Online Information Review

Antecedents and outcomes of online brand engagement: the role of brand love on enhancing electronic-
word-of-mouth
Sandra Maria Correia Loureiro, Tatjana Gorgus, Hans Ruediger Kaufmann,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Sandra Maria Correia Loureiro, Tatjana Gorgus, Hans Ruediger Kaufmann, "Antecedents and outcomes of online
brand engagement: the role of brand love on enhancing electronic-word-of-mouth", Online Information Review, https://
doi.org/10.1108/OIR-08-2016-0236
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-08-2016-0236
Downloaded on: 28 September 2017, At: 19:35 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 19:35 28 September 2017 (PT)

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:401304 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 Antecedents and outcomes of online brand engagement: the role of brand love on
enhancing electronic-word-of-mouth
Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this paper is to investigate antecedents and outcomes of online
consumer brand engagement. In addition, a mediator effect of satisfaction and brand
love in the relationship between online consumer brand engagement and positive e-
word of-mouth is analyzed.

Design/methodology/approach: Data was collected using a panel sampling with 201

participants from the millennial generation provided by the software tool Qualtrics. The
online questionnaire is composed of two screening questions, the items of the constructs
and a section with the socio-demographic variables.
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 19:35 28 September 2017 (PT)

Findings: Involvement and online brand experience are important drivers of online
brand engagement. Brand love is a significant mediator between online brand
engagement and electronic-word-of-mouth.

Originality/value: Studies about antecedents and outcomes of online consumer

engagement are rare. This article contributes to the fledgling online consumer
engagement literature by analyzing three antecedents: involvement, online brand
experience, and self-brand image congruency. For the first time, brand love and
satisfaction were considered as direct outcomes of online brand engagement. New
insights are provided into the mediating role of brand love between online brand
engagement and electronic word-of-mouth.

Keyword: Online consumer brand engagement, online brand experience, brand

involvement, self-brand image congruency, brand love, satisfaction, electronic-wom

Introduction

The way consumers and firms are communicating in social media networks and other

online platforms heralds a paradigm shift in marketing. Whilst in previous decades

online brand managers used to grow brands with pull or push strategies (Hennig-Thurau

et al., 2004; Dessart, Veloutsou and Morgan-Thomas, 2015), currently, the corporate

challenge is to ‘co-create’ with consumers by interactively communicating with them;

for example, co-creation is reflected in positive or negative online reviews. Thus,

consumer engagement characterizes a more interactive relationship between consumers

and brands and has become of core interest for academics and practitioners alike.

Recently, researchers conceptualized dimensions of consumer engagement (e.g.,

 Bowden, 2009; Calder, Malthouse and Schaedel, 2009; Van Doorn et al., 2010; Brodie

et al., 2013; Hollebeek, Glynn and Brodie, 2014; Dessart et al., 2015). However, studies

analyzing antecedents and outcomes of this phenomenon are still scarce. Nonetheless,

some potential variables were suggested: satisfaction (Pansari and Kumar, 2016), trust,

commitment (Van Doorn et al., 2010), involvement (Hollebeek et al., 2014; De Vries

and Carlson, 2014) or social identification with a brand community (Baldus et al., 2015)

have been regarded as antecedents; brand loyalty, brand usage, and recommendation
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 19:35 28 September 2017 (PT)

have been viewed as outcomes.

In the current study, we analyze the motivational constructs of brand involvement,

online brand experience and self-brand image congruency as antecedents; satisfaction,

the so far, neglected brand love and positive electronic word-of-mouth are regarded as

outcomes. This relationship is hypothesized to be mediated by two cognitive/emotional

and relational constructs: satisfaction and brand love. The conceptual model developed

is rooted in the nexus between interdependence theory and self-congruency theory.

The article is organized as follows: First, the literature review on brand engagement

conceptualization, its antecedents and outcomes is presented; from the literature review,

hypotheses are derived; then, the method of data collection is explained, and the results

are reported. Finally, findings, managerial implications and future research avenues are

presented.
 Literature Review and Hypotheses Development

The inter-relationships among the constructs of this study are based on two theories: the

interdependence theory and the self-congruency theory. The former stresses the

tendency to persist in a relationship (Kelley and Thibaut, 1978) entailing rewards and

costs. The partners, brands and customers, try to maximize the rewards and minimize

the costs. The self-congruency theory assumes that consumers prefer brands (products)
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 19:35 28 September 2017 (PT)

they associate with due to a set of brand characteristics congruent with their own way of

being (Sirgy, 1982).

Brand Engagement Conceptualization

Marketing literature provides several definitions of brand engagement. Table 1 depicts

an overview of conceptualizations in a chronological way highlighting four main

aspects. First, brand engagement is a multidimensional concept. Only three definitions

seem to base their respective conceptualizations on a single dimension. Algesheimer

Dholakia and Herrmann (2005) focus on behavior to allude to the individual’s intrinsic

motivation to participate (interact) with members of online brand communities. Sprott,

Czellar and Spangenberg (2009) illuminate the attachment theory and the consumer-

brand relationships (Fournier, 1998; Loureiro, Kaufmann and Vrontis, 2012). This

refers to the degree to which an individual’s self-concept is connected to a brand.

Jaakkola and Alexander (2014) consider a behavioral dimension to express the

connection between customer engagement, voluntary behavior and value co-creation.

Second, the definitions point to positive or favorable expressions, emotions, and

outcomes (e.g., loyalty or word-of-mouth) (Hollebeek, Glynn and Brodie, 2014;

Bowden, 2009). Third, the interactive nature of engagement is mirrored by “iterative

engagement processes within the brand community” (Brodie et al., 2013, p. 107) and by
 continuously “interacting with an online brand community” (Baldus et al., 2015, p.

979). Fourth, a general consensus on the core three dimensions becomes apparent:

(i) cognitive (a consumer’s level of thoughts related to a brand being processed in a

particular consumer-brand interaction) (e.g., Rappaport, 2007; Sprott et al.,

2009; Bowden, 2009; Brodie et al., 2011; Brodieet al., 2013; Hollebeek et al.,

2014; Dessart et al., 2015);

(ii) affective (a consumer's degree of positive emotion related to a brand in a

Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 19:35 28 September 2017 (PT)

particular consumer-brand interaction) (e.g., Rappaport, 2007; Sprott et al.,

2009; Bowden, 2009; Calder et al., 2009; Brodie et al., 2011; Brodie et al., 2013;

Hollebeek et al., 2014; Dessart et al., 2015);

(iii)activate (a consumer's level of energy, effort and time spent in a particularly

consumer-brand interaction) (e.g., Algesheimer et al., 2005; Calder et al., 2009;

Van Doorn et al., 2010; Mollen and Wilson, 2010; Kumar et al., 2010; Brodie et

al., 2011; Brodie et al., 2013; Hollebeek et al., 2014; Jaakkola and Alexander,

2014; Dessart et al., 2015; Baldus et al., 2015).

However, these dimensions are suggested to be differentiated by contexts (e.g.,

online/offline) or engagement objects (e.g., firm, website, community).

Insert Table 1 about here

Antecedents of Online Consumer Brand Engagement

Brand involvement

Brand involvement has been regarded as a precursor of brand engagement (Mollen and

Wilson, 2010; Hollebeek, Glynn and Brodie, 2014; De Vries and Carlson, 2014). It

signifies the consumers’ level of interest in a brand achieved by mentally processing

information of an object (brand) relevant to their needs and values (Zaichkowsky, 1985;

De Vries and Carlson, 2014). In low involvement situations, consumers tend to make
 use of peripheral cues and already existing information about a product (Gordon,

McKeage, and Fox, 1998). In contrast, consumers who are highly involved with a

brand, search for more brand related information, are engaged to a higher extent in the

decision between alternatives, are more aware of the differences between brands of the

same category and show a higher preference for the specific brand (De Vries and

Carlson, 2014; Hollebeek, Glynn and Brodie, 2014; Kaufmann, Loureiro, and

Manarioti, 2016).
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 19:35 28 September 2017 (PT)

Engagement, on the other hand, is an interactive elaboration on affective, cognitive

and behavioral dimensions. This kind of relationship (engagement) becomes more

rewarding for consumers as proposed by the interdependence theory (Kelley and

Thibaut, 1978). Thus, we hypothesize (see figure 1):

H1: Brand involvement is positively related to brand engagement.

Online brand experience

Experiences take place during all moments of a customer’s contact with a company

(Gentile, Spiller, and Noci, 2007), a lodging (Loureiro, 2014) or a destination (Barnes,

Mattsson and Sørensen, 2014). Currently, the majority of consumers’ contacts are

online enabling more dynamic and real-time brand experiences (Morgan-Thomas and

Veloutsou, 2013; Khan, Rahman and Fatma, 2016).

Past and ongoing experience with a brand is critical in the process of generating

engagement (Brakus, Schmitt and Zarantonello, 2009; Brodie et al., 2011; Hollebeek,

Glynn and Brodie, 2014). In particular, Mollen and Wilson (2010) argue that online

engagement is a response to website stimuli. These authors propose future research to

address experiential and motivational stimuli other than tele-presence to enhance

interactivity. Interactivity, in turn, represents a reward for the engagement process and

for continuously experiencing and living with a brand. Therefore, the following
 hypothesis is proposed (see figure 1):

H2: Brand experience is positively related to online brand engagement.

Self-brand image congruency

Self-brand image congruency relates to the fit between a consumer’s self-concept and

the brand image (the attributes and the personality of a brand perceived by consumers)

(Sirgy, 1982). This concept is based on self-congruency theory, where high levels of

congruence tend to enhance a positive attitude toward a brand triggering brand

Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 19:35 28 September 2017 (PT)

preference and behavioral intentions (Jamal and Goode, 2001; Kressmann et al., 2006)

in both offline and online environments. Indeed, self-brand image congruency has been

regarded as an important predictor for adopting mobile services and the social media

network (Kang, Hong and Lee, 2009; De Vries and Carlson, 2014).

Using an experimental design, Andonova, Miller and Diamond (2015) show the

positive effect of self-brand congruency on customer engagement. Thus, referring to a

social media network context, it is suggested that self-brand image congruency may

influence online brand engagement. The match between consumers’ self-image and the

brand image is regarded a motivational factor for thinking more proactively about the

brand, feeling good about it and using it, hence, being more engaged with the brand.

Therefore, the following hypothesis emerges:

H3: Self-brand image congruency is positively related to online brand engagement.

Outcomes of Online Consumer Brand Engagement

Satisfaction

Satisfaction or dissatisfaction, either for one time or ongoing consumption, implies a

confirmation or disconfirmation of expectations regarding a product/service

performance and purpose (Oliver, 1999; Johnson and Fornell, 1991). Satisfaction has
 been regarded as a cognitive construct embedded in the interdependence between brand

and consumers (interdependence theory). From this relationship and the interactive

engagement process a positive (satisfactory and rewarding) or a negative (unsatisfactory

or costs associated, even emotional disgust) evaluation may result.

Importantly, brand engagement occurs only after a relationship is formed based on

trust and commitment (Kumar and Pansari, 2016). It considers satisfaction as one more

component of the relationship quality (Palmatier et al., 2006; Loureiro, Miranda, and
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 19:35 28 September 2017 (PT)

Breazeale, 2014). Implicitly, satisfaction may be regarded a precursor of the

engagement process, but, simultaneously, a reward for deeply interacting with a brand.

Consequently, the following hypothesis is suggested:

H4: Online brand engagement is positively associated with satisfaction.

Brand love

Brand love consists of “cognitions, emotions, and behaviors, which consumers organize

in a mental prototype” (Batra, Ahuvia and Bagozzi, 2012, p. 2). It is distinguishable

from other relational constructs, such as commitment or brand trust (Albert and

Merunka, 2013). However, latter authors hold that brand love has a greater influence on

brand commitment than brand trust and a stronger impact on positive word-of-mouth

than brand commitment. According to Batra, Ahuvia and Bagozzi (2012), the concept

of brand love entails a passion component, as a form of passionate attraction toward the

brand and feelings of connectedness with the brand. Thus, brand love can be defined as

“the degree of passionate emotional attachment a satisfied consumer has for a particular

trade name” (Carroll and Ahuvia, 2006, p. 81).

The connection between consumers’ self-concepts and the brand, the strong

emotional bonds with brands, the meaningfulness of the brand, as well as intrinsic rather

than extrinsic rewards are relevant for brand love (Batra, Ahuvia, and Bagozzi, 2012;
 Huber, Meyer, and Schmid, 2015; Kaufmann, Loureiro, and Manarioti, 2016).

Moreover, Batra, Ahuvia and Bagozzi (2012) highlight that brand love is connected to

frequent interaction with the brand. In the context of the social media environment,

Wallace, Buil and Chernatony (2014) claim that individuals can indeed develop brand

love with self-expressive brands, which they have “liked” on Facebook reflecting a

favorable and rewarding interactive relationship. Thus, the following hypothesis is

proposed:
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 19:35 28 September 2017 (PT)

H5: Online brand engagement is positively associated with brand love.

Electronic word-of-mouth

Word-of-mouth means the “exchange of product and brand-related marketing messages

and meanings” between two or more consumers without inducement by marketers

(Kozinets et al., 2010, p. 72), which can occur online or offline.

Word-of-mouth is no longer characterized by a static or dyadic but rather a highly

dynamic interaction. It shapes consumer attitudes and expectations toward the brand

(Kimmel and Kitchen, 2014), particularly on social media platforms. Word-of-mouth, in

the digital world referred to as “electronic word-of-mouth”, is defined as any positive

or negative statement, comment or review “made by potential, actual, or former

customers about a product or company, which is made available to a multitude of

people and institutions via the Internet” (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004, p. 39).

Satisfaction is widely viewed as predictor of brand recommendations (Anderson,

1998; Loureiro, Kaufmann, and Rabino, 2014). Accordingly, Hennig-Thurau et al.

(2004) identify a variety of factors that drive electronic word-of-mouth - among others -

the intention to contribute positive product reviews and comments influenced by prior

satisfying product experiences. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H6: Satisfaction is positively associated with e-word-of-mouth.

 Furthermore, brand love is positively associated with brand advocacy and positive

word-of-mouth (Wallace, Buil and Chernatony, 2014; Carroll and Ahuvia, 2006;

Loureiro, Kaufmann and Vrontis, 2012; Batra et al., 2012; Wallace, Buil and

Chernatony, 2014). Summarizing, consumers, who are emotionally connected with a

brand in a long-term relationship and having a passionate desire to keep use and interact

with the brand, will be more proactive to post positive reviews, advocate in favor of the

brand and recommend to others. Thus, the following hypothesis is formulated:

Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 19:35 28 September 2017 (PT)

H7: Brand love is positively associated with e-word-of-mouth.

Satisfaction and brand love as mediators

Based on previous considerations, satisfaction may mediate the relationship between

brand engagement and e-word-of-mouth. Satisfied and engaged consumers may be

more proactive in spreading the word in social media platforms. Brand love, being

distinct from satisfaction, has been regarded a higher level construct.

Only consumers engaged in a deep loving relationship with a brand believe that the

brand provides intrinsic rather than extrinsic rewards and use the loved brand to express

their self-identity (Batra et al., 2012; Bagozzi, Batra and Ahuvia, 2014). Therefore, the

mediator effect of brand love in the relationship between brand engagement and e-word-

of-mouth may be stronger than the satisfaction mediating effect. Hence, the following

hypothesis is posited:

H8: Brand love is a more effective mediator between online brand engagement and

positive e-word-of-mouth than satisfaction.

Insert Figure 1 about here

Method
 Sample and Data Collection

Data was collected using a panel sampling with millennials in Germany provided by the

software tool Qualtrics (qualtrics.com). This online tool allows creating the

questionnaire online and offers the possibility to distribute it to a panel sample. The

target population was the millennial generation as they grew up using electronic

devices; they use more frequently electronic platforms and are more prepared and

interested in interacting via online platforms (Vivek, Beatty and Morgan, 2012). They
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 19:35 28 September 2017 (PT)

represent the majority of online users in the European Union (Eurostat, 2016), are

highly consumption-oriented and prefer to select information and interact in two-way

brand conversations (Kotler and Armstrong, 2011). We chose the Facebook as the focal

social media network, because it is one of the most popular platforms in Europe

(Internet World Stats, 2016).

The online questionnaire is composed of two screening questions, the items of the

constructs and a section with the socio-demographic variables. The two screening

questions asked the participant if he/she has a Facebook profile and has liked a brand

page on Facebook. To ensure that only people who are following a Facebook brand

page take part in the survey, every participant who would click on the “no” button for

those two questions, was shown a default message with an apology note and then

redirected to the end of the questionnaire. All other participants who answered those

questions with “yes”, were asked to mention the name of one specific brand they are

following and to state how often they are using Facebook. By asking those questions we

intended to provide descriptive data about Facebook brand pages and also to help the

participant to get familiar with the topic and to better answer the subsequent questions.

To decrease the drop-out rate, a progress bar was included, showing the remaining

percentage of the questions that need to be answered.

 The questionnaire was structured to avoid common method biases and assure that (i)

it is clear what the participant is expected to do; (ii) the wording of the items and

questions are clear, simple and concise without unfamiliar terms and complex syntax;

(iii) the physical distance between measures of the same construct was considered.

Before launching the questionnaire, a pilot sample of 10 Facebook internet users

(personal Skype interviews) was employed to ensure understanding of the wording,

general design, flow and duration of the survey (Malhotra,1993). Only a few
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 19:35 28 September 2017 (PT)

adjustments were made.

Variables and Measurement

All items are measured based on existing measurement scales and, following

Diamantopoulos et al. (2012), all the constructs were measured by means of multiple

items. The participants were instructed to rate their level of agreement with each

statement accordingly to a 7-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 = “I strongly

disagree” to 7 = “I strongly agree”, while keeping in mind the brand they have

mentioned.

The constructs of brand involvement and self-brand image congruency were

measured using scales from De Vries and Carlson (2014). The online brand experience

(OBE) was operationalized employing the scale of Brakus, Schmitt and Zarantonello

(2009), which consists of four dimensions constituting a second-order construct.

However, the dimension of sensory experience was not considered in the current study

as not regarded suitable for the context. The online consumer brand engagement

(OCBE) was assessed by Hollebeek’s, Glynn’s and Brodie’s (2014) three-dimensional

scale also considered as a second-order construct.

Concerning the outcomes of online consumer brand engagement, the concept of

satisfaction was adapted from Loureiro, Miranda, and Breazeale (2014). Brand love was
 measured based on Bagozzi, Batra and Ahuvia (2014). Electronic-word-of-mouth was

assessed by a scale from Ismail and Spinelli (2012), as those items reflect online as well

as offline word-of-mouth communication.

A total of 201 fully completed and usable questionnaires was employed to treat the

data. Regarding the participants’ gender, 59.7% were female, and 40.3% were male. All

of these participants are following at least one brand page on Facebook, and the

majority is frequently using the social media network during the day (39% use
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 19:35 28 September 2017 (PT)

Facebook 2-3 times during the day and 38% more the 5 times during the day). Most

participants were between 26 and 35 years old (59%) and had completed high school or

a first degree. The categories of brands most frequently mentioned are fashion (apparel,

jewelry, and cosmetic brands), lifestyle (technology, travel, media and entertainment

brands), sport, FMCG (fast-moving consumer goods) and automobile.

Data Treatment

The partial least squares (PLS) approach was used to test the hypotheses (using

SmartPLS 2.0). PLS is based on an iterative combination of principal component

analysis and regression to explain the variance of the constructs in the model (Chin,

1998). A PLS model should be analyzed and interpreted in two stages. First, the

measurement model or the adequacy of the measures is assessed by evaluating the

reliability of the individual measures, the convergent validity and the discriminant

validity of the constructs. Then, the structural model is evaluated.

The conceptual model proposed in the current study presents a large number of

manifest variables and formative factors and, therefore, PLS is the appropriate approach

for data treatment (Chin, Marcolin, and Newsted, 2003). The repeated indicators method

was applied to test the model with second-order formative constructs (Chin, Marcolin,

and Newsted, 2003; Kleijnen, Ruyter and Wetzels, 2007): online brand experience with
 three dimensions (intellectual, behavioral and affective) and the online consumer brand

engagement also with three dimensions (cognitive processing, affection and activation).

In this study, the non-parametric bootstrapping procedure was applied (500 re-

sampling), to test the significance of indirect effects via the mediators in the PLS path

model (MacKinnon, Lockwood and Williams, 2004). This procedure is a superior

alternative to the commonly used Sobel test for mediation (Hair et al., 2013).
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 19:35 28 September 2017 (PT)

Results

Measurement Model

The proposed model is composed of both, formative and reflective indicators. The

formative indicators compose a second order construct (based on its first order

dimensions). In order to evaluate the adequacy of the measures at the first-order

construct level, item reliability is assessed by examining the loadings of the measures

on their corresponding construct. Item loadings of scales measuring reflective constructs

should be 0.707 or more, which indicates that over 50% of the variance in the observed

variable is explained by the construct (Wetzels, Odekerken-Schroöder and van Oppen,

2009). In this study, the item loading of each item exceeds the value of 0.707 (see Table

2).

All Cronbach’s alpha values are above 0.7, and all composite reliability values in

Table 2 are above 0.8. Therefore, all constructs are reliable since the composite

reliability values exceed the threshold value of 0.7. The measures demonstrate

convergent validity as the average variance of manifest variables extracted by constructs

(average variance extracted [AVE]) is above 0.5, indicating that most of the variance of

each indicator is explained by its own construct.

 Insert Table 2 about here

At the second-order construct level, we have the parameter estimates of indicator

weight, the significance of weight (t-test) and multicollinearity of indicators. Weight

measures the contribution of each formative indicator to the variance of the latent

variable (Robert and Thatcher, 2009). A significance level of at least 0.05 (in the case of

this study a significant level of at least 0.001) suggests that an indicator is relevant to

the construction of the formative index (OBE and OCBE), and, thus, demonstrates a
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 19:35 28 September 2017 (PT)

sufficient level of validity. The recommended indicator weight is > 0.2 (Chin, 1998).

Table 2 shows that all three indicators of OBE and all three indicators of OCBE have a

positive beta weight above 0.2. The degree of multicollinearity among the formative

indicators should be assessed by variance inflation factor (VIF) (Fornell and Bookstein,

1982). The VIF indicates how much an indicator’s variance is explained by the other

indicators of the same construct. The commonly acceptable threshold for VIF is below

3.33 (Diamantopoulos and Siguaw, 2006). Table 3 shows VIF values are < 3.33, and so

the results did not seem to pose a multicollinearity problem.

Regarding discriminant validity, the square root of AVE should be greater than the

correlation between the construct and other constructs in the model (Fornell and

Larcker, 1981). Table 3 shows that this criterion has been met. The last part of Table 3

shows that the correlations between each first-order construct and the second-order

construct reveal that they have more than half of their variance in common, as expected

(MacKenzie, Podsakoff, and Podsakoff, 2011).

Insert Table 3 about here

Structural Model

A non-parametric approach, known as Bootstrapping (500 re-sampling), was used to

estimate the precision of the PLS estimates and support the hypotheses (Chin, 1998;
 Fornell and Larcker, 1981). All path coefficients are significant at the 0.001, 0.01 or

0.05 levels, except hypothesis H7 (see Figure 2).

Insert Figure 2 about here

As models yielding significant bootstrap statistics can still be invalid in a predictive

sense (Chin et al., 2003), measures of predictive validity (such as R2 and Q2) for focal

endogenous constructs should be employed. All values of Q2 (chi-squared of the Stone–

Geisser criterion) are positive, so the relations in the model have predictive relevance
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 19:35 28 September 2017 (PT)

(Fornell and Cha, 1994). The model also demonstrated a good level of predictive power

(R2) as the modeled constructs explained 41.7% of the variance in online consumer

brand engagement, 32.4% brand love and 39.4% in positive e-wom. In fact, the good

value of GoF (0.60) proposed by Tenenhaus et al. (2005), and the good level of

predictive power (R2) reveals a good overall fit of the structural model (see Figure 2).

As Wetzels et al. (2009) proposed, a GoF greater than 0.35 in the social science field

indicates a very good fit.

Mediation Analysis

According to Figure 1, both, satisfaction and brand love are represented as mediators,

which posit how, or by what means, online brand engagement affects e-word-of-mouth.

We applied the bootstrapping approach (500 re-sampling), to test the significance of

indirect effects (MacKinnon, Lockwood and Williams, 2004).

Table 4 shows that the direct effect of the online consumer brand engagement

(OCBE) on the positive e-word-of-mouth is significant and its confidence interval does

not include zero. Table 4 also presents the indirect effects and the total effects of the

OCBE on the positive e-word-of-mouth, the estimate of the significance using

percentile bootstrap (Williams and MacKinnon, 2008) and the VAF (variance accounted

for) (Helm, Eggert, and Garnefeld, 2010). Regarding the confidence interval for
 mediators, we may see that, in the case of brand love, the interval for the mediation

hypothesis does not contain zero, meaning that the indirect effect is significantly

different from zero with 95% confidence. The VAF of the mediations is normed

between 0% and 100%. The VAF for satisfaction is only 5% meaning no mediating

effect with only brand love exercising a mediating effect (confirming H8).

Insert Table 4 about here

The results are summarized as follows. The three motivational constructs (brand
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 19:35 28 September 2017 (PT)

involvement, online brand experience and self-brand image congruency) proposed as

antecedents in the conceptual model are statistically significant and directly and

positively influence online brand engagement. The hypotheses H1, H2 and H3 are

supported. Yet, online brand experience exerts a stronger effect on online consumer

brand engagement (β=0.372, p < 0.001) than the other two variables, followed by brand

involvement. Both, satisfaction (β=0.296, p<0.01) and brand love (β=0.570, p < 0.001)

have a positive and direct relationship with online consumer brand engagement. The

hypotheses H4 and H5 are supported.

The results also revealed that while brand love has a direct and positive impact on e-

word-of-mouth (β=0.627, p<0.001), satisfaction does not significantly influence e-

word-of-mouth. The hypothesis H6 is not supported whilst H7 is supported. Finally,

brand love acts as a mediator in the relationship between online consumer brand

engagement and positive e-word-of-mouth whilst satisfaction does not, which supports

H8.

Conclusions and Implications

This study extends the current online consumer engagement knowledge by improving

understanding of how online engagement affects online reviews. Previous research has
 been limited by concentrating to analyze the antecedents of brand engagement rather

than the outcomes (e.g., Van Doorn et al., 2010; Dessart, Veloutsou, and Morgan-

Thomas, 2015). Therefore, this study contributes to the online consumer engagement

literature by analyzing its antecedents and outcomes and innovatively presenting brand

love as a mediator superior to satisfaction between online consumer brand engagement

and positive e-word-of-mouth.

To measure the proposed conceptual model, we employed three dimensions to

Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 19:35 28 September 2017 (PT)

measure online brand experience (affective, behavioral, intellectual) and three further

dimensions regarding online brand engagement (activation, affection and cognition). In

this respect, nine insights from the current study should be highlighted.

First, when considering online brand experience, the affective dimension emerges as

the most relevant one in the context of online brands showing the heightened

importance of emotions established in the relationship between online users and the

online brand posted on Facebook. Following the affective brand experience, behavioral

experience represents the responses triggered by specific brand-related stimuli.

Behavior is related to action and the encouragement to action in the online context

(search information, reviews, buy a product). The least contribution is provided by

intellectual brand experience, which occurs when a brand evokes curiosity and thinking

about the brand and its messages.

Second, activation is the main dimension in creating online consumer brand

engagement followed by affection. Cognition is the least important dimension in

shaping online brand engagement. Thus, the more affective and action-related the

components of the online brands are, the more effective they are for the engagement

process. These findings are aligned with those of Hollebeek et al. (2014) stating that
 affection and activation dimensions are the most relevant ones to influence self-brand

connection.

Third, online brand experience and brand involvement are the most effective

antecedents of online brand engagement (H1 and H2 supported). Millennial consumers

need to feel positive emotions and to be involved in the interaction to activate the

engagement process. This, in turn, implies that the brand image should somehow

correspond with consumers’ self-image (H3 supported). Online brands need to

Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 19:35 28 September 2017 (PT)

continuously create emotions and capture the interest and identity of the millennials and

confer meanings in a process together with consumers. The reason for this may be

grounded in the characteristics of the millennials, as well as in the interdependence and

the self-congruency theories. They want to be unique in the interactions they engage in

and, at the same time, actively involved in actions. In the relationship with the brand,

millennials become interdependence and consider that receive rewards in such

relationship. Therefore, according to other studies (e.g., Mollen and Wilson, 2010;

Hollebeek et al., 2014) being online engaged is a step further than just being involved.

The emotions and behaviors provided by the experience of using online Facebook brand

pages help in involving and committing consumers to become engaged. Yet, this

interaction is only possible if the characteristics of the brand is congruent with their own

(consumers) way of being.

Fourth, satisfaction, as a cognitive construct, is directly related to brand engagement

(H4 supported). This is aligned with Pansari’s and Kumar’s (2016) engagement theory.

Other studies into the context of brand community also analyzed this direct relationship

(e.g., Algesheimer, Dholakia, and Herrmann, 2005; Dessart, Veloutsou and Morgan-

Thomas, 2015) and considered it as a driver. Yet, based on the the interdependence
 theory, satisfaction may also be seen as a reward of being in intensive interaction with a

brand.

Fifth, in contrast to previous studies (e.g., Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004; Loureiro,

Kaufmann, and Rabino, 2014), satisfaction does not significantly influence positive e-

word-of-mouth (H6 not supported). This may be explained by the fact that being

satisfied does not mean to be prepared to communicate with others and advocate in

favor of the brand. A more emotional connection than mere satisfaction is needed to
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 19:35 28 September 2017 (PT)

create a condition to get consumers in the mood to communicate and recommend the

brand to others.

Sixth, as hypothesized, brand love proved to be superior to mere satisfaction in

enhancing the positive e-word-of-mouth (H8 supported). The emotional connection and

the feeling of anxiety, when not having the brand, make consumers more inclined to

communicate and recommend the brand to others via online platforms, as well as using

more traditional offline communication.

Eighth, brand love is more effective than satisfaction in moving the consumer to post

comments and do reviews. Brand love, a passionate attachment of a satisfied consumer

to a brand (Carroll and Ahuvia, 2006) repeatedly implies that emotional attachment has

a stronger influence than mere satisfaction. As already mentioned, brand love is a

mediator in the relationship between online consumer brand engagement and positive e-

word-of-mouth. It, thus, emerges as an important outcome of being engaged (H5

supported) and an effective driver to positive electronic-word-of-mouth (H7 supported).

Ninth, as highlighted by Rappaport (2007), incorporating the construct of brand

engagement in a marketing strategy requires recognizing and integrating all customer

channels and touch-points. Moreover, integrated online and offline communication

strategies should be based on consumer data and insights to better evaluate engagement
 efforts and develop appropriate engagement actions (Rappaport, 2007). Thus, the social

media network Facebook, with its high user rate and different customer-brand

interaction possibilities, should be necessarily taken into account when creating

engagement at digital touch-points.

Managerial Implications

This study draws managerial attention to the main outcome of online brand engagement

(positive e-word-of-mouth). Managers should design emotional, even passionate

Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 19:35 28 September 2017 (PT)

interactions that create online engagement (with brand love as a mediator). Online

brands need to focus on meaningful and multiple experiences and interactions that

enhance the curiosity of the consumers. Multiple-interactions refer to the possibility to

exchange information with brand managers but also to consumer-consumer interactions.

Online brands should not only focus on quality features or technical performance;

rather, in addition to these features, they must create the possibility to develop

emotional interactions. In this vein, posting relevant and emotional content on a regular

basis will be important to attract attention. To keep the postings interesting, different

forms of posts and social media platforms incorporating elements like pictures, videos,

life-images, voting-tools (i.e. vimeo or instagram) can be combined. Communication

channels should be chosen according to their contribution to the corporate

communication objectives.

The sequential flow when developing consumer brand relationships from

experiencing involvement, online engagement, brand love, positive word-of-mouth and

on-line reviews is a guiding path online brand managers should pursue to achieve a

favorable recognition and connection to customers. Managers should foster in-depth

contact with consumers, answering them quickly, but also encouraging and analyzing

their suggestions and reviews, i.e. in terms of changing product features or promotion.
 It is no longer sufficient to have a brand page without continuously improving them and

interacting with consumers. Moreover, we suggest starting to research the real needs

and wishes of potential consumers. Second, rules should be developed as to the period

of time that online brands need to answer and solve issues and questions posited by

customers. Last, an integrated process management among the firm’s cross functional

team should be established to make all of this possible.

Limitation and Further Research

Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 19:35 28 September 2017 (PT)

Future research may address several issues not covered in the current work. First, this

study collected data based on a convenience sampling panel method in Germany.

To some extent, the results from this study may lack generalizability, especially across

cultures. Even though selection criteria are used to elicit valid respondents, a broader

and a more representative, cross-cultural sample is recommendable for future research.

Furthermore, a conceptualization might be initiated considering the product category as

a moderator or differentiating utilitarian versus hedonic online brands. Further research

might also explore how brand interactions evolve during the transaction process or even

over time.

Finally, this study employed a shorter scale of 6 items suggested by Bagozzi, Batra

and Ahuvia (2014) to measure brand love. Yet, future research may analyze the same

model using the full scale (Batra, Ahuvia and Bagozzi, 2012). The same consideration

applies to the brand experience scale. Based on the reports during the pre-test regarding

the wording of the sensory dimension, this dimension did not seem to be very

appropriate for the context of this study. In the Facebook environment, no touch or

smell senses can be experienced. Therefore, in future other dimensions of brand

experience may be found to be suitable for the online context.

References
 Albert, L. and Merunka, D. (2013), “The role of brand love in consumer-brand
relationships”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol.30 No.3, pp. 258-266.
Algesheimer, R., Dholakia, U. M. and Herrmann, A. (2005), “The Social Influence of
Brand Community: Evidence from European Car Clubs”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol.69 No.3, pp. 19-34
Anderson, E. W. (1998), “Customer Satisfaction and Word of Mouth”, Journal of
Service Research, Vol.1 No.1, pp. 5-17
Andonova, Y., Miller, E.G., and Diamond, W.D. (2014), “The Relationships among
Self-Brand Congruence, Brand Attachment, Customer Engagement, and Brand
Loyalty”, in Krzysztof Kubacki (Ed.), Ideas in Marketing: Finding the New and
Polishing the Old. Part of the series Developments in Marketing Science:
Proceedings of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, Heidelberg, Dordrecht,
London, New York, pp. 816-816
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 19:35 28 September 2017 (PT)

Bagozzi, R., Batra, R. and Ahuvia, A. (2014), “Brand Love Scales. Construct Validity,
Managerial Utility, and New Conceptual Insights”, Working paper. University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Baldus, B. J., Voorhees, C., and Calantone, R. (2015). “Online brand community
engagement: Scale development and validation”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol.68 No.5, pp. 978-985.
Barnes, S.J., Mattsson, J., and Sørensen, F. (2014), “Destination brand experience and
visitor behavior: Testing a scale in the tourism context”, Annals of Tourism
Research, Vol. 48, pp. 121-139
Batra, R., Ahuvia, A. and Bagozzi, R. P. (2012), “Brand Love”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol.76 No.2, pp.1-16.
Bowden, J., L. (2009), “The Process of Customer Engagement: A Conceptual
Framework”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol.17 No.1, pp. 63-74
Brakus, J.J., Schmitt, B.H. and Zarantonello L. (2009), “Brand Experience: What is it?
How is it measured? Does it affect loyalty?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol.73 No.3, ,
pp. 52-68
Brodie, R. J., Hollebeek, L. D., Juric, B. and Ilic, A. (2011), “Customer Engagement:
Conceptual Domain, Fundamental Propositions, and Implications for Research”,
Journal of Service Research, Vol. 14 No.3, pp. 252-271
Brodie, R. J., Ilic, A. Juric, B. and Hollebeek, L. (2013), “Consumer Engagement in a
virtual brand community: An exploratory analysis”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol.66 No.1, pp.105-114
Calder, B. J., Malthouse, E. C. and Schaedel, U. (2009), “An Experimental Study of the
Relationship between Online Engagement and Advertising Effectiveness”, Journal of
Interactive Marketing, Vol.23 No. 4, pp. 321-331
Carroll, B.A., and Ahuvia, A.C (2006), “Some Antecedents and Outcomes of Brand
Love”, Marketing Letter, 17No. 2, pp.79-89.
Chin, W. W. (1998), “The partial least squares approach to structural equation
modeling”. in Marcoulides, G. A (Ed.), Modern methods for business, Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates Publisher, N.J, Mahwah, pp. 295–336
Chin, W. W., Marcolin, B. L., and Newsted, P. R. (2003), “A partial least squares latent
variable modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: Results from a Monte
Carlo simulation study and an electronic mail adoption study”, Information Systems
Research, Vol.14 No.2, pp. 189–217
Dessart, L., Veloutsou, C. and Morgan-Thomas, A. (2015), “Consumer engagement in
online brand communities: a social media perspective”, Journal of Product & Brand
Management, Vol. 24 No.1, pp. 28-42
 De Vries, N.J. and Carlson, J. (2014), “Examining the drivers and brand performance
implications of customer engagement with brands in the social media environment”,
Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 21 No.6, pp. 495–515.
Diamantopoulos, A., and Siguaw, J. (2006), “Formative versus reflective indicators in
organizational measure development: A comparison and empirical illustration”,
British Journal of Management, Vol.17No.4, pp. 263–282.
Diamantopoulos, A., Sarstedt, M., Fuchs, C., Sebastian, S., and Wilczynski, P. (2012),
“Guidelines for choosing between multi-item and single-item scales for construct
measurement: a predictive validity perspective”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 40 No.3, pp. 434-449
Eurostat (2016), “Being young in Europe today - digital world”, available at
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-
explained/index.php/Being_young_in_Europe_today_-_digital_world (accessed 15
August 2016)
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 19:35 28 September 2017 (PT)

Fornell, C. and Cha, J. (1994), “Partial least squares”, in Bagozzi, R.P. (Ed.), Advanced
methods of marketing research, Cambridge: Blackwell, Cambridge, pp. 289–324.
Fornell, C., and Larcker, D. F. (1981), “Evaluating structural models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.18 No.1, pp.
39–50.
Fournier, S. (1998), “Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in
consumer research”, Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 343–371.
Gentile, C., Spiller, N., and Noci, G. (2007). “How to sustain the customer experience:
An overview of experience components that co-create value with the customer”.
European Management Journal, Vol. 25 No.5, pp. 395-410.
Gordon, M. E., McKeage, K. and Fox, M. A. (1998), “Relationship Marketing
Effectiveness: The Role of Involvement”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol.15 No.5, pp.
443-459
Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M., and Sarstedt, M. (2013), A Primer on Partial
Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), Sage, Thousand Oaks
Helm, S., Eggert, A., and Garnefeld, I. (2010), “Modelling the impact of corporate
reputation on customer satisfaction and loyalty using PLS”, in Vinzi, V.E., Chin,
W.W., Henseler, J., Wang, H. (Eds.), Handbook of Partial Least Squares: Concepts,
Methods and Applications (Springer Handbooks of Computational Statistics Series,
Vol. II), Springer, Heidelberg, Dordrecht, London, New York, pp. 515-534
Hennig-Thurau T., Gwinner K.P., Walsh G. and Gremler D.D. (2004), “Electronic
Word-of Mouth via Consumer-Opinion Platforms: What Motivates Consumers to
Articulate Themselves on the Internet?”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol.18
No.1, pp. 38-52.
Hollebeek, L. D., Glynn, M. S., and Brodie, R. J. (2014), “Consumer Brand
Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development and
Validation”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol.28 No.2, pp.149–165
Huber, F., Meyer, F. and Schmid, D.A. (2015), “Brand love in progress – the
interdependence of brand love antecedents in consideration of relationship duration.
Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol.24 No.6, pp. 567-579
Internet World Stats (2016), “Internet users in European Union”, available at
http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats4.htm (accessed 15 August 3016)
Ismail, A. R. and Spinelli, G. (2012), “Effects of brand love, personality and image on
word of mouth. The case of fashion brands among young consumers”, Journal of
Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol.16 No.4, pp. 386-398
 Jaakkola, E. and Alexander, M. (2014), “The role of Customer Engagement Behaviour
in Value Co-Creation: A Service System Perspective”, Journal of Service Research,
Vol.17 No.3, pp. 247-261
Jamal, A. and Goode, M.M.H. (2001), “Consumers and brands: A study of the impact of
self-image congruence on brand preference and satisfaction”, Marketing Intelligence
and Planning, Vol.19 No.7, pp. 482-492.
Johnson, M. D. and Fornell, C. (1991), “A framework for comparing customer
satisfaction across individuals and product categories”, Journal of Economic
Psychology, Vol.12 No.2, pp.267-286
Kang, Y.S., Hong, S. and Lee, H. (2009), “Exploring continued online service usage
behavior: The roles of self-image congruity and regret”, Computers in Human
Behavior, Vol.1 No.25, pp. 111–122
Kaufmann, H.R., Loureiro, S.M.C., and Manarioti, A. (2016), “Exploring behavioural
branding, brand love and co-creation”, Journal of Product and Brand Management,
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 19:35 28 September 2017 (PT)

Vol. 25 No.6 (forthcoming) doi: 10.1108/JPBM-06-2015-0919

Kelley, H. H., and Thibaut, J. W. (1978), Interpersonal relations: A theory of
interdependence. New York: Wiley
Khan, I., Rahman, Z. and Fatma, M. (2016), “The concept of online corporate brand
experience: an empirical assessment”, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 34
No. 5, pp.711 – 730
Kimmel, A.J. and Kitchen, Ph. (2014), “WOM and social media: Presaging future
directions for research and practice”, Journal of Marketing Communications, Vol.20
No.1, pp.5-20
Kleijnen, M., Ruyter, K. and Wetzels, M. (2007), “An assessment of value creation in
mobile service delivery and the moderating role of time consciousness”, Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 83 No.1, pp.33–46
Kotler, F. and Armstrong, G. (2011), Principles of Marketing, Pearson Prentice Hall,
Upper Saddle River, NJ
Kozinets, R. V., Valck, K., Wojnicki, A.C. and Wilner, S.J.S. (2010), “Networked
Narratives. Understanding Word-of-Mouth Marketing in Online Communities”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol.74 No.2, pp. 71-89
Kressmann, F., Sirgy, M. J., Herrmann, A., Huber, F., Huber, S. and Lee, D. (2006),
“Direct and indirect effects of self-image congruence on brand loyalty”. Journal of
Business Research, Vol.59 No. 9, pp. 955-964
Kumar, V. and Pansari, A. (2016), “Competitive Advantage Through Engagement”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 53 No. 4, pp. 497-514
Loureiro, S.M.C., Kaufmann, H.R., and Rabino, S. (2014), “Intentions to use and
recommend to others: an empirical study of online banking practices in Portugal and
Austria”, Online information review, Vol.38 No.2, pp.186-208.
Loureiro, S.M.C., Kaufmann, H.R., and Vrontis, D. (2012), “Brand Emotional
Connection and Loyalty”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 20 No.1, pp. 13-27.
Loureiro, S.M.C., Miranda, J.F. and Breazeale, M. (2014), “Who needs delight? The
greater impact of value, trust and satisfaction in utilitarian, frequent-use retail”,
Journal of Service Management, Vol.25 No.1, pp. 101-124
Loureiro, S. M. C. (2014), “The role of the rural tourism experience economy in place
attachment and behavioral intentions”, International Journal of Hospitality
Management, Vol. 40, pp. 1-9
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., and Podsakoff, N. P. (2011), “Construct
measurement and validity assessment in behavioral research: Integrating new and
existing techniques”, MIS Quarterly, Vol.35 No.2, pp. 293–334.
 MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., and Williams, J. (2004), “Confidence limits for
the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods”, Multivariate
Behavioral Research, Vol. 39 No.1, pp. 99–128
Malhotra, N. K. (1993), Marketing Research. An applied orientation, Prentice-Hall, Inc,
New York.
Mollen, A. and Wilson, H. (2010), “Engagement, telepresence and interactivity in
online consumer experience: Reconciling scholastic and managerial perspectives”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol.63 No.9, pp.919-925
Morgan-Thomas, A. and Veloutsou, C. (2011), “Beyond technology acceptance. Brand
relationships and online brand experience”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66
No.1, pp. 21-27
Oliver, R. L. (1999), “Whence Consumer Loyalty?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol.63
No.4, pp. 33-44
Palmatier, R.W., Dant, R.P., Grewal, D., Evans, K.R. (2006), “Factors Influencing the
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 19:35 28 September 2017 (PT)

Effectiveness of Relationship Marketing: A Meta-Analysis”, Journal of Marketing,

Vol. 70 No. 4, pp. 136-153
Pansari, A. and Kumar, V. (2016), “Customer engagement: the construct, antecedents,
and consequences”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, online on 11
June, 2016
Rappaport, S. D. (2007), “Lessons from Online Practice: New Advertising Models”,
Journal of Advertising Research, Vol.47 No.2, pp.135-141
Robert, N., and Thatcher, J. (2009), “Conceptualizing and testing formative constructs:
Tutorial and annotated example”, Database for Advances in. Information Systems,
Vol.40 No.3, pp. 9–39
Sirgy, M. J. (1982), “Self-Concept in Consumer Behavior: A Critical Review”, Journal
of Consumer Research, Vol. 9 No.3, pp. 287-300
Sprott, D., Czellar, S. and Spangenberg, E. (2009), “The Importance of a General
Measure of Brand Engagement on Market Behavior: Development and Validation of
Scale”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.46 No.1, pp. 92-104
Tenenhaus, M., Vinzi, V. E., Chatelin, Y.-M., and Lauro, C. (2005), “PLS path
modeling”, Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Vol.48 No.1, pp. 159–205.
Van Doorn, J., Lemon, K. N., Mittal, V., Nass, S., Pick, D., Pirner, P., and Verhoef, P.
C. (2010), Customer Engagement Behavior: Theoretical Foundations and Research
Directions”, Journal of Service Research, Vol.13 No.3, pp. 253-266
Vivek, S.D., Beatty, S.E., and Morgan, R.M. (2012), “Customer Engagement:
Exploring Customer Relationships Beyond Purchase”, Journal of Marketing Theory
and Practice, Vol.20 No.2, pp. 127-145
Wallace, E., Buil, I. and Chernatony, L. (2014), “Consumer engagement with self-
expressive brands: brand love and WOM outcomes”, Journal of Product and Brand
Management, Vol.23 No.1, pp. 33-42
Wetzels, M., Odekerken-Schroöder, G., and van Oppen, C. (2009), “Using PLS path
modeling for assessing hierarchical construct models: Guidelines and empirical
illustration”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 33 No.1, pp.177–195
Williams, J., and MacKinnon, D. P. (2008), “Resampling and distribution of the product
methods for testing indirect effects in complex models”, Structural Equation
Modeling, Vol. 15 No.1, pp. 23–51
Zaichkowsky, J.L. (1985), “Measuring the Involvement Construct”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol.12 No.3, pp.341-352
 Table 1. Engagement concepts

Author Definition/concept Engagement Online Dimensions

object scope
Algesheimer “Community engagement refers to the Brand ✗ 1 Dimension:
et al. (2005) positive influences of identifying with the community Behavioral
p. 21 brand community, which are defined as the
consumer’s intrinsic motivation to interact
and cooperate with community members”
Rappaport “The Engagement model centers on two key Brand ✗ 2 Dimensions:
(2007) ideas: high relevance of brands to consumers Cognitive
p. 138 and the development of an emotional Emotional
connection between consumers and brands”
Sprott et al. Brand engagement in self-concept is an “(...) Brand ✗ 1 Dimensions:
(2009) individual difference representing Cognitive
p. 92 consumers’ propensity to include important
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 19:35 28 September 2017 (PT)

brands as part of how they view themselves”

Bowden “(…) a psychological process that models Brand ✗ 3 Dimensions:

(2009) the underlying mechanisms by which Affective commitment
p. 65 customer loyalty forms for new customers of Cognitive commitment
a service brand as well as the mechanism by Involvement
which loyalty be maintained for repeat
purchase customers of a service brand”
Calder et al. a “consumer´s belief about how a site fits Website ✔ 8Dimensions:
(2009) into his/her life” and the resulting Stimulation and
p. 322 engagement with the website is a collection inspiration,
of such experiences” Social facilitation,
Temporal,
Self-esteem and civic
mindedness, Intrinsic
enjoyment, Utilitarian;
Participation and
socializing, Community
Van Doorn et “the customers’ behavioral manifestation Brand/Firm ✗ 5 Dimensions:
al. (2010) p. toward a brand or firm, beyond purchase, Valence, Form/modality,
253 resulting from motivational drivers” Scope, Nature of impact,
Customer goals
Mollen and a “cognitive and affective commitment to an Website ✔ 3 Dimensions:
Wilson (2010) active relationship with the brand as Active sustained
p. p. 923 personified by the website or other computer- processing, Experiential
mediated entities designed to communicate value, Instrumental value.
brand value”
Kumar et al. “(...) Such active interactions of a customer Firm ✗ 3 Dimensions:
(2010) with a firm, with prospects and with other Behavioral
p. 297 customers, whether they are transactional or Attitudinal
non-transactional in nature, can be defined as Network
«Customer Engagement»”
Brodie et al. “Customer engagement (CE) is a Brand ✗ 3 Dimensions:
(2011) psychological state that occurs by virtue of Cognitive
p. 260 interactive, cocreative customer experiences Emotional
with a focal agent/object (e.g., a brand) in Behavioral
focal service relationships. It occurs under a
specific set of context dependent conditions
generating differing CE levels; and exists as
a dynamic, iterative process within service
relationships that cocreate value. (…) It is a
multidimensional concept subject to a
context- and/or stakeholder-specific
expression of relevant cognitive, emotional
and/or behavioral dimensions”
Brodie “Consumer engagement is a Brand/ ✗ 3 Dimensions:
et al. (2013) multidimensional concept comprising Community Cognitive
p. 107 cognitive, emotional, and/or behavioral members Emotional
dimensions, and plays a central role in the Behavioral
process of relational exchange where other
relational concepts are engagement
 antecedents and/or consequences in iterative
engagement processes within the brand
community”
Hollebeek et Engagement is: “(…) a consumer´s positively Brand ✔ 3 Dimensions:
al. valenced brand-related cognitive, emotional Cognitive
(2014) and behavioural activity during or related to Behavioral
p. 154 focal consumer/brand interactions” Emotional
Jaakkola and Customer engagement behaviour is defined Brand/Firm ✗ 1 Dimension:
Alexander as: “Customers (who) make voluntary Behavioral
(2014) resource contributions that have a brand or
p. 2 firm focus but go beyond what is
fundamental to transactions, occur in
interactions between the focal object and/or
other actors, and result from motivational
drivers”
Dessart “(…) Engagement is expressed through Brand, ✗ 3 Dimensions:
et al. (2015) varying levels of affective, cognitive, and Community, Affective
p. 409 behavioural manifestations that go beyond Individuals, Cognitive
exchange situations” Advertisers, Behavioral
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 19:35 28 September 2017 (PT)

Social
network
Baldus et al. “Online brand community engagement is the Brand ✔ 11Dimensions:
(2015) p. 979 compelling, intrinsic motivations to continue community Brand influence, Brand
interacting with an online brand community” passion, Connection,
Helping, Like-minded
Discussion, Rewards
(hedonic), Rewards
(utilitarian), Seeking
Assistance, self-
expression, Up-to-date
Information, Validation
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 19:35 28 September 2017 (PT)

Figure 1. Proposed model

 Table 2. Measurement results

Item Item loading LV AVE Composite Cronbach’s

Mean range mean Reliability Alpha
(SD) (reflective
Construct measure)
0.707-0.849
Brand Involvement 4.8 0.643 0.899 0.860
This brand means a lot to me 4.4
(1.37) 0.849
This brand is significant for me 5.1
(1.27) 0.801
I consider this brand to be a relevant part of 4.2
my life (1.62) 0.822
For me personally, this brand is important 5.2
(1.26) 0.840
I am interested in this specific brand 6.1
(0.78) 0.707
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 19:35 28 September 2017 (PT)

I am involved with this brand 4.9

(1,49)
0.831-0.860
OBE Affective 4.8 0.722 0.886 0.808
This brand is an emotional brand 5.1 0.852
(1.64)
This brand induces feelings and sentiments 4.8 0.860
(1.39)
I do not have strong emotions for this brand 4.6 0.831
(r) (1.51)
0.773-0905
OBE Behavior 4.3 0.720 0.885 0.805
This brand encourages me to engage in 0.774
physical activities (e.g. booking a holiday,
buy the product) 4.7
(1.68)
Following this brand results in physical 4.0 0.905
experiences (e.g. doing sports, use make-up) (1.39)
This brand does not encourage me to engage 4.1 0.862
in physical behaviors (r) (1.72)
0.834-0.869
OBE Intellectual 5.1 0.726 0.841 0.623
This brand animates me to think about it and 5.2 0.834
its message (1.25)
Experiencing this brand stimulates my 5.0 0.869
curiosity (1.37)
I am not motivated to think about this brand 5.1 A 0.845
(r) (1.42)
0.708-0.887
Self-brand Image Congruency 4.4 0.650 0.902 0.864
This brand is a lot like me 4.3 0.887
(1.37)
This brand reflects what I am 4.6 0.763
(1.27)
This brand is exactly how I see myself 4.2 0.814
(1.39)
This brand image corresponds to my self- 4.7 0.847
image in many respects (1.29)
Through this brand, I can express what I 4.2
find important in life (1.68)
0.771-0.893
OCBE Activation 3.3 0.715 0.882 0.798
I spend a lot of time interacting with this 4.2 0.771
brand, compared to any other brand (1.74)
Whenever I am online on Facebook, I 3.0 0.893
usually look for that brand (1.50)
I usually interact with this brand, when I log 3.0 0.868
in to Facebook (1.55)
0.740-0.846
OCBE Affection 4.4 0.635 0.874 0.806
I feel very positive when I am interacting 5.1 0.751
with this brand (1.32)
 Following this brand´s Facebook account 4.3 0.846
makes me happy (1.45)
I feel good when I am interacting with this 4.6 0.844
brand (1.31)
Interacting with this brand makes me feel 3.3 0.740
proud (1.64)
0.790-0.813
OCBE Cognitive 5.1 0.643 0.844 0.723
When I see the brand´s social media 5.5 0.790
activities I get to think about it (1.02)
While I am interacting with the brand on 4.9 0.813
Facebook, I think a lot about this brand (1.40)
When I am interacting with this brand, I 4.6 0.802
want to learn more about it (1.44)
0.772-0.908
Satisfaction 4.9 4.9 0.732 0.891 0.825
I am satisfied with the social media 5.4 0.772
appearance of this brand (1.43)
I think the Facebook profile of this brand is 4.6 0.881
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 19:35 28 September 2017 (PT)

one of the best compared to others (1.48)

Overall, this brand offers a great possibility 4.7 0.908
to interact with it on Facebook (1.44)
0.707-0.756
Brand Love 4.8 0.517 0.842 0.766
This brand says something true and deep 3.9 0.708
about who I am as person (1,47)

I feel myself desiring this brand 4.8 0.707

(1.32)

I feel emotionally connected to this brand 5.3 0.744

(1.07)

I will be following for a long time this 5.3 0.709

brand on Facebook (1.08)

If this brand would delete its Facebook 3.7 0.707

account, I will feel anxiety about it (1.70)

My overall evaluation toward this brand is 5.8 0.756

positive (0.92)

0.813-0.866
Positive e-wom 5.2 0.700 0.903 0.857
I encourage friends and my family to buy 5.1
this brand (1.41) 0.866
Whenever someone seeks advice, I would 5.2
recommend this brand (1.26) 0.813
When the brand is mentioned in a
5.3
conversation (online and/or offline), I
(1.20)
would recommend it 0.833
I have already recommended this brand
5.4
(online and/or offline) to my friends and
(1.48)
family 0.834
Second-order formative First-order constructs/ Weight
Constructs Dimensions t-value VIF
0.536*** 1.519
Affective 10.097
Online brand experience (OBE) 0.403*** 1.120
Behavior 5.724
0.353*** 1.541
Intellectual 9.611
0.861***
Activation 11.233 1.997
Online Consumer brand engagement 0.468***
Affection 17.140 2.061
(OCBE)
0.222***
Cognitive 13.020 1.788
Note: ***p<0.001; SD-Standard Deviation
 Table 3. Discriminant validity

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
½
AVE 0.80 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.81 0.85 0.80 0.80 0.86 0.72 0.84
1.Brand Involvement 1.00
2. OBE Affective 0.64 1.00
3. OBE Behavior 0.31 0.28 1.00
4. OBE Intellectual 0.47 0.58 0.31 1.00
5. Self-brand Image
0.57 0.41 0.43 0.41 1.00
Congruency
6. OCBE Activation 0.50 0.43 0.34 0.44 0.44 1.00
7. OCBE Affection 0.47 0.42 0.30 0.47 0.47 0.66 1.00
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 19:35 28 September 2017 (PT)

8. OCBE Cognitive 0.41 0.41 0.23 0.54 0.35 0.59 0.61 1.00
9.Satisfaction 0.24 0.25 0.02 0.22 0.12 0.25 0.25 0.28 1.00
10.Brand Love 0.57 0.56 0.34 0.46 0.50 0.44 0.56 0.46 0.27 1.00
11.Positive e-wom 0.56 0.36 0.27 0.27 0.42 0.32 0.39 0.31 0.18 0.53 1.00
Correlation between first- and second-order constructs
Affective Behavior Intellectual
Online brand experience
(OBE) 0.85 0.66 0.79
Activation Affection Cognitive
Online Consumer brand
engagement (OCBE) 0.86 0.90 0.82
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 19:35 28 September 2017 (PT)

Figure 2. Structural results

 Table 4. Mediating analysis
Path Total Direct Indirect VAF Point estimate Percentile Test result
effect effect effect [product of bootstrap 95%
coefficie Coefficient (t-value) direct confidence
nt (t-value) coefficients] interval
(t-value) Lower Upper
OCBE→ Positive e- 0.400*** 0.400*** - - 0.400*** 0.394 0.406 -
wom (5.84) (5.84)
(without mediator)
Satisfaction as a mediator

OCBE→ Positive 0.400*** 0.380*** 0.020ns 5% 0.020ns 0.017 0.023 No

e.wom (6.42) (5.50) (0.82) [0.296x0.067] mediating
effect
OCBE→ Satisfaction 0.296*** 0.296*** - -
(4.13) (4.12)
Satisfaction→ Positive 0.067 0.067 - -
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 19:35 28 September 2017 (PT)

e-wom (0.93) (0.93)

Brand love as a mediator

OCBE→ Positive e- 0.401*** 0.000ns 0.401*** 100% 0.401*** 0.392 0.410 Total
wom (5.86) (0.00) (5.86) [0.647x0.620] mediation
H8:
supported
OCBE→ Brans love 0.647*** 0.647*** - -
(12.22) (12.22)

Brand love→ Positive 0.620*** 0.620*** - -

e-wom (6.99) (6.99)
Note: OCBE-Online Consumer Brand Engagement; ns-not significant; *p<0.10; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001;
VAF = variance accounted for