm statistics. The results give a picture of the responses related to the
two different activity posts. The results are not broken down to an individual level of data.
oriented post. Although these results could not be broken down to the individual
subject level or grouped according to customer strategy, they indicated that a
sufficient number of responses could be obtained for subsequent individual-level
analyses.
On the morning of the following day, 11 February, two additional posts were
published. These posts asked whether customers/followers had seen the posts
published on 10 February, and prompted them to click on a link to fill out a
questionnaire (facilitated by Norstat, the largest panel data provider in Norway). As
compensation, the insurance firm awarded 100 cinema vouchers to randomly selected
participants.
A total of 516 customers/followers completed the questionnaire. After the exclusion
of 87 invalid outliers characterised by non-variance in response, elapsed completion

time <2 min, and/or non-recognition of original posts, the final sample comprised 429
respondents (promotion-oriented post, n = 206; prevention-oriented post, n = 223).
Female gender was predominant (65.5%), and 74.2% of respondents were aged
25–54 years. Most (83%) respondents viewed the posts on their Facebook newsfeeds,
and 17% viewed them when visiting the insurance firm’s Facebook brand page.
Measures
To test post orientation, respondents were asked to rate the extent to which they perceived
the posts as concerning ‘something to approach’/‘something to avoid’ on a 5-point Likert
scale. The results showed successful manipulation of motivational orientation; participants
who responded to the promotion-oriented post (n = 206) reported that they understood the
post as ‘something to approach’ (Mapproach-avoid = 1.587), and those who responded to the
prevention-oriented post (n = 223) understood it as ‘something to avoid’ (Mapproach-
avoid = −0.188). A significant difference was observed between the manipulation of
promotion and prevention orientation (F(1,429) = 72.02, p < 0.001). These results confirm
that participants perceived the manipulation variable as intended.
Based on Higgins (2000) and Freitas and Higgins (2002), customer strategy was
measured using a 5-point Likert scale with two items representing eagerness (‘I was
active in relation to the brand post’, ‘I acted immediately by commenting on the brand
post’; α = 0.72) and two items representing vigilance (‘I read the brand post and gave it
some thought’, ‘I read the brand post and registered, in detail, how others commented
on it’; α = 0.78). Psychological CBE was measured on a 7-point Likert scale with items
reflecting the three dimensions of this construct: emotion (‘This brand post evoked my
feelings’), cognition (‘This brand post evoked my interest’) and behavioural intention (‘I
really would like to comment on this post’, ‘I really would like to share this post with
others’, ‘This post was so special that I would share it with others’) (Hollebeek et al.,
2014; Solem & Pedersen, 2015). Weighted average scores of the items measuring each
CBE dimension were calculated. Behavioural CBE was measured by registration of ‘likes’
(yes/no) and comments (yes/no). Based on Higgins (2006) and Yoo and Donthu (2001),
brand value experience was measured on a 7-point Likert scale by asking customers to
compare the brand with a competing brand delivering the same products/services
(‘Even if another insurance firm offers the same, I will not consider changing to a new
provider’). Participants reported positive engagement with both posts, as measured by a
5-point scale assessing negative or positive valence. The question sounded as follows:
‘The Facebook activity post engaged me’, with responses ranging from 1 (in a negative
direction) to 5 (in a positive direction).
Exploratory factor analysis and hypothesis testing results

Construct measurement was examined using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with
principal component analysis and varimax rotation (Netemeyer, Bearden, & Sharma,
2003). Analyses were conducted with SPSS software (version 21; IBM Corporation,
Armonk, NY, USA). One hundred forty-six participants reported high levels of eager
strategy use and 283 participants reported high levels of vigilant strategy use, with
items loading on two distinct factors. EFA also indicated that psychological CBE was a
tripartite concept (i.e. items loading on three factors) with emotional (mean = 4.13),
cognitive (mean = 4.76) and intentional (mean = 3.01) components. Behavioural CBE was
captured by registrations of ‘likes’ and comments on the insurance firm’s Facebook
brand page (in compliance with confidentiality). The mean value for brand value
experience was 5.82.
The study hypotheses were tested using univariate analyses of variance with SPSS
software (version 21; IBM Corporation). Regulatory fit was tested using dual interaction
effects between motivational orientation (promotion/prevention) and customer strategy
(eager/vigilant, based on median split differences). Interaction effects on ‘likes’ and
comments reflecting behavioural CBE were analysed separately. Analyses controlled
for gender and age groups (15–24, 25–34, 35–44, 45–54, 55–64, 65-). Table 2
summarises results for the six models tested.
The interaction effect of motivational orientation × customer strategy on emotional
CBE was not significant (F(1,429) = 3.53, n.s.). Promotion orientation positively affected
emotional CBE among customers applying an eager strategy (Mpromotion/eager = 0.46 vs.
Mprevention/eager = 0.14, t = 2.08, p < 0.05), supporting H1a, and prevention orientation
negatively affected customers applying a vigilant strategy (Mprevention/vigilant = −0.47 vs.
Mpromotion/vigilant = 0.21, t = 6.19, p < 0.01). Thus, H1b was not supported. As support
would require significant interaction effects, these findings do not support the
predictions of regulatory fit theory (Higgins, 2005) or regulatory engagement theory
(Higgins, 2006; Higgins & Scholer, 2009) in general. However, they do indicate that the
promotion-oriented post affected emotional CBE positively among customers applying
eager and vigilant strategies (Figure 1).
Table 2. Regulatory fit effects for customers applying eager and vigilant strategies, according to
motivational orientation.
Promotion orientation Prevention orientation
Eager Vigilant Eager Vigilant
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Emotional CBE .46 1.01 .21 .87 .14 .86 –.47 .98
Cognitive CBE .00 .95 –.11 .97 –.13 .89 .16 1.08
Intentional CBE –.04 1.08 –.20 .95 .50 1.11 –.05 .91
Behavioural CBE likes .08 .27 .03 .17 .10 .30 .05 .21
Behavioural CBE comments .15 .36 .02 .15 .11 .32 .05 .21
Brand value experience 4.92 2.02 5.37 2.00 5.67 1.88 5.32 1.90
The interaction effect of motivational orientation × customer strategy on cognitive

CBE was significant (F(1,429) = 3.84, p < 0.05). Promotion orientation did not affect
cognitive CBE among customers applying an eager strategy (Mpromotion/eager = 0.00 vs.
Mprevention/eager = −0.13, t = 0.83, n.s.). Thus, H2a was not supported. Prevention
orientation positively affected customers applying a vigilant strategy (Mprevention/
vigilant = 0.16 vs. Mpromotion/vigilant = −0.11, t = −2.22, p < 0.05), supporting H2b. These
results, which show that fit (promotion/eager and prevention/vigilant) affects the
strength of cognitive CBE, support the arguments of regulatory fit theory (Higgins,
2005) and regulatory engagement theory (Higgins, 2006; Higgins & Scholer, 2009).
However, the results show no corresponding positive effect of promotion orientation
on cognitive CBE among customers applying an eager strategy (Figure 2).
The interaction effect of motivational orientation × customer strategy on intentional

CBE was significant (F(1,429) = 3.84, p < 0.05), and a corresponding positive effect of
promotion orientation on intentional CBE among customers applying an eager strategy
was found (Mpromotion/eager = −0.40 vs Mprevention/eager = .50, t = −3.05, p < 0.01). Thus,
H3a was supported. Furthermore, analyses revealed no corresponding positive effect of
prevention orientation on intentional CBE among customers applying a vigilant strategy
(Mprevention/vigilant = −0.05 vs. Mpromotion/vigilant = –.20, t = −1.37, n.s.). Thus, H3b was not
supported. The results do indicate that the prevention-oriented post affected intentional
CBE positively among customers applying eager strategies, challenging arguments
based on regulatory fit theory (Figure 3) (Higgins, 2005).
The interaction effect of motivational orientation × customer strategy on behavioural
CBE was not significant in the analysis of ‘likes’ (F(1,429) = 0.004, n.s.). In addition, analyses
Motivational Orirntation
promotion
,50000
prevention
Emotional Customer Brand Engagement
,25000
,00000
–,25000
–,50000
Vigilant Eager
Cuctomer Strategy
Figure 1. Effect of regulatory fit on emotional customer brand engagement. Emotional customer

brand engagement values are standardised and based on weighted regression coefficients. The
customer brand engagement axis thus ranges from −0.5 to 0.5.
Motivational Orientation
,20000
promotion
Cognitive Customer Brand Engagement prevention
,10000
,00000
–,10000
–,20000
Vigilant Eager
Customer Strategy
Figure 2. Effect of regulatory fit on cognitive customer brand engagement. Cognitive customer

of ‘likes’ showed that behavioural CBE was not affected positively by promotion orientation
among customers applying an eager strategy (Mpromotion/eager = .08 vs. Mprevention/
eager = 0.10, t = −0.39, n.s.), or by prevention orientation among customers applying a
vigilant strategy (Mprevention/vigilant = 0.05 vs. Mpromotion/vigilant = 0.03, t = −1.08, n.s.).
However, the model incorporating the ‘likes’ variable showed a simple positive effect of
customer strategy on behavioural CBE (F(1,429) = 4.75, p < 0.05). This result indicates that
customers applying an eager strategy found it ‘easy’ to click on the ‘like’ button without
being engaged in a specific service brand activity.
The interaction effect of motivational orientation × customer strategy on behavioural
CBE was also not significant in the analysis of comments (F(1,429) = 1.27). Also, this analysis
showed no corresponding positive effect of promotion orientation on behavioural CBE
among customers applying an eager strategy (Mpromotion/eager = 0.15 vs. Mprevention/
eager = 0.11, t = 0.61, n.s.), in line with the results presented in Table 1. Furthermore, no
positive effect of prevention orientation on behavioural CBE was found among customers
applying a vigilant strategy (Mprevention/vigilant = 0.05 vs. Mpromotion/vigilant = 0.02, t = −1.08, n.
s.). As with the analysis of ‘likes’, the model constructed with comments data documented a
simple positive effect of customer strategy on behavioural CBE (F(1,429) = 14.18, p < 0.001).
Customers applying an eager strategy commented on the post without necessary being
engaged in a specific service brand activity. The analysis of behavioural CBE provided no
support for H4a and H4b.
,60000
promotion
prevention
Intentional Customer Brand Engagement
,40000
,20000
,00000
–,20000
Vigilant Eager
Customer Strategy
Figure 3. Effect of regulatory fit on intentional customer brand engagement. Intentional customer

The interaction effect of motivational orientation × customer strategy on brand value

experience was not significant (F(1,429) = 3.22, n.s.). Despite the considerable, and
reversed difference between means, this model documented no effect of promotion
orientation on brand value experience among customers applying an eager strategy
(Mpromotion/eager = 4.92 vs. Mprevention/eager = 5.67, t = 1.90, n.s.). Also, no effect of
prevention orientation on brand value experience among customers applying a vigilant
strategy (Mprevention/vigilant = 5.32 vs. Mpromotion/vigilant = 5.37, t = 0.04, n.s.) was found. Thus,
the study findings do not support the predictions of regulatory fit theory (Figure 4)
(Higgins, 2005).
Table 3 summarises the results of the examination of simple and interaction
(regulatory fit) effects in the six models.
Gender had no effect on participants’ responses, except in the analysis of behavioural
CBE according to ‘likes’ (F(1,429) = 6.94, p < 0.01). Age group affected only behavioural
intention (F(1,429) = 9.76, p < 0.01).
Discussion and implications

When utilising social media to establish customer–brand relationships beyond
exchange, service brands must understand that different activities stimulate different
types of CBE and brand value experience. Thus, the key contributions of this study was
5,8
promotion
prevention
5,6
Brand Value Experience
5,4
5,2
5,0
4,8
Vigilant Eager
Customer Strategy
Figure 4. Effect of regulatory fit on brand value experience.
Table 3. Overview of simple and interaction effects in the six tested models.
Models tested Effect type df F Sig.
Emotional CBE
Motivational orientation Simple effect 1 27.73 <.001
Customer strategy Simple effect 1 20.20 <.001
Mot. orient. x customer strategy Interaction effect 1 3.53 ns
Cognitive CBE
Motivational orientation Simple effect 1 .50 ns
Customer strategy Simple effect 1 .68 ns
Mot. orient. x customer strategy Interaction effect 1 3.84 <.05
Intentional CBE
Motivational orientation Simple effect 1 12.09 <.01
Mot. orient. x customer strategy Interaction effect 1 3.84 <.05
Behavioural CBE likes
Mot. orient. x customer strategy Interaction effect 1 .00 ns
Behavioural CBE comments
Brand value experience
Motivational orientation Simple effect 1 9.51 ns
Customer strategy Simple effect 1 .18 ns
Univariate Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) reporting between-subject effects was used to test the models and hypoth-
eses. Regulatory fit effects were tested by interaction effects.
testing whether the theoretical assumptions of regulatory fit- and regulatory

engagement theory hold (1) for CBE considered as a multidimensional concept; (2) in
the interactive context of social media where CBE is stimulated through certain brand
activities; and (3) for intangible and negatively motivated services.
Findings from this experimental field study show that social media activities positively
affect CBE and brand value experience, even for service firms offering services with
intangible and unclear outcomes. Customers willingly engaged behaviourally in the
Nordic insurance firm’s activities (posts), as shown by the large numbers of ‘likes’,
comments and shares (as percentages of post clicks) in response to the experimental
stimuli. Furthermore, the study showed that customers applying eager strategies readily
‘liked’ or commented on posts without the need for engagement related to the specific
service brand activity. The study findings provide support for the idea that CBE has a
behavioural component (De Vries et al., 2012; Van Doorn et al., 2010; Wallace et al.,
2014).
The findings also showed that engagement is complex and not solely behavioural,
providing support for the multidimensionality of CBE (Brodie et al., 2013; Hollebeek
et al., 2014). This study identified different explanatory effects of service brand activities
on three separate, psychologically anchored CBE dimensions (i.e. emotional, cognitive
and intentional) among customers applying eager and vigilant strategies. Customers
seem to engage differently in these diverse dimensions, depending on motivational
orientation (mode) and strategy.
The study hypotheses were developed with reference to regulatory focus theory
(Higgins, 1997), regulatory fit theory (Higgins, 2005), and regulatory engagement
theory (Higgins, 2006; Higgins & Scholer, 2009). Based on the regulatory fit framework,
the analyses examined dual interaction effects of motivational orientation and customer
strategy on the CBE dimensions separately; brand value experience was examined in
similarly. The results provided full support for only H2, which posited that regulatory fit
would positively affect cognitive CBE. Cognitive CBE was found to be related to
promotion-oriented activity among customers applying eager strategies and to
prevention-oriented activity among those applying vigilant strategies. In line with
regulatory engagement theory (Higgins, 2006; Higgins & Scholer, 2009), this support
for H2 suggests that engagement has a ‘cognitive strength’ component. However, the
regulatory engagement theory assuming positive effects from regulatory fit, do not hold
in general when considering CBE as a multidimensional concept as the study could not
document consistent effects from regulatory fit on other CBE dimensions (i.e. emotional,
intentional and behavioural).
Apart from the mixed findings of regulatory fit effects, the study findings provided
support for H1a, H2b, H3a as sub-hypotheses, and documented interesting non-fit and
simple effects (see Table 3). The promotion-oriented activity positively affected
emotional CBE among customers applying eager and vigilant strategies. The
prevention-oriented activity had a particularly positive effect on cognitive CBE among
customers applying vigilant strategies, as well as a positive effect on intentional CBE
among customers applying eager strategies.
The findings from non-fitting situations merit comment. The promotion-oriented
activity affected emotional CBE positively among customers applying vigilant
strategies. Rather surprisingly, the prevention-oriented activity evoked intentional CBE
among customers applying eager strategies. This effect on intentional CBE was in line
with the overall effects on behavioural engagement; the prevention-oriented activity
generated more engagement than the promotion-oriented activity. Assuming that
customers applying eager strategies are more active in terms of overt behaviour,
these effects on behavioural intention and engagement behaviour – although not in
line with regulatory fit theory – reflect the expected pattern of social media use.
Customers in both groups may have found the content of the prevention-oriented
post to be ‘right’ (and thus more engaging than the promotion-oriented post) for a
brand offering intangible, and negatively motivated services. The findings of this study
show that regulatory engagement theory’s assumptions about regulatory fit effects do
not hold fully in a social media context. Regulatory fit affected cognitive CBE for the
insurance firm, but it did not have the expected effects on the other CBE dimensions or
brand value experience.
Theoretical implications
This study makes several theoretical contributions. First, it contributes to the
conceptualisation of CBE and the identification of its drivers. The identification of
different engagement effects for diverse engagement state dimensions suggests that
CBE is a multidimensional construct, in support of previous literature in the fields of
organisational psychology (Kahn, 1990; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2003) and marketing
(Algesheimer et al., 2005; Brodie et al., 2011; Dessart et al., 2015; Hollebeek, 2011a,
2011b; Mollen & Wilson, 2010; Patterson et al., 2006; Vivek et al., 2012). The results also
indicate that overall CBE should comprise CBE behaviour (e.g. Kumar et al., 2010; Van
Doorn et al., 2010; Verhoef et al., 2010) and psychologically anchored CBE (Brodie et al.,
2011; Hollebeek, 2011a, 2011b). The complex engagement process cannot be captured
by behavioural engagement measures alone.
Regulatory engagement theory argues that the strength of engagement relies on its
cognitive component, explained mainly by regulatory fit (among several explanatory
factors) (Higgins, 2006; Higgins & Scholer, 2009). Among effects examined in this study,
only that on cognitive CBE fully supports the predictions of regulatory fit theory. These
findings suggest that regulatory fit does not fully explain the multidimensional concept
of CBE in rich context of social media, which fosters relationships beyond those related
to purchases.
In line with Pham and Avnet’s (2009) constructive critique of regulatory engagement
theory, the results of this study suggest that the concept of engagement in this
framework should be extended to capture more than the strength of cognitive
engagement (Brodie et al., 2011; Hollebeek, 2011a, 2011b). In addition to regulatory fit
effects on cognitive CBE, this study showed the positive effects of regulatory orientation
and customer strategies on emotional and behavioural CBE. However, the size and
direction of the effects differ from those of cognitive CBE. In addition, the study
findings do not support Higgins’ (2005) argument that regulatory fit fully explains
brand value experience. As regulatory engagement theory (Higgins, 2006; Higgins &
Scholer, 2009) argues that positive effects from regulatory fit is flowing through
engagement strength when affecting value experience, future studies should benefit
from analyses addressing CBE as a multidimensional mediator of value experience.
Findings of this study suggest that the interaction of regulatory orientation with
customer strategy explains CBE, but that these interaction effects differ among
engagement dimensions and do not result from a singular form of regulatory fit. As
such, the findings support the ideas of Lee (2009) and thus contribute significantly to
ongoing work focused on extending regulatory fit theory into regulatory engagement
theory (Higgins, 2006). The relationships revealed in this study (i.e. combinations of
motivational orientation and customer strategy) are more complex than regulatory fit
theory suggests. The observation of positive engagement effects in non-fitting situations
supports Lee’s (2009) argument for the importance of extending hypotheses to cover
non-fitting regulatory effects. Lee (2009) suggested that regulatory non-fit leads to
intensified engagement and greater value experience in situations related to high-
involvement offerings. As the firm examined in this study can be characterised as

offering high-involvement services, the findings support Lee’s (2009) reasoning about
opposing forces.
According to the traditional communication- and message-framing literature (e.g.
Percy & Rosenbaum-Elliott, 2012), products and services can be categorised as low or
high involvement and positively or negatively motivated, and brands can use these
distinctions to select appropriate communication strategies. In line with ideas of Percy
and Rosenbaum-Elliott (2012), a brand offering high-involvement and negatively
motivated services should develop a high-involvement informational (i.e. preventive)
communication strategy that is suitable for all customers. The current study extends this
traditional view on communication by showing that diverse service activity posts have
different effects among customers applying different strategies. Even for a brand
offering high-involvement and negatively motivated services, promotion-oriented
activity positively affected emotional CBE. This finding is supported by Rothman and
Salovey’s (1997) argument that promotion orientation can have more positive effects
than prevention orientation under conditions of high involvement.
This study relates in particular to service brands offering intangible and negatively
motivated services. Due to the focus on a single service brand type, the experiment
represents a critical test of regulatory focus, fit and engagement theories in the
Popperian (Popper, 1963) sense. Likely would the theory test hold for product brands
applying promotion-oriented and prevention-oriented messages in social media, but
that requires further investigation. By applying the broader ideas of CBE as a
multidimensional concept in interactive environments (e.g. social media), this study
shows the potential for the development of regulatory engagement theory to include
a more complex set of positive interaction effects resulting from regulatory fit and non-
fit. This theory could also be expanded by the inclusion of moderating effects of social
context, inspired by self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000).
The findings of this study indicate that a product or service may have an inherent
regulatory orientation limiting the effects of inducing a particular regulatory orientation.
In addition, the findings suggest that the mechanism of motivational ‘rightness’ in
regulatory fit theory is complex (Cesario et al., 2004). For example, orientation–
strategy fit may be less important for customers than compliance with the inherent
regulatory orientation of a product or service. In this study, the ‘rightness’ of an
insurance firm’s preventive orientation overrode the ‘rightness’ of regulatory fit. For
example, the prevention-oriented activity may be perceptually consistent with the
service brand, and fit with the aim of encouraging particular customers to use the brand,
which may lead to higher levels of CBE. Therefore, future studies are required to ensure
that the findings are generalisable across brands/brand categories. Comparison of the
effects of regulatory fit on CBE between service and product brands would also be of
interest.
This study tested promotion- and prevention-oriented activities under two customer
strategy conditions. Those activities may differ not only with respect to orientation, but
also other aspects, such as differences in customers’ reasons for sharing them. Although
the two posts were found to successfully manipulate orientation, future studies would
benefit from control for additional explanatory factors.
A potential limitation of conducting a field experiment in a natural customer context
(rather than a laboratory) is related to uncertainty about customer activities; in this

study, it could be that customers who responded to the questionnaire were not the
same as those who responded to the posts the day before, although they reported that
they were. This lack of full control is a well-known and common threat to field
experiments (i.e. those with quasi-experimental designs).
This study consisted of a single field experiment with a small sample size. Future
studies of the effects of regulatory fit (and non-fit) on psychological and behavioural CBE
in different types of online and offline interactive settings are warranted. Repeated
examination of regulatory fit effects on CBE dimensions founded in regulatory focus,
fit and engagement theories for different brands and settings in a large scale data
context will provide future opportunities to constructing a theory of regulatory fit as a
fundamental driver of CBE.
Managerial implications
This study document substantial numbers of ‘likes’, comments and shares (as
percentages of post clicks) in response to both the promotion-oriented and the
prevention-oriented posts, which is promising for service marketers who want to
utilize social media as a communication channel. Although the study showed that
customers applying eager strategies readily ‘liked’ or commented on posts without the
need for engagement related to the specific service brand activity (unconsciously), this
study documented interesting effects on CBE dimensions among both eager and
vigilant customers. Service marketers who are planning brand activities in social media
should be aware that it is possible to evoke engagement not only among eager
customers, but also among customers applying vigilant strategies. Promotion-oriented
activities can stimulate emotional CBE and prevention-oriented activities can stimulate
cognitive CBE among watchful and vigilant customers.
This paper offers multiple opportunities to marketers of service brands, particularly
those offering intangible and negatively motivated services, to improve the efficiency of
social media utilisation. Many providers of intangible and/or negatively motivated
services struggle in social media contexts. The study results are especially promising
for such service brands, showing that they can ‘stick’ to their brand values (even if they
are related to factors such as injury prevention or risk reduction) by focusing strategically
on prevention-oriented activities and content. The prevention-oriented activity offered
by the insurance firm in this experiment positively affected cognitive and intentional
CBE and enhanced brand value experience, meaning that customers would not change
service providers.
Customers are commonly believed to normally follow eager strategies on social
media, implying that a promotion-oriented strategy is always best. Thus, regulatory fit
theory provides limited managerial support for brands trying to stimulate customer
engagement with prevention-oriented services, values, and content on social media.
Results from this study, however, show that these general assumptions of regulatory fit
theory do not hold. For example, an insurance firm can gain positive (cognitive,
intentional and behavioural) CBE, and add great value experience to their brand, by
focusing on injury prevention and other risk-reducing content on social media.
Notes
1. Intentional CBE is a psychological dimension considered as individual’s intention to behave.
As intention to behave is a state it is considered as a prerequisite for CBE behaviour.
2. As motivational orientation is not a traditional trait, an individual’s orientation may be
determined by a task or situation, and some individuals are more likely than others to be
motivated by a particular orientation.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes on contributors
Birgit Andrine Apenes Solem is an assistant professor in Marketing at University College of
Southeast Norway. Her doctoral thesis is conducted at the Center for Service Innovation (csi.
nhh.no) at Norwegian School of Economics (NHH). The research topics are related to service
brands’ activities, customer brand engagement and brand experiences, particularly in interactive
(social media) contexts.
Per Egil Pedersen is a professor in Service Innovation at University College of Southeast Norway
and Adjunct Professor at Norwegian School of Economics (NHH). His main publications are in the
areas of consumer behaviour and business models in online and mobile services, and in service
innovation. In 2012, Pedersen established the Center for Service Innovation (CSI) at NHH. His
ongoing research projects focus on innovation in service systems.
References
Aaker, J. L., & Lee, A. Y. (2006). Understanding regulatory fit. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(1),
15–19. doi:10.1509/jmkr.43.1.15
Algesheimer, R., Dholakia, U. M., & Herrmann, A. (2005). The social influence of brand community:
Evidence from European car clubs. Journal of Marketing, 69(3), 19–34. doi:10.1509/
jmkg.69.3.19.66363
Becker, B. W., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1992). Marketing services: Competing through quality.
Journal of Marketing, 56(2), 132. doi:10.2307/1252050
Brodie, R. J., Hollebeek, L. D., Juric, B., & Ilic, A. (2011). Customer engagement: Conceptual domain,
fundamental propositions, and implications for research. Journal of Service Research, 14, 252–
271. doi:10.1177/1094670511411703
Brodie, R. J., Ilic, A., Juric, B., & Hollebeek, L. (2013). Consumer engagement in a virtual brand
community: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Business Research, 10. doi:10.1016/j.
jbusres.2011.07.029
Calder, B. J., Malthouse, E. C., & Schaedel, U. (2009). An experimental study of the relationship
between online engagement and advertising effectiveness. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23,
321–331. doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2009.07.002
Camacho, C. J., Higgins, E. T., & Luger, L. (2003). Moral value transfer from regulatory fit: What feels
right is right and what feels wrong is wrong. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(3),
498–510. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.3.498
Camarero, C. (2007). Relationship orientation or service quality? What is the trigger of performance
in financial and insurance services?. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 25(6), 406–426.
doi:10.1108/02652320710820354
Cesario, J., Grant, H., & Higgins, E. T. (2004). Regulatory fit and persuasion: Transfer from “feeling
right”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(3), 388–404. doi:10.1037/0022-

3514.86.3.388
Crosby, L. A., & Stephens, N. (1987). Effects of relationship marketing on satisfaction, retention, and
prices in the life insurance industry. Journal of Marketing Research, 24, 404–411. doi:10.2307/
3151388
Cummins, J. D., & Weiss, M. A. (1998). Analyzing firm performance in the insurance industry using
frontier efficiency methods (No. 98-22). Wharton School Center for Financial Institutions,
University of Pennsylvania. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-0155-1_28
De Villiers, R. (2015). Consumer brand enmeshment: Typography and complexity modeling of
consumer brand engagement and brand loyalty enactments. Journal of Business Research, 68,
1953–1963. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.01.005
De Vries, L., Gensler, S., & Leeflang, P. S. H. (2012). Popularity of brand posts on brand fan pages:
An investigation of the effects of social media marketing. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 26,
83–91. doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2012.01.003
Dessart, L., Morgan-Thomas, A., & Veloutsou, C. (2015). Customer engagement in online brand
communities: A social media perspective. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 24(1), 28–
42. doi:10.1108/jpbm-06-2014-0635
Dwivedi, A. (2015). A higher-order model of consumer brand engagement and its impact on
loyalty intentions. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 24, 100–109. doi:10.1016/j.
jretconser.2015.02.007
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1995). The psychology of attitudes. Psychology and Marketing, 12(5),
459–466. doi:10.1002/mar.4220120509
Eisingerich, A. B., & Bell, S. J. (2007). Maintaining customer relationships in high credence services.
Journal of Services Marketing, 21(4), 253–262. doi:10.1108/08876040710758559
Florack, A., Keller, J., & Palcu, J. (2013). Regulatory Focus in economic contexts. Journal of Economic
Psychology, 38, 127–137. doi:10.1016/j.joep.2013.06.001
Florack, A., & Scarabis, M. (2006). How advertising claims affect brand preferences and category–
brand associations: The role of regulatory fit. Psychology & Marketing, 23(9), 741–755.
doi:10.1002/mar.20127
Fournier, S., & Avery, J. (2011). The uninvited brand. Business Horizons, 54(3), 193–207. doi:10.1016/
j.bushor.2011.01.001
Freitas, A. L., & Higgins, E. T. (2002). Enjoying goal-directed action: The role of regulatory fit.
Psychological Science, 13(1), 1–6. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00401
Gambetti, R. C., & Graffigna, G. (2010). The concept of engagement: A systematic analysis of the
ongoing marketing debate. International Journal of Market Research, 52(6), 801–826.
doi:10.2501/s147078531020166
Gummerus, J., Liljander, V., Weman, E., & Pihlström, M. (2012). Customer engagement in a
Facebook brand community. Management Research Review, 35(9), 857–877. doi:10.1108/
01409171211256578
Heath, R. (2009). Emotional engagement: How television builds big brands at low attention.
Journal of Advertising Research, 49(1), 62–73. doi:10.2501/s0021849909090060
Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52(12), 1280–1300.
doi:10.1037/0003-066X.52.12.1280
Higgins, E. T. (2000). Making a good decision: Value from fit. American Psychologist, 55, 1217–1230.
doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.11.1217
Higgins, E. T. (2005). Value from regulatory fit. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(4),
209–213. doi:10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00366.x
Higgins, E. T. (2006). Value from hedonic experience and engagement. Psychological Review, 113(3),
439–460. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.113.3.439
Higgins, E. T., Cesario, J., Hagiwara, N., Spiegel, S., & Pittman, T. (2010). Increasing or decreasing
interest in activities: The role of regulatory fit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(4),
559–572. doi:10.1037/a0018833
Higgins, E. T., & Scholer, A. A. (2009). Engaging the Consumer: The science and art of the value
creation process. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19(2), 100–114. doi:10.1016/j.

jcps.2009.02.002
Hoffman, D. L., & Novak, T. P. (2012). Social media strategy. In Handbook on marketing strategy.
doi:10.4337/9781781005224.00022
Hollebeek, L. D. (2011a). Demystifying customer brand engagement: Exploring the loyalty nexus.
Journal of Marketing Management, 27(78), 785–807. doi:10.1080/0267257x.2010.500132
Hollebeek, L. D. (2011b). Exploring customer brand engagement: Definition and themes. Journal of
Strategic Marketing, 19(7), 555–573. doi:10.1080/0965254x.2011.599493
Hollebeek, L. D., Glynn, M. S., & Brodie, R. J. (2014). Consumer brand engagement in social media:
Conceptualization, scale development and validation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 28(2),
149–165. doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2013.12.002
Hollebeek, L, D., & Chen, T. (2014). Exploring positively-versus negatively-valenced brand
engagement: A conceptual model. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 23(1), 62–74.
doi:10.1108/jpbm-06-2013-0332
Hsu, C.-P., Chiang, Y.-F., & Huang, H.-C. (2012). How experience-driven community identification
generates trust and engagement. Online Information Review, 36(1), 72–88. doi:10.1108/
14684521211206971
Idson, L. C., Liberman, N., & Higgins, E. T. (2004). Imagining how you’d feel: The role of motivational
experiences from regulatory fit. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(7), 926–937.
doi:10.1177/0146167204264334
Jahn, B., & Kunz, W. (2012). How to transform consumers into fans of your brand. Journal of Service
Management, 23(3), 344–361. doi:10.1108/09564231211248444
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work.
Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692–724. doi:10.2307/256287
Kaltcheva, V., Patino, A., Laric, M. V., Pitta, D., & Imparato, N. (2014). Customers’ relational models as
determinants of customer engagement value. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 23(1),
55–61. doi:10.1108/jpbm-07-2013-0353
Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of
social media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59–68. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003
Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity.
Journal of Marketing, 57, 1–22. doi:10.2307/1252054
Kumar, V., Aksoy, L., Donkers, B., Venkatesan, R., Wiesel, T., & Tillmans, S. (2010). Undervalued or
overvalued customers: Capturing total customer engagement value. Journal of Service Research,
13(3), 297–310. doi:10.1177/1094670510375602
Laroche, M., Habibi, M. R., Richard, M.-O., & Sankaranarayanan, R. (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(5), 1755–1767. doi:10.1016/j.
chb.2012.04.016
Lassar, W., Mittal, B., & Sharma, A. (1995). Measuring customer-based brand equity. Journal of
Consumer Marketing, 12(4), 11–19. doi:10.1108/07363769510095270
Lee, A. Y. (2009). Engaging the consumer: The opposing forces of regulatory nonfit versus fit.
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19(2), 134–136. doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2009.02.006
Lee, A. Y., & Aaker, J. L. (2004). Bringing the frame into focus: The influence of regulatory fit on
processing fluency and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(2), 205.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.86.2.205
Luo, X., Reinaker, A., Phang, C. W., & Fang, Z. (2014). Mobile moments. Available at SSRN. Retrieved
from http://www.ssrn.com/en/
Mollen, A., & Wilson, H. (2010). Engagement, telepresence and interactivity in online consumer
experience: Reconciling scholastic and managerial perspectives. Journal of Business Research, 63,
19–25. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.05.014
Motyka, S., Grewal, D., Puccinelli, N. M., Roggeveen, A. L., Avnet, T., Daryanto, A., & Wetzels, M.
(2014). Regulatory fit: A meta-analytic synthesis. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24(3), 394–410.
doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2013.11.004
Netemeyer, R. G., Bearden, W. O., & Sharma, S. (2003). Scaling procedures: Issues and applications.
London: Sage.
Patterson, P., Ting, Y., & De Ruyter, K. (2006, December 4–6). Understanding customer engagement
in services. Advancing theory, maintaining relevance. Proceedings of ANZMAC 2006
Conference, Brisbane.
Percy, L., & Rosenbaum-Elliott, R. (2012). Strategic advertising management. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Pham, M. T., & Avnet, T. (2009). Rethinking regulatory engagement theory. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 19(2), 115–123. doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2009.02.003
Popper, K. (1963). Conjectures and refutations (Vol. 7). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Reitz, A. R. (2012). Online consumer engagement: Understanding the antecedents and outcomes
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Nothern Colorado, Greeley.
Rothman, A. J., & Salovey, P. (1997). Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behavior: The role of
message framing. Psychological Bulletin, 121(1), 3–19. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.121.1.3
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68. doi:10.1037//
0003-066x.55.1.68
Schamari, J., & Schaefers, T. (2015). Leaving the home turf: How brands can use webcare on
consumer-generated platforms to increase positive consumer engagement. Journal of
Interactive Marketing, 30, 20–33. doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2014.12.001
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2003). UWES – Utrecht work engagement scale: Test manual.
Department of Psychology, Utrecht University. Retrieved May 15, 2015, from: http://www.
schaufeli.com/
Shah, J., & Higgins, E. T. (2001). Regulatory concerns and appraisal efficiency: The general impact of
promotion and prevention. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(5), 693–705.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.80.5.693
Shocker, A. D., & Aaker, D. A. (1993). Managing brand equity. Journal of Marketing Research, 30(2),
256. doi:10.2307/3172832
Solem, B. A. A., & Pedersen, P. E. (2015). The role of customer brand engagement in social media:
Conceptualization, measurement, antecedents and outcomes. International Journal of Internet
Marketing and Advertising. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Van Doorn, J. (2011). Comment: Customer engagement essence, dimensionality, and boundaries.
Journal of Service Research, 14(3), 280–282. doi:10.1177/1094670511414585
Van Doorn, J., Lemon, K. N., Mittal, V., Nass, S., Pick, D., Pirner, P., & Verhoef, P. C. (2010). Customer
engagement behavior: Theoretical foundations and research directions. Journal of Service
Research, 13(3), 253–266. doi:10.1177/1094670510375599
Verhoef, P. C., Reinartz, W., & Krafft, M. (2010). Customer engagement as a new perspective in
customer management. Journal of Service Research, 13(3), 247–252. doi:10.1177/
1094670510375461
Vivek, S. D. (2009). A scale of consumer engagement. Tuscaloosa, AL: Degree of Doctor of
Philosophy. University of Alabama.
Vivek, S. D., Beatty, S. E., Dalela, V., & Morgan, R. M. (2014). A generalized multidimensional scale for
measuring customer engagement. The Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 22(4), 401–420.
doi:10.2753/mtp1069-6679220404
Vivek, S. D., Beatty, S. E., & Morgan, R. M. (2012). Consumer engagement: Exploring customer
relationships beyond purchase. The Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 20(2), 122–146.
doi:10.2753/mtp1069-6679200201
Wallace, E., Buil, I., & de Chernatony, L. (2014). Consumer engagement with self-expressive brands:
Brand love and WOM outcomes. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 23(1), 33–42.
doi:10.1108/jpbm-06-2013-0326
Yoo, B., & Donthu, N. (2001). Developing and validating a consumer-based overall brand equity
scale. Journal of Business Research, 52(1), 1–14. doi:10.1016/s0148-2963(99)00098-3
Zeithaml, V. A. (1981). How consumer evaluation processes differ between goods and services.
Marketing of Services, 9(1), 25–32.
Appendix 1. The promotion-oriented Facebook post
Translation of post text: ‘There has been much focus on the weather in the last couple of days. We
want to give some cinema tickets to five of you who experienced the extreme storm “Ole” or other
bad weather. The only thing you need to do is tell us why you think you should win. We will
randomly choose the winners on Friday.’
Appendix 2. The prevention-oriented Facebook post

Translation of post text: ‘High-power electronic equipment is more likely to trigger a fire. Washing
machines, dryers and dishwashers are among the worst offenders. Our recommendation: never
leave these machines on when you are not at home or during the night. What time of day do you
use your washing machine/dryer/dishwasher?’
View publication stats

The Effects of Regulatory Fit On Customer Brand Engagement

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Effects of Regulatory Fit On Customer Brand Engagement

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

The effects of regulatory ﬁt on customer brand engagement: an experimental

Article in Journal of Marketing Management · March 2016

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ISSN: 0267-257X (Print) 1472-1376 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjmm20

The effects of regulatory fit on customer brand

Birgit Andrine Apenes Solem & Per Egil Pedersen

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2016.1145723

Published online: 02 Mar 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

The eﬀects of regulatory ﬁt on customer brand engagement:

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

the state of engagement is characterised by a subject’s interest in and involvement and

Brand value experience

repulsion from an object. Thus, value experience is considered to be an attitudinal

As intentions, reﬂecting customer’s interest in devoting energy, eﬀort and time to an

messages. Conversely, customers applying vigilant strategies are assumed to intend to

Finally, regulatory ﬁt is argued to increase the intensity of customers’ brand value

Methods and ﬁndings

Design and participants

of 87 invalid outliers characterised by non-variance in response, elapsed completion

Exploratory factor analysis and hypothesis testing results

The interaction eﬀect of motivational orientation × customer strategy on cognitive

The interaction eﬀect of motivational orientation × customer strategy on intentional

Figure 1. Eﬀect of regulatory ﬁt on emotional customer brand engagement. Emotional customer

Figure 2. Eﬀect of regulatory ﬁt on cognitive customer brand engagement. Cognitive customer

Figure 3. Eﬀect of regulatory ﬁt on intentional customer brand engagement. Intentional customer

The interaction eﬀect of motivational orientation × customer strategy on brand value

Discussion and implications

Figure 4. Eﬀect of regulatory ﬁt on brand value experience.

testing whether the theoretical assumptions of regulatory ﬁt- and regulatory

involvement oﬀerings. As the ﬁrm examined in this study can be characterised as

(rather than a laboratory) is related to uncertainty about customer activities; in this

right”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(3), 388–404. doi:10.1037/0022-

creation process. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19(2), 100–114. doi:10.1016/j.

Marketing of Services, 9(1), 25–32.

Appendix 1. The promotion-oriented Facebook post

Appendix 2. The prevention-oriented Facebook post

View publication stats

You might also like