Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 54 (2020) 102035

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jretconser

Examining customer engagement and brand intimacy in social

media context
Tien Wang *, Fu-Yu Lee
Institute of International Management, College of Management, National Cheng Kung University, No.1, University Road, Tainan City, 701, Taiwan, ROC

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Customer engagement (CE) is critical for firms to cultivate and improve customer brand experience in the
Customer engagement customer journey. However, few studies are available on the effects of customer-based driving forces on CE in a
Social media defined brand experience context. Given the multidimensional nature of CE, the interrelationships among CE
Brand intimacy
dimensions and various dimensional effects on the customer–brand relationship, represented by brand intimacy,
Advice seeking
Self-image expression
have not been thoroughly explored. To address these research gaps, this study explores three customer- and
Fashion involvement context-based forces that drive CE in social media contexts from a consumer’s perspective. CE is operationalized
as a second-order construct consisting of three dimensions (i.e., consumption, contribution, and creation) to
reflect its multifaceted nature. An online survey was used to collect data. The results suggest that customer-based
forces, advice seeking, and self-image expression exert positive influences on behavioral CE dimensions. The
effect of a context-based factor, that is, fashion involvement, is salient only when gender difference is integrated.
Moreover, the three facets of behavioral CE affect brand intimacy to different extents. Brand intimacy is the most
affected by creation followed by consumption. The research findings contribute to the literature on CE and brand
intimacy and also offer practical insights on marketing communications and segmentation.

1. Introduction
Given the prevalence and ubiquity of social media as enabled by
digital technology, various social media websites have penetrated into
and become indispensable parts of consumers’ daily lives. According to
a Pew Research survey, the percentage of US adults using social media
rose sharply from 5% in 2005 to 72% in 2019 (Pew Research, 2019).
During the golden age of social media growth, Facebook (FB) mostly
dominated the market and obtained the largest market share, but in
recent years, Instagram (IG) has outpaced FB to become a platform that
is continuing to report rapid growth (Perrin and Anderson, 2019). Un­
like FB, IG is characterized by images rather than by text, and it has
recently become an essential element of customer relationship man­
agement for firms (Moatti and Abecassis-Moedas, 2018). The features
and characteristics of IG exhibit a special allure to industries such as
fashion or luxury brands whose attractiveness could be better presented
and delivered using photos and images.
Social media promoted a shift of power and value production from
companies to consumers (Berthon et al., 2012). Dramatic behavioral
changes in information searches, socialization, and consumption
behaviors have been observed (Bargh and McKenna, 2004; Hughes et al.,
2012). Customer–firm relationships are thus affected and re-shaped
owing to communication technology. Consumers not only are users of
products and services but also can become value cocreators with com­
panies. Businesses must learn how consumers consume, contribute to,
and create content during their interactions with brands in the social
media context. As reported in previous studies, of the millions of internet
users engaging with social networking sites, more than half follow
various brands on social media (Wilson et al., 2010). Companies are
fascinated with the capability of social media to contribute to firms,
directing offline activities and online traffic to the web environment,
where they can more accurately trace consumers’ digital footprints and
gain further insight into customer journeys. Therefore, identifying how
to promote and manage customer–brand engagement through social
marketing is a topic of primary concern. Studies have documented that
customer engagement (CE) serves as a strategic factor (Brodie et al.,
2011) and contributes to superior performance outcomes (Hollebeek
et al., 2014). The Marketing Science Institute listed CE establishment
and customer asset cultivation through technological interfaces as
research priorities. However, our understanding of customer-initiated

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: twang@mail.ncku.edu.tw (T. Wang), shlee7952@hotmail.com (F.-Y. Lee).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102035
Received 17 January 2019; Received in revised form 9 November 2019; Accepted 1 January 2020
Available online 9 January 2020
0969-6989/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
T. Wang and F.-Y. Lee
CE is still limited. In addition, as the CE concept continues to evolve,
more efforts are necessary to delve into its structure and characteristics.
For instance, few studies have investigated interrelationships among
various CE dimensions along with the dimensional effects of CE on
customer–brand relationship-based outcomes.
To fill these research gaps, the current study had two objectives. The
first was to understand how different motivations affect CE behaviors, as
revealed through consumption, contribution, and creation on fashion
brands’ social media sites (Schivinski et al., 2016). The second objective
was to determine how CE behavior influences brand outcomes. Specif­
ically, this study focuses on brand intimacy toward the fashion brand as
the defined research context. In terms of industry characteristics, visual
presentations and intimate relationships are particularly crucial for
fashion brands (Moatti and Abecassis-Moedas, 2018). Although brand
intimacy may contribute to the formation of customer loyalty, extant
research on the association between CE and brand intimacy remains
scant.
The remainder of this paper is organized into several sections. Sec­
tion 2 presents the literature review as the basis of the proposed research
model. Section 3 develops a conceptual framework and research hy­
potheses. Section 4 describes the research methodology and empirical
findings. Section 5 elucidates the theoretical contributions, management
implications, and limitations of this study, as well as suggestions for
future research.
2. Literature review
The CE concept is rooted in service-dominant logic (Vargo and Lusch,
2008; Brodie et al., 2011) within relationship marketing theory (Chen
et al., 2017) and has been recently explored in the context of social
exchange theory to highlight the importance of social exchange and
reciprocity (Alvarez-Mil� an et al., 2018). In the literature, CE has been
defined based on behavioral (van Doorn et al., 2010), psychological
(Bowden, 2009; Brodie et al., 2011), and value-based (Kumar et al.,
2019) perspectives. Although the perspectives may vary, common ele­
ments can be identified in various conceptualizations. First, the basis
(Cohen, 1988) of CE is formed with customer–brand interactions (Hol­
lebeek, 2018) and is highly experiential, subjective, and context
dependent (Brodie et al., 2011). As these interactions involve both firms
and customers, CE can be initiated by firms or customers. Some studies
have examined CE from a firm’s standpoint (Harmeling et al., 2017;
Alvarez-Mila�n et al., 2018), whereas others have focused on
customer-initiated CE (Hollebeek, 2011). Second, CE reveals a cus­
tomer’s response to firms, which goes beyond economic transactions
(van Doorn et al., 2010). The literature generally understands CE as a
multidimensional concept comprising dimensions such as cognitive,
emotional, behavioral, and social (Calder et al., 2009; Brodie et al.,
2013; Hollebeek et al., 2014). Compared with other dimensions,
behavioral CE is generally viewed as the most essential one. Third,
engagement is context specific (Hollebeek, 2011; Dessart et al., 2016). It
has been examined in social media (Schivinski et al., 2016), services
(O’Brien et al., 2015; Kumar et al., 2019), consumer goods, and even in a
global context (Gupta et al., 2018).
However, few studies have been published on the occurrence flow or
the relative importance of various CE dimensions in different contexts.
Alvarez-Mila�n et al. (2018) provided some initial evidence that supports
CE as a continuous sequence of reciprocal cognitive, emotional, and
behavioral commitments. Furthermore, the expression and operation­
alization of the CE dimensionality varies across individuals, subjects,
and contexts (Brodie et al., 2011; Kumar and Pansari, 2016; Hollebeek,
2018). According to Hollebeek (2018), cognitive (C) CE refers to an
individual’s brand-related mental elaboration during customer–brand
interactions. People engaging in different thinking styles might pay
attention to different attributes of customer–brand interactions. The
emotional (E) dimension of CE results in short- or long-term affection
toward the focal brand or object. Individuals engage in the form of a
2
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 54 (2020) 102035
behavioral (B) engagement dimension through participatory activities
such as posting news of activities related to the brand community’s
purpose (Brodie et al., 2013). According to Muntinga et al. (2011), the
behavioral CE dimension has three levels, namely consumption,
contribution, and creation. Consumption constitutes the minimum level
of engagement and is the most common brand-related activity among
consumers. Contribution denotes the response in peer-to-peer or
peer-to-content interactions related to brands (Schivinski et al., 2016).
The creation level of engagement is the strongest level of the online
brand-related activities (Muntinga et al., 2011; Schivinski et al., 2016).
Customer cocreation typically occurs when customers spontaneously
participate in customizing their brand experiences such as through
initiating brand-related posts on fan pages (Schivinski et al., 2016). It is
likely that one person can simultaneously act on all levels of behavioral
CE for one brand or sequentially migrate through different CE levels at
various points in time (Schivinski et al., 2016). Another engagement
process might occur when a person contributes to one brand while
consuming content from another brand (Schivinski et al., 2016). Rela­
tive to discussions of the other three dimensions, discussions of the so­
cial dimension in the literature are typically conceptual. This dimension
denotes the interactive nature of CE and “represents the characteristics
of a consumer’s connections with others in their brand interactions”
(Hollebeek, 2018, p. 49). This dimension seems to be more capable in
addressing the value of social exchange and reciprocity. Unlike the
majority of the literature that follows the C-E-B-S structure of CE, Kumar
and Pansari (2016) specified four different CE dimensions, namely
customer purchase, referral, influence, and knowledge. Moreover, this
specification incorporates transactions as one of the CE dimensions and
hence presents a unique viewpoint in CE literature.
Seeking customer participation and engagement with brands has
become increasingly crucial for organizations (Hollebeek, 2011). Social
media platforms use various indicators of CE behaviors (Erkan, 2014),
for example, FB uses “likes,” whereas IG uses “hearts” to engage people.
Marketers seek CE because enhanced engagement leads to desirable
outcomes such as brand visibility among consumers (Erkan, 2015).
Other desired outcomes of CE include loyalty, trust, self–brand con­
nections, and emotional brand attachment (Brodie et al., 2011, 2013).
Therefore, advancing insights in this emerging area to examine con­
ceptual relationships with other branding concepts, such as brand in­
timacy, as a form of brand experience is beneficial for organizations
(Hollebeek, 2011; Hollebeek et al., 2014).
3. Conceptual framework and hypothesis development
This study recognizes the multidimensional nature of CE, and yet, a
behavioral perspective fits well with the research context for three pri­
mary reasons. First, an examination of various CE definitions based on a
psychological perspective indicates that a behavioral component is still
implied in the conceptualizations and hence “defining it behaviorally
rather than psychologically may be more preferable; it does not preclude
the relevance of psychological constructs.” (Harmeling et al., 2017, p.
314). Moreover, when discussing social CE, Hollebeek (2018) concluded
that it can be viewed as a subset of behavioral CE. Therefore, behavioral
CE appears to be the most critical facet. Second, behavioral CE could be
directly observed and measured. Other CE dimensions are rather im­
plicit and more difficult to directly assess and operationalize. Third, this
study examined customer–brand interactions for fashion products. The
finding from a recent qualitative research suggests that behavioral CE
might be crucial for consumer goods industries (Alvarez-Mila �n et al.,
2018). Therefore, behavioral CE is appropriate for this research.
Extant literature suggests that customer-based and context-based
factors are the key antecedents of CE (Verhoef et al., 2010; van Doorn
et al., 2010). Following this research stream, this study investigates
these two types of antecedents. Two customer motives, advice seeking
and self-image expression, and one context-dependent factor, fashion
involvement, were examined to ascertain their potential effects on CE.
T. Wang and F.-Y. Lee
Fig. 1. Research framework.
Acknowledging the interest of researchers and managers of fashion
brands, brand intimacy is the focal outcome variable; investigation of
brand intimacy can promote the cultivation of customer–brand re­
lationships. Fig. 1 presents the research framework.
3.1. Customer-based antecedents of CE
People experience enhanced well-being when they share information
with others (Ayala et al., 2017). In an online context, consumers’ in­
formation searches and willingness to share content with other users
positively enhance brand engagement (Chu and Kim, 2011). People
engage in social media through posting, viewing, forwarding, and
sharing information with others (Brodie et al., 2013). People are used to
seeking opinions from others to facilitate their decision-making. A study
indicated that social media platforms appear as popular platforms where
information flows and spreads with a high volume and velocity in the
ecosystem and satisfies users’ information-seeking needs (Brodie et al.,
2013). Therefore, advice seeking motivates CE on fashion brands’ social
media sites. This paper proposes that advice seeking is directly associ­
ated with CE and consists of three facets in a positive manner.
H1. Advice seeking is positively associated with the CE revealed in con­
sumption, contribution, and creation levels on fashion brands’ social media
pages.
Consumers are used to leveraging brands and products as essential
symbols for expressing images of themselves (Ruane and Wallace,
2013). People prefer using products that are consistent with their per­
sonal image to maintain and enhance their personal images and per­
sonalities (Giovannini et al., 2015). Fashion products are particularly
useful for such purposes (Choi et al., 2010). Furthermore, in a social
media context, users also show various behaviors such as picture posting
to present themselves (Seidman, 2013). Recognizing this behavioral
trend, many companies encourage their customers to post brand selfies
on their fan pages or social networking sites (Presi et al., 2016).
Therefore, people with a strong motivation to express their self-image
are likely to post or share pictures and product information that ex­
press their style and personal image. Thus, this study proposes the
following hypotheses:
H2. Self-image expression is positively associated with the CE revealed in
consumption, contribution, and creation levels on fashion brands’ social
media pages.
3
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 54 (2020) 102035
3.2. Context-based antecedents of CE
From customers’ perspective, CE is a highly experiential and context-
based concept. A one-size-fits-all approach for CE management is un­
likely to occur (Kunz et al., 2017). As such, it appears necessary to
explore CE in a defined context. This study approaches this issue with a
focus on fashion brands’ pages on IG. Despite its fast growth, IG has
gained effective access to digital consumers (Roma ~o et al., 2019).
Moreover, IG’s visual and graphical features are congruent with the
image and characteristics of the fashion industry (Moatti and
Abecassis-Moedas, 2018).
Studies have concluded that various levels of involvement influence
customers’ recognition and evaluation in different manners (Choi et al.,
2010). For the fashion industry, fashion involvement motivates people
to engage and interact with fashion brands. In addition, people who are
highly motivated to be involved in fashion engage more frequently in
fashion-brand-related electronic word of mouth (Wolny and Mueller,
2013). Brands that can signal an individual’s personal identity are
usually high-involvement products (Wolny and Mueller, 2013).
The desire to be involved with fashion brands increases people’s
willingness to spend time browsing social media content and familiar­
izing themselves with fashion brands. Consequently, users have ample
opportunities to interact with others on fashion brands’ social media
sites. Thus, this study proposes the following hypotheses:
H3. Fashion involvement is positively associated with the CE revealed in
consumption, contribution, and creation levels on fashion brands’ social
media pages.
3.3. Brand consequence of CE
As the paradigm of marketing philosophy has shifted from
transaction-based to relation-based activities, characterizing the
customer journey with unique brand experiences appears to have
become critical for cultivating customer assets and securing customer­
–firm relationships. Brand intimacy, a component of customer–firm
affection, refers to the bondedness and connectedness of the customer­
–brand relationship (Yim et al., 2008). Intimacy represents the warm
part of the relationship and can grow with time. The concept of intimacy
was articulated in Sternberg’s (1986) interpersonal triangular theory of
love in an interpersonal context. As such, some researchers have
considered brand intimacy as a facet of a higher order construct of love
that “transforms the interaction from an instantaneous, transactional
exchange to a strong and enduring relationship” (Yim et al., 2008, p.
T. Wang and F.-Y. Lee Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 54 (2020) 102035

742). For fashion and luxury brands, generating intimacy is key to their Table 1
communication and branding strategy (Moatti and Abecassis-Moedas, Sample descriptive statistics.
2018). Therefore, this study propels intimacy as a critical factor for Demographics Category Frequency Percentage
brands in constructing strong customer relationships (Kim and Ko,
Gender Male 202 46.9
2010). Female 229 53.1
CE in a brand community can serve as a foundation to build the
Age Under 18 years old 2 .5
brand connection and increase consumers’ brand intimacy and 18-24 73 16.9
commitment (Brodie et al., 2013). Through various CE initiatives, firms 25-34 257 59.6
can form intimate and strong long-term customer relationships (Sashi, 35-44 69 16.0
2012) and expect future profits for the brand (Hollebeek, 2011). 45-54 22 5.1
55-64 6 1.4
Studies have demonstrated that information sharing facilitates rela­
65 years old and older 2 .5
tionship development (Ma and Chan, 2014; Steijn and Schouten, 2013).
Furthermore, post frequency and post content have a positive influence Education no schooling completed 1 .2
Elementary 1 .2
on relationship development (Steijn and Schouten, 2013) and intimacy Junior high school 1 .2
level (Rau et al., 2008). For fashion brands, firms’ activities, including Senior high School 66 15.3
tweeting, blogging, tagging, and networking, not only keep them abreast Bachelor’s degree 252 58.5
of the latest technological trends (Kim and Ko, 2012) but also reach Master’s degree 97 22.5
Doctorate degree 6 1.4
current and potential customers seamlessly. However, customers
Others 7 1.6
increasingly rely on social media to acquire new brand knowledge,
Marital Status Single 221 51.3
including on unfamiliar brands, and learn about others’ affiliation with
Married 191 44.3
the brand (Naylor et al., 2012). Therefore, this paper proposes that CE is Divorced 11 2.6
positively associated with brand intimacy. Separated 3 .7
Other 5 1.2
H4. The CE on fashion brands’ social media sites is positively associated
with brand intimacy. IG use frequency Once per Month 24 5.6
Once per Week 96 22.3
Once per Day 118 27.4
3.4. Dimensional effect of CE Few times per Day 181 42.0
24 h per Day 12 2.8
Following Schivinski et al. (2016), this study constructed CE with a
structure that presents a consumption–contribution–creation sequence.
users aged 18–29 years (people in this age range are sometimes called
However, such a structure does not deny the possibility that all three
the digital generation); their use of IG has increased more than their use
facets of CE behaviors may occur concurrently. Under this structure,
of other popular platforms (Perrin and Anderson, 2019). As consumers’
customers might increase their engagement intensity and duration
attention spans contract, short videos and photos seem to be more likely
through the journey from consumption to contribution and then arrive
to capture eyeballs and seem to result in better brand awareness and
at creation. During these interactions, customers are able to accumulate
recalls (Saric, 2017). Smith and Anderson (2018) reported that young
knowledge and experiences relating to the focal brand. Consequently,
adults are the major users of IG and the number of female users is
the bondedness and closeness of the customer–brand relationship
slightly more than that of male users. Our sample also reveals a similar
strengthens when customers migrate from a low level of engagement to
pattern. As reported in Table 1, the sample consisted of 53.1% and
a high level. Hence, this study proposes that the influence of CE on in­
46.9% of female and male users, respectively. Approximately 76.5% of
timacy is amassed with creation engagement.
the respondents were aged 18–34 years. Nearly 2% of the sample con­
H5. The creation level of engagement has the strongest impact on brand sisted of people aged 55 years or more. Additionally, 44.8% of the
intimacy. sample appeared to consist of heavy users who check their IG accounts
several times per day or are “always on.” More than one-quarter of the
4. Methodology respondents checked their IG accounts once per day.
The respondents were first briefed regarding the research purpose
4.1. Research design and were asked to give their consent to participate in this research.
Respondents were informed that confidentiality and anonymity would
This study conducted a web-based survey to examine research hy­ be ensured. The second part of the questionnaire comprised questions
potheses. Survey participants were recruited using Amazon Mechanical for assessing the research constructs. The respondents were requested to
Turk (MTurk). MTurk is widely used among researchers because it list one fashion brand they visit on IG and then answer the questions
provides easy access to diverse nonstudent populations at an affordable based on how they interact with this brand. All measurement items were
cost. Moreover, data quality is not compromised because of the easy adapted from previous studies and were measured using a 7-point Likert
access. Kees et al. (2017) compared MTurk data with data from two scale. A pretest was conducted to test whether the items of all constructs
student samples and two professional panels and concluded that the data were adapted properly. The results indicated that all items possessed
quality of MTurk is at least comparable with that of the four different good reliability and validity. All measurement items were used in the
samples. Respondents were screened to determine whether they had main survey. This study followed the suggestion of Podsakoff et al.
followed a brand on IG. In total, 529 responses were collected. Re­ (2003) to counterbalance the order of questions to avoid respondent
spondents without IG usage experience or incomplete data were fatigue. The survey concluded with demographic questions. Table 2 lists
removed from further analysis. Responses exhibiting a low quality (e.g., the items used in this study.
having checked the same scale for all questions) were disregarded as
well. A final sample of 431 cases was used for hypotheses testing.
Social media users, particularly IG users, comprised the population 4.2. Measurement model
of this study. Unlike FB, IG emerged as an image-based social
networking service and is currently experiencing fast growth relative to This study applied variance-based partial least squares structural
other social networking platforms as of 2016 (Sheldon and Bryant, equation modelling (PLS-SEM) to analyze the proposed research
2016). According to a 2019 survey, IG is particularly popular among framework. PLS-SEM, a nonparametric approach, makes no

4
T. Wang and F.-Y. Lee Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 54 (2020) 102035

Table 2 Because of the non-normal distribution of data and complex nature of

Summary of the measurement items. the research framework, the proposed model was estimated using
Constructs Smartpls3 (Ringle et al., 2015).
Advice Seeking (Wolny and Mueller, 2013; Chu and Kim, 2011) The measurement model was assessed first, followed by the path
1. I expect to receive tips of using fashion products from other people on Instagram. model. This study acknowledged the multidimensional conceptualiza­
2. I hope to receive advices from others that help me make a fashion purchasing
tion of CE and specified it into a second-order construct in the analysis
decision.
3. When I consider new fashion products, I ask my contacts on Instagram for advice. (Liu et al., 2018). Both the first- and second-order constructs were
4. I like to get my contacts’ opinions on Instagram before I buy new fashion products. specified as reflective constructs. Items with poor loadings (<0.7) were
5. I feel more comfortable choosing fashion products when I have gotten my contacts’ removed from further analysis. Two items from advice seeking and
opinions on them on Instagram. contribution were deleted from the measurement model. The first-order
Self-Image Expression (Wallace et al., 2014)
factor loadings of consumption, contribution, and creation on the sec­
1. The fashion brand I follow on Instagram reflects my personality.
2. The fashion brand I follow on Instagram mirrors the real me. ond order CE were 0.737, 0.928, and 0.934, respectively, all above the
3. The fashion brand I follow on Instagram contributes to my image. recommended threshold of 0.7. Moreover, all indicators showed high
4. The fashion brand I follow on Instagram has a positive influence on what others loadings, ranging from 0.720 to 0.912, on the first-order CE dimensional
think of me.
constructs. Table 3 reports the loadings.
Fashion Involvement (Wolny and Mueller, 2013)
1. I am interested in fashion.
The next step was to examine the internal consistency and reliability.
2. I think fashion is fun. As indicated in Table 4, the Cronbach’s alpha of all constructs ranges
3. I think fashion is fascinating. from 0.813 to 0.938 and indicates great internal consistency. The
4. I think fashion is important. composite reliability (CR) falls within the range of 0.875–0.951,
Customer engagement (Schivinski et al., 2016)
exceeding the threshold of 0.7. All constructs possess good reliability. To
Consumption
1. I read posts related to this fashion brand on social media. examine convergent validity, the average variance extracted (AVE) of
2. I read fan page(s) related to this fashion brand on social networking sites. each construct was reviewed; all were above 0.5, indicating good
3. I watch pictures/graphics related to this fashion brand. convergent validity. Furthermore, all items were loaded significantly to
4. I follow fashion this brand on social networking sites.
their respective construct with values above the threshold of 0.7.
Contribution
1. I comment on videos related to this fashion brand.
Convergent validity was supported. Discriminant validity was verified
2. I comment on posts related to this fashion brand. by checking the correlations among constructs and the AVE values. All
3. I comment on pictures/graphics related to this fashion brand. the square roots of AVE values were greater than the inter-construct
4. I share posts related to this fashion brand. correlations. Thus, all constructs possessed satisfactory discriminant
5. I tap the “heart” of pictures/graphics related to this fashion brand to “like” them.
validity.
6. I tap the “heart” of posts/comments related to this fashion brand.
Creation
1. I initiate posts related to this fashion brand on blogs. 4.3. Common method bias
2. I initiate posts related to this fashion brand on social networking sites.
3. I post pictures/graphics related to this fashion brand.
This study used an online survey to collect empirical data. One major
4. I post videos that show this fashion brand.
5. I write posts related to this fashion brand on forums. concern regarding this type of data is common method bias (CMB). To
6. I write reviews related to this fashion brand. examine this, we first conducted Harman’s single-factor test. The result
Intimacy (Thorbjørnsen et al., 2002) indicated that no single construct accounted for more than half of all
1. I feel like this fashion brand actually cares about me. variance, and more than one factor emerged (45.64%). However, as the
2. This fashion brand really listens to what I have to say.
value was close to the threshold, we conducted a full collinearity test to
3. I feel as though I really understand this fashion brand.
4. I feel as though this fashion brand really understands me. further examine CMB through the investigation of variance inflation
factor (VIF) of latent variables (Kock and Lynn, 2012). This test involves
four steps. First, a dummy variable with random values was created.
Then, the model was specified in a way that all latent variables point to
Table 3
Loadings.
this dummy variable. A SEM analysis was run as the third step. The last
step was to examine the VIF value of each latent variable. A VIF greater
Consumption Contribution Creation CE
than 3.3 can be considered an indication of CMB, while a test value equal
Cons1 0.838 0.737 to or less than 3.3 could be viewed as free of CMB as suggested by Kock
Cons2 0.796
(2015). As reported in Table 5, all VIFs are below 3.3, and hence, CMB is
Cons3 0.812
Cons4 0.743
not considered a major issue in this study.
Contr1 0.879 0.928
Contr2 0.905 4.4. Structural model and hypotheses testing
Contr3 0.892
Contr4 0.792
Contr6 0.720
4.4.1. Antecedents of CE
Crea1 0.886 0.934 The path model was then evaluated for the hypotheses. The coeffi­
Crea2 0.912 cient of determination (R2) was assessed to reveal the proposed model’s
Crea3 0.844 predictive power. The rules of thumb for acceptable R2 vary across
Crea4 0.864
research disciplines and are subject to model complexity. However, as
Crea5 0.909
Crea6 0.824 suggested by Hair et al. (2016), R2 > 0.5 and > 0.75 indicate moderate
and substantial powers, respectively. To account for the principle of
parsimony, the adjusted R2 was investigated. The results reveal that the
distributional assumptions and is not highly constrained by identifica­ adjusted R2 of CE (0.63) and brand intimacy (0.49) were above or near
tion issues (Hair et al., 2016). It is suitable for complex research models 0.5. Therefore, we consider our model to have a moderate predictive
with multivariate relationships among constructs (Shanahan et al., power.
2019). As reported by Hair et al. (2016), in cases of measurement models Path coefficients were investigated to test hypothesized relationships
with more than four indicators whose loadings are generally above the in the model. The results demonstrated that advice seeking (β ¼ 0.554, p
common threshold of 0.7, the results generated from PLS-SEM method ¼ 0.000) and self-image expression (β ¼ 0.358, p ¼ 0.000) have positive
are practically indistinguishable from covariance-based SEM estimates. and significant effects on CE. Furthermore, the effect size (f2) of the

5
T. Wang and F.-Y. Lee Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 54 (2020) 102035

Table 4
Correlation and validity test results.
AS SIE FI Cons Contr Crea Intimacy

Advice seeking (AS) 0.880

Self-Image Express (SIE) 0.548 0.835
Fashion Involvement (FI) 0.516 0.555 0.866
Consumption (Cons) 0.531 0.682 0.522 0.798
Contribution (Contr) 0.641 0.598 0.394 0.628 0.841
Creation (Crea) 0.720 0.492 0.359 0.485 0.767 0.874
Brand Intimacy 0.577 0.617 0.397 0.535 0.627 0.639 0.894

Validity measures

AVE 0.775 0.698 0.749 0.637 0.707 0.764 0.799

CR 0.932 0.902 0.923 0.875 0.923 0.951 0.941
Conbrach’s alpha 0.900 0.856 0.889 0.813 0.894 0.938 0.916

*The square root of the AVE is listed on the diagonal of the upper panel.

evidence of a structure of CE where a low level of CE contributes to the

Table 5
next high level of CE (Schivinski et al., 2016). As such, consumption CE
Full collinearity estimates.
has a positive and significant influence (β ¼ 0.637, p < 0.001) on
Advice Self-Image Fashion Customer Brand contribution engagement, which further enhances the level of creation
seeking Express Involvement Engagement Intimacy
engagement (β ¼ 0.760, p < 0.001); yet, consumption does not have a
1.93 1.556 1.571 2.62 2.135 significantly direct effect on creation (β ¼ 0.012, p > 0.1). The indirect
effect of consumption on creation is positive and significant (β ¼ 0.434,
p ¼ 0.000), proposing a likelihood of full mediation effect. This result
exogenous constructs was investigated. The f2 values of advice seeking
suggests that a rather passive and weak engagement behavior might
and self-image expression on CE were 0.53 and 0.208, respectively (i.e.,
nurture more active and stronger engagement behaviors. However,
>0.35 and > 0.15, respectively). Based on Cohen’s (1988) guidelines,
these results were generated from a correlation-based analysis and
the effect sizes of advice seeking and self-image expression were large
hence were not able to confirm the causal relationships in this structure.
and medium, respectively. H1 and H2 were supported. This result is
Extra caution is required when interpreting these results. Therefore, the
congruent with prior findings on the positive association between self-
result suggests that CE behaviors could occur simultaneously or
image management and brand consumption behavior (Ruane and Wal­
sequentially.
lace, 2013). However, in contrast to our expectation, fashion involve­
To investigate the dimensional effect of consumption, contribution,
ment failed to exert a significant influence (β ¼ 0.021, p > 0.1).
and creation, we specified a simple PLS path model. The results revealed
Therefore, H3 was not supported. Finally, CE has a significantly positive
that although all three dimensions of CE exerted positive effects on in­
impact on brand intimacy (β ¼ 0.690, p ¼ 0.000) with a large effect size
timacy, yet the magnitude of impact varied. In particular, creation
f2 value of 0.905, thus supporting H4. Furthermore, the results show that
engagement potentially emanates the greatest effect on intimacy (β ¼
advice seeking (β ¼ 0.385, p ¼ 0.000) and self-image expression (β ¼
0.379, p ¼ 0.000), followed by consumption (β ¼ 0.235, p ¼ 0.000). The
0.249, p ¼ 0.000) have an indirect effect on intimacy. In other words, CE
influence of contribution on brand intimacy is the smallest (β ¼ 0.188, p
serves as a mediator, which partially mediates the impact of advice
¼ 0.000). Concerning the magnitude of influence, the results of analysis
seeking and self-expression on brand intimacy. Fig. 2 presents the model
supported H5, that is, creation level has the strongest impact on brand
results.
intimacy.
In addition to the antecedents and outcomes of CE as well as the
4.4.2. Interrelationships and consequences of CE dimensions
interrelationships among the dimensions, the influences of demographic
Although not hypothesized, the interrelationships among the three
variables and use habit on the outcome variable (brand intimacy) were
dimensions were investigated based on the findings of Schivinski et al.
incorporated into the empirical analysis. The results showed that gender
(2016) using a simple PLS path model. The results revealed some initial
exerted a significant influence on brand intimacy. Extant literature has

Fig. 2. Model Analysis results.

6
T. Wang and F.-Y. Lee
Table 6
Multigroup analysis result on gender.
β_Female β_Male p-Values (Female)
AS - > CE 0.543 0.522 0 0
SIE - > CE 0.441 0.289 0 0
FI - > CE 0.135 0.129 0.029
CE- > Intimacy 0.660 0.751 0 0
reported gender effect to be influential in online information search
(Seock and Bailey, 2008), brand attitude (McDaniel and Kinney, 1998),
and shopping orientations (Chiu et al., 2005). An additional analysis on
gender was conducted to explore the conditional impact of gender.
Moreover, the sample descriptives show that many respondents reported
their nationality to be American (45.7%) or Indian (41.8%). Another
post hoc analysis on the potential influence of cultural disposition on CE
was conducted (Gupta et al., 2018; Hollebeek, 2018).
4.4.3. Additional analysis: role of gender and national culture
A multigroup analysis on gender was conducted. As reported in
Table 6, the impact of advice seeking and self-image expression of the
female group seems to have a strong impact on CE (βf ¼ 0.543, p ¼
0.000; βm ¼ 0.522, p ¼ 0.000); however, such differences are not sig­
nificant for advice seeking (p ¼ 0.802 > 0.05) and self-image expression
(p ¼ 0.078 > 0.05). Yet, the impact of CE on intimacy in the female
group is weaker (βf ¼ 0.660, p ¼ 0.000) than in the male group (βm ¼
0.751, p ¼ 0.000). Nonetheless, the group difference in this relationship
is subtle (p ¼ 0.133). Interestingly, the impact of fashion involvement is
significantly negative in the female group (βf ¼ 0.135, p ¼ 0.029) but
insignificant in the male group (βm ¼ 0.129, p > 0.05). The group dif­
ference in this relationship is significant between genders (p ¼ 0.007 <
0.01). This finding not only offers an initial support to the notion that CE
is context-dependent but also adds more evidence to the impact of
gender effect on the online consumer behavior (Seock and Bailey, 2008).
Prior studies have indicated that cultural disposition may influence
consumer’s CE behavior at macro and micro levels (Gupta et al., 2018;
Hollebeek, 2018; Tsai and Men, 2017). We use Hofstede’s cultural di­
mensions to explore the cultural difference between the USA and India.
On the basis of Hofstede’s classification, the cultural difference between
these two countries appears the greatest on the individualism/collecti­
vism dimension where the USA has a score of 91 and India has 48
(Hofstede et al., 2010; Hoftstede Insight). In Hofstede’s framework,
individualism (collectivism) addresses the independence (interdepen­
dence) tendency of its members in a society. In literature, the individ­
ualism/collectivism dimension was reported to exert influences on
technology adoption behaviors (Im et al., 2011). A similar pattern
emerged from the analysis. As illustrated in Table 7, the differences in
path coefficients representing the influences of advice seeking and
self-image expression on CE were observed. The impact of advice
seeking on CE seems to be weaker for Americans than for Indians, while
the influence of self-image expression on CE appears stronger for
Americans. Although only the gap in the relationship between
self-image expression and CE possesses statistical significance (p <
0.05), the result showed some preliminary evidence on the impact of
cultural predispositon.
Table 7
Multigroup analysis result on national culture.
β_USA β_Indian p-Values (USA)
AS - > CE 0.480 0.612 0 0
SIE - > CE 0.448 0.258 0 0
FI - > CE 0.011 0.034 0.029
CE- > Intimacy 0.725 0.630 0 0
7
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 54 (2020) 102035
p-Values (Male) p-Value (Male vs Female)
0.802 Insignificant
0.078 Insignificant
0.088 0.007 Significant
0.133 Insignificant
5. Discussion
As the economy migrates from a product-centric to a customer-
centric marketing philosophy, digital technology further complicates
both customer–customer and customer–company interactions. This
paradigm shift signals the increasing importance of nontransactional
customer behaviors (Verhoef et al., 2010) that were captured and rep­
resented through CE (van Doorn et al., 2010; Alvarez-Mila �n et al., 2018).
Despite the importance of CE in the digital era, our understanding in this
domain is limited (Brodie et al., 2013); extant literature focuses more on
the conceptualization of CE (van Doorn et al., 2010; Verhoef et al., 2010;
Vivek et al., 2012; Brodie et al., 2011, 2013; Islam and Rahman, 2016)
and the establishment of nomological CE network in specific research
contexts (Kumar and Pansari, 2016; Pansari and Kumar, 2017;
Alvarez-Mila �n et al., 2018; Kumar et al., 2019). Additional in­
vestigations are warranted on the relationships between CE and other
related constructs (Islam and Rahman, 2016). This paper acknowledges
this research gap; thus, this study investigated the direct and various
effects of motivation-based antecedents on the CE revealed in three di­
mensions in social media communities of fashion brands. Recognizing
the multidimensional nature of CE, this paper studied this concept in
depth, which can be exploited for effectively designing customer expe­
rience and journeys in social media brand communities.
Three consumer- and context-based antecedents, namely advice
seeking, self-image expression, and fashion involvement, were proposed
to exert various influences on CE. The results of empirical analysis
supported the majority of our expectations of significant relationships.
People with a high level of motivation to seek advice are more likely to
engage in a brand community actively instead of passively. Specifically,
the influence of advice seeking is the strongest on contribution. Con­
sumers with a strong motivation to express themselves are more likely to
actively act on all three CE types. Moreover, self-image expression ap­
pears the most influential factor among the three driving forces of CE. It
has the strongest, highest impact on CE, consisting of consumption,
contribution, and creation. The prevalence of selfies is evidence sup­
porting this motivation (Day, 2013). For the context-dependent ante­
cedent, namely fashion involvement, the proposed effect is not
statistically supported. Additional analyses were conducted to explore
the potential conditions for this outcome. A multigroup analysis based
on gender revealed that the influence of fashion involvement on CE
varied between genders. Female users with a low level of fashion
involvement were more likely to engage in the brand’s online social
community, whereas male users did not show a clear pattern.
Regarding the structure and interrelationship among the three types
of CE, the results supported the serial relationship among consumption,
contribution, and creation posited by Schivinski et al. (2016). Accu­
mulated with the influence of consumption on contribution, the direct
impact of contribution on creation is sizeable as represented by a coef­
ficient of 0.760. The indirect effect of consumption on creation through
p-Values (Indian) Difference: p-Value (USA vs Indian)
0.152 Insignificant
0.045 Significant
0.859 0.818 Insignificant
0.136 Insignificant
T. Wang and F.-Y. Lee
contribution is also significant with a magnitude of 0.484 (p ¼ 0.000).
The three CE dimensions have various effects on brand intimacy. Among
these dimensions, creation engagement had the strongest influence on
intimacy compared with contribution and consumption. The second
strongest effect was observed in consumption engagement; creation’s
effect was the lowest. However, although our data showed some initial
evidence of a consumption–contribution–creation relationship, the
cross-sectional nature of survey data lacks the capability to support the
implied temporal sequence. Therefore, future research could supple­
ment this finding with other types of data such as longitudinal data or
big data.
5.1. Implications for research
This study contributes to the literature in several respects. First, this
study proposes and explores the ability of three consumer motivations to
affect CE. Unlike some CE articles that focused on the manager’s
perspective (Alvarez-Mila �n et al., 2018; Kunz et al., 2017), this research
emphasized on the customer side and hence supplemented to the extant
scholarly work. Advice seeking, self-image expression, and fashion
involvement were proposed to be customer-based and context-specific
antecedents that drive CE behavior (van Doorn et al., 2010). By iden­
tifying more driving forces of CE, this study expands our understanding
in this domain.
Second, this study further examined the structure of CE and its dy­
namic effects on customer–brand relationship outcome using empirical
data (Schivinski et al., 2016). The results provided additional support to
the notion that CE is a multidimensional construct (Brodie et al., 2013)
and each dimension exerts various effects on the consumer–brand
relationship in terms of magnitude and direction. Considering both the
magnitude and direction, creation exerts the strongest positive influence
on brand intimacy followed by consumption. While customers’ creation
engagement joins firms’ creation process, firm value will be enhanced
(Kunz et al., 2017). To the best of our knowledge, no prior research
exploring the relative dimensional impact of CE on brand intimacy was
identified in an extensive literature review.
Third, this paper accounts for contextual factors and explores CE in
the fashion industry. Some research efforts explored CE in various ser­
vice contexts but were limited (Bowden, 2009; So et al., 2016; Kumar
et al., 2019). Responding to this research call to investigate CE in various
service contexts, this study investigated CE in fashion-industry brand
communities and incorporated the context-specific construct, fashion
involvement, into the research framework. While the direct impact of
fashion involvement on CE was not statistically significant in the
research model, its influence took place when the gender effect was
incorporated. The empirical data indicated that fashion involvement
negatively influences female consumers but no statistically clear pattern
exists for male consumers; yet, it seems to signal a potential positive
influence on male consumers. The finding could be considered a pre­
liminary support that the industry-specific construct influences the CE
formation in a unique manner. Although not hypothesized in the
research model, the potential influence of the national culture was
probed in the post hoc analysis. The findings showed some supports to
the cultural difference of CE and hence help expand the scope of CE
literature to a global context (Gupta et al., 2018). This study illustrates
how CE may work differently in different defined contexts and hence
expands Hollebeek’s (2011) conceptual model of CE with empirical data
and context-specific results.
Fourth, this research also contributes to the literature on brand in­
timacy. A recent research interest on customers’ feeling and emotion
toward brands has emerged; however, progress in this area remains
limited. Brand intimacy represents customers’ warmth feeling pertain­
ing to the self-brand connection and an affective component of love for a
brand (Albert et al., 2008). To our knowledge, this study is one of the
first research endeavors that venture into the relationship between CE
and brand intimacy. The mediating role of CE was reported in this study.
8
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 54 (2020) 102035
CE as a whole partially mediates the effect of advice seeking and
self-image expression on brand intimacy. The positive association be­
tween CE and brand intimacy identified in this research investigation
helped to incorporate brand intimacy into the CE network.
5.2. Implications for practice
This study offers several managerial insights for the development of a
social media strategy in which CE appears to be a critical element for
firms in the fashion industry. First, the most important driving force of
CE on all facets is consumers’ motivation for advice seeking. When
seeking advice, consumers absorb all sorts of information provided by
informants, including firms and other users. In light of this finding, firms
could initiate campaigns that facilitate consumers’ absorption processes
to enhance CE (Alvarez-Mila �n et al., 2018). Another approach is to
characterize their online communication either through social media or
self-developed websites with features that allow customers to explore
and fulfill their information exploration needs (Demangeot and Bro­
derick, 2016).
The knowledge of the nexus between self-image expression and CE
also provides some guidelines to firms regarding social media strategies.
For example, companies could take advantage of the selfie phenomenon
and leverage this large group of people because selfies appear to be a
vital technology tool through which individuals express themselves
(Lim, 2016). Selfie campaigns may be useful for attracting potential
customers to juxtapose themselves with brands; this thus establishes and
binds customer–brand connections. The selfies serve as assemblages,
connecting self, product, and social networks to humanize the campaign
and help provoke positive emotional responses from customers (Lim,
2016; Presi et al., 2016). Customers may respond to other people’s
brand-related selfies with likes and hearts or create their own selfies
with the brand. The outcomes of these voluntary engagement activities
are usually considered organic (Alvarez-Mila �n et al., 2018).
From a different perspective, if firms set goals to enhance intimacy
between customers and brands, a creation-oriented marketing campaign
should be prioritized because the finding indicated that creation had the
strongest impact on brand intimacy. Marketing campaigns that
encourage customers to participate in consumption, contribution, and
creation activities with brands could initiate a continuous cocreation
cycle wherein customers become value cocreators eventually. Con­
cerning the impact of the context, the result of this study calls for
managers’ caution on the potential influence of contexts. Our data
showed that gender matters in CE management efforts in the fashion
industry. Different industries should pay attention to potential contex­
tual factors that may affect firms’ CE management strategies.
Furthermore, managers can consult our findings regarding the in­
fluence of national culture as a contextual effect when portraying their
CE-oriented global marketing communication campaigns and segment­
ing strategies. Although the internet is considered borderless, big data
analytics could help firms customize their advertisements and pro­
motions to customers based on their different cultural backgrounds. For
example, firms can emphasize on self-expressive need with emotional
appeals for individualistic customers to foster increased engagement
behaviors.
5.3. Limitations and future research suggestions
Despite the merits, this study had some limitations, which suggest
areas for future research. First, acknowledging the multidimensional
nature of CE, some prior studies have proposed that CE could be man­
ifested cognitively, affectively, behaviorally, and socially (Vivek et al.,
2012). In this study, we used consumption, contribution, and creation as
the three dimensions of CE and, hence, investigated it in a more
behavioral manner. Although this specification is appropriate for con­
sumer goods industries (Alvarez-Mil� an et al. (2018), our understanding
of other CE dimensions remains insufficient. Future research could
T. Wang and F.-Y. Lee
extend our study by manifesting CE cognitively, affectively, and socially
(Hollebeek et al., 2014). Exploring CE from a different perspective
enriched our understanding in this domain.
Second, this study incorporates fashion involvement as a context-
dependent variable. Therefore, caveats are required when generalizing
the findings to other industries. Specifically, fashion products are mainly
consumer goods offered by business-to-consumers companies. Contex­
tual factors appropriate for non-consumer goods industries and
business-to-business companies are worth investigating. In addition, our
initial exploration on the individualism/collectivism cultural dimension
as a socio-cultural factor revealed its different effect on the relationship
between self-image expression and CE. The effects of other cultural di­
mensions could be investigated.
Third, this study used a cross-sectional approach; thus, it is unable to
explore the dynamics of the relationships across time. In other words,
how customers migrate across different CE dimensions at different time
remain unexplored. Future research endeavors could explore the po­
tential feedback loop where brand intimacy may further nurture more
advice-seeking, self-expression, and fashion involvement. Longitudinal
studies or big data might help researchers unveil this black box (Kunz
et al., 2017).
Lastly, this study investigated the positive benefits of CE behaviors.
CE might result in negative effects. Generally, extant studies have pre­
sented a one-sided, positive view of CE consequences and have barely
touched the dark side (Islam and Rahman, 2016). More efforts are
required to counterbalance the primary emphasis on the bright side of
CE phenomena.
Declaration of competing interest
On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is
no conflict of interest.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102035.
References
Albert, N., Merunka, D., Valette-Florence, P., 2008. When consumers love their brands:
exploring the concept and its dimensions. J. Bus. Res. 61 (10), 1062–1075.
Alvarez-Mil�an, A., Felix, R., Rauschnabel, P.A., Hinsch, C., 2018. Strategic customer
engagement marketing: a decision making framework. J. Bus. Res. 92, 61–70.
Ayala, E., Flores, D., Quintanilla, C., Casta~no, R., 2017. Daily use of time, personal
characteristics and experienced well-being. J. Consum. Mark. 34 (2), 96–107.
Bargh, J.A., McKenna, K.Y., 2004. The internet and social life. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 55,
573–590.
Berthon, P.R., Pitt, L.F., Plangger, K., Shapiro, D., 2012. Marketing meets Web 2.0, social
media, and creative consumers: implications for international marketing strategy.
Bus. Horiz. 55 (3), 261–271.
Bowden, J., 2009. Customer engagement: a framework for assessing customer-brand
relationships: the case of the restaurant industry. J. Hosp. Mark. Manag. 18 (6),
574–596.
Brodie, R.J., Hollebeek, L.D., Juri�c, B., andIli�c, A., 2011. Customer engagement. J. Serv.
Res. 14 (3), 252–271.
Brodie, R.J., Ilic, A., Juric, B., Hollebeek, L., 2013. Consumer engagement in a virtual
brand community: an exploratory analysis. J. Bus. Res. 66 (1), 105–114.
Calder, B.J., Malthouse, E.C., Schaedel, U., 2009. An experimental study of the
relationship between online engagement and advertising effectiveness. J. Interact.
Mark. 23 (4), 321–331.
Chen, X., Yu, H., Gentry, J.W., Yu, F., 2017. Complaint or recommendation? The impact
of customers’ state and trait goal orientations on customer engagement behaviors.
J. Consum. Behav. 16 (2), 187–194.
Chiu, Y.B., Lin, C.P., Tang, L.L., 2005. Gender differs: assessing a model of online
purchase intentions in e-tail service. Int. J. Serv. Ind. Manag. 16 (5), 416–435.
Choi, T.M., Liu, N., Liu, S.C., Mak, J., To, Y.T., 2010. Fast fashion brand extensions: an
empirical study of consumer preferences. J. Brand Manag. 17 (7), 472–487.
Chu, S.C., Kim, Y., 2011. Determinants of consumer engagement in electronic word-of-
mouth (eWOM) in social networking sites. Int. J. Advert. 30 (1), 47–75.
Cohen, J., 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Day, E., 2013. How selfies became a global phenomenon. Available at. https://www.the
guardian.com/technology/2013/jul/14/how-selfies-became-a-global-phenomenon.
9
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 54 (2020) 102035
Demangeot, C., Broderick, A.J., 2016. Engaging customers during a website visit: a
model of website customer engagement. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 44 (8),
814–839.
Dessart, L., Veloutsou, C., Morgan-Thomas, A., 2016. Capturing consumer engagement:
duality, dimensionality and measurement. J. Mark. Manag. 32 (5-6), 399–426.
Erkan, I., 2014. "Vine": do you miss it? Electronic word of mouth on the social
networking site, vine. Int. J. Bus. Inf. 9 (4), 461–473.
Erkan, I., 2015. Electronic word of mouth on instagram: customers’ engagements with
brands in different sectors. Int. J. Manag. Account. Econ. 2 (12), 1435–1444.
Giovannini, S., Xu, Y., Thomas, J., 2015. Luxury fashion consumption and Generation Y
consumers: self, brand consciousness, and consumption motivations. J. Fash. Mark.
Manag.: Int. J. 19 (1), 22–40. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFMM-08-2013-0096.
Gupta, S., Pansari, A., Kumar, V., 2018. Global customer engagement. J. Int. Mark. 26
(1), 4–29.
Hair Jr., J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C., Sarstedt, M., 2016. A Primer on Partial Least
Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage publications.
Harmeling, C.M., Moffett, J.W., Arnold, M.J., Carlson, B.D., 2017. Toward a theory of
customer engagement marketing. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 45 (3), 312–335.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G.J., Minkov, M., 2010. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the
Mind. Revised and Expanded, third ed. McGraw-Hill, New York http://geerthofstede.
com/research-and-vsm/.
Hofstede Insights. https://www.hofstede-insights.com/product/compare-countries/.
Hollebeek, L.D., 2011. Demystifying customer brand engagement: exploring the loyalty
nexus. J. Mark. Manag. 27 (7-8), 785–807.
Hollebeek, L.D., Glynn, M.S., Brodie, R.J., 2014. Consumer brand engagement in social
media: conceptualization, scale development and validation. J. Interact. Mark. 28
(2), 149–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2013.12.002.
Hollebeek, L.D., 2018. Individual-level cultural consumer engagement styles:
conceptualization, propositions and implications. Int. Mark. Rev. 35 (1), 42–71.
Hughes, D.J., Rowe, M., Batey, M., Lee, A., 2012. A tale of two sites: Twitter vs. Facebook
and the personality predictors of social media usage. Comput. Hum. Behav. 28 (2),
561–569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.11.001.
Im, I., Hong, S., Kang, M.S., 2011. An international comparison of technology adoption:
testing the UTAUT model. Inf. Manag. 48 (1), 1–8.
Islam, J.U., Rahman, Z., 2016. The transpiring journey of customer engagement research
in marketing: a systematic review of the past decade. Manag. Decis. 54 (8),
2008–2034.
Kees, J., Berry, C., Burton, S., Sheehan, K., 2017. An analysis of data quality: professional
panels, student subject pools, and Amazon’s mechanical turk. J. Advert. 46 (1),
141–155.
Kim, A.J., Ko, E., 2010. Impacts of luxury fashion brand’s social media marketing on
customer relationship and purchase intention. J. Glob. Fash. Mark. 1 (3), 164–171.
Kim, A.J., Ko, E., 2012. Do social media marketing activities enhance customer equity?
An empirical study of luxury fashion brand. J. Bus. Res. 65 (10), 1480–1486.
Kock, N., 2015. Common method bias in PLS-SEM: a full collinearity assessment
approach. Int. J. e Collab. 11 (4), 1–10.
Kock, N., Lynn, G., 2012. Lateral collinearity and misleading results in variance-based
SEM: an illustration and recommendations. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 13 (7).
Kumar, V., Rajan, B., Gupta, S., Dalla Pozza, I., 2019. Customer engagement in service.
J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 47 (1), 138–160.
Kumar, V., Pansari, A., 2016. Competitive advantage through engagement. J. Mark. Res.
53 (4), 497–514.
Kunz, W., Aksoy, L., Bart, Y., Heinonen, K., Kabadayi, S., Ordenes, F.V., et al., 2017.
Customer engagement in a big data world. J. Serv. Mark. 31 (2), 161–171.
Lim, W.M., 2016. Understanding the selfie phenomenon: current insights and future
research directions. Eur. J. Market. 50 (9/10), 1773–1788.
Liu, L., Lee, M.K., Liu, R., Chen, J., 2018. Trust transfer in social media brand
communities: the role of consumer engagement. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 41, 1–13.
Ma, W.W.K., Chan, A., 2014. Knowledge sharing and social media: altruism, perceived
online attachment motivation, and perceived online relationship commitment.
Comput. Hum. Behav. 39, 51–58.
McDaniel, S.R., Kinney, L., 1998. The implications of recency and gender effects in
consumer response to ambush marketing. Psychol. Mark. 15 (4), 385–403.
Moatti, V., Abecassis-Moedas, C., 2018. How instagram became the natural showcase for
the fashion world. The Independence. Available at. https://www.independent.co.
uk/life-style/fashion/features/instagram-fashion-industry-digital-technology-a841
2156.html.
Muntinga, D.G., Moorman, M., Smit, E.G., 2011. Introducing COBRAs. Int. J. Advert. 30
(1), 13–46.
Naylor, R.W., Lamberton, C.P., West, P.M., 2012. Beyond the "Like" button: the impact of
mere virtual presence on brand evaluations and purchase intentions in social media
settings. J. Mark. 76 (6), 105–120.
O’Brien, I.M., Jarvis, W., Soutar, G.N., 2015. Integrating social issues and customer
engagement to drive loyalty in a service organisation. J. Serv. Mark. 29 (6/7),
547–559.
Pansari, A., Kumar, V., 2017. Customer engagement: the construct, antecedents, and
consequences. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 45 (3), 294–311.
Perrin, A., Anderson, M., 2019. Share of U.S. adults using social media, including
Facebook, is mostly unchanged since 2018. Pew Research Center. Available at. https
://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/04/10/share-of-u-s-adults-using-social-
media-including-facebook-is-mostly-unchanged-since-2018/. (Accessed 19 July
2019).
Pew Research, 2019. Social media fact sheet. at. https://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sh
eet/social-media/. (Accessed 19 July 2019).
T. Wang and F.-Y. Lee
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y., Podsakoff, N.P., 2003. Commonmethod
biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature andrecommended
remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 88 (5), 879–903.
Presi, C., Maehle, N., Kleppe, I.A., 2016. Brand selfies: consumer experiences and
marketplace conversations. Eur. J. Market. 50 (9/10), 1814–1834.
Rom~ ao, M.T., Moro, S., Rita, P., Ramos, P., 2019. Leveraging a luxury fashion brand
through social media. Eur. Res. Manag. Bus. Econ. 25 (1), 15–22.
Rau, P.-L.P., Gao, Q., Ding, Y., 2008. Relationship between the level of intimacy and
lurking in online social network services. Comput. Hum. Behav. 24 (6), 2757–2770.
Ringle, C.M., Wende, S., Becker, J.-M., 2015. Smartpls 3. B€ onningstedt: SmartPLS.
Retrieved from. http://www.smartpls.com.
Ruane, L., Wallace, E., 2013. Generation Y females online: insights from brand
narratives. Qual. Mark. Res. Int. J. 16 (3), 315–335.
Saric, M., 2017. How brands can still win over customers as attention spans decrease on
social. AdWeek (November 21, 2017). Available at. https://www.adweek.com/br
and-marketing/how-brands-can-still-win-over-customers-as-attention-spans-decreas
e-on-social/.
Sashi, C.M., 2012. Customer engagement, buyer-seller relationships, and social media.
Manag. Decis. 50 (2), 253–272.
Schivinski, B., Christodoulides, G., Dabrowski, D., 2016. Measuring consumers’
engagement with brand-related social-media content. J. Advert. Res. 56 (1), 64–80.
Seidman, G., 2013. Self-presentation and belonging on Facebook: how personality
influences social media use and motivations. Personal. Individ. Differ. 54 (3),
402–407.
Seock, Y.K., Bailey, L.R., 2008. The influence of college students’ shopping orientations
and gender differences on online information searches and purchase behaviours. Int.
J. Consum. Stud. 32 (2), 113–121.
Shanahan, T., Tran, T.P., Taylor, E.C., 2019. Getting to know you: social media
personalization as a means of enhancing brand loyalty and perceived quality.
J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 47, 57–65.
Sheldon, P., Bryant, K., 2016. Instagram: motives for its use and relationship to
narcissism and contextual age. Comput. Hum. Behav. 58, 89–97.
Smith, A., Anderson, M., 2018. Social media use in 2018. Per research center. Available
at. http://www.pewinternet.org/2018/03/01/social-media-use-in-2018/. (Accessed
30 March 2018).
So, K.K.F., King, C., Sparks, B.A., Wang, Y., 2016. The role of customer engagement in
building consumer loyalty to tourism brands. J. Travel Res. 55 (1), 64–78.
Sternberg, R.J., 1986. A triangular theory of love. Psychol. Rev. 93 (2), 119–135.
Steijn, W.M.P., Schouten, A.P., 2013. Information sharing and relationships on social
networking sites. Cyberpsychol., Behav. Soc. Netw. 16 (8), 582–587.
10
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 54 (2020) 102035
Thorbjørnsen, H., Supphellen, M., Nysveen, H., Pedersen, P.E., 2002. Building brand
relationships online: a comparison of two interactive applications. J. Interact. Mark.
16 (3), 17–34.
Tsai, W.H.S., Men, L.R., 2017. Consumer engagement with brands on social network
sites: a cross-cultural comparison of China and the USA. J. Mark. Commun. 23 (1),
2–21.
Vargo, S.L., Lusch, R.F., 2008. Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution. J. Acad.
Mark. Sci. 36 (1), 1–10.
van Doorn, J., Lemon, K.N., Mittal, V., Nass, S., Pick, D., Pirner, P., Verhoef, P.C., 2010.
Customer engagement behavior: theoretical foundations and research directions.
J. Serv. Res. 13 (3), 253–266.
Verhoef, P.C., Reinartz, W.J., Krafft, M., 2010. Customer engagement as a new
perspective in customer management. J. Serv. Res. 13 (3), 247–252.
Vivek, S.D., Beatty, S.E., Morgan, R.M., 2012. Customer engagement: exploring customer
relationships beyond purchase. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 20 (2), 122–146.
Wallace, E., Buil, I., de Chernatony, L., Hogan, M., 2014. Who “likes” you… and why? A
typology of facebook fans: from “fan”-atics and self-expressives to utilitarians and
authentics. J. Advert. Res. 54 (1), 92–109.
Wilson, K., Fornasier, S., White, K.M., 2010. Psychological predictors of young adults’
use of social networking sites. Cyberpsychol., Behav. Soc. Netw. 13 (2), 173–177.
Wolny, J., Mueller, C., 2013. Analysis of fashion consumers’ motives to engage in
electronic word-of-mouth communication through social media platforms. J. Mark.
Manag. 29 (5-6), 562–583.
Yim, C.K., Tse, D.K., Chan, K.W., 2008. Strengthening customer loyalty through intimacy
and passion: roles of customer–firm affection and customer–staff relationships in
services. J. Mark. Res. 45 (6), 741–756.
Tien Wang is an assistant professor at the Institute of International Management at Na­
tional Cheng Kung University in Taiwan. She received her Ph.D. in Business Administra­
tion at the University of Texas at Arlington. Her research interests include digital consumer
behavior, social commerce, and marketing finance interface. Her works have been pub­
lished in Internationl Journal of Information Management, Telematics & Informatics, Inter­
national Journal of Human-Computer, Service Industries Journal, and various conference
proceedings.
Fu-Yu Lee is a graduate of the Institute of International Management at National Cheng
Kung University in Taiwan.