Information Technology & People

Building brand loyalty through user engagement in online brand communities in

social networking sites
Xiabing Zheng, Christy M. K. Cheung, Matthew K.O. Lee, Liang Liang,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Downloaded by King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals At 09:23 21 January 2018 (PT)

Xiabing Zheng, Christy M. K. Cheung, Matthew K.O. Lee, Liang Liang, (2015) "Building brand loyalty
through user engagement in online brand communities in social networking sites", Information
Technology & People, Vol. 28 Issue: 1, pp.90-106, https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-08-2013-0144
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-08-2013-0144
Downloaded on: 21 January 2018, At: 09:23 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 62 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 13365 times since 2015*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2011),"Building brand loyalty through managing brand community commitment", Management
Decision, Vol. 49 Iss 7 pp. 1194-1213 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/00251741111151217">https://
doi.org/10.1108/00251741111151217</a>
(2014),"Consumer – brand engagement on Facebook: liking and commenting behaviors", Journal
of Research in Interactive Marketing, Vol. 8 Iss 3 pp. 203-223 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/
JRIM-12-2013-0081">https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIM-12-2013-0081</a>

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:409276 []
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.

Downloaded by King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals At 09:23 21 January 2018 (PT)
 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0959-3845.htm

ITP
28,1
Building brand loyalty through
user engagement in online
brand communities in social
90 networking sites
Received 6 August 2013
Revised 31 May 2014 Xiabing Zheng
Downloaded by King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals At 09:23 21 January 2018 (PT)

Accepted 4 June 2014 School of Management, University of Science and Technology of China,
Hefei, China
Christy M.K. Cheung
Department of Finance and Decision Sciences, Hong Kong Baptist University,
Hong Kong
Matthew K.O. Lee
Department of Information Systems, City University of Hong Kong,
Hong Kong, and
Liang Liang
School of Management, University of Science and Technology of China,
Hefei, China

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore the concept of user engagement in the context of
online brand communities. A research model is proposed to explain how brand loyalty is developed
through user engagement.
Design/methodology/approach – The research model was empirically tested with an online survey
study of 185 current Facebook users.
Findings – Results revealed that user engagement influenced brand loyalty both directly and
indirectly through online community commitment. Users tend to focus on the benefits (rather than the
costs) derived from the usage when they engage in an online brand community.
Research limitations/implications – The selection of respondents is bound to the Hong Kong area,
while Facebook members are globally distributed. In addition, this study involved a cross-sectional
design instead of investigating the development of brand loyalty from a long-term perspective.
Practical implications – The results inform e-marketers the importance of user engagement
behaviors for building brand loyalty through online communities. Strategies that encourage members
to engage in online brand communities on social networking sites such as Facebook are also provided.
Originality/value – The concept of user engagement in online brand communities is still poorly
understood, underscoring the need for theoretically based research of user engagement. This paper
enriches the knowledge in the area of brand engagement by presenting a research model that
introduces the concept of user engagement in social media research and empirically examines its role in
building brand loyalty in online brand communities.
Keywords Social networking (e.g. Facebook, second life), User participation, Virtual community,
Customer relationship management
Paper type Research paper

Information Technology & People

Vol. 28 No. 1, 2015
pp. 90-106 The authors acknowledge with gratitude the generous support of the Hong Kong Baptist
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0959-3845
University for the project (FRG2/12-13/015) without which the timely production of the current
DOI 10.1108/ITP-08-2013-0144 report/publication would not have been feasible.
 1. Introduction User
Social media tools have provided members with globally available communication engagement in
channels to facilitate the sharing and distribution of information by interactively
collaborating with each other in online communities through blogs, social networking
online brand
sites (SNSs) and other social tools (Chen et al., 2010; Ou et al., 2010). In particular, the communities
rising popularity of SNSs has created a new social platform for members to connect and
share their enthusiasm about their favorite brands with their friends, personal contacts 91
and other acquaintances (Cheung and Lee, 2012; Trusov et al., 2009). Members can
freely join their favorite brand communities in SNSs and engage in these online brand
communities through ongoing communication processes (e.g. providing positive
Downloaded by King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals At 09:23 21 January 2018 (PT)

comments on pictures and videos related to the brand or company, co-creation,

social sharing and the like). In recent years, there has been a great deal of interest (ref)
in the role of SNSs in building customer relationship (Casalo et al., 2010; Shen et al.,
2010). In a recent report (2009) by Forrester Research Inc., 95 percent of marketers
claimed that they would invest in social media or at least maintain the current level of
investment, despite the current downturn in the global economy. By 2014, it is estimated
that companies will spend $3.1 billion annually on social media (Mashable, 2009) (http://
mashable.com/2009/07/08/social-media-marketing-growth/). Among existing social media
tools, Facebook is the most popular SNS. Many brands have created online brand
communities on Facebook Fan Pages for advertising, promoting communication and
understanding between a company and its consumers, as well as building brand
loyalty (de Valck et al., 2009).
Both commercial companies and professional consulting firms have invested
considerable resources in developing various marketing strategies related to user
engagement in online brand communities in SNSs. There is a strong professional focus
on operational issues of engagement. For example, Peterson and Carrabis (2008) derived
a total engagement index by adding the values for each engagement category, including
click depth (content clicked on), loyalty (the level of long-term interaction the visitor has
with the brand, site or product(s)), recency (the rate at which the visitor returns to the site
over time), duration (time spent on site), interactivity (actions taken, such as content
downloading, posting, attending a video/audio cast), feedback (propensity to solicit
additional information or supply direct feedback) and brand awareness. In addition, the
concept of user engagement in online brand communities and the managerial issues
of engagement (e.g. ROI evaluation, effective-efficient budget allocation and internal
marketing/communication practices) have received significant practitioner attention
(Graffigna et al., 2011).
Despite this recent attention, academic investigation of the “engagement” concept
and of “user engagement” in online brand communities to date is lagging (Brodie et al.,
2013). Furthermore, academic researchers have not yet analyzed how companies build
and maintain relationships with customers through promoting user engagement in
online brand communities in SNSs. As a consequence, our theoretical understanding of the
role of SNSs in customer relationship management is limited. Therefore, this study has
two primary objectives: first, to explore the concept of user engagement in the context
of online brand communities; and second, to develop and empirically test a research model
that explains why members actively engage in online brand communities on Facebook
and how their engagement behaviors affect brand loyalty.
This research represents a relatively unexplored area in the IS literature and will
enrich existing studies of user engagement in online brand communities in SNSs.
The results of this study will also help professional marketers to arrive at a broader
 ITP theoretical understanding of the drivers and consequences of user engagement in this
28,1 new social platform. The results will provide them with important guidelines for
building brand loyalty through online social networks, as well as for formulating
social media strategies that encourage members to actively engage in online brand
communities on Facebook. Ultimately, understanding why and how individuals
participate and engage in new social platforms can help businesses to stay competitive in
92 the global market.
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. The next section addresses the
theoretical foundation of the research model. The third section presents the research
model and hypotheses. The fourth section describes a survey with members of
Downloaded by King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals At 09:23 21 January 2018 (PT)

Facebook brand communities. The fifth section presents the results of our empirical
study. Finally, the paper is concluded by discussing implications for both research
and practice.

2. Theoretical background
In this section, the concept of engagement is first defined. A review of the prior
literature on user engagement in online communities is then provided.

2.1 The concept of engagement

Engagement is an important concept; however, it is understood in a very vague and
unsystematic way. In the academic literature, although many studies with constructs
carry the “engagement” label, the definition, dimensionality and operationalization of
engagement are inconsistent and mixed (e.g. Kauffman et al., 2010; Kidd, 2011).
For instance, some studies measured engagement as a synonym of other apparently
similar, much better established concepts like involvement, activation, empowerment,
commitment, retention and loyalty (Kidd, 2011; Zhang et al., 2013). In the relationship
marketing literature, engagement is mostly concerned with customers who are or can
be engaged by a brand. In particularly, these studies focus on how customer
engagement is linked to a comprehensive brand strategy. Engagement in this line of
research is usually conceptualized in three different ways (Cheung et al., 2011):
• Customer engagement as a psychological process that will lead to the formation
of loyalty. Bowden (2009) proposed a framework for the process of engagement,
with a focus on the underlying mechanisms by which loyalty forms for new
customers of a service brand as well as the mechanisms by which loyalty may be
maintained for repeat purchase consumers of a service brand.
• Customer engagement as behavioral manifestation. Van Doorn et al. (2010) defined
engagement as “the behavioral manifestation from a customer toward a brand
or a firm which goes beyond purchase behavior (p. 254).” Verhoef et al. (2010)
and Bijmolt et al. (2010) also defined engagement as behavioral manifestation and
further elaborated on their definition and identified a number of related behaviors
such as word-of-mouth, blogging and providing customer ratings.
• Customer engagement as a psychological state that is characterized by
a degree of vigor, dedication, absorption and interaction. Patterson et al. (2006)
drew on a variety of parent disciplines including social psychology and
organizational behavior and defined engagement as a psychological state that
is characterized by a degree of vigor, dedication, absorption and interaction in
brand interactions.
 2.2 User engagement in online communities User
Today, as more consumers become adept at using the internet, organizations are engagement in
developing online communities through a company’s web site, online portal or SNS.
An online brand community is typically defined as “a specialized, non-geographically
online brand
bound community, based upon social relationships among admirers of a brand in communities
cyberspace” ( Jang et al., 2008). However, theoretical understandings of brand loyalty
in online brand communities are limited. Only a few researchers have empirically 93
shown that brand loyalty can be developed through user engagement in online brand
communities (Dholakia et al., 2004; Jang et al., 2008; Shang et al., 2006).
The most prominent study of user engagement in online brand communities
Downloaded by King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals At 09:23 21 January 2018 (PT)

was undertaken by Hennig-Thurau et al. (2004). They built on the framework of

Balasubramanian and Mahajan (2001) and identified five main motivational categories
of user participation in online discussion forums: focus-related utility (concern for other
consumers, helping the company, social benefits and exerting power); consumption
utility (post-purchase advice seeking); approval utility (self-enhancement and economic
rewards); moderator-related utility (convenience and problem-solving support); and
homeostase utility (expressing positive emotions and venting negative feelings). Sun et al.
(2006) proposed an integrated model to explore the antecedents and consequences of
user participation in music-related communities. They found that innovativeness,
internet usage and internet social connection are significant factors in engagement.
The few available studies about determinants of engagement mostly focus on the
benefits and ignore the costs of user engagement in these online social platforms,
mostly have their foundations in social exchange theory and suggest that consumers
evaluate the costs and benefits and make a rational decision about their engagement.
Thus, the current study draws on social exchange theory and attempts to explore the
relative impacts of both benefit and cost factors on user engagement in online brand
communities in SNSs.

3. Research model and hypotheses

Numerous customer behaviors have been examined in the previous literature,
including word-of-mouth (De Matos and Rossi, 2008), customer recommendations
and referrals (Ryu and Feick, 2007; Senecal and Nantel, 2004), blogging and web
postings (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004). These behavioral constructs are likely to
reflect different behavioral manifestation of user engagement (van Doorn et al.,
2010). For instance, Van Doorn et al. (2010), Verhoef et al. (2010) and Bijmolt et al.
(2010) have defined engagement as a behavioral manifestation that have a brand or
firm focus, beyond purchase, resulting from motivational drivers and further
identified several related behaviors such as word-of-mouth, blogging and providing
customer ratings. Behavioral engagement reflects individual participation and
involvement in activities (Li et al., 2013). Prior research on brand communities has
found that positive behavioral intentions involve community participation
intentions and community recommendation intentions (Algesheimer et al., 2005).
Consistent with the prior literature on user engagement in online brand community,
we define user engagement as “individual participation and promotion behavior” in
online brand communities in SNSs. Specifically, this study attempts to enrich the
existing literature by exploring the role of user engagement behaviors in online
brand communities in SNSs, as well as identifying the relationship between user
engagement and brand loyalty.
 ITP 3.1 The hypothetical model
28,1 Based on the preceding literature review, this study develops a framework
presenting the drivers and consequences of user engagement and investigating
their interrelationships. Figure 1 depicts the model of this study. First, the
factors that affect user engagement are divided into two categories: perceived
benefits and perceived costs. Second, the consequences of user engagement are
94 examined by investigating the formation of online community commitment and
brand loyalty. In the following sub-sections, nine hypotheses are introduced
accordingly.
Downloaded by King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals At 09:23 21 January 2018 (PT)

3.2 Antecedents of user engagement

Social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) suggests that all human actions are ultimately
directed toward self-interest. People consider both benefits and costs before making
a rational decision about their actions. In our research context, SNS users are motivated
to participate and promote online brand communities when they expect that they will
receive benefits in return. Particularly, prior online community studies have found
that members are more willing to participate and share in online communities when
economic incentives are offered (e.g. Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004). In addition, researchers
have found that the positive aspects of a community’s influence will lead to positive
behavioral intentions, such as community recommendation intentions and community
participation intentions (Algesheimer et al., 2005). In the context of SNSs, researchers have
found that meeting new people is a key motivator that drives people to use Facebook
(Ellison et al., 2007):
H1. Perceived benefits are positively associated with user participation in online
brand communities in SNSs.
H2. Perceived benefits are positively associated with user promotion in online brand
communities in SNSs.
There are two costs, cognitive cost and executive cost, associated with user
engagement in online brand communities in SNSs (Tong et al., 2007). Cognitive cost
refers to the fact that members need to recall detailed past experiences and mentally
organize them into posts/messages on Facebook Fan Pages. This complex cognitive

H7
Perceived H1-H2
Benefits

Participation

H5-H6 Online H9 Brand

Community
Loyalty
Commitment

Promotion

Perceived H3-H4
Figure 1. Costs
Research model H8
 process may discourage user participation and promotion of online brand communities in User
SNSs. In addition, members may need to spend a significant amount of time to codify their engagement in
tacit opinions into explicit posts/messages. The amount of time required to be committed
to the process of engagement is another important factor that inhibits user engagement:
online brand
communities
H3. Perceived costs are negatively associated with user participation in online
brand communities in SNSs.
95
H4. Perceived costs are negatively associated with user promotion in online brand
communities in SNSs.
Downloaded by King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals At 09:23 21 January 2018 (PT)

3.3 Consequences of user engagement

3.3.1 Formation of online community commitment. Prior studies have found that
user engagement behaviors in online communities enhance interpersonal
relationships and the sense of community (Kim et al., 2008; Madupu and
Cooley, 2010). By actively participating in an online brand community-related
activities, including posting messages, replying to comments and spreading positive
word-of-mouth statements about a particular brand community, members can easily
recognize and interact with other like-minded people. Through social interactions with
other members in a particular online brand community, members are more likely to
develop similar values and norms. This will thus enhance their commitment toward
the focal online brand community (Bagozzi and Dholakia, 2006; Dholakia et al., 2004):
H5. User participation in online brand communities in SNSs is positively associated
with online community commitment.
H6. User promotion in online brand communities in SNSs is positively associated
with online community commitment.
3.3.2 Brand loyalty. In today’s highly competitive business environment, keeping
customers happy and maintaining a long-term relationship with them has long been
an important business strategy. According to the relationship marketing literature,
brand loyalty is one of the key relationship marketing outcomes. This concept can be
conceptualized into behavioral loyalty and attitudinal loyalty ( Jacoby and
Kyner, 1973). Behavioral loyalty means that consumers will continue to purchase
products or services from the same supplier. Attitudinal loyalty refers to consumers’
commitment or preferences when considering unique values associated with a brand
(Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001). In this study, we conceptualize brand loyalty
as attitudinal loyalty that focusses on a feeling of attachment to certain brands
and companies.
According to self-perception theory (Bem, 1972), people observe their own behavior
and therefore determine their attitude. Since user participation and promotion
(spreading the word-of-mouth about a Facebook Fan Page) is performed in a sense of
public commitment (the ongoing communication processes on the Facebook Fan Page
makes the effect even more obvious than behaviors in traditional brand communities),
members will infer themselves to conform toward the initial overt commitment
(participation and promotion) with respect to the brand and company and confirm their
favorable attitudes. Thus, it is expected that user participation and promotion in online
brand communities in SNSs lead to the development of brand loyalty:
H7. User participation in online brand communities in SNSs is positively associated
with brand loyalty.
 ITP H8. User promotion in online brand communities in SNSs is positively associated
28,1 with brand loyalty.
Online community commitment refers to the psychological attachment to an online
brand community (Bettencourt, 1997; Morgan and Hunt, 1994). The concept of online
community commitment is especially important as members can easily switch to
alternative online social platforms with just a few clicks (Zhang et al., 2009).
96 However, once a member feels commitment to an online community, it is very likely
that s/he will develop a positive attitude toward the brand. This is consistent with
social identity theory, since once members are committed to an organization,
Downloaded by King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals At 09:23 21 January 2018 (PT)

they will commit themselves to support the brand and organization (Dutton and
Dukerich, 1991):
H9. Online community commitment is positively associated with brand loyalty.

4. Research method
The research model was tested using a sample of Facebook Fan Page members in
Hong Kong. Facebook is appropriate for the current study as it is one of the most
popular SNSs (Roblyer et al., 2010). In addition, many companies have established fan
pages on Facebook to build and maintain customer relationships ( Jahn and Kunz,
2012). Thus, it is appropriate to use Facebook Fan Pages for the current study.
In this section, the data collection method, measures and demographic statistics of
our sample are described.

4.1 Data collection

Our target respondents were individuals who have joined and participated in Facebook
Fan Page. A Facebook event was created and an invitation e-mail with a URL to the
online questionnaire was sent to over 1,000 members. Data were collected with
a convenience sample using the snowball sampling technique. The participation was
voluntary. To increase the response rate, a lucky draw for supermarket vouchers as an
incentive for participation was offered. Several screening questions were used to ensure
that the respondents were active Facebook members and had joined and participated in
Facebook Fan Pages. Members were asked to fill the survey based on the experience of
using the Facebook Fan Page that they had most recently joined and screened out those
who had been loyal to the brand before joining the given Facebook Fan Page. In total,
243 members clicked the URL of the online questionnaires, and 185 validated members
answers completed the online questionnaires were achieved after deleting those with
missing values.

4.2 Sample profile

The respondents were asked to complete the questionnaire based on their experience
with a particular Facebook Fan Page. All members are physically located in Hong
Kong. Among the 185 respondents, 51 percent were female and 49 percent were male.
A majority of our respondents (78 percent) were aged between 17 and 25, 15.2 percent
were aged 26-35 and only 3.3 percent were aged 16 or below. In total, 61 percent of our
respondents had an education level of bachelor degree or above.
According to statistics for Facebook in Hong Kong (www.allin1social.com/facebook/
country_stats/hong-kong), the two age segments with the largest numbers of members
are 25-34 and 18-24, and the female to male ratio was 54/46 in the past three months.
 Thus, the sample collected in this study is generally representative and includes the User
two most populated age segments. engagement in
online brand
4.3 Measures
The constructs of interest in this study included members’ perceived benefits and
communities
perceived costs of using a Facebook Fan Page, participation, promotion, online
community commitment and brand loyalty. All measures were borrowed from prior 97
literature (see Appendix). Minor changes in the wordings were made so as to fit the
current study about Facebook Fan Page. All constructs were measured using
multi-item perceptual scales and involved seven-point Likert scales, anchored from
Downloaded by King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals At 09:23 21 January 2018 (PT)

strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7).

4.4 Common method bias

First, we examined common method bias by performing the Harman’s single-factor test
(Podsakoff et al., 2003). The measurement items were subjected to an exploratory factor
analysis. The results suggest that no single factor explained most of the variance,
indicating the common method bias is not a serious threat in this study. Second, we
applied the procedure recommended by Pavlou et al. (2007). The correlations between
variables in our data ranged from 0.17 to 0.71 (see Table II), indicating that there was no
systematic bias in the data. Third, following Liang et al. (2007), we employed a common
method factor whose indicators included all items in the partial least squares (PLS)
model. The variance explained by a common method factor and the substantive factors
were compared to determine whether the majority of covariance was explained by the
common method factor. The results demonstrated that the common method factor only
explained 2 percent of the overall covariance, confirming that the common method bias
is not a threat to the results of the current study.

5. Data analysis and results

The PLS approach was used to perform the statistical analysis. The PLS technique
provides a better explanation for complex relationships in respect of covariance-based
structural equation modeling technique (Fornell and Larcker, 1981; Henseler et al., 2009)
and is widely adopted by researchers (Chin et al., 2003; Hair et al., 2011; Marcoulides
et al., 2009). Furthermore, it does not require data to have a multi-variate normal
distribution and it is less demanding with respect to the sample size. Following the
two-step analytical procedures (Turel and Serenko, 2012), the measurement scales for
the psychometric properties were first assessed and then the structural model was
evaluated. Using this two-step approach, the conclusions on structural relationships are
drawn from a set of measurement instruments with desirable psychometric properties.

5.1 Measurement model

Examination of the measurement model involves evaluations of convergent validity and
discriminant validity of the constructs in the current model. Convergent validity indicates
the extent to which scores on one scale correlate with scores on other scales theoretically
designed to assess the same construct. It is assessed by using the following three criteria:
the composite reliability (CR) should be at least 0.70 (Chin, 1998), the average variance
extracted (AVE) should be more than 0.50 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981) and all item
loadings should be higher than 0.707 (Chin, 1998). As shown in Table I, all three criteria
of convergent validity met the recommended thresholds, with the CRs ranging from
 ITP Construct Item Loading Mean SD
28,1
Perceived costs PC1 0.78 3.17 1.40
CR ¼ 0.85; AVE ¼ 0.66 PC2 0.76 3.32 1.43
PC3 0.88 3.08 1.43
Perceived benefits PB1 0.75 3.46 1.72
CR ¼ 0.91; AVE ¼ 0.68 PB2 0.89 4.04 1.66
98 PB3 0.86 4.08 1.56
PB4 0.83 3.79 1.63
PB5 0.79 3.71 1.62
Participation PP1 0.76 3.31 1.74
Downloaded by King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals At 09:23 21 January 2018 (PT)

CR ¼ 0.87; AVE ¼ 0.63 PP2 0.87 3.23 1.75

PP3 0.80 3.49 1.72
PP4 0.75 3.55 1.84
Promotion PM1 0.95 4.09 1.82
CR ¼ 0.95; AVE ¼ 0.90 PM2 0.94 3.61 1.88
Online community commitment: CC1 0.92 4.09 1.42
CR ¼ 0.96; AVE ¼ 0.85 CC2 0.92 3.97 1.62
CC3 0.93 4.06 1.51
Table I. CC4 0.91 4.04 1.56
Psychometric Brand loyalty BL1 0.89 3.95 1.66
properties of CR ¼ 0.94; AVE ¼ 0.83 BL2 0.94 4.24 1.62
measures BL3 0.90 4.22 1.74

0.85 to 0.96, and the AVEs from 0.63 to 0.90. The item loadings were all greater than the
0.707 recommend cut-off.
Discriminant validity is the extent to which the measurement is not a reflection of
other constructs. It is verified by low correlations between the measure of interest and
the measures of other constructs (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Discriminant validity
of the measures is also demonstrated by having the squared root of the AVE of each
construct higher than its correlations with all other constructs. As shown in Table II,
the square root of AVE of each construct, located on the diagonal of the table and in
italics, is higher than the correlations between it and all other constructs. Therefore, the
discriminant validity of the measures used in the current study is demonstrated.

5.2 Structural model

The structural model analysis was estimated using the PLS procedure (bootstrap
re-sampling approach). Figure 2 depicts the results of the hypothesized structural
model test, including the overall explanatory power (R2 value), assessed path
coefficients with significant paths indicated by asterisks and associated t-values of the
paths. The structural model explains 58 percent of the variance in brand loyalty,

BL CC PP PB PC PM
Brand loyalty (BL) 0.91
Table II. Online community commitment (CC) 0.65 0.92
Correlation matrix Participation (PP) 0.59 0.45 0.80
and psychometric Perceived benefits (PB) 0.60 0.71 0.57 0.82
properties of key Perceived costs (PC) 0.17 0.34 0.32 0.45 0.81
constructs Promotion (PM) 0.63 0.53 0.60 0.57 0.21 0.95
 0.25*** User
t =3.94 engagement in
Perceived
0.54*** online brand
t =8.82
Benefits Participation communities
0.21*
0.60*** t =2.41
t =11.02 R 2=0.33
Online
Community
Brand 99
Loyalty
Commitment
0.399***
0.07ns t =6.00
t =1.00 Promotion 0.40***
Downloaded by King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals At 09:23 21 January 2018 (PT)

t =4.70 R 2=0.31 R 2=0.58

Perceived
Costs –0.06ns
t =0.74 R 2=0.33
0.26** Figure 2.
t =3.17 Results of the
research model
Notes: *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

31 percent of the variance in online community commitment, 33 percent of the variance

in participation and 33 percent of the variance in promotion. The results indicate that
all the paths are statistically significant at the 0.05 significance level, except for the
path from perceived costs to engagement behaviors.
Perceived benefits is an important variable influencing participation and
promotion, with path coefficients at 0.54 and 0.60, respectively. The results provide
support for H1 and H2. Both participation and promotion exhibit strong and
significant effects on online community commitment, with path coefficients of 0.21
and 0.40, respectively, supporting H5 and H6. Meanwhile, participation and
promotion also have direct influences on brand loyalty, with path coefficients of 0.25
and 0.26, respectively. Likewise, online community commitment has a strong impact
on brand loyalty with a path coefficient of 0.40. This provides support for H7, H8
and H9 (see Appendix).

6. Discussions and conclusion

Brand community building has been recognized as an effective approach for developing
and maintaining customer relationships. Prior studies have found that brand communities
facilitate the development of brand loyalty and long-term relationships with potential
customers (Muniz and O’guinn, 2001). The present study explored the role of user
engagement in online brand communities and its impact on brand loyalty. In this study,
a research model was proposed to explain how brand loyalty is developed through user
engagement in online social platforms.
Social networking tools such as Facebook Fan Page have enormous potential for
enhancing brand loyalty. They can be deployed to help companies build brand
communities commitment through encouraging engagement behaviors in these online
social platforms. In this study, user engagement behaviors in online brand communities
on Facebook are essential ingredients that foster brand loyalty. The results also suggested
that perceived benefits are crucial in affecting user engagement behaviors. Members are
more likely to repeat behaviors that lead to positive rewards and achievements.
However, perceived costs do not demonstrate any significant relationship with user
engagement behaviors. One possible explanation is that most respondents in the
 ITP current study are experienced Facebook members. They use Facebook on a daily basis,
28,1 and thus, the cognitive and executive costs do not seem to be high for this group of
members. van Doorn et al. (2010) have posited that different antecedents of engagement
behaviors can moderate the effect of each other on engagement behaviors. A post hoc
analysis was performed to test possible moderating effects of perceived costs. The results
indicated that perceived costs can significantly negatively moderate the effect of perceived
100 benefits on promotion, although the moderating effect of perceived benefits on
participation is not significant (−0.12, po0.1). Furthermore, the hierarchical process was
also used to compare the R2 value for the interaction model with that for the main effects
model, which excluded the interaction construct. The effect size for the interaction was
Downloaded by King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals At 09:23 21 January 2018 (PT)

0.02, suggesting small interaction effects (Cohen, 1988).

6.1 Research implications

This study contributes to existing brand community research and user engagement
literature in several ways. First, the current study makes a theoretical contribution
by improving our theoretical understanding of user engagement through developing
and testing a research model explaining brand loyalty through user engagement in
online brand communities in SNSs. Though many researchers have highlighted the
importance of user engagement in social media (Graffigna et al., 2011), the concept of
user engagement still suffers from a lack of consistency in its definition, forms and
operationalization. Some researchers have provided the conceptual framework of
engagement behaviors without attempting any empirical validation (van Doorn et al.,
2010; Verhoef et al., 2010). In the current investigation, the concept of user engagement
in SNSs was carefully defined and its measurement items were also empirically
validated. Specifically, this study went beyond conceptualization and applied social
exchange theory and the relationship marketing literature to examine the phenomenon,
which enriches the existing literature on user engagement behaviors.
Second, the role of user engagement in online brand communities was explored.
Building on social exchange theory and the relationship marketing literature, both the
antecedents and consequences of user engagement were identified and empirically
tested in a research model. In particular, the perceived benefits and perceived costs
were identified as key antecedents of user engagement, whilst user engagement
influenced brand loyalty both directly and indirectly through online community
commitment. The measurement model was well-validated and the structural model
explained over 50 percent of the variance. Although the results indicated that perceived
costs had no significant impacts on either participation or promotion, the post hoc
analysis revealed that perceived costs negatively moderated the effect of perceived
benefits on promotion. The finding conformed to the position from the conceptual
model of van Doorn et al. (2010) that different antecedents of engagement behaviors can
also moderate the effect of each other on each other. That is to say, the deeper
conceptualization and empirical research of this study timely addresses this issue and
enriches the existing literature.

6.2 Managerial implications

Apart from the theoretical implications, the findings of this study also provide some
important insights for e-marketers. In particular, the results provide some insights for
e-marketers to utilize online brand communities in social media as a channel to enhance
relationships with their existing customers or initiate relationships with their potential
customers. One of the key findings shows that user engagement is an essential
 factor influencing brand loyalty both directly and indirectly through online brand User
communities. This finding provides important insights to practice. Specifically, if engagement in
e-marketers plan to build their own online brand communities in SNSs, they should
develop an effective marketing strategy that encourages user engagement in the online
online brand
communities. As suggested in the current investigation, perceived benefits are key communities
antecedents of user engagement in online brand communities. Therefore, e-marketers are
recommended to encourage active participation in their online brand communities in SNSs 101
through demonstrating the benefits to their members. For instance, they should provide
their members with some economic incentives (e.g. coupons, free gifts and free access to
resources). They should also ensure a harmonious online environment where their
Downloaded by King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals At 09:23 21 January 2018 (PT)

members can freely interact and chat with other members in these online social spaces. It
should be noted that promotion has a stronger effect than participation on online brand
community commitment which ultimately influences brand loyalty, suggesting it is the
key in the formation of brand loyalty. Members may only frequently participate in online
brand communities because of the rewards of incentives provided; however, they will be
more likely to promote the platform to others without any rewards when the perceived
costs are low. In this case, it is important for e-marketers to understand the interplay
among perceived benefits, perceived costs and engagement behaviors. That is to say, they
may encourage members’ participation by providing their various benefits and increasing
the number of members by ensuring that a web site is convenient and easy to use.

6.3 Limitations and conclusion

The current study is subject to some limitations. First, the selection of respondents is
bound to the Hong Kong area, while Facebook members are distributed globally.
Future research may extend to other regions and make a comparison of the results in
different locations to see if there is any cultural bias. Second, this study has not taken
the actual purchase and word-of-mouth behavior into consideration. The power of
brand commitment in predicting actual behavior is obviously an important area
requiring more attention. A longitudinal study is highly recommended for future
research on this topic. Third, this study only focussed on the user-based angle
(perceived benefits and costs), examined two major engagement behaviors
(participation and promotion) and used a quantitative research method to examine
their causal relationships. Exploring the larger questions about brand loyalty and
brand community with only Likert scale items seems limiting. A qualitative approach
would significantly enhance our ability to explore the questions about brand loyalty
and online community, which is highly recommended in future studies.
User engagement in online brand communities has drawn increasing attention in both
practice and research. This research model was built and tested in order to enhance our
knowledge by exploring how brand loyalty is developed through user engagement in
these online social platforms. It is expected that this study will provide some insights
among researchers to further investigate the role of user engagement in social media.

References
Algesheimer, R., Dholakia, U.M. and Herrmann, A. (2005), “The social influence of brand community:
evidence from european car clubs”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 69 No. 3, pp. 19-34.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Dholakia, U.M. (2006), “Antecedents and purchase consequences of customer
participation in small group brand communities”, International Journal of Research in
Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 45-61.
 ITP Balasubramanian, S. and Mahajan, V. (2001), “The economic leverage of the virtual community”,
International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 103-138.
28,1
Bem, D.J. (1972), Self-Perception Theory, Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
Bennett, R. and Rundle-Thiele, S. (2002), “A comparison of attitudinal loyalty measurement
approaches”, The Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 193-209.
Bettencourt, L.A. (1997), “Customer voluntary performance: customers as partners in service
102 delivery”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 73 No. 3, pp. 383-406.
Bijmolt, T.H.A., Leeflang, P.S.H., Block, F., Eisenbeiss, M., Hardie, B.G.S., Lemmens, A. and
Saffert, P. (2010), “Analytics for customer engagement”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 13
Downloaded by King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals At 09:23 21 January 2018 (PT)

No. 3, pp. 341-356.

Blau, P.M. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, Transaction Publishers.
Bowden, J.L.-H. (2009), “The process of customer engagement: a conceptual framework”, Journal
of Marketing Theory & Practice, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 63-74.
Brodie, R.J., Ilic, A., Juric, B. and Hollebeek, L. (2013), “Consumer engagement in a virtual
brand community: an exploratory analysis”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66 No. 1,
pp. 105-114.
Casalo, L.V., Flavian, C. and Guinaliu, M. (2010), “Relationship quality, community promotion and
brand loyalty in virtual communities: evidence from free software communities”,
International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 357-367.
Chaudhuri, A. and Holbrook, M.B. (2001), “The chain of effects from brand trust and brand
affect to brand performance: the role of brand loyalty”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 65 No. 2,
pp. 81-93.
Chen, J., Kauffman, R.J., Liu, Y. and Song, X. (2010), “Segmenting uncertain demand in
group-buying auctions”, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, Vol. 9 No. 2,
pp. 126-147.
Cheung, C.M.K. and Lee, M.K.O. (2012), “What drives consumers to spread electronic word of
mouth in online consumer-opinion platforms”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 53 No. 1,
pp. 218-225.
Cheung, C.M.K., Lee, M.K.O. and Jin, X.L. (2011), “Customer engagement in an online
social platform: a conceptual model and scale development”, Paper Presented at
the Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems, Shanghai,
December 4-7.
Chin, W.W. (1998), “The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling”, in
Mahwah, N.J. and Marcoulides, G.A. (Eds), Modern Methods for Business Research,
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New York, NY, pp. 295-336.
Chin, W.W., Marcolin, B.L. and Newsted, P.R. (2003), “A partial least squares latent variable
modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: results from a monte carlo simulation
study and voice mail emotion/adoption study”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 14
No. 2, pp. 189-217.
Chung, K.-H. and Shin, J.-I. (2010), “The antecedents and consequents of relationship quality
in internet shopping”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 22 No. 4,
pp. 473-491.
Cohen, J. (1988), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed., Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
Cyr, S. and Choo, C.W. (2010), “The individual and social dynamics of knowledge sharing:
an exploratory study”, Journal of Documentation, Vol. 66 No. 6, pp. 824-846.
 De Matos, C.A. and Rossi, C.A.V. (2008), “Word-of-mouth communications in marketing: User
a meta-analytic review of the antecedents and moderators”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 578-596.
engagement in
de Valck, K., van Bruggen, G.H. and Wierenga, B. (2009), “Virtual communities: a marketing
online brand
perspective”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 185-203. communities
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 103
Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 241-263.
Dutton, J.E. and Dukerich, J.M. (1991), “Keeping an eye on the mirror: image and
identity in organizational adaptation”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34 No. 3,
Downloaded by King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals At 09:23 21 January 2018 (PT)

pp. 517-554.
Ellison, N.B., Steinfield, C. and Lampe, C. (2007), “The benefits of Facebook ‘friends:’ social capital
and college students’ use of online social network sites”, Journal of Computer‐Mediated
Communication, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 1143-1168.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18
No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Graffigna, G., Gambetti, R.C. and Bosio, A.C. (2011), “Using ambient communication to reduce
drink-driving: public health and shocking images in public spaces”, Health Risk & Society,
Vol. 13 Nos 7-8, pp. 669-690.
Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2011), “PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet”, The Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 139-152.
Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K.P., Walsh, G. and Gremler, D.D. (2004), “Electronic word-of-mouth
via consumer-opinion platforms: what motives consumers to articulate themselves on the
internet?”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 38-52.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sinkovics, R.R. (2009), “The use of partial least squares path
modeling in international marketing”, Advances in International Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 1,
pp. 277-319.
Jacoby, J. and Kyner, D.B. (1973), “Brand loyalty vs repeat purchasing behavior”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 1-9.
Jahn, B. and Kunz, W. (2012), “How to transform consumers into fans of your brand”, Journal of
Service Management, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 341-361.
Jang, H., Olfman, L., Ko, I., Koh, J. and Kim, K. (2008), “The influence of on-line brand community
characteristics on community commitment and brand loyalty”, International Journal of
Electronic Commerce, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 57-80.
Kauffman, R.J., Lai, H. and Ho, C.-T. (2010), “Incentive mechanisms, fairness and participation in
online group-buying auctions”, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, Vol. 9
No. 3, pp. 249-262.
Kidd, J. (2011), “Enacting engagement online: framing social media use for the museum”,
Information Technology & People, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 64-77.
Kim, J.W., Choi, J., Qualls, W. and Han, K. (2008), “It takes a marketplace community to raise
brand commitment: the role of online communities”, Journal of Marketing Management,
Vol. 24 Nos 3/4, pp. 409-431.
Koh, J. and Kim, Y.G. (2004), “Knowledge sharing in virtual communities: an e-business
perspective”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 155-166.
Li, T., Berens, G. and de Maertelaere, M. (2013), “Corporate Twitter channels: the impact of
engagement and informedness on corporate reputation”, International Journal of Electronic
Commerce, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 97-126.
 ITP Liang, H., Saraf, N., Hu, Q. and Xue, Y. (2007), “Assimilation of enterprise systems: the effect of
institutional pressures and the mediating role of top management”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 31
28,1 No. 1, pp. 59-87.
Madupu, V. and Cooley, D.O. (2010), “Antecedents and consequences of online brand community
participation: a conceptual framework”, Journal of Internet Commerce, Vol. 9 No. 2,
pp. 127-147.
104 Marcoulides, G.A., Chin, W.W. and Saunders, C. (2009), “A critical look at partial least squares
modeling”, Mis Quarterly, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 171-175.
Mashable (2009), “Social media marketing spend to Hit $3.1 Billion by 2014”, available at: http://
Downloaded by King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals At 09:23 21 January 2018 (PT)

mashable.com/2009/07/08/social-media-marketing-growth/ (accessed May 30, 2014).

Morgan, R.M. and Hunt, S.D. (1994), “The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 20-38.
Muniz, A.M. and O'guinn, T.C. (2001), “Brand community”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 27
No. 4, pp. 412-432.
Ou, C.X.J., Davison, R.M., Zhong, X. and Liang, Y. (2010), “Empowering employees through
instant messaging”, Information Technology & People, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 193-211.
Patterson P., Yu T. and de Ruyter K. (2006), “Understanding customer engagement in services”,
Proceedings of ANZMAC 2006 Conference: Advancing Theory, Maintaining Relevance,
Brisbane, December 4-6.
Pavlou, P.A., Liang, H. and Xue, Y. (2007), “Understanding and mitigating uncertainty in online
exchange relationships: a principal-agent perspective”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 31 No. 1,
pp. 105-136.
Peterson, E.T. and Carrabis, J. (2008), “Measuring the immeasurable: visitor engagement”,
Research and Analysis from WebAnalyticsDemystified, the Web Analytics Thought Leaders.
Podsakoff, P.M., Mackenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. 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.
Roblyer, M.D., McDaniel, M., Webb, M., Herman, J. and Witty, J.V. (2010), “Findings on
Facebook in higher education: a comparison of college faculty and student uses and
perceptions of social networking sites”, The Internet and Higher Education, Vol. 13
No. 3, pp. 134-140.
Ryu, G. and Feick, L. (2007), “A penny for your thoughts: referral reward programs and referral
likelihood”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 71 No. 1, pp. 84-94.
Senecal, S. and Nantel, J. (2004), “The influence of online product recommendations on consumers’
online choices”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 80 No. 2, pp. 159-169.
Shang, R.A., Chen, Y.C. and Liao, H.J. (2006), “The value of participation in virtual consumer
communities on brand loyalty”, Internet Research, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 398-418.
Shen, Y.C., Huang, C.Y., Chu, C.H. and Liao, H.C. (2010), “Virtual community loyalty:
an interpersonal-interaction perspective”, International Journal of Electronic Commerce,
Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 49-73.
Sun, T., Youn, S., Wu, G. and Kuntaraporn, M. (2006), “Online word-of-mouth (or mouse):
an exploration of its antecedents and consequences”, Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 1104-1127.
Tong, Y., Wang, X. and Teo, H.H. (2007), “Understanding the intention of information
contribution to online feedback systems from social exchange and motivation crowding
perspectives”, Proceedings of the 40th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences,
Hilton Waikoloa Village, Big Island, January 3-6.
 Trusov, M., Bucklin, R.E. and Pauwels, K. (2009), “Effects of word-of-mouth versus traditional User
marketing: findings from an internet social networking site”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 73
No. 5, pp. 90-102.
engagement in
online brand
Turel, O. and Serenko, A. (2012), “The benefits and dangers of enjoyment with social networking
web sites”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 512-528. communities
van Doorn, J., Lemon, K.N., Mittal, V., Nass, S., Pick, D., Pirner, P. and Verhoef, P.C. (2010),
“Customer engagement behavior: theoretical foundations and research directions”, Journal 105
of Service Research, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 253-266.
Verhoef, P.C., Reinartz, W.J. and Krafft, M. (2010), “Customer engagement as a new perspective in
Downloaded by King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals At 09:23 21 January 2018 (PT)

customer management”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 247-252.

Zhang, K.Z.K., Lee, M.K.O., Cheung, C.M.K. and Chen, H. (2009), “Understanding the role
of gender in bloggers’ switching behavior”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 47 No. 4,
pp. 540-546.
Zhang, Z., Zhang, Z., Wang, F., Law, R. and Li, D. (2013), “Factors influencing the effectiveness of
online group buying in the restaurant industry”, International Journal of Hospitality
Management, Vol. 35, pp. 237-245.

Appendix. List of measures

Perceived costs (modified from Cyr and Choo, 2010):
PC1. It requires a lot of time to participate in the Facebook Fan Page.
PC2. It requires a lot of effort to participate in the Facebook Fan Page.
PC3. I am ready to spend all the time and energy required to fully participate in the Facebook
Fan Page.
Perceived benefits (modified from Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004):
PB1. I receive an economic reward for participating in the Facebook Fan Page.
PB2. I believe a chat among like-minded people in the Facebook Fan Page is a nice thing.
PB3. It is fun to communicate this way with other people the Facebook Fan Page.
PB4. I meet nice people through the participation in the Facebook Fan Page.
PB5. I participate in the Facebook Fan Page because I receive economic incentives.
Participation (modified from Koh and Kim, 2004):
PP1. I leave messages on the wall of the Facebook Fan Page.
PP2. I post my comments on the Facebook Fan Page.
PP3. I help other people by providing them with information about the product / brand on the
Facebook Fan Page.
PP4. I join events organized through the Facebook Fan Page.
Promotion (modified from Algesheimer et al., 2005):
PM1. I recommend the Facebook Fan Page to my friend.
PM2. I send invitations to ask others to become a fan to the Facebook Fan Page.
Online community commitment (modified from Chung and Shin, 2010):
CC1. I feel the Facebook Fan Page as a friend.
CC2. I feel the Facebook Fan Page as a part of living.
CC3. I am attached to the Facebook Fan Page.
CC4. I feel a sense of belonging to the Facebook Fan Page.
Brand loyalty (modified from Bennett and Rundle-Thiele, 2002):
BL1. I am committed to purchasing from the brand.
BL2. Purchasing from the brand would be likely.
BL3. I would recommend the brand to other people.
 ITP Hypothesis Path Path coefficient Conclusion
28,1
H1 Perceived benefits to participation 0.54*** (t ¼ 8.02) H1 is supported
H2 Perceived benefits to promotion 0.60*** (t ¼ 11.02) H2 is supported
H3 Perceived costs to participation 0.07 (t ¼ 1.00) H3 is not supported
H4 Perceived costs to promotion −0.06 (t ¼ 0.74) H4 is not supported
H5 Participation to online community commitment 0.21** (t ¼ 2.41) H5 is supported
106 H6 Promotion to online community commitment 0.40*** (t ¼ 4.07) H6 is supported
H7 Participation to brand loyalty 0.25*** (t ¼ 3.94) H7 is supported
H8 Promotion to brand loyalty 0.26*** (t ¼ 3.17) H8 is supported
Table AI. H9 Online community commitment to brand loyalty 0.40*** (t ¼ 6.00) H9 is supported
Downloaded by King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals At 09:23 21 January 2018 (PT)

Summary of results Notes: **p o0.05; ***p o0.01

About the authors

Dr Xiabing Zheng is PhD Candidate at the University of Science and Technology of China, City
University of Hong Kong Joint Advanced Research Center (USTC-CityU Joint Advanced
Research Center), Suzhou. Dr Xiabing Zheng is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
is.xzheng@gmail.com
Dr Christy M.K. Cheung is an Associate Professor at the Hong Kong Baptist University.
Matthew K.O. Lee is the Chair Professor of Information Systems & E-Commerce at the College
of Business at City University of Hong Kong (CityU).
Liang Liang is a Professor and Acting Dean of the School of Management at the University of
Science and Technology of China.

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
 This article has been cited by:

1. Rakhi Thakur. 2018. Customer engagement and online reviews. Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services 41, 48-59. [Crossref]
2. JainNikunj Kumar, Nikunj Kumar Jain, KambojShampy, Shampy Kamboj, KumarVinod, Vinod
Kumar, RahmanZillur, Zillur Rahman. 2018. Examining consumer-brand relationships on social
media platforms. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 36:1, 63-78. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
3. Marloes van Asperen, Pieter de Rooij, Corné Dijkmans. 2018. Engagement-Based Loyalty: The
Effects of Social Media Engagement on Customer Loyalty in the Travel Industry. International
Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration 19:1, 78-94. [Crossref]
Downloaded by King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals At 09:23 21 January 2018 (PT)

4. Margurite Hook, Stacey Baxter, Alicia Kulczynski. 2017. Antecedents and consequences of
participation in brand communities: a literature review. Journal of Brand Management 39. .
[Crossref]
5. RezaeiSajad, Sajad Rezaei, ValaeiNaser, Naser Valaei. 2017. Branding in a multichannel retail
environment. Information Technology & People 30:4, 853-886. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
6. Carsten D. Schultz. 2017. Proposing to your fans: Which brand post characteristics drive consumer
engagement activities on social media brand pages?. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications
26, 23-34. [Crossref]
7. KambojShampy, Shampy Kamboj, RahmanZillur, Zillur Rahman. 2017. Measuring customer
social participation in online travel communities. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology 8:3,
432-464. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
8. Jesús Gutiérrez-Cillán, Carmen Camarero-Izquierdo, Rebeca San José-Cabezudo. 2017. How brand
post content contributes to user's Facebook brand-page engagement. The experiential route of
active participation. BRQ Business Research Quarterly 20:4, 258-274. [Crossref]
9. YangJun, Jun Yang, ZhengRui, Rui Zheng, ZhaoLing, Ling Zhao, GuptaSumeet, Sumeet Gupta.
2017. Enhancing customer brand experience and loyalty through enterprise microblogs. Information
Technology & People 30:3, 580-601. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
10. Ryan E. Cruz, James M. Leonhardt, Todd Pezzuti. 2017. Second Person Pronouns Enhance
Consumer Involvement and Brand Attitude. Journal of Interactive Marketing 39, 104-116. [Crossref]
11. Noor Farizah Ibrahim, Xiaojun Wang, Humphrey Bourne. 2017. Exploring the effect of user
engagement in online brand communities: Evidence from Twitter. Computers in Human Behavior
72, 321-338. [Crossref]
12. Jamid Ul Islam, Zillur Rahman. 2017. The impact of online brand community characteristics on
customer engagement: An application of Stimulus-Organism-Response paradigm. Telematics and
Informatics 34:4, 96-109. [Crossref]
13. Ji Wu, Shaokun Fan, J. Leon Zhao. 2017. Community engagement and online word of mouth:
An empirical investigation. Information & Management . [Crossref]
14. Wen-Jang (Kenny) Jih, Su-Fang Lee. 2017. Effects of Social Presence and Social Capital on User
Loyalty to the Social Networking Website. International Journal of E-Business Research 13:3, 18-32.
[Crossref]
15. KambojShampy, Shampy Kamboj, RahmanZillur, Zillur Rahman. 2017. Understanding customer
participation in online brand communities. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal
20:3, 306-334. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
 16. Jinhyun Jun, Jaewook Kim, Liang (Rebecca) Tang. 2017. Does Social Capital Matter on Social
Media? An Examination Into Negative e-WOM Toward Competing Brands. Journal of Hospitality
Marketing & Management 26:4, 378-394. [Crossref]
17. MarderBen, Ben Marder, ShankarAvi, Avi Shankar, HoughtonDavid, David Houghton,
JoinsonAdam, Adam Joinson. 2017. “What if my mum sees it?”. Information Technology & People
30:1, 210-226. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
18. LópezManuela, Manuela López, SiciliaMaría, María Sicilia, Moyeda-CarabazaAlberto Alejandro,
Alberto Alejandro Moyeda-Carabaza. 2017. Creating identification with brand communities on
Twitter. Internet Research 27:1, 21-51. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
19. María Sicilia, Mariola Palazón, Manuela López. Brand Pages as a Communication Tool: A State of
Downloaded by King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals At 09:23 21 January 2018 (PT)

the Art and a Research Agenda 169-188. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
20. . Advertising in New Formats and Media . [Abstract] [PDF] [PDF]
21. Janice Penni. 2016. The future of online social networks (OSN): A measurement analysis using
social media tools and application. Telematics and Informatics . [Crossref]
22. Puneet Kaur, Amandeep Dhir, Risto Rajala. 2016. Assessing flow experience in social networking
site based brand communities. Computers in Human Behavior 64, 217-225. [Crossref]
23. Shampy Kamboj, Zillur Rahman. 2016. The influence of user participation in social media-based
brand communities on brand loyalty: age and gender as moderators. Journal of Brand Management
23:6, 679-700. [Crossref]
24. Jamilah, Putu Wuri Handayani. Analysis on effects of brand community on brand loyalty in the
social media: A case study of an online transportation (UBER) 239-244. [Crossref]
25. Kem Z.K. Zhang, Morad Benyoucef. 2016. Consumer behavior in social commerce: A literature
review. Decision Support Systems 86, 95-108. [Crossref]
26. Heikki Karjaluoto, Juha Munnukka, Severi Tiensuu. The Relationships Between Customer Brand
Engagement in Social Media and Share of Wallet 173-186. [Crossref]
27. Damianos P. Sakas, Nasiopoulos K. Dimitrios, Androniki Kavoura. 2015. The Development of
Facebook's Competitive Advantage for Brand Awareness. Procedia Economics and Finance 24,
589-597. [Crossref]