Artikel Holistic Digital Engagement

Journal of Internet Commerce
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wico20
Beyond Social Media Engagement: Holistic Digital

Engagement and a Social Identity Perspective
Kashif Farhat, Wajeeha Aslam & Sany Sanuri Mohd Mokhtar
To cite this article: Kashif Farhat, Wajeeha Aslam & Sany Sanuri Mohd Mokhtar (2021): Beyond
Social Media Engagement: Holistic Digital Engagement and a Social Identity Perspective, Journal
of Internet Commerce, DOI: 10.1080/15332861.2021.1905474
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15332861.2021.1905474
Published online: 09 Apr 2021.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 59
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wico20
JOURNAL OF INTERNET COMMERCE
https://doi.org/10.1080/15332861.2021.1905474
Beyond Social Media Engagement: Holistic Digital

Engagement and a Social Identity Perspective
Kashif Farhata , Wajeeha Aslamb , and Sany Sanuri Mohd Mokhtarc
a
Department of Marketing, Mohammad Ali Jinnah University, Karachi, Pakistan; bDepartment of
Business Administration, IQRA University, Gulshan-e-Iqbal, Pakistan; cSchool of Business
Management, University Utara Malaysia, Kedah, Malaysia
ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
The study aims to provide the concept of “holistic digital Brand affect; brand identity;
engagement” (HDE) in marketing and establish its psycho- brand personality; customer
logical antecedents through brand identity, brand personality, engagement; holistic
digital engagement
and brand affect from the lens of social identity theory.
Guided by the cross-sectional research design, the study con-
ducts PLS-SEM analysis of 303 responses collected through a
survey questionnaire. The respondents were selected through
judgmental sampling design. The findings of the study indi-
cate that brand personality, brand identity, and brand affect
are the critical factors to form HDE. The mediating role of
brand affect between brand identity and HDE also emerged
significant in path modeling. The study advances a scholarly
debate about HDE, its psychological antecedents, and how
HDE differs from social media engagement (CBE). This research
contributes to the emerging literature of engagement in mar-
keting by filling a vacuum of empirical investigations on HDE
from the social identity perspective. It is the first study that
has established the psychological antecedents of HDE.
Introduction
As digital technologies sway over the modern lifestyle, the challenge to fos-
ter customer-brand engagement (CBE) across ever-growing digital plat-
forms has become a business and strategic imperative both for products
(Ferreira, Zambaldi, and Guerra 2020; Li, Juric, and Brodie 2017) and serv-
ices (Hollebeek 2011; Islam et al. 2019; Solem 2016). Recent focus specific-
ally on brand contents highlights the benefits customer engagement offers
to brands (Hollebeek and Macky 2019; Lee, Hosanagar, and Nair 2018;
Schultz 2017). The contemporary perspective of CBE refers to constructing
a long-term reciprocal relationship with customers—extending it beyond
the continuum of pre-purchase and purchase process (Harmeling et al.
2017; Verleye, Gemmel, and Rangarajan 2014). While engagement occurs
CONTACT Kashif Farhat kashif.farhat@gmail.com Department of Marketing, Mohammad Ali Jinnah

University, Karachi, Pakistan.
ß 2021 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 K. FARHAT ET AL.
both in physical and virtual environments (Wirtz et al. 2013), the tools,
platforms, and trends to communicate and socialize on the digital channels
increasingly manifest engagement in the digital realm (Baldus, Voorhees,
and Calantone 2015; Hollebeek, Juric, and Tang 2017).
Even though, the digital realm includes an array of digital channels such
as social media, websites, blogs, minibloging, and apps (Chahal, Wirtz, and
Anu 2019; Petit, Velasco, and Spence 2019), the extant literature on
engagement has predominantly focused on social media networks or on a
single source of engagement on digital channels and have overlooked the
other sources of engagement in the digital world such as websites, mini-
blogging, and blogs (e.g., Demangeot and Broderick 2016 for websites;
Islam et al. 2020 and Verma 2014 for blogs). Amidst the new possibilities
for CBE, scholarly interest has grown in engaging customers on social
media (e.g., Carlson et al. 2018; Hollebeek, Glynn, and Brodie 2014), but
the current marketing literature on the concept of engagement is extremely
asymmetric toward social media platforms despite that the aim of brands is
to create a holistic net in which customers and brands actively engage.
Specifically, the extant engagement literature fails to answer if an engaged
customer on social media is also engaged on other important digital chan-
nels of the brand such as websites and blogs. Instead of adopting and
measuring engagement of customers holistically, scholars have virtually
focused on a single digital source of engagement and concluded this piece-
meal approach as CBE (e.g., Farhat, Mokhtar, and Salleh 2020b; Ohman €
2017; Ibrahim, Wang, and Bourne 2017). Such marketing practices are
largely attributed to the absence of a concept in marketing that simultan-
eously captures CBE on multiple digital platforms. The lopsided focus on
social media in the engagement literature not only drastically limits the the-
oretical development of customer engagement in digital environments but
also offers limited empirical guidance to brand managers to design cus-
tomer engagement programs across the digital spectrum.
Additionally, only a handful of researchers and practitioners have
explored customer-based preconditions such as psychological factors—
social identity (Prentice et al. 2019) in relation with engagement in market-
ing. To the best of authors’ knowledge, almost no study in the past has
investigated psychological factors in relation with CBE simultaneously with
social media networks, websites, blogs, etc. Thus, it is unknown whether
the psychological factors that explain customer engagement with a particu-
lar digital platform (e.g., Facebook) also concurrently engage customers
with other digital forums (e.g., website, blogs). Psychological conditions
better reflect the discretionary engagement of customers with a brand than
firm-based antecedents (Prentice et al. 2019). Psychologically driven
engagement is more of organic engagement and is a relatively cost-effective
JOURNAL OF INTERNET COMMERCE 3
path for a higher degree of engagement with brands and resulting financial
performance (Prentice et al. 2019). Thereby, the primary research question
of the study is:
Do the psychological factors; brand identity, brand personality, and
brand affect drive holistic digital engagement (HDE)?
Therefore, the study primarily aims to fill a major gap in marketing lit-
erature by proposing the concept of “HDE” to measure customer engage-
ment across various digital platforms simultaneously, as indicated by earlier
research studies (Khan 2017; Sokolova and Kefi 2020). Since the piecemeal
engagement approach in marketing research is void of “holistic
engagement” perspective, it acts as a barrier to the realization of a compre-
hensive contribution of engagement to brands and the resulting profits.
Secondly, the study aims to explore the psychological factors and mecha-
nisms that lead to “HDE” guided by the social identity theory (SIT).
The rest of the study is structured as; first, the conceptual shortcomings
of customer-brand engagement (CBE) are identified and then the concept
of “HDE” is proposed to overcome the shortcomings. Second, social iden-
tity theory is discussed and its significance for digital engagement. Third,
the conceptual framework and the hypotheses of the study are presented.
Fourth, methodology and the results of the study are presented. Lastly, the
conclusion of the study provides the theoretical and practical contributions
of the study followed by the limitations section.
CBE and conceptualization of holistic digital engagement (HDE)

The significance of the engagement concept in marketing may be realized
from the phrase “engage or die” (Nelson-Field and Taylor 2012).
Emergence of social media has provided new opportunities for firms to
build direct relationships with customers. Social media also allows custom-
ers to actively engage with brands (Jahn and Kunz 2012a). Customers can
participate in “liking, commenting, sharing, and creating” brand communi-
cation on social media—commonly referred to as social media engagement.
Various themes of engagement in marketing have emerged such as cus-
tomer engagement, brand engagement, CBE, customer engagement behav-
ior, online brand community engagement, and online engagement (e.g.,
Hollebeek, Glynn, and Brodie 2014; Sprott, Czellar, and Spangenberg 2009;
Van Doorn 2011). Table 1 shows an overview of various conceptualizations
of engagement in marketing. But the concept of engagement in marketing
is still emerging with its various definitions and conceptualizations
(Beckers, Van Doorn, and Verhoef 2018). While the initial concept of cus-
tomer engagement in marketing is not indicative of any distinction between
online and offline CBE (Bowden 2009; Van Doorn et al. 2010; Verhoef,
4 K. FARHAT ET AL.
Table 1. Overview of engagement concepts and contexts in marketing.

Dimension(s) Author(s) Concept CE Definition(s) Context
1. Cognitive, Bowden (2009) Customer A psychological process that General
Affective Engagement leads to consumer loyalty
to the service brand.
Algesheimer, Brand Positive influences of Facebook
Dholakia, and Community identifying with the brand
Herrmann (2005) Engagement community
through consumers.
Brodie et al. (2011) Customer A psychological state that General
Brand occurs by the virtue of
Engagement interactive, co-creative
customer experiences with
focal agent/object
(e.g., brand).
Mollen and Customer A customer’s cognitive and Online
Wilson (2010) Engagement affective commitment to
an active relationship with
the brand as personified
by the website or other
computer-mediated
entities designed to
communicate brand value
Sprott, Czellar, and Brand Engagement An individual difference General
Spangenberg in Self-Concept representing consumer’s
(2009) propensity to include
important brands as part
of how they
view themselves.
2. Cognitive, Higgins and Engagement Engagement is a state of General
Affective, Scholer (2009) being involved, occupied,
Behavioral fully absorbed, or
engrossed in something
(i.e., sustained attention).
Hollebeek (2011) Customer The level of a customer’s General
Brand motivational, brand-related
Engagement and context dependent
state of mind characterized
by specific levels of
cognitive, emotional and
behavioral activity in brand
interactions.
Vivek et al. (2012) Customer CE is the intensity of an General
Engagement individual’s participation in
and connection with an
organization’s offerings or
organizational activities,
which either the customer
or the organization initiates.
Brodie et al. (2013) Customer A construct instrumental in Online Brand
Engagement relational exchange where Community
other relational concepts
are engagement
antecedents and/or
consequences in iterative
engagement process within
the brand community.
Hollebeek, Glynn, Customer A consumer’s positively Social Media
and Brand valenced cognitive,
Brodie (2014) Engagement emotional, and behavioral
brand-related activity
during, or related to,
specific consumer/brand
interactions
(continued)
Table 1. Continued.
Dimension(s) Author(s) Concept CE Definition(s) Context
Dwivedi (2015) Customer Consumers’ positive fulfilling, General
Brand brand-related state of
Engagement mind characterized by
vigor, dedication,
and absorption.
Baldus, Voorhees, Online brand It is defined as the Online brand
and Community motivation that attracts Community
Calantone (2015) Engagement consumers to continually
interact in these
communities.
Paruthi and Online A psychological state of mind Facebook
Kaur (2017) Engagement and an an internal
emotion of the consumer.
3. Behavioral Van Doorn Customer Customer’s behavioral General
et al. (2010) Engagement manifestations toward a
brand or firm that are
brand or firm focused,
beyond purchase, by the
virtue of
motivational drivers.
Verhoef, Reinartz, Customer Behavioral manifestation of General
and Krafft (2010) Engagement customers toward the
brand or firm, beyond
transactions.
Kumar et al. (2010) Customer Behavioral manifestations of General
Engagement customer engagement
toward a firm, after and
beyond purchase.
Verleye, Gemmel, Customer Customer’s transactional and General
and Rangarajan Engagement non-transactional
(2014) behavioral manifestations
toward a brand or firm,
resulting from
motivational drivers.
Jaakkola and Customer Customer behavior of making General
Alexander (2014) Engagement voluntary resource
contributions toward a
brand beyond
fundamental to
transactions, resulting
from motivational drivers.
Pansari and Customer A mechanics of a customer’s General
Kumar (2017) Engagement value addition to the firm,
either through direct or/
and indirect contribution.
Ni et al. (2020) Social Media Individual attitude toward Social Media
Engagement for the relationship with social
Adolescents media use.
This study Holistic Digital Simultaneous behavioral Digital Channels
Engagement manifestations of
(HDE) customers toward a brand
or firm on multiple digital
channels arising from
cognitive, affective, and
social encounters with a
brand or firm.
Reinartz, and Krafft 2010), later “CBE” concept was introduced specifically
aimed to measure customers engagements with brands on social media
(e.g., Hollebeek 2011; Hollebeek, Glynn, and Brodie 2014). Whereas other
6 K. FARHAT ET AL.
marketing scholars viewed no differences between customer-engagement

and CBE (France, Merrilees, and Miller 2016).
Conceptually, engagement in marketing is mainly defined in three topol-
ogies: cognitive, affective, and behavioral (Dessart and Pitardi 2019) in con-
trast to various definitions that focus only on the behavioral component of
engagement as CBE (Jahn and Kunz 2012b; Pansari and Kumar 2017). For
social media engagement, arguably, the concept and scale provided by
Hollebeek, Glynn, and Brodie (2014) are the most popular in engagement
studies. However, as listed in Table 1, the behavioral component of engage-
ment in marketing is overwhelmingly present in almost all conceptualiza-
tions; the only element of engagement on which the scholars have agreed
upon (Yoshida et al. 2018). Other aspects of engagement, namely cognitive
and affective engagement remain a point of debate in literature (Romero
2018). Likewise, it is stated that behavioral engagement is the strongest
affirmation of engaged customers (Keller 2001). Moreover, a review of the
extant literature reveals that engagement is not dependent on a single
source or medium; instead, engagement is primarily a behavioral demon-
stration that occurs as a result of various motivations that customers wish
to fulfill (Elliott 2006; Mollen and Wilson 2010). Thus, this study proposes
HDE as an extension of CBE concept. Essentially, HDE extends the engage-
ment concept in marketing to “simultaneous engagement across multiple
digital channels.”
Oxford English Dictionary (2021) describes the word “engagement” as
“involvement” or “participation” or “binding” and cites its origin as “to
pledge oneself” in the literature. Further, engagement is described as
“connection” (London, Downey, and Mace 2007) and as the degree of
immersion characterized by “total immersion” and “engrossment” (Brown
and Cairns 2004). It is the sustained involvement triggered by a person’s
interest, holding attentional resources, and rendering a person in an
immersive state (Chen et al. 2011). In various theories, engagement refers
to feedback, participation, involvement, and interest of individuals mani-
fested on or through technological platforms (O’Brien and Toms 2008),
indicating the essential role of technology or digital channels such as social
media and websites for engagement to occur. Engagement is an essential
human response to technology mediated activities and experiences (inter-
net, computer, etc.) (Laurel 1993). In various scholarly domains, engage-
ment has been actively linked to human-computer interaction (Rich et al.
2010) and web applications (Attfield et al. 2011) which essentially refers to
the digital channels (platforms). Characterized by digital culture of stake-
holders’ growing participation (Crawford et al. 2014), digital engagement
captures the concept of audience active engagement with digital media,
such as social media (Walmsley 2016). Digital engagement is a
well-featured term in the marketing and communication literature to meas-

ure customers’ and stakeholders’ interaction and cooperation with brands
on various digital channels (e.g., Eigenraam et al. 2018; Silva et al. 2020;
Valerio et al. 2015; Vazquez 2019).
Extending the concept of engagement, digital engagement refers to cus-
tomers’ interaction with brands and participation in various brand-related
activities across digital channels. Essentially, digital engagement refers to
brands’ efforts to link with customers through social media, blogs, and
websites (Drummond, O’Toole, and McGrath 2020). The concept of digital
engagement resides on the promise that the higher the customer engage-
ment with the brand on digital channels, the greater the likelihood of cus-
tomers making positive recommendations for the brand, essentially
connecting customers with the brand (Pittman and Sheehan 2020). Like
customer engagement, digital engagement is also composed of customers
commenting, liking, and sharing brand-related content (Reich and
Pittman 2020).
Following the nature and role of engagement on digital channels, the
current study proposes the concept of “HDE.” Specifically, based on the
theories and definitions that exist in the literature, this study views HDE as
behavioral manifestations of customers toward multiple yet simultaneous
digital channels as result of various personal and social motivations. Since
the concept of engagement in the current study aims to fulfill the theoret-
ical gap of “engagement across the digital spectrum,” we conceptualize
HDE as the behavioral manifestation that customers demonstrate toward a
brand/firm. HDE specifically aims to measure simultaneous customer
engagement with a brand on various online platforms that the earlier con-
cepts of engagement scales failed to capture. HDE manifests a greater level
of engagement behavior that individuals demonstrate as a reflection of
broader digital engagement with the brand. Such a broad level of engage-
ment cannot occur unless customers view themselves closely synchronized
with the brand. Importantly, while CBE specifically captures customers and
brands engagement on social media, HDE aims to be inclusive of custom-
ers and brand engagement across the digital channels. Thereby, the term
HDE is appropriate to capture the core concept it represents. Moreover,
since augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) may enhance digital
engagement, such as VR view of online retail stores (Pizzi et al. 2019),
HDE may measure the customers’ digital engagement stimulated by AR
and VR. However, the concept of HDE is not specifically related to AR and
VR stimulated engagement.
Moreover, engagement in marketing is a measure of customer behavior
as a result of various personal and social motivations (Keller 2001). Hence,
we define HDE as “simultaneous behavioral manifestations of customers
8 K. FARHAT ET AL.
toward a brand on multiple digital channels arising from cognitive, affect-

ive, and social encounters with a brand or firm.” Whereas CBE refers to
liking, participating, and interacting on social media pages of brands, HDE
refers to customers visiting and contacting brands, consuming brand-
related information, connecting with potential and existing customers, and
making recommendations, across multiple digital channels. While CBE, in
essence, measures “social media engagement,” the HDE concept measures
simultaneous engagement between customers and brands across digital
channels. Thus, HDE pushes the boundaries of CBE from the sphere of
social media to multiple digital channels. Recognizing both active and pas-
sive types of engagement (Ruengaramrut, Ribiere, and Mariano 2020), the
concept of HDE is composed of comprehensive customer engagement with
the brand and considers all kinds of connections that customers make with
the brand in the digital environment. Therefore, the customers’ behaviors
of seeking and consuming brand-related information, liking, posting on
multiple digital channels concurrently, and brand supporting behaviors,
such as eWOM and recommendations behavior encompass the concept
of HDE.
While the behavioral nature of HDE confirms the earlier scales of behav-
ioral engagement in marketing, HDE extends the scope of engagement and
its antecedents as psychological and social factors such as brand identity,
brand personality, brand affect, socialization, and informational value.
Limiting customer engagement to social media or to a particular online
platform does not serve brands and marketers comprehensively. Instead,
such an approach limits the engagement concept and the resulting efforts
to engage customers on ever-growing digital platforms in the age when
brands are vying to intercept and engage customers on multiple digital
platforms (“Customer engagement 101” 2020). However, the concept of
HDE is not limited to social media, websites, and blogs. Instead, HDE ena-
bles brands and firms to focus and measure simultaneous engagement of
customers on multiple digital channels and broadens the strategic focus of
engagement in marketing beyond social media.
It is also important that marketers draw a fine line between engagement
on social media and off-line engagement. Thus, the inclusion of “digital” in
the holistic engagement concept corrects a misnomer that CBE entails to
identify the research studies that particularly investigate engagement on
digital platforms. HDE is also different from “total customer engagement”
in terms of its scope and purpose. We conceptualize that HDE occurs
when customers engage with brands on multiple digital platforms in com-
parison with “total customer engagement” that refers to creating and com-
municating distinct value proposition, commitment of employees to
deliver, and a planned experience (Roberts and Alpert 2010).
The need to propose a new conceptualization of customer engagement

arises from the absence of a behavioral customer engagement concept that
can conceptually explain CBE concurrently in multiple digital environ-
ments. For instance, the concept and scale of online engagement provided
by Reitz (2012) entail cognitive, affective, and behavioral dimensions.
Mirbagheri and Najmi (2019) also provided a tripartite scale of engagement
for social media campaigns. In contrast, Jahn and Kunz (2012b) provided
behavioral engagement for fan page engagement, and Khan (2017) provided
the engagement scale specifically for Youtube.com users. Therefore, this
study also responds to the calls of researchers who suggested exploring cus-
tomer engagement beyond the environment of Facebook (Uşaklı, Koç, and
S€
onmez 2017).
Social identity and digital engagement

The theoretical framework of the current study is embedded around social
identity theory (SIT). We consider SIT highly relevant to explain HDE as
many past studies have considered the identity seeking behavior of
customers as one of the primary motivations to demonstrate the online
engagement behavior (Fatma et al. 2020; Fujita, Harrigan, and Soutar 2018;
Hall-Phillips et al. 2016; Vernuccio et al. 2015; Yoshida et al. 2018). SIT
delineates that individuals form their self-identity to define an individual’s
self-perception in a given situation (Myers 2012). SIT further postulates
that individuals tend to look for the attribution of similarity and references
to the current self-perception or the perception they aspire to accumulate
which are the main drivers of identity-driven behaviors. Explaining SIT in
the holistic engagement perspective, self-identity of consumers is built
through the means of personality and social aspects of identity (Turner and
Tajfel 1986). Behaviors that primarily seek personal and social identity are
consistent to engagement with a brand on various digital platforms. While
the degree of engagement behavior may differ from one digital platform to
the other, the identity seeking behavior of customers drives concurrent cus-
tomer engagement with a brand on various digital platforms.
When organizations communicate and describe their brands, brand iden-
tity emerges (Aaker 2000) that can be analyzed by the brand identity prism
model composed of personality, physique, culture, relationship, self-image,
and reflection (Kapferer 2004). Brand communication allows brands to
convert the brand identity of organizations into brand image in the minds
of customers, employees, and publics at large (Pike 2002). People choose
and use brands for internal and external (publicly) reinforcement to tell
who they are, what they possess, consume and who they associate them-
selves with, which eventually helps them attain self-definitions (Hughes and
10 K. FARHAT ET AL.
Ahearne 2010). Organizations constantly communicate with customers to

effectively establish brand identification which results in customers forming
commitment, buy-in, and brand credibility (Mahnert and Tores 2007). The
brand elements involving identity potentially trigger the identity salience.
For instance, an identity narrative enables the brand stakeholders to realize
the relationship with the brand by establishing a logical sense between the
brand identity and the identity of customers (Ashmore, Deaux, and
McLaughlin-Volpe 2004).
Identifying with organizations makes people feel they belong to the
organization and the oneness between them and the organization brand
(L€ohndorf and Diamantopoulos 2014). Similarly, identification with organi-
zations brands also entails a psychological and emotional connection of
people with the brand by incorporating the brand’s attributes into their
self-concept (Hughes and Ahearne 2010) and classifying themselves into
the categories associated with the organization’s brands (Bhattacharya and
Sen 2003). On the same lines, they see their personal image in the image of
organization, and they define themselves in reference to the organization
image and vice versa (Bhattacharya and Sen 2003).
However, a common conceptual error prevalent in the marketing litera-
ture is treating brand identity and brand personality as interchangeable
concepts. In fact, various researchers in the past have categorically identi-
fied these as two different concepts (Azoulay and Kapferer 2003; Saraniemi
2010). For instance, Saraniemi (2010) argued that brand personality and
identity are two different concepts; brand personality reflects the human
characteristics in a brand while brand identity personifies the singularity
between the brand and customers, perceived by customers. Likewise,
Valette-Florence and De Barnier (2013) contended that brand personality
and identity are two different concepts, theoretically and practically.
The study specifically explores if brand identity, brand personality,
and brand affect are the drivers of HDE. These customers’ preconditions
are scarcely studied in relation to engagement in marketing (Prentice,
Wang, and Lin 2018), albeit these variables are reflective of the organic
engagement of customers with the firm or brand (Prentice and Loureiro
2018). Thus, as customers demonstrate growing efficiency in using
digital communication platforms (Rasool, Shah, and Islam et al. 2020),
this study argues that the psychological drivers such as identity, person-
ality, and affect are highly likely to trigger HDE on multiple digital plat-
forms. In contrast, the reward or social motivations may be limited to a
specific digital platform where rewards are available and the platform
that a customer prefers for socialization. We argue that brands are
unlikely to achieve HDE unless the motivations arise from deep within
customers i.e., social identity.
Hypotheses development
Brand personality
Conceptually, a brand is characterized by the aggregate perceptions that
stakeholders relate to the brand (Ali-Choudhury, Bennett, and Savani 2009;
Batra, Ahuvia, and Bagozzi 2012). Brand personality is the aggregate sub-
jective perception a customer has for a brand. The personality of brands
influences the customer’s decision toward a brand (Salleh 2009). The role
of brand personality is also highly critical for products that are complex in
nature for customers to decipher and evaluate (Teh and Salleh 2011). Thus,
brand personality may arise from the attributes and perceived quality (Alwi
and Kitchen 2014) and tangible characteristics such as education quality
and fees (Alwi and Kitchen 2014; Joseph, Mullen, and Spake 2012) and
intangible qualities like excitement and fun (Alwi and Kitchen 2014).
Amidst the rapidly mounting competition, brand personality has been iden-
tified as a key factor to uniquely position the brand (Rutter, Lettice, and
Nadeau 2017). The brands selected by customers allow them to build their
self-identity and to present themselves to others (Escalas and Bettman
2003). The selection of the brand brings the customers closer to those indi-
viduals and groups who possess the same brand (Escalas and Bettman
2003) and thus, the congruence of customer personality and brand person-
ality is a key determinant of self-identity of customers (Pradhan, Malhotra,
and Moharana 2020). This study employs the concept of brand personality
provided by Geuens, Weijters, and Wulf (2009) to produce reliable and
valid findings on the role of brand personality for both services and prod-
ucts. Thus, this study defines brand personality as the characteristics and
values attached to the brand that also reflect in humans.
Two important dimensions of brand personality investigated in this
study are responsibility and activity. These two dimensions have greater
significance in marketing for various reasons such as an increasing ten-
dency of brands to reflect an image of being socially responsible toward the
environment and stakeholders (responsibility) which has a potential to
become favorable amongst the shareholders (Lungpongpan,
Tiangsoongnern, and Speece 2016). In contrast, other brands aim for an
image that is innovative and dynamic (active) to attract their target cus-
tomers (Lasakova, Bajzıkova, and Dedze 2017). Earlier studies have also
identified responsibility and activity as the most relevant personality traits
(Clemenz, Brettel, and Moeller 2012; Gordon, Zainuddin, and Magee
2016). Thus, this study focuses on these two dimensions of brand personal-
ity for their higher relevance and effect on brands.
Earlier research studies have reported that brand personality creates
online engagement behavior of customers. For instance, the brand person-
ality of a city drives social media engagement behavior in tourism
12 K. FARHAT ET AL.
(Priporas, Stylos, and Kamenidou 2020). Investigating the congruence

between the fan personality and brand personality, Pradhan, Malhotra, and
Moharana (2020) identified that personality determines the engagement of
football fans. Cruz and Lee (2014) investigated various brand personality
types and their impact on creating online engagement behavior. The
researcher reported a positive significant effect of brand personality on
engagement behavior, and the higher involvement of customers displayed
an even higher degree of engagement. Likewise, the personality of high
involvement products is an important determinant of customers engaging
with the brand’s online social media page (Tho, Trang, and Olsen 2016).
The brand personality of higher education is also argued to significantly
affect the engagement behavior of students such as WOM (Polyorat 2011)
and to exhibit brand supporting behaviors (Sung and Yang 2008).
Importantly, it is still unknown if brand personality influences brand
engagement on multiple digital channels concurrently or it is limited to a
specific online environment (e.g., Facebook). Thereby, based on the fore-
going discussion, we hypothesize that:
H1: Brand personality positively influences holistic digital engagement (HDE)
of customers.
Brand identity
Brand identity of organizations is born out of organizations’ efforts to
articulate their brand (Aaker and Laughlin 2002). The organizational com-
munication enables organizations to convert brand identity into the brand
image of the organization in the mind of people (customers, employees,
etc.) (Pike 2002) which ultimately helps people establish a relationship with
the organization. This relationship represents an individual’s perception of
“oneness” with an organization/brand that results in customers’ positive
attitude and behavioral support of organizations (Ashforth and Mael 1989;
Bhattacharya, Rao, and Glynn 1995). Identification with the organization or
with the brand also represents the perceived prestige, values, culture, and
goals associated with the brand (Riel and Balmer 1997). Brand identity,
hence, is the belongingness and perceived organizational membership of
customers with their respective brand (Rodrıguez, Roman, and Z ~iga-
un
Vicente 2019). In the same vein, brand identity helps determine if the key
stakeholder in organizations view their respective brand as a part of their
self-image. To leverage the uniqueness of each brand, brand identity has
been lately identified as a path to build brand equity to effectively compete
in the market (Goi, Goi, and Wong 2014). Individuals use brands to help
them attain self-referencing (Carlson, Donavan, and Cumiskey 2009) and
to send out a signal of membership to peers and colleagues. Besides, the
element of identifying with a particular brand is likely to result in positive

psychological outcomes that positively relate to individuals’ tendency to
engage in the actions that favor the brand (Donavan, Janda, and Suh 2006).
Social identity theory explains that the sense of identification with a group
or community drives the participation behavior of customers (Algesheimer,
Dholakia, and Herrmann 2005; Muniz and O’Guinn 2001). It is specifically
relevant to this study that seeks to determine the impact of brand identity
on HDE behaviors of customers on digital platforms.
Moreover, the behaviors of people largely stem from the psychological
relationships between organizations and people (L€ ohndorf and
Diamantopoulos 2014). The more customers see themselves aligned with
the brand i.e., brand identity, the higher is their satisfaction and the
likely resulting behavior (Sung and Yang 2008). Specifically, brand iden-
tity is a notable driver of the digital engagement behavior of customers.
For example, earlier studies have identified the significant role of brand
identity in students’ engagement with brands (Polyorat 2011). The
engagement behavior of customers is characterized by their brands rec-
ommendations to friends and relatives (Rodrıguez, Roman, and Z un~iga-
Vicente 2019), promoting and advocating for brands after consuming
services (Stephenson and Yerger 2014), making positive word-of-mouth
(Kuenzel and Halliday 2008), and volunteer promotion and defending of
brands (Stephenson and Yerger 2014) that occur as a consequence of
brand identity. Brand identity also refers to the recognition that partici-
pating in brand communities brings to customers (Rohm, Kaltcheva, and
Milne 2013). Identifying with the brand and brand-related communities
trigger the engagement behavior amongst customers (Palmer, Koenig-
Lewis, and Medi Jones 2013). Similarly, de Silva (2019) reported the evi-
dence of brand identity positively affecting the engagement behavior of
customers on Facebook pages. Besides, it is unknown if brand identity
influences customer engagement on multiple digital channels concur-
rently or it is limited to a specific online environment (e.g., Facebook).
Hence, we hypothesize that:
H2: Brand identity positively influences holistic digital engagement (HDE)
of customers.
Brand affect
When individuals associate themselves with a group, they are likely to
develop positive emotions toward the group (Tajfel 1978). Similarly, the
absence of positive emotions compels individuals to disassociate with the
group (Turner and Tajfel 1986). The affective element of identity represents
the emotional associations with a group (Bagozzi and Dholakia 2002). The
14 K. FARHAT ET AL.
emotional component of social identity explains that the selection of a

brand-related group membership helps individuals distinguish themselves
and enhance their emotional commitment to the brand and groups
(Ellemers, Kortekaas, and Ouwerkerk 1999). The notion of emotions being
grounded in social identification rather than in personal identity (therefore,
driven by group-based assessment rather than individual assessment) has
been reported in a variety of scientific studies (e.g., Iyer and Leach 2008;
Yzerbyt et al. 2006). Marketing literature indicates that brand affect and
emotions are used interchangeably (Goi, Kalidas, and Yunus 2018) even
though brand affect has a broader scope and is a more extensive construct
to measure the positive emotional response that consumers develop as a
result of interacting with the brand. Despite this, the literature does not
have a consensus on the types of emotions that brand affect represents
(Razzaq, Yousaf, and Hong 2017). Conceptually, it is a complex task to
employ a concept and its measurements that cover a whole range of brand-
related feelings. As no single measure exists in the literature that represents
a broad range of emotions (Edwards, Jackson, and Pattison 2002), brand
affect appears to be the most appropriate concept for it. Hence, this study
adopts the concept of brand affect proposed by Chaudhuri and Holbrook
(2001) that measures the feelings of fun, happiness, excitement, and enjoy-
ment as a result of consuming a brand. Brand affect refers to the subjective
feelings that customers develop within themselves (Fiore and Kim 2007)
and explains a set of unique and phenomenon-based state of affection
(Yoo, Park, and Macinnis 1998).
As affection is a linking force between the brand stimuli and behavioral
response of customers, brand affect has gained popularity in the marketing
literature, Keller (2001) emphasized that the customers’ feelings are prereq-
uisites to elicit a voluntary brand supporting behavior such as engagement
since engaged customers have an emotional investment in the brand
(Thakur 2018). Empirically supporting this relationship, Xie, Bagozzi, and
Grønhaug (2019) investigated if emotions lead to engagement behavior
(advocacy) and reported a significant relationship between these two. Bilro
and Loureiro (2018) also reported that various types of brand affect (emo-
tions) drive customer engagement behavior. Lastly, Junaid et al. (2019) also
found that the generation M demonstrates engagement behavior as a result
of developing positive brand-related emotions. However, it is unknown if
brand affect drives customer engagement on multiple digital channels con-
currently or its effect is limited to a specific online environment. Thus, we
hypothesize that:
H3: Brand affect positively influences holistic digital engagement (HDE)
of customers.
Mediation of brand affect

Brand personality and brand identity alone may not sufficiently explain
HDE behavior; instead, brand affect (emotional responses) also establishes
the link between brand personality and engagement and between brand
identity and engagement. However, seldom brand affect is explored as a
mediating force between the brand identity drivers and engagement behav-
ior (e.g., Hinson et al. 2019). Nonetheless, brand affect has actively
appeared as a mediator variable in the literature to explore how emotions
drive the behavior of customers for clothing brands (Kabadayı and Ayg€ un
2007), coffee brands (Kabadayi and Alan 2012), apparel and mobile phone
brands (Kim and Zhao 2014), for luxury brands (Kefi and Maar 2020), and
event brands (Mazodier and Merunka 2012). Keller (2001) views feelings or
emotional responses as a path to develop a deeper sense of a close relation-
ship between customers and brands. The author contended that brands
that evoke positive emotions develop more concentrated relationships with
customers than those brands which are evaluated on the bases of perform-
ance and quality. Keller (2001, 2016) viewed the engagement of customers
with brands as the strongest affirmation of loyalty as a result of brand iden-
tity, personality, and brand affect. This study views brand affect as a medi-
ator between customer engagement and brand personality and identity.
However, it is unknown if brand affect mediates the relationship between
brand personality and customer engagement and between brand identity
and customer engagement concurrently on multiple digital channels or this
relationship is limited to a specific online environment. Hence, we
hypothesize that:
H4: Brand affect mediates the relationship between brand personality and holistic
digital engagement (HDE) of customers.
H5: Brand affect mediates the relationship between brand identity and holistic digital
engagement (HDE) of customers.
Research methodology
The respondents of the study were colleagues, friends, and acquaintances of
the authors. Judgmental sampling was used to select the respondents of the
survey. The primary qualification for the desirable respondents was those
individuals who actively used social media networks and websites of
brands. The individuals’ active presence on social media was the distin-
guishing factor that helped identify the respondents of the study.
Additionally, a statement of respondents being active social media users
was also placed at the beginning of the questionnaire to ensure the selec-
tion of appropriate respondents. A thorough list of such respondents easily
accessible to the authors was developed and then the respondents were
16 K. FARHAT ET AL.
contacted accordingly. While most respondents were handed in the survey

questionnaire in person, a few requested to be provided an online version
of the questionnaire. After the initial distribution of the questionnaire, the
respondents were actively reminded and followed up which allowed a high
response rate.
A total of 315 questionnaires were distributed and collected. After
screening, 304 responses were selected for being appropriately and com-
pletely answered. The responses were further assessed for outlier values and
1 response was subsequently removed, bringing the final sample size to 303
responses. The sample size of 303 in the study satisfies the guidelines given
by Hair et al. (2014) and the “10 times rule” suggested by Barclay, Higgins,
and Thompson (1995).
Instrument and measurements

The survey questionnaire used in the study comprised demographic ques-
tions such as age and gender. The descriptive questions of the study also
asked the respondents about the frequency to use social networking sites
(SNSs). The respondents also answered the questions related to four con-
structs: brand identity, brand personality, brand affect, and HDE. A total of
20 questions (items) were adapted from earlier studies; brand personality
from Geuens, Weijters, and Wulf (2009), brand identity from Kim, Han,
and Park (2001), brand affect from Xie, Batra, and Peng (2015), and HDE
from Sarkar and Sreejesh (2014). Importantly, since currently no engage-
ment scale exists in marketing that adequately measures HDE, the engage-
ment scale provided by Sarkar and Sreejesh (2014) was adapted to fulfill
the objectives of the study. The respondents were given the freedom to
answer the questionnaire in reference to any brands that they actively fol-
low on the social media networks and on the brand’s website. The HDE
scale employed in the study measured customers’ engagement with the
brand on social media, brand related blogs, and website simultaneously.
Later at the measurement model assessment stage, 5 items were excluded
from the final measurements due to low factor loadings and unsatisfactory
average variance extracted (AVE).
Data analysis and results

Demographics
Table 2 displays the demographics of the respondents. The data collected
from the respondents of the study indicated that 53% (approx.) of the
respondents were males while females constituted 47% (approx.) of the
sample. The largest age group amongst the respondents ranged between 16
Table 2. Demographics of the sample (n ¼ 303).

Description # of respondents % of respondents
Gender
Male 160 52.80
Female 143 47.19
Age
16–20 57 18.81
21–25 177 58.41
26–30 50 16.50
31–35 15 4.95
36 and above 4 1.30
Education program enrolled
Bachelor 171 56.43
Masters 114 37.62
MPhil/PhD 18 5.94
Internet use everyday
1–2 h 55 18.15
3–5 h 177 58.41
6–10 h 51 16.83
More than 10 h 20 6.60
and 25 years, around 77% (approx.) of the total sample. A large number of
the respondents reported to have acquired bachelor’s and master’s educa-
tion. Identifying the intensity of using SNSs, 81% (approx.) of the respond-
ents indicated to use social media networks between 3 and 10 h every day.
PLS path model

The conceptual model was assessed using SmartPLS software for PLS-SEM
path model estimation. For the measurement model assessment, indicator
reliability, internal consistency, convergent, and discriminant validity were
assessed, and appropriate adjustments were performed prior to the assess-
ment of the structural model (Wong 2013).
PLS-SEM enables to reduce the complexity of research models and pro-
vide parsimony through observable “lower-order components” and unob-
servable “higher-order components” (Lohm€ oller 2013). It is recommended
to use higher-order component models (if supported by theory) to reduce
bias caused by collinearity and to mitigate the occurrence of excessively
high values of discriminant validity (Hair et al. 2014). The construct of
brand personality in this study is higher-order while brand identity, brand
affect, and HDE are low-order constructs. The study has employed the
repeated indicator approach for the analysis of the data in PLS-SEM.
Data screening
After collecting the respondents’ data, the responses were screened for the
missing values and outliers. Due to missing values, 11 responses were
removed. Further, Mahalanobis test was applied that identified 1 outlier in
the data and was duly removed before assessing normality and common
18 K. FARHAT ET AL.
Table 3. Reliability and validity of measurement model.

Constructs Items Outer loadings VIF CR AVE
Brand Affect BAFF1 0.682 1.234 0.806 0.511
BAFF2 0.727 1.296
BAFF3 0.675 1.27
BAFF4 0.769 1.368
Holistic Brand Engagement BENG1 0.777 1.36 0.822 0.607
BENG2 0.798 1.267
BENG3 0.761 1.346
Brand Identity BIDT1 0.809 1.244 0.795 0.565
BIDT2 0.719 1.217
BIDT3 0.722 1.205
Activity ACT1 0.793 1.329 0.831 0.620
ACT2 0.805 1.410
ACT3 0.765 1.331
Responsibility RSP1 0.805 1.20 0.825 0.703
RSP2 0.87 1.20
Brand Personality (higher order) ACT1 0.774 1.604 0.852 0.536
ACT2 0.739 1.550
ACT3 0.691 1.380
RSP1 0.657 1.338
RSP2 0.791 1.658
method bias (CMB). The data showed an adequate level of normality.

Moreover, the existence of CMB in the data may invalidate the reliability
of the data and the findings of the study (Podsakoff et al. 2003). To assess
CMB in the data, Harman’s test was used which indicated the variance of
all factors below <50%, suggesting the absence of CMB in the responses.
Measurements reliability
Out of 20 indicators (items), 5 indicators were removed from the final
model as the excluded indicators showed outer loading values < 0.60. The
deletion of 5 items allowed to attain AVE above its recommended thresh-
old 0.50 (Bagozzi and Yi 1988), following the recommendation to retain
items with outer loadings 0.40 if they contribute to AVE 0.50 (Hair
et al. 2014). The resulting indicators of the variables included in the final
path model are exhibited in Table 3. Specifically, the composite reliability
of constructs is above the required threshold; brand affect ¼ 0.806, HDE ¼
0.822, brand identity ¼ 0.795, activity ¼ 0.831, responsibility ¼ 0.825 and
brand personality (higher order) ¼ 0.852. This established an adequate
degree of internal consistency amongst the indicators of each respect-
ive construct.
Constructs validity
The convergent validity of the variables was evaluated through AVE. The
AVE values reflect the overall variance of indicators in a variable. For the
discriminant validity, Fornell–Larcker criterion was employed (Fornell and
Table 4. Discriminant validity of constructs.

No. Constructs 1 2 3 4 5
1 Activity 0.788
2 Brand Identity 0.417 0.751
3 Brand Affect 0.388 0.491 0.715
4 Holistic Digital Engagement 0.319 0.436 0.363 0.779
5 Responsibility 0.636 0.370 0.295 0.258 0.838
Bold faced values denote square root of variance extracted.
Larcker 1981). The AVE value ¼ 0.511 for brand affect, 0.607 for HDE,
0.565 for brand identity, 0.620 for activity, 0.703 for responsibility, and
0.536 of brand personality (higher order) were attained to establish the val-
idity of the constructs in the conceptual framework. Overall, each construct
explained above 50% variance of its indicators on average. The discrimin-
ant validity of the constructs was established using the Fornell-Larcker cri-
terion on the grounds that the square root of AVE for brand affect, HDE,
brand identity, and personality appeared larger than the correlations of cor-
responding latent variables (see Table 4).
Collinearity assessment
Multicollinearity occurs when exogenous variables are highly inter-corre-
lated, causing the inflation of standard errors which in turn casts serious
doubts on the reliability and validity of relationships between the variables
(Garson 2014). The potential presence of multicollinearity in the research
framework was also assessed using the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF). The
VIF values corresponding to all items are well below the cutoff value ¼ 3,
suggesting the absence of multicollinearity amongst the variables (see
Table 3).
Path coefficients
The structural model of the study (Figure 1) demonstrates positive and sig-
nificant results of the hypothesized relationships. The results exhibit that
brand personality has a direct significant influence on HDE (H1)
(b ¼ 0.133, p ¼ .035) and brand identity has a significant impact on HDE
(H2) (b ¼ 0.297, p ¼ .000). Moreover, brand affect demonstrated a signifi-
cant influence on HDE (H3) (b ¼ 0.167, p ¼ .011). For mediation, PLS-SEM
paths displayed a significant indirect relationship between brand personality
and HDE (H4) (b ¼ 0.035, p ¼ .027) and between brand identity and HDE
(H5) (b ¼ 0.067, p ¼ .021) through the mediating role of brand affect, as
displayed in Figure 1 and Table 5.
20 K. FARHAT ET AL.
Figure 1. Structural model.
Table 5. Structural paths significance.

PLS-SEM paths Path coefficient T value p Values Hypothesis acceptance
H1 Brand Personality > HDE 0.133 2.109 .035 Yes
H2 Brand Identity > HDE 0.297 4.362 .000 Yes
H3 Brand Affect > HDE 0.167 2.527 .011 Yes
H4 Brand personality > Brand Affect > HDE 0.035 2.206 .027 Yes
H5 Brand Identity > Brand Affect > HDE 0.067 2.301 .021 Yes
HDE: holistic digital engagement.
Coefficient of determination (R2), effect size (f2), and predictive relevance Q2

Overall, brand identity and brand personality explained 0.277 variance
(Coefficient of Determination, R2) in brand affect. Whereas brand identity,
brand personality, and brand affect explained 0.233 variance in HDE.
Coefficient of Determination (R2) estimates the variance of the endogenous
variable explained by the exogenous variables in a research framework, but
it fails to account for the significance of variance when a particular exogen-
ous variable is omitted. To address this, effect size (f2) is calculated to
measure the significant impact each exogenous variable has on the indigen-
ous variable. Following Cohen (1988), the effect size of the research model
of this study was determined. The effect size of brand identity on brand
affect is identified as f2 ¼ 0.177, moderate, and the effect size of brand per-
sonality on brand affect identified as f2 ¼ 0.050, between low and moder-
ate. Additionally, the effect size of brand identity on HDE emerged as f2 ¼
0.079, between low and moderate, the effect size of brand personality on
digital engagement as f2 ¼ 0.017, low; and the effect size of brand affect on
HDE as f2 ¼ 0.026, low.
Next, the predictive relevance (Q2) of the path model is assessed. The
function of Q2 is to compare the predicted values with the original values.
The closer are predicted values to the original values, the smaller prediction
error is assumed. The Q2 values above zero indicate the predictive power
of the exogenous variable toward the endogenous variable. The blindfolding
procedure demonstrated Q2 ¼ 0.130 for brand affect (mediator) and Q2 ¼
0.127 for HDE. The Q2 results larger than 0 support the substantial predict-
ive relevance of the exogenous variables, following the guidelines provided
by Esposito Vinzi et al. (2010).
Conclusion and implications

Customer engagement on social media has become a popular concept in
the last few years despite several disagreements on the concept and its top-
ologies. The current study identifies the conceptual and practical limitations
of the CBE concept in marketing and proposes the concept of HDE as an
enhancement to CBE. Further, the study provides empirical evidence of
psychological antecedents to HDE. Overall, the study sought if the psycho-
logical variables; brand identity, brand personality, and brand affect are the
antecedents of HDE.
In search of the psychological antecedents of HDE of customers, brand
identity emerged as the most influential antecedent that influences HDE.
The finding indicated that customers who internalize a brand, they are
highly likely to demonstrate HDE behaviors. Brand personality also
emerged as a significant predictor to HDE, reflecting that the personality of
a brand helps customers engage with the brand simultaneously on multiple
digital channels. Likewise, brand affect i.e., positive emotional responses of
customers toward a brand significantly explains HDE of customers. In the
reflection of the findings, when customers find a brand is in confirmation
with their self-identity, customers show a significant tendency to digitally
engage with the brand on different channels such as social media and web-
sites. Similarly, brand affect (positive emotional responses) is a determinant
of HDE of customers. In addition, brand affect has a mediating power
between brand identity and HDE and between brand personality and HDE.
The results make it evident that SIT is instrumental in explaining HDE.
Hence, satisfaction and loyalty may not be the ultimate variables to meas-
ure the effectiveness in online marketing. Instead, HDE reflects close psy-
chological proximity between customers and brands indicative of the close
customer-brand relationship across various online platforms.
22 K. FARHAT ET AL.
Theoretical implications
The study provides a unique scholarly view on HDE concept in marketing
that has been rarely explored and discussed earlier. While every other
engagement study in marketing has emphasized to re-test their proposed
conceptual framework on other social media engagement sites (Twitter,
Instagram, etc.) (e.g., Fernandes and Castro 2020; Lima, Irigaray, and
Lourenco 2019), for the first time in this study, simultaneous customer
engagement across digital platforms inclusive of social media, websites, and
blogs has been conceptualized, as HDE, and has been explored in a single
research framework. The current study identifies the significance for brands
to aim for HDE instead of limiting their focus to a set of handpicked
digital platforms and then naively considering such limited measurements
as engagement across the digital spectrum. HDE has the potential to meas-
ure the breadth of engagement in marketing than the depth of engagement
i.e., intensity of customer engagement, a rarely investigated perspective in
marketing research (Fehrer et al. 2018).
Additionally, while the current marketing research literature provides the
evidence of the role of psychological factors in creating digital engagement,
this is also the first research study that attempts to unearth if the psycho-
logical factors form customer engagement simultaneously across the digital
spectrum through the concept of HDE, a rare practice in marketing studies
(e.g., Ho et al. 2020). Moreover, the current study fills a major vacuum in
the literature by providing a more comprehensive engagement concept,
HDE as simultaneous customer engagement with the brand on multiple
digital platforms including social media networks, websites, blogs, and
phone apps.
Further, exploration of HDE from social identity theory in the study
effectively extends the social identity theory in conjunction with customer
engagement behavior in marketing. The unique contribution of the study
comes from evaluating “concurrent engagement” on various digital plat-
forms as compared to adopting a piecemeal approach of measuring engage-
ment on a single social media platform or measuring engagement only on
social media networks (e.g., Liu et al. 2019; Kaur et al. 2020; Kumar and
Nayak 2019). The findings of the study extend the scholarly debate on the
role of social identity theory and its elements in explaining the engagement
behavior across multiple digital channels. Importantly, the positive effect of
identity perspective appears to stimulate the engagement of customers with
brands beyond a single type of digital platform. Theoretically, when cus-
tomers find the identity of a brand in congruence with their personal iden-
tity, it creates a close customer-brand relationship that customers are likely
to demonstrate across the digital spectrum. Hence, a strong “brand identi-
ty” is the antecedent of greater propensity of customer engagement with a
brand across the digital channels. In comparison, in case of customers

showing selected engagement with the brand i.e., engaged on social media
networks but not on the brand’s website, such inconsistency may arise
from weak brand identity.
The findings of the study provide new insights on the role of brand
affect toward a brand that has digital presence. Even though the role of
emotions is well-recognized in relation with engagement behavior (Pansari
and Kumar 2017), seldom past studies have explored how brand affect
drives customer engagement across various digital platforms. Brand-related
positive emotions arise from experiencing the brand pre, during and post
consumption. The technology-embedded emotions are supposed to gener-
ate intense emotional response and processes (Petit, Velasco, and Spence
2019) and can result in engagement behaviors. Thus, brand affect, i.e.,
enjoyment, fun, and pleasure, offered by a brand on a particular digital
platform triggers HDE of customers with brands. Another valuable contri-
bution to the concept of engagement by the current study is to establish
that customers develop HDE behaviors through brand affect, identifying
the power of brand affect across various digital channels in developing cus-
tomer engagement. The findings of the study also offer an extended per-
spective to the earlier customer engagement studies conducted in the
developing economies (Islam et al. 2020; Khan et al. 2020; Thakur 2019) as
the first study to identify the psychological antecedents of HDE in a devel-
oping economy.
Practical implications
HDE not only extends the theory of engagement in marketing, it also prac-
tically guides brand managers to consider customer’s engagement with
brands across digital channels. The most distinguishing implication of the
study is for brands/firms that seek greater customer engagement in the
digital world. Brands/firms can immensely benefit from the proposed con-
cept of HDE and can subsequently broaden their engagement approach
from a particular social media platform to multiple digital channels as well
as engaging customers through websites, blogs, and phone apps—concur-
rently. Such breadth of engagement between brands and customers can
potentially create a stronger brand-customer bond that the CBE concept
limited to a certain digital channel. The HDE perspective can also be an
important element of Integrated Marketing Communication (IMC) efforts
of brands that aim to engage and communicate with customers on multiple
digital channels. The effectiveness of IMC has been a growing challenge for
brands and HDE potentially equips brands to draw the breadth of effective-
ness of IMC efforts (Bell, Gallino, and Moreno 2014). The HDE concept
24 K. FARHAT ET AL.
can also provide insights on the potential of a particular digital channel in

“path-to-purchase” and sales conversion which has been a concern in IMC
(Payne, Peltier, and Barger 2017). Additionally, HDE provides brand man-
agers a much broader view of customers’ behaviors on digital platforms, as
tracking of such behaviors enables brand managers to comprehend custom-
ers’ purchase behavior (Islam and Rahman 2016) inclusive of multitude of
digital channels.
Additionally, brand identity positively influences customer engagement at
a broader level, conceptualized as HDE. It is also highly likely that the path
to HDE begins from a strong brand identity that ultimately engages cus-
tomers with brands on multiple digital channels. It is of high significance
for brand managers that HDE is mainly driven by customers identifying
with the brand. Brand managers can design brand communications across
the digital channels with a strong identity of brand to attain HDE of cus-
tomers. Online brand communities can also benefit from the role of strong
brand identity by adopting brand elements and brand communication that
enhance target customers’ identification with the brand. For instance, visu-
als, brand essence, values, and history of brands on digital channels must
be aligned with the brand’s identity goals that attract customers and keep
the brand unique from its competitors. Likewise, brands should strongly
emphasize on its unique identity which is likely to trigger HDE on various
digital channels for brands. The content posted by brands on digital chan-
nels should be designed to evoke positive brand identity in customers and
in turn it is likely to seed HDE. Therefore, a strong brand identity is the
key to create HDE.
Further, it is important that brand managers realize the significant role
of brand personality in creating HDE. It is recommended that brand man-
agers carve out a brand personality that is consistent on various digital
channels and does not create any confusions or conflicts in the mind of
customers when they visit brand-related content on multiple digital chan-
nels. Along with this, when brands possess a personality, which is consist-
ent with the personality of customers or it provides customers achieve a
desired personality, customers are likely to develop a positive emotional
response and that in turn may exhibit the HDE behaviors. Hence, creating
a pleasant and desirable brand personality is a key driver for customer
engagement on a particular digital platform (Farhat, Mokhtar, and Salleh
2020a) and HDE. Especially, the young customers who spend long hours
on the internet, have a high tendency to use multiple social networks, and
are less welcoming to misalignment in brand communication (Budac and
Baltador 2014). Brand managers may employ HDE to evaluate the efficacy
of their multi-channel brand communication strategy targeted at
young customers.
Another distinguishing element of HDE is its dependence on brand

affect—positive emotional responses of customers toward the brand while
brand affect itself arises from brand identity and brand personality.
Customers are likely to demonstrate HDE with a brand when brands build
positive emotions in customers. For HDE, brand managers are recom-
mended to design brand personality and brand identity that ensue positive
brand-related emotions in customers. Similarly, brand content on various
brand-related digital channels should trigger positive emotions in custom-
ers such as feelings of appreciation, importance, and happiness that can
eventually form HDE with brands. Brand managers should strategize con-
tent and themes for their digital brand platforms and the resulting brand
experience that evoke positive feelings and emotions in customers related
to the brand which is highly likely to make customers seek positive brand-
related emotions on other digital platforms - activating HDE in customers.
Thus, HDE is greatly dependent on brand affect that managers must stra-
tegically manage on digital platforms to leverage the propensity of custom-
ers to demonstrate HDE for a particular brand.
Limitations and future directions

To report a few limitations of the study, a single research is insufficient to
comprehensively establish the practical significance of the proposed
research framework. The research model of the study thus needs to be
investigated in other countries as well as in various other marketing envi-
ronments. In addition, judgmental sampling technique may reduce the gen-
eralization of the findings of this study.
Specifically, HDE needs to be tested in different contexts and with other
psychological variables to ascertain the variation of HDE behaviors
amongst customers. Besides, qualitative and mixed methods studies may be
instrumental to enhance the knowledge of HDE in marketing and to
develop a new scale specifically for the HDE concept. Development of
HDE measurements will provide means to measure the degree of customer
engagement more precisely on different digital platforms.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
ORCID
Kashif Farhat http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1460-9784
Wajeeha Aslam http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8967-1406
Sany Sanuri Mohd Mokhtar http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9121-1238
26 K. FARHAT ET AL.
References
Aaker, A., and M. H. Laughlin. 2002. Diaphragm arterioles are less responsive to a1-adren-
ergic constriction than gastrocnemius arterioles. Journal of Applied Physiology 92 (5):
1808–16. doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.01152.2001.
Aaker, D. 2000. Brand leadership. New York, NY: Free Press.
Algesheimer, R., U. M. Dholakia, and A. Herrmann. 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.
Ali-Choudhury, R., R. Bennett, and S. Savani. 2009. University marketing directors’ views
on the components of a university brand. International Review on Public and Nonprofit
Marketing 6 (1):11–33. doi:10.1007/s12208-008-0021-6.
Alwi, S. F., and P. J. Kitchen. 2014. Projecting corporate brand image and behavioral
response in business schools: Cognitive or affective brand attributes? Journal of Business
Research 67 (11):2324–36. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.06.020.
Ashforth, B. E., and F. Mael. 1989. Social identity theory and the organization. The
Academy of Management Review 14 (1):20–39. doi:10.2307/258189.
Ashmore, R. D., K. Deaux, and T. McLaughlin-Volpe. 2004. An organizing framework for
collective identity: Articulation and significance of multidimensionality. Psychological
Bulletin 130 (1):80–114. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.130.1.80.
Attfield, S., G. Kazai, M. Lalmas, and B. Piwowarski. 2011. Towards a science of user
engagement (position paper). In WSDM workshop on user modelling for Web applica-
tions, 9–12.
Azoulay, A., and J. Kapferer. 2003. Do brand personality scales really measure brand per-
sonality? Journal of Brand Management 11 (2):143–55. doi:10.1057/palgrave.bm.2540162.
Bagozzi, R. P., and U. M. Dholakia. 2002. Intentional social action in virtual communities.
Journal of Interactive Marketing 16 (2):2–21. doi:10.1002/dir.10006.
Bagozzi, R. P., and Y. Yi. 1988. On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science 16 (1):74–94. doi:10.1007/BF02723327.
Baldus, B. J., C. Voorhees, and R. Calantone. 2015. Online brand community engagement:
Scale development and validation. Journal of Business Research 68 (5):978–85. doi:10.
1016/j.jbusres.2014.09.035.
Barclay, D., C. Higgins, and R. Thompson. 1995. The partial least squares (PLS) approach
to causal modelling: Personal computer adoption and use as an illustration. Echnology
Studies, Special Issue on Research Methodology 2 (2):285–309.
Batra, R., A. Ahuvia, and R. P. Bagozzi. 2012. Brand love. Journal of Marketing 76 (2):1–16.
doi:10.1509/jm.09.0339.
Beckers, S. F., J. Van Doorn, and P. C. Verhoef. 2018. Good, better, engaged? The effect of
company-initiated customer engagement behavior on shareholder value. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science 46 (3):366–83. doi:10.1007/s11747-017-0539-4.
Bell, D. R., S. Gallino, and A. Moreno. 2014. How to win in an omnichannel world. MIT
Sloan Management Review 56 (1):45.
Bhattacharya, C. B., and S. Sen. 2003. Consumer–company identification: A framework for
understanding consumers’ relationships with companies. Journal of Marketing 67 (2):
76–88. doi:10.1509/jmkg.67.2.76.18609.
Bhattacharya, C. B., H. Rao, and M. A. Glynn. 1995. Understanding the bond of identifica-
tion: An investigation of its correlates among art museum members. Journal of
Marketing 59 (4):46–57. doi:10.2307/1252327.
Bilro, R. G., and S. M. C. Loureiro. 2018. How can stimuli and emotions help increase brand
advocacy. In Academy of marketing science world marketing congress, 375–82. Cham:
Springer.
Bowden, J. 2009. Customer engagement: A framework for assessing customer-brand rela-
tionships: The case of the restaurant industry. Journal of Hospitality Marketing &
Management 18 (6):574–96. doi:10.1080/19368620903024983.
Brodie, R. J., L. D. Hollebeek, B. Juric, and A. Ilic. 2011. Customer engagement. Journal of
Service Research 14 (3):252–71. doi:10.1177/1094670511411703.
Brodie, R. J., A. Ilic, B. Juric, and L. Hollebeek. 2013. Consumer engagement in a virtual
brand community: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Business Research 66 (1):105–14.
doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.07.029.
Brown, E., and P. Cairns. 2004. A grounded investigation of game immersion. In
Proceedings of the conference on human factors in computing systems, 1297–1300. New
York: ACM. doi:10.1145/985921.986048.
Budac, C., and L. A. Baltador. 2014. Brand communication challenges in getting young cus-
tomer engagement. Procedia Economics and Finance 16:521–5. doi:10.1016/S2212-
5671(14)00833-8.
Carlson, B. D., D. T. Donavan, and K. J. Cumiskey. 2009. Consumer-brand relationships in
sport: Brand personality and identification. International Journal of Retail & Distribution
Management 37 (4):370–84. doi:10.1108/09590550910948592.
Carlson, J., M. Rahman, R. Voola, and N. De Vries. 2018. Customer engagement behav-
iours in social media: Capturing innovation opportunities. Journal of Services Marketing
32 (1):83–94. doi:10.1108/JSM-02-2017-0059.
Chahal, H., J. Wirtz, and V. Anu. 2019. Social media brand engagement: Dimensions, driv-
ers and consequences. Journal of Consumer Marketing 37 (2):191–204. doi:10.1108/JCM-
11-2018-2937.
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 (2):
81–93. doi:10.1509/jmkg.65.2.81.18255.
Chen, M., B. E. Kolko, E. Cuddihy, and E. Medina. 2011. Modeling but not measuring
engagement in computer games. In Proceedings of the 7th international conference on
games learning society, 55–61. Madison, WI: ETC Press.
Clemenz, J., M. Brettel, and T. Moeller. 2012. How the personality of a brand impacts the
perception of different dimensions of quality. Journal of Brand Management 20 (1):
52–64. doi:10.1057/bm.2012.12.
Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed.. Hillsdale, NJ:
L. Erlbaum Associates.
Crawford, G., V. Gosling, G. Bagnall, and B. Light. 2014. Is there an app for that? A case
study of the potentials and limitations of the participatory turn and networked publics
for classical music audience engagement. Information, Communication & Society 17 (9):
1072–85. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2013.877953.
Cruz, R. A. B., and H. J. Lee. 2014. The brand personality effect: Communicating
brand personality on Twitter and its influence on online community
engagement. Journal of Intelligence and Information Systems 20 (1):67–101. doi:10.13088/
jiis.2014.20.1.067.
Customer engagement 101: Everything you need to know. 2020. https://www.qualtrics.com/
experience-management/customer/customer-engagement/.
28 K. FARHAT ET AL.
de Silva, T. M. 2019. Building relationships through customer engagement in Facebook

brand pages. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 38 (6):713–29. doi:10.1108/MIP-02-2019-
0085.
Demangeot, C., and A. Broderick. 2016. Engaging customers during a website visit: A
model of website customer engagement. International Journal of Retail & Distribution
Management 44 (8):814–39. doi:10.1108/IJRDM-08-2015-0124.
Dessart, L., and V. Pitardi. 2019. How stories generate consumer engagement: An explora-
tory study. Journal of Business Research 104:183–95. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.06.045.
Donavan, D. T., S. Janda, and J. Suh. 2006. Environmental influences in corporate brand
identification and outcomes. Journal of Brand Management 14 (1-2):125–36. doi:10.1057/
palgrave.bm.2550057.
Drummond, C., T. O’Toole, and H. McGrath. 2020. Digital engagement strategies and tac-
tics in social media marketing. European Journal of Marketing 54 (6):1247–80. doi:10.
1108/EJM-02-2019-0183.
Dwivedi, A. 2015. A higher-order model of consumer brand engagement and its impact on
loyalty intentions. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 24:100–9. doi:10.1016/j.jret-
conser.2015.02.007.
Edwards, J., H. J. Jackson, and P. E. Pattison. 2002. Emotion recognition via facial expres-
sion and affective prosody in schizophrenia: A methodological review. Clinical
Psychology Review 22 (6):789–832. doi:10.1016/S0272-7358(02)00130-7.
Eigenraam, A. W., J. Eelen, A. Van Lin, and P. W. Verlegh. 2018. A consumer-based tax-
onomy of digital customer engagement practices. Journal of Interactive Marketing 44:
102–21. doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2018.07.002.
Ellemers, N., P. Kortekaas, and J. W. Ouwerkerk. 1999. Self-categorisation, commitment to
the group and group self-esteem as related but distinct aspects of social identity.
European Journal of Social Psychology 29 (2-3):371–89. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-
0992(199903/05)29:2/3<371::AID-EJSP932>3.0.CO;2-U.
Elliott, S. 2006. The new rules of engagement. New York Times, March 21.
Escalas, J. E., and J. R. Bettman. 2003. You are what they eat: The influence of reference
groups on consumers’ connections to brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology 13 (3):
339–48. doi:10.1207/S15327663JCP1303_14.
Esposito Vinzi, V., W. W. Chin, J. Henseler, and H. Wang. 2010. Handbook of partial least
squares: Concepts, methods and applications. Heidelberg, Dordrecht, London, New York:
Springer.
Farhat, K., S. S. M. Mokhtar, and S. B. M. Salleh. 2020a. Linking brand engagement to cus-
tomer-based brand equity and role of brand experience, brand personality, and brand
affect: A case of automobile market of Pakistan. Management Science Letters 10 (10):
2237–48. doi:10.5267/j.msl.2020.3.012.
Farhat, K., S. S. M. Mokhtar, and S. B. M. Salleh. 2020b. Role of brand experience and
brand affect in creating brand engagement: A case of higher education institutions
(HEIs). Journal of Marketing for Higher Education :1–29. doi:10.1080/08841241.2020.
1759753.
Fatma, M., A. P. Ruiz, I. Khan, and Z. Rahman. 2020. The effect of CSR engagement on
eWOM on social media. International Journal of Organizational Analysis 28 (4):941–56.
doi:10.1108/IJOA-10-2019-1895.
Fehrer, J. A., H. Woratschek, C. C. Germelmann, and R. J. Brodie. 2018. Dynamics and
drivers of customer engagement: Within the dyad and beyond. Journal of Service
Management 29 (3):443–67. doi:10.1108/JOSM-08-2016-0236.
Fernandes, T., and A. Castro. 2020. Understanding drivers and outcomes of lurking vs.
posting engagement behaviours in social media-based brand communities. Journal of
Marketing Management 36 (7-8):660–22. doi:10.1080/0267257X.2020.1724179.
Ferreira, M., F. Zambaldi, and D. Guerra. 2020. Consumer engagement in social media:
Scale comparison analysis. Journal of Product & Brand Management 29 (4):491–503. doi:
10.1108/JPBM-10-2018-2095.
Fiore, A. M., and J. Kim. 2007. An integrative framework capturing experiential and utili-
tarian shopping experience. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management
35 (6):421–42. doi:10.1108/09590550710750313.
Fornell, C., and D. F. Larcker. 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobserv-
able variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 18 (1):39–50. doi:
10.2307/3151312.
France, C., B. Merrilees, and D. Miller. 2016. An integrated model of customer-brand
engagement: Drivers and consequences. Journal of Brand Management 23 (2):119–36.
doi:10.1057/bm.2016.4.
Fujita, M., P. Harrigan, and G. N. Soutar. 2018. Capturing and co-creating student experi-
ences in social media: A social identity theory perspective. Journal of Marketing Theory
and Practice 26 (1–2):55–71. doi:10.1080/10696679.2017.1389245.
Garson, D. G. 2014. Partial least squares regression and structural equation models.
Asheboro, NC: Statistical Associates Publishers.
Geuens, M., B. Weijters, and K. D. Wulf. 2009. A new measure of brand personality.
International Journal of Research in Marketing 26 (2):97–107. doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2008.
12.002.
Goi, M. T., C. L. Goi, and D. Wong. 2014. Constructing a brand identity scale for higher
education institutions. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 24 (1):59–74. doi:10.
1080/08841241.2014.906017.
Goi, M., V. Kalidas, and N. Yunus. 2018. Mediating roles of emotion and experience in the
stimulus-organism-response framework in higher education institutions. Journal of
Marketing for Higher Education 28 (1):90–112. doi:10.1080/08841241.2018.1425231.
Gordon, R., N. Zainuddin, and C. Magee. 2016. Unlocking the potential of branding in
social marketing services: Utilising brand personality and brand personality appeal.
Journal of Services Marketing 30 (1):48–62. doi:10.1108/JSM-02-2015-0105.
Hair, J. F., G. T. M. Hult, C. M. Ringle, and M. Sarstedt. 2014. A primer on partial least
squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Hall-Phillips, A., J. Park, T. L. Chung, N. A. Anaza, and S. R. Rathod. 2016. I (heart) social
ventures: Identification and social media engagement. Journal of Business Research 69
(2):484–91. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.05.005.
Harmeling, C. M., J. W. Moffett, M. J. Arnold, and B. D. Carlson. 2017. Toward a theory
of customer engagement marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 45 (3):
312–35. doi:10.1007/s11747-016-0509-2.
Higgins, E. T., and A. A. Scholer. 2009. Engaging the consumer: The science and art of the
value creation process. Journal of Consumer Psychology 19 (2):100–14. doi:10.1016/j.jcps.
2009.02.002.
Hinson, R., H. Boateng, A. Renner, and J. P. B. Kosiba. 2019. Antecedents and consequences
of customer engagement on Facebook. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing 13 (2):
204–26. doi:10.1108/JRIM-04-2018-0059.
Ho, M. H. W., H. F. Chung, R. Kingshott, and C. C. Chiu. 2020. Customer engagement,
consumption and firm performance in a multi-actor service eco-system: The moderating
30 K. FARHAT ET AL.
role of resource integration. Journal of Business Research 121:557–66. doi:10.1016/j.

jbusres.2020.02.008.
Hollebeek, L. 2011. Exploring customer brand engagement: Definition and themes. Journal
of Strategic Marketing 19 (7):555–73. doi:10.1080/0965254X.2011.599493.
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 (2):149–65. doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2013.12.002.
Hollebeek, L. D., B. Juric, and W. Tang. 2017. Virtual brand community engagement prac-
tices: A refined typology and model. Journal of Services Marketing 31 (3):204–17. doi:10.
1108/JSM-01-2016-0006.
Hollebeek, L. D., and K. Macky. 2019. Digital content marketing’s role in fostering con-
sumer engagement, trust, and value: Framework, fundamental propositions, and implica-
tions. Journal of Interactive Marketing 45:27–41. doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2018.07.003.
Hughes, D. E., and M. Ahearne. 2010. Energizing the reseller’s sales force: The power of
brand identification. Journal of Marketing 74 (4):81–96. doi:0.1509/jmkg.74.4.081
Ibrahim, N. F., X. Wang, and H. Bourne. 2017. Exploring the effect of user engagement in
online brand communities: Evidence from Twitter. Computers in Human Behavior 72:
321–38. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.005.
Islam, J. U., L. D. Hollebeek, Z. Rahman, I. Khan, and A. Rasool. 2019. Customer engage-
ment in the service context: An empirical investigation of the construct, its antecedents
and consequences. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 50:277–85. doi:10.1016/j.
jretconser.2019.05.018.
Islam, J. U., and Z. Rahman. 2016. Linking customer engagement to trust and word-of-
mouth on Facebook brand communities: An empirical study. Journal of Internet
Commerce 15 (1):40–58. doi:10.1080/15332861.2015.1124008.
Islam, J. U., S. Shahid, A. Rasool, Z. Rahman, I. Khan, and R. A. Rather. 2020. Impact of
website attributes on customer engagement in banking: A solicitation of stimulus-organ-
ism-response theory. International Journal of Bank Marketing 38 (6):1279–303. doi:10.
1108/IJBM-12-2019-0460.
Iyer, A., and C. W. Leach. 2008. Emotion in inter-group relations. European Review of
Social Psychology 19 (1):86–125. doi:10.1080/10463280802079738.
Jaakkola, E., and M. Alexander. 2014. The role of customer engagement behavior in value
co-creation. Journal of Service Research 17 (3):247–61. doi:10.1177/1094670514529187.
Jahn, B., and W. Kunz. 2012a. How to transform consumers into fans of your brand.
Journal of Service Management 23 (3):344–61. doi:10.1108/09564231211248444.
Jahn, B., and W. Kunz. 2012b. Online brand fandom on social networking sites: The
impact of fan page usage and engagement on customer relationships. Marketing theory
and applications proceedings of 2012 AMA winter educators’ conference, 23, 188–189.
Joseph, M., E. W. Mullen, and D. Spake. 2012. University branding: Understanding
students’ choice of an educational institution. Journal of Brand Management 20 (1):1–12.
doi:10.1057/bm.2012.13.
Junaid, M., F. Hou, K. Hussain, and A. A. Kirmani. 2019. Brand love: The
emotional bridge between experience and engagement, generation-M perspective.
Journal of Product & Brand Management 28 (2):200–15. doi:10.1108/JPBM-04-2018-
1852.
Kabadayi, E. T., and A. K. Alan. 2012. Brand trust and brand affect: Their strategic import-
ance on brand loyalty. Journal of Global Strategic Management 1 (6):80. doi:10.20460/
JGSM.2012615788.
Kabadayı , E. T., and I. Ayg€ un. 2007. Determinants of brand loyalty and the link between
brand loyalty and price tolerance. Bogazici Journal 21 (1):21–35. doi:10.21773/boun.21.1.2.
Kapferer, J. N. 2004. The new strategic brand management: Creating and sustaining brand
equity long term. London: Kogan Page.
Kaur, H., M. Paruthi, J. Islam, and L. D. Hollebeek. 2020. The role of brand community
identification and reward on consumer brand engagement and brand loyalty in virtual
brand communities. Telematics and Informatics 46:101321. doi:10.1016/j.tele.2019.101321.
Kefi, H., and D. Maar. 2020. The power of lurking: Assessing the online experience of lux-
ury brand fan page followers. Journal of Business Research 117:579–86. doi:10.1016/j.
jbusres.2018.08.012.
Keller, K. L. 2001. Building customer-based brand equity: A blueprint for creating strong
brands. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.
Keller, K. L. 2016. Reflections on customer-based brand equity: Perspectives, progress, and
priorities. AMS Review 6 (1–2):1–16. doi:10.1007/s13162-016-0078-z.
Khan, M. L. 2017. Social media engagement: What motivates user participation and con-
sumption on YouTube? Computers in Human Behavior 66:236–47. doi:10.1016/j.chb.
2016.09.024.
Khan, I., L. D. Hollebeek, M. Fatma, J. U. Islam, and I. Riivits-Arkonsuo. 2020. Customer
experience and commitment in retailing: Does customer age matter? Journal of Retailing
and Consumer Services 57:102219. doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102219.
Kim, C. K., D. Han, and S. B. Park. 2001. The effect of brand personality and brand identi-
fication on brand loyalty: Applying the theory of social identification. Japanese
Psychological Research 43 (4):195–206. doi:10.1111/1468-5884.00177.
Kim, R. B., and M. Zhao. 2014. Chinese consumers brand loyalty for consumer products:
Importance of brand personality as major antecedent of brand loyalty. Asian Academy of
Management Journal 19 (1):1–15.
Kuenzel, S., and S. V. Halliday. 2008. Investigating antecedents and consequences of brand
identification. Journal of Product & Brand Management 17 (5):293–304. doi:10.1108/
10610420810896059.
Kumar, J., and J. K. Nayak. 2019. Brand engagement without brand ownership: A case of
non-brand owner community members. Journal of Product & Brand Management 28 (2):
216–230. doi:10.1108/JPBM-04-2018-1840.
Kumar, V., L. Aksoy, B. Donkers, R. Venkatesan, T. Wiesel, and S. Tillmanns. 2010.
Undervalued or overvalued customers: Capturing total customer engagement value.
Journal of Service Research 13 (3):297–310. doi:10.1177/1094670510375602.
Lasakova, A., L'. Bajzıkova, and I. Dedze. 2017. Barriers and drivers of innovation in higher
education: Case study-based evidence across ten European universities. International
Journal of Educational Development 55:69–79. doi:10.1016/j.ijedudev.2017.06.002.
Laurel, B. 1993. Computers as theatre. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Lee, D., K. Hosanagar, and H. S. Nair. 2018. Advertising content and consumer engage-
ment on social media: Evidence from Facebook. Management Science 64 (11):5105–31.
doi:10.1287/mnsc.2017.2902.
Li, L. P., B. Juric, and R. J. Brodie. 2017. Dynamic multi-actor engagement in networks:
The case of United Breaks Guitars. Journal of Service Theory and Practice 27 (4):738–60.
doi:10.1108/JSTP-04-2016-0066.
Lima, V. M., H. A. R. Irigaray, and C. Lourenco. 2019. Consumer engagement on social
media: Insights from a virtual brand community. Qualitative Market Research: An
International Journal 22 (1):14–32. doi:10.1108/QMR-02-2017-0059.
32 K. FARHAT ET AL.
Liu, L.,. R. Liu, M. Lee, and J. Chen. 2019. When will consumers be ready? A psychological
perspective on consumer engagement in social media brand communities. Internet
Research 29 (4):704–24. doi:10.1108/IntR-05-2017-0177.
Lohm€ oller, J. B. 2013. Latent variable path modeling with partial least squares. Springer
Science & Business Media.
L€
ohndorf, B., and A. Diamantopoulos. 2014. Internal branding. Journal of Service Research
17 (3):310–25. doi:10.1177/1094670514522098.
London, B., G. Downey, and S. Mace. 2007. Psychological theories of educational engage-
ment: A multi-method approach to studying individual engagement and institutional
change. Vanderbilt Law Review 60 (2):455–81.
Lungpongpan, J., L. Tiangsoongnern, and M. Speece. 2016. University social responsibility
and brand image of private universities in Bangkok. International Journal of Educational
Management 30 (4):571–91. doi:10.1108/IJEM-10-2014-0136.
Mahnert, K. F., and A. M. Tores. 2007. The brand inside: The factors of failure and success
in internal branding. Irish Marketing Review 19 (1&2):54–63. doi:10.21427/D79X6.K
Mazodier, M., and D. Merunka. 2012. Achieving brand loyalty through sponsorship: The
role of fit and self-congruity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 40 (6):807–20.
doi:10.1007/s11747-011-0285-y.
Mirbagheri, S., and M. Najmi. 2019. Consumers’ engagement with social media activation
campaigns: Construct conceptualization and scale development. Psychology & Marketing
36 (4):376–94. doi:10.1002/mar.21185.
Mollen, A., and H. Wilson. 2010. Engagement, telepresence, and interactivity in online con-
sumer experience: Reconciling scholastic and managerial perspectives. Journal of Business
Research 63 (9–10):919–25. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.05.014.
Muniz, A. M., and T. C. O’Guinn. 2001. Brand community. Journal of Consumer Research
27 (4):412–32. doi:10.1086/319618.
Myers, D. 2012. Social psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill Professional.
Nelson-Field, K., and J. Taylor. 2012. Facebook fans: A fan for life? www.warc.com/Security/
Login/Paywall.aspx?OriginalUrl=/Content/ContentViewer.aspx?ID=b44fad20-c6f7–4d44-
aac2-da9ea7cf8383&MasterContentRef=b44fad20-c6f7–4d44-aac2-da9ea7cf8383&
Campaign=admap_may12&utm_campaign=admap_may12.
Ni, X., X. Shao, Y. Geng, R. Qu, G. Niu, and Y. Wang. 2020. Development of the Social
Media Engagement Scale for adolescents. Frontiers in Psychology 11:701. doi:10.3389/
fpsyg.2020.00701.
O’Brien, H. L., and E. G. Toms. 2008. What is user engagement? A conceptual framework
for defining user engagement with technology. Journal of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology 59 (6):938–55. doi:10.1002/asi.20801.
€
Ohman, W. 2017. Instagram marketing: A study about the effect of visual content on cus-
tomer engagement in the airline industry. Doctoral dissertation, Reykjavik University.
Oxford English Dictionary. 2021. Engagement. https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/
definition/english/engage?q=engage
Palmer, A., N. Koenig-Lewis, and L. E. Medi Jones. 2013. The effects of residents’ social
identity and involvement on their advocacy of incoming tourism. Tourism Management
38:142–51. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2013.02.019.
Pansari, A., and V. Kumar. 2017. Customer engagement: The construct, antecedents, and
consequences. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 45 (3):294–311. doi:10.1007/
s11747-016-0485-6.
Paruthi, M., and H. Kaur. 2017. Scale development and validation for measuring online
engagement. Journal of Internet Commerce 16 (2):127–47. doi:10.1080/15332861.2017.
1299497.
Payne, E. M., J. W. Peltier, and V. A. Barger. 2017. Omni-channel marketing, integrated
marketing communications and consumer engagement. Journal of Research in Interactive
Marketing 11 (2):185–97. doi:10.1108/JRIM-08-2016-0091.
Petit, O., C. Velasco, and C. Spence. 2019. Digital sensory marketing: Integrating new tech-
nologies into multisensory online experience. Journal of Interactive Marketing 45:42–61.
doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2018.07.004.
Pike, S. 2002. Destination image analysis: A review of 142 papers from 1973 to 2000.
Tourism Management 23 (5):541–49. doi:10.1016/S0261-5177(02)00005-5.
Pittman, M., and K. Sheehan. 2020. Brand authenticity and strategic response to crises:
Symbolic effects of donation type on purchase intent and digital engagement. Journal of
Current Issues & Research in Advertising :1–21. doi:10.1080/10641734.2020.1734503.
Pizzi, G., D. Scarpi, M. Pichierri, and V. Vannucci. 2019. Virtual reality, real reactions?:
Comparing consumers’ perceptions and shopping orientation across physical and virtual-
reality retail stores. Computers in Human Behavior 96:1–12. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2019.02.
008.
Podsakoff, P. M., S. B. Mackenzie, J. Lee, and N. P. Podsakoff. 2003. Common method
biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended rem-
edies. The Journal of Applied Psychology 88 (5):879–903. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.
Polyorat, K. 2011. The Influence of brand personality dimensions on brand identification
and word-of-mouth: The case study of a university brand in Thailand. Asian Journal of
Business Research 1 (1):1–18. doi:10.14707/ajbr.110004.
Pradhan, D., R. Malhotra, and T. R. Moharana. 2020. When fan engagement with sports
club brands matters in sponsorship: Influence of fan–brand personality congruence.
Journal of Brand Management 27 (1):77–92. doi:10.1057/s41262-019-00169-3.
Prentice, C., X. Y. Han, L. L. Hua, and L. Hu. 2019. The influence of identity-driven cus-
tomer engagement on purchase intention. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 47:
339–47. doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.12.014.
Prentice, C., and S. Loureiro. 2018. Consumer-based approach to customer engagement –
The case of luxury fashion brands. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 43:325–32.
doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.05.003.
Prentice, C., X. Wang, and X. Lin. 2018. An organic approach to customer engagement
and loyalty. The Journal of Computer and System Sciences 60:326–35. doi;10.1080/
08874417.2018.1485528.
Priporas, C.-V., N. Stylos, and I. Kamenidou. 2020. City image, city brand personality and
generation Z residents’ life satisfaction under economic crisis: Predictors of city-related
social media engagement. Journal of Business Research 119:453–63. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.
2019.05.019.
Rasool, A., F. A. Shah, and J. U. Islam. 2020. Customer engagement in the digital age: A
review and research agenda. Current Opinion in Psychology 36:96–100. doi:10.1016/j.cop-
syc.2020.05.003.
Razzaq, Z., S. Yousaf, and Z. Hong. 2017. The moderating impact of emotions on customer
equity drivers and loyalty intentions. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics 29
(2):239–64. doi:10.1108/APJML-03-2016-0053.
Rich, C., B. Ponsleur, A. Holroyd, and C. L. Sidner. 2010. Recognizing engagement in
human-robot interaction. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM/IEEE international conference
on human-robot interaction, 375–382. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Press.
34 K. FARHAT ET AL.
Reich, B. J., and M. Pittman. 2020. An Appeal to Intimacy: Consumer response to plat-
form-appeal fit on social media. Journal of Consumer Psychology 30 (4):660–70. doi:10.
1002/jcpy.1154.
Reitz, A. R. 2012. Online consumer engagement: Understanding the antecedents and out-
comes. Doctoral dissertation, Colorado State University, Libraries.
Riel, C. B., and J. M. Balmer. 1997. Corporate identity: The concept, its measurement and
management. European Journal of Marketing 31 (5):340–55. doi:10.1108/
03090569710167574.
Roberts, C., and F. Alpert. 2010. Total customer engagement: Designing and aligning key
strategic elements to achieve growth. Journal of Product & Brand Management 19 (3):
198–209. doi:10.1108/10610421011046175.
Rodrıguez, G. C., C. P. Roman, and J. A. Z ~iga-Vicente. 2019. The relationship between
un
identification and loyalty in a public university: Are there differences between (the per-
ceptions) professors and graduates? European Research on Management and Business
Economics 25 (3):122–8. doi:10.1016/j.iedeen.2019.04.005.
Rohm, A., V. D. Kaltcheva, and G. R. Milne. 2013. A mixed-method approach to examin-
ing brand-consumer interactions driven by social media. Journal of Research in
Interactive Marketing 7 (4):295–311. doi:10.1108/JRIM-01-2013-0009.
Romero, J. 2018. Exploring customer engagement in tourism. Journal of Vacation
Marketing 24 (4):293–306. doi:10.1177/1356766717725561.
Ruengaramrut, V., V. Ribiere, and S. Mariano. 2020. The moderating effect of gamification
on the relationship between customer engagement and new service development process
involvement. International Journal of Innovation and Learning 27 (1):93–119. doi:10.
1504/IJIL.2020.103895.
Rutter, R.,. F. Lettice, and J. Nadeau. 2017. Brand personality in higher education:
Anthropomorphized university marketing communications. Journal of Marketing for
Higher Education 27 (1):19–39. doi:10.1080/08841241.2016.1213346.
Salleh, A. H. M. 2009. Services management and marketing: Studies in Malaysia. Bangi:
Graduate School of Business.
Saraniemi, S. 2010. Destination brand identity development and value system. Tourism
Review 65 (2):52–60. doi:10.1108/16605371011061624.
Sarkar, A., and S. Sreejesh. 2014. Examination of the roles played by brand love and jeal-
ousy in shaping customer engagement. Journal of Product & Brand Management 23 (1):
24–32. doi:10.1108/JPBM-05-2013-0315.
Schultz, C. 2017. Proposing to your fans: Which brand post characteristics drive consumer
engagement activities on social media pages? Electronic Commerce Research and
Applications 26:23–34. doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2017.09.005.
Silva, M. J. D. B., S. A. D. Farias, M. K. Grigg, and M. D. L. D. A. Barbosa. 2020.
Online engagement and the role of digital influencers in product endorsement on
Instagram. Journal of Relationship Marketing 19 (2):133–63. doi:10.1080/15332667.2019.
1664872.
Sokolova, K., and H. Kefi. 2020. Instagram and YouTube bloggers promote it, why should
I buy? How credibility and parasocial interaction influence purchase intentions. Journal
of Retailing and Consumer Services 53:101742. doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.01.011.
Solem, B. A. A. 2016. Influences of customer participation and customer brand engagement
on brand loyalty. Journal of Consumer Marketing 33 (5):332–42. doi:10.1108/JCM-04-
2015-1390.
Sprott, D., S. Czellar, and E. Spangenberg. 2009. The importance of a general measure of
brand engagement on market behavior: Development and validation of a scale. Journal
of Marketing Research 46 (1):92–104. doi:10.1509/jmkr.46.1.92.
Stephenson, A. L., and D. B. Yerger. 2014. Does brand identification transform alumni into
university advocates? International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing 11 (3):
243–62. doi:10.1007/s12208-014-0119-y.
Sung, M., and S. Yang. 2008. Toward the model of university Image: The influence of
brand personality, external prestige, and reputation. Journal of Public Relations Research
20 (4):357–76. doi:10.1080/10627260802153207.
Tajfel, H. 1978. Differentiation between social groups. London: Academic Press.
Teh, G. M., and A. H. M. Salleh. 2011. Impact of brand meaning on brand equity of higher
educational institutions in Malaysia. World 3 (2):218–28.
Thakur, R. 2018. Customer engagement and online reviews. Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services 41:48–59. doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2017.11.002.
Thakur, R. 2019. The moderating role of customer engagement experiences in customer
satisfaction–loyalty relationship. European Journal of Marketing 53 (7):1278. doi:10.1108/
EJM-11-2017-0895.
Tho, N. D., N. T. M. Trang, and S. O. Olsen. 2016. Brand personality appeal, brand rela-
tionship quality and WOM transmission: A study of consumer markets in Vietnam. Asia
Pacific Business Review 22 (2):307–24. doi:10.1080/13602381.2015.1076655.
Turner, J. C., and H. Tajfel. 1986. The social identity theory of intergroup behavior.
Psychology of Intergroup Relations 5:7–24.
Uşaklı, A., B. Koç, and S. S€
onmez. 2017. How social are destinations? Examining European
DMO social media usage. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 6 (2):136–49.
doi:10.1016/j.jdmm.2017.02.001.
Valerio, G., D. J. Herrera-Murillo, F. Villanueva-Puente, N. Herrera-Murillo, and M. del
Carmen Rodrıguez-Martınez. 2015. The relationship between post formats and digital
engagement: A study of the Facebook pages of Mexican universities. RUSC. Universities
and Knowledge Society Journal 12 (1):50–63. doi:10.7238/rusc.v12i1.1887.
Valette-Florence, R., and V. De Barnier. 2013. Towards a micro conception of brand per-
sonality: An application for print media brands in a French context. Journal of Business
Research 66 (7):897–903. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.12.008.
Van Doorn, J. 2011. Customer engagement: Essence, dimensionality, and boundaries.
Journal of Service Research 14 (3):280–2. doi:10.1177/1094670511414585.
Van Doorn, J., K. Lemon, V. Mittal, S. Nass, D. Pick, P. Pirner, and P. Verhoef. 2010.
Customer engagement behavior: Theoretical foundations and research directions. Journal
of Service Research 13 (3):253–66. doi:10.1177/1094670510375599.
Vazquez, E. E. 2019. Effects of enduring involvement and perceived content vividness on
digital engagement. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing 14 (1):1–16. doi:10.1108/
JRIM-05-2018-0071.
Verhoef, P. C., W. J. Reinartz, and M. Krafft. 2010. Customer engagement as a new per-
spective in customer management. Journal of Service Research 13 (3):247–52. doi:10.
1177/1094670510375461.
Verleye, K., P. Gemmel, and D. Rangarajan. 2014. Managing engagement behaviors in a
network of customers and stakeholders: Evidence from the nursing home sector. Journal
of Service Research 17 (1):68–84. doi:10.1177/1094670513494015.
Verma, S. 2014. Online customer engagement through blogs in India. Journal of Internet
Commerce 13 (3–4):282–301. doi:10.1080/15332861.2014.961347.
36 K. FARHAT ET AL.
Vernuccio, M., M. Pagani, C. Barbarossa, and A. Pastore. 2015. Antecedents of brand love
in online network-based communities. A social identity perspective. Journal of Product &
Brand Management 24 (7):706–19. doi:10.1108/JPBM-12-2014-0772.
Vivek, S. D., S. E. Beatty, and R. M. Morgan. 2012. Customer engagement: Exploring cus-
tomer relationships beyond purchase. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 20 (2):
122–46. doi:10.2753/MTP1069-6679200201.
Walmsley, B. 2016. From arts marketing to audience enrichment: How digital engagement
can deepen and democratize artistic exchange with audiences. Poetics 58:66–78. doi:10.
1016/j.poetic.2016.07.001.
Wirtz, J., A. den Ambtman, J. Bloemer, C. Horvath, B. Ramaseshan, J. van de Klundert, Z.
Gurhan Canli, and J. Kandampully. 2013. Managing brands and customer engagement in
online brand communities. Journal of Service Management 24 (3):223–44. doi:10.1108/
09564231311326978.
Wong, K. K. 2013. Partial least square structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) techniques
using SmartPLS. MarketingBulletin 24 (TechnicalNote1):1–32.
Xie, C., R. P. Bagozzi, and K. Grønhaug. 2019. The impact of corporate social
responsibility on consumer brand advocacy: The role of moral emotions, attitudes, and
individual differences. Journal of Business Research 95:514–30. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.
07.043.
Xie, Y., R. Batra, and S. Peng. 2015. An extended model of preference formation between
global and local brands: The roles of identity expressiveness, trust, and affect. Journal of
International Marketing 23 (1):50–71. doi:10.1509/jim.14.0009.
Yoo, C., J. Park, and D. J. Macinnis. 1998. Effects of store characteristics and in-store emo-
tional experiences on store attitude. Journal of Business Research 42 (3):253–63. doi:10.
1016/S0148-2963(97)00122-7.
Yoshida, M., B. S. Gordon, M. Nakazawa, S. Shibuya, and N. Fujiwara. 2018. Bridging the
gap between social media and behavioral brand loyalty. Electronic Commerce Research
and Applications 28:208–18. doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2018.02.005.
Yzerbyt, V. Y., M. Dumont, B. Mathieu, E. H. Gordijn, and D. Wigboldus. 2006. Social
comparison and group-based emotions. In Social comparison processes and levels of ana-
lysis: Understanding cognition, intergroup relations, and culture, ed. S. Guimond,
174–205. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Artikel Holistic Digital 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

Artikel Holistic Digital Engagement

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Internet Commerce

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wico20

Beyond Social Media Engagement: Holistic Digital

Kashif Farhat, Wajeeha Aslam & Sany Sanuri Mohd Mokhtar

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15332861.2021.1905474

Published online: 09 Apr 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

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

Beyond Social Media Engagement: Holistic Digital

CONTACT Kashif Farhat kashif.farhat@gmail.com Department of Marketing, Mohammad Ali Jinnah

CBE and conceptualization of holistic digital engagement (HDE)

Table 1. Overview of engagement concepts and contexts in marketing.

marketing scholars viewed no differences between customer-engagement

well-featured term in the marketing and communication literature to meas-

toward a brand on multiple digital channels arising from cognitive, affect-

The need to propose a new conceptualization of customer engagement

Social identity and digital engagement

Ahearne 2010). Organizations constantly communicate with customers to

(Priporas, Stylos, and Kamenidou 2020). Investigating the congruence

element of identifying with a particular brand is likely to result in positive

emotional component of social identity explains that the selection of a

Mediation of brand affect

contacted accordingly. While most respondents were handed in the survey

Instrument and measurements

Data analysis and results

Table 2. Demographics of the sample (n ¼ 303).

PLS path model

Table 3. Reliability and validity of measurement model.

method bias (CMB). The data showed an adequate level of normality.

Table 4. Discriminant validity of constructs.

Figure 1. Structural model.

Table 5. Structural paths significance.

Coefficient of determination (R2), effect size (f2), and predictive relevance Q2

Conclusion and implications

brand across the digital channels. In comparison, in case of customers

can also provide insights on the potential of a particular digital channel in

Another distinguishing element of HDE is its dependence on brand

Limitations and future directions

de Silva, T. M. 2019. Building relationships through customer engagement in Facebook

role of resource integration. Journal of Business Research 121:557–66. doi:10.1016/j.

You might also like