The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/2398-628X.htm

The impact of brand familiarity, Impact of

brand
customer brand engagement familiarity

and self-identification on
word-of-mouth
Anitha Acharya Received 18 July 2019
Revised 5 December 2019
Department of Marketing and Strategy, IBS Hyderabad, a Constituent of IFHE, 6 March 2020
Deemed to be University, Hyderabad, India 10 April 2020
Accepted 21 April 2020

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to check for the effects of brand familiarity, customer brand
engagement and self-identification on word-of-mouth (WOM) communication.
Design/methodology/approach – A systematic review of the literature regarding brand familiarity and
customer brand engagement CBE) was conducted and data were analyzed using structural equation modeling.
Findings – The results revealed that brand familiarity had a positive impact on CBE; self-identification also
had a positive impact on WOM communication.
Research limitations/implications – The model was tested in the context of service sector; future research
may investigate in different context.
Practical implications – The framework advances insight into customer engagement and service dominant
logic, which, despite having been recognized for their significant theoretical fit, have remained largely
disparate in the literature.
Originality/value – This study is among the first few attempts to examine the impact of brand familiarity on
different dimensions, namely, cognitive, affective and activation dimensions of CBE. This study contributes to
a more detailed description of the brand familiarity construct and improves understanding of WOM
communication. The study provides implications for practitioners and marketers.
Keywords Word-of-mouth, Customer brand engagement, Brand familiarity, Self-identification
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
The importance of information which consumers acquire from interpersonal sources in
influencing consumer decision-making has been well recognized in consumer behavior and
marketing literature (Goldsmith and Clark, 2008). Word-of-mouth (WOM) is a form of written
or oral communication between existing and potential consumers (Cheung and Lee, 2012;
Sijoria et al., 2019). Increasing number of consumers trust these communications compared to
traditional forms of communication (Bickart and Schindler, 2001; Steffes and Burgee, 2009;
Liang et al., 2018). In addition, information received through interpersonal sources is
considered to be more credible compared to traditional sources (Feick and Price, 1987), and
consumers often rely on informal WOM when they look for information before purchasing
the product (Goldsmith and Clark, 2008; Shen and Sengupta, 2018). For instance, prior studies
revealed that WOM influences the momentum and velocity of innovation diffusion (Rogers,
1995) and is essential to the information flow for helping consumers to adopt the product
(Frenzen and Nakamoto, 1993). As a result, generating positive WOM in consumers’ social
networks has become an essential practice for marketers to build trust and maintain strong
brand relationships with highly engaged consumers (Chu and Kim, 2011; Gelper et al., 2018;
Meire et al., 2019).
The results of the study conducted by Whyte (1954) on air conditioners revealed that the South Asian Journal of Business
Studies
buying pattern could be explained only by the existence of an influential network consisting © Emerald Publishing Limited
2398-628X
of neighbors exchanging product information whenever there was a social gathering. DOI 10.1108/SAJBS-07-2019-0126
SAJBS Subsequent studies on WOM revealed more statistical confirmation of its benefits. In a formal
study conducted by Katz and Lazarsfeld (1955), the results revealed that one of the most
important sources of influence in the purchase of goods and brand switching was WOM. It
was twice as useful as advertisements on radio, four times as efficient as personal selling and
seven times as helpful as magazines and newspapers. Prior industry studies report that, on an
average, 2.5 billion conversations take place daily related to brand (Keller and Fay, 2012). Not
surprisingly, enterprises are assigning larger portions of their budgets related to marketing
to create and manage the WOM process (You et al., 2015; Libai et al., 2010; Hussain et al., 2018).
Prior studies have contributed considerably to the unified understanding of WOM
behavior. Nevertheless, it appears that a significant possibility exists for enriched
formulation and new research directions on WOM. These are fundamental in addressing
some significant gaps in understanding WOM construct that exists at the micro level (for
example, what leads to flow of communication among people). Very little is known about why
individuals get involved in flow of information and which interpersonal relationship is more
influential in consumers’ decision-making. The present study endeavors to shed some light
on the antecedents of these brand conversations on consumers. Specifically, the present study
investigates why consumers buy the product and spread the information about the product to
others in the e-commerce sector where there is no face-to-face interaction between two
customers. As such, the present study is in line with the recent call to investigate the impact of
self-identity on WOM (Eelen et al., 2017; Moliner et al., 2018). The present study is in line with
the recent call to investigate whether we could integrate service-dominant (SD) logic and CBE
(Hollebeek et al., 2019).
The e-commerce (service sector) has transformed the way business is done in India, which
is a developing country (Gupta and Acharya, 2018). Internet has changed the way of
communication, information acquisition and transaction between people. The Indian e-
commerce market is expected to grow to US$ 200 bn by 2026 from US$ 38.5 bn as of 2017
(India brand equity foundation, 2019). Much growth of the industry has been triggered by
increasing smartphone and Internet penetration. The ongoing digital transformation in the
country is expected to increase India’s total Internet user base to 829 million by 2021 from
604.21 million as of December 2018 (India brand equity foundation, 2019). India’s Internet
economy is expected to double from US$125 bn as of April 2017 to US$ 250 bn by 2020,
majorly backed by ecommerce. India’s e-commerce revenue is expected to jump from US$ 39
bn in 2017 to US$120 bn in 2020, growing at an annual rate of 51%, the highest in the world
(India brand equity foundation, 2019).
India’s Internet development provides a favorable Internet environment for sharing
product reviews (Sajid, 2016). Online reviews help customers to know the quality of the
product (Sajid, 2016). On the one hand, e-commerce review has changed the consumer’s habit
to obtain information, from passively accepting information disseminated by enterprises to
actively seeking effective information (Deng et al., 2015). On the other hand, consumers will be
influenced by other people reviews in the e-commerce platforms when they make purchasing
decisions (Deng et al., 2015; Forbes, 2017). According to Jeong and Koo (2015), reviews in
e-commerce platforms are an online communication form evolved from traditional WOM,
which is exchanged in the computer-mediated environment. The reviews break through the
sociocultural and geographical boundaries, which make the spread of news free and faster, so
that information can be obtained by information seekers anywhere and at any time
(Sahelices-Pinto and Rodr
ıguez-Santos, 2014; Vivek et al., 2012).
The growing importance of CBE is illustrated by the concept’s inclusion in the Marketing
Science Institute’s 2016–2018 research priorities (Research Priorities Marketing Science
Institute, 2016). Further, Special Issues addressing CBE have appeared in leading journals
such as the Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (2017) and Journal of Business
Research (2019). Research, to date, has provided CBE conceptualizations (Hollebeek et al.,
2014), the effect of CBE on firm performance (Kumar and Pansari, 2016) and initial insight Impact of
into CBE antecedents, dynamics and consequences (Van Doorn et al., 2010). brand
Despite the above-mentioned contributions, important research gaps remain, especially
with respect to the conceptual relationship of CBE in relation to other theoretical entities,
familiarity
including SD logic and its related lexicon (Vargo and Lusch, 2016; Hollebeek et al., 2019), thus
limiting our understanding of CBE and its theoretical interconnections. SD logic and CBE
share a theoretical focus on interactivity with or between various stakeholders (for example,
employees, customers), thus highlighting a significant conceptual fit of these perspectives,
warranting their joint investigation. While the applicability of CBE to SD logic has been
recognized (Brodie et al., 2011; Hollebeek et al., 2019), little remains known regarding the ways
these theories interrelate (for example, the link between CBE and the SD logic concepts of
resource integration), which is explored in this paper.
Despite the CBE conceptualizations, very little attention has been given to the different
category of market firms operate in. The researcher believes this to be an important aspect for
two reasons. First, while studies have identified the different drivers and moderators of CBE
in developed market settings, no comparable studies exist in the developing markets. Second,
there is inadequate information regarding the drivers and moderators of CBE that are
relevant in a service setting that can also be applied across developing markets. This study
aims to address these two gaps by proposing a framework for establishing CBE in the service
setting.
Given this background, it is therefore important to understand the drivers of WOM. Based
on existing literature, the present study proposes brand familiarity, customer brand
engagement (CBE hereafter) and self-identification as key drivers of WOM. In particular, the
main purpose of the present study is to develop and empirically test a conceptual model of
how various dimensions of CBE interact with self-identification and eventually WOM. The
model is grounded in SD logic (Hollebeek et al., 2019) and social exchange theory and tested
among young consumers. In the remaining sections, the paper presents the conceptual model
depicting the relationships among the antecedents of WOM. The next section discusses the
relevant literature. Then the research methodology and empirical results are presented. The
present study concludes by discussing the research implications for practice and theory,
limitations and further research directions.

Theoretical frameworks, literature review and hypotheses

The conceptual model presented in this study proposes (1) one outcome of CBE (i.e. self-
identification) and (2) the direct effect of the outcome on WOM (see Figure 1).
The conceptual model is based on two theoretical frameworks: SD logic and social
exchange theory. According to relationship marketing theory, customers make positive
contributions while interacting with the brand instead of being merely a passive beneficiary
of cues related to brand (Vargo and Lusch, 2008). Customers may devote pertinent cognitive,
physical and/or emotional resources based on their perceived value levels which they obtain
during brand interactions (Higgins and Scholer, 2009). As per Blau’s (1964) social exchange

Proposed Conceptual Model

Customer Brand
Engagement
Brand • Cognitive
Familiarity • Affective Self-Identification Word-of-Mouth Figure 1.
• Activation Proposed
conceptual model
SAJBS theory, customers reciprocate positive feelings, thoughts and behavior toward an object (for
example brand) while they receive benefits from the brand relationship (Hollebeek, 2011).
Unstipulated obligations are entailed by social exchange, where one party in an exchange
relationship (for example, service personnel) does a favor (for example, providing excellent
service), motivated by the idea of a few future return in the form of loyalty (Rousseau, 1989).
According to social exchange theory, the exchange partners work hard to sustain the
relationship, and if there is any misunderstanding, recuperative attempts will be made. In the
exchange relationship, what the customer gives is perceived as cost, what is received is
termed as reward and the customers’ behavior changes if there is a difference (for example,
profit) between the two (Homans, 1958). This cost and reward viewpoint leads to the
interactive nature of customer engagement (Hollebeek, 2011). The conventional definition of
reciprocity refers to tit-for-tat which means instant return of benefits (Pervan et al., 2009). But
Sin et al. (2005) define reciprocity as a provision of favoritism, or, in other words, the making
of allowances for the other in return for similar favoritism which they will receive at a later
date. Explicit brand-related favors consist of customer organizational citizenship behaviors
(OCBs), which include spreading positive WOM, helping other customers and complying
with the rules (Garma and Bove, 2011).
According to SD logic, consumers proactively co-create their values and personalized
experiences with firms through explicit and active interactions (Vargo and Lusch, 2008), and
also there is a transformation of consumers from passive audiences to active players
(Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2000). According to Paredes et al. (2014), the important thing in
SD logic is not goods but the service they render, and the service is established by the
exclusive characteristics and contexts of customers. SD logic recognizes that a specific
product, such as a television, provides distinct service to distinct customers depending on
various factors, including how and when they interact with the television, their television
knowledge and so forth. From the perspective of an e-commerce, SD logic suggests that the
same website could provide distinct value to distinct customers according to their
characteristics and contexts (Barrutia and Gilsanz, 2013). For instance, it seems that an
expert would be more likely to buy a television over the Internet that suits his unique needs
than would a non-expert, leading to a higher perception of value in the e-buying process
(Vargo and Lusch, 2014). As a result, value creation is interactional, and customers are viewed
as co-creators of value (Paredes, 2014). Drawing on SD logic, we define value co-creation as
the process by which customers and firm combine their resources to create value
(Paredes, 2014; Vargo and Lusch, 2014). Value is understood as the customers’ evaluation of
benefits against sacrifices resulting from the co-creation process (Markovic et al., 2018) and is
determined in context by the recipient. The consumer’s role as an active player makes the
concept of perceived customer value to be comprehensive which involves tangible product,
values and usage situations (Woodruff and Gardial, 1996). Hence, drawing on the role of
consumers as value co-creators, SD logic provides a theoretical foundation of the effects of
consumer involvement and consumer participation on CBE.
Axiom 2 of the SD logic (Vargo and Lusch, 2008) speaks about multiple actor co-creation,
which means that the multiple actors help in creating value, keeping in mind the beneficiary
(Baum€ol et al., 2016). Customers play an interactive or optimizing intent in CBE (Pervan and
Bove 2011). Axiom 2 also speaks about customers being more proactive and not just passive
recipients of service (Sawhney et al., 2005). Axiom 5 of SD logic states: “Value cocreation is
coordinated through actor-generated institutions and institutional arrangements.” Vargo and
Lusch (2016, p. 6) define institutions as “humanly devised rules, norms, and beliefs that enable
and constrain action, and make social life predictable and meaningful,” and institutional
arrangements as “interdependent assemblages of institutions” (p. 11). Axiom 5 thus explicitly
incorporates the notion of collective, networked actors and service systems in SD logic’s
conceptual domain (Koskela-Huotari and Vargo 2016). Service systems are “value cocreation
configurations of people, technology, organizations and shared information” (for example, Impact of
laws, language; Spohrer and Maglio, 2008, p. 18). Likewise, service ecosystems are “systems of brand
resource-integrating actors connected by shared institutional logics and mutual value creation
through service exchange” (Vargo and Akaka, 2012, p. 207), and relational ecosystems are
familiarity
“webs of interconnections among relational entities that operate as a system and influence
customer decision-making behaviors” (Henderson et al., 2011, p. 37). These concepts each
reflects specific institutional arrangements focused on exchanges, relationships, interactivity
and stakeholders’ value-(co)creating intent, which are also core to CBE and SD logic (Vargo
et al., 2015). Overall, the above analyses suggest the relevance of adopting an integrative, social
exchange theory (SET) and SD logic-informed perspective of CBE.
Social exchange theory and SD harmonize one another since both put the consumer at the
center of the value co-creation process (Vargo and Lusch, 2004) and examine how consumers
apportion their social, cultural and economic resources among competing service and brand
offerings to augment their lives (Arnould and Thompson, 2005). Overall, by integrating social
exchange theory and SD logic, this study explains why consumers interact directly with
brands.
The analysis of and behavioral and psychological paths to consumers’ emotional
attachment to brands is an important research field. Prior researchers have shown the
important outcomes, such as brand loyalty, consumer willingness to pay a price premium and
stronger brand performance (Berger, 2014; Mal€ar et al., 2011; Park et al., 2010; Thomson et al.,
2005), of stronger consumer–brand emotional bonds from a managerial point of view. With
reference to online shopping, this path is both an underutilized perspective in marketing
literature and a useful viewpoint for managers to develop effective ecommerce strategies.
The marketing literature has drawn increasing attention to emerging dynamics
relationship-building processes within - shopping. However, prior researchers have not
attempted to develop an integrative framework that embraces brand familiarity and self-
identification issues (Eelen et al. (2017); Berger and Iyengar (2013) to enhance the
understanding of WOM antecedents.

Word-of-mouth (WOM)
According to Grewal et al. (2003), WOM refers to the act of exchanging marketing
information among consumers. WOM is usually defined as written or oral communication
between a receiver and a communicator where non-commercial message is delivered by the
communicator (Arndt, 1967; Rogers, 1995; Burnham and Leary, 2018). As consumers
regularly use WOM when they seek information about enterprises, products, services and
brands (East et al., 2008), WOM is increasingly accepted as an important source of
information that influences consumer product choices (Smith et al., 2005). Although
information generated by marketer plays a significant role in developing consumer interest
in commercial products, WOM is considered to be the most powerful source of information
in impacting consumers’ adoption of new products (Money et al., 1998; Katz and Lazarsfeld,
1955; Hollebeek et al., 2019). Since personal sources are generally perceived as more credible
than commercial sources, WOM is often more effective than traditional form of advertising
in shifting consumers’ attitudes and behaviors (Brooks, 1957; East et al., 2008). Herr et al.
(1991) stated that the impact of WOM on consumer choice is greater compared to personal
selling, radio advertising and print advertisements. In other words, WOM initiated by
consumers is considered as more dependable than the information provided by the
marketer, and it also strengthens opinions stimulated through different forms of
communications (Engel et al., 1969). WOM communication is interactive and reciprocal
between information givers and information receivers (Gilly et al., 1998). Theoretically,
information givers are the providers of information in WOM communications. Whereas
SAJBS information receivers are those who desire to obtain information from others in order to
help them to assess products and services for their purchases (Higie et al., 1987; Flynn et al.,
1996). An individual’s propensity to influence attitude and overt behavior of others is
typically termed as information givers and is related to the individual’s ability and
motivation to share information (Flynn et al., 1996; Shoham and Ruvio, 2008; Babi
c Rosario
et al., 2016). On the other hand, information receiving occurs when an individual seeks
information and advice from a family member or a friend, who is often considered as an
expert on the subject of interest (Shoham and Ruvio, 2008). In conclusion, information
givers and information receivers are two important aspects of information exchange which
drive WOM communication in the domain of consumer behavior.

Brand familiarity
Brand familiarity (BF) refers to the degree of a consumer’s direct and indirect experience with
a brand (Alba and Hutchinson, 1987; Kent and Allen, 1994). Brand familiarity is an important
construct that can impact consumer processing. It represents consumers’ brand knowledge
compositions that subsist within a consumer’s memory. Though consumers are aware of
many advertised products, there are also instances where consumers are not familiar with the
products, the reason being they are not advertised or they are new products to which the
consumers are not exposed to (Stewart, 1992; Ha and Perks, 2005). The knowledge which
the consumers have about familiar and unfamiliar products depends on the knowledge
which the consumers have in their memory. Consumers might be inclined to have a variety of
different types of associations for familiar brands.

Customer brand engagement (CBE)

The concept of engagement has received substantial attention in several academic
disciplines (for example, organizational behavior and psychology), but only recently in the
area of marketing (Lam et al., 2019; Gambetti and Graffigna, 2010; Hollebeek, 2011), and it is
emerging as an important area of modern marketing (Gong, 2018; Rather et al., 2018;
Moliner et al., 2018; Algharabat et al., 2020). CBE domain is at an early stage of development,
reliant on conceptual reasoning (Mollen and Wilson, 2010; Gong, 2018). Based on
relationship marketing (Vivek et al., 2012), SD logic (Vargo and Lusch, 2004) and social
exchange theory (Blau, 1964), CBE is believed to promote relational outcomes such as
spreading positive WOM communication, brand loyalty and retention through co-creation
of customers “value” (Verhoef et al., 2010). In general, consumers are viewed as active party
in the exchange relationship who dedicate pertinent emotional, physical and cognitive
resources to co-create value (Higgins and Scholer, 2009). Prior studies on CBE focused on
specific brand except for researchers Sprott et al. (2009) whose study focused on a set of
brands which reflected the self-concept of the consumers. Hollebeek et al’s. (2014) study
adopted a holistic viewpoint of a brand and included consumers’ professed utilitarian,
hedonic and symbolic aspects of the brand. In addition, the majority of studies on CBE
operationalized the construct as multidimensional that captures cognitive, affective and
activation dimensions.
In this study, the researchers adopt the definition of CBE by Hollebeek et al. (2014, p. 154)
as “a consumer’s positively valenced brand-related cognitive, emotional and behavioral
activity during or related to focal consumer/brand interaction.” The dimensions of CBE are
cognitive processing, affection and activation. Cognitive processing refers to consumer’s level
of brand-related thought dispensation and explanation when they interact with a particular
brand (Hollebeek et al., 2014). Affection is defined as consumer’s degree of positive brand-
related affect in a particular consumer–brand interaction (Hollebeek et al., 2014). Activation
refers to consumer’s level of vigor, efforts and the time which they spend on a specific brand
(Hollebeek et al., 2014). The following sections discuss the proposed consequences of CBE. In Impact of
this study, we examined the relative impact of three dimensions of CBE on self-identification. brand
familiarity
Self-identification
Self-identification is when an individual feels different compared to others within the same
surrounding (Belk, 1988). Based on distinctive relationships among individuals, self-concept
is developed (Hogg, 2001). According to Kim et al. (2001), consumer brand awareness is
acquired by an individual when he acquires knowledge of the brand through repeated
experiences of the brand. Repeated brand association by the consumers leads to a diligent
expectation with respect to individual brands (Oliver, 1980). Repeated use of brands enables
consumers to treat brands as they treat themselves. To build and foster brand identification
among consumers, symbols and brand messages are mandatory for consumers to choose a
particular brand for expressing their self (Escalas and Bettman, 2005). In such cases,
knowledge of a particular brand can facilitate the progress of consumer identification (Lam
et al., 2010; Strizhakova et al., 2008).
There are several potential antecedents that may have an impact on WOM. However, we
limited the potential antecedents to only a few due to the nature of our empirical study (survey
among real customers). In order to do so, we first examined the literature and found that the
brand familiarity (Beck and Pr€ ugl, 2018) and self-identification are of high relevance for
WOM (Vizca
ıno and Velasco, 2019). To learn more about relevant managerial considerations,
we conducted qualitative in-depth interviews with five marketing managers of three
e-commerce companies in the ride-sharing, travel and restaurant industries. The managers
were responsible for the respective corporate brand (on average for five years) and had the
following positions: brand manager, head of communications and marketing head. We asked
them to discuss factors that play a prominent role in the development of strong WOM. Based
on these interviews as well as literature on WOM (Catal
an et al., 2019), the two most critical
factors that surfaced were brand familiarity and self-identification.

Relationships between brand familiarity and CBE

According to psychological ownership theory, when individuals have intimate information of
the object, then their self fuses with the object. That is, individuals take ownership of an object
by acquiring information about the object and try to have direct and indirect experiences
(Alba and Hutchinson, 1987; Kent and Allen, 1994). Consequently, the more information
individuals have about an object, the relationship will be deeper between the object and the
self, and this leads to stronger feeling of ownership (Pierce et al., 2001). In particular, when an
individual knows more about the object, the object becomes part of the individual’s self
(Pierce et al., 2003). In other words, individuals come to know about the object through the
process of association; this will help them to gain more information about the object, and
hence strengthen the association and attachment between the individual and the object
(Beggan and Brown, 1994). They feel that the object is theirs, and they engage in
psychological ownership (Pierce et al., 2003). Marketing activities undertaken by the firm help
consumers to learn about their favorite brand, and with experience, they learn and feel about
their favorite brand (Keller, 2013). As a consequence of feeling that they know the brand
better, they may develop psychological ownership of it, tend to use the same brand repeatedly
and have sufficient information about the brand. Hence:
H1a. Brand familiarity has a positive relationship with cognitive processing
H1b. Brand familiarity has a positive relationship with affection
H1c. Brand familiarity has a positive relationship with activation
SAJBS Relationships between CBE and self-identification
Bhattacharya and Sen (2003) stated that the idea of identification is based on individual roles
in brand–self-expression. When a brand matches with the consumer’s perception, the
consumer who is using the brand may find the brand’s identification eye-catching since it
enables them to maintain a more absolute and true sense of self (Aaker, 1999). Conversely,
consumer value is the vital and basic link in the relationship between the consumer and the
brand (De Chernatony and McDonald, 2003) and thus may have a significant effect on
consumer activity. According to Belk (1988), when consumers communicate intention to
purchase a brand’s products, they happen to be closer to realizing their own ideals and values.
According to social identity theory, when individuals are in the process of identifying
themselves in the social surrounding, they are classified as self-organized to assist consumers
to compare their own predefined distinctiveness (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2003). For instance,
consumers recognize with the personality of companies and their own values; thus, the value
congruity of a consumer’s self-brand is more likely to lead to stronger identification (Tuskej
et al., 2013). Results of prior studies have supported the relationship between the CBE’s three
dimensions (cognitive processing, affection and activation) and self-identification. According
to Dhir (1987), human perception is a biased process as consumers are more prone to process
information based on their prior perception and values. As a result, when consumers assign
cognitive capacity by focusing on the brand (Hollebeek, 2011), they are more likely to relate to
the focal brand. Furthermore, self-identification is also cultivated when consumers develop
attachments with the focal brand. Research shows that engaged consumers are more likely to
develop strong beliefs, strengthen their affection and undertake WOM activity toward the
focal brands (Oliver, 1999; Vivek et al., 2012). Hence, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H2a. Cognitive processing has a positive relationship with self-identification.
H2b. Affection has a positive relationship with self-identification.
H2c. Activation has a positive relationship with self-identification.

Relationships between self-identification and WOM

Prior studies on brand loyalty have considered self-identification as an antecedent for WOM
(Bloemer and Kasper, 1995). Researchers Stokburger-Sauer and Teichmann (2013) proposed that
high consumer brand identification generates positive WOM. When consumers identify brand
awareness as their self-identification and incorporate a brand’s character into their formed self-
identity and self-definition, they convey their individual self-definition to their friends and family
members (Underwood et al., 2001). Therefore, when consumers identify themselves with a
particular brand, they form an emotional relationship with the said brand by automatically
expressing favoritism for its actions (Kuenzel and Halliday, 2008; Underwood et al., 2001),
thereby indicating that a strong brand attachment encourages consumers to go for repeat
purchase (Becerra and Badrinarayanan, 2013). When higher self-identity expression for a brand
is formed, consumers demonstrate stronger intentions to purchase the said brand’s products,
and thus consumers become loyal toward the brand and spread positive WOM to others (Wang
et al., 2016). In addition, consumers are more likely to endorse a brand they trust (Gremler et al.,
2001), plummeting the risk of providing wrong recommendations. By recommending the brand
to which a consumer feels emotionally attached, they can make a statement about themselves
and strengthen their sense of own identity (Carroll and Ahuvia, 2006).

Hence, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H3. self-identification has a positive relationship with WOM

Research methodology Impact of
Data collection brand
Using an online survey, data were collected from a sample of young Indian consumers who do
online shopping. We chose this context as (1) there is stiff competition in this sector, and most
familiarity
firms are looking for ways to attract and retain young consumers as they are prone to go to
competitors if the service is not good. Young consumers consult their friends before they do
any shopping; (2) the e-commerce market in India is expected to grow to US$200 bn by 2026
from US$38.5 bn as of 2019. The growth is due to increasing smartphone and Internet
penetration (Indian Brand Equity Foundation, 2018). Prior research also attests that as
consumers’ choices expand in such a highly competitive sector, understanding WOM
communication is central to the success of the e-commerce market (Jurisic and Azevedo,
2011). As a result, in such an industry, it is worth investigating the antecedents of WOM
communication.
Prior researchers have suggested that data which are collected via online tools not only
maximize response rates but also yield equivalent results to data which are collected in a pen
and paper surveys (Deutskens et al., 2006). To qualify, the first filter question asked the
respondents whether they have done any online shopping in the last six months. The
respondents were asked to choose only their most used brand, if they were using more than
one brand. The brand name of the selected e-commerce service provider was then
automatically filled for the remaining brand-related questions in the survey. Respondents
were not offered any incentive. The survey did not have any missing data. A total of 458
respondents completed the survey. The demographic details of the sample are presented in
Table 1. The current study did not consider any control variable.

Measures
Multi-item measures, using a 5-point scale anchored on “1” – “strongly disagree” to “5” –
“strongly agree,” was adopted from previous studies and customized to suit the current
study’s context. Content validity was established in the form of face validity with the help of

Frequency
Gender n %

Male 243 53.0567,686

Female 215 46.9432314
Age
Less than 18 years 27 5.90
18–20 years 220 48.03
20–26 years 183 39.96
Above 26 years 28 6.11
Education
Undergraduate 67 14.63
Graduate 183 39.96
Postgraduate 197 43.01
Others 11 2.40
Income (in rupees) per annum
less than 5 Lakhs 63 13.76
5–10 Lakhs 129 28.17 Table 1.
10–15 lakhs 158 34.50 Demographic
Above 15 lakhs 108 23.58 characteristics
SAJBS academic professionals who assessed how well the scale items represented the variables and
constructs under study. In addition, before the launch of the final survey, a pretest was
undertaken with 30 respondents. Some preliminary checks for validating the data were
conducted, such as exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and sample demographics; no
significant issues were reported.
Brand familiarity with a three-item scale adapted from Kent and Allen (1994) was used to
capture the extent of attentiveness a customer has of a specific brand. In measuring CBE, the
researcher adopted Hollebeek et al.’s (2014) three dimensions (cognitive processing, affection and
activation) to capture the cognitive, affective and activation aspects related to focal consumer–
brand exchanges. All CBE items were adapted from Hollebeek et al. (2014). Cognitive processing
was measured using three items, affection had four items and activation consisted of three items.
Self-identification was measured using three items and was adopted from Jones and Kim
(2011). WOM was measured using three items and was adapted from Carroll and Ahuvia (2006).
The measurement items and latent variables used in the present study are provided in
Table 2.
The Cronbach’s alpha scores and standardized factor loadings (SFLs) for each item are
shown in Table 2. The Cronbach’s alpha scores ranged between 0.88 and 0.93, indicating
adequate convergence (2010). All SFLs were above the cut-off of 0.50 which suggested
adequate item reliability (Hair et al., 2010). Internal consistency was assessed using composite
reliability (CR). The CR values were greater than 0.60, thus supporting internal consistency
(Bagozzi and Yi, 1988; Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) model
for CBE was examined in order to find out whether CBE can be operationalized as a three-

Variables Mean SD SFLs CR AVE

Brand familiarity 5.23 1.19 0.9 0.75

I am familiar with this brand 0.81
I am experienced with this brand 0.90
I am knowledgeable about this brand 0.89
Cognitive Processing 5.61 1.07 0.91 0.76
Using [brand] gets me to think about [brand] 0.86
I think about [brand] a lot when I’m using it 0.88
Using [brand] stimulates my interest to learn more about [brand] 0.88
Affection 5.64 0.94 0.93 0.75
I feel very positive when I use [brand] 0.86
Using [brand] makes me happy 0.89
I feel good when I use [brand] 0.88
I’m proud to use [brand] 0.84
Activation 5.61 1.07 0.92 0.76
I spend a lot of time using [brand], compared to other [category] brands 0.85
Whenever I’m using [category], I usually use [brand] 0.87
[Brand] is one of the brands I usually use when I use [category] 0.87
WOM 5.13 1.18 0.88 0.74
I have recommended this brand to lots of people 0.87
I “talk up” this brand to my friends 0.91
I try to spread the good-word about this brand 0.92
Table 2.
Summary of Self-identification 5.3 1.12 0.91 0.78
measurement and This brand reflects who I am 0.81
factor loadings for I use this brand to communicate who I am to other people 0.84
indicator reliability I think this brand could help me become the type of person I want to be 0.85
dimensional construct for the present study. The results showed acceptable fit (χ 2 34 5 83.02, Impact of
χ 2/df 5 2.58, p < 0.001, goodness-of-fit index (GFI) 5 0.96, confirmatory fit index (CFI) 5 0.97, brand
normed fit index (NFI) 5 0.98, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) 5 0.054) in
support of construct reliability. The results validated that the CBE can be operationalized as a
familiarity
three-dimensional construct for the present study, in line with studies of Hollebeek et al. (2014)
and Leckie et al. (2016). Convergent validity was examined using the average variance
extracted (AVE). The value for AVE in the present study was greater than 0.50, thus
demonstrating convergent validity (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Finally, to ensure
discriminant validity, all the square roots of the AVE measures were compared with the
correlations of the latent variables (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). The findings indicate the
discriminant validity of the proposed model (see Table 3)
Common method bias was assessed since the data were collected via a self-administered
survey. Ex ante and procedural remedies were used to assess for common method variance
which usually occurs when we use data from the same respondents. The procedural remedies
used were as follows: first, each item in the questionnaire was carefully examined for any
ambiguity; second, the questions were placed in random order (Malhotra et al., 2006); third, an
explanatory statement was provided in the questionnaire where respondents were
guaranteed of confidentiality and anonymity. The ex ante approach used was Harman’s
single factor test, where a competing CFA model, as recommended by Podsakoff et al. (2003),
was run. All the manifest items were modeled as the indicators of a single factor representing
method effects (Malhotra et al., 2006). The model indicated poor fit (χ 2/df 5 17.13, p < 0.001,
GFI 5 0.44, NFI 5 0.59, CFI 5 0.57, RMSEA 5 0.179), indicating that common method bias
was not a serious issue in the present study.
The hypothesized relationship between brand familiarity, CBE, self-identification and
WOM was examined using structural equation modeling (SEM). According to Bagozzi and Yi
(2012) and Hair et al. (2010), SEM is the best tool to deal with manifold relationships while
accounting for statistical efficiency. The overall structural model shows a good fit (χ 2/
df 5 2.64; CFI 5 0.93, NFI 5 0.94, GFI 5 0.89, RMSEA 5 0.055).
Results revealed that brand familiarity has a significant effect on cognitive, affective and
activation dimensions of CBEs. Specifically, brand familiarity has a positive and significant
effect on the likelihood of cognitive (0.22**; t-value - 3.95), affective (0.64**; t-value - 13.93) and
activation (0.62 **; t-value – 8.52) engagements with the online shopping brand. H1a, H1b and
H1c were supported because of the significant effect of brand familiarity on customer
cognitive, affective and activation engagements with the online shopping brand. Cognitive
(0.41**; t-value – 7.14) and affective (0.28**; t-value – 6.78) CBE had a positive relationship
with self-identification, thus supporting H2a, H2b. The results did not support H2c, the
relationship between activation (0.01**; t-value – 0.16) brand engagement behavior and self-
identification. Finally, the results show a positive relationship between self-identification and
WOM (0.35**; t-value – 9.24), in support of H3. The results are shown in Table 4.

Construct 1 2 3 4 5 6

Brand familiarity 0.86

Cognitive processing 0.75 ** 0.87
Affection 0.62 ** 0.63 ** 0.86
Activation 0.61 ** 0.55 ** 0.67 ** 0.87
Self-identification 0.63 ** 0.53** 0.71 ** 0.73 ** 0.87 Table 3.
Word-of-mouth 0.59 ** 0.69 ** 0.59 ** 0.48 ** 0.49 ** 0.88 Inter- construct
Note(s): Square root of average variance extracted (AVE) is shown on the diagonal of the matrix in italics; inter correlations and
construct correlation is shown off the diagonal; **Significance at the 0.05 level discriminant validity
SAJBS Discussion
Theoretical implications
In line with the stated contribution in the introduction, the framework advances insight
into CBE and SD logic, which, despite having been recognized for their significant
theoretical fit, have remained largely disparate in the literature (Hollebeek et al., 2019).
WOM is becoming an important topic in service brand decision-making boardrooms
(Hennig-Thurau et al., 2015; Markovic et al., 2018; Litvin et al., 2018; Liang et al., 2018; Kaatz
et al., 2019). As a result, the present study sought to examine the antecedents of WOM. The
findings of the research revealed that in the context of online shopping, self-identification
influence WOM. The two dimensions (cognitive processing and affection) of CBE were
found to have a positive influence on self-identification in the context of online shopping.
However, activation dimension of CBE did not have any significant relationship with self-
identification. Due to the nature of the online shopping context, the level of consumer
participation is limited to giving only feedback and constructive ideas on how to serve
their needs in a better way. Comparatively, in other service contexts, for instance, in
banking context, the consumers can take active roles in service production and
consumption instead of giving only feedback (Bacile et al., 2014; Leckie et al., 2016). The
positive effects of both cognitive processing and affection dimensions of CBE on self-
identification are in line with past studies (Sprott et al., 2009; Leckie et al., 2016). These
results reveal that consumers do care about their self-identification and how congruent
this is with the brand image of the online shopping service provider. Activation dimension
of CBE did not have an impact on self-identification. One possible explanation is that when
it comes to online shopping, consumers might give more preference to security, quality
products and speedy delivery compared with intangible attributes such as self-
identification congruency.
In particular, the results of this study suggest that brand familiarity helps customers
develop a sense of psychological ownership of the brand. This finding confirms that the
social exchange theory could be applied to the domain of CBE (Leckie et al., 2016; Kumar
et al., 2019). Conversely, brand familiarity could be a double-edged sword. While the
prior literature contains considerable research with respect to understanding the
desirable effects of brand engagement, the potential undesirable consequences have
remained unexplored, and this investigation seems to be the first to consider brand
familiarity counterbalancing effects on CBE behavior. More specifically, the study’s
findings show that brand familiarity increases responsibility and i brand engagement
behavior. This finding is in line with previous studies, which reported that brand
familiarity can affect behavioral intentions and attitudes toward the brand (Beck and
Pr€ugl, 2018; Kinard and Hartman, 2013; Waiguny et al., 2013; Catal
an et al., 2019). The
results of this study show that brand engagement behavior depends on whether the

Hypothesized relationships β SE t-Value Result

H1a Brand Familiarity → Cognitive Processing 0.22 0.06 3.95*** Supported

H1b Brand Familiarity → Affection 0.64 0.05 13.93*** Supported
H1c Brand Familiarity → Activation 0.62 0.06 8.52*** Supported
H2a Cognitive Processing → Self-identification 0.41 0.07 7.14*** Supported
H2b Affection → Self-identification 0.28 0.06 6.78*** Supported
H2c Activation → Self-identification 0.01 0.03 0.16 ns Not Supported
Table 4. H3 Self-identification → Word-of-mouth 0.35 0.06 9.24*** Supported
Structural model Note(s): β–standardized path coefficients, SE - standard error; Significant at ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01 (two-
results tailed test); ns, not significant
consumers are familiar with the brands or not, and the firms should be very careful as to Impact of
how they should advertise their products in order to ensure that the consumers become brand
familiar with their brands.
The customer engagement behavior increases since familiar brands are not only more
familiarity
diagnostic and accessible to consumers, but also are considered as honest, trustworthy and
safe in the consumers’ minds (Vizca
ıno and Velasco, 2019). The findings of the present study
also demonstrate that customers who identify more strongly with a company not only
purchase the product but also spread positive WOM. This finding is in line with previous
studies, which reported that self-identification itself is influenced by customers’ perceptions
of both the company as well as the boundary-spanning agent (Ahearne et al., 2005; Villarroel
Ordenes et al., 2017; Beckers et al., 2019). It is also significant to note that the present study
provides evidence that suggests that the result of self-identification on customer behavior is
above and beyond the effect of product evaluation.

Managerial implications
The results of this study have important contributions for the practice of marketing. The
study findings have implications for brand which are unfamiliar. Marketers of
unfamiliar brands have to build familiarity in order to compete in the market. They must
be careful in how they advertise their products in order to avoid alienating consumers.
Consumer memory cannot be built at the expense of attitudes. Unfamiliar brands might
have to work harder to ensure positive attitudes synchronized with brand familiarity.
The result of the present study provides managers with strategic tools that will help
consumers to engage with the brand. For example, marketers can design better
programs such as reward points or provide better experience to help in strengthening
the consumer brand interactions. The present study also addresses the question of how
a company can ensure positive WOM communication among its customer base. Even
though consumers may talk about the product for a numerous reasons, the present
research demonstrates the key role played by self-identification. The development of
consumer self-identification may be especially important for service organizations
which offer large services component, possibly as part of a consumption system (Brown
et al., 2005; Mittal et al., 1999).

Limitations and directions for future research

A key limitation of this study relates to generalizability. The context tested here was online
shopping. The results might not be generalized to different cultural contexts. Future research
could explore the effect of cultural factors on brand familiarity. Future researchers could also
look at the relationship between brand familiarity, CBE, self-identification and WOM
relationship across different service and goods categories, as well as across different firms
within the same category. Future research can also look at observed WOM behavior instead
of self-reported approach used in the present study. The data used in the present study were
cross-sectional in nature; future studies can consider experimental and/or longitudinal
studies. The present study investigated the impact of brand familiarity, CBE and self-
identification on WOM behavior. Future research could identify and test other antecedents of
WOM communication. For instance, Harrison-Walker (2001) suggested that WOM may be
even more strongly associated with value instead of service quality. Future research could
also consider looking at some mediating variables. In the present study, activation dimension
of CBE did not have a positive impact on self-identification; the reason could be whether there
was any mediating variable due to which it was not significant, and this was not considered in
the present study. The model was tested in the context of service sector; future research may
investigate in different context.
SAJBS References
Aaker, J.L. (1999), “The malleable self: the role of self-expression i persuasion”, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 45-57.
Ahearne, M., Bhattacharya, C.B. and Gruen, T. (2005), “Antecedents and consequences of customer-
company identification: expanding the role of relationship marketing”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 3, p. 574.
Alba, J.W. and Hutchinson, J.W. (1987), “Dimensions of consumer expertise”, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 411-454.
Algharabat, R., Rana, N.P., Alalwan, A.A., Baabdullah, A. and Gupta, A. (2020), “Investigating the
antecedents of customer brand engagement and consumer-based brand equity in social media”,
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 1-13.
Arndt, J. (1967), Word of Mouth Advertising: A Review of the Literature, Advertising Research
Foundation, New York, NY.
Berger, J. and Iyengar, R. (2013), “Communication channels and word of mouth: how the medium
shapes the message”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 567-579.
Babi
c Rosario, A., Sotgiu, F., De Valck, K. and Bijmolt, T.H. (2016), “The effect of electronic word of
mouth on sales: a meta-analytic review of platform, product, and metric factors”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 297-318.
Bacile, T.J., Ye, C. and Swilley, E. (2014), “From firm-controlled to consumer-contributed: consumer co-
production of personal media marketing communication”, Journal of Interactive Marketing,
Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 117-133.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988), “On the evaluation of structural equation models”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 74-94.
Baum€ol, U., Hollebeek, L. and Jung, R. (2016), “Dynamics of customer interaction on social media
platforms”, Electronic Markets, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 199-202.
Barrutia, J.M. and Gilsanz, A. (2013), “Electronic service quality and value: do consumer knowledge-
related resources matter?”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 231-246.
ugl, R. (2018), “Family firm reputation and humanization: consumers and the trust
Beck, S. and Pr€
advantage of family firms under different conditions of brand familiarity”, Family Business
Review, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 460-482.
Beggan, J.K. and Brown, E.M. (1994), “Association as a psychological justification for ownership”, The
Journal of psychology, Vol. 128 No. 4, pp. 365-380.
Becerra, E.P. and Badrinarayanan, V. (2013), “The influence of brand trust and brand identification on
brand evangelism”, The Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 22 Nos 5/6, pp. 371-383.
Belk, R.W. (1988), “Possessions and the extended self”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15 No. 2,
pp. 139-168.
Berger, J. (2014), “Word of mouth and interpersonal communication: a review and directions for future
research”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 586-607.
Bhattacharya, C.B. and Sen, S. (2003), “Consumer–company identification: a framework for
understanding consumers’ relationships with companies”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 67
No. 2, pp. 76-88.
Blau, P.M. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, Wiley, New York.
Bloemer, J.M. and Kasper, H.D. (1995), “The complex relationship between consumer satisfaction and
brand loyalty”, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 311-329.
Brodie, R.J., Hollebeek, L.D. and Smith, S.D. (2011), “Engagement: an important bridging concept for
the emerging SD logic lexicon”, in Proceedings.
Brooks, R.C. Jr (1957), “‘Word-of-mouth’ advertising in selling new products”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 154-161.
Brown, T.J., Barry, T.E., Dacin, P.A. and Gunst, R.F. (2005), “Spreading the word: investigating Impact of
antecedents of consumers’ positive word-of-mouth intentions and behaviors in a retailing
context”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 123-138. brand
Burnham, T.A. and Leary, R.B. (2018), “Word of mouth opportunity: why recommendation likelihood
familiarity
overestimates positive word of mouth”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 26 No. 4,
pp. 368-389.
Carroll, B.A. and Ahuvia, A.C. (2006), “Some antecedents and outcomes of brand love”, Marketing
Letters, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 79-89.
Catal
an, S., Mart
ınez, E. and Wallace, E. (2019), “Analysing mobile advergaming effectiveness: the role
of flow, game repetition and brand familiarity”, The Journal of Product and Brand
Management, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 502-514.
Cheung, C.M. and Lee, M.K. (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.
Chu, S.C. and Kim, Y. (2011), “Determinants of consumer engagement in electronic word-of-mouth
(eWOM) in social networking sites”, International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 30 No. 1,
pp. 47-75.
De Chernatony, L. and McDonald, M. (2003), Creating Powerful Brands in Consumer. Service and
Industrial Markets, 2nd ed., Biddles, Guildford and King’s Lynn, Butterworth Heinemann,
Oxford.
Deutskens, E., De Ruyter, K. and Wetzels, M. (2006), “An assessment of equivalence between online
and mail surveys in service research”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 346-355.
Dhir, K.S. (1987), “Analysis of consumer behaviour in the hospitality industry: an application of social
judgement theory”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 149-160.
East, R., Hammond, K. and Lomax, W. (2008), “Measuring the impact of positive and negative word of
mouth on brand purchase probability”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 25
No. 3, pp. 215-224.
€
Eelen, J., Ozturan, P. and Verlegh, P.W. (2017), “The differential impact of brand loyalty on traditional
and online word of mouth: the moderating roles of self-brand connection and the desire to help
the brand”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 872-891.
Engel, J.F., Kegerreis, R.J. and Blackwell, R.D. (1969), “Word-of-mouth communication by the
innovator”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 15-19.
Escalas, J.E. and Bettman, J.R. (2005), “Self-construal, reference groups, and brand meaning”, Journal
of Consumer Research, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 378-389.
Feick, L.F. and Price, L.L. (1987), “The market maven: a diffuser of marketplace information”, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 83-97.
Flynn, L.R., Goldsmith, R.E. and Eastman, J.K. (1996), “Opinion leaders and opinion seekers: two new
measurement scales”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 137-147.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Structural equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error: algebra and statistics”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 3,
pp. 382-388.
Frenzen, J. and Nakamoto, K. (1993), “Structure, cooperation, and the flow of market information”,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 360-375.
Gelper, S., Peres, R. and Eliashberg, J. (2018), “Talk bursts: the role of spikes in prerelease word-of-
mouth dynamics”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 55 No. 6, pp. 801-817.
Gambetti, R.C. and Graffigna, G. (2010), “The concept of engagement: a systematic analysis of
the ongoing marketing debate”, International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 52 No. 6,
pp. 801-826.
Garma, R. and Bove, L.L. (2011), “Contributing to well-being: customer citizenship behaviors directed
to service personnel”, Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 7, pp. 633-649.
SAJBS Gilly, M.C., Graham, J.L., Wolfinbarger, M.F. and Yale, L.J. (1998), “A dyadic study of interpersonal
information search”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 83-100.
Goldsmith, R.E. and Clark, R.A. (2008), “An analysis of factors affecting fashion opinion leadership
and fashion opinion seeking”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: International
Journal, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 308-322.
Gong, T. (2018), “Customer brand engagement behavior in online brand communities”, Journal of
Services Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 286-299.
Gremler, D.D., Gwinner, K.P. and Brown, S.W. (2001), “Generating positive word-of-mouth
communication through customer-employee relationships”, International Journal of Service
Industry Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 44-59.
Grewal, R., Cline, T.W. and Davies, A. (2003), “Early-entrant advantage, word-of-mouth
communication, brand similarity, and the consumer decision-making process”, Journal of
Consumer Psychology, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 187-197.
Gupta, M. and Acharya, A. (2018), “Mediating role of innovativeness between risk taking and
performance in Indian universities”, South Asian Journal of Business Studies, Vol. 7 No. 1,
pp. 22-40.
Ha, H.Y. and Perks, H. (2005), “Effects of consumer perceptions of brand experience on the web: brand
familiarity, satisfaction and brand trust”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour: International
Research and Review, Vol. 4 No. 6, pp. 438-452.
Harrison-Walker, L.J. (2001), “The measurement of word-of-mouth communication and an
investigation of service quality and customer commitment as potential antecedents”, Journal
of Service Research, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 60-75.
Henderson, C.M., Beck, J.T. and Palmatier, R.W. (2011), “Review of the theoretical underpinnings of
loyalty programs”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 256-276.
Hennig-Thurau, T., Wiertz, C. and Feldhaus, F. (2015), “Does Twitter matter? The impact of
microblogging word of mouth on consumers’ adoption of new movies”, Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 375-394.
Herr, P.M., Kardes, F.R. and Kim, J. (1991), “Effects of word-of-mouth and product-attribute
information on persuasion: an accessibility-diagnosticity perspective”, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 454-462.
Higie, R.A., Feick, L.F. and Price, L.L. (1987), “Types and amount of word-of-mouth communications
about retailers”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 63, pp. 260-278.
Higgins, E.T. and Scholer, A.A. (2009), “Engaging the consumer: the science and art of the value
creation process”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 100-114.
Hogg, M.A. (2001), “A social identity theory of leadership”, Personality and Social Psychology Review,
Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 184-200.
Hollebeek, L. (2011), “Exploring customer brand engagement: definition and themes”, Journal of
Strategic Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 7, pp. 555-573.
Hollebeek, L.D., Glynn, M.S. and Brodie, R.J. (2014), “Consumer brand engagement in social media:
conceptualization, scale development and validation”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 28
No. 2, pp. 149-165.
Hollebeek, L.D., Srivastava, R.K. and Chen, T. (2019), “SD logic–informed customer engagement:
integrative framework, revised fundamental propositions, and application to CRM”, Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 161-185.
Homans, G.C. (1958), “Social behavior as exchange”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 63 No. 6,
pp. 597-606.
Hussain, S., Guangju, W., Jafar, R.M.S., Ilyas, Z., Mustafa, G. and Jianzhou, Y. (2018), “Consumers’
online information adoption behavior: motives and antecedents of electronic word of mouth
communications”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 80, pp. 22-32.
Indian Brand Equity Foundation, available at: https://www.ibef.org/annual-report.aspx. Impact of
Jones, R. and Kim, Y.K. (2011), “Single-brand retailers: building brand loyalty in the off-line brand
environment”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 333-340.
familiarity
Jurisic, B. and Azevedo, A. (2011), “Building customer–brand relationships in the mobile
communications market: the role of brand tribalism and brand reputation”, Journal of Brand
Management, Vol. 18 Nos 4-5, pp. 349-366.
Kaatz, C., Brock, C. and Figura, L. (2019), “Are you still online or are you already mobile?–Predicting
the path to successful conversions across different devices”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, Vol. 50, pp. 10-21.
Katz, E. and Lazarsfeld, P.F. (1955), “The part played by people in the flow of mass communications”,
Personal Influence, pp. 31-42.
Keller, K.L. (2013), Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity, International Edition, Pearson
Edition, Prentice Hall.
Keller, E. and Fay, B. (2012), “Word-of-mouth advocacy: a new key to advertising effectiveness”,
Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 52 No. 4, pp. 459-464.
Kent, R.J. and Allen, C.T. (1994), “Competitive interference effects in consumer memory for
advertising: the role of brand familiarity”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 97-105.
Kinard, B.R. and Hartman, K.B. (2013), “Are you entertained? The impact of brand integration and
brand experience in television-related advergames”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 42 Nos 2-3,
pp. 196-203.
Kim, C.K., Han, D. and Park, S.B. (2001), “The effect of brand personality and brand identification on
brand loyalty: applying the theory of social identification”, Japanese Psychological Research,
Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 195-206.
Koskela-Huotari, K. and Vargo, S.L. (2016), “Institutions as resource context”, Journal of Service
Theory and Practice, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 163-178.
Kumar, V. and Pansari, A. (2016), “Competitive advantage through engagement”, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 53 No. 4, pp. 497-514.
Kumar, V., Rajan, B., Gupta, S. and Dalla Pozza, I. (2019), “Customer engagement in service”, Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 138-160.
Lam, S.K., Ahearne, M., Hu, Y. and Schillewaert, N. (2010), “Resistance to brand switching when a
radically new brand is introduced: a social identity theory perspective”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 74 No. 6, pp. 128-146.
Lam, S.K., DeCarlo, T.E. and Sharma, A. (2019), “Salesperson ambidexterity in customer engagement:
do customer base characteristics matter?”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 47
No. 4, pp. 659-680.
Leckie, C., Nyadzayo, M.W. and Johnson, L.W. (2016), “Antecedents of consumer brand engagement
and brand loyalty”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 32 Nos 5-6, pp. 558-578.
Liang, L.J., Choi, H.C. and Joppe, M. (2018), “Understanding repurchase intention of Airbnb consumers:
perceived authenticity, electronic word-of-mouth, and price sensitivity”, Journal of Travel and
Tourism Marketing, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 73-89.
Libai, B., Bolton, R., B€
ugel, M.S., De Ruyter, K., G€otz, O., Risselada, H. and Stephen, A.T. (2010),
“Customer-to-customer interactions: broadening the scope of word of mouth research”, Journal
of Service Research, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 267-282.
Litvin, S.W., Goldsmith, R.E. and Pan, B. (2018), “A retrospective view of electronic word-of-mouth in
hospitality and tourism management”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management”, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 313-325.
Mal€ar, L., Krohmer, H., Hoyer, W.D. and Nyffenegger, B. (2011), “Emotional brand attachment and
brand personality: the relative importance of the actual and the ideal self”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 75 No. 4, pp. 35-52.
SAJBS Malhotra, N.K., Kim, S.S. and Patil, A. (2006), “Common method variance in IS research: a comparison
of alternative approaches and a reanalysis of past research”, Management Science, Vol. 52
No. 12, pp. 1865-1883.
Markovic, S., Iglesias, O., Singh, J.J. and Sierra, V. (2018), “How does the perceived ethicality of
corporate services brands influence loyalty and positive word-of-mouth? Analyzing the roles of
empathy, affective commitment, and perceived quality”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 148
No. 4, pp. 721-740.
Meire, M., Hewett, K., Ballings, M., Kumar, V. and Van den Poel, D. (2019), “The role of marketer-
generated content in customer engagement marketing”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 83 No. 6,
pp. 21-42.
Mittal, V., Kumar, P. and Tsiros, M. (1999), “Attribute-level performance, satisfaction, and behavioral
intentions over time: a consumption-system approach”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63 No. 2,
pp. 88-101.

Monferrer-Tirado, D. and Estrada-Guill
en, M. (2018), “Consequences of customer
Moliner, M.A.,
engagement and customer self-brand connection”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 4,
pp. 387-399.
Mollen, A. and Wilson, H. (2010), “Engagement, telepresence and interactivity in online consumer
experience: reconciling scholastic and managerial perspectives”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 63 Nos 9-10, pp. 919-925.
Money, R.B., Gilly, M.C. and Graham, J.L. (1998), “Explorations of national culture and word-of-mouth
referral behavior in the purchase of industrial services in the United States and Japan”, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 62 No. 4, pp. 76-87.
Oliver, R.L. (1980), “A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 460-469.
Oliver, R.L. (1999), “Whence consumer loyalty?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63 No. 4, pp. 33-44.
Paredes, M.R., Barrutia, J.M. and Echebarria, C. (2014), “Resources for value co-creation in e-commerce:
a review”, Electronic Commerce Research, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 111-136.
Park, C.W., MacInnis, D.J., Priester, J., Eisingerich, A.B. and Iacobucci, D. (2010), “Brand attachment
and brand attitude strength: conceptual and empirical differentiation of two critical brand
equity drivers”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 74 No. 6, pp. 1-17.
Pervan, S.J., Bove, L.L. and Johnson, L.W. (2009), “Reciprocity as a key stabilizing norm of
interpersonal marketing relationships: scale development and validation”, Industrial Marketing
Management, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 60-70.
Pervan, S.J. and Bove, L.L. (2011), “The engagement of customers beyond their expected roles”,
Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 7, pp. 551-554.
Pierce, J.L., Kostova, T. and Dirks, K.T. (2001), “Toward a theory of psychological ownership in
organizations”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 298-310.
Pierce, J.L., Kostova, T. and Dirks, K.T. (2003), “The state of psychological ownership: integrating and
extending a century of research”, Review of General Psychology, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 84-107.
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.
Prahalad, C.K. and Ramaswamy, V. (2000), “Co-opting customer competence”, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 78 No. 1, pp. 79-90.
Rather, R.A., Sharma, J. and Itoo, M.H. (2018), “Exploring relationships among customer Brand
engagement, Brand equity and Brand loyalty towards hospitality brands”, Abhigyan, Vol. 36
No. 2, pp. 41-51.
Research Priorities Marketing Science Institute (2016), available at: https://www.msi.org/uploads/files/
MSI_RP14-16.pdf.
Rogers, E.M. (1995), “Lessons for guidelines from the diffusion of innovations”, Joint Commission Impact of
Journal on Quality and Patient Safety, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 324-328.
brand
Rousseau, D.M. (1989), “Psychological and implied contracts in organizations”, Employee
Responsibilities and Rights Journal, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 121-139.
familiarity
Sahelices-Pinto, C. and Rodr
ıguez-Santos, C. (2014), “E-WOM and 2.0 opinion leaders”, Journal of Food
Products Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 244-261.
Sawhney, M., Verona, G. and Prandelli, E. (2005), “Collaborating to create: the internet as a platform
for customer engagement in product innovation”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 4,
pp. 4-17.
Shen, H. and Sengupta, J. (2018), “Word of mouth versus word of mouse: speaking about a brand
connects you to it more than writing does”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 45 No. 3,
pp. 595-614.
Shoham, A. and Ruvio, A. (2008), “Opinion leaders and followers: a replication and extension”,
Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 280-297.
Sijoria, C., Mukherjee, S. and Datta, B. (2019), “Impact of the antecedents of electronic word of mouth
on consumer based brand equity: a study on the hotel industry”, Journal of Hospitality
Marketing and Management, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 1-27.
Sin, L.Y., Alan, C.B., Yau, O.H., Chow, R.P., Lee, J.S. and Lau, L.B. (2005), “Relationship marketing
orientation: scale development and cross-cultural validation”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 185-194.
Spohrer, J. and Maglio, P.P. (2008), “The emergence of service science: toward systematic service
innovations to accelerate co-creation of value”, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 17
No. 3, pp. 238-246.
Sprott, D., Czellar, S. and Spangenberg, E. (2009), “The importance of a general measure of brand
engagement on market behavior: development and validation of a scale”, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 92-104.
Steffes, E.M. and Burgee, L.E. (2009), “Social ties and online word of mouth”, Internet Research, Vol. 19
No. 1, pp. 42-59.
Stewart, D.W. (1992), “Speculations on the future of advertising research”, Journal of Advertising,
Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 1-18.
Stokburger-Sauer, N.E. and Teichmann, K. (2013), “Is luxury just a female thing? The role of gender in
luxury brand consumption”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66 No. 7, pp. 889-896.
Strizhakova, Y., Coulter, R.A. and Price, L.L. (2008), “Branded products as a passport to global
citizenship: perspectives from developed and developing countries”, Journal of International
Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 57-85.
Thomson, M., MacInnis, D.J. and Whan Park, C. (2005), “The ties that bind: measuring the strength of
consumers’ emotional attachments to brands”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 15 No. 1,
pp. 77-91.
Tuskej, U., Golob, U. and Podnar, K. (2013), “The role of consumer–brand identification in building
brand relationships”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 53-59.
Underwood, R.L., Klein, N.M. and Burke, R.R. (2001), “Packaging communication: attentional effects of
product imagery”, The Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 10 No. 7, pp. 403-422.
Van Doorn, J., Lemon, K.N., Mittal, V., Nass, S., Pick, D., Pirner, P. and Verhoef, P.C. (2010), “Customer
engagement behavior: theoretical foundations and research directions”, Journal of Service
Research, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 253-266.
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2004), “Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 1-17.
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2016), “Institutions and axioms: an extension and update of service-
dominant logic”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 5-23.
SAJBS Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2008), “Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 1-10.
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2014), “Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing”, The Service-
Dominant Logic of Marketing, Routledge, pp. 21-46.
Verhoef, P.C., Reinartz, W.J. and Krafft, M. (2010), “Customer engagement as a new perspective in
customer management”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 247-252.
Villarroel Ordenes, F., Ludwig, S., De Ruyter, K., Grewal, D. and Wetzels, M. (2017), “Unveiling what is
written in the stars: analyzing explicit, implicit, and discourse patterns of sentiment in social
media”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 43 No. 6, pp. 875-894.
Vivek, S.D., Beatty, S.E. and Morgan, R.M. (2012), “Customer engagement: Exploring customer
relationships beyond purchase”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 20 No. 2,
pp. 122-146.
Vizca
ıno, F.V. and Velasco, A. (2019), “The battle between brands and nutritional labels: how brand
familiarity decreases consumers’ alertness toward traffic light nutritional labels”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 101 No. 3, pp. 637-650.
Waiguny, M.K., Nelson, M.R. and Marko, B. (2013), “How advergame content influences explicit and
implicit brand attitudes: when violence spills over”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 42 Nos 2-3,
pp. 155-169.
Wang, T., Yeh, R.K.J., Chen, C. and Tsydypov, Z. (2016), “What drives electronic word-of-mouth on
social networking sites? Perspectives of social capital and self-determination”, Telematics and
Informatics, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 1034-1047.
Whyte, W.H. Jr (1954), “The web of word of mouth”, Fortune, Vol. 50 No. 5, pp. 140-143.
Woodruff, R.B. and Gardial, S. (1996), Know Your Customer: New Approaches to Understanding
Customer Value and Satisfaction, Blackwell Publishers, Cambridge, MA.
You, Y., Vadakkepatt, G.G. and Joshi, A.M. (2015), “A meta-analysis of electronic word-of-mouth
elasticity”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 79 No. 2, pp. 19-39.

Further reading
Anderson, E.W. (1998), “Customer satisfaction and word of mouth”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 1
No. 1, pp. 5-17.
Baker, A.M., Donthu, N. and Kumar, V. (2016), “Investigating how word-of-mouth conversations about
brands influence purchase and retransmission intentions”, Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 53 No. 2, pp. 225-239.
Beckers, S.F., Van Doorn, J. and Verhoef, P.C. (2018), “Good, better, engaged? The effect of company-
initiated customer engagement behavior on shareholder value”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 366-383.
Brown, J.J. and Reingen, P.H. (1987), “Social ties and word-of-mouth referral behavior”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 350-362.
Chevalier, J.A. and Mayzlin, D. (2006), “The effect of word of mouth on sales: online book reviews”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 345-354.
Eisingerich, A.B., Chun, H.H., Liu, Y., Jia, H. and Bell, S.J. (2015), “Why recommend a brand face-to-face
but not on FaCBEook? How word-of-mouth on online social sites differs from traditional word-
of-mouth”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 120-128.
Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2011), “PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet”, 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 motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the
internet?”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 38-52.
Kuenzel, S. and Vaux Halliday, S. (2008), “Investigating antecedents and consequences of brand Impact of
identification”, The Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 293-304.
brand
familiarity
Corresponding author
Anitha Acharya can be contacted at: anitha_a_2000@yahoo.com

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