Journal of Family Business Strategy 10 (2019) 28–37

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Family Business Strategy

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jfbs

How promoting a family firm image affects customer perception in the age T
of social media
Johanna Zanona, , Ursula Scholl-Grissemannb, Andreas Kallmuenzera, Nikolas Kleinhansla,
⁎

Mike Petersa
a
Department for Strategic Management, Marketing and Tourism, University of Innsbruck, Karl-Rahner-Platz 3, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria
b
Service Marketing & Consumer Behavior, Privatuniversität Schloss Seeburg, Seeburgstraße 8, 5201, Seekirchen am Wallersee, Austria

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: The marketing-related behavior of family firms has recently gained scientific attention, as family firms in-
Family firm creasingly use visual and textual cues such as the name, pictures of the owning family, or the owning family’s
Consumer behavior values to communicate their family firm image via multiple marketing channels. Despite the relevance of online
Marketing marketing in a digitalized and increasingly transparent world, a deeper investigation of how the promotion of a
Communication
family firm image online influences consumers’ social media engagement is absent in the current literature. This
Social media engagement
study employs a Social Identity Theory perspective and uses an online experiment to assess if family firm image
Social identity theory
promotion leads to increased social media engagement by customers. The results show that family firm image
promotion specifically increases perceived brand authenticity. This in turn is associated with a higher level of
customer-company-identification, which eventually translates into increased intention to engage in social media.
The direct effect of family firm image promotion on perceived brand authenticity underpins the notion that
family firms can leverage a strategic competitive advantage if they communicate their familial nature to external
audiences through online channels.

1. Introduction
A large number of family firms worldwide explicitly communicate their
family status to stakeholders. Prominent examples include US-based com-
panies such as Dell Inc. and Ford Motor Company, or German companies
such as Hipp and Warsteiner. These family firms capitalize on their unique
family firm identity, an inimitable asset of family firms (Craig, Dibrell, &
Davis, 2008; Sundaramurthy & Kreiner, 2008; Zellweger, Kellermanns,
Eddleston, & Memili, 2012), to develop and maintain a positive corporate
reputation, which often results in trust-filled, long-term stakeholder re-
lationships (Carrigan & Buckley, 2008; Deephouse & Jaskiewicz, 2013;
Gallucci, Santulli, & Calabrò, 2015; Zellweger et al., 2012). Communicating
the familial status and their unique identity projects an image to stake-
holders outside the firm (Binz Astrachan, Botero, Astrachan, & Prügl, 2018).
This family firm image, i.e., “the degree to which consumers perceive a
company to be a family firm” (Beck & Kenning, 2015, p. 1128), precedes
the reputation consumers form about a family firm (Binz Astrachan et al.,
2018). Existing research shows that a family firm image, in most cases,
positively affects the consumers’ perceptions of the company (Beck, 2016;
Miller, Le Breton-Miller, Minichilli, Corbetta, & Pittino, 2014).
Research suggests that a distinct family firm image leads to an in-
creased consumer-company identification (CCI) with family firms
(Beck, 2016). A family firm’s longevity, familial values and relational
qualities influence consumers’ perceptions of authenticity, trust-
worthiness and costumer-orientation (Carrigan & Buckley, 2008;
Sageder, Duller, & Mitter, 2015). These perceptions are likely to overlap
with the customers’ individual values, creating a sense of identification
with the firm (Binz, Hair, Pieper, & Baldauf, 2013; Bhattacharya & Sen,
2003; Martínez & Rodríguez del Bosque, 2013), which has been shown
to lead to increased attachment to the company and loyalty
(Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003; Scott & Lane, 2000), favorable buying be-
havior, and recommendations to others (Ahearne, Bhattacharya, &
Gruen, 2005). While these findings highlight the positive effect of fa-
mily firm image promotion on various customer-related outcomes, it
remains unclear how a distinct family firm image affects consumers’
perceptions and intentions in the digital context, namely their social
media engagement. Given the importance of online channels in a
company’s marketing mix today, the online presentation of the family
firm has become a crucial component to project a distinct family firm
image to external audiences (Botero, Thomas, Graves, & Fediuk, 2013;

Corresponding author.
⁎

E-mail addresses: Johanna.zanon@uibk.ac.at (J. Zanon), Ursula.Scholl-Grissemann@uni-seeburg.at (U. Scholl-Grissemann),

Andreas.kallmuenzer@uibk.ac.at (A. Kallmuenzer), n.kleinhansl@yahoo.com (N. Kleinhansl), Mike.peters@uibk.ac.at (M. Peters).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2019.01.007

Available online 07 February 2019

1877-8585/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J. Zanon et al.
Micelotta & Raynard, 2011). Social media in particular has become an
increasingly popular platform for communicating and creating relevant
“touchpoints” with customers (Murdough, 2009; Verhagen, Boter, &
Adelaar, 2010). However, for this interaction to have a meaningful
positive outcome, family firms need to be perceived as authentic. Only
if they are able to create an authentic online image of themselves will
they be able to leverage additional advantages, allowing followers to
connect with more than just a material brand; they allow them to
connect with the owning family.
The effects of communicating the family’s involvement in a firm,
and how a distinct family firm image might influence the perceptions of
consumers and other stakeholders have garnered increasing attention in
academic research (e.g., Binz Astrachan & Astrachan, 2015; Lude &
Prügl, 2016; Sageder, Mitter, & Feldbauer‐Durstmüller, 2018). This
research demonstrates that the communication of the family status to
external stakeholders may serve as an additional strategic tool for fa-
mily firms to outperform non-family firms (Beck, 2016; Craig et al.,
2008; Presas, Guia, & Muñoz, 2014), by exploring the effects that
customers’ perceptions have on their intentions to engage through a
family firm’s social media channels.
We use Social Identity Theory (Tajfel, 1978) as a theoretical lens to
describe the identification of consumers with family firms. Combining
family firm, marketing and consumer behavior research, this study of-
fers a novel approach towards understanding the role of brand au-
thenticity, CCI and social identity in family firms through an analysis of
family firm image promotion online. We adopt an experimental ap-
proach to assess whether and how the online family firm image pro-
motion affects consumers’ intent to engage in social media activities.
Using family firm websites that were specifically created for this pur-
pose, we retrieved data from 121 respondents via a German online
panel from February to March 2018.
In the following sections, relevant literature is reviewed to explain
and conceptualize the core constructs of our framework, and to develop
hypotheses. This is followed by the description of our methodology and
results. The discussion and conclusion sections round off our study.
2. Theoretical background
2.1. Family firm image promotion
With the owning family being an integral part of the firm, family
dynamics influence the firm’s ownership and business structures dis-
tinctively (Berrone, Cruz, & Gomez-Mejia, 2012; Deephouse &
Jaskiewicz, 2013). Family involvement creates an identity which is
unique to family firms, differentiating them from their non-family
counterparts (Berrone et al., 2012; Craig et al., 2008; Zellweger,
Eddleston, & Kellermanns, 2010). This family-based identity forms the
basis of the corporate family firm image (Dyer & Whetten, 2006;
Zellweger et al., 2010), which represents the external manifestation of
the firm’s internal beliefs and dynamics (Binz Astrachan et al., 2018;
Botero et al., 2013). The sender-based corporate family firm image
reflects the sum of what the family firm wants to project to external
audiences or, in other words, how the firm wants to be perceived by its
diverse constituencies (Binz Astrachan et al., 2018; Brown, 2006). The
more distinct the image, the easier it is for consumers to experience the
uniqueness, inimitability, and authenticity of family firms (Lu, Gursoy,
& Lu, 2015), facilitating the differentiation of family firms in the
marketplace (Binz Astrachan et al., 2018).
Prior research indicates that communicating the family’s status,
history and values – i.e., the family identity – to external stakeholders
(e.g., consumers) might be a way to leverage the firm image into a
unique competitive advantage for family firms (Craig et al., 2008;
Gallucci et al., 2015; Presas et al., 2014). Using the family name as the
company name and communicating the family status using different
formats (e.g., textual, visual) and channels (e.g., firm website, adver-
tisements, and PR) could be helpful in differentiating family firms from
29
Journal of Family Business Strategy 10 (2019) 28–37
competitors (Deephouse & Jaskiewicz, 2013), and may positively affect
stakeholders’ perceptions of the company (Beck, 2016; Botero et al.,
2013; Gallucci et al., 2015; Zellweger et al., 2010).
While family firms are generally assumed to be particularly con-
cerned with protecting the reputation of the family and the business
(Dyer & Whetten, 2006), this desire is heightened when the family
nature of the business is promoted - and even more so, if the business
carries the name of the owning family (Binz Astrachan, 2014; Binz
Astrachan et al., 2018; Orth & Green, 2009). Prior research has found
that family-named companies place greater emphasis on customer and
quality orientation, as well as sustainability, which may lead to in-
creased sales and growth performance (Craig et al., 2008; Kashmiri &
Mahajan, 2010). At the same time, there may be constraints hindering
family firms from leveraging their status (Binz Astrachan & Botero,
2017). Becoming public and transparent as a family can affect the
vulnerability of the family and its members. In particular, damage to
the firm’s image could also impact the family itself and vice versa (Binz
Astrachan & Botero, 2017; Kashmiri & Mahajan, 2010).
As a firm’s online presence is becoming a necessary tool in the
marketing communication mix, family firms are increasingly promoting
their unique family status through new media (Botero et al., 2013). The
internet offers a variety of opportunities to convey a family firm image
to external audiences (i.e., firm website, social media, online adver-
tising), while simultaneously enabling consumers to become more in-
formed about firms (Botero et al., 2013; Micelotta & Raynard, 2011).
Although family firms often focus on more traditional communication
channels (Verhagen et al., 2010), social media has become a vital
platform for spreading information to a large audience, managing
consumer relationships and sales promotions, and even conducting
target audience research (Ashley & Tuten, 2015; Murdough, 2009).
Social media allows for a two-way interaction between companies and
consumers by generating, sharing, liking or commenting company or
user generated content (Verhagen et al., 2010). Hence, social media can
play a critical role in evoking and influencing stakeholders’ perceptions
about family firms (Laroche, Yang, McDougall, & Bergeron, 2005).
2.2. Consumers’ perception of family firms’ brand authenticity
Today's consumers like to be knowledgeable, and they tend to in-
form themselves largely through the internet (Eggers, O’Dwyer, Kraus,
Vallaster, & Güldenberg, 2013). In a crowded marketplace, consumers
are increasingly interested in a firm's background and its image
(Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003; Gallucci et al., 2015). They seek to engage
with companies that are trustworthy, authentic, and sincere, as they
make their way through endless streams of information from various
sources (Holt, 2002; Moulard, Raggio, & Folse, 2016). In this context,
brand authenticity is an important means of differentiation (Fritz,
Schoenmueller, & Bruhn, 2017; Moulard et al., 2016).
Brand authenticity, defined as a brand (or company) that is per-
ceived as faithful, credible, honest, and not superficial to itself and/or
consumers (Eggers et al., 2013; Morhart, Malär, Guèvremont, Girardin,
& Grohmann, 2015), increases consumers’ engagement with a firm
(Garry, Gupta, Melewar, & Bourlakis, 2010; Moulard et al., 2016). A
high level of brand authenticity – which is often linked to a firm’s
heritage and tradition, a characteristic common to family firms – fa-
cilitates building and maintaining an image of trustworthiness and
credibility (Carrigan & Buckley, 2008; Gallucci et al., 2015; Krappe,
Goutas, & Schlippe, 2011; Presas et al., 2014; Sageder et al., 2018).
Family firms are generally perceived as trustworthy and consumer-
oriented (Cooper, Upton, & Seaman, 2005; Craig et al., 2008; Orth &
Green, 2009; Sageder et al., 2015), social and fair (Gallucci et al., 2015;
Krappe, Goutas, & von Schlippe, 2011), as well as authentic (Carrigan &
Buckley, 2008; Presas et al., 2014) and reliable firms to purchase from
(Beck, 2016; Krappe et al., 2011). They are also considered traditional
and even old-fashioned (Sageder et al., 2015). This multitude of –
partially even conflicting - associations allows family firms to evoke an
J. Zanon et al.
authentic image (Binz Astrachan & Astrachan, 2015). What is naturally
extended to family firms is difficult to achieve for non-family firms,
which might explain why family firms can benefit from promoting an
authentic family firm image to stakeholders. Thus, in alignment with
prior research (e.g., Carrigan & Buckley, 2008; Presas et al., 2014), we
hypothesize that family firms that promote their family firm image are
likely to be perceived as more authentic when compared to non-family
firms, and family firms that do not promote the family nature of their
firm. Based on this, the following hypothesis is advanced:
H1. Family firm image promotion is positively related to perceived
brand authenticity.
2.3. Consumers’ identification with family firms
Previous studies in the marketing field have found a positive relation-
ship between perceived brand authenticity and consumer-company-identi-
fication (CCI) (Fritz et al., 2017; Morhart et al., 2015). Research on CCI,
however, is sparse in the context of family firms (Beck, 2016). However,
since family firms often focus on building strong social ties and close re-
lationships with stakeholders and consumers in particular (Dyer & Whetten,
2006), it seems likely that they can more easily achieve higher degrees of
CCI. It might also be that consumers can identify with family firms more
easily due the connection with a family, but also the relational qualities
often associated with this type of firm (Beck, 2016; Binz et al., 2013;
Gallucci et al., 2015; Presas et al., 2014). This higher level of identification
likely increases customer’s intention to engage in long-term relationships,
which will positively affect their loyalty, purchase frequency, and word-of-
mouth (Beck, 2016; Binz et al., 2013; Lude & Prügl, 2016; Sageder et al.,
2015). Social Identity Theory (Tajfel, 1978) provides a useful lens to explain
identification effects within family firms and to understand unique family
firm dynamics (Deephouse & Jaskiewicz, 2013; Waldkirch et al., 2015;
Zellweger et al., 2010), but also to explain consumer-company-relation-
ships, and consumers’ motivation to identify with a company (Ahearne
et al., 2005; Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003).
Firms are key components of a person’s social identity (Tajfel &
Turner, 1979), as individuals tend to extend beyond their social identity
to express who they are (Kreiner & Ashforth, 2004). The connection
with a social group or organization allows individuals to further define
their self-concept and helps them – through feeling connected – to
differentiate the firm from others (Kim, Han, & Park, 2001). If a firm’s
identity is perceived as attractive, authentic, and overlapping with
personal values (Ahearne et al., 2005), individuals will identify with the
firm, even if they are not a formal member (Scott & Lane, 2000). Once
an individual identifies with a company, purchasing from it is a form of
self-expression (Ahearne et al., 2005; Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003) and
the company and its products becomes a part of the individual’s identity
(Scott & Lane, 2000). Additionally, the more distinctive and unique the
firm’s identity appears to the individual, the stronger the connection is
to this company (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003; Whetten et al., 2014). CCI,
defined as the extent to which consumers perceive themselves as
sharing the same values as the company (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003),
satisfies self-identity needs and serves as a motivator to purchase from
the firm (Homburg, Wieseke, & Hoyer, 2009). This kind of deep con-
nection to a firm is what marketers seek to achieve with their con-
sumers (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003).
Taking into consideration the purpose of this study, and based on
prior research, we argue that the familial values and relational qualities
of family firms overlap with consumers’ individual values and create a
sense of connection to the firm (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003; Martínez &
Rodríguez del Bosque, 2013). Because family firms are shown to evoke
positive associations and a sense of authenticity, they are likely to
project a meaningful image which helps to satisfy consumers’ self-de-
finitional needs, resulting in the strong connection reported by earlier
studies (e.g., Sageder et al., 2015). Here it can be assumed that the
perceived authenticity of the family firm increases the feeling of CCI.
30
Journal of Family Business Strategy 10 (2019) 28–37
H2. Perceived brand authenticity of family firms is positively related to
consumer-company identification.
2.4. Consumers’ family firm identification and its effect on social media
engagement
Given today’s technology-laden world, it is likely that consumers will
express the feeling of identification with a firm by engaging in online
channels such as social media (Chu & Kim, 2015; Wind & Mahajan, 2002).
Social media allows consumers to participate in user and brand-generated
content across networks (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010), facilitating online
word-of-mouth between people (Chu & Kim, 2015). For both consumers
and companies, social media has become a vital component that establishes
strong relationships and is increasingly integrated into promotional efforts
(Mangold & Faulds, 2009). Advertising on social media sites such as Face-
book, Twitter, LinkedIn and Instagram allows firms to promote consumers’
social media engagement by commenting, liking or sharing company-re-
lated content (Chu & Kim, 2015). While firms heavily invest in the acqui-
sition of new followers and fans on social media platforms, studies revealed
that only a fraction of all fans or followers actually engage with a firm via
social media (Lee, Hosanagar, & Nair, 2014). Almost half of social media
users remain relatively passive when following a brand’s social media site;
actively creating content remains rare (Zhang, Guo, Hu, & Liu, 2017). Re-
search on social media engagement has found that posts’ credibility and
interestingness (Yu & Zou, 2015), as well as the persuasiveness of the
content (Lee et al., 2014) have a positive impact on users’ engagement.
Through the social identity lens, social media is seen as fulfilling social
needs of individuals (Wind & Mahajan, 2002). Social identity aspects affect
individuals’ intention to engage (Okazaki, 2015; Song & Kim, 2006) in
online channels as it allows extension and enhancement of their self-esteem
(Boyd & Ellison, 2007). It has also been found that acceptance and approval
(Bagozzi & Lee, 2002; Dholakia, Bagozzi, & Pearo, 2004), as well as per-
ceived sense of closeness to a company drives social media engagement
(Chu & Kim, 2015). The closer the consumer feels to the source company,
and the greater the sense of overlap is between the companies and in-
dividual values, the more likely an individual interacts and shares in-
formation provided by that source (Chu & Kim, 2015). Furthermore, con-
sumers that engage with brands tend to trust these more and become even
more committed to them, resulting in higher satisfaction and loyalty
(Brodie, Ilic, Juric, & Hollebeek, 2013). As literature suggests a positive
influence of CCI on word-of-mouth (Ahearne et al., 2005; Bhattacharya &
Sen, 2003), it can be expected that consumers who strongly identify with
family firms are also more prone to spread and share their favorable im-
pression via social media. Therefore, this study proposes that family firm
image promotion translates into increased intended social media engage-
ment via perceived brand authenticity and CCI, formulating the following
hypotheses (Fig. 1):
H3. Consumer-company identification is positively related to intended
social media engagement.
H4. Family firm image promotion is positively related to intended
social media engagement.
H5. Perceived brand authenticity and consumer-company identification
mediate the effect between family firm image promotion and intended
social media engagement.
3. Empirical study
3.1. Overview
We conducted an experimental study using a scenario technique to
investigate the effect of family firm image promotion (promoted vs. not-
promoted) on consumers’ social media engagement. The unique
strength of experiments is that they describe the consequences
J. Zanon et al.
Fig. 2. Manipulated website for FFI_promoted condition.
attributable to varying a treatment (i.e., a presumed cause) and estab-
lish causation between the chosen variables (Shadish, Cook, &
Campbell, 2001). A causal effect is established when variation in the
cause is related to variations in the effect (Shadish et al., 2001). The
objective of the study was to investigate the process of how a distinct
family firm image affects the intention of customers to engage in social
media. Based on prior research, we specifically predicted that pro-
moting (vs. not-promoting) a family firm image increases perceived
brand authenticity, which leads to higher levels of consumer identifi-
cation with the company, ultimately translating into increased intended
to engage in social media (i.e., Family Firm Image (FFI) →Perceived
Brand Authenticity (BA) →Consumer-Company Identification (CCI) →
Social Media Engagement (SE)). We conducted a serial mediation
analysis to test this proposed chain of relationships, and to establish
causality, we manipulated family firm image (promoted vs. not-pro-
moted) to observe whether different effects occurred for the two
treatments.
3.2. Stimuli, design and procedure
We conducted an experimental study using a one-factorial (FFI pro-
moted vs. not-promoted) between-subjects design. To manipulate the ex-
perimental conditions, we created fictitious screenshots of bakery websites
as a representation of a traditional family-owned small and medium-sized
enterprise (SME) and manipulated family firm image promotion. In the
FFI_promoted condition, the website showed a quote from the bakery owners
stating, “Our family-run bakery constantly cares about the well-being of our
customers” (Fig. 2). In the FFI_not-promoted condition (i.e. the control
group), no reference to the family was provided (Fig. 3). With the exception
of the manipulation of the text, the websites were identical.
31
Journal of Family Business Strategy 10 (2019) 28–37
Fig. 1. Conceptual Framework.
We recruited German respondents via the online panel Clickworker1
(n = 121, Mean age = 40, male = 62, female = 59). Participants were
randomly assigned to one of the two conditions. We advised partici-
pants to imagine that they observed the respective website while
searching the internet for a local bakery. After processing the respective
screenshot of the website, the participants rated several statements
from 1 (totally disagree) to 7 (totally agree). In line with the re-
commendations of Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, and Podsakoff (2003),
we randomized items within the questionnaire to avoid common
method bias. Additionally, the sequence of the items was intentionally
designed to be opposite to the causal direction of the hypotheses in
order to minimize any possible demand effects. The survey concluded
with demographic questions (i.e., age, sex, nationality).
3.3. Measures
The measures for each construct were selected from existing scales and
adapted to fit our study context. The response scale used was a seven-point
Likert type scale (from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). Brand
authenticity was measured using five items from Morhart et al. (2015).
Consumer-company identification was measured using three items derived
from Bhattacharya and Sen (2003). Social media engagement was measured
using six items from Schivinski, Christodoulides, and Dabrowski (2016). We
further controlled for participants’ attitudes towards the website (Sundar &
Kalyanaraman, 2004) and the general importance of family firms to them
(Craig et al., 2008). Items can be seen in Table 1.
1
Clickworker is an online platform where thousands of people across Europe
are registered to take part in surveys for monetary compensation.
J. Zanon et al. Journal of Family Business Strategy 10 (2019) 28–37

Fig. 3. Manipulated website for FFI_not-promoted condition.

4. Results
Table 1
Reliability and Validity Measures. 4.1. Construct validity and reliability
Constructs and Items CR CFA
We conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to assess the re-
Manipulation Check .93 liability and validity of the measures. All items loaded highly and sig-
MC- Family Firm Image
nificantly on the proposed constructs, indicating high convergent validity
For me, this business is a family firm. .863
The business communicates to its customers that it is a family firm. .838
and reliability (factor loadings ≥ 0.86, average variance extracted (AVE)
This business takes great care that the family business’s reputation .943 ≥ .53, composite reliability (CR) ≥ .71; all clearly above the threshold
is very good. values discussed in the literature) (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, &
This business takes great care to always market the family business .912 Tatham, 2006). CFA results show overall goodness of fit for the mea-
as such.
surement model: the chi-square χ2(384) = 1918.32, p < 0.01, with χ2/
Mediators
Perceived Brand Authenticity .91 df = 4.01 (which is within the acceptable range of 2 and 5; (Marsh &
This business would accomplish its value promise. .842 Hocevar, 1985), comparative fit index (CFI) / Tucker–Lewis index (TLI)
This business reflects important values people care about. .814 ≥ 0.90, standardized root mean square residual SRMR ≤ .50). To ex-
This business would be honest. .861
amine the discriminant validity of the constructs, we compared the
This business would give back to its customers. .881
Consumer-Company Identification .83
squared construct correlations with the AVE values. Discriminant validity
I would tell others that I am a proud customer of this business. .824 exists if the AVE value is greater than a construct’s squared correlations
I would feel good to be a customer of this business. .865 with any other constructs (Fornell & Larcker, 1981); we affirmed this
This business fits me well. .83 status for all of our study constructs. For further analyses, we combined
Dependent Variable .97
the items for each construct by calculating mean scores. Table 1 reports
Social Media Engagement
I would comment on videos from this bakery on social media sites. .993 the psychometric properties of the constructs. Table 2 reports their cor-
I would comments on posts from this bakery on social media sites. .97 relations and the AVE values. In sum, the constructs used in the study
I would comment on pictures from this bakery on social media .892 demonstrate adequate reliability and validity.
sites.
I would share posts from this bakery on social media sites. .87
I would like pictures from this bakery on social media sites. .854 Table 2
I would like posts from this bakery on social media sites. .993 Average Variance Extracted and Squared Correlations.
Controls
Construct AVE 1 2 3 4 5 6
Importance of Family Firm .91
When shopping I pay attention that the business is family-run. .899
(1) MC-Family Firm Image .77 1
When shopping it is important to me that the business is family- .914
(2) Perceived Brand .72 .385** 1
run.
Authenticity
In general I prefer to shop in family-run businesses. .901 **
(3) Consumer-Company .75 .274 .592** 1
Attitude towards the Website .91
Identification
The previously shown website is appealing. .701
(4) Social Media Engagement .88 .428** .152** .358** 1
The previously shown website is attractive. .899
(5) Importance of Family .85 .183** .158** .241** 233** 1
The previously shown website is exciting. .756
Firm
The previously shown website is of high quality. .901
(6) Attitude towards the .79 .211** .416** .516** .308** .197** 1
Website
CR = composite reliability; CFA== standardized factor loadings of con-
firmatory factor analysis. All constructs are measured on a 1–7 scale.
All factor loadings are significant at p < .001. ** Significant at p < .01 (two-tailed).

32
J. Zanon et al.
4.2. Manipulation checks
To confirm that the manipulations were successful, we adapted the
FIFS scale from Frank, Kessler, Rusch, Suess-Reyes, and Weismeier-
Sammer (2016) and added one additional item (i.e., “For me, this
business is a family firm” (Beck & Kenning, 2015)) (see Table 1). Given
that we employed a scenario technique, we assessed perceived realism
and scenario understanding to determine the effectiveness of the ma-
nipulations. Perceived realism was measured with two items from
(Schnurr, Brunner-Sperdin, & Stokburger-Sauer, 2017): “I have seen a
website like this before”, and “I can imagine that this website really
exists” (M = 5.45, SD = .65). Scenario understanding was measured by
two ad-hoc items (Teichmann, Scholl-Grissemann, & Stokburger-Sauer,
2016): “I was able to imagine the situation easily”, and “The website
was well arranged” (M = 5.01 SD = 1.2). The items were measured on
a seven-point agree-disagree Likert type scale. We found a significant
effect of FFI on the manipulation check items (F(1, 121) = 18.39,
p < .01). Participants perceived the business on the website more as a
family firm in the FFI_promoted condition than in the FFI_not-promoted
condition (MFFI _promoted = 5.86, MFFI_not-promoted = 4.05, p < .01). No
significant difference in ratings occurred for realism and comprehen-
sibility of the scenarios. We thus confirm that the manipulated factor
was successful.
4.3. Serial multiple mediation analysis
To test our theoretical framework, we conducted a serial multiple
mediation analysis by applying a bootstrapping technique using Hayes’
(2013) regression-based model 6 implemented with the SPSS PROCESS
macro. The general goal of mediation analysis is to establish the extent
to which a causal variable X influences an outcome variable Y through
one or more mediator variables. A serial multiple mediation model
implies that one mediator affects another. The goal of serial multiple
mediation testing is to investigate the direct and indirect effect of X on
Y while modeling a process in which X causes M1, which in turn causes
M2, concluding with Y as the final consequent (Hayes, 2013, p.144).
Bootstrapping is a resampling strategy for estimation and hypotheses
testing where the sample represents the broader population from which
the sample was derived, and the calculation of the statistic of interest is
generated in multiple resamples of the dataset. By using bootstrapping,
no assumptions about the shape and distribution of the sample are
necessary to conduct inferential tests (Preacher, Rucker, & Hayes,
2007). In a mediation analysis, bootstrapping is used to generate an
empirically derived representation of the sampling distribution of the
indirect effect, which is used to construct confidence intervals (Hayes,
2013). When zero is not within the 95% (99%) confidence interval, we
can conclude that the effect is significantly different from zero at
p < .05 (p < .01) (Preacher & Hayes, 2004). We used bias-corrected
99% confidence intervals with a bootstrap method with k = 10,000
iterations for the conditional indirect effects.
Fig. 4. Serial Multiple Mediation Model.
Note: # represents the indirect (i.e. mediating) effect of FFI → Perceived Brand Authenticity →CCI →Social Media Engagement. **significant at p < .01.
33
Journal of Family Business Strategy 10 (2019) 28–37
We coded the independent variable FFI (X) as 0 = FFI_promoted and
1 = FFI_not-promoted; perceived brand authenticity (M1) and consumer-
company identification (M2) served as mediators, and social media
engagement served as the dependent variable (Y). The regression ana-
lysis yielded a significant effect of FFI on perceived brand authenticity
(a1 = .41, [CI99%]: 0.56, .83), supporting H1. Respondents in the
FFI_promoted condition perceived the bakery’s website as more au-
thentic than respondents in the FFI_not-promoted condition, which in-
creased their CCI (d21 = 0.83, [CI99%]: 0.61, 1.06) (supporting H2).
This increased CCI ultimately resulted in a higher social media en-
gagement (b2 = .67, [CI99%]: .01, .60) (supporting H3). The direct
effect of FFI on social media engagement was not significant (c’ =
-0.04, [CI99%]: -0.71, 0.62) (not supporting H4). In support of H5,
however, the indirect effect of FFI on social media engagement through
perceived brand authenticity and CCI in serial was significant (a1
d21b2 = .23, [CI99%]: 0.01, .66) indicating indirect-only mediation
(Zhao, Lunch, & Chen, 2010). Neither of the other indirect pathways
(i.e. FFI→BA→SE; FFI→CCI→SE) in this model were significant. Fig. 4
illustrates the full model, consistent with Hayes’ (2013) labelling of the
coefficients. Table 3 shows the coefficients including the covariates in
the regression equation.
5. Discussion
This study allowed us to demonstrate that marketing and consumer
behavior constructs such as perceived brand authenticity, CCI, and
social media engagement help to understand the explicit consequences
of family firm image promotion. Previous research suggests that family
firm image promotion can be an important driver in achieving a su-
perior market position (Gallucci et al., 2015). Family firm image pro-
motion allows consumers to distinguish family firms from non-family
firms and elicit a stronger connection with the organization. This
stronger identification, in turn, can result in customers liking and pre-
ferring the products and services from authentic family firms (Beck,
2016; Binz et al., 2013; Sageder et al., 2018). With the use of an online
experiment based on screenshots of fictitious websites, we support these
findings from previous studies, and demonstrate that the promotion of
FFI leads to perceived brand authenticity, which in turn increases
customer-company identification and intended social media engage-
ment.
Although family firms (especially older and larger ones) seem to be
fairly untouched by market demands (Cucculelli & Marchionne, 2012),
strong competition among SMEs still pressures these firms to increas-
ingly engage in branding and marketing (Eggers et al., 2013). In this
context, our results suggest that family firms may benefit from high-
lighting their often fascinating history, stable values, and long years of
corporate identity. Family firms are able to respond to consumers’ de-
sire for authentic brands, which enhances positive perception about
family firms (Gallucci et al., 2015; Morhart et al., 2015). Our results
also show that perceived brand authenticity of family firms positively
J. Zanon et al. Journal of Family Business Strategy 10 (2019) 28–37

Table 3
Regression Coefficients.
Consequent

Perceived Brand Authenticity Consumer-Company Identification Social Media Engagement

Antecedent Coeff. SE Coeff. SE Coeff. SE

X (FFI) a1 .41** .16 a2 −.19 .15 c‘ −.04 .25

M1 (BA) – – d21 .83** .08 b1 −.12 .19
M2 (CCI) – – – – b2 .67** .15
ATW .43* .07 .19 .07 .01 .12
IFF .15* .06 .10* .05 .37* .1
Age −.00 .01 .01 .01 −.02 .02
Gender .02 .15 .04 .01 −.01 .01
Constant 1.88** .43 −1,03 .42 .31** .73
R² = .03 R² = .06 R² = .05
F(5115) = 22,01 F(6114) = 55,20 F(7113) = 20,01

Note: SE = Standard Error, Control Variable ATW = Attitude towards Website, Control Variable IFF = Importance of Family Firm.
* = p≤ .05.
** p≤ .01.

affects consumers’ identification with a firm. This is relevant given that
when organizations are perceived as more authentic, consumers are
able to develop a closer relationship with that company. This, in turn,
increases the consumers’ identification with the organization, and
generates positive consumer engagement (Morhart et al., 2015).
Finally, family firm image promotion does not have a direct effect on
intended social media engagement but is significantly and positively
mediated by brand authenticity and CCI. Firms that are able to leverage a
high CCI already maintain a vital asset many managers strive for: forming a
committed and meaningful connection to their consumers (Bhattacharya &
Sen, 2003). Thus, communication activities of family firms should generate
meaningful messages that explain how the firm, family, and its products are
related to the identity of the firm, and how they are relevant to the con-
sumer (Marín & Ruiz de Maya, 2013). Consistent with social identity theory,
our results suggest that family firm image promotion allows consumers to
recognize, value, and identify with the firm, which should positively affect
purchase intentions (Ahearne et al., 2005) and recommendations to others
(Kim et al., 2001).
5.1. Research implications
The results of this study advance family business as well as marketing
research by furthering our understanding of the relationships between fa-
mily firm image promotion, perceived brand authenticity, and CCI, and
their effect on consumers’ intention to engage in social media. By revealing
a mediated path between family firm image promotion and intended social
media engagement, this study provides new evidence and insights into how
family firm image promotion shapes consumer engagement. The results
show that only when a distinct family firm image is promoted and con-
sumers are made aware of the family status in the firm, are family firms able
to positively influence consumers’ engagement. We then specifically de-
monstrate that a family firm image promotion increases perceived brand
authenticity, which in turn is associated with higher identification with the
family firm. This higher identification eventually translates into more en-
gaged consumers.
This study contributes to the family firm literature by addressing the
influence of family firm image promotion on consumers’ engagement, and
by employing experimental studies in family firms as a relatively novel
approach to extend family business theory. Our results strengthen the us-
ability of online experiments in this field of research. We deepen existing
understanding by adopting a consumer behavior perspective on family
firms, integrating constructs such as brand authenticity and CCI from
marketing literature (Ahearne et al., 2005; Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003; Fritz
et al., 2017; Morhart et al., 2015) to assess the effects of family firm be-
havior. The integration of mediating variables and serial mediation into this
study helps advance our understanding of how family firm image promo-
tion leads to positive consumer engagement in the form of intended social
media engagement (Beck, 2016; Lude & Prügl, 2016; Sageder et al., 2018).
Additionally, we use the theory of social identity (Bagozzi & Lee, 2002;
Homburg et al., 2009; Tajfel & Turner, 1979) to describe the underlying
rationale causing the serial mediation from family firm image promotion to
consumer engagement. The results from this project show that the path
towards intended social media engagement is not direct and needs mar-
keting constructs such as perceived brand authenticity and CCI to explain
the favorable effects of family firm image promotion. With perceived brand
authenticity being discussed as a questionable construct in marketing lit-
erature, our findings demonstrate its relevance by explaining the path from
firm image to consumer engagement via CCI, theoretically underlined by
Social Identity Theory.
5.2. Practical implications
In terms of practical implications, this study indicates that promoting
the owning family behind the firm via marketing channels such as Public
Relations, social media and websites allows consumers to detect and ap-
preciate a firm’s familial nature (Fombrun, 1996; Fritz et al., 2017). The
uniqueness that family firms embody through their identity is an asset that
allows them to capitalize on the external effects of consumer identification,
and improves the firm’s market position (Frank, Lueger, Nosé, & Suchy,
2010). Firms that do not exploit their family status may miss opportunities
to gain a sustained competitive advantage. Marketing managers of family
firms, whether they are part of the family or identify with it, may thus
strategically include the family identity into the marketing efforts by placing
at the forefront the managers’ passion and intrinsic motivation for the firm
(Moulard et al., 2016). In order to develop, maintain and promote a suc-
cessful family firm image, it appears important that family firms members
identify with the firm and thus transmit the firm identity to their products
and services (Craig et al., 2008).
5.3. Limitations
The findings of this study are not without limitations. A key short-
coming pertains to the relatively low explanatory power of our model.
An R² of 0.05 implies that there are likely many additional variables
other than FFI that cause variation in consumer’s engagement in social
media. Naturally, whether someone decides to like, forward, or re-
commend a website is determined by a number of factors. In the future,
studies could include additional factors such as the website’s design, the
industry of the promoted family firm, and consumers’ general affinity
towards using social media. Regarding website design, existing research

34
J. Zanon et al.
highlights the role of sense-making and exploratory cues (Brunner-
Sperdin, Scholl-Grissemann, & Stockburger-Sauer, 2014), structure and
content (e.g., Harris & Goode, 2010), perceived ease of use (e.g., Porter
& Donthu, 2006), informativeness (e.g., Mazaheri, Richard, & Laroche,
2011), aesthetic formality and aesthetic appeal (Porat, Liss, &
Tractinsky, 2007; Wang, Hernandez, & Minor, 2010), and entertain-
ment (Rosenbaum, 2005). All of these factors can affect how and
whether consumers engage with a website. Industry considerations are
also relevant because consumers may be more likely to engage in social
media for hedonic products and services (e.g., jewelry or hospitality) in
comparison to utilitarian products such as bread. Another aspect that
can play a role in consumers’ social media engagement with the website
of a family firm is their overall attitude towards social media. Future
research could replicate our study by controlling for consumers’ affinity
towards social media use (Hautz, Fueller, Hutter, & Thueriddl, 2014)
and their social media proneness (Nga, Carson, & Moore, 2013).
Nevertheless, our results are still valuable, because we show that family
firm image promotion constitutes an additional, relevant factor that
significantly increases consumers’ intentions to engage with the website
via social media. This effect is new to family business research and to
literature on the marketing of family firms.
Future studies can also benefit from the use of field experiments
with real life social media data to eliminate possible bias occurring
from a laboratory online experiment (Gneezy, 2017). It would be in-
teresting to more strongly consider the background of respondents by,
e.g., investigating the effect of an individual’s own family firm back-
ground on his or her preferences (Zellweger, Sieger, & Halter, 2011). A
mixed-method approach might also help generate deeper insights into
certain consumer segments to create a more nuanced understanding of
their motives and behavior when identifying with family firms.
Another limitation that is important to highlight is the sample. This
study is based on a sample from one country and focused on one in-
dustry. Thus, future research should consider focusing on different in-
dustries and cultures. A replication in different countries could validate
and extend our findings. Future studies may also consider the hetero-
geneity of family firms (Nordqvist, Sharma, & Chirico, 2014) in terms of
factors such as their age, size, and governance structure (Daspit,
Chrisman, Sharma, Pearson, & Mahto, 2018), and assess the effect of
this heterogeneity on consumer perceptions and responses. Further-
more, although our results generally call for initiatives to market the
family, research may want to further investigate when an overly ex-
tensive presentation of family firm image might backfire (Botero, Binz
Astrachen, & Calabrò, 2018), exhausting consumers by too forcefully
promoting a family firm image, as has been observed with some com-
panies’ CSR efforts (Du, Bhattacharya, & Sen, 2010). In other words, it
could be interesting to investigate more deeply if there can be “too
much family” in the marketing efforts of a family firm. In the case of
truly authentic firms in particular, an over-commercialization could
interfere with the perception of being honest and true to themselves
(Holt, 2002).
6. Conclusion
In today’s digital world, consumer recommendations often occur on
social media sites (Chu & Kim, 2015; Song & Kim, 2006). The perceived
authenticity of a family firm, together with the personal urge to es-
tablish and extend one’s own social identity, increases consumers’ in-
tentions to share, comment, or like corporate online postings of family
firms. The higher the identification with the brand, the more attractive
and the more likely a possible engagement with the brand’s online
presence will be (Kim et al., 2001). Our results indicate that the pro-
motion of the family firm image positively affects perceptions of the
firm’s authenticity, increased consumer-company identification, and
intended social media engagement. It is important to highlight that it is
through the mediating effects that the promotion of family firm image
triggers intended social media engagement. We encourage other
35
Journal of Family Business Strategy 10 (2019) 28–37
scholars to investigate the online and social media context to shed more
light on this potentially useful tool for family firms in promoting a
distinct family firm image, and leveraging the unique capabilities that
are based in the interconnection between the family and the business. It
appears particularly interesting to further establish and specify the
connection between social media engagement and consumers’ purchase
intentions, for this allows family firms to secure their longevity and
transgenerational survival. In order to capitalize on the family firm
image, family firms need to amplify their family firm status in their
social media strategy, for example by telling stories about the family on
Instagram, or by providing insights into family life on Facebook. Given
that consumer-company identification is directly related to consumer
spending (Teichmann et al., 2016), including such identity-establishing
actions in promotional campaigns should directly reflect on financial
marketing outcomes.
References
Ahearne, M., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Gruen, T. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of
customer-company identification: Expanding the role of relationship marketing. The
Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(3), 574–585. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.
90.3.574.
Ashley, C., & Tuten, T. (2015). Creative strategies in social media marketing: An ex-
ploratory study of branded social content and consumer engagement. Psychology &
Marketing, 32(1), 15–27. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20761.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Lee, K.-H. (2002). Multiple routes for social influence: The role of
compliance, internalization, and social identity. Social Psychology Quarterly, 65(3),
226. https://doi.org/10.2307/3090121.
Beck, S. (2016). Brand management research in family firms. Journal of Family Business
Management, 6(3), 225–250. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFBM-02-2016-0002.
Beck, S., & Kenning, P. (2015). The influence of retailers’ family firm image on new
product acceptance. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 43(12),
1126–1143. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-06-2014-0079.
Berrone, P., Cruz, C., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (2012). Socioemotional wealth in family firms:
Theoretical dimensions, assessment approaches, and agenda for future research.
Family Business Review, 25(3), 258–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0894486511435355.
Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2003). Consumer-company identification: A framework for
understanding consumers’ relationships with companies. Journal of Marketing, 67(2),
76–88. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.67.2.76.18609.
Binz, C., Hair, J. F., Pieper, T. M., & Baldauf, A. (2013). Exploring the effect of distinct
family firm reputation on consumers’ preferences. Journal of Family Business Strategy,
4(1), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2012.12.004.
Binz Astrachan, C. (2014). Branding the family firm (An empirical exploration of the ante-
cedents and consequences of family firm brand promotion (Doctoral Dissertation). Witten,
Germany: University of Witten.
Binz Astrachan, C., & Astrachan, J. H. (2015). Family business branding: Leveraging stake-
holder trust. London: Institute of Family Business.
Binz Astrachan, C., & Botero, I. C. (2017). “We are a family firm”: An exploration of the
motives for communicating the family business brand. Journal of Family Business
Management, 7(4), 263. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFBM-01-2017-0002.
Binz Astrachan, C., Botero, I. C., Astrachan, J. H., & Prügl, R. (2018). Branding the family
firm: A review, integrative framework proposal, and research agenda. Journal of
Family Business Strategy, 9(1), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2018.01.002
Advance online publication.
Botero, I. C., Thomas, J., Graves, C., & Fediuk, T. A. (2013). Understanding multiple
family firm identities: An exploration of the communicated identity in official web-
sites. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 4(1), 12–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.
2012.11.004.
Botero, I. C., Binz Astrachen, C., & Calabrò, A. (2018). A receiver’s approach to family
business brands: Exploring individual associations with the term “family firm”.
Journal of Family Business Management, 8(2), 94–112. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFBM-
03-2017-0010.
Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scho-
larship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210–230. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x.
Brodie, R. J., Ilic, A., Juric, B., & Hollebeek, L. (2013). Consumer engagement in a virtual
brand community: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Business Research, 66(1),
105–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.07.029.
Brown, T. J. (2006). Identity, intended image, construed image, and reputation: An in-
terdisciplinary framework and suggested terminology. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 34(2), 99–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070305284969.
Brunner-Sperdin, A., Scholl-Grissemann, U. S., & Stockburger-Sauer, N. E. (2014). The
relevance of holistic website perception. How sense-making and exploration cues
guide consumers’ emotions and behaviors. Journal of Business Research, 67(12),
2515–2522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.02.004.
Carrigan, M., & Buckley, J. (2008). What’s so special about family business? An ex-
ploratory study of UK and Irish consumer experiences of family businesses.
International Journal of Consumer Studies, 32(6), 656–666. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1470-6431.2008.00696.x.
J. Zanon et al.
Chu, S.-C., & Kim, Y. (2015). Determinants of consumer engagement in electronic word-
of-mouth (eWOM) in social networking sites. International Journal of Advertising,
30(1), 47–75. https://doi.org/10.2501/IJA-30-1-047-075.
Cooper, M. J., Upton, N., & Seaman, S. (2005). Customer relationship management: A
comparative analysis of family and nonfamily business practices. Journal of Small
Business Management, 43(3), 242–256. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-627X.2005.
00136.x.
Craig, J. B., Dibrell, C., & Davis, P. S. (2008). Leveraging family-based brand identity to
enhance firm competitiveness and performance in family businesses. Journal of Small
Business Management, 46(3), 351–371. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-627X.2008.
00248.x.
Cucculelli, M., & Marchionne, F. (2012). Market opportunities and owner identity: Are
family firms different? Journal of Corporate Finance, 18(3), 476–495. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2012.02.001.
Daspit, J. J., Chrisman, J. J., Sharma, P., Pearson, A. W., & Mahto, R. V. (2018).
Governance as a source of family firm heterogeneity. Journal of Business Research, 84,
293–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.12.041.
Deephouse, D. L., & Jaskiewicz, P. (2013). Do family firms have better reputations than
non-family firms? An integration of socioemotional wealth and social identity the-
ories. Journal of Management Studies, 50(3), 337–360. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.
12015.
Dholakia, U. M., Bagozzi, R. P., & Pearo, L. K. (2004). A social influence model of con-
sumer participation in network- and small-group-based virtual communities.
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21(3), 241–263. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ijresmar.2003.12.004.
Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2010). Maximizing business returns to corporate
social responsibility (CSR): The role of CSR communication. International Journal of
Management Reviews, 12(1), 8–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.
00276.x.
Dyer, W. G., & Whetten, D. A. (2006). Family firms and social responsibility: Preliminary
evidence from the S&P 500. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(6), 785–802.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2006.00151.x.
Eggers, F., O’Dwyer, M., Kraus, S., Vallaster, C., & Güldenberg, S. (2013). The impact of
brand authenticity on brand trust and SME growth: A CEO perspective. Journal of
World Business, 48(3), 340–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2012.07.018.
Fombrun, C. J. (1996). In C. J. Fombrun (Ed.). Reputation: Realizing value from the cor-
porate image. Boston, Mass: Harvard Business School Press.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with un-
observable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1),
39. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312.
Frank, H., Kessler, A., Rusch, T., Suess-Reyes, J., & Weismeier-Sammer, D. (2016).
Capturing the familiness of family businesses: Development of the family influence
familiness scale (FIFS). Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 52(3), 1–34. https://doi.
org/10.1111/etap.12229.
Frank, H., Lueger, M., Nosé, L., & Suchy, D. (2010). The concept of “Familiness”. Journal
of Family Business Strategy, 1(3), 119–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2010.08.
001.
Fritz, K., Schoenmueller, V., & Bruhn, M. (2017). Authenticity in branding – Exploring
antecedents and consequences of brand authenticity. European Journal of Marketing,
51(2), 324–348. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-10-2014-0633 Retrieved from.
Gallucci, C., Santulli, R., & Calabrò, A. (2015). Does family involvement foster or hinder
firm performance? The missing role of family-based branding strategies. Journal of
Family Business Strategy, 6(3), 155–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2015.07.003.
Garry, T., Gupta, S., Melewar, T. C., & Bourlakis, M. (2010). Transfer of brand knowledge
in business‐to‐business markets: A qualitative study. Journal of Business and Industrial
Marketing, 25(5), 395–403. https://doi.org/10.1108/08858621011058151.
Gneezy, A. (2017). Field experimentation in marketing research. Journal of Marketing
Research, 54(1), 140–143. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.16.0225.
Hair, J. F., Black, B., Babin, B., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data
analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J., London: Prentice Hall PTR.
Harris, L. C., & Goode, M. M. (2010). Online servicescapes, trust and purchase intentions.
Journal of Customer Service in Marketing & Management, 24(3), 230–243. https://doi.
org/10.1108/08876041011040631.
Hautz, J., Fueller, J., Hutter, K., & Thueriddl, C. (2014). Let users generate your video
ads? The impact of video source and quality on consumers’ perception and intended
behaviors. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 28(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
intmar.2013.06.003.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process
analysis: A regression-based approach. In A. F. Hayes (Ed.). Methodology in the social
sciences. Guilford Press.
Holt, D. B. (2002). Why do brands cause trouble? A dialectical theory of consumer culture
and branding. The Journal of Consumer Research, 29(1), 70–90. https://doi.org/10.
1086/339922.
Homburg, C., Wieseke, J., & Hoyer, W. D. (2009). Social identity and the service–Profit
chain. Journal of Marketing, 73(2), 38–54. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.73.2.38.
Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and
opportunities of Social Media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59–68. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003.
Kashmiri, S., & Mahajan, V. (2010). What’s in a name? An analysis of the strategic be-
havior of family firms. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27(3), 271–280.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2010.04.001.
Kim, C. K., Han, D., & Park, S.-B. (2001). The effect of brand personality and brand
identification on brand loyalty: Applying the theory of social identification. The
Japanese Psychological Research, 43(4), 195–206. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-
5884.00177.
Krappe, A., Goutas, L., & von Schlippe, A. (2011). The “family business brand”: An
36
Journal of Family Business Strategy 10 (2019) 28–37
enquiry into the construction of the image of family businesses. Journal of Family
Business Management, 1(1), 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1108/20436231111122272.
Kreiner, G. E., & Ashforth, B. E. (2004). Evidence toward an expanded model of orga-
nizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(1), 1–27. https://doi.
org/10.1002/job.234.
Laroche, M., Yang, Z., McDougall, G. H., & Bergeron, J. (2005). Internet versus bricks-
and-mortar retailers: An investigation into intangibility and its consequences. Journal
of Retailing, 81(4), 251–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2004.11.002.
Lee, D., Hosanagar, K., & Nair, H. S. (2014). The effect of social media marketing content on
consumer engagement: Evidence from facebook. Stanford Graduate School of Business.
Lu, A. C. C., Gursoy, D., & Lu, C. Y. (2015). Authenticity perceptions, brand equity and
brand choice intention: The case of ethnic restaurants. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 50, 36–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2015.07.008.
Lude, M., & Prügl, R. (Eds.). (2016). Effects of communicating the family firm status on brand
perception: Insights from an experimental studyEuropean Academy of Management.
Mangold, W. G., & Faulds, D. J. (2009). Social media: The new hybrid element of the
promotion mix. Business Horizons, 52(4), 357–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.
2009.03.002.
Marín, L., & Ruiz de Maya, S. (2013). The role of affiliation, attractiveness and personal
connection in consumer-company identification. European Journal of Marketing, 47(3/
4), 655–673. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090561311297526.
Marsh, H. W., & Hocevar, D. (1985). Application of confirmatory factor analysis to the
study of self-concept: First- and higher order factor models and their invariance
across groups. Psychological Bulletin, 97(3), 562.
Martínez, P., & Rodríguez del Bosque, I. (2013). CSR and customer loyalty: The roles of
trust, customer identification with the company and satisfaction. International Journal
of Hospitality Management, 35, 89–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.05.009.
Mazaheri, E., Richard, M. O., & Laroche, M. (2011). Online consumer behavior:
Comparing Canadian and Chinese website visitors. Journal of Business Research,
65(9), 958–965. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2010.11.018.
Micelotta, E. R., & Raynard, M. (2011). Concealing or Revealing the Family? Family
Business Review, 24(3), 197–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486511407321.
Miller, D., Le Breton-Miller, I., Minichilli, A., Corbetta, G., & Pittino, D. (2014). When do
non-family CEOs outperform in family firms? Agency and behavioural agency per-
spectives. Journal of Management Studies, 51(4), 547–572. https://doi.org/10.1111/
joms.12076.
Morhart, F., Malär, L., Guèvremont, A., Girardin, F., & Grohmann, B. (2015). Brand au-
thenticity: An integrative framework and measurement scale. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 25(2), 200–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2014.11.006.
Moulard, J. G., Raggio, R. D., & Folse, J. A. G. (2016). Brand authenticity: Testing the
antecedents and outcomes of brand management’s passion for its products. Psychology
& Marketing, 33(6), 421–436. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20888.
Murdough, C. (2009). Social media measurement: It’s not impossible. Journal of Interactive
Advertising, 10(1), 94–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2009.10722165.
Nga, N. H., Carson, S. J., & Moore, W. L. (2013). The effects of positive and negative
online customer reviews: Do brand strength and category maturity matter? Journal of
Marketing, 77(6), 37–53. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.11.0011.
Nordqvist, M., Sharma, P., & Chirico, F. (2014). Family firm heterogeneity and govern-
ance: A configuration approach. Journal of Small Business Management, 52(2),
192–209. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12096 Retrieved from.
Okazaki, S. (2015). Social influence model and electronic word of mouth. International
Journal of Advertising, 28(3), 439–472. https://doi.org/10.2501/
S0265048709200692.
Orth, U. R., & Green, M. T. (2009). Consumer loyalty to family versus non-family busi-
ness: The roles of store image, trust and satisfaction. Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, 16(4), 248–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2008.12.002.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method
biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.
1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.
Porat, T., Liss, R., & Tractinsky, N. (2007). E-stores design: The influence of e-store design
and product type on conusmers’ emotions and attitudes. Proceedings of the 12th in-
ternational conference on Human-computer interaction, applications and services.
Porter, E. C., & Donthu, N. (2006). Using the technology acceptance model to explain how
attitudes determine Internet usage: The role of perceived access barriers and demo-
graphics. Journal of Business Research, 59(9), 999–1007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jbusres.2006.06.003.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect
effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, &
Computers, 36(4), 717–731. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206553.
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation
hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research,
42(1), 185–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273170701341316.
Presas, P., Guia, J., & Muñoz, D. (2014). Customer’s perception of familiness in travel
experiences. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 31(2), 147–161. https://doi.org/
10.1080/10548408.2014.873307.
Rosenbaum, M. S. (2005). Meet the cyberspace. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 23(7),
636–647. https://doi.org/10.1108/02634500510630177.
Sageder, M., Duller, C., & Mitter, C. (2015). Reputation of family firms from a customer
perspective. International Journal of Business Research, 15(2), 13–24. https://doi.org/
10.18374/IJBR-15-2.2.
Sageder, M., Mitter, C., & Feldbauer‐Durstmüller, B. (2018). Image and reputation of
family firms: A systematic literature review of the state of research. Review of
Managerial Science, 12(1), https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-016-0216-x.
Schivinski, B., Christodoulides, G., & Dabrowski, D. (2016). Measuring consumers’ en-
gagement with brand-related social-media content. Journal of Advertising Research,
J. Zanon et al.
56(1), 64–80. https://doi.org/10.2501/JAR-2016-004.
Schnurr, B., Brunner-Sperdin, A., & Stokburger-Sauer, N. E. (2017). The effect of context
attractiveness on product attractiveness and product quality: The moderating role of
product familiarity. Marketing Letters, 28(2), 241–253. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11002-016-9404-3.
Scott, S. G., & Lane, V. R. (2000). A stakeholder approach to organizational identity. The
Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 43. https://doi.org/10.2307/259262.
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2001). Experimental and quasi-experimental
designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Song, J., & Kim, Y. J. (2006). Social influence process in the acceptance of a virtual
community service. Information Systems Frontiers, 8(3), 241–252. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10796-006-8782-0.
Sundar, S. S., & Kalyanaraman, S. (2004). Arousal, memory and impression-formation
effects of animation speed in web advertising. Journal of Advertising, 33(1), 1–17.
Sundaramurthy, C., & Kreiner, G. E. (2008). Governing by managing identity boundaries:
The case of family businesses. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(3), 415–436.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2008.00234.x.
Tajfel, H. (1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology
of intergroup relations. In H. Tajfel (Vol. Ed.), European monographs in social psy-
chology: 14. London: Academic Press [for] European Association of Experimental
Social Psychology.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G.
Austin, & S. Worchel (Eds.). The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47).
Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Teichmann, K., Scholl-Grissemann, U., & Stokburger-Sauer, N. E. (2016). The power of
codesign to bond customers to products and companies: The role of toolkit support
and creativity. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 36, 15–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
intmar.2016.03.006.
Verhagen, T., Boter, J., & Adelaar, T. (2010). The effect of product type on consumer
preferences for website content elements: An empirical study. Journal of Computer-
Mediated Communication, 16(1), 139–170. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.
2010.01536.x.
Waldkirch, M. (2015). Social identity theory and the family business. In M. Nordqvist, L.
37
Journal of Family Business Strategy 10 (2019) 28–37
Melin, M. Waldkirch, & G. Kumeto (Eds.). Theoretical perspectives on family businesses
(pp. 137–155). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781783479665.
00015.
Wang, Y. J., Hernandez, M. D., & Minor, S. (2010). Web aesthetics effects on perceived
online service quality and satisfaction in an e-tail environment: The moderating role
of purchase task. Journal of Business Research, 63(9/10), 935–942. https://doi.org/10.
1080/15332861.2013.763695.
Whetten, D., Foreman, P., Dyer, W., Whetten, D., Foreman, P., & Dyer, W. G. (2014).
Organizational identity and the family business // organizational identity and family
business. In L. Melin, M. Nordqvist, & P. Sharma (Eds.). The SAGE handbook of family
business (pp. 480–497). London, United Kingdom: SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.
org/10.4135/9781446247556.n24.
Wind, Y., & Mahajan, V. (2002). Convergence marketing. Journal of Interactive Marketing,
16(2), 64–79. https://doi.org/10.1002/dir.10009.
Yu, G., & Zou, D. (Eds.). (2015). Which user-generated content should be appreciated more? A
study on UGC features. Consumers’ Behavioral Intentions and Social Media
Engagement.
Zellweger, T., Sieger, P., & Halter, F. (2011). Should I stay or should I go? Career choice
intentions of students with family business background. Journal of Business Venturing,
26(5), 521–536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2010.04.001.
Zellweger, T. M., Eddleston, K. A., & Kellermanns, F. W. (2010). Exploring the concept of
familiness: Introducing family firm identity. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 1(1),
54–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2009.12.003.
Zellweger, T. M., Kellermanns, F. W., Eddleston, K. A., & Memili, E. (2012). Building a
family firm image: How family firms capitalize on their family ties. Journal of Family
Business Strategy, 3(4), 239–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2012.10.001.
Zhang, M., Guo, L., Hu, M., & Liu, W. (2017). Influence of customer engagement with
company social networks on stickiness: Mediating effect of customer value creation.
International Journal of Information Management, 37(3), 229–240. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ijinfomgt.2016.04.010.
Zhao, X., Lunch, J. G., Jr., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering baron and Kenny: Myths and
truths about mediation analysis. The Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 197–206.