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

https://www.emerald.com/insight/2040-7122.htm

JRIM
16,4 The role of brand interactivity and
involvement in driving social media
consumer brand engagement and
648 brand loyalty: the mediating effect
Received 8 March 2021
Revised 7 July 2021
of brand trust
23 September 2021
Accepted 9 November 2021 Tariq Samarah
Faculty of Business and Economics, Girne American University, Kyrenia, Turkey
Pelin Bayram
Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, European University of Lefke,
Lefke, Turkey
Hasan Yousef Aljuhmani
Faculty of Business and Economics, Centre for Management Research,
Girne American University, Kyrenia, Turkey, and
Hamzah Elrehail
Leadership and Organizational Development Department,
Abu Dhabi School of Management, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates and
Faculty of Business and Economics, American University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus

Abstract
Purpose – This study explores central questions related to the connections between brand interactivity and
involvement on brand-related outcomes (brand trust and loyalty) through understanding the role played by
customer brand engagement (CBE) through social media platforms.
Design/methodology/approach – Using an online survey, the data for this study were collected from 353
participants who follow Royal Jordanian Airlines on their Facebook page. A cross-sectional research approach
was implemented using a partial least squares path modeling approach.
Findings – The study finds that perceived brand interactivity and involvement are positively associated with
social media CBE. The authors also find that social media CBE is positively related to brand trust and that
brand trust is positively associated with brand loyalty. Consequently, the authors observe that social media
CBE is positively related to brand loyalty.
Originality/value – This study investigates the impact of perceived brand interactivity and involvement on
social media CBE while accounting for the mediating role of brand trust through which social media CBE
influences brand loyalty of airline brands in the Jordanian context. Finally, the findings have noteworthy
theoretical and managerial implications.
Keywords Brand interactivity, Involvement, Customer brand engagement, Brand trust, Brand loyalty,
Facebook, Social media marketing, Jordan
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Traditional broadcast advertising and one-way mass media communication have been
overtaken by the rise of two-way interactivity and developments in the consumer–brand
relationship (Wang, 2021). The latter has been propelled forward by industry-wide marketing
Journal of Research in Interactive
Marketing
Vol. 16 No. 4, 2022
pp. 648-664 The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their insightful suggestions which
© Emerald Publishing Limited improved this work significantly. The authors thank all the study participants for their time devoted in
2040-7122
DOI 10.1108/JRIM-03-2021-0072 answering the research survey.
tactics implemented through a variety of interactive technology platforms such as Facebook, The mediating
Instagram and Snapchat (Mukherjee and Banerjee, 2019). Over recent decades, social effect of brand
networking platforms like Facebook have become a common tool for brands to build
interaction and raise brand awareness (Kabadayi and Price, 2014). Moreover, Facebook
trust
brand pages have emerged as a significant platform for customers to communicate with
brands in a direct and immediate manner (Busalim et al., 2021). Thus, the emergent use of
social media platforms such as Facebook has prompted scholarly interest in the process of
driving customer engagement through consumer–brand interactions (Hinson et al., 2019). 649
Brands can interact with customers via their own communications as well as through the
communications of other consumers. In this new context, achieving consumer engagement is
crucial for companies to combat rising consumer resistance to and skepticism toward traditional
commercial media. Customer brand engagement (CBE) is defined as a consumer’s cognitive,
emotional and behavioral activity tied to unique consumer–brand interactions (Brodie et al.,
2013). Closer examination of the literature in the area of social media shows that the impact of the
brand interactivity and involvement on CBE has rarely been tested. For instance, assessment of
the role of brand interactivity within social media is an important as well as relatively new topic
for interactive marketing, although understanding of how it influences customer engagement is
currently limited (e.g. France et al., 2016; Gligor et al., 2019; Read et al., 2019).
Customer engagement fosters mutually beneficial interactions between customers and
service providers, which elevates their brand loyalty through brand trust (Li et al., 2020; So
et al., 2016). Brand loyalty is measured by how strongly customers feel connected to a brand
and how frequently they make repeated purchases (Liu et al., 2012). Consistently favorable
thoughts and expectations about the brand help customers in building a brand trust
relationship. Furthermore, trust between customers and brands is essential for the
development of brand loyalty, particularly in a social media context (Raji et al., 2019).
The relationship between CBE, antecedents and mediators’ outcomes has been widely
studied. However, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, no previous research has
investigated these relationships within the same framework. Accordingly, this study was
inspired by the research question of whether perceived brand interactivity and involvement
positively affect CBE, which in turn influence brand trust and brand loyalty in the context of
social media marketing. To answer this and fill the literature gap, it considers the effects of
brand interactivity and involvement on the CBE–brand loyalty relationship in the social
media context, with the possible mediation effect of brand trust. To effectively address these
research avenues, this paper stipulates a more holistic approach by integrating the
unexplored drivers of CBE in the social media pages of brands (i.e. perceived brand
interactivity and brand involvement) that are responsible for the development of brand-
related outcomes such as brand trust and brand loyalty, through understanding the role
played by CBE in social media, particularly Facebook.
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. The next section addresses a gap in
the literature by focusing on two antecedents (perceived brand interactivity and consumer
brand involvement) and two outcomes (brand trust and brand loyalty) and their relationships
to CBE through social media. The third section describes the research methods and item
measurement, followed by the empirical research results. Finally, the paper discusses the
results and concludes by summarizing the findings in both theory and practice, reflecting on
areas for improvement, and recommending paths for future research.

2. Theoretical framework and hypothesis development

2.1 Customer brand engagement in social media
The basic premises of this study are based on the emergence of social media CBE. To date,
scholars have defined CBE in a variety of ways in social media marketing research. Although
JRIM in the literature there is “a lack of consensus on what consumer engagement is” (Dessart et al.,
16,4 2015, p. 28), earlier studies by Brodie et al. (2011), Hollebeek (2011) and Hollebeek et al. (2014)
are considered the main contributors to measuring and conceptualizing CBE. A review of
definitions and dimensionality of customer engagement in the marketing literature is
provided in Table 1. The general agreement is that CBE is a multi-dimensional construct with
brand-related cognitive, emotional and behavioral activity around specific consumer–brand
interactions (Brodie et al., 2013; Islam and Rahman, 2016). As such, Hollebeek et al. (2014)
650 created a multidimensional approach to CBE in social media, with three main components:
cognitive processing, affection and activation dimensions. These three dimensions as a
higher-order construct were adopted in this research to measure the concept of customer
brand engagement in social media platforms (see e.g. Hinson et al., 2019; Islam et al., 2018).
Extensive efforts have been devoted to examining CBE conceptualization and
measurement (Brodie et al., 2011; Hollebeek et al., 2014; Islam and Rahman, 2016);
nevertheless, understanding the impact of CBE is still at an early stage (France et al., 2016,
p. 120), and thus more investigation is required, given its significant role in strategic brand
decisions (Algharabat et al., 2020). Specifically, customer engagement is considered a
strategic and powerful tool that positively influences customer loyalty (Bowden, 2009; Brodie
et al., 2013), firm performance and value (Verhoef et al., 2010), and firms’ profits and sales
revenue (Bijmolt et al., 2010). As such, the concept merits further investigation (Hollebeek
et al., 2014; Vander Schee et al., 2020), where “theoretical relationships remain nebulous, as
well as debated” (Hollebeek et al., 2019, p. 163). Thus, previous research has not investigated
the impact of social media brand interactivity and involvement on CBE dimensions (cognitive

Author(s)/Research
type Concept Definition Dimensions

Bowden (2009) Customer engagement “A psychological process that models the N/A
Conceptual underlying mechanisms by which customer
loyalty forms for new customers of a service
brand as well as the mechanisms by which
loyalty may be maintained for repeat
purchase customers of a service brand”
(p. 65)
Brodie et al. (2011) Customer engagement “A psychological state that occurs by virtue Cognitive
Conceptual of interactive, cocreative customer Emotional
experiences with a focal agent/object (e.g. Behavioural
brand) in focal service relationships” (p. 260)
Hollebeek (2011) Customer brand “The level of an individual customer’s Cognitive
Conceptual engagement motivational, brand-related and context- Emotional
dependent state of mind characterised by Behavioral
specific levels of cognitive, emotional and
behavioral activity in direct brand
interactions” (p. 790)
Brodie et al. (2013) Consumer engagement “A context-dependent, psychological state Cognitive
Empirical characterized by fluctuating intensity levels Emotional
Table 1. (qualitative) that occur within dynamic, iterative Behavioral
Definitions and engagement processes” (p. 107)
dimensionality of Hollebeek et al. (2014) Consumer brand “A consumer’s positively-valenced brand- Cognitive
customer engagement Empirical engagement in social related cognitive, emotional and behavioral Affection
in the marketing (qualitative and media activity during or related to focal consumer/ Activation
literature quantitative) brand interactions” (p. 154)
processing, affection and activation) over social media platforms. Further empirical research The mediating
is needed to strengthen the theoretical framework underpinning CBE, focusing on how the effect of brand
two forms of customer–brand interaction, namely brand interactivity and involvement, drive
CBE in social media and brand-related outcomes such as brand trust and brand loyalty
trust
(Gligor et al., 2019; Harrigan et al., 2018; Hollebeek et al., 2014). Each of these is discussed next,
leading to the development of our hypotheses.
651
2.2 Brand interactivity and customer brand engagement in social media
Perceived brand interactivity is a relatively new concept and has been regarded as an
important antecedent to customer engagement (France et al., 2016; Gligor and Bozkurt, 2021).
Companies can use the interactive nature of social media to strengthen their relationships
with customers, resulting in a higher level of customer engagement (Gligor et al., 2019).
Perceived brand interactivity is defined as “being dependent on the user’s perception of
taking part in a two-way communication with a mediated persona” (Labrecque, 2014, p. 136).
According to this conceptualization, we investigate perceived brand interactivity in terms of
both response speed and message type (Labrecque, 2014). Thus, the concept of brand
interactivity is relatively novel and deals with the consumers’ perception regarding the
willingness and true desire of the brand to interact with them (France et al., 2016). The way in
which perceived brand interactivity influences CBE over social media platforms remains
unclear, with little empirical evidence (Gligor et al., 2019; Read et al., 2019).
Perceived brand interactivity has been investigated with a number of customer–brand
consequences, such as brand attitude, brand experience, purchase intention and brand
engagement (Gligor and Bozkurt, 2021; Read et al., 2019). Prior research established the
relationship between perceived brand interactivity and customer engagement (France et al.,
2016). For example, France et al. (2016) found that perceived brand interactivity is positively
related to customer engagement. The few studies reported in the literature lack the
investigation of perceived brand interactivity on the three dimensions of social media CBE
(cognitive processing, affection and activation) conceptualized by Hollebeek et al. (2014),
focusing mainly on psychological aspects of CBE (France et al., 2016; Gligor et al., 2019) and
hence failing to examine the impact of the behavioral aspect of the construct (Gligor and
Bozkurt, 2021). Consequently, the limited number of studies and the lack of a comprehensive
way of defining and conceptualizing CBE have led to this research. Thus, along with the
findings of France et al. (2016) and Gligor et al. (2019), we argue that perceived brand
interactivity leads customers to display a higher level of CBE in social media. To this end, the
research reported here stipulates a relationship between social media brand interactivity and
CBE (cognitive processing, affection and activation). Accordingly, the following hypothesis is
postulated:
H1. Perceived brand interactivity positively influences customer brand engagement in
social media.

2.3 Brand involvement and customer brand engagement in social media

Brand involvement has garnered enormous amounts of attention over recent decades, from
both practitioners and academics, partly because of its potential influence on customer
engagement (France et al., 2016; Hollebeek et al., 2014; So et al., 2014). In line with France et al.’s
(2016) conceptualization, involvement can be defined as the “person’s perceived relevance of
the object based on inherent needs, values, and interests” (Zaichkowsky, 1985, p. 342).
Although brand involvement has been compared in the literature to customer engagement,
the two constructs are distinct (Harrigan et al., 2017, 2018): involvement is typically restricted
JRIM to a cognitive facet, while engagement encompasses cognitive, emotional and behavioral
16,4 aspects (Hollebeek, 2011; So et al., 2014).
Despite the agreement that brand involvement is widely considered as an influential
antecedent of customer engagement, where customers have a level of personal relevance and
interest in a brand before a specific engagement behavior (e.g. Gligor et al., 2019; Harrigan
et al., 2018; Hollebeek et al., 2014; So et al., 2014), there is little consensus as to the true
composition of the engagement concept and how it should be measured (Obilo et al., 2021).
652 Also, more research is required to identify the applicability of consumer brand engagement
with the related nomological networks (i.e. involvement) that have been proposed in the
engagement literature. For example, Harrigan et al. (2018) and Hollebeek et al. (2014) found
that brand involvement is positively related to the three dimensions of CBE (cognitive
processing, affection and activation). As such, we will re-examine the posited conceptual
relationships between brand involvement using France et al.’s (2016) conceptualization and
the higher-order construct of CBE in social media, including cognitive processing, affection
and activation (shown in Figure 1) conceptualized by Hollebeek et al. (2014) to examine
whether brand involvement is a factor that must be present for overall customer engagement
in social media to occur. As such, we argue that social media brand involvement leads
customers to show a high level of CBE (Algharabat et al., 2020; Harrigan et al., 2018; Hollebeek
et al., 2014; Leckie et al., 2016). Thus, the following hypothesis is presented:
H2. Brand involvement positively influences customer brand engagement in
social media.

2.4 Customer brand engagement and brand trust in social media

Brand trust is defined as “the willingness of the average consumer to rely on the ability of the
brand to perform its stated function” (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001, p. 82). According to
Halaszovich and Nel (2017, p. 125), trust is the most critical variable that influences outcomes
at different points in the buyer–seller relationship, serving as a “potent glue that holds buyer-
seller relationships together”. However, brand trust is necessary for a relationship to progress
from a positive transactional orientation toward brand-to-brand engagement (Halaszovich
and Nel, 2017). The role of brand trust is more salient in situations of uncertainty, fear of
opportunism or information asymmetry (Laroche et al., 2012). While previous studies have
discussed how CBE dimensions could be predicted by the role of brand trust (e.g. Brodie et al.,
2011; Gligor et al., 2019; Hinson et al., 2019), others have proposed brand relationship factors
(e.g. commitment, trust and satisfaction) as an important outcome of customer engagement
(e.g. Brodie et al., 2013; Dessart, 2017; Hollebeek, 2011; So et al., 2014). For example, in a study
of online brand communities, Laroche et al. (2012) found that engagement with brand
communities is not associated with brand trust. It should be noted that previous research did

H6

Brand
Brand trust
interactivity
H1 H5
H3

Social media H4 Behavioural

CBE brand loyalty

H2
Figure 1.
Conceptual Brand
research model involvement
not investigate the impact of CBE on brand trust over social media platforms. Following this The mediating
line of argument, we argue that social media CBE will positively affect brand trust. Thus, we effect of brand
propose the following hypothesis:
trust
H3. Customer brand engagement positively influences brand trust in social media.

2.5 Customer brand engagement and behavioral brand loyalty in social media
Studies have found that CBE enhances performance variables, such as positive word of 653
mouth, retention of members and loyalty through the co-creation of consumer value (Bowden,
2009; Brodie et al., 2013; Verhoef et al., 2010). Brand loyalty refers to the degree of attachment
a customer has for a particular brand (Liu et al., 2012, p. 924) and is considered in the
marketing literature as one of the most important outcomes (He et al., 2012). Mostly, brand
loyalty is conceptualized either as behavioral loyalty or attitudinal loyalty (Chaudhuri and
Holbrook, 2001). Following previous studies (e.g. Islam et al., 2018; Kumar and Nayak, 2019),
we focus on the behavioral aspects of brand loyalty. Behavioral brand loyalty, as
operationalized by Zeithaml et al. (1996), measures a customer’s intention to say positive
things about a brand, to recommend a brand generally and to friends, and to purchase this
brand in the near future. Recently, Harrigan et al. (2017) concluded that customer engagement
leads to an enhanced level of behavioral intentions of loyalty toward a tourism social
media brand.
Consequently, the social media marketing literature suggests that a number of marketing
studies have theoretically discussed how behavioral brand loyalty could be predicted by the
role of CBE dimensions (Bowden, 2009; Brodie et al., 2011; Hollebeek, 2011), while empirical
validation of this relationship remains unclear and more research is needed (Fernandes and
Moreira, 2019; Islam et al., 2018). Previous research empirically highlights that customer
engagement promotes the development of behavioral brand loyalty (Harrigan et al., 2017;
Kumar and Nayak, 2019). However, this relationship has not been explored in the context of
social media marketing. Therefore, to address this void in the social media marketing
literature, we propose the following hypothesis:
H4. Customer brand engagement positively influences behavioral brand loyalty in
social media.
2.6 The mediating effect of brand trust
Brand trust plays a vital role in enhancing purchase intention over the Internet (Corbitt et al.,
2003) and is positively related to customer experience and satisfaction (Urban et al., 2000).
Thus, a great deal of research supports the positive effect of brand trust on brand loyalty in
both online and offline contexts (e.g. Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001; He et al., 2012; Laroche
et al., 2012). Trust is essential in building strong relationships between consumers and brands
(Urban et al., 2000). While brand trust is one of the most important antecedents of brand
loyalty (He et al., 2012), customer engagement is an important driver of brand trust (Brodie
et al., 2013; Hollebeek, 2011) and brand loyalty (Bowden, 2009). Furthermore, the positive
relationship between brand trust and brand loyalty in social media-based brand communities
is supported by Laroche et al. (2012). Moreover, studies indicate that trust mediates the
relationship between customer engagement and brand loyalty (Li et al., 2020). Dessart (2017)
and Hollebeek (2011) indicate that trust is an important factor in explaining the relationship
between engagement and loyalty. However, in the social media CBE literature, there is little
emphasis on this relationship, so we hypothesize the following:
H5. Brand trust positively influences brand loyalty in social media.
H6. Brand trust mediates the positive influence of customer brand engagement on brand
loyalty in social media.
JRIM 3. Methodology
16,4 3.1 Sampling and data collection procedures
This study employed a quantitative cross-sectional approach to address our research
questions; we sought to collect data from a total of 1,000 Jordanian consumers who follow
Royal Jordanian Airlines on Facebook, using an online survey employing a questionnaire.
Social media platforms are actively used by airline companies (Gomez et al., 2019) and thus
are considered as an appropriate industry for investigating CBE (Dijkmans et al., 2015). Royal
654 Jordanian is considered a leader in the commercial use of social media (Royal Jordanian, 2017),
with more than 615,000 Facebook followers in 2020. We decided that its advantages justified
using non-probability convenience sampling (Roberts, 2014) in testing the proposed
hypothesized model. This sampling approach is widely used in social media CBE research
with Facebook (e.g. Algharabat et al., 2020; Halaszovich and Nel, 2017; Hollebeek et al., 2014).
We targeted 1,000 respondents who were already following the Royal Jordanian Facebook
page and asked them to complete the questionnaire based on their general perception of
interacting and dealing with this page over the past year. An initial sample of 384 participants
returned the online survey; 31 were excluded because they did not fully complete the survey.
The remaining 353 responses (response rate 5 35.3%) were used in our analysis.
By gender, 60.9% of respondents were male; most were relatively young, with over half
(54.1%) aged 17– 24 and nearly a third (32.3%) in the 25–29 age group. Most respondents had
undergraduate degrees (61.5%) or a high school or diploma level of education (23.8%), with
14.7% having a postgraduate degree. Nearly three-quarters indicated that they were not
married (74.5%). The length of time of their relationship with the Royal Jordanian Airlines
Facebook pages varied as follows: less than one year (24.9%), between one and two years
(35.4%), between three and four years (20.4%), between five and six years (9.1%), and over
seven years (10.2%).

3.2 Measurements
The online questionnaire was developed in English and translated into Arabic; to ensure the
accuracy of the translation (Brislin, 1986), it was back translated by second parties from
Arabic into English and the two versions compared. The participants were invited to respond
to each item considering various aspects of the drivers and consequences of CBE. The
original sources of the main scale items are presented in Table 2.
The operationalization of our scales was based on existing related research, with items
measured on seven-point Likert scales, anchored by 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 7 (“strongly
agree”). To measure brand interactivity (two-way communication), we adopted the four items
proposed by Labrecque (2014); brand involvement was measured by five items adopted from
France et al. (2016). To operationalize CBE in social media, we distinguished between three
dimensions (cognitive processing, affection and activation) and used the 10 items proposed
by Hollebeek et al. (2014). These three dimensions were averaged to capture the scale of CBE.
We measured the mediating effect of brand trust by using a three-item scale adapted from
Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001) and Laroche et al. (2012). Finally, a scale to measure
behavioral aspects of brand loyalty, composed of four items, was adopted from Zeithaml et al.
(1996) and Harrigan et al. (2017).

4. Data analysis and results

We use the partial least squares-structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) approach to
examine the hypothesized constructs for two reasons. First, we wanted our analysis to benefit
from the robust ability of SEM to simultaneously examine and isolate significant paths in
complex models (Barclay et al., 1995); second, this approach is increasingly being embraced in
 Outer loadings Standard Cronbach’s
The mediating
Construct/Indicators (t-values) VIF Mean deviation α CR AVE effect of brand
trust
Social media brand involvement (INV) 0.902 0.924 0.710
INV1: This brand means 0.741 (11.271) 2.118 5.303 1.174
a lot to me
INV2: This brand is 0.837 (27.301) 2.673 5.411 1.225
significant to me 655
INV3: For me personally, 0.887 (42.566) 3.117 5.567 1.244
this brand is important
INV4: I am interested in 0.876 (56.598) 2.496 5.830 1.188
this brand
INV5: I am involved with 0.863 (53.685) 2.156 5.465 1.190
this brand
Social media brand interactivity (INT) 0.850 0.898 0.689
INT1: The brand listens 0.856 (53.054) 2.036 5.074 1.171
to what I have to say
INT2: The brand allows 0.824 (37.980) 2.005 5.190 1.291
me to communicate
directly with it
INT3: The brand would 0.838 (37.803) 1.917 5.201 1.283
respond to me quickly
and efficiently
INT4: The brand will 0.800 (28.065) 1.729 5.300 1.157
talk back to me if I post
a message
Brand loyalty (BL) 0.893 0.926 0.757
BL1: I would say positive 0.879 (56.366) 2.689 5.487 1.032
things about this brand
to other people
BL2: I would recommend 0.855 (35.903) 2.226 5.382 1.121
this brand to someone
who seeks my advice
BL3: I would encourage 0.860 (40.540) 2.331 5.428 1.068
friends and relatives to
do business with this
brand
BL4: I would do more 0.887 (64.748) 2.555 5.365 1.067
business with this brand
in the next few years
Brand trust (BT) 0.826 0.895 0.740
BT1: This brand gives 0.903 (70.979) 2.173 5.249 1.253
me everything that I
expect out of the product
BT2: I rely on this brand 0.885 (62.761) 2.022 5.252 1.249
BT3: This brand never 0.789 (17.898) 1.654 5.170 1.255
disappoints me
Social media customer brand engagement (CBE) 0.914 0.929 0.567
CBE cognitive processing (COG) 0.822 0.894 0.738
COG1: Using this brand 0.654 (41.615) 1.700 4.822 1.316
gets me to think about it
COG2: I think about this 0.685 (59.068) 2.216 4.581 1.481
brand a lot when I’m
using it Table 2.
Scale’s measurement,
(continued ) reliability and validity
JRIM Outer loadings Standard Cronbach’s
16,4 Construct/Indicators (t-values) VIF Mean deviation α CR AVE

COG3: Using this brand 0.733 (70.847) 1.874 4.822 1.516

stimulates my interest to
learn more about it
CBE affection (AFF) 0.881 0.918 0.736
656 AFF1: I feel very positive 0.766 (48.909) 2.133 5.017 1.188
when I use this brand
AFF2: Using this brand 0.826 (65.240) 2.417 5.037 1.380
makes me happy
AFF3: I feel good when I 0.764 (43.250) 2.348 5.000 1.346
use this brand
AFF4: I’m proud to use 0.743 (45.852) 2.252 5.235 1.303
this brand
CBE activation (ACT) 0.850 0.909 0.769
ACT1: I spend a lot of 0.792 (58.063) 1.966 4.941 1.306
time using this brand,
compared to other
brands
ACT2: Whenever I’m 0.746 (63.259) 2.442 4.771 1.282
using airline services, I
usually use this brand
ACT3: I use this brand 0.804 (54.956) 2.017 4.841 1.316
the most
Table 2. Note(s): Variance inflation factor (VIF), Composite reliability (CR), Average variance extracted (AVE)

marketing research (Hair et al., 2012). To conduct the analysis, we relied on the computational
rigor of the SmartPLS 3.0 software package (Ringle et al., 2015).

4.1 Construct validities

Table 2 presents a summary of the mean and standard deviation of each variable with all
their items in the current study. Psychometric properties of the variables were examined
using PLS-SEM. The reliability of the scale was assessed to determine its degree of internal
consistency. Table 2 also shows composite reliability (CR), with all values higher than the
threshold of 0.60 (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988); average variance extracted (AVE), all variables
meeting the required threshold of 0.50 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981); and Cronbach’s α greater
than 0.70 indicating reliability (Nunnally, 1978). Therefore, convergent validity is established.
Table 2 shows the outer loadings for each construct, confirming the evidence for a
satisfactory degree of internal consistency (Dijkstra and Henseler, 2015). Further, we
reviewed the variance inflation factors (VIFs) and found no evidence of multicollinearity.
Discriminant validity was evaluated using Fornell-Larcker’s (1981) criteria; the
Heterotrait–Monotrait ratio (HTMT) shown in Table 3 indicates that extracted variance
achieved higher values than the constructs’ squared correlations. Finally, Table 3 confirms
that the HTMT values between the constructs are all below the 0.85 thresholds, confirming
discriminant validity (Henseler et al., 2015). That is, the constructs in this research have good
convergent and discriminant validity.

4.2 Common method variance

After ensuring convergent and discriminant validity, it is important to analyze the potential
impact of common method variance (CMV); this can occur when all the independent and
dependent constructs are measured by a single questionnaire from the same respondent The mediating
(Podsakoff et al., 2003). For this reason, we performed Harman’s single factor test (Harman, effect of brand
1976), which is indicative of CMV (Podsakoff et al., 2003); all indicators were factored by being
entered into an unrotated exploratory factor analysis of all the eight study factors with all
trust
their items. The results show that the eigenvalue of a single factor is greater than 1, while the
total variance explained for the first factor, 36.52%, is less than the indicative 50%. Therefore,
we can conclude that CMV should not be a serious concern in this research.
657
4.3 Test of hypotheses
The PLS-SEM estimation indicated that the model has good explanatory power; it explains
18.4%, 24.4% and 58.8% of the variance in social media CBE, brand trust and brand loyalty,
respectively. Table 4 presents the proposed model’s estimated standardized path coefficients
and t-values for the main and indirect effect. We first hypothesized that perceived brand
interactivity is positively related to CBE in social media. As the results show, brand
interactivity is positively and significantly associated with social media CBE (β 5 0.304,
p < 0.001), thereby supporting H1. Similarly, there is a positive direct effect of brand
involvement on social media CBE (β 5 0.192, p < 0.001), supporting H2. We observe that
social media CBE is positively related to brand trust (β 5 0.199, p < 0.01), supporting H3. We
also find a positive and significant relationship between social media CBE and brand loyalty
(β 5 0.423, p < 0.001), in support of H4. Finally, we find that brand trust is positively
associated with brand loyalty in social media (β 5 0.395, p < 0.001), supporting H5.

4.4 Mediating effect of brand trust

Next, we analyze our mediation hypothesis. To test for mediation, we used Baron and
Kenny’s (1986) four-step approach, with brand trust acting as mediator. The mediating effect

Factors 1 2 3 4 5

1. Brand loyalty 0.870 0.564 0.473 0.586 0.747

2. Brand trust 0.492 0.860 0.215 0.554 0.428
3. Social media customer brand engagement 0.433 0.199 0.753 0.441 0.333
4. Brand interactivity 0.511 0.471 0.395 0.830 0.533
5. Brand involvement 0.676 0.380 0.335 0.470 0.842
Note(s): Diagonals (in bold and italic) represent the square-root of AVE, while the lower triangular represents Table 3.
the shared variance (the squared correlations), and the upper triangular (in italic) represents the HTMT Discriminant validity
correlation values of measures

Standardized t- p-
Hypothesized direct paths estimates values values Decision

H1: Brand interactivity → social media CBE 0.304 5.241 ***

0.000 Supported
H2: Brand involvement → social media CBE 0.192 3.799 0.000*** Supported
H3: Social media CBE → brand trust 0.199 3.298 0.001 **
Supported
H4: Social media CBE → brand loyalty 0.348 9.152 0.000*** Supported
H5: Brand trust → brand loyalty 0.423 9.922 0.000*** Supported
H6: Social media CBE → (brand trust) → brand 0.084 3.155 0.002** Supported
loyalty Table 4.
Note(s): Customer brand engagement (CBE). Absolute values are applied to standardized path coefficients, Hypotheses testing
** ***
Statistically significant at p < 0.010, Statistically significant at p < 0.001. In this table, the mediator effect is result of the direct and
represented in parenthesis indirect effect
JRIM of brand trust was assessed using a bias-corrected bootstrapping percentile method based on
16,4 2,000 bootstrap samples at 95% confidence intervals to determine the significance of indirect
effects. To test for H6, we obtained the indirect effect of social media CBE on brand loyalty
based on the bias-corrected bootstrapping (a bootstrap sample of 2,000 was employed). The
results in Table 4 validating the mediation effect of brand trust indicate that the indirect effect
of social media CBE is positively and significantly related to brand loyalty via brand trust
(β 5 0.084, p < 0.01), which supports H6. Thus, the indirect effect of CBE on brand loyalty
658 through brand trust does not include zero in-between the values that specify mediation
(LBCI 5 0.032; UBCI 5 0.136). Taken together, these results suggest the presence of the
mediation effect of brand trust through which social media CBE influences brand loyalty.

5. Discussion and conclusion

The present research developed and tested an integrated model that examined the effects of
perceived social media brand interactivity and involvement on brand-related outcomes
(brand trust and brand loyalty) through understanding the role played by CBE in social
media, with a focus on consumers who follow Royal Jordanian Airlines on their Facebook
page. Using the PLS-SEM approach, our findings supported the hypothesized relationships.
Our empirical study suggested that, as was expected, perceived brand interactivity and
involvement directly impact social media CBE. Additionally, we found that social media CBE
is strongly related to brand trust and the behavioral aspect of brand loyalty. Consequently,
we observe that brand trust is positively associated with brand loyalty. The results indicate
that brand trust also plays a crucial mediating role in social media airline marketing. Thus,
this research fills an existing gap in the area of social media CBE and its role in the airline
industry by focusing on an airline’s followers on Facebook (Dijkmans et al., 2015; Gomez et al.,
2019; So et al., 2014). The present study was conducted in the Jordanian context and
contributes to the general understanding of social media CBE (Dessart et al., 2015; Hollebeek
et al., 2014, 2019; Islam and Rahman, 2016; Obilo et al., 2021; So et al., 2014; Vander Schee et al.,
2020) by analyzing the role of social media brand interactivity and involvement (France et al.,
2016; Gligor et al., 2019; Harrigan et al., 2018; Read et al., 2019) and important brand-related
outcomes such as brand trust and loyalty (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001; Dessart, 2017;
Hollebeek, 2011; Laroche et al., 2012; Urban et al., 2000). Consequently, the study has the
following theoretical and practical implications.

5.1 Theoretical implications

First, we sought to examine the relationship between perceived social media brand
interactivity and CBE. Specifically, this perceived brand interactivity promotes the notion
that the brand appreciates the time and effort customers put into the exchange process. Given
the interactive nature between social media platforms and customers, as two-way
communication, it is necessary to understand how perceived social media brand
interactivity affects the various aspects of CBE (Gligor et al., 2019). For example, more
studies have focused on the affective and cognitive facets of CBE rather than its behavioral
aspects (e.g. France et al., 2016; Gligor et al., 2019). While these studies shed some light on the
interactivity–engagement relationship in both online and offline contexts, their
conceptualization of CBE does not fully capture the behavioral aspect of the construct
(Gligor and Bozkurt, 2021). The inclusion of behavioral aspects as customer activities that
constitute engagement is crucial to further validate the CBE scale (Hollebeek et al., 2014). In
this regard, our results reveal that perceived brand interactivity is positively related to CBE
in social media. These findings are in line with previous studies (France et al., 2016; Gligor
et al., 2019; Read et al., 2019). More specifically, the results of this study indicate that
customers are more willing to engage with a brand on social media when they perceive it to be
highly interactive.
 Meanwhile, the positive effect of social media brand involvement on CBE received support The mediating
in line with prior studies which assert that consumers with a high level of involvement show a effect of brand
heightened level of engagement (France et al., 2016; Harrigan et al., 2018; Leckie et al., 2016),
although in a different context. Our results suggest that customers who follow an airline’s
trust
Facebook page perceive social media brand engagement as highly relevant and valuable as a
result of social media brand involvement. By placing and testing the CBE model as
conceptualized by Hollebeek et al.’s (2014) nomological framework, we emphasize the
interdependence. That is, we assessed the impact of perceived brand involvement on social 659
media CBE when the interdependencies among the elements of the CBE model are considered
in their entirety as a three-dimensional construct, comprising cognitive, emotional and
behavioral components. There is considerable support for the belief that brand involvement
is positively related to the three individual dimensions of CBE (e.g. Algharabat et al., 2020;
Harrigan et al., 2018; Hollebeek et al., 2014; Leckie et al., 2016), there is a dearth of research on
how brand involvement contributes to general customer engagement in social media. For
example, Harrigan et al. (2018) and Hollebeek et al. (2014) demonstrate that brand
involvement is positively related to the three elements of CBE: cognitive, affective and
activation. Our results suggest that highly involved customers feel that the Facebook page of
the airline company brand reflects their personal attitudes and values and thus positively
enhances their engagement level with those brands over social media.
Second, the results contribute to the brand engagement literature by validating the
influence of CBE on two crucial brand-related outcomes (brand trust and brand loyalty) using
the airline’s social media page. As such, we have validated the three dimensions of CBE on
brand trust proposed by Laroche et al. (2012) in the context of airline social media marketing.
We observe that the strength of the relationship between customer and brand (i.e. CBE)
results from brand trust, which is in line with previous research (Hollebeek, 2011; So et al.,
2014), although in a different context. Additionally, our results confirm that social media CBE
is positively related to the behavioral aspect of brand loyalty. This is a relationship proposed
by many other researchers (Hollebeek, 2011), although empirical validation of this
relationship remained unclear and more research was needed (Islam et al., 2018). Thus,
while the relationship between CBE and brand loyalty was claimed extensively in the
literature, research has been predominantly conceptual and has still not provided robust
evidence regarding how these variables relate to each other (Fernandes and Moreira, 2019).
The few empirical studies lack generalizability (Dessart, 2017; Hollebeek et al., 2014) and
hence fail to investigate the behavioral aspect of brand loyalty (Kumar and Nayak, 2019). For
example, Leckie et al. (2016) examined the impact of the three dimensions of CBE on
attitudinal brand loyalty. Our findings also build on Harrigan et al.’s (2017) parallel work on
the effects of customer engagement on brand loyalty, which did not explicitly consider the
role of social media CBE developed by Hollebeek et al. (2014).
The third theoretical contribution involves our examination of the impact of brand trust
on brand loyalty. We find that higher levels of brand trust increased behavioral brand loyalty
over social media platforms. Additionally, the relationship between brand trust and brand
loyalty has been evidenced in past studies, as brand trust contributes to brand loyalty
(Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001; Urban et al., 2000). Although these paths have not been
documented in the social media CBE literature, they have been investigated in other contexts.
It is useful to acknowledge the role of brand trust in strengthening the behavioral aspect of
brand loyalty (He et al., 2012; Laroche et al., 2012).
Fourth, this study contributes to the CBE literature in a social media context by providing
a comprehensive understanding of the vitality of brand trust as an intervening mechanism
through which social media CBE influences brand loyalty as an additional path to those
already established, enabling marketers to build strong relationships between customers and
brands. Our research lends strong evidence of the vitality of brand trust as a mediator
JRIM between social media CBE and brand loyalty, thereby extending knowledge about the social
16,4 media CBE model proposed by Hollebeek et al. (2014), differing from prior research that
investigated the direct relationship between CBE, brand trust and brand loyalty (e.g. So et al.,
2016). Previous studies have demonstrated that customer engagement boosts brand loyalty
through brand trust in online brand communities (Brodie et al., 2013; Laroche et al., 2012; Li
et al., 2020). This line of thinking suggests a theoretical connection of brand trust in the
conceptually direct linkage between customer engagement and brand loyalty (Brodie et al.,
660 2011), thus substantiating the theoretical underpinnings of social media CBE.
Finally, this study was conducted in a developing country (Jordan) due to the different
values and characteristics compared to the more researched contexts of developed countries
(Algharabat et al., 2020), which supports the generalizability of the social media CBE by
providing evidence from a different cultural background context.

5.2 Practical implications

By addressing the main antecedents of social media CBE and their consequences for brand
trust and loyalty. First, both brand interactivity and involvement based on social media
exhibited have statistically significant effects on CBE. Customers who interact directly with
airline brands over social media platforms have a highly relevant influence on CBE. Two-way
communication on the airline’s Facebook page could encourage customers to offer feedback
when they perceive that the airline brand is highly interactive and effectively responds to
their specific requirements. In addition, the perceived social media brand involvement is
important in stimulating customers’ cognitive processing, affection and activation (i.e. CBE)
in the social media marketing environment, where involvement plays a vital role in the
customer–brand relationship. Accordingly, marketing managers may use this finding to
develop customer–brand relationships to drive the involvement of existing and potential
consumers. To do so, the airline’s Facebook page content should be designed based on the
customer interests, values and needs that motivate a customer to engage with the brand over
social media platforms. Thus, we suggest that if airline companies improve brand
involvement by creating what is important according to the customer demands, this
would enhance customer engagement level with airline companies’ Facebook pages.
Second, our findings indicate that if airline marketing managers wish to increase and
enhance their Facebook page brand loyalty, they must promote the development of customer
engagement on their social media brand. This implies that marketers could increase brand
loyalty over social media platforms by creating a close relationship between customers and
brands. Social media is the ideal channel through which to increase the customer’s level of
cognitive processing, affection and activation (i.e. CBE) with a brand. Importantly, by
increasing the level of CBE process that leads to more measurable outcomes such as brand
trust, airlines companies will attract more loyal consumers over the social media platforms.
Finally, the study confirms the mediating effect of brand trust through which social media
CBE influences the behavioral aspect of brand loyalty, which may provide fertile ground for
airline managers to redesign their engagement strategies and tactics. Our findings suggest that
the behavioral aspect of brand loyalty can be easily achieved when the CBE goes through the
process of faithfully building brand trust. Instilling confidence and trust in customers is a way of
building a strong relationship between customers and brands, also driving customers to engage
with airline brands on Facebook pages. For example, marketing managers in the airline industry
should provide the promised services to customers (Agustin and Singh, 2005).

5.3 Limitations and directions for future research

Although this study made several theoretical and practical contributions to the body of
literature on social media CBE research, there are several limitations that should be
acknowledged. First, as our hypotheses were tested using a convenience sample of The mediating
consumers who follow Royal Jordanian Airlines on Facebook, our results are generalizable effect of brand
with some limitation to the context of social media platforms particularly Facebook users
within the airline context. Second, we also looked only at customers who follow the Royal
trust
Jordanian Facebook page and did not take into account other social media platforms such as
Instagram and Twitter. We call for future research to validate the study research model by
examining these platforms to increase the generalizability of our findings. Third, the study
investigates the role of social media CBE based on Hollebeek et al.’s (2014) work. So et al.’s 661
(2014) customer engagement scale, as adapted by previous studies (e.g. Gomez et al., 2019;
Harrigan et al., 2017), could be used and compared with the Hollebeek scale in terms of
predictive and explanatory power (Harrigan et al., 2018). Further studies might also provide
further insights into the nature of the relationship between social media CBE and brand-
related outcomes, using a different context such as hotels and mobile phone service providers.
Another stream of future research may consider the cultural factors that may impact the
results. Finally, a longitudinal study is needed to improve the generalization of results.

References
Agustin, C. and Singh, J. (2005), “Curvilinear effects of consumer loyalty determinants in relational
exchanges”, Journal of Marketing Research, SAGE Publications, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 96-108.
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, p. 101767.
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.
Barclay, D., Higgins, C. and Thompson, R. (1995), “The partial least squares (PLS) approach to casual
modeling: personal computer adoption and use as an illustration”, Technology Studies, Vol. 2
No. 2, pp. 285-309.
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-1182.
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, SAGE Publications,
Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 341-356.
Bowden, J.L.-H. (2009), “The process of customer engagement: a conceptual framework”, Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 63-74.
Brislin, R.W. (1986), “The wording and translation of research instruments”, Field Methods in Cross-
Cultural Research, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 137-164.
Brodie, R.J., Hollebeek, L.D., Juric, B. and Ilic, A. (2011), “Customer engagement: conceptual domain,
fundamental propositions, and implications for research”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 14
No. 3, pp. 252-271.
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.
Busalim, A.H., Ghabban, F. and Hussin, A.R.C. (2021), “Customer engagement behaviour on social
commerce platforms: an empirical study”, Technology in Society, Vol. 64, p. 101437.
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.
Corbitt, B.J., Thanasankit, T. and Yi, H. (2003), “Trust and e-commerce: a study of consumer
perceptions”, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 203-215.
JRIM Dessart, L. (2017), “Social media engagement: a model of antecedents and relational outcomes”,
Journal of Marketing Management, Routledge, Vol. 33 Nos 5-6, pp. 375-399.
16,4
Dessart, L., Veloutsou, C. and Morgan-Thomas, A. (2015), “Consumer engagement in online brand
communities: a social media perspective”, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 24
No. 1, pp. 28-42.
Dijkmans, C., Kerkhof, P. and Beukeboom, C.J. (2015), “A stage to engage: social media use and
corporate reputation”, Tourism Management, Vol. 47, pp. 58-67.
662
Dijkstra, T.K. and Henseler, J. (2015), “Consistent partial least squares path modeling”, MIS Quarterly,
Management Information Systems Research Center, University of Minnesota, Vol. 39 No. 2,
pp. 297-316.
Fernandes, T. and Moreira, M. (2019), “Consumer brand engagement, satisfaction and brand loyalty: a
comparative study between functional and emotional brand relationships”, Journal of Product
and Brand Management, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 274-286.
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.
France, C., Merrilees, B. and Miller, D. (2016), “An integrated model of customer-brand engagement:
drivers and consequences”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 119-136.
Gligor, D. and Bozkurt, S. (2021), “The impact of perceived brand interactivity on customer purchases.
The mediating role of perceived brand fairness and the moderating role of brand involvement”,
Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print, doi: 10.1108/
JPBM-12-2019-2692.
Gligor, D., Bozkurt, S. and Russo, I. (2019), “Achieving customer engagement with social media: a
qualitative comparative analysis approach”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 101, pp. 59-69.
Gomez, M., Lopez, C. and Molina, A. (2019), “An integrated model of social media brand engagement”,
Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 96, pp. 196-206.
Hair, J.F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M. and Mena, J.A. (2012), “An assessment of the use of partial least
squares structural equation modeling in marketing research”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 414-433.
Halaszovich, T. and Nel, J. (2017), “Customer–brand engagement and Facebook fan-page ‘Like’-
intention”, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 120-134.
Harman, H.H. (1976), Modern Factor Analysis, 2nd ed., University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Harrigan, P., Evers, U., Miles, M. and Daly, T. (2017), “Customer engagement with tourism social
media brands”, Tourism Management, Vol. 59, pp. 597-609.
Harrigan, P., Evers, U., Miles, M.P. and Daly, T. (2018), “Customer engagement and the relationship
between involvement, engagement, self-brand connection and brand usage intent”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 88, pp. 388-396.
He, H., Li, Y. and Harris, L. (2012), “Social identity perspective on brand loyalty”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 65 No. 5, pp. 648-657.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2015), “A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity
in variance-based structural equation modeling”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 115-135.
Hinson, R., Boateng, H., Renner, A. and Kosiba, J.P.B. (2019), “Antecedents and consequences of
customer engagement on Facebook: an attachment theory perspective”, Journal of Research in
Interactive Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 204-226.
Hollebeek, L.D. (2011), “Demystifying customer brand engagement: exploring the loyalty nexus”,
Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 27 Nos 7-8, pp. 785-807.
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), “S-D logic–informed customer engagement: The mediating
integrative framework, revised fundamental propositions, and application to CRM”, Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 161-185. effect of brand
Islam, J.U. and Rahman, Z. (2016), “The transpiring journey of customer engagement research in
trust
marketing: a systematic review of the past decade”, Management Decision, Emerald Group
Publishing, Vol. 54 No. 8, pp. 2008-2034.
Islam, J.U., Rahman, Z. and Hollebeek, L.D. (2018), “Consumer engagement in online brand
communities: a solicitation of congruity theory”, Internet Research, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 23-45. 663
Kabadayi, S. and Price, K. (2014), “Consumer – brand engagement on Facebook: liking and
commenting behaviors”, edited by Angela Hausman, D., Journal of Research in Interactive
Marketing, Emerald Group Publishing, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 203-223.
Kumar, J. and Nayak, J.K. (2019), “Consumer psychological motivations to customer brand
engagement: a case of brand community”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Emerald
Publishing, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 168-177.
Labrecque, L.I. (2014), “Fostering consumer–brand relationships in social media environments: the
role of parasocial interaction”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 134-148.
Laroche, M., Habibi, M.R., Richard, M.-O. and Sankaranarayanan, R. (2012), “The effects of social
media based brand communities on brand community markers, value creation practices, brand
trust and brand loyalty”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 1755-1767.
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.
Li, M.-W., Teng, H.-Y. and Chen, C.-Y. (2020), “Unlocking the customer engagement-brand loyalty
relationship in tourism social media: the roles of brand attachment and customer trust”, Journal
of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Vol. 44, pp. 184-192.
Liu, F., Li, J., Mizerski, D. and Soh, H. (2012), “Self-congruity, brand attitude, and brand loyalty:
a study on luxury brands”, edited by Abimbola, T., European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46
Nos 7/8, pp. 922-937.
Mukherjee, K. and Banerjee, N. (2019), “Social networking sites and customers’ attitude towards
advertisements”, Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, Emerald Publishing Limited,
Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 477-491.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978), “An overview of psychological measurement”, in Wolman, B.B. (Ed.), Clinical
Diagnosis of Mental Disorders, Springer US, Boston, MA, pp. 97-146.
Obilo, O.O., Chefor, E. and Saleh, A. (2021), “Revisiting the consumer brand engagement concept”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 126, pp. 634-643.
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.
Raji, R.A., Rashid, S. and Ishak, S. (2019), “The mediating effect of brand image on the relationships
between social media advertising content, sales promotion content and behavioural
intention”, Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, Emerald Publishing, Vol. 13 No. 3,
pp. 302-330.
Read, W., Robertson, N., McQuilken, L. and Ferdous, A.S. (2019), “Consumer engagement on
Twitter: perceptions of the brand matter”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 53 No. 9,
pp. 1905-1933.
Ringle, C.M., Wende, S. and Becker, J.-M. (2015), SmartPLS 3, SmartPLS GmbH, Boenningstedt.
Roberts, K. (2014), Convenience Sampling through Facebook, SAGE Publications, London, Vol. 1.
Royal Jordanian (2017), “Royal Jordanian wins prestigious awards for social media campaign - Royal
Jordanian”, Rj.Com, available at: https://rj.com/de/meet-rj/our-media-center/news/2017/06/07/
prestigious-awards-for-social-media (accessed 28 March 2020).
JRIM So, K.K.F., King, C. and Sparks, B. (2014), “Customer engagement with tourism brands: scale
development and validation”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, Vol. 38 No. 3,
16,4 pp. 304-329.
So, K.K.F., King, C., Sparks, B.A. and Wang, Y. (2016), “The role of customer engagement in building
consumer loyalty to tourism brands”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 64-78.
Urban, G.L., Sultan, F. and Qualls, W.J. (2000), “Placing trust at the center of your internet strategy”,
Sloan Management Review, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 39-48.
664
Vander Schee, B.A., Peltier, J. and Dahl, A.J. (2020), “Antecedent consumer factors, consequential
branding outcomes and measures of online consumer engagement: current research and future
directions”, Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 239-268.
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.
Wang, C.L. (2021), “New frontiers and future directions in interactive marketing: inaugural editorial”,
Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, Emerald Publishing, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 1-9.
Zaichkowsky, J.L. (1985), “Measuring the involvement construct”, Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 12 No. 3, p. 341.
Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L. and Parasuraman, A. (1996), “The behavioral consequences of service
quality”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 31-46.

About the authors

Tariq Samarah is a PhD candidate at Girne American University. His current areas of research are in
digital marketing and e-commerce in general, and consumer behavior in particular.
Pelin Bayram is an Assistant Professor at European University of Lefke. She holds a BA degree in
Faculty of Communication and Media Studies from Eastern Mediterranean University, an MBA degree
in Business Administration from Istanbul Bilgi University, and a PhD degree in Marketing from Girne
American University. She was the Head of Business Management and IACBE and ECBE Accreditation
Coordinator for the Faculty of Business and Economics in Girne American University since 2008.
Hasan Yousef Aljuhmani is a senior lecturer and research assistant at the centre for management
research (CMR) at Girne American University. His research interests are in strategic management,
public administration, strategic HRM and marketing strategy in general; upper echelons theory (UET),
organizational behavior and strategic leadership in particular.
Dr. Hamzah Elrehail serves as an Assistant Professor of Management at Abu Dhabi School of
Management, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. His research spans into Leadership, HRM, Innovation
management, Knowledge management and Strategy. He published several papers in ISI and Scopus
indexed journals such as European Journal of International Management, Computers in Human
Behaviour, Telematics and Informatics, Journal of Workplace Learning, Journal of Information
Technology, Journal of Innovation and Knowledge and Journal of Intellectual Capital. Hamzah Elrehail
is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: cs-hamzah@hotmail.com; h.elrehail@adsm.ac.ae

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
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.