Antecedents and Consequences

of Online Engagement: Measurement

and Assessment of Reliability
Harsandaldeep Kaur*
and Mandakini Paruthi**

The present study focuses on a novel relationship marketing concept of online engagement.
On the basis of an extensive literature review, the study postulates a series of research
propositions to explain the interrelationships between antecedents of online engagement
on the one hand and online engagement and its consequences on the other. The study
developed a comprehensive framework of a multidimensional online engagement construct
and analyzed its antecedents and consequences. Furthermore, the study develops, refines,
and validates the measures of online engagement construct, its antecedents, and
consequences. The various validation processes employed to assess the psychometric
properties of the developed questionnaire to measure online engagement and to study the
relationship among its antecedents and consequences were discussed. The current study
was carried out in August 2016. The processes undertaken were: content validity,
reliability assessment using item to total score, corrected item-to-total, means and
variances criterion. Cronbach’s alpha correlation coefficient and Exploratory Factor
Analysis (EFA) were used to assess the construct validity. The results of the study
proved the final questionnaire consisting of 64 items reliable and valid for measuring
online engagement and its antecedents and consequences.

Introduction
The rise of the computer-mediated environment has led to the formation and proliferation
of virtual brand communities (Muniz and O’Guinn, 2001; and Wirtz et al., 2013).
These virtual brand communities provide a platform for stimulating social interaction.
These social interactions provide intellectual and social support through experiences of
learning, social activism and fellowship (Algesheimer et al., 2005). Central to discussions
about virtual brand communities is the usage of the terms ‘engage’ and/or ‘engagement’
(Brodie et al., 2013). Algesheimer et al. (2005) introduced the concept of engagement.
The authors found that identification with the brand community leads to community
engagement. Schau et al. (2009) also reveal the relevance of the engagement construct
in the value creation process within virtual brand communities’ context. Brodie et al.

* Assistant Professor, Department of Commerce, Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, Punjab, India.
E-mail: [email protected]
** Research Scholar, Department of Commerce, Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, Punjab, India;
and is the corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]

© 2019 IUP. and

Antecedents All Rights Reserved.
Consequences of Online Engagement: 1
Measurement and Assessment of Reliability
(2013) divulge the enhanced usage of these concepts but even then little heed has been
paid by researchers towards the conceptual development and growth of the ‘consumer
engagement’ concept in virtual brand communities’ settings.
In 2005, the consumer engagement concept came into limelight among academicians
and practitioners. Consumer engagement has been recognized as a competitive source of
advantage and also as a measure of increasing company’s revenue and profitability
(Voyles, 2007). Consumer engagement is also seen as a vehicle for creating and constructing
consumer brand relationships (Brodie et al., 2013).
Consumer engagement was one of the top research priorities of Marketing Science
Institute (MSI) for the period 2010-2012 and 2014-2016. Many academic journals
have released their special issues focusing either on consumer or on customer engagement
(i.e., Journal of Service Research, 2010; Journal of Product and Brand Management, 2014;
Journal of Marketing Management, 2016). In 2010-12, MSI defined customer engagement
as customers’ behavioral manifestation toward a brand or firm beyond purchase which
results from motivational drivers including word-of-mouth activity, recommendations,
customer-to-customer interactions, blogging, writing reviews, and so forth. This definition
of consumer engagement was in correspondence with the delineation made by Van Doorn
et al. (2010). Nambisan and Baron (2007) also emphasized the need to maintain the
focus on interactions in virtual or online brand communities’ context. These interactions
influence consumers’ attitude towards the brand.
Despite primary claims, insights into consumer engagement concept remain scant
and largely lacking measurement capability and empirical validation to-date (Hollebeek
et al., 2014). Brodie et al. (2013) highlighted that the nature of virtual brand
communities and their consequences on consumer behavior remain vague. In addition
to this, there is a lack of consensus among researchers on how to measure the construct
of online engagement. This paper answers Brodie et al. (2013) observation regarding the
need to develop a theoretical framework to study engagement in virtual brand
communities’ context.

Literature Review and Hypotheses Development

Definition: Online Engagement
‘Online Engagement’ in virtual brand communities or in computer-mediated entities is
characterized by the consumer’s specific interactive experiences with the brand. It is
defined as a “Consumer’s psychological state of mind and intensity of customer’s
awareness, affection, participation, and connection towards the brand”. Examples of
customers’ ‘conscious attention’ include the degree of interest the person has or wishes
to have while interacting with focus of their engagement, ‘affection’ represents person’s
attachment, ‘participation’ represents zealous reactions and feelings of a person while
‘connection’ may be expressed as enhancement of interaction based on inclusion of
others with the focus of engagement (Vivek et al., 2014).

2 The IUP Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. XVIII, No. 2, 2019

 The present conceptualization of online engagement draws on the conceptualization
used by Vivek et al. (2012 and 2014), Hollebeek (2011a and 2011b) and Hollebeek
et al. (2014). While surveying the literature, it was found that practitioners have shown
a keen interest in ‘consumer engagement’ domain. The Gallup Group (Appelbaum,
2001) developed a novel 11-question metric of ‘consumer engagement’ known as CE11
(see Appendix 1). CE11 measures rational formulations of loyalty based on overall
satisfaction, intent to repurchase and recommend. It has also added eight measures of
emotional attachment which encompasses confidence, integrity, pride and passion for
the brand. It also proposes that overall consumer engagement score is the most potent
forecaster of customer loyalty. Despite these progressions in practitioners’ literature,
academic research on this novel concept of ‘consumer engagement’ in ‘online media’
context is lagging behind. There exists a need for scholarly research in the domain of
consumer engagement (Hollebeek, 2011a).
On the basis of existing research, we propose Brand Relationship Quality (BRQ),
up-to-date information, Brand Community Identification (BCI) and Rewards (Hedonic
and Utilitarian) as antecedents of online engagement. It is also posited that online
engagement has a direct effect which led to the identification of the four consequences:
brand love, brand loyalty, brand commitment and positive word-of-mouth. We could
also identify the strong possibility of consumer brand relationship by the ‘Brand
Relationship Quality’ construct on the possible relationship between three antecedents
and online engagement construct. The present study endeavored to propose eight
hypotheses that have led to the meaningful conceptual framework.
Summary of Formulated Hypotheses
Antecedents of Online Engagement
While discussing the antecedents of online engagement, it is relevant to recognize that
online engagement can develop antecedents either based on consumer relationship with
a virtual brand community or based on rewards associated with virtual brand community
or based on consumer’s recognition with it. For example, a consumer can join an online
brand community and develop a strong liking for the brand without having a chance to
experience it. Moreover, individual personality traits can play a significant role in engaging
the customers towards a virtual brand community. Advertisers used to imbue brands with
personality traits via anthropomorphization and personification (Aaker, 1997). As a result
of these efforts, consumers start associating their self-concept with the brands (Fournier,
1998). Therefore, our discussion of antecedents of online engagement is organized under
three headings. First, we introduce the relationship-based antecedent. These variables
relate to the consumer relationship with the brand as a product or service (BRQ). Second,
we discuss the reward-based antecedents and lastly, we discuss the antecedents that are
based on consumer recognition with the virtual brand community as a whole (BCI).
Relationship and Reward-Based Antecedents of Online Engagement
Algesheimer et al. (2005) defined Online BC Engagement as consumer’s intrinsic source
of motivation to interact and cooperate with other community members, thus spurring

Antecedents and Consequences of Online Engagement: 3

Measurement and Assessment of Reliability
consumer-to-brand and consumer-to-consumer relationships. The construct which we
chose for our model is ‘BRQ’ which addresses consumer’s relation with the brand. Taking
into consideration the customer-centric view of brand relationships as discussed by
Fournier (1998), Algesheimer et al. (2005) define BRQ as the degree to which the
consumer views the brand as a satisfactory partner in an ongoing relationship. Fournier
(1998) inducted six-faceted BRQ construct circumventing: love and passion, self-
connection, interdependence, commitment, intimacy and brand partner quality as its
facets. The multidimensional nature of the construct illuminates that (love/passion and
self-connection) dimensions develop affective and socio-emotional attachments,
(interdependence and commitment) facets help in formation of behavioral ties, and
(intimacy and brand partner quality) together supports cognitive beliefs. Furthermore,
BRQ evolves through purposeful consumer brand actions. Algesheimer et al. (2005)
posits that the consumer relation with the brand drives him/her to develop a relationship
with the virtual brand community. They unwrap that harmonious relationship with
the brand that guides the consumers to look out and interact with other fellow individuals
who share the same zeal and exuberance. As a result, consumer relationships with his or
her brand predate and serve as a basis for connecting and engaging in a virtual brand
community. Thus:

Proposition 1: BRQ has a positive influence on online engagement in a social

media context.

Chan et al. (2014) found that the perceived rewards are positively related to customer
engagement in online brand communities on social networking sites. Rewards refer to
utilitarian and hedonic benefits which significantly influences consumers’ community
commitment (Jang et al., 2008; and Baldus et al., 2015). Foster et al. (2011) in their
empirical study found ‘information value’ as a main instigator for participation in social
networking sites. While LaRose et al. (2001) argued that the Internet is being viewed as
a source of entertaining activities rather than just a depository of data. Sheldon (2008)
proposed that a significant number of students use social networking sites for
entertainment reasons. Jahn and Kunz (2012) determined that brand’s Facebook fan
page that provides functional and hedonic value leads to higher fan-page usage. Based
on this, we propose that:

Proposition 2: Rewards (both utilitarian and hedonic) has a positive influence

on online engagement.

Recognition and Information-Based Antecedents of Online Engagement

When consumers start recognizing themselves with an online brand community, it results
in interactive participation (Brodie et al., 2011 and 2013; and Wirtz et al., 2013).
This interactive participation is a must for online engagement. Hughes and Ahearne
(2010) consider brand identification as a social construct that involves the integration
of perceived brand identity into consumer’s self-identity. Zhou et al. (2012) discussed
that BCI refers to members’ sense of being a part of the virtual brand community. Wirtz

4 The IUP Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. XVIII, No. 2, 2019

et al. (2013) were of the view that such identification becomes precursor to the customer’s
participation and affiliation with the virtual brand community. They also posit that
brand communities’ provide an efficient platform for veteran and engaged users of the
brand. While researching the idea of brand identification in the context of European
Car Clubs, Algesheimer et al. (2005) admitted the strength of BCI. The authors also
postulated that consumers’ relationship with the brand impacts consumers’ identification
with the community and it further contributes to brand community engagement. In
their research work, the authors empirically found that the influence of brand community
identification on community engagement is firm and positive (Wirtz et al., 2013).
Consequently, we propose that

Proposition 3: BCI has a positive influence on online engagement.

Muniz and O’Guinn (2001) discoursed that in a well-established online brand

community, members turn to one another for information on brand-related resources.
Dholakia et al. (2004) suggests that informational value is one that the member gains
from sharing information in the virtual community. Furthermore, Baldus et al. (2015)
found up-to-date information as one source of motivation that drives consumers to
interact and participate in virtual brand communities. Wirtz et al. (2013) also observed
information quality as one of the drivers of Brand Community Engagement. Thus, we
propose that

Proposition 4: Up-to-date information has positive influence on online engagement.

Consequences of Online Engagement

Previous empirical research studies suggest that love for a brand is an important ingredient
for maintaining a long-lasting relationship with their consumers. Carroll and Ahuvia
(2006) introduced a new construct that is used to measure satisfied consumers’ feelings
of love for a given brand and they label the construct as ‘Brand Love’. While Lastovicka
and Sirianni (2011) unveiled that brand love represents a love for more freely replaceable
objects. Batra et al. (2012) ascertained brand love as a broad, long-term consumer-
brand relationship, with multiple interconnected cognitive, affective, and behavioral
elements. Therefore, researchers determine brand love as a relationship rather than a
single transient emotion and used the term ‘brand love’ to refer to the consumer-brand
relationship. Practitioner’s reports on Consumer Engagement reveal that nowadays
customer engagement model have taken ‘consumer loyalty’ to a different level. Sedley
(2007) defined customer engagement that strengthens the emotional, psychological or
physical investment a customer has in his/her brand. He reveals that customer engagement
is a process that helps in developing and nurturing consumer brand relationships or
brand love. Thus, we posit that
Proposition 5: Online engagement in social media-based brand communities
leads to brand love.
Previous research suggests that customers’ engagement in virtual brand communities
leads to brand loyalty (Algesheimer et al., 2005; Gummerus et al., 2012; Brodie et al.,

Antecedents and Consequences of Online Engagement: 5

Measurement and Assessment of Reliability
2013; Wirtz et al., 2013; and Hollebeek et al., 2014). Oliver (1999) conceptualized
brand loyalty as a “deeply held commitment to rebuy or re-patronize a preferred product/
service consistently in the future despite other situational and marketing that have the
potential to cause switching behavior”. McAlexander et al. (2002) hypothesized that
consumer brand relationship within a virtual brand community proved to be quite
useful in generating customer loyalty. Gummerus et al. (2012) discussed that customer
involvement in online brand communities’ affects loyalty positively. Shang et al. (2006)
empirically proved that lurking participation behavior in online brand communities
affects brand loyalty more than posting participation behavior. Algesheimer et al. (2005)
empirically proved that stronger community engagement leads to stronger membership
continuance intentions and in turn lead to stronger brand loyalty intentions. Brodie
et al. (2013) also described loyalty, satisfaction, consumer empowerment, connection,
trust and commitment as the outcome of the consumer engagement process. The authors
also disclose that engaged users of virtual brand communities demonstrate higher consumer
loyalty. Thus, we elicit that:

Proposition 6: Online Engagement in social media-based brand communities

leads to brand loyalty.

Allen and Meyer (1990) identified affective, continuance, and normative as three
different facets of commitment. But past researchers Gundlach et al. (1995), Harrison-
Walker (2001), Gilliland and Bello (2002), and Fullerton (2005) were of the view that
commitment has two components: an affective component and a continuance component.
The first component is based on liking and identification while the second component is
based on dependence and switching costs (Allen and Meyer, 1990). Though, commitment
symbolizes customers’ feelings about the act of maintaining a relationship with a brand
(Fullerton, 2005). Muniz and O’Guinn (2001) in their seminal research paper on
brand communities highlighted the relevance of strong brand community in establishing
brand commitment. Kim et al. (2008) empirically found that online community members
possess stronger brand commitment. Wirtz et al. (2013) supported this finding and
reveals that committed individuals are more likely to develop positive belief and behaviors
toward the brand. Accordingly, we propose that:

Proposition 7: Online engagement in social media-based brand communities

leads to brand commitment.

Bone (1995) was of the view that word-of-mouth is viewed more than a ‘promotional
tool’ which is used to attract customers to an outlet. While discussing valence of word-
of-mouth, Anderson (1998) explained that positive word-of-mouth intromits pleasurable,
bright or refreshing experiences; recommendations to others; and even blazing display.
Vivek et al. (2012) also suggested that if customers are highly engaged with the brand,
they are more likely to communicate the positive word-of-mouth and act as a brand
preacher. Woisetschlager et al. (2008) empirically found that consumer participation in
a virtual brand community positively influences word-of-mouth behaviors. Madupu
and Cooley (2010) also proposed that active lurkers will exercise a positive influence on

6 The IUP Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. XVIII, No. 2, 2019

the brand recommendation intention. Chan et al. (2014) also found that consumer
engagement in online brand communities impacts word-of-mouth intentions significantly.
Therefore, we infer that those consumers who are highly engaged in virtual brand
communities exhibit positive word-of-mouth.

Proposition 8: Online engagement in social media-based brand communities

leads to positive word-of-mouth.

The research propositions discussed above are taken in the theoretical model shown
in Figure 1. Arrows flow from independent variables to the outcomes. Several variables
like size of virtual brand community, customers’ brand knowledge moderate the proposed
relationships. However, since the focus of the paper is to provide a conceptual framework
focusing on online engagement, the probable roles played by those mediating or moderating
variable have not been discussed here.

Figure 1: Proposed Conceptual Framework

BRQ Brand
Love

BCI Brand
Online Loyalty
Engagement
Rewards
Brand
Commitment

Up-to-Date Positive
Information WOM

Objective
Specifically, the objectives of the present study are: first, to identify the antecedents and
consequences of online engagement and put forward several propositions to explicate
the mediating role of online engagement between its antecedents and consequences; and
second, to develop, refine and validate measures for measuring the construct of online
engagement and its antecedents, consequences and moderator.

Context of the Study

The study is carried out on Facebook users in India. India is the second largest
market for Facebook globally. Mobile phone Facebook users are expected to surpass
124 million users by 2016.1 In India, all the companies have started using Facebook
to make their presence felt on social media and to widen up their existing consumer
1
http://www.emarketer.com/Article/Facebook-Closes-on-1-Billion-Mobile-Users-Worldwide/1011881

Antecedents and Consequences of Online Engagement: 7

Measurement and Assessment of Reliability
base. Facebook has also empowered the consumers by providing them a platform to
raise their voice and concerns.

Data and Methodology

An extensive literature review suggests that fostering online engagement on social media
platforms depends on brand relationship quality, brand community identification,
rewards and up-to-date information. The online engagement further generates brand
love, brand loyalty, brand commitment and positive word-of-mouth among its engaged
consumers with brand knowledge acting as a moderator. We propose to develop, refine
and validate the measures of all the constructs of the conceptual model. The study has
followed the recommendations of Churchill et al. (1974), Churchill (1979) and Saxe
and Wietz (1982) for assessing the reliability and validity of the measures of all constructs
of the proposed conceptual framework. Reliability analysis techniques embracing item
to total score, corrected item-to-total, means and variances and Cronbach's alpha and
Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) were employed to analyze the data.

Results and Discussion

Item Generation and Item Selection Method
Defining the Construct and Specifying Its Domain
Churchill et al. (1974) discussed that the foremost and vital step in the development of
valid measures is to define the domain of the construct being measured operationally. In
addition to this, the development of a collection of scale items that is a representative
sample of all items in the domain is also required. In the first step, all the constructs
were first conceptually defined and their domain was also delineated.
Development of an Initial Item Pool
Initially, to generate a large pool of items, the study carried out an extensive literature
survey and conducted several in-depth interviews with fan page likers. This process
resulted in the generation of 80 items to measures the various constructs of the proposed
model. The items adapted from existing scales were modified as per requirement of the
study. In order to avoid biasness in the response set, some of the items in each sub-scale
were negatively stated (Churchill et al., 1974; and Churchill, 1979). Finally, a
questionnaire measuring each item on a seven-point (ranging from Very Strongly Disagree
to Very Strongly Agree) Likert scale got developed.
Assessing Content Validity
Kumar and Beyerlien (1991) were of the view that a questionnaire is a content valid if
the items included in the instrument completely measure the construct of interest and
the items represent the content area. The certainty of content validity is subject to
theoretical item generation and judging efforts (Netemeyer et al., 2003). A panel of
three marketing academicians was contacted to serve as judges to assess the content
validity. These judges were asked to review the selected items. Items which they consider

8 The IUP Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. XVIII, No. 2, 2019

irrelevant or ambiguous were deleted. This process resulted in the elimination of 10
items, leaving a pool of 70 items for further analysis. Therefore, the measures demonstrate
content validity. The remaining 70 items were then integrated into a questionnaire.
Data Collection
To further reduce the pool of items, the remaining 70 items (see Appendix 2) were
pretested with a convenience sample of 190 respondents. These respondents were the
graduate students of a government university in Punjab. Table 1 provides the summary
of the composition of the sample population. The sample consisted of 133 (70%) females
and 57 (30%) males.

Table 1: Composition of Sample

Demographics No. of Respondents

Gender Males 57 (30%)
Females 133 (70%)

Assessing Reliability
Reliability is basically related with that part of measurement that is permanent and
prevails across the samples (Netemeyer et al., 2003). It indicates the amount of
measurement error inbuilt in an instrument (Churchill et al., 1974). According to
Peter (1979), unreliability is caused by the measurement error. Churchill et al. (1974)
argued that measurement error and reliability are directly related to the internal
consistency of the items included in the instrument. Internal consistency assesses item
interrelatedness and was measured by employing item-total score correlations, corrected
item-to-total correlations and means and variance (Kumar and Beyerlien, 1991;
Netemeyer et al., 2003; and Thomas et al., 2005). Churchill et al. (1974) posited that
this internal consistency principle is employed by the researchers to appraise and reduce
the number of items from the initial instrument. Item analysis was carried out in the
following stages:

Stage 1: Item to Total Score Criterion: To check the internal homogeneity of items,
each item of the construct was correlated with the total score of its construct (Nunnally
et al., 1967). These item-to-total correlations were then analyzed to determine whether
each item is correlated with one dimension and in those cases where an item is correlated
with its dimension, whether that correlation made conceptual sense (Ruekert and
Churchill, 1984). Items which have low correlations with the total score became
candidates for deletion (Churchill et al., 1974; and Ruekert and Churchill, 1984).
Stage 1 resulted in the deletion of three items from the scale and now the scale is left
with 67 items.

Stage 2: Corrected Item-to-Total Correlation: For each set of items representing online
engagement dimensions, corrected item-to-total subscale correlations were studied.
Nunnally et al. (1994) were of the view that items with high corrected item-to-total

Antecedents and Consequences of Online Engagement: 9

Measurement and Assessment of Reliability
correlation have more variance relating to what the items have in common and add
more to the test reliability than items with low corrected item-to-total correlation. Items
with low corrected item-to-total correlations were candidates for deletion (Zaichkowsky
1985; Tian et al., 2001; and Netemeyer et al., 2003). Items with corrected item-to-total
correlations less than 0.35 were deleted and rest were retained (Saxe and Weitz, 1982;
and Bearden et al., 2001). This stage of item analysis led to the deletion of three more
items and the scale was left with 64 items.

Stage 3: Means and Variances: Items that had both mean ratings above the scale
midpoint and larger variances were retained. This last stage of item analysis does not
result in deletion of any item. So, the scale was left with the same 64 items. Table 2
depicts the reliability coefficients after three stages of item analysis. It is clear from the
table that all the 13 constructs have coefficient alphas above 0.70 which is within
acceptable limits (Nunnally et al., 1994).

Table 2: Reliability Coefficients of Constructs

S. Subscale Alpha Before Alpha After Alpha After Alpha After
No. Constructs Item Analysis Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3

1. Conscious Attention 0.836 (6) 0.836 (6) 0.836 (6) 0.836 (6)

2. Affection 0.689 (6) 0.774 (5) 0.774 (5) 0.774 (5)

3. Enthused Participation 0.82 (6) 0.82 (6) 0.82 (6) 0.82 (6)

4. Social Connection 0.775 (3) 0.775 (3) 0.775 (3) 0.775 (3)

5. BRQ 0.837 (3) 0.837 (3) 0.837 (3) 0.837 (3)

6. BCI 0.821 (6) 0.821 (6) 0.821 (6) 0.821 (6)

7. Rewards 0.668 (5) 0.668 (5) 0.709 (3) 0.709 (3)

8. Up-to-date Information 0.889 (7) 0.889 (7) 0.889 (7) 0.889 (7)

9. Brand Love 0.885 (10) 0.913 (9) 0.931 (8) 0.931 (8)

10. Brand Loyalty 0.744 (6) 0.837 (5) 0.837 (5) 0.837 (5)

11. Brand Commitment 0.845 (4) 0.845 (4) 0.845 (4) 0.845 (4)

12. Positive WOM 0.91 (5) 0.91 (5) 0.91 (5) 0.91 (5)

13. Brand Knowledge 0.833 (3) 0.833 (3) 0.833 (3) 0.833 (3)

10 The IUP Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. XVIII, No. 2, 2019

Assessing Validity
If an instrument does what it is intended to do, then an instrument is said to be valid
(Churchill et al., 1974). According to Peter (1979), validity refers to the degree to
which instruments truly measure the constructs which they are intended to measure. In
this study, we have used content validity and construct validity to find out whether
measures are valid or not.

Construct Validity
Nunnally et al. (1994) were of the view that each measure must measure validly what
it proposes to measure. Netemeyer et al. (2003) discussed that construct validity
represents the extent to which an operational measure truly reflects the concept or
construct being looked into. A measure is construct valid (1) to the degree that it appraises
the magnitude and direction of a representative sample of the characteristic of the
construct; and (2) to the degree that the measure is not contaminated from the elements
from the domain of other constructs (Peter, 1981). Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)
was used to analyze the construct validity. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) with
orthogonal rotation was employed to examine whether items load on its intended factor
or not. Table 3 illustrates the percentage of variance extracted by 13 subscales.

Table 3: Percentage of Variance Extracted

S. No. Subscale Construct % of Variance Extracted

1. Conscious Attention 55.343

2. Affection 53.499

3. Enthused Participation 53.561

4. Social Connection 69.216

5. BRQ 68.342

6. BCI 53.259

7. Rewards 63.421

8. Up-to-date Information 61.171

9. Brand Love 67.582

10. Brand Loyalty 61.213

11. Brand Commitment 68.462

12. Positive WOM 73.732

13. Brand Knowledge 74.975

Antecedents and Consequences of Online Engagement: 11

Measurement and Assessment of Reliability
 Conclusion
Till now, researchers predominantly engrossed in survey research were not bothered
about assessing the reliability and validity of their questionnaire items before going for
an extensive survey. But now, we can easily assess them by using an item to the total
score, corrected item-to-total, means and variances and exploratory factor analysis
techniques in cost and time-effective manner. The techniques discussed are quantitative
in nature and thus proved to be quite helpful in identifying the potential problems in
the measurement items that are being tested. The present study reports on the
development, refinement and validation of measures for measuring online engagement.
The developed measures demonstrate reliability and both content and construct validity.
In addition to this, the present study also attempted to conceptualize online
engagement construct and delineate its dimensions in the context of social media platform.
We also believe that our study enriches the present literature on online engagement
through clarifying the construct and refining the measurement items of online engagement
dimensions, its antecedents, and consequences. As nowadays, it has become vital for the
companies to focus on generating engaged consumer base that in turn develop and
nurture healthy consumer brand relationship. An in-depth study of the antecedents
and consequences of engagement in the online context is quite beneficial for marketing
managers to develop and reinforce marketing strategies for engaging the consumers. The
developed measures are significant to both academicians and practitioners in their future
research investigations. The study makes an important contribution to marketing literature
by providing empirical evidence on the measures that proved reliable and valid. The
refined measures will be used to collect data for another survey of 600 Facebook users to
empirically test the proposed conceptual model.✪

References
Author, 1. Aaker J L (1997), “Dimensions of Brand Personality”, Journal of Marketing Research,
pl provide Vol. x, No. x, pp. 47-356.
Vol and No.
2. Algesheimer R, Dholakia U M and Herrmann A (2005), “The Social Influence of
Brand Community: Evidence from European Car Clubs”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 19-34.

3. Allen N J and Meyer J P (1990), “The Measurement and Antecedents of Affective,

Continuance and Normative Commitment to the Organization”, Journal of
Occupational Psychology, Vol. 63, No. 1, pp. 1-18.

4. Anderson E W (1998), “Customer Satisfaction and Word-of-Mouth”, Journal of

Service Research, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 5-17.

5. Appelbaum Alec (2001), The Constant Consumer. Retrieved on June 17, 2001.

6. Baldus B J, Voorhees C and Calantone R (2015), “Online Brand Community

Engagement: Scale Development and Validation”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 68, No. 5, pp. 978-985.

12 The IUP Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. XVIII, No. 2, 2019

 7. Batra R, Ahuvia A and Bagozzi R P (2012), “Brand Love”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 76, No. 2, pp. 1-16.
8. Bearden W O, Hardesty D M and Rose R L (2001), “Consumer Self-Confidence:
Refinements in Conceptualization and Measurement”, Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 121-134.
9. Bone P F (1995), “Word-of-Mouth Effects on Short-Term and Long-Term Product
Judgments”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp. 213-223.
10. Brodie R J, Hollebeek L D, Juric B and Ilic A (2011), “Customer Engagement:
Conceptual Domain, Fundamental Propositions, and Implications for Research”,
Author, pl
Journal of Service Research, Vol. xx, No. xx, pp. xxxx.
provide Vol,
No. and pp 11. 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.
12. Carroll B A and Ahuvia A C (2006), “Some Antecedents and Outcomes of Brand
Love”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 79-89.
Author, pl 13. Chan T KH et al. (2014), “Antecedents and Consequences of Customer Engagement
provide all the in Online Brand Communities”, Journal of Marketing Analytics, Vol. 2, No. 2,
names
pp. 81-97.
Author, pl 14. Churchill Jr G A (1979), “A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing
provide Vol Constructs”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. xx, No. xx, pp. 64-73.
and No.
15. Churchill Jr G A, Ford N M and Walker Jr O C (1974), “Measuring the Job
Satisfaction of Industrial Salesmen”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. x, No. x, Author,
pl provide
pp. 254-260.
Vol and No.
16. Dholakia U M, Bagozzi R P and Pearo L K (2004), “A Social Influence Model of
Consumer Participation in Network- and Small-Group-Based Virtual Communities”,
International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 241-263.
17. Foster M, Bettina W and Anthony F (2011), “Exploring Social Media User
Segmentation and Online Brand Profiles”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 19,
No. 1, pp. 4-17.
18. Fournier S (1998), “Consumers and their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory
in Consumer Research”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 343-353.
19. Fullerton G (2005), “The Impact of Brand Commitment on Loyalty to Retail Service
Brands”, Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne des Sciences
de l’Administration, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 97-110.
20. Gilliland D I and Bello D C (2002), “Two Sides to Attitudinal Commitment: The
Effect of Calculative and Loyalty Commitment on Enforcement Mechanisms in
Distribution Channels”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 30, No. 1,
pp. 24-43.

Antecedents and Consequences of Online Engagement: 13

Measurement and Assessment of Reliability
 21. Gummerus J, Veronica L, Emil W and Minna P (2012), “Customer Engagement in
a Facebook Brand Community”, Management Research Review, Vol. 35, No. 9,
pp. 857-877.
22. Gundlach G T, Achrol R S and Mentzer J T (1995), “The Structure of Commitment
Author,
pl provide in Exchange”, The Journal of Marketing, Vol. x, No. x, pp. 78-92.
Vol and No. 23. 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.
24. Hollebeek L D (2011a), “Demystifying Customer Brand Engagement: Exploring
the Loyalty Nexus”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 27, Nos. 7-8,
pp. 785-807.
25. Hollebeek L D (2011b), “Exploring Customer Brand Engagement: Definition and
Themes”, Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 19, No. 7, pp. 555-573.
26. 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.
27. Hughes D E and Ahearne M (2010), “Energizing the Reseller’s Sales Force: The
Power of Brand Identification”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 74, No. 4, pp. 81-96.
28. Jahn B and Kunz W (2012), “How to Transform Consumers into Fans of Your
Brand”, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 344-361.
29. Jang H, Olfman L, Ko I et al. (2008), “The Influence of On-Line Brand Community
Characteristics on Community Commitment and Brand Loyalty”, International Journal
of Electronic Commerce, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 57-80.
Authors, 30. Kim J et al. (2008), “It Takes a Marketplace Community to Raise Brand
pls provide Commitment: The Role of Online Communities”, Journal of Marketing Management,
all the
Vol. 24, Nos. 3-4, pp. 409-431.
names
31. Kuma K and Beyerlein M (1991), “Construction and Validation of an Instrument
for Measuring Ingratiatory Behaviors in Organizational Settings”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 76, No. 5, p. 619.
32. LaRose R, Mastro D and Eastin M S (2001), “Understanding Internet Usage a
Social-Cognitive Approach to Uses and Gratifications”, Social Science Computer Review,
Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 395-413.
33. Lastovicka J L and Sirianni N J (2011), “Truly, Madly, Deeply: Consumers in the
Throes of Material Possession Love”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 38, No. 2,
pp. 323-342.
34. Madupu V and Cooley D O (2010), “Antecedents and Consequences of Online
Brand Community Participation: A Conceptual Framework”, Journal of Internet
Commerce, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 127-147.

14 The IUP Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. XVIII, No. 2, 2019

 35. McAlexander J H, Schouten J W and Koenig H F (2002), “Building Brand
Community”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 66, No. 1, pp. 38-54.

36. MSI. 2010. 2010-2012, Research Priorities, Boston, MA: Author.

37. MSI. 2014. 2014-2016, Research Priorities, Boston, MA: Author.

38. Muniz Jr A M and O’Guinn T C (2001), “Brand Community”, Journal of Consumer

Research, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp. 412-432.

39. Nambisan S and Baron R A (2007), “Interactions in Virtual Customer

Environments: Implications for Product Support and Customer Relationship
Management”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 42-62.

40. Netemeyer R G, Bearden W O and Sharma S (2003), Scaling Procedures: Issues and
Applications, Sage Publications.

41. Nunnally J C, Bernstein I H and Berge J M T (1967), Psychometric Theory,

Vol. 226, McGraw-Hill, New York.

42. Nunnally J C, Bernstein I H and Berge J M T (1994), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-

Hill, New York.
Authors, pls
provide Vol. 43. Oliver R L (1999), “Whence Consumer Loyalty?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. x,
and No. No. x, pp. 33-44.
Authors, pls 44. Peter J P (1979), “Reliability: A Review of Psychometric Basics and Recent Marketing
provide Vol.
Practices”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. x, No. x, pp. 6-17.
and No.
Authors, pls 45. Peter J P (1981), “Construct Validity: A Review of Basic Issues and Marketing
provide Vol. Practices”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. x No. x, pp: 133-145.
and No.
46. Ruekert R W and Churchill Jr G A (1984), “Reliability and Validity of Alternative
Authors, pls Measures of Channel Member Satisfaction”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. x,
provide Vol.
No. x, pp. 226-233.
and No.
Authors, pls 47. Saxe R and Weitz B A (1982), “The SOCO Scale: A Measure of the Customer
provide Vol. Orientation of Salespeople”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. x, No. x,
and No. pp. 343-351.

48. Schau H J, Muñiz Jr A M and Arnould E J (2009), “How Brand Community

Practices Create Value”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 73, No. 5, pp. 30-51.

49. Sedley R (2007), “1st Annual Online Customer Engagement Survey 2007”. Accessed
on July 4, 2015. Retrieved from https://www.slideshare.net/richardsedley/1st-
annual-online-customer-engagement-survey-report-2007-4675441

50. Shang R-A, Yu-Chen C and Hsueh-Jung L (2006), “The Value of Participation in
Virtual Consumer Communities on Brand Loyalty”, Internet Research, Vol. 16,
No. 4, pp. 398-418.

Antecedents and Consequences of Online Engagement: 15

Measurement and Assessment of Reliability
 51. Sheldon P (2008), “The Relationship Between Unwillingness-to-Communicate and
Students’ Facebook Use”, Journal of Media Psychology, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 67-75.

52. Thomson M, MacInnis D J and Park C W (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.

53. Tian K T, Bearden W O and Hunter G L (2001), “Consumers’ Need for Uniqueness:
Scale Development and Validation”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 28, No. 1,
pp. 50-66.

Authors, pl 54. Van Doorn J et al. (2010), “Customer Engagement Behavior: Theoretical Foundations
provide all and Research Directions”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 253-266.
the names
55. 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.

56. Vivek S D, Beatty S E, Dalela V and Morgan R M (2014), “A Generalized

Multidimensional Scale for Measuring Customer Engagement”, Journal of Marketing
Theory and Practice, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 401-420.

57. Voyles B (2007), “Beyond Loyalty: Meeting the Challenge of Customer Engagement”,
Economist Intelligence Unit. Accessed on January 31, 2016, available at http://www.
adobe. com/engagement/pdfs/partI.pdf
Authors, pl
58. Wirtz J et al. (2013), “Managing Brands and Customer Engagement in Online
provide all
the names Brand Communities”, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 223-244.

59. Woisetschläger D M, Hartleb V and Blut M (2008), “How to Make Brand

Communities Work: Antecedents and Consequences of Consumer Participation”,
Journal of Relationship Marketing, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 237-256.

60. Zaichkowsky J L (1985), “Measuring the Involvement Construct”, Journal of Consumer

Research, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 341-352.
Authors, pl 61. Zhou Z et al. (2012), “How Do Brand Communities Generate Brand Relationships?
provide all
Intermediate Mechanisms”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 65, No. 7,
the names
pp. 890-895.

16 The IUP Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. XVIII, No. 2, 2019

 Appendix 1
11-Question Metric of CE11

L3 + A8 = CE11: Questions That Get at the Heart of Customer

Loyalty
L3
• Overall, how satisfied are you with (brand)?
• How likely are you to continue to choose/repurchase (brand)?
• How likely are you to recommend (brand) to a friend/associate?
Emotional Attachment
A8
Confidence
• (Brand) is a name I can always trust.
• (Brand) always delivers on what they promise.
Integrity
• (Brand) always treats me fairly.
• If a problem arises, I can always count on (brand) to reach a fair and satisfactory
resolution.
Pride
• I feel proud to be a (brand) customer.
• (Brand) always treats me with respect.
Passion
• (Brand) is the perfect company for people like me.
• I can’t imagine a world without (brand).

Source: The Constant Consumer by Alec Appelbaum (2001)

Antecedents and Consequences of Online Engagement: 17

Measurement and Assessment of Reliability
 Appendix 2
Constructs and Indicators
Constructs Indicators
Conscious Attention CA1 : I like to know more about X.
(Adapted from Vivek CA2 : I like events that are related to X.
et al., 2014) CA3 : I like to learn more about X.
CA4 : I pay a lot of attention to anything about X.
CA5 : I keep up with things related to X.
CA6 : Anything related to X grabs my attention.
Affection (Adapted from A1 : Engaging with X makes me feel happy.
Hollebeek et al., 2014; A2 : I feel bad when I access X.
and Reitz, 2012)
A3 : I feel the experience on X to be pleasurable.
A4 : Browsing X satisfies me.
A5 : I feel involved with X.
A6 : I have emotional feelings attached to X.
Enthused Participation EP1 : I spend a lot of my free time on X.
(Adapted from Vivek EP2 : I am heavily into X.
et al., 2014)
EP3 : I am passionate about X.
EP4 : My days would not be same without X.
EP5 : I try to fit accessing X into my schedule.
EP6 : I enjoy spending time on X.
Social Connection SC1 : I love accessing X with my friends.
(Adapted from Vivek SC2 : I enjoy using X more when I am with others.
et al., 2014)
SC3 : X is more fun when other people around me
also access it.
Brand Relationship Quality BRQ1 : X says a lot about the kind of person I am.
(Adapted from Algesheimer BRQ2 : X’s brand image and my self-image are similar
et al., 2005)
in many respects.
BRQ3 : X plays an important role in my life.
Brand Community BCI 1 : X success are my successes.
Identification (Adapted from BCI 2 : When someone praises X, it feels like a
Bhattacharya et al., 1995) personal compliment to me.
BCI 3: When someone criticizes X, it feels like
personal insult to me.
BCI 4 : When I talk about X, I usually say ‘we’ rather
than ‘they’.
BCI 5 : I am very interested in what others think
about X.
BCI 6 : I have strong feelings for X.

18 The IUP Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. XVIII, No. 2, 2019

 Appendix 2 (Cont.)
Constructs Indicators

Rewards (Adapted from Baldus RW1 : I like X because it is entertaining.

et al., 2015) RW2 : I enjoy being immersed on X.
RW3 : My main aim of ‘Liking’ X’s is to access to
deals, offers, coupons available.
RW4 : X provokes me to participate by offering
lucrative deals.
RW5 : Without the special deals provided by X, I
would stop being a member of it.
Up-to-date Information Info 1: I get to know information related to offers,
(Adapted from Baldus deals, contests and new variants available
et al., 2015) through X.
Info 2: X keeps me to stay informed.
Info 3: X keeps me informed about the brand.
Info 4: I get access to more information when I
become member of X.
Info 5: The information available on X makes my
buying decision easier.
Info 6: The X is my critical connection for new and
updated information.
Info 7: The X is my essential connection for exclusive
information about the brand.
Brand Love (Adapted from Blove 1: This brand is wonderful.
Caroll and Ahuvia, 2006). Blove 2: This brand makes me feel good.
Blove 3: This brand is totally awesome.
Blove 4: I have neutral feelings for this brand.
Blove 5: This brand makes me very happy.
Blove 6: I love this brand.
Blove 7: I have no particular feelings for this brand.
Blove 8: This brand is pure delight.
Blove 9: I am passionate about this brand.
Blove 10: I am very attached to this brand.

Brand Loyalty (Adapted from Bloyalty 1: I intend to keep on purchasing this brand.
Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001) Bloyalty 2: I will buy this brand next time I go for
purchase.
Bloyalty 3: I would readily pay more for the same
brand.
Bloyalty 4: I intend to reduce the usage of this brand
in near future.

Antecedents and Consequences of Online Engagement: 19

Measurement and Assessment of Reliability
 Appendix 2 (Cont.)
Constructs Indicators

Bloyalty 5: I have strong preference for this brand.

Bloyalty 6: I will try new variants of this brand.

Brand Commitment BCom 1: I feel emotionally attached to this brand.

(Allen and Meyers, 1990; BCom 2: This brand has great deal of personal
and Fullerton, 2005) meaning for me.
BCom 3: I feel a strong sense of identification with
this brand.
BCom 4: I would make a great deal of effort to
maintain my relationship with this brand.

Positive WOM (Adapted WOM 1: I “talk up” about this brand with my
from Zeithmal et al., 1996) friends.
WOM 2: I try to spread the good-word about this
brand.
WOM 3: I have encouraged other people to go for
this brand.
WOM 4: I recommend this brand whenever anyone
seeks my advice.
WOM 5: I have actually recommended this brand to
my friends.

Brand Knowledge (Adapted BK 1: When compared to other people, I know

from Algesheimer et al., a lot about this brand.
2005) BK 2: My friends consider me an expert
regarding this brand
BK 3: I consider myself very experienced with
this brand.

Reference # 03J-2019-05-xx-01

20 The IUP Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. XVIII, No. 2, 2019