Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing

How trust moderates social media engagement and brand equity

Hardeep Chahal, Anu Rani,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Hardeep Chahal, Anu Rani, (2017) "How trust moderates social media engagement and brand
equity", Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, Vol. 11 Issue: 3, pp.312-335, https://
doi.org/10.1108/JRIM-10-2016-0104
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIM-10-2016-0104
Downloaded on: 13 January 2018, At: 10:23 (PT)
Downloaded by EKB Data Center At 10:23 13 January 2018 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 68 other documents.

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1086 times since 2017*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2015),"Consumer engagement in online brand communities: a social media perspective", Journal
of Product &amp; Brand Management, Vol. 24 Iss 1 pp. 28-42 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/
JPBM-06-2014-0635">https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-06-2014-0635</a>
(2016),"Social media and consumer engagement: a review and research agenda", Journal of
Research in Interactive Marketing, Vol. 10 Iss 4 pp. 268-287 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/
JRIM-06-2016-0065">https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIM-06-2016-0065</a>

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:614218 []
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.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/2040-7122.htm

JRIM
11,3 How trust moderates social media
engagement and brand equity
Hardeep Chahal and Anu Rani
Department of Commerce, University of Jammu, Jammu, India
312
Received 7 October 2016
Revised 14 March 2017
Abstract
13 June 2017 Purpose – The purpose of this paper is threefold: first, to develop and measure customer engagement scale
16 June 2017 in context to social media (SM); second, to elucidate the variables that impact customers’ brand engagement
17 June 2017
Accepted 19 June 2017
on SM and its impact in building customer-based brand equity; and finally, to examine the moderating role of
trust in SM brand engagement and brand equity relationship.
Design/methodology/approach – The data were collected from 767 SM users working in multinational
Downloaded by EKB Data Center At 10:23 13 January 2018 (PT)

corporations of Gurgaon city, using purposive sampling technique. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were undertaken to analyze the data.
Findings – The paper outcomes indicated SM brand engagement as a bi-dimensional construct comprising
information interest and personal interest. Both social factors and consumer-based factors significantly
influence customers’ SM brand engagement. Specifically, results depicted that tie-strength and social identity
(social factors); and opportunity seeking and product selection (consumer-based factors) strongly influence
customers’ SM brand engagement in comparison to other factors.
Research limitations/implications – The research has two major limitations. First, it is limited to Gen Y
only. How older and younger consumers interact with brands via SM can stimulate theoretical development as
well as furnish potentially valuable strategic opportunities to brand managers in future research. Second,
relationship between SM brand engagement and brand equity is examined using trust as a moderating variable.
Thus, the effect of other moderating factors like perceived risk and gender can be investigated in the future.
Originality/value – The paper makes a maiden attempt to examine the moderating role of trust in the
relationship between SM brand engagement and brand equity. It adds value to the marketing literature in the
development of SM brand engagement scale for Gen Y.

Keywords Motivation, SEM, Trust, Brand equity, Social media marketing,

Social media brand engagement
Paper type Research paper

Journal of Research in Interactive
Marketing
Vol. 11 No. 3, 2017
pp. 312-335
© Emerald Publishing Limited
2040-7122
DOI 10.1108/JRIM-10-2016-0104
Introduction
Social media (SM) usage has risen phenomenally among users, such as individuals,
businesses, government, etc., in the current era (Kaplan and Haenlein, 2010). Besides
meeting personal gratification needs, this online platform provides users an online
“soapbox” from which they can disseminate and publicize their personal evaluations related
to products and services (Chen et al., 2011). This type of behavior is particularly relevant
among young customers, who are active on SM platforms and whose brand preferences are
heavily influenced by their friends and peers (Haven, 2007).
We see that customers engage in many kinds of behavior on SM such as browsing,
interacting, information sharing and seeking that empower them about product/service
offers (Schultz and Peltier, 2013), which as a result affect their level of brand knowledge.
Subsequently, and not surprisingly, the concept of online customer engagement has started
receiving much attention in the marketing literature (Dessart et al., 2015).
However, being a relatively new field, research on the role of online customer engagement in
brand equity creation in the context of SM platforms demands the attention of both,
 academicians and practitioners (Habibi et al., 2015). Specifically, scholars such as Campbell Trust
et al. (2014), Hollebeek et al. (2014) and Vivek et al. (2014) have stated the need to conceptualize moderates
SM engagement. Vivek et al. (2014) also remarked that although number of dimensions of
engagement has been proposed and established in the literature, still there exists no consensus
social media
on its dimensionality. Further, they also opined that systematic procedure for the development engagement
of SM engagement has not been studied by the researchers. Recently, even Dessart et al. (2015)
stated that the concept is still in a developing stage and factors that influence SM engagement
need to be explored. In addition, extant studies on the role of customer engagement in building 313
brand equity are seen as quite fragmented (Kuvykaite and Piligrimiene, 2014). That is, there is
a lack of research regarding what kind of customers to be engaged in the business and how to
engage them in creating higher brand equity.
Further, scholars such as Cal and Adams (2014) and Zailskaite-Jakste and Kuvykaite
(2012) remarked on the need to design strategies to encourage customers’ SM brand
engagement. Jahn and Kunz (2012, p. 354) have also pointed in their study the need for a
deeper understanding of SM concepts as an effective relationship-building tool.
Downloaded by EKB Data Center At 10:23 13 January 2018 (PT)

Though the literature underscores that SM enhance customer-based brand equity (Greve,
2014), how business value (brand equity) is created in this modern interactive marketplace is
still an unresolved problem. Specifically, studies such as Bolton et al. (2013), Brodie et al.
(2013) and Kuvykaite and Piligrimiene (2014) have expressed the need to examine the
influence of SM brand engagement on young customers’ brand attitude, brand awareness,
brand loyalty, value co-creation, purchase behavior, etc. However, there is an inability to
understand how the creation of brand content and brand experience positively impacts
customer engagement (Christodoulides et al., 2012; Moe et al., 2012; Porter et al., 2011), sales
(Sonnier et al., 2011) and brand equity. These concepts are among the challenging issues that
need to be explored in the literature.
Finally, studies such as Alsaad et al. (2017), Laroche et al. (2013), Ng (2013) and See-To
and Ho (2014) examined SM engagement with respect to various moderating factors.
Specifically, Alsaad et al. (2017) and See-To and Ho (2014) have argued that researchers
consider trust as a moderator in context to SM. Alsaad et al. (2017, P. 158) remarked that
trust acts as a moderator in online context where behavioral motivations are not well-
established. Similarly, See-to and Ho (2014) also highlighted the need to study the
moderating influence of trust, eWOM and purchasing intentions in context to social
networking sites.
Much of present research is specifically focused on Generation Y (Gen Y), as this segment
is considered as the most tech-savvy and active on SM (Balakrishnan et al., 2014; Bolton et
al., 2013; Zhang et al., 2017; Wirtz et al., 2013). Gen Y customers use SM for entertainment,
emotion regulation or interaction with friends, peer groups and family members (Bolton et
al., 2013). However, Palfrey and Gasser (2008) remarked that the key reason for Gen Y to use
SM is to interact with others, as they value others’ opinions and also feel important when
they provide feedback about the brands or products they use.
In other words, such interactions on SM affect young consumers’ identity formation,
service expectations, engagement with brands and firms, purchase behavior, brand loyalty
lifetime value and (ultimately) the value of the firm. Hence, organizations, managers,
researchers and public policy-makers are interested in Gen Y’s use of SM. Although there is
general agreement on Gen Y’s frequent use of SM (i.e. high intensity of use), information on
their SM activities and the factors that influence their SM use need to be explored
(Balakrishnan et al., 2014; Bolton et al., 2013). Moreover, empirical research on Gen Y (Bolton
et al., 2013), which tends to be an ideal group to focus on in online settings, is scarce (Nadeem
et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2017).
 JRIM Hence, the present research is focused to examine factors that predict SM brand
11,3 engagement and the subsequent impact of this engagement on the brand equity creation, with
trust as a moderating variable. Specifically, the objectives of the study are threefold: First, to
develop and measure a customer engagement scale in the context of SM; second, to elucidate
the factors that impact young customers’ SM engagement and brand equity; and third, to
examine the moderating role of trust in SM engagement and brand equity relationship. In
314 addition to contributing insights to existing literature, the research findings will also prove
helpful for marketers who seek to attract customers through SM brand engagement.
The paper is organized as follows. First, a brief synthesis of the extant literature is
presented along with hypotheses. Thereafter, research methodology and data analysis of the
empirical study, followed by a presentation of the results, are discussed. The paper
concludes with a summary of the discussion and managerial implications together with
limitations and future research.

Literature review and hypotheses development

Downloaded by EKB Data Center At 10:23 13 January 2018 (PT)

Social media brand engagement

SM brand engagement refers to the participation of customers – physically or
psychologically – in varied brand-building activities that impact their decision-making.
Hollebeek et al. (2014) defined online customer engagement as a promising concept which
provides enhanced predictive and explanatory power of focal consumer behavior outcomes,
including brand loyalty. However, with considerable variation in interpretations of the
concept and several different definitions of online customer engagement proposed by
practitioners, a comprehensive theory on SM engagement is yet to emerge. For instance,
Brodie et al. (2011) and Hollebeek (2011) have expressed customer engagement (in the
context of SM) in the form of cognitive, behavioral and motivational actions. Hollebeek
(2011, p. 151) defined customer engagement as “the level of expression of an individual
customer’s motivational, brand-related and context-dependent state of mind characterised
by a degree of activation, identification and absorption in brand interactions”. In line with
this definition, van Doorn et al. (2010) remarked that customer engagement behaviors go
beyond transactions. They defined the concept as “customers’ behavioral manifestations
that are brand or firm focused, beyond purchase, resulting from motivational drivers”.
Recently, Hollebeek et al. (2014) posited that “engagement” reflects a motivational state
which occurs by virtue of an individual’s interactive experiences with a particular object or
agent which is a key for many online offerings.
The literature considered SM brand management as a multi-dimensional concept from
different perspectives. Specifically, studies such as Algesheimer et al. (2005), Brodie et al.
(2013), Calder et al. (2009), Hollebeek et al. (2014) and Lim et al. (2015) have established
customer engagement as a multi-dimensional construct. Scholars such as Abdul-Ghani et al.
(2010) and Algesheimer et al. (2005) defined considered engagement as a motivational state
comprising utilitarian, hedonic and social dimension. Hollebeek et al. (2014) and Brodie et al.
(2011, 2013) have expressed cognitive, emotional and behavioral as its three significant
dimensions. Besides, Calder et al. (2009) have considered online engagement as a composite
of varied psychological dimensions, such as utilitarian participation, socializing, intrinsic
enjoyment, etc. Most recently, Lim et al. (2015) delineated functional engagement, emotional
engagement and communal engagement as significant dimensions of engagement. Select
studies that have conceptualized online SM brand engagement are given in Table I.
Besides different conceptualizations, Doorn et al. (2010) also mentioned that dimensions of
SM engagement may also vary across different research contexts. The study argues that
among various conceptualizations, hedonic, utilitarian and social dimensions given by Abdul-
 Authors Concept Meaning Dimensionality
Trust
moderates
Algesheimer et al. Brand Positive influences of identifying Multidimensional: Utilitarian; social media
(2005) (Empirical) community with the brand community through Hedonic; Social
Engagement the consumer’s intrinsic motivation engagement
to interact/co-operate with
community members
Calder et al. (2009) Online A second-order construct Multidimensional: Stimulation 315
(Empirical) engagement manifested in various types of and inspiration; Social
first-order “experience” constructs, facilitation; Temporal; Self-
with “experience” being defined as esteem and civic mindedness;
“a consumer’s beliefs about how a Intrinsic enjoyment;
(web)site fits into his/her life” Utilitarian; Participation and
socializing; Community
Abdul-Ghani et al. Engagement Engagement requires consumer Multidimensional: Utilitarian;
(2010) connection (e.g. with specific Hedonic; Social
Downloaded by EKB Data Center At 10:23 13 January 2018 (PT)

(Empirical) media)
Brodie et al. (2011) Customer A motivational state that occurs by Multidimensional: Cognitive;
(Conceptual) engagement virtue of interactive, co-creative Emotional; Behavioral
customer experiences with a focal
agent/object (e.g. a brand) in focal
brand relationships
Hollebeek, 2011 Customer The level of an individual Multidimensional: Cognitive;
(Conceptual) brand customer’s motivational, brand- Emotional; Behavioral
engagement related and context-dependent
state of mind characterized by
specific levels of cognitive,
emotional and behavioral activity
in brand interactions
Brodie et al. (2013) Consumer A multidimensional concept Multidimensional: Cognitive;
(Empirical) engagement comprising cognitive, emotional Emotional; Behavioral
and/or behavioral dimensions
(which) plays a central role in the
process of relational exchange
where other relational concepts are
engagement antecedents and/or
consequences in iterative
engagement processes within the Table I.
brand community
Overview of
Hollebeek et al. Consumer A consumer’s positively valence Multidimensional: Cognitive;
(2014) (Empirical) engagement cognitive, emotional and Affection; Activation engagement
behavioral brand-related activity conceptualizations in
during, or related to, specific the marketing
consumer/brand interactions literature

Ghani et al. (2010) and Algesheimer et al. (2005) are quite relevant to understand the behavioral
motivations of the customers for engaging them on SM. Hence, it is hypothesized that:
H1. Social media brand engagement is a multidimensional construct.

Factors influencing social media brand engagement

Social factors
Robustness in consumer associations that depends on similarity of characteristics among
group members has significant influence on customers’ engagement with the brands. Yoo et al.
 JRIM (2000) viewed that positive associations prompt customers’ to engage on SM more in
11,3 comparison to negative or neutral associations. And level of these associations among younger
consumers basically depends on tie strength and peer group identification. Tie strength is the
intensity of social relationship between customers. Customers generally have a wide range of
relationship ties ranging from strong primary ties – those with close friends and family
members – to weak secondary ties (those with acquaintances rarely seen to non-existent ties
316 with complete strangers) within their social network (Steffes and Lawrence, 2008). Wang et al.
(2012) also stated that peer communication through SM also depends on identification with the
peer group. They argued that interactions with brand community on SM platforms enable
customers to understand and evaluate the product more thoroughly. To explain why
customers participate actively in online communities, Bagozzi and Dholakia (2002) remarked
that peer group identification motivates participation in online brand interactions by enhancing
“we-intentions”, that is, individual’s commitment to participate in a joint action, and involves
explicit or implicit agreement between participants to engage in the joint action. They further
stated that as customers’ social identity with the brand community and participation in group
Downloaded by EKB Data Center At 10:23 13 January 2018 (PT)

activities increases, a greater involvement with the brand occurs, which promotes their brand
knowledge/awareness and brand image. Therefore, strong tie sources act as motivators for
customers to engage in brand interactions on SM. Thus:
H2a. Tie strength has a significant positive influence on social media brand
engagement of Gen Y.
H2b. Social identity has a significant positive influence on social media brand
engagement of Gen Y.

Consumer-based factors
The literature has identified other factors that influence customers to engage on SM.
Focusing on motivation, Calder et al. (2009) argued that customers are engaging online
either because of the utilitarian nature of the content or intrinsic enjoyment gained from
their past experiences. Gummerus et al. (2012) opined that customers’ engagement behavior
is largely derived from entertainment, social and economic benefits received through SM.
The study argues that brand engagement through SM being convenient tool prompt
customers to satiate their hedonic needs (in the form of entertainment, enjoyment, fun) and
utilitarian needs (in the form of product/service information relating to offers, price, reviews,
etc.). In line with this, Rohm et al. (2013) have recognized self-motivating factors that include
entertainment, brand affiliation, timeliness of information and service responses, product
information and incentives and promotions, which trigger customers’ interactions and
engagement with brands on SM.
This approach is also supported by Enginkaya and Yilmaz (2014) and Mikalef et al.
(2013), who discussed the importance of various factors such as brand affiliation,
investigation, opportunity seeking, conversation, entertainment, convenience and product
selection which impact users’ browsing and purchasing intentions. These scholars have also
expressed that users’ browsing and purchasing intentions are influenced by their online
activities relating to product selection, exploring beneficial opportunities, brand attachment,
personalized advertisements and access to product information. Overall, scholars have
found convenience, entertainment through branding activities, access to brand/product
information, opportunity seeking, the option to associate with brand and personalized
advertisement as core factors that influence the SM engagement behavior of Gen Y. Based
on this backdrop, it is hypothesized that:
 H3a. Convenience has a significant positive influence on social media brand Trust
engagement of Gen Y. moderates
H3b. Entertainment has a significant positive influence on social media brand social media
engagement of Gen Y. engagement
H3c. Information availability has a significant positive influence on social media brand
engagement of Gen Y.
317
H3d. Opportunity seeking has a significant positive influence on social media brand
engagement of Gen Y.
H3e. Brand affiliation has a significant positive influence on social media brand
engagement of Gen Y.
H3f. Product selection has a significant positive influence on social media brand
engagement of Gen Y.
Downloaded by EKB Data Center At 10:23 13 January 2018 (PT)

H3g. Personalized advertisement has a significant positive influence on social media

brand engagement of Gen Y.

Relationship of social media brand engagement and customer-based brand

equity
Today, SM favors creation of brand equity through active engagement of customers (Bruhn
et al., 2012). Recent trends showed that young customers are increasingly seeking more
involved roles in the consumption process and in contributing to brand identity and equity
(Doorn et al., 2010; Calder and Malthouse, 2005). Customers’ direct involvement in SM gives
them power to influence brands and posit challenges for brand managers’ efforts to manage
their brand. Different SM interactions on company’s brand page enhance brand knowledge
among customers. And, this brand knowledge alternatively evokes strong feelings and
associations with the brand and denotes higher involvement in brand’s SM activities. These
brand interactions in SM also influence customers’ preference or their purchase decisions
(Bickart and Schindler, 2001). That is, more actively customers engage with the SM
activities of a brand, more awareness about the brand they can generate (Hutter et al., 2013).
Thus, customers’ reaction to a company’s brand-based activities and their response to other
customers’ brand-based communication on SM platforms (Gummerus et al., 2012) result in
creating more value vis-a-vis brand equity. Schivinski and Dabrowski (2015) have also
discussed the ways in which firm- and user-generated brand content on SM impact brand
equity. They revealed that firm-generated content only influences brand awareness,
whereas user-generated content impacts all the dimensions of brand equity, such as brand
awareness, brand loyalty and perceived quality. Similarly, Brodie et al. (2011) highlighted
that more engaged the customers are, higher is their brand satisfaction, involvement,
awareness, image and loyalty. Thus, it is hypothesized that:
H4. Social media brand engagement significantly leads to customer-based brand equity.

Moderating role of trust

From a marketing point of view, trust is considered as a key factor to establish successful
long-term relationships (Pennanen et al., 2007). It is a very critical component for customers
to engage and purchase online, as media that give them peace of mind will create more
satisfaction, brand equity and patronage. In this context, Ng (2013) and Rohm et al. (2013)
 JRIM remarked that customers share and seek information (social interest, products, services, etc.)
11,3 on SM because of atmosphere of trust between friends/colleagues on social networking
environments. However, customers’ inability to trust websites has been one of the main
deterrents to conducting online transactions (Rios and Riquelme, 2008) and a limitation that
restricts customers’ engagement with the associated brands. This lack of trust emanates
from various sources like security/privacy, electronic fraud, etc. (Gorriz, 2003).
318 In fact, the literature on online media indicated that customers are primarily concerned
about the use of data that companies collect online (Miyazaki and Fernandez, 2001) and,
hence, restrict their engagement and purchases online (Brown and Muchira, 2004). Several
scholars have considered trust as a contextual and conditional variable that acts as a
moderating factor rather than one having direct effect (Langfred, 2004; See-To and Ho,
2014). That is, engagement behavior is triggered primarily by means of several motivational
variables, and the context in which this engagement behavior occurs should play a
moderating role rather than motivational role (Alsaad et al., 2017). Thus, it is assumed that
when customers perceive higher level of trust toward certain brand, their engagement,
Downloaded by EKB Data Center At 10:23 13 January 2018 (PT)

commitment and loyalty toward it will also be higher which in turn promotes intention to
purchase (Sanchez-Franco et al., 2015). Therefore, it is hypothesized that:
H5. Trust moderates the relationship between SM brand engagement and brand equity.

Research methodology
Research context
To investigate the complex and emergent phenomenon of consumer brand engagement in
SM, the present study adopts a SM user-oriented approach and focuses on the SM user as a
unit of analysis. Notably, SM usage is being increasingly embraced by Gen Y, which exerts
a peculiar fascination on both managers and academicians (Kaplan and Haenlein, 2010). It is
particularly revealing that Gen Y actually prefer to interact with firms online via SM than in
physical settings (Graeber and Dolan, 2007) before making any purchase decision. Also,
they are more likely to value others opinion in SM and feel important when they provide
feedback about the brands or products they use (eMarketer, 2011). Discussing Gen Y, Bolton
et al. (2013) remarked that service managers and researchers should focus on Gen Y’s SM
usage because it may be a harbinger of how people will behave in the future. Hence, the
study focuses on Indian younger consumers, that is, Gen Y. To seek diversity in terms of the
respondents’ profile, the Gurgaon city was specifically selected as most of the Fortune 500
companies are operating in the city, with employees across the country. Such diversity is
necessary to tap into the complexity and multiplicity of SM brand engagement experiences
and gain a deeper understanding of our research focus.
As it is unclear which type of online brand communities are more likely to generate high
levels of engagement, the study did not restrict respondents to any SM or brand categories.
Further, to get information about fashion and electronic brands, information regarding in
which media and how often customers are engaged was also collected. Further, the
respondents were asked to respond to the questionnaire items with respect to specific
frequently purchased brand.

Generation of scale items

The items used to measure SM brand engagement, its antecedents (social factors and
customer-based factors), consequence (brand equity) and trust as a moderator were
generated from a review of relevant literature and discussion with marketing experts. Four
items each of tie strength and social identity (social factor) were extracted from Wang et al.
 (2012) and Dholakia et al. (2004), respectively. Items measuring consumer-based factors were Trust
generated from the studies of Enginkaya and Yilmaz (2014) and Mikalef et al. (2013). moderates
Specifically, items of entertainment (04), opportunity seeking (03) and brand affiliation (03)
were extracted from the study of Enginkaya and Yilmaz (2014). While the items for
social media
convenience (03), product selection (03), information availability (03) and personalized engagement
advertisement (02) were generated from the study of Mikalef et al. (2013). Nine items were
extracted from Campbell et al. (2014) and Laroche et al. (2013) to measure customers’ SM
brand engagement. Further, 12 items of brand equity were taken from customer-based 319
brand equity scale developed by Yoo and Donthu (2001). Finally, a modified scale of
Weisberg et al. (2011) and Lin and Lu (2010) was used to measure trust. On the basis of these
sources, an instrument was framed for the collection of requisite data. The extracted scale
items were modified as per their applicability in SM. Some items were kept in negative form
to have internal cross-checking and to ensure the active involvement of respondents while
filling the questionnaire. All the items were designed using five-point Likert scale with 5 as
strongly agree and 1 as strongly disagree.
Downloaded by EKB Data Center At 10:23 13 January 2018 (PT)

Pilot testing
Two pilot tests were conducted for finalizing scale items. In the first pilot test, a detailed list
of items related to SM brand engagement, its antecedents (social factors and consumer-
based factors), consequence (brand equity) and trust were discussed with ten experts (five
academic experts and five frequent SM users) to determine the relevancy and quality of
items. On the basis of experts’ suggestions, a few items were modified. In the second pilot
test, a survey was conducted to collect data from a convenience sample of 100 SM users. On
the basis of customers’ responses, the questionnaire was again refined. During this process,
a few items of SM engagement construct were changed and few were deleted because of
repetitiveness. This whole process resulted in 64 variables of which 7 pertained to
demographic profile, 2 pertained to general information and remaining 55 items covered SM
engagement, its antecedents, consequence and trust.

Data collection
Customers’ falling in the age group of 18 to 40 years (Gen Y) were contacted from
multinational corporations in Gurgaon using purposive sampling method. A total of 1,200
questionnaires were distributed to employees having at least 2-3 years of experience in
accessing SM sites and online purchasing. A total of 816 respondents gave usable responses.

Sample characteristics
Of the total respondents, 69 per cent were men and 31 per cent were women; majority were
having professional qualification (52 per cent). The average age of the respondents was
found to be 28, and 52 per cent of the respondents were below the average age. The
respondent profile reflects that survey was conducted on a population of young customers
with knowledge of information technology and who were more likely to engage in SM to
share or get information about a product/service. About 84 per cent respondents reported
having annual income below Indian Rs10 lakh and remaining 16 per cent had between Rs10-
20 lakh ($15,460-$30,920). Further, results indicated popular SM websites to be Facebook,
with 91 per cent of users maintaining an active account, followed by YouTube (39 per cent)
and Twitter (26 per cent). Furthermore, in these data, SM users mostly prefer to buy
electronic products (56 per cent), closely followed by fashion products (48 per cent). In terms
of time spent on social network sites, it was found that majority of the users (68 per cent)
access these websites at the most two hours a day, followed by more than two hours
 JRIM (30 per cent), while a few percentage of respondents are logged on for more than four hours.
11,3 Among the respondents, 82 per cent of the respondents expressed that they discuss or
browse product-related information on SM at the time of making a purchase.

Data analysis
Descriptive statistics
320 Negatively worded items were reversed and normality tests were conducted and satisfied
before the application of parametric tests. Following this procedure, 49 outliers were
identified and deleted. All the skewness and kurtosis values were examined and were found
within threshold criteria, which depict the normal distribution of the data (Table II). The
final usable sample size was arrived at 767.

Exploratory factor analysis

An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed only on the SM brand engagement
Downloaded by EKB Data Center At 10:23 13 January 2018 (PT)

scale to identify its dimensions, while direct confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was
performed on the rest of the constructs. The EFA using a rotated component matrix and
principal component method was applied to identify latent dimensions of SM brand
engagement. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy was used to
confirm appropriateness of proceeding with the analysis. Further, items which did not have
significant factor loading on any factor (<0.50), those with significant loadings on two or
more factor and those with low communalities (0.50) were considered for deletion. In the
initial run, one item, that is, “share my opinions about product with others on SM”, was
deleted because of low communality value (0.02). When the second application of EFA was
performed, all the items fell in the acceptance criteria and converged into two factors which
were named as “information interest” and “personal interest”. This measure explained 71.64
per cent variance with KMO value of 0.79, communalities and factor loadings ranged
between 0.47 and 0.83 and between 0.70 and 0.91, respectively (Table III).

Confirmatory factor analysis

After the EFA, a CFA was performed on all the five constructs to assess and validate
measurement models. A second-order CFA was performed on all the constructs – SM
engagement, social factors, consumer-based factors and brand equity, excluding trust (first-
order) – to validate the measurement constructs. Model fit was established by the goodness-
of-fit index (GFI), comparative fit index (CFI) and Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), where values
approaching 0.9 are indicative of a good model fit (Hair et al., 2010). The root mean square
error of approximation (RMSEA) was also investigated, with an appropriate model fit
indicated by value below 0.08 (Hair et al., 2010). All the items under each factor of the models
were confirmed except one item on the trust scale, “trust the information written by
company on SM”, which was found to be insignificant (p = 0.075) and, hence, deleted. CFA
models of all the constructs were found to be acceptable fit (Table IV).

Reliability and validity

Reliability of all the constructs was evaluated using Cronbach’s alpha and composite
reliability scores. The construct is considered reliable when the Cronbach’s alpha score and
composite reliability score are above the recommended cut-off of 0.7 (Hair et al., 2010). As
shown in Table V, composite reliability scores and Cronbach’s alpha values of all the scales
were found to meet the threshold criterion. Hence, the reliability of all the scales got
established.
 Downloaded by EKB Data Center At 10:23 13 January 2018 (PT)

Constructs Mean Standard Deviation Skewness Kurtosis

Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum

SM brand engagement 3.57 3.96 0.613 0.945 0.469 0.728 0.016 1.535
Social factors 3.66 3.87 0.760 0.976 0.652 0.882 0.479 1.275
Consumer-based factors 3.74 4.18 0.573 0.845 0.101 1.070 099 2.547
Brand equity 3.72 4.23 0.489 0.767 0.102 0.697 0.338 2.234
Trust 3.06 4.07 0.451 0.773 0.063 1.149 0.190 2.023

Descriptive statistics
social media

321
moderates
Trust

engagement

Table II.
 JRIM Factors Items CV FL KMO VE
11,3
Social media engagement
Information Like to browse for extracting information 0.837 0.914 0.778 40.366
interest Interested in receiving company’s 0.470 0.607
communications via SM
Follow regular updates of products on SM 0.764 0.865
322 SM community is useful for gathering 0.737 0.851
information
Like to learn and talk more with others on SM 0.499 0.701
Personal Motivated to participate in SM community to 0.727 0.850 31.276
interest reach personal goals
Motivated to participate in SM community to 0.721 0.847
support other members
Motivated to participate in SM community 0.731 0.845
because I feel better afterwards
Table III.
Downloaded by EKB Data Center At 10:23 13 January 2018 (PT)

Exploratory factor Notes: CV: Communality value; FL – Factor loading; KMO – Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin; VE – Variance
analysis results explained; SM – Social media

Further, all constructs were also tested for convergent and discriminant validity.
Convergent validity is supported if average variance extracted (AVE) estimates for each
underlying construct exceed 0.50 (Hair et al., 2010). While discriminant validity is
established when shared variance between any two constructs is less than the square root of
the AVE by the items measuring the construct (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Table V shows
evidence of both convergent and discriminant validity among the constructs.

Common method bias

The study examined the effect of common method bias through Harman’s single factor
(Podsakoff and Organ, 1986) and marker variable (Lindell and Whitney, 2001) methods. To
assess common method bias under Harman’s one-factor method, all variables including
dependent and independent were entered into an unrotated factor analysis. The factor
analysis results showed that first factor accounted for 10.65 per cent of the variance, which
was less than 25 per cent. Thus, this indicated an absence of common method biases. To
support this result, a marker variable (i.e. “employees role” comprising two items, namely,
appropriate actions are taken by the company against employees for effective service delivery
and employees are rewarded for handling customers’ complaints effectively) was incorporated
in the overall model. The marker variable test also showed no sign of common method bias,
as the analysis yielded a common factor loading of 2 per cent. Hence, common method bias
was not a matter of any concern in the study.

Hypotheses testing
Marsh’s (1990) procedure was applied to test the first hypothesis; CFA was first run on two
first-order (monogonal) models (Models 1 and 2) followed by unconstrained (Model 3) and
constrained (Model 4) covariance models; and finally, on second-order CFA model (Table
VI). CFA results indicated that the first-order models representing “information interest”
(Model 1); “personal interest” (Model 2); and covariance model (Model 3) (i.e. unconstrained)
supported adequate model fit, as all model fit indices were meeting the threshold criteria.
Further, the difference between unconstrained and constrained covariance models was
recorded as statistically significant, indicating SM engagement to be higher order construct.
 Trust
Factors Latent construct/dimensions CR SRW Model fit indices
moderates
Social media engagement social media
Information Like to browse for extracting 15.37 0.855 RMSEA = 0.065, CMIN/
interest information DF = 2.622, TLI = 0.954, engagement
Follow regular updates of products on 14.86 0.803 CFI = 0.969, GFI = 0.968
SM
SM community is useful for gathering Ref 0.752 323
information
Like to talk and learn about products 10.30 0.557
on SM
Interested in receiving company’s 8.465 0.460
communications via SM
Personal interest Motivated to participate in SM 9.951 0.788
community to reach personal goals
Motivated to participate in SM 10.08 0.700
Downloaded by EKB Data Center At 10:23 13 January 2018 (PT)

community to support other members

Motivated to participate in SM Ref 0.658
community because I feel better
afterwards
Social factors
Tie strength If peers planned something, then think 5.719 0.362 CMIN/DF = 3.182,
of it as something “we” would do NFI = 0.869, RFI =
See myself as part of peer group on 8.897 0.662 0.816, IFI = 0.906, TLI =
SM 0.866, CFI = 0.905,
Strongly affiliated with others on SM 7.876 0.532 GFI = 0.960, RMSEA =
Interaction on SM through message Ref 0.682 0.075
exchange
Social identity My identity is similar to other 7.736 0.590
members of the community
Sense of strong belongingness to SM 7.775 0.596
community
SM community’s identity is reflection 7.237 0.525
of my self-image
SNS helps to form arm relationship 5.719 0.362
with others
Consumer-based factors
Entertainment Contributes in spending relaxing time 5.361 0.494 RMSEA = 0.058, CMIN/
SM entertains and stimulates my mind 4.640 0.774 DF = 2.281, TLI = 0.857,
Offers enjoyment Ref 0.405 CFI = 0.878, GFI = 0.915
Convenience Convenient medium to discuss and 4.579 0.585
browse a product
Convenient tool to transmit complaints 4.568 0.576
and suggestions
Getting into contact with companies is Ref 0.363
easy through SM because it is simple Table IV.
and free Confirmatory factor
(continued) analysis results
 JRIM
11,3 Factors Latent construct/dimensions CR SRW Model fit indices

Product selection SM helps to find more products than I 9.512 0.496

am familiar with
I can find wide selection of products 15.15 0.854
on one platform through SM
324 With SM I can browse a large range of Ref 0.881
products
Information SM provides quick access to large 3.853 0.351
availability volume of information related to
product/service
SM enhances knowledge about latest 4.415 0.507
trends
SM helps in making better decisions Ref 0.454
Personalized Presented with the advertisements 4.243 0.808
advertisements which are compatible to my liking
Downloaded by EKB Data Center At 10:23 13 January 2018 (PT)

Products presented on SNS are Ref 0.507

customized to my needs
Brand affiliation Follow products similar to my lifestyle 8.100 0.428
Follow the brand on SM purchase 11.97 0.909
often
Follow brands on SM that I fancy to Ref 0.834
buy in future
Opportunity Getting informed about discounts and 7.680 0.469
seeking offers through SM
Helps in getting information about 9.361 0.828
new offerings
Promotions and discount campaigns Ref 0.685
offered by brands on SM generate
financial benefits for the customers
Brand equity
Brand awareness Easily recognize the brand among 3.865 0.433 RMSEA = 0.052, CMIN/
other brands DF = 2.023, TLI = 0.873,
Easily recall the symbol of brand 3.784 0.613 CFI = 0.904, GFI = 0.960
Pay attention towards other member’s Ref 0.353
viewpoints about the brand
Brand image Brand is reliable 4.025 0.295
Good image among customer 5.359 0.623
Provides more products than its Ref 0.621
competitor
Brand loyalty Continue to buy the same brand 5.998 0.611
If brand is not available, then would 5.742 0.519
buy the same from some other store
Willing to wait if this brand is not 3.905 0.282
available in market
Prefer this brand over the others Ref 0.481
Perceived quality Quality of product is extremely high 7.257 0.740
The likelihood that the product would Ref 0.766
be functional is very high
(continued)
Table IV.
 Trust
Factors Latent construct/dimensions CR SRW Model fit indices moderates
Trust
social media
Trust Trust SM for providing personal 4.395 0.688 RMSEA = 0.068, CMIN/ engagement
information DF = 4.954, TLI = 0.834,
Always feel confident while 4.315 0.554 CFI = 0.967, GFI = 0.987
interacting in SMC’s that I can rely on 325
their responses & feedback
Feel safe in my postings with SM 4.226 0.684
Search information on SM because 4.789 0.431
find it more trustworthy
Trust information written by others on Ref 0.313
SM

Notes: CR – Critical ratio; SRW – Standard regression weight; SM – Social media Table IV.
Downloaded by EKB Data Center At 10:23 13 January 2018 (PT)

Constructs a value CR AVE SME SF CBF BE Trust

SME 0.780 0.936 0.683 0.826*

SF 0.762 0.733 0.456 0.299 0.675*
CBF 0.708 0.968 0.494 0.357 0.373 0.702*
BE 0.680 0.927 0.538 0.093 0.168 0.313 0.733*
Trust 0.686 0.749 0.463 0.091 0.180 0.147 0.088 0.680*
Table V.
Note: CR – Composite reliability; AVE – Average variance extracted; *Values in the diagonal of correlation Reliability and
matrix are the square root of AVE validity

Model Chi-square DF CMIN/DF CFI TLI RMSEA

First-order factor structure

II (Model 1) 5.732 2 2.866 0.994 0.981 0.081
PI (Model 2) 2.590 1 2.590 0.983 0.949 0.064
Covariance (Constrained) CFA Model
Model 3 49.79 14 3.557 0.951 0.926 0.082
Covariance (Unconstrained) CFA Model
Model 4 37.01 13 2.847 0.967 0.947 0.069
Higher-order CFA Model
Table VI.
Model 5 31.28 13 2.407 0.980 0.967 0.061 Model fit indices for
first- and second-
Notes: II – Information interest; PI – Personal interest order factor structure

To further support the results, the residual covariance of both “information interest” and
“personal interest” was examined, and all residual values were found to be less than 2.58,
indicating SM engagement construct to be a second-order model. Hence, second-order CFA
model was run and all the fit indices were found to be robust, establishing SM brand
engagement to be a bi-dimensional construct. Therefore, the first hypothesis which stated
that “SM brand engagement is a multidimensional construct” was not supported (Figure 1).
 JRIM e5 SME1 0.57 e9
11,3
e4 SME2 0.46

0.81
e3 SME3 IM
0.84 0.46

326 e2 SME4 0.75

SME
e1 SME6
e10
0.38

e8 SME7 0.79

0.70 PM
e7 SME8
0.66
Downloaded by EKB Data Center At 10:23 13 January 2018 (PT)

e6 SME9

Notes: SME – Social media engagement, II – Information interest, PI – Personal

interest, SME1 – Browsing to extract information, SME2 – Regular updates on
Figure 1. products, SME3 – Gathering information, SME4 – Word-of-mouth, SME6 – For
Measurement model receiving companies’ information, SME7 – To accomplish personal goals,
of social media brand SME8 – To support other community members, SME9 – To feel better
engagement
afterwards and e1 to e10 – Error of variance

Structural equation modelling (SEM) was used to test rest of the hypotheses. The summated
means were used to represent respective factors under all constructs in the SEM model
(Figure 2). The indices – CMIN/df = 2.69, GFI = 0.92, AGFI = 0.90, NFI = 0.72, CFI = 0.80
and RMSEA = 0.066 – reflected acceptable model fitness. The results indicated that social
factors ( b = 0.84) and consumer-based factors ( b = 0.50) significantly and positively impact
customers’ SM brand engagement. Social factors comprising social identity ( b = 0.63) and
tie strength ( b = 0.78) were found to be significant predictors of SM brand engagement,
leading to acceptance of H2a and H2b. All the consumer-based factors were found to be
positive and significant determinants of customers’ SM brand engagement. Among
consumer-based factors, “opportunity seeking” ( b = 0.66) and “product selection” ( b = 0.65)
were found to be relatively highly influencing customers’ SM engagement followed by
“information availability” ( b = 0.50.), “convenience” ( b = 0.45), “personalized
advertisements” ( b = 0.44), “brand affiliation” ( b = 0.41) and “entertainment” ( b = 0.35).
Hence, H3a to H3g were also supported. Further, Gen Y’s brand engagement in SM was
found to have a significant positive impact on customer-based brand equity ( b = 0.445),
thus supporting the hypothesis (Table VIII). All the four dimensions of brand equity – brand
awareness, brand image, perceived quality and brand loyalty – were found to be significant
in predicting customer-based brand equity.

Moderation results
The moderating role of trust on SM engagement and brand equity was examined using
SEM. To determine the moderation effect of trust, the sample was divided into two groups –
low trust and high trust – based on the median value of trust (i.e. 3.2). Subsequently,
 e16 Trust
e9 SI
0.63 moderates
0.78 SF social media
e8 TS engagement
e7 ENT
0.36 0.84 327
e6 CC 0.45
e18 BAW e13
e17 0.60
e5 IA 0.50
0.49 e12
BI
0.41 0.48 0.44
BA SME BE 0.46
e4 CBF
0.655 0.58 PQ e11
e3 PS 0.66
BL e10
0.44 0.43
0.25
Downloaded by EKB Data Center At 10:23 13 January 2018 (PT)

e2 OS

e1 PA II PI

e14 e15

Notes: SME – Social media engagement, II – Information interest, PI – Personal interest,

TS – Tie strength, SI – Social identity, ENT – Entertainment, CC – Convenience,
IA – Information availability, PS – Product selection, PA – Personalized advertisement,
BA – Brand affiliation, OS – Opportunity seeking, BE – Brand equity, Figure 2.
BAW – Brand awareness, BI – Brand image, BL – Brand loyalty, PQ – Perceived quality and Structural equation
model
e1 to e18 – Error of variance

Standardized regression weight

Models Chi-square Degree of freedom High trust Low trust Significance

Constrained 600.1 300 0.52 0.22 Significant at 0.05 level

Unconstrained 581.6 296 Table VII.
Difference 18.5 04 Moderation result

unconstrained (where all paths are allowed to move freely) and constrained (where paths are
constrained fixed to be equal) models were examined to test the moderation effect. SEM was
run on both unconstrained and constrained model to remove the insignificant paths between
both the groups. And later chi-square value difference between the two models was
examined to investigate the role of trust. The chi-square value and degree of freedom of
constrained and unconstrained models are given in Table VIII. The chi-square difference
test suggested that both the groups (low and high trust) are different, which suggests that
trust moderates the relationship between SM engagement and brand equity. The results
indicated that more the younger generation trust SM, more they engage and create brand
equity in terms of increased brand awareness, brand image, perceived quality and brand
loyalty. When trust is high, the relationship between SM engagement and brand equity is
stronger ( b = 0.52). On the other hand, when trust is low, this relationship becomes weaker
( b = 0.22). Thus, H7 is supported in the study.
 JRIM Hypotheses CR p-value SRW Accept/Reject
11,3
H1. Social media engagement is a multidimensional
construct
Information interest – *** 0.46
Personal interest 3.379 *** 0.38 Rejected
H2a. Tie strength significantly influence social
328 media brand engagement – *** 0.78 Accepted
H2b. Social identity significantly influence social
media brand engagement 6.886 *** 0.63 Accepted
H3a. Entertainment significantly influence social
media brand engagement 6.233 0.35 Accepted
H3b. Convenience significantly influence social
media brand engagement 7.725 *** 0.45 Accepted
H3c. Product selection significantly influence social
media brand engagement 11.35 *** 0.65 Accepted
Downloaded by EKB Data Center At 10:23 13 January 2018 (PT)

H3d. Information availability significantly influence

social media brand engagement 8.664 0.50 Accepted
H3e. Personalized advertisements significantly
influence social media brand engagement 7.666 *** 0.44 Accepted
H3f. Brand affiliation significantly influence social
media brand engagement 7.115 *** 0.41 Accepted
H3g. Opportunity seeking significantly influence
social media brand engagement – *** 0.66 Accepted
H4. Social media engagement significantly leads to
brand equity 3.918 0.004 0.45 Accepted
H5. Trust moderates the relationship between social
media engagement and brand equity 4.655 *** 0.52 Accepted
Table VIII.
Hypotheses results Notes: CR = Critical ratio; SRW = Standardized regression weight; *** signifies that p-value is 0.000

Additionally, a series of simple slope analysis based on multiple regression results was
also conducted, which revealed that trust moderates the relationship between SM brand
engagement and brand equity (Figures 3, 4, 5 and 6). These results were examined for
strong and weak brands of electronic and fashion categories. The results indicated
significant interaction effect between trust and SM brand engagement for strong
brands (Figures 3 and 5), while it is found insignificant for weak brands (Figures 4 and
6) in both the categories. Hence, results supported trust as a moderator in SM brand
engagement and brand equity relationship (Table VII).

Discussions and implications

The present study provides significant theoretical and managerial implications for creating
and developing brand equity using SM platforms.
First, the study adds to the growing body of literature on SM engagement. Unlike many
other studies, SM brand engagement is established as a bi-dimensional concept comprising
personal interest and information interest as its two significant dimensions. Adequate focus on
personal and product based information is necessary to create interest among Gen Y and to
motivate them to engage with the brand actively. This interest will also meet young consumers’
intrinsic and extrinsic needs. The results also confirmed that younger consumers’ level of SM
brand engagement is greatly influenced by their social and consumer-based factors, the former
being a stronger motivator than the latter. Specifically, between two social factors, tie strength
among customers is found to have a strong impact on their SM engagement. Further, all the
 Trust
moderates
social media
engagement

329

Figure 3.
Moderating effect of
trust on SMBE and
BE relationship in
case of strong
Downloaded by EKB Data Center At 10:23 13 January 2018 (PT)

electronic brands

Figure 4.
Moderating effect of
trust on SMBE and
BE relationship in
case of weak
electronic brands

consumer-based factors that include convenience, entertainment, information availability,

opportunity seeking, brand affiliation, personalized advertisement and product selection found
to trigger Gen Y’s engagement in SM platforms significantly. Among these factors,
opportunity seeking and product selection are found to be the most important motivational
factors that influence customers’ engagement behavior. Furthermore, the study provides
empirical support for the claim that SM engagement has a significant impact on customer-
based brand equity. Both social and consumer-based factors significantly impact all the four
dimensions of customer-based brand equity, that is, brand awareness, brand image, perceived
quality and brand loyalty, through SM engagement. In addition, the study has also confirmed
the moderating role of trust in SM engagement and brand equity relationship.
The study also provides significant managerial implications to strengthen the impact of
Gen Y’s SM engagement on brand equity. First, it is suggested that marketing managers
need to emphasize personalized and information-based strategies that can motivate young
customers’ engagement in building brand equity. Based on the results of social factors,
 JRIM
11,3

330

Figure 5.
Moderating effect of
trust on SMBE and
BE relationship in
case of strong fashion
Downloaded by EKB Data Center At 10:23 13 January 2018 (PT)

brands

Figure 6.
Moderating effect of
trust on SMBE and
BE relationship in
case of weak fashion
brands

marketing managers should mine such SM users who have strong associations with the
community members and can recommend and promote the specific brand to their friends.
This subsequently may also attract and enhance their friends’ browsing experience and
purchase intentions. In addition, managers should regularly center their attention on these
customers and communicate opportunities relating to new offerings, discounts and
promotions available, etc., to retain their attention towards the respective brands. To further
hold on their interest, managers also need to provide relevant, timely and fresh content to
Gen Y to help them in their product selection and subsequently to motivate them to share
and generate content about brands on SM. This focus may consequently enhance customer-
based brand equity in terms of enhanced brand awareness, image, attitude and loyalty.
Marketers and practitioners should also emphasize creating strong brand associations by
providing personalized, creative and informative advertisements that can stimulate
customers’ purchase intention, based on the effective message content. Finally, managers
 should also focus on designing relevant, reliable and secure content that can prompt young Trust
customers’ engagement in SM and subsequently can enhance customer-based brand equity. moderates
social media
Limitations and future research
In our effort to understand the concept of SM engagement and role of intervening variables,
engagement
we experienced certain limitations. One of the main limitations of the current study is that it
examines SM from generic perspective. In the future, it may be beneficial to examine how
different types of SM that is Facebook, YouTube, etc., can be leveraged for strengthening
331
brand equity. Second, our research is limited to Gen Y. Although SM use is especially
prevalent among this age group, investigating how old and young consumers interact with
brands via SM can further stimulate theoretical development as well as can furnish
potentially valuable strategic opportunities to brand managers. Third, because of the
strategic implications of customers interactions on SM related to brands, future research can
be extended by establishing roles of user-based, firm-based and social factors in predicting
SM brand engagement and its consequences, such as value co-creation, brand equity,
Downloaded by EKB Data Center At 10:23 13 January 2018 (PT)

competitive advantage and purchase intentions. Specifically, how consumers value fashion
and electronic brands across different SM platforms needs to be considered in the future.
Further, an Indian sample was used in this research; hence, results need to be generalized
across different countries for stronger validation and application of the results. Finally, the
effects of other moderating factors like varied perceived risks such as social, psychological,
financial, privacy, performance and physical risk can also be investigated in the future.

References
Abdul-Ghani, E., Hyde, K. and Marshall, R. (2010), “Emic and etic interpretations of engagement with a
consumer-to-consumer online auction site”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 64 No. 10,
pp. 1060-1066.
Algesheimer, R., Dholakia, U.M. and Hermann, A. (2005), “The social influence of brand community:
evidence from European car clubs”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 69 No. 3, pp. 19-34.
Alsaad, A., Mohamad, R. and Ismail, N.A. (2017), “The moderating role of trust in business to business
electronic commerce adoption”, Computers in Human Behaviour, Vol. 68 (March), pp. 157-169.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Dholakia, U.M. (2002), “Intentional social action in virtual communities”, Journal of
Interactive Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 2-21.
Balakrishnan, B.K., Dahnil, M.I. and Yi, W.J. (2014), “The impact of social media marketing medium
toward purchase intention and brand loyalty among generation Y”, Procedia-Social and
Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 148 (August), pp. 177-185.
Bickart, B. and Schindler, R.M. (2001), “Internet forums as influential sources of consumer information”,
Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 31-40.
Bolton, R.N., Parasuraman, A., Hoefnagels, A., Migchels, N., Kabadayi, S., Gruber, T., Loureiro, Y.K.
and Solnet, D. (2013), “Understanding generation Y and their use of social media: a review and
research agenda”, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 245-267.
Brodie, R.J., Ilic, A., Biljana, J. and Hollebeek, L. (2011), “Consumer engagement in a virtual brand
community: an exploratory analysis”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 105-114.
Brodie, R.J., Ilic, A., Biljana, J. and Hollebeek, L.D. (2013), “Consumer engagement in a virtual brand
community: an exploratory analysis”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 105-114.
Brown, M. and Muchira, R. (2004), “Investigating the relationship between internet privacy concerns
and online purchase behavior”, Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 62-70.
Bruhn, M., Schoenmueller, V. and Schafer, D.B. (2012), “Are social media replacing traditional media in
terms of brand equity creation?”, Management Research Review, Vol. 35 No. 9, pp. 770-790.
 JRIM Cal, B. and Adams, R. (2014), “The effect of hedonistic and utilitarian consumer behaviour on brand
equity: Turkey – UK comparison on Coca-Cola”, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences,
11,3 Vol. 150 (September), pp. 475-484.
Calder, B.J. and Malthouse, E.C. (2005), “Managing media and advertising change with integrated
marketing”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 1-6.
Calder, B.J., Malthouse, E.C. and Schaedel, U. (2009), “An experimental study of the relationship
332 between online engagement and advertising effectiveness”, Journal of Interactive Marketing,
Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 321-331.
Campbell, C., Ferraro, C. and Sands, S. (2014), “Segmenting consumer reactions to social network
marketing”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 48 Nos 3/4, pp. 432-452.
Chen, J.S., Ching, R., Tsai, H.T. and Kuo, Y.J. (2011), “Blog effects on brand attitude and purchase
intention”, Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Service Systems and Service
Management, Melbourne, pp. 1-6.
Christodoulides, G., Jevons, C. and Bonhomme, J. (2012), “Memo to marketers: quantitative evidence for
Downloaded by EKB Data Center At 10:23 13 January 2018 (PT)

change how user-generated content really affects brands”, Journal of Advertising Research,
Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 53-64.
Dessart, L., Veloutsou, C. and Morgan-Thomas, A. (2015), “Consumer engagement in online brand
communities: a social media perspective”, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 24
No. 1, pp. 28-42.
Dholakia, U.M., Bagozzi, R.P. and Pearo, L.K. (2004), “A social influence model of consumer
participation in network- and small-group based virtual communities”, International Journal of
Research in Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 241-263.
Doorn, J.V., Lemon, K.N., Mittal, V., Nass, D.P., 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.
eMarketer (2011), “Social media outlook for 2011”, eMarketer Webinar, available at: www.emarketer.
com (accessed 30 April, 2015).
Enginkaya, E. and Yılmaz, H. (2014), “What drives consumers to interact with brands through social
media? A motivation scale development study”, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences,
Vol. 148 (August), pp. 219-226.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Structural equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error: algebra and statistics”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18
(August), pp. 382-388.
Gorriz, C. (2003), Electric Commerce and Trust on the Internet, SRIC-Bio, Menlo Park, CA.
Graeber, C. and Dolan, E.M. (2007), “Meet your next financial consumer”, Forrester Research, (March
23), available at: www.forrester.com/rb/Research/meet_next_financial_consumer/q/id/41529/t/2
(accessed 16 November, 2010).
Greve, G. (2014), “The moderating effect of customer engagement on the brand image – brand loyalty
relationship”, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 148 (August), pp. 203-210.
Gummerus, J., Liljander, V., Weman, E. and Pihlstrom, M. (2012), “Customer engagement in a facebook
brand community”, Management Research Review, Vol. 35 No. 9, pp. 857-877.
Habibi, M.R., Laroche, M. and Richard, M.O. (2015), “The role of brand community and community
engagement in building brand trust on social media”, Computers in Human Behaviour, Vol. 37
(August), pp. 152-161.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis. A Global
Perspective, Pearson, Upper Saddle River.
Haven, B. (2007), “Marketing’s new key metric: engagement”, Forrester Research, available at: www.
adobe.com/engagement/pdfs/marketings_new_key_metric_engagement.pdf (accessed 07-03-2013).
 Hollebeek, L.D. (2011), “Demystifying customer brand engagement: exploring the loyalty nexus”, Trust
Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 27 Nos 7/8, pp. 785-807.
moderates
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
social media
No. 2, pp. 149-165. engagement
Hutter, K., Hautz, J., Dennhardt, S. and Fuller, J. (2013), “The impact of user interactions in social media
on brand awareness and purchase intention: the case of MINI on facebook”, Journal of Product
and Brand Management, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 342-351. 333
Jahn, B. and Kunz, W. (2012), “How to transform consumers into fans of your brand”, Journal of Service
Management, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 344-361.
Kaplan, A.M. and Haenlein, M. (2010), “Users of the world, unite! the challenges and opportunities of
social media”, Business Horizons, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 59-68.
Kuvykaite, R. and Piligrimiene, Z. (2014), “Consumer engagement into brand equity creation”,
Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 156 (November), pp. 479-483.
Downloaded by EKB Data Center At 10:23 13 January 2018 (PT)

Langfred, C.W. (2004), “Too much of a good thing? Negative effects of high trust and individual
autonomy in self - managing teams”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 385-399.
available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/20159588
Laroche, M., Habibi, M.R. and Richard, M.O. (2013), “To be or not to be in social media: how brand
loyalty is affected by social media?”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 33
No. 1, pp. 76-82.
Lim, J.S., Hwang, Y.C., Kim, S. and Biocca, F.A. (2015), “How social media engagement leads to sorts
channel loyalty: mediating roles of social presence and channel commitment”, Computers in
Human Behaviour, Vol. 46 (May), pp. 158-167.
Lin, L.Y. and Lu, C.Y. (2010), “The influence of corporate image, relationship marketing, and trust
on purchase intention: the moderating effects of word-of-mouth”, Tourism Review, Vol. 65
No. 3, pp. 16-34.
Lindell, M.K. and Whitney, D.J. (2001), “Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional
research designs”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 1, pp. 114-121.
Marsh, H.W. (1990), “The structure of academic self-concept: the marsh/shavelson model”, Journal of
Education Psychology, Vol. 82 No. 4, pp. 623-636.
Mikalef, P., Giannakos, M. and Pateli, A. (2013), “Shopping and word-of-mouth intentions on social
media”, Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 17-34.
Miyazaki, A.D. and Fernandez, A. (2001), “Consumer perceptions of privacy and security risks for
online shopping”, The Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 27-44.
Moe, W.W., Smith, R.H. and Schweidel, D.A. (2012), “Online product opinions: incidence, evaluation,
and evolution”, Marketing Science, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 372-386.
Nadeem, W., Andreini, D., Salo, J. and Laukkanen, T. (2015), “Engaging consumers online through
websites and social media: a gender study of Italian generation Y clothing consumers”,
International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 432-442.
Ng, C.S.P. (2013), “Intention to purchase on social commerce websites across cultures: a cross-regional
study”, Information and Management, Vol. 50 No. 8, pp. 609-620.
Palfrey, J. and Gasser, U. (2008), Born Digital: Understanding the First Generation of Digital Natives,
Basic Book, New York, NY.
Pennanen, K., Tiainen, T. and Luomala, H. (2007), “A qualitative exploration of a consumer’s value-
based e-trust building process: a framework development”, Qualitative Market Research: An
International Journal, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 28-47.
Podsakoff, P.M. and Organ, D.W. (1986), “Self-reports in organizational research: problems and
prospects”, Journal of Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 531-544.
 JRIM Porter, C.E., Donthu, N., MacElroy, W.H. and Wydra, D. (2011), “How to foster and sustain engagement
in virtual communities”, California Management Review, Vol. 53 No. 4, pp. 80-110.
11,3
Rios, R.E. and Riquelme, H.E. (2008), “Brand equity for online companies”, Marketing Intelligence and
Planning, Vol. 26 No. 7, pp. 719-742.
Rohm, A., Velitchka, D., Kaltcheva, L.A. and George, R.M. (2013), “A mixed-method approach to
examining brand-consumer interactions driven by social media”, Journal of Research in
Interactive Marketing, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 295-311.
334
Sanchez-Franco, M.J., Buitrago-Esquinas, E.M. and Yniguez-Ovando, R. (2015), “What drives social
integration in the domain of social network sites? Examining the influences of relationship
quality and stable and dynamic individual differences”, Online Information Review, Vol. 39
No. 1, pp. 5-25.
Schivinski, B. and Dabrowski, D. (2015), “The impact of brand communication on brand equity through
facebook”, Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 31-53.
Schultz, D.E. and Peltier, J. (2013), “Social media’s slippery slope: challenges, opportunities and future
research directions”, Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 86-99.
Downloaded by EKB Data Center At 10:23 13 January 2018 (PT)

See-To, E.W. and Ho, K.K. (2014), “Value co-creation and purchase intention in social network sites: the
role of electronic word-of-mouth and trust–a theoretical analysis”, Computers in Human
Behavior, Vol. 31 (February), pp. 182-189.
Sonnier, G.P., McAlister, L. and Ritz, O.J. (2011), “A dynamic model of the effect of online
communications on firm sales”, Marketing Science, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 702-716.
Steffes, E.M. and Lawrence, E.B. (2008), “Social ties and online word-of-mouth”, Internet Research, Vol.
19 No. 1, pp. 42-59.
Vivek, S.D., Beatty, S.E., Dalela, V. and Morgan, R.M. (2014), “A generalized scale for measuring
consumer engagement”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 401-420.
Wang, X., Chunling, Y. and Yujie, W. (2012), “Social media peer communication and impacts on
purchase intentions: a consumer socialization framework”, Journal of Interactive Marketing,
Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 198-208.
Weisberg, J., Teeni, D. and Arman, L. (2011), “Past purchase and intention to purchase in e-commerce:
the mediation of social presence and trust”, Internet Research, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 82-96.
Wirtz, J., den Ambtman, A., Bloemer, J., Horvath, C., Ramaseshan, B., van de Klundert, J. and
Kandampully, J. (2013), “Managing brands and customer engagement in online brand
communities”, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 223-244.
Yoo, B. and Donthu, N. (2001), “Developing and validating multidimensional consumer-based brand
equity scale”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Yoo, B., Donthu, N. and Lee, S. (2000), “An examination of selected marketing mix elements and brand
equity”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 195-211.
Zailskaite-Jakste, L. and Kuvykaite, R. (2012), “Consumer engagement in social media by building the
brand” Electronic International Interdisciplinary Conference, September, 3-7, available at: http://
www.eiic.cz
Zhang, T., Omran, B.A. and Cobanoglu, C. (2017), “Generation Y’s positive and negative eWOM: Use of
social media and mobile technology”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 732-761.

Further reading
Podsakoff, P.M., Mackenzie, S.B., Lee, J.L. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
 About the authors Trust
Hardeep Chahal is a Professor at the Department of Commerce, University of Jammu. Her research moderates
work is acknowledged in refereed international journals like Managing Service Quality, International
Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, International Journal of Pharmaceutical Marketing, Journal social media
of Health Management, Journal of Relationship Marketing, Journal of Indian Business Research, engagement
Management Research Review, Total Quality Management and Excellence, etc., and national journals
of international repute such as Metamorphosis, Decisions, Vikalpa, Vision, Journal of Services
Research indexed in Emerald, Sage, etc. She is currently serving on the editorial boards of the 335
International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance (Emerald), Journal of Services Research (IIMT,
India) and NICE Journal of Business (Shobhit University, India).
Anu Rani is a PhD Scholar in the Department of Commerce, University of Jammu. Anu Rani is the
corresponding author and can be contacted at: anny18june@gmail.com
Downloaded by EKB Data Center At 10:23 13 January 2018 (PT)

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com