Consumer engagement in brand communities: a literature review

Zélia Santos1; Christy Cheung2; Pedro Simões Coelho1; Paulo Rita1

1
NOVA Information Management School (NOVA IMS), Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Campus de
Campolide, 1070-312 Lisboa, Portugal
2
Hong Kong Baptist University

This is the accepted author manuscript of the following article published by

Elsevier: Santos, Z. R., Cheung, C. M. K., Coelho, P. S., & Rita, P. (2022). Consumer
engagement in social media brand communities: A literature review. International
Journal Of Information Management, 63(April), 1-38. [102457].
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102457

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-

NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
 Consumer engagement in brand communities: a literature review

Zélia Santos1; Christy Cheung2; Pedro Simões Coelho1; Paulo Rita1

1
NOVA Information Management School (NOVA IMS), Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Campus
de Campolide, 1070-312 Lisboa, Portugal
2
Hong Kong Baptist University

Abstract
With the prevalence of social media, a great deal of research has examined consumer
engagement in brand communities. However, we lack a holistic understanding of the
phenomena. The purpose of this paper is to provide a systematic review on consumer
engagement in brand communities and present the current state of research. Based on
our review of 133 articles, we first discuss the definition, nature, research patterns, and
theoretical foundations. We then present an integrative framework to synthesize what is
known and identify areas for future research.

Keywords: consumer engagement; social media; literature review; integrative

framework.

1. Introduction
With the prevalence of social media, marketers are increasingly using social media brand
communities to connect consumers and facilitate them to exchange product and brand
information (Carlson, Rahman, Voola, & De Vries, 2018; Dwivedi et al., 2021). In the era
of relational marketing, social media brand communities are vital and constitute strategic
instruments to induce and nurture consumer-brand relationships (Coelho, Rita, &
Santos, 2018; de Vries, Gensler, & Leeflang, 2012; Hudson & Thal, 2013; Kannan & Li,
2017). Consumers’ active participation in social media brand communities helps to build
brand trust, brand loyalty, and brand awareness (Bianchi & Andrews, 2018; de Valck,
van Bruggen, & Wierenga, 2009; Habibi, Laroche, & Richard, 2014b; Zhang, Lu, Torres,
& Chen, 2018). Engagement appears to be an important buzzword in today’s business
world (Grewal, Roggeveen, Sisodia, & Nordfalt, 2017; Merrilees, 2016).
Despite the considerable attention to the concept of engagement, the major challenge is
a lack of consistent conceptualisation. The concept appears in diverse domains with foci,
such as brand (Hollebeek, 2012; Hollebeek, 2011; Hollebeek, Glynn, & Brodie, 2014;
Hollebeek, Juric, & Tang, 2017a; Hollenbeck & Kaikati, 2012), organisation (Vivek,
Beatty, & Morgan, 2012, 2014), community (Algesheimer, Dholakia, & Herrmann, 2005;
Baldus, Voorhees, & Calantone, 2015; Coelho et al., 2018; Dessart, Veloutsou, &
Morgan-Thomas, 2015, 2016), advertising (Calder, Malthouse, & Schaedel, 2009),
online or social media engagement (Dessart, 2017; Dolan, Conduit, Fahy, & Goodman,
2016; Langaro, Rita, & Salgueiro, 2018; Paruthi & Kaur, 2017; Schivinski,
Christodoulides, & Dabrowski, 2016), and even different subjects, such as consumer,
customer, or user. In addition, prior literature review studies found that there is a
multiplicity of subjects, contexts, conceptualisation, dimensionality and measures of the
concept (Barger, Peltier, & Schultz, 2016; Eigeraam, Eelen, Lin, & Verlegh, 2018;
Hollebeek et al., 2014; Liu, Lee, Liu, & Chen, 2018; Vivek et al., 2014).
Given the popularity of using brand communities to engage consumers, a literature
review focusing on the two concepts – brand communities and engagement is needed
to systematise and consolidate the existing knowledge. This paper aims to present a
systematic literature review on consumer engagement in brand communities. A
systematic approach will synthesise definitions and discuss the nature, research
patterns, and theoretical foundations. We then propose an integrative framework to
indicate avenues for future research by showing what we already know and what we do
not know about consumer engagement in brand communities.
The rest of the paper is structured as follows. We begin by providing the definitions and
concepts of consumer engagement in brand communities. We then describe the paper
search approach and present the current state of research. Finally, we discuss the
integrative framework and future research directions.

2. Definitions and concepts

2.1. Consumer engagement
Brodie et al.’s (2011) study is considered a pioneer in introducing the concept of
engagement in the marketing literature. Since then, several studies and distinct
approaches have emerged in the field, especially focused on the brand. Some studies
addressed conceptualisation and scale development (Brodie, Ilic, Juric, & Hollebeek,
2013; Dessart, 2017; Dessart et al., 2015, 2016; Hollebeek et al., 2014), and many others
focused on developing or testing models of antecedents and outcomes of consumer
engagement in brand communities (Dessart, 2017; Habibi et al., 2014b; Laroche, Habibi,
Richard, & Sankaranarayanan, 2012; Luo, Zhang, & Liu, 2015), adapting engagement in
the community from brand engagement scales.

2
Regarding conceptualisation, various research streams have been followed. The study
of Brodie et al. (2011) opened the line of conceptualising engagement as a psychological
state of mind, comprising cognitive, emotional and behavioural aspects (Brodie et al.,
2013; Dessart et al., 2015, 2016; Hollebeek, 2012; Hollebeek et al., 2014), to which other
authors joined the social aspect (Vivek et al., 2014). A second line emerged based on
intrinsic motivation to actively interact with brand-related elements in the brand
community (Baldus et al., 2015; Hollebeek, Srivastava, & Chen, 2016). In parallel,
another research stream has been gaining recognition, defining consumer engagement
in the brand community as a behaviour, focusing on consumer behavioural practices of
interaction with brand-related elements (Dolan et al., 2016; Eigeraam et al., 2018;
Muntinga, Moorman, & Smit, 2011; Van Doorn et al., 2010).

2.2. Brand Communities

The importance of brand communities as Relationship Marketing tools is well expressed
in the related literature (Coelho et al., 2018; de Vries et al., 2012; Hudson & Thal, 2013;
Kannan & Li, 2017). Engagement reflects a broader idea of consumer-brand interaction,
having the potential to embody the current scenario of complex relationships based on
social media (Dwivedi et al., 2021; Graffigna & Gambetti, 2015) and supporting the
creation, maintenance, and strengthening of consumer-brand bonds (Zaglia, 2013). Due
to the technological capabilities of social media, brand communities are places where
consumers and brands can meet each other as equals. On the one hand, these
communities help marketers to develop consumer-brand connections to achieve firms'
goals, such as brand trust, brand loyalty, brand awareness, and in the end, firms' profit
(Bianchi & Andrews, 2018; de Valck, van Bruggen, & Wierenga, 2009; Habibi, Laroche,
& Richard, 2014b; Zhang, Lu, Torres, & Chen, 2018). On the other hand, communities
allow consumers to talk to the brand and between each other, to reduce information
asymmetry between them and the brand, as well as creating feelings of connection and
partnership with the brand and other participants in the community (Fournier & Alvarez,
2012; Hudson, Roth, Madden, & Hudson, 2015; Kannan & Li, 2017). Consumer
engagement in these communities expresses the type and level of interaction to which
consumers are willing to involve themselves.

3. Method
A descriptive approach was performed to aggregate prior findings in this domain and
identify research patterns and supportive theories. A descriptive review is based on
structured search methods to achieve a representative sample of articles addressing the
construct (Paré et al., 2016). Systematicity provides grounded evidence of the current
state of the investigation into this domain, allowing to have a deep understanding of its

3
body of knowledge (Ahmed et al., 2019). To ensure process transparency and consistent
results, this review broadly followed the guidelines proposed by Templier and Paré
(2015), which are compatible with former literature review guides for the information
system field (Bandarra, Suraya, & Fielt, 2011; Kitchenham, 2004, 2007). The process
suggests six steps: (1) formulating the problem, (2) searching the literature, (3) screening
for inclusion, (4) assessing quality, (5) extracting data, and (6) analysing and
synthesising data.

3.1. Problem formulation

This study aims to provide a descriptive overview of existing research on consumer
engagement in brand communities, identifying: (1) different definitions, dimensions, and
related operationalisations of the concept; (2) research patterns, expressed by causes
and consequences and other factors involved, and the role of the concept in research
models; (3) theories and paradigms supporting prior research.
Seven research questions were identified to guide this investigation:
RQ1: How did prior studies conceptualise consumer engagement in brand communities?
RQ2: Which were the dimensions considered in the conceptualisation of consumer
engagement in brand communities?
RQ3: What were the contexts in which the concept has been addressed?
RQ4: What were the methodological approaches applied in previous studies?
RQ5: How was consumer engagement in brand communities operationalised in research
models (independent or dependent variable, mediator or moderator)?
RQ6: What were the critical factors related to consumer engagement in brand
communities, such as causes, consequences, mediators, and moderators?
RQ7: What were the theories used to support previous studies?

3.2. Search process

Figure 1 describes the search process, which combined an automatic and a manual
search (Kitchenham, 2007; Webster & Watson, 2002). The process began with the
automated search, based on research keywords and conducted in two electronic
databases, Scopus and Web of Science. The following combination of keywords was
used in the electronic search: '(consumer OR customer) brand community engagement'.
Given the broader range of focus described in this paper's previous sections, the topic
was necessarily enlarged to ensure no relevant paper was missed. The identified articles
were stored in the reference manager Mendeley to search for duplicates.

4
The search process in Scopus included the following criteria:
• Years: all years;
• Type of documents: journal articles and reviews;
• Subject area: Business, Management, and Accounting; Computer Science;
Social Sciences; Economics, Econometrics, and Finance; Engineering; Decision
Sciences; Psychology.
The search process in Web of Science included the following criteria:
• Years: all years;
• Indexes: SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI, CPCI-S, CPCI-SSH, ESCI, CCR-
EXPENDED, IC;
• Type of documents: journal articles and reviews;
• Web of Science Categories: Business, Management, Communication,
Telecommunications, Hospitality Leisure Sports Tourism, Economics,
Information Science Library Science, Computers Science Information Systems,
Computer Science Multidisciplinary Applications, Psychology Multidisciplinary,
Psychology Experimental, Psychology Applied, Psychology Social,
Multidisciplinary Sciences.

The manual search was approached in two stages to ensure that no relevant article was
missed, especially articles from journals that frequently address the research topic (Boell
& Cecez-Kecmanovic, 2015; Webster & Watson, 2002). First, a search was conducted
in ten top journals in the Marketing, Information Systems, and Computer Science fields,
specifically: Journal of Business Research, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, Journal of Marketing Management, Journal of Product
and Brand Management, Journal of Services Marketing, International Journal of
Information Management, Computers in Human Behavior, Internet Research, and
Electronic Commerce and Applications. These journals were chosen because of their
major contributions to the body of knowledge for both concepts, brand community, and
engagement (Senyo, Liu, & Effah, 2019; Webster & Watson, 2002). This step was
followed by performing a complimentary search by a backward approach, reviewing the
references of articles identified in previous steps, to find prior articles addressing the
concept (Webster & Watson, 2002). After removing the repeated papers using the
Mendeley application, three-hundred and seventy-one primary studies were found to
match the topic.

5
 3.3. Inclusion and exclusion criteria
According to the literature review process guidelines (Kitchenham, 2004, 2007; Templier
& Paré, 2015), inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied, screening the articles
identified in the search phase. The abstracts of all papers were read to apply the criteria
that were discussed among authors, and the paper screening and consolidation were
conducted by the first author. As the study was focused on brand communities,
considering brands as commercial entities in nature, the exclusion criterion was based
on specific cases. Accordingly, all studies focused on particular communities, such as
crowdsourcing, the defence of causes, sports clubs, health, nutrition, senior
communities, blogs, Business-to-Business (B2B), game, and discussion forums were
eliminated. Given the specificity of foci of these communities, community creation
motivated by special causes, such as crowdsourcing, or the amount of emotional capital
involved in sport club communities or addiction situations in-game communities, makes
them particular communities. Thus, the conceptualisation and operationalisation of
constructs in these contexts are necessarily different from common brand communities.
In total, 121 articles were excluded.
A more in-depth reading of the remaining articles was conducted to apply the inclusion
criterion, which was based on including all the papers that effectively conceptualise or
operationalise the idea of consumer engagement in the brand community. These papers
included topics such as advertising, strategies, word-of-mouth, brand, and brand-related
content. The papers referring to the first three topics were also eliminated. In the case of
the last two topics, brand and brand-related content, the inclusion-exclusion process
demanded a careful reading to identify the adequate papers for the topic of interest, since
papers mentioned topics such as brand engagement, brand engagement in social media,
social media content, and social media branded content. Given the large number of
papers, it was decided to eliminate all the papers that did not explicitly identify consumer
engagement in the brand community. At the end of this phase, one hundred and thirty-
three primary studies remained for the analysis.

6
 Electronic search:
Topic: “(consumer OR customer) brand
community engagement”
Web of Science: 362 ar)cles
Scopus: 180 ar)cles Mendeley selec)on:
371 ar)cles

Manual search:
10 TOP Journals: 124 ar)cles
Backward reference based search

Exclusion criteria:
Par)cular communi)es:sports clubs, Refined search:
crowdfounding , senior, food/nutri4on, health, B2B, games, 292 ar)cles
online auc4ons , virtual worlds, religion, social causes,
discussion foruns

Inclusion criteria: Final:

Studies were communityengagementis a 133 eligible ar)cles
central focus – a conceptualiza)onor
measurementis presented

Figure 1 – Search process

3.4. Quality assessment

Since the use of peer-reviewed journals as data sources guarantees the quality of the
studies obtained (Chan, Cheung, & Lee, 2017), no additional criteria were applied.

3.5. Data extraction

In order to prepare the analysis, data from 133 eligible articles were recorded in Microsoft
Excel. The articles were classified according to the nature of the study, namely,
conceptual, scale development, qualitative, netnographic, quantitative by content
analysis, and quantitative by survey research. A spreadsheet for each study type was
constructed, and related information was extracted, including the name of the article,
publication year, authors, journal, consumer community engagement, theories applied,
research domain, and social media context. In the case of quantitative studies, the
following information was also registered: community engagement definition,
dimensions, measurement scale, the role of the concept in the research, such as
independent or dependent variable, mediator or moderator, and other variables involved
in the model (tables in Appendix A-E).

3.6. Data analysis and synthesizing

Before analysing the content of the articles, some related data was organised to
contextualise the information gathered. Table 1 presents the number of articles obtained
in the ten journals referred to above (section 3.2). The 63 papers eligible for the study
found in those journals represent 49% of all final articles used in this study.
7
 Table 1 - Number of articles obtained in considered TOP journals
Journal Initial articles Articles eligible
for the study
Computers in Human Behavior 15 11
Journal of Product and Brand 16 8
Management
Journal of Business Research 16 7
International Journal of 12 7
Information Management
Journal of Interactive Marketing 8 7
Journal of Marketing 12 6
Management
Journal of Services Marketing 8 6
Internet Research 6 5
Electronic Commerce and 6 5
Applications
Journal of Retailing and 11 3
Consumer Services

Table 2 shows the number of articles eligible for the literature review, classified according
to the nature of the study, which was identified according to their own authors'
description. More than 70% of the articles presented a quantitative method, by content
analysis (15%) or survey research (56%) approach.
Table 2 - Final number of papers eligible for the study

Number
Percentage
Paper type of
of papers
papers
Conceptual 8 6%
Scale development 6 5%
Qualitative research 12 9%
Netnography 6 5%
Qualitative + netnography 6 5%
Quantitative by content
20 15%
analysis
Quantitative by Survey
75 56%
research
Total 133

Figure 2 shows the number of papers by type and publication year. During the gap
observed in the graphic, between years 2005 and 2011, we can find some published
studies addressing engagement but mainly focused on the brand (Gambetti & Graffigna,
2010; Sprott, Czellar, & Spangenberg, 2009; Van Doorn et al., 2010) or a specific media
(Calder et al., 2009). Those studies were not eligible for the present study since their
focus was not engagement in the community but brand engagement. The oldest study
(Algesheimer et al., 2005) was applied in an offline context, and it is considered a pioneer

8
study in the brand community field, as several subsequent studies adopted its
measurement scale of community engagement (Habibi et al., 2014b; Hartmann, Wiertz,
& Arnould, 2015; Khang, Han, & Ki, 2014; Kumar & Nayak, 2018; Kuo & Feng, 2013;
Laroche et al., 2012; Loureiro, Pires, & Kaufmann, 2015; Martínez-López, Anaya-
Sánchez, Molinillo, Aguilar-Illescas, & Esteban-Millat, 2017). Studies published since
2011 were applied in the social media context. During the last five years, the publication
of quantitative papers has increased.

Number of papers by type of study and year of

publication
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
20052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021

Conceptual Scale development

Qualitative research Netnography
Qualitative + netnography Quantitive by content analysis
Quantitative by Survey research

Figure 2 - Number of papers by type of study and year of publication

4. Results
As previously mentioned, a multiplicity of expressions was found to designate consumer
engagement in the brand community, either with respect to the subject (community
engagement, customer engagement, consumer engagement, and fan engagement) or
the context (social media, social networks, online, and virtual).

4.1. Type of studies

This section shows the multiplicity of research according to the study type.

4.1.1. Conceptual studies

Different conceptual papers were found (Appendix A), considering the subjects,
consumer (Dolan et al., 2016), customer (Brodie et al., 2011; Kunz et al., 2017; Muñoz-
Expósito, Oviedo-García, & Castellanos-Verdugo, 2017; Pansari & Kumar, 2016; Wirtz
et al., 2013), and fan (Rosenthal & Brito, 2017). The context was also different, from
communities in general (Brodie et al., 2011; Hatch & Schultz, 2010; Kunz et al., 2017;
Pansari & Kumar, 2017), to online (Wirtz et al., 2013), virtual (Rosenthal & Brito, 2017),

9
or social media communities (Dolan et al., 2016), or even specific platforms as Twitter
(Muñoz-Expósito et al., 2017). Different definitions of the topic were also presented, with
some studies, proposing their definition (Brodie et al., 2011; Dolan et al., 2016), whereas
others use definitions proposed by previous studies (Pansari & Kumar, 2017; Rosenthal
& Brito, 2017). Most of the definitions of community engagement vary from a behavioural
perspective (Dolan et al., 2016; Pansari & Kumar, 2017) to an attitudinal perspective
(Brodie et al., 2011; Rosenthal & Brito, 2017). A behavioural perspective is based on
consumer behaviour, going beyond transactions (Dolan et al., 2016; Pansari & Kumar,
2017), such as value co-creation practices (Kunz et al., 2017) or platform parameters
(Muñoz-Expósito et al., 2017). The attitudinal perspective results from psychological
states based on cognitive, emotional and behavioural aspects. A third conceptualisation
of community engagement is based on the intrinsic motivations to actively interact with
the brand on social media (Wirtz et al., 2013). These papers aim to elaborate on the
process of engagement (Brodie et al., 2011; Rosenthal & Brito, 2017; Wirtz et al., 2013)
or the role of community engagement as a consumer-brand relationship driver (Dolan et
al., 2016; Kunz et al., 2017; Muñoz-Expósito et al., 2017; Pansari & Kumar, 2017). One
paper elaborated on the influence of social media content on community engagement
(Dolan et al., 2016).

4.1.2. Scale development and validation studies

Consistent with conceptual papers, studies presenting scale development and validation
(Appendix B) propose consumer engagement in brand community definitions based on
one dimension, behaviour (Eigeraam et al., 2018; Schivinski et al., 2016), or
multidimensions, based on cognitive, emotional, behavioural and social aspects (Dessart
et al., 2016; Paruthi & Kaur, 2017), or intrinsic motivations to interact (Baldus et al.,
2015). Dessart et al.’s (2016) study was included despite the subject being designated
by 'customer brand engagement'. As these authors explain, in social media brand
communities, the foci of engagement are the brand and the community. So, their
definition of brand engagement comprises both foci, 'the level of a customer's
motivational, brand-related and context-dependent state of mind characterised by
specific levels of cognitive, emotional and behavioural activity in brand interactions'
(Dessart et al., 2015, 2016).

Three studies, classified as quantitative approaches, also present a community

engagement scale. The study by Algesheimer et al. (2005) presents the first definition of
community engagement in marketing literature, and many authors have cited it since its
publication. These authors defined community engagement based on 'consumers,
intrinsic motivation to interact and collaborate with community members' (Algesheimer

10
et al., 2005, p. 21). The same situation happens with the study by Lee, Kim, & Kim (2011),
which presented a scale focused on behaviour. Finally, the study by Habibi, Laroche, &
Richard (2016) proposed a very diverse community engagement scale, based on value
creation practices, reflecting consumers' attitude through the community.

4.1.3. Qualitative and netnographic studies

Authors resort to qualitative studies or netnography to gain a deeper understanding of
phenomena in particular situations, such as to propose a conceptual definition or a
measurement scale (Hollebeek, 2012; Vivek et al., 2012) or to identify the inherent
dimensions of the concept (Dessart et al., 2015), or to adapt the current knowledge to a
specific (Bowden, Conduit, Hollebeek, Luoma-aho, & Solem, 2017; Choi & Burnes, 2017;
Coelho et al., 2018; Le, 2018; Marbach, Lages, & Nunan, 2016; Peeroo, Samy, & Jones,
2017; Pentina, Guilloux, Micu, & Pentina, 2018; Pongpaew, Speece, & Tiangsoongnern,
2017; Potdar, Joshi, Harish, Baskerville, & Wongthongtham, 2018; Ramadan, Farah, &
Dukenjian, 2018; Roncha & Radclyffe-Thomas, 2016). In qualitative studies (Appendix
C - table 1), the process of data collection was based on in-depth interviews with experts
and in-depth interviews or focus groups with consumers. Some studies combined the
qualitative process with netnography (Appendix C - table 2) to better understand the
process of engagement and consumer responses to the specific context. These studies
were applied to a single community (Brodie et al., 2013; Fujita, Harrigan, & Soutar, 2017;
Lima, Irigaray, & Lourenco, 2019; Morgan-Thomas, Dessart, & Veloutsou, 2020;
Rossolatos, 2020; Seraj, 2012). Studies applying just netnography (Appendix C - table
3) did not use such a narrow context since those authors observed more than one
community belonging to the same industry (T. D. Le, 2018; Peeroo et al., 2017; Potdar
et al., 2018; Skålén, Pace, & Cova, 2015; Uzunboylu, Melanthiou, & Papasolomou,
2020). In netnographic studies, community engagement was identified by consumer
actions in Facebook (Le, 2018; Skålén et al., 2015) or Instagram (Uzunboylu et al., 2020)
brand pages, or the type of content they produce or interact with (Brodie et al., 2013;
Fujita et al., 2017; Hollebeek et al., 2017a; Peeroo et al., 2017; Potdar et al., 2018; Seraj,
2012).

4.1.4. Quantitative studies

Given the volume and the specificities of quantitative studies, these were divided into
two groups: content analysis and survey research studies. As referred before, all studies
restricted to one brand or one community were eliminated from this study, as their results
do not allow for generalisation.

11
 4.1.4.1. Content analysis studies
Content analysis comprehended the studies where data were collected by observing a
research unit in the community (Appendix D). As verified above in other types of studies,
also, in this case, the subject of engagement varies - customer, consumer, user, and
brand page user. The unit of analysis was a post from a brand community or the page
itself. Two studies were applied to Twitter (Ibrahim, Wang, & Bourne, 2017; Viswanathan,
Malthouse, Maslowska, Hoornaert, & Van den Poel, 2018), two on different social media
platforms (Oh, Roumani, Nwankpa, & Hu, 2017; Wu, Fan, & Zhao, 2018), two on Weibo,
and the remaining others were applied to Facebook brand pages (Chen, Lin, Choi, &
Hahm, 2015; Cooper, Stavros, & Dobele, 2019a; Gutiérrez-Cillán, Camarero-Izquierdo,
Carmen, & José-Cabezudo, 2017; Kang, Lu, Guo, & Li, 2021; Khan, Dongping, &
Wahab, 2016; Lei, Pratt, & Wang, 2017; Noguti, 2016; Schultz, 2016; Schultz, 2017;
Swenson, 2016; Tafesse, 2016; Wang, Qiao, & Peng, 2015). The studies applied to
Facebook defined and measured engagement by consumer actions, such as the number
of comments, likes and shares. The studies applied to Twitter used simple actions as
tweets, or more subjective measures, such as sentiments expressed by users and text
length. The role of consumer engagement in the model vary: from a cause, predicting
how consumers treat brands (Chen et al., 2015; Swenson, 2016), users' brand-related
sentiments (Ibrahim et al., 2017) or company' (Cooper et al., 2019; Yoon et al., 2018); to
a consequence of customer experience (Tafesse, 2016; Wang et al., 2015), or the type
of content (Lei et al., 2017; Noguti, 2016); or as a mediator between brand actions and
product consumption (Viswanathan et al., 2018). Studies applied to various platforms
showed differences in the engagement level (Oh et al., 2017) or engagement
expressions (Geissinger & Laurell, 2016). Most of the studies were applied to just one
industry, category of products, such as fashion (Geissinger & Laurell, 2016; Gutiérrez-
Cillán et al., 2017), films (Oh et al., 2017), retail (Ibrahim et al., 2017; Schultz, 2016),
television shows (Viswanathan et al., 2018), and hotels (Lin, Yang, Ma, & Huang, 2018),
or community (Cooper et al., 2019; Noguti, 2016; Smith, 2019; Swenson, 2016; Wang et
al., 2015).

4.1.4.2. Survey research studies

The data used in survey research studies represents the perceptions of individuals,
consumers, customers or users of brand communities (Appendix E). The older study
(Algesheimer et al., 2005) was applied within the offline context, as referred before. Many
of the quantitative studies reported used the measurement scale developed in this study,
reflecting engagement as a multidimensional construct based on cognitive, affective, and
behavioural aspects (Dessart, Veloutsou, & Morgan-Thomas, 2020; Habibi et al., 2014b;
Kumar & Kumar, 2020; Kuo & Feng, 2013; Laroche et al., 2012; Luo et al., 2015; Wang,

12
Liao, Zheng, & Li, 2019). Other authors, besides using a multidimensional scale, adopted
measures from brand engagement (Carlson, Rahman, Rahman, Wyllie, & Voola, 2021;
Ferreira & Zambaldi, 2019; Islam & Rahman, 2017; Islam & Rahman, 2016; Nguyen,
Conduit, Lu, & Hill, 2016; Niedermeier, Albrecht, & Jahn, 2019; Cristian Nedu Osakwe,
Boateng, Popa, Chovancová, & Soto-Acosta, 2016; Yuan, Lin, Filieri, Liu, & Zheng,
2020). In alignment with previously referred studies, consumer engagement in brand
communities is also measured as behavioural engagement, reflecting the actions
consumers perform in brand communities (Briggs, Yang, Harmon-Kizer, & Arnold, 2016;
Fernandes & Castro, 2020; Hanson, Jiang, & Dahl, 2019; Kujur & Singh, 2019; Thai &
Wang, 2020; Verhagen, Swen, Feldberg, & Merikivi, 2015a). Those studies adopted
measures from previous ones applied to brand engagement on social media (Tsai &
Men, 2013) or value co-creation practices (Muntinga et al., 2011; Schau, Muñiz, &
Arnould, 2009). Other studies developed their measures adapted to the specific context
in the same study or previous ones (Dessart, 2017; Habibi et al., 2016; Hall-Phillips,
Park, Chung, Anaza, & Rathod, 2016; Osemeahon & Agoyi, 2020; Prentice, Wang, &
Lin, 2020). Three of these studies are exploratory in nature, exploring cultural differences
(Tsai & Men, 2014; Tsai & Men, 2013), or different motivations to engage (Kim &
Drumwright, 2016). Considering the models explored in the reviewed articles, consumer
engagement in brand communities was conceptualised as an outcome of environmental
characteristics, perceived benefits (Verhagen et al., 2015a; Wang et al., 2019), nature of
consumptive moments (Hartmann et al., 2015), firms strategies (Briggs et al., 2016),
cultural values (Le & Duong, 2020) or motivational drivers of community participation
(Claffey & Brady, 2017). Other authors studied the influence of consumer engagement
in brand outcomes, such as trust (Habibi, Laroche, & Richard, 2014a; Kwon, Jung, Choi,
& Kim, 2020), loyalty (Bowden & Mirzaei, 2021; Fernandes & Castro, 2020; Ha, 2018;
Kumar & Nayak, 2018; Kumar, Singh, Chandwani, & Gupta, 2020; Osemeahon & Agoyi,
2020), word-of-mouth (Islam & Rahman, 2017; Naumann, Bowden, & Gabbott, 2020),
and identification (Hall-Phillips et al., 2016); or community outcomes, such as
commitment (Kuo & Feng, 2013; Luo et al., 2015), or participation (Martínez-López et
al., 2017). Community engagement was also conceptualised as a moderator construct
involved in models of consumer-community and consumer-brand relationships (Akrout
et al., 2018; Habibi et al., 2014b; Kumar & Kumar, 2020). Regarding the method used
for model estimation, studies were divided between structured equation covariance-
based (SEM) or correlation-based (PLS-SEM) methods. Case studies were also
included in the analysis (Gamboa & Gonçalves, 2014; Guo, Zhang, Kang, & Hu, 2017;
He & Negahban, 2017; Hutter, Hautz, Dennhardt, & Füller, 2013; Lee, Han, & Suh, 2014;
Nagaraj & Singh, 2018; Phua, Jin, & Kim, 2017; Willis & Wang, 2016).

13
 4.2. Domain
This section shows the multiplicity of the operationalisations of the domain addressed.

4.2.1. Conceptualisation, dimensionality, and context

Consumer engagement in brand community definitions are based on three approaches:
consumer motivation to interact with the community (Algesheimer et al., 2005; Baldus et
al., 2015), consumer attitude towards the community (Dessart et al., 2016; Habibi et al.,
2016; Paruthi & Kaur, 2017), and consumer practices within the community (Eigeraam
et al., 2018; D. Lee et al., 2011; Schivinski et al., 2016) (Table 3).
The first approach initially proposed by Algesheimer et al. (2005) for the offline context
and recently adapted to online environments by Baldus et al. (2015) is based on Uses
and Gratification Theory (Blumler, 1979). Consumers' motives to engage are related to
the benefits they expect to receive from participation in the community, resulting from
the interaction with the brand and other participants. The study by Baldus et al. (2015)
extends the uses-gratification perspective to the interactive environment, incorporating
the idea of community engagement as a two-way communication channel. Like older
published scales, a large number of quantitative studies were found using this approach
to measure community engagement, mainly based on the study by Algesheimer et al.
(2005).
Consumer attitude towards the community is a broader approach used to conceptualise
community engagement, as it involves consumers' psychological state of mind based on
cognitive, affective, and behavioural aspects (Dessart et al., 2016; Habibi et al., 2016;
Paruthi & Kaur, 2017). The measurement scales developed by this approach reflect
emotions, brand attention, and enthusiastic participation, factors not directly related to
specific benefits coming from the brand. Just a few studies were found using the scales
adopting this approach, as they were recently published. Nevertheless, some
quantitative studies were found using an attitudinal operationalisation of community
engagement, adapted from brand engagement measures. These conceptualisations
developed by Vivek et al.(2014) and by Hollebeek et al. (2014) were adapted by some
studies reflecting consumers interaction in brand communities (Islam et al., 2016; Islam,
Rahman, & Hollebeek, 2017, 2018; Islam & Rahman, 2016; Nguyen et al., 2016;
Osakwe, Boateng, Popa, Chovancová, & Soto-Acosta, 2016).
The last approach is based on consumer behaviour within the community. Joining Uses
and Gratifications Theory and media uses (Blumler, 1979; Shao, 2009), authors
developed engagement scales supported on consumers' activities (Eigeraam et al.,
2018; D. Lee et al., 2011; Schivinski et al., 2016). Only a few studies based on self-

14
reported data and using these scales were found (Hall-Phillips et al., 2016; Kujur &
Singh, 2019). Most quantitative studies reflecting behavioural engagement were
performed by content analysis, measuring consumer actions by specific social media
platform features, such as posts, likes, and comments on Facebook or tweets on Twitter.

Table 3 – Definition approaches

Studies adopting the
Approach Authors Definition
definition

(Laroche, Habibi, Richard, &

Sankaranarayanan, 2012)

(Cheung, Zheng, & Lee,

2012)

(Kuo & Feng, 2013)

(Habibi, Laroche, & Richard,

2014)

(Ray, Kim, & Morris, 2014)

(Luo, Zhang, & Liu, 2015)

(Verhagen, Swen, Feldberg,

(Algesheimer,
The consumer's intrinsic motivation to interact & Merikivi, 2015a)
Dholakia, &
and cooperate with community members. (Hartmann, Wiertz, &
Herrmann, 2005)
Consumer Arnould, 2015)
motivation (Loureiro, Pires, &
Kaufmann, 2015)

(Kang, Shin, & Gong, 2016)

(Martínez-López, Anaya-
Sánchez, Molinillo, Aguilar-
Illescas, & Esteban-Millat,
2017)

(Ha, 2018)

(Kumar & Nayak, 2018)

(Časas, Palaima, &

The compelling, intrinsic motivations to Mironidze, 2016)
(Baldus, Voorhees,
continue interacting with an online brand
& Calantone, 2015) (Loureiro & Kaufmann, 2018)
community
(Baldus, 2018)

The level of a customer's motivational, brand-

(Dessart,
related and context-dependent state of mind
Veloutsou, &
characterized by specific levels of cognitive, (Dessart, 2017)
Morgan-Thomas,
emotional and behavioural activity in brand
Consumer 2016)
interactions
attitude
Engaging in value creation practices requires
(Habibi, Laroche, & members to have strong feelings of brand
Richard, 2016) community markers such as obligations to the
community and shared consciousness,

15
 creating a sense of meaning and identity for
members

Consumer psychological state of mind and

intensity of awareness, affection, participation,
(Paruthi & Kaur,
and connection with the brand. It is
2017)
characterised by consumer-specific
interactive experiences with the brand.

(Lee, Kim, & Kim, (Hall-Phillips, Park, Chung,

Participation intentions
2011) Anaza, & Rathod, 2016)

(Schivinski,
Consumer Consumer online brand-related activities -
Christodoulides, & (Kujur & Singh, 2019)
behaviour based on Muntinga, Moorman, & Smit (2011)
Dabrowski, 2016)

(Eigeraam, Eelen,
Digital customer engagement practices
Lin, & Verlegh, 2018)

4.2.2. Role in conceptual models and related factors

Regarding the role of consumer engagement in the brand community in conceptual
models, studies conceptualised it as an independent variable, dependent variable,
mediator, or moderator. Models including the concept as a cause (Table 4), mainly
identify brands' outcomes as consequences, such as word-of-mouth (Cheung, Zheng, &
Lee, 2012; Lima et al., 2019; Loureiro & Kaufmann, 2018), loyalty (Baldus, 2018; Kuo &
Feng, 2013; Luo et al., 2015), purchase intentions (Časas, Palaima, & Mironidze, 2016;
Cheung et al., 2012; Lima et al., 2019), and brand attachment (Arya, Sethi, & Verma,
2018). Community commitment is largely used in these studies as a mediator between
community engagement and brand outcomes. One study used consumer engagement
in the community as a digital tool to manage a product-harm crisis (Yuan et al., 2020).
Table 4 – Consumer engagement as an independent variable
Consequences Directly Indirectly Indirectly trough Measurement of
engagement

Word-of-mouth and (Cheung et al., 2012) Community Behaviour

purchase intentions commitment

Purchase intentions (Hutter et al., 2013) Brand awareness, Attitude

WOM

Brand loyalty (Kuo & Feng, 2013) Perceived benefits Motives

and community
commitment

Members’ interaction (Lee et al., 2014) Attitude

and organizational
innovation

Brand loyalty (Gamboa & Brand trust, Behaviour

Gonçalves, 2014) satisfaction

Brand loyalty (Luo et al., 2015) Community Attitude

commitment,

16
 consumers
relationships

Repurchase intentions (Časas et al., 2016) Community Motives

commitment

Perceived price (Nguyen et al., 2016) Community norms Attitude

fairness and familiarity rules

Consumers' benefits: (Braun, Batt, Behaviour

social, relationship, Bruhn, & Hadwich,
autonomous, 2016)
economic, altruistic,
self-fulfilment

Brand meaning (Willis & Wang, Behaviour

2016)

Growth rate of social (He & Negahban, Behaviour

media brand 2017)
community

Brand outcomes: (Phua et al., 2017) Behaviour

identification,
engagement
commitment

Stickiness and word- (Zhang, Guo, & Liu, Costumer value Attitude
of-mouth 2017) creation

Brand and community (Baldus, 2018) Sense of community Motives

supportive behaviours

Brand attachment (Arya et al., 2018) Brand Behaviour

behaviour communication

Word-of-mouth (Loureiro & Motives

Kaufmann, 2018)

WOM and purchase (Lima et al., 2019) Customer happiness Behaviour

intentions

Organization benefits: (Prentice et al., Customer social Behaviour

loyalty 2020) benefits:

Consumer (Yuan et al., 2020) Attitude

forgiveness, and
repurchase intentions

Most studies conceptualising consumer engagement in a brand community as an

outcome (table 5) aim to understand how the community dynamics influence community
engagement. Measuring community dynamics as environmental characteristics (Carlson
et al., 2018; D. Lee et al., 2011; Triantafillidou & Siomkos, 2018), or consumers' benefits
(De Oliveira, Huertas, & Lin, 2016; Simon & Tossan, 2018; Verhagen, Swen, Feldberg,
& Merikivi, 2015b), authors explore its influence on consumers' engagement behaviour.
Studies were also found analysing the impact of community characteristics on consumer
engagement as motives to participate (Hartmann et al., 2015; Khan et al., 2016; Phua et

17
al., 2017), and consumers benefits and cultural values on community engagement
measured as attitude (Claffey & Brady, 2017; Fernandes & Remelhe, 2016; L. H. Le &
Duong, 2020; J. Wang et al., 2019).

Table 5 – Consumer engagement as a dependent variable

Antecedents Directly Indirectly Indirectly through Measurement of
engagement

Community type (D. Lee et al., 2011) Intrinsic and social Behaviour
motives

Perceived benefits (Verhagen et al., Behaviour

2015b)

Consumptive (Hartmann et al., Social recognition Motives

moments of practice 2015) and use

Motives (Fernandes & Attitude

Remelhe, 2016)

Social, uses and (De Oliveira et al., Behaviour

gratification, social 2016)
presence factors

Community (Khan et al., 2016) Attitude

personalization,
familiarity among
members, and
quality of C2C
interactions

Personal motivation, (Guo et al., 2017) Behaviour

information quality

Platform type (SNS) (Phua et al., 2017) Motives

Motives: personal, (Claffey & Brady, Attitude

social, self- 2017)
enhancement,
utilitarian

Social interaction, (Chang & Fan, 2017) Attitude

content value, and
affective
commitment

Brand attitude (Simon & Tossan, Satisfaction and Behaviour

2018) brand gratitude

Community (Triantafillidou & Behaviour

experience Siomkos, 2018)

Environmental (Carlson et al., 2018) Virtual experiences Behaviour

stimulus: community
content, interactivity,
sociability

Reputation signal (Hanson et al., 2019) Role clarity and Behaviour

type connectedness

18
 Value: social and (J. Wang et al., Moderators: Brand Motives
informational 2019) symbolism, product
complexity,
extraversion

Cultural values (Le & Duong, 2020) Resource Attitude

integration,
perceived
knowledge quality,
and personal
outcome expectation

Interactivity (Kang et al., 2021) Tie strength Behaviour

(responsiveness and
personalisation)

Most of the studies conceptualise consumer engagement in the brand community as a

mediator between community perceptions and brand outcomes (table 6). Community
engagement measured as motives to engage is applied in studies understanding the
influence of community perceptions, such as community identification or satisfaction on
other community outcomes, such as intentions to continue participating and
recommendation (Algesheimer et al., 2005), or on brand outcomes, such as trust, loyalty,
word-of-mouth, and intention to purchase (Kumar & Kumar, 2020; Kumar & Nayak, 2018;
Laroche et al., 2012; Loureiro et al., 2015; Ray, Kim, & Morris, 2014). The
conceptualisation of engagement based on attitude toward the community is the most
frequent approach in these studies, using engagement as a relationship mediator. Some
different situations were found:
• community characteristics or perceptions as causes of community outcomes (Ha,
2018; Liu et al., 2018; Martínez-López et al., 2017; Shing-Wang & Shih-Heng,
2017), company outcomes (Hall-Phillips et al., 2016) or brand (Carlson et al.,
2021; Dessart, 2017; Ha, 2018; Habibi et al., 2016; Haverila, McLaughlin,
Haverila, & Arora, 2020; Islam et al., 2017; Kumar & Nayak, 2018; Kwon et al.,
2020; Laroche et al., 2012; Thai & Wang, 2020);
• brand perceptions (Bowden & Mirzaei, 2021; Islam et al., 2018; Christian Nedu
Osakwe et al., 2016) or consumer characteristics (Ferreira & Zambaldi, 2019;
Islam & Rahman, 2017; Islam & Rahman, 2016; Niedermeier et al., 2019) as
causes of brand outcomes.
Only two studies using a behavioural scale and survey research were found, one relating
content factors to the customer-company relationship (Kujur & Singh, 2019) and the
other relating community learning factors to brand loyalty (Chiang, Wei, Parker, & Davey,
2017).

19
 Table 6 – Consumers engagement as a mediator
Antecedents Consequences Studies Measurement of
engagement

Brand community Community outcomes (Algesheimer et al., 2005) Motives

identification intention

Community markers Brand trust and loyalty (Laroche et al., 2012) Attitude

Knowledge self-efficacy, WOM and knowledge (Ray et al., 2014) Motives

self-identity verification, contribution
community identification

Site experience Consumer-company (Hall-Phillips et al., 2016) Attitude

identification

Brand identification, other Brand outcomes: loyalty, (Loureiro et al., 2015) Motives
members, and satisfaction WOM, and knowledge

Brand orientation and vendor WOM and purchase (Osakwe et al., 2016) Attitude
reputation intentions

Customer involvement Brand trust and WOM (Islam & Rahman, 2016) Attitude

Brand community Brand relationship (Habibi et al., 2016) Attitude

identification quality and brand loyalty

Online interaction Brand engagement (Dessart, 2017) Attitude

propensity, attitude toward
participation, and product
involvement

Content value (hedonic and Affective commitment (Shing-Wang & Shih-Heng, 2017) Attitude
utilitarian), social interaction and continued intention
tie, and self-image to use
congruence

Community characteristics Brand loyalty (Islam, Rahman, & Hollebeek, 2017) Attitude

Personality traits Purchase intention (Islam & Rahman, 2017) Attitude

Community trust, Community participation (Martínez-López et al., 2017) Attitude

experience, and
identification

Learning factors: motivation Brand loyalty (Chiang et al., 2017) Behaviour

and collaborative

Brand community Brand and community (Ha, 2018) Attitude

loyalty

Community identification Brand engagement and (Kumar & Nayak, 2018) Motives
brand loyalty

C2C trust and C2M trust Brand trust (Liu et al., 2018) Attitude

Self-brand image congruity Brand loyalty (Islam, Rahman, & Hollebeek, 2018) Attitude
and value congruity

Customer participation Brand loyalty (Nagaraj & Singh, 2018) attitude

Concepts from TRA and Intention to purchase (Bianchi & Andrews, 2018) Attitude toward
TAM model engagement and
intentions to engage

20
 Personal traits Perceived value: social, (Niedermeier et al., 2019) Attitude
aesthetic, altruistic,
economic

Brand involvement and Corporate reputation (Ferreira & Zambaldi, 2019) Attitude
perceived homophily

Content-related factors Customer-company (Kujur & Singh, 2019) Behaviour

relationship

Negative brand relationships Community (Dessart et al., 2020) Motives

recommendation
intentions

Involvement Wom (Naumann et al., 2020) Attitude

Advertising, promotion, and Brand trust and loyalty (Kwon et al., 2020) Attitude
content

Community identification and Community satisfaction, (Haverila et al., 2020) Attitude

participation relationship, loyalty

Community interaction and Purchase intentions (Thai & Wang, 2020) Behaviour
liking behaviour

Community relationship and Com. Commitment and (Kumar & Kumar, 2020) Motives
benefits brand loyalty

Consumers benefits Brand loyalty (Fernandes & Castro, 2020) Behaviour

OBC-site quality Brand loyalty (Carlson et al., 2021) Attitude

Self-brand connections Brand loyalty (Bowden & Mirzaei, 2021) Attitude

Three studies applying consumer engagement in the brand community as a moderator

were found. One measured the concept as motives to interact in the community, and the
other measured engagement as a behaviour (table 7).

Table 7 – Consumers engagement as a moderator

Antecedents Consequences Studies Measurement of
engagement

Consumer-community Brand trust (Habibi et al., 2014b) Motives

relationships

Commitment and trust WOM (Akrout et al., 2018) Behaviour

in brand community

Consumer-brand Oppositional (Liao, Dong, Luo, & Guo, Behaviour

identification loyalty 2020)

Studies operationalising consumer engagement behaviour as consumer actions based

on social media platform features were approached by content analysis (table 8). Two
main objectives were found: (1) to understand consumer engagement behaviour as a
consequence of community strategies or content characteristics, and (2) to explore the

21
relationship between consumer engagement behaviour and brand performance or
outcomes.

Table 8 – Consumers engagement behaviour in studies by content analysis

Engagement behaviour Other concepts involved Studies

As a cause Community strategies (Chen et al., 2015)

(Tafesse, 2016)

Content characteristics (Geissinger & Laurell, 2016)

(Khan et al., 2016)

(Lei et al., 2017)

(Schultz, 2017)
(Gutiérrez-Cillán et al., 2017)

As a consequence Brand economic (Schultz, 2016)

performance (Oh et al., 2017)
(Yoon et al., 2018)

Online reviews (Wu et al., 2018)

Advertising effectiveness (Lin et al., 2018)

Community interactivity (Kang et al., 2021)

and tie strength

4.2.3. Theories and paradigms

The most referred theories in eligible studies belong to the group of mass communication
theories or social behaviour theories, such as Uses and Gratifications Theory (UGT)
(Blumler, 1979) and Social Identity Theory (SIT) (Tajfel & Turner, 1986), respectively.
Authors based their models on UGT to understand the precursors of meeting consumer
needs. To increase consumers' participation in social media brand communities, brands
seek to meet consumer expectations, awarding social, functional, and emotional benefits
consumers want to achieve. The studies based on this theory defined consumer
engagement as a dependent variable, measured as motives to participate in a brand
community (Phua et al., 2017; Tsai & Men, 2014; Tsai & Men, 2013), or as consumer
behaviour in a brand community (De Oliveira et al., 2016; Lei et al., 2017; Verhagen et
al., 2015a), or as an attitude (Wang et al., 2019). Three more studies based on this theory
were identified, measuring consumer engagement as a behaviour, one defining the
variable as moderator (Akrout & Nagy, 2018) and the other two as a mediator of the
relationship (Chiang et al., 2017; Fernandes & Castro, 2020).
Social Identity Theory (SIT) explains consumers identification with a brand, or a social
group, as a brand community and how this identification fulfils consumers social needs.
In the analysed articles, SIT was applied to support models where consumer
engagement was measured as behaviour and defined as a dependent variable (De

22
Oliveira et al., 2016) or an independent variable (Cheung et al., 2012). It was also applied
in models where consumer engagement was a mediator measured as an attitude (Habibi
et al., 2016; Hall-Phillips et al., 2016; Laroche et al., 2012) or as behaviour (Kujur &
Singh, 2019; Liao et al., 2020). Consumer engagement was also found as a moderator
of the relationship and measured as an attitude (Habibi et al., 2014b).
Social Exchange Theory (SET) was applied in four studies to explain the exchanging
benefits between consumers and brands on social media brand communities allowing
the creation and maintenance of valuable relationships. In two of them, consumer
engagement was defined as the independent variable and measured as motives to
participate in brand communities (Baldus, 2018; Kuo & Feng, 2013). In another study,
SET was applied to explain how community dynamics impact consumer engagement
(Kumar & Kumar, 2020). In the other study, SET was a moderator measured as a
behaviour (Akrout et al., 2018). Some studies combined two theories to address their
hypotheses, such as UGT and SIT (De Oliveira et al., 2016), UGT and SET (Akrout et
al., 2018), SIT and Social Capital Theory (SCT) (Habibi et al., 2014b). Those studies
supported the idea of a consumer-brand relationship created in the community in
exchanges beyond the commercial dimension.
Personal behaviour theories were also found in some articles, such as Attachment
Theory (Arya et al., 2018), explaining brand attachment by the emotional links created
within the community; Theory of Reasoned Action (Bianchi & Andrews, 2018), explaining
consumer behaviour motivated by an attitude to perform a determined behaviour towards
a brand, such as purchase intention; Attribution Theory (D. Lee et al., 2011) explaining
engagement differences in marketer-created and consumer-created communities, since
consumers attribute marketer intentions (profit and sales) to marketer-created
communities; Trust Transfer Theory (Liu et al., 2018) explaining the process of trust
transfer from the community to the brand; Theory of Close Relationships (Simon &
Tossan, 2018) supporting the brand value creation on the close relationships created
within the community, and Self-determination Theory explaining consumers decisions
and behaviour to engage in the community (Osemeahon & Agoyi, 2020).
Relationship Marketing is the most discussed paradigm in studies relating brands and
consumers on social media, representing the idea of close relationships between
consumers and brands on social media. Value creation practices and consumer-brand
co-creation are other common supports of consumer-brand interaction on social media
proposed by authors (Fernandes, 2018; Hartmann et al., 2015; Luo et al., 2015). Also,
the Stimulus-Organism-Response paradigm supports some studies. These studies
discussed consumer behaviour or attitude explained by an exterior stimulus affecting a

23
consumer cognitive or emotional state, leading to a response reflected in consumer
behaviour (Carlson et al., 2018, 2021) or consumer attitude (Islam & Rahman, 2017)
towards brand or community.

4.2.4. A classification framework

The findings described above are summarised in the classification framework (Figure 3).
Building on the most applied theories and paradigms in the field, the variables involved
were categorised into six groups: social, personal, mass-communication, brand-related,
and community-related factors.

Community factors:
Characteris:cs
Consumer a;tude
Brand factors:
Mediators Consumer a;tude

Independent Dependent
variables variables

Personal factors:
Demographics Moderators
Culture
Community factors:
Type

Figure 3 – A classification framework

5. Discussion
Relationship Marketing is the most addressed paradigm to discuss consumer-brand and
consumer-community relationships. Supporting the idea that creating and strengthening
consumers and a brand’s closeness is vital to brands' lives, the dynamisation of brand
communities in social media is the way to reach that goal (Dwivedi et al., 2021). The
discussion of the main findings of this study based on that paradigm allows answering
the research questions put forward in subsection 3.1.

5.1. Conceptualisation
As mentioned in section 4.5, three different conceptualisations of consumer engagement
in the brand community were found: consumer motivation to interact with the community

24
(Algesheimer et al., 2005; Baldus et al., 2015), consumer attitude towards the community
(Dessart et al., 2016; Habibi et al., 2016; Paruthi & Kaur, 2017), and consumer practices
within the community (Eigeraam et al., 2018; D. Lee et al., 2011; Schivinski et al., 2016)
(Table 3).
The motivational conceptualisation of consumer engagement in brand communities
(Baldus et al., 2015) is a comprehensive approach that reflects relational, experiential,
and instrumental motives to continue interacting in the community and comprehends
aspects related to both the brand and the community. On the one hand, this
conceptualisation could easily fit different consumers, with different feelings and interests
towards the brand and the community, and different motivations to access the community
(Loureiro & Kaufmann, 2018). On the other hand, the conceptualisation could also be
applied to a vast range of brands, independently of being more or less considered by
consumers (Coelho et al., 2018).
Attitudinal consumer engagement in the brand community involves consumers'
psychological state of mind based on cognitive, affective, and behavioural aspects
(Dessart et al., 2016; Habibi et al., 2016; Paruthi & Kaur, 2017). This approach, covering
several dimensions of consumers predisposition to interact with brands in social media,
could also reflect different types of consumers' attitudes, which are more cognitive or
emotionally focused (Algharabat, Rana, Alalwan, Baabdullah, & Gupta, 2020). Focusing
on the brand and on the community itself also helps achieve a broad range of consumers
(Dwivedi et al., 2021).
Behavioural measures of community engagement (Eigeraam et al., 2018; D. Lee et al.,
2011; Schivinski et al., 2016) will likely present lower engagement levels than attitudinal
measures, as authors refer that most consumers are lurkers (Pongpaew et al., 2017).
Several studies have focused on the participant's actions on social media, revealing that
just a few effectively participate (Amichai-hamburger et al., 2016). Furthermore,
measuring consumer engagement reflecting consumers actions could punish community
brands with less appealing content (Shing-Wang & Shih-Heng, 2017). Independent of
what the brand represents to consumers, the relevance of the content produced by the
brand or other members is more influential on behavioural engagement than on the other
conceptualisations. Besides that, more active behaviours do not mean stronger
consumer-brand connection (Fernandes & Castro, 2020).
Table 9 summarises the main findings, showing model conceptualisations according to
different consumer engagement conceptualisations, giving light to the research
questions addressed. Independently of brand community conceptualisation (behaviour,
motives to engage, or attitude), causes, consequences, and mediators are mostly the

25
same. It reflects the significant investment of the investigation in this domain, capturing
all potential consumer engagement perspectives.

Table 9 – Related variables by consumer engagement operationalisation

Consumer engagement Attitudinal approach Motivational approach Behavioural approach
in brand community (23 articles) (11 articles) (13 articles)

Dimensions Cognitive, affective, Social, hedonic, utilitatian, Consumer practices,

behaviour personal platform features

Independent variables Community dynamics Community dynamics Community dynamics

Consumer-community Consumer-community Consumer benefits (social,
attitude attitude personal, economics)

Consumer benefits (social, Consumer-brand attitude Consumer-brand attitude

personal, economics) Social factors
Consumer-brand attitude

Consumers' personality
traits

Mediators Community attitude Community attitude Community attitude

Community dynamics Mass-communication Mass-communication

Consumers benefits Brand attitude

Personal factors

Dependent variables Brand outcomes: WoM, Brand outcomes: WoM, Brand outcomes: WoM,
loyalty, trust, engagement, loyalty, engagement, loyalty, attachment,
identification, repurchase repurchase intentions; repurchase intentions;

intentions, and relationship Community outcomes: Consumer's benefits

quality; intentions of continued

Community outcomes: participation and

intention of continued recommendation

participation, commitment,
and loyalty

Consumers' benefits

Moderators Community type Personal characteristics Motivation to engage

Cultural differences
Motivation to engage

Theories Reasoned Action, Trust Uses and Gratification, Uses and Gratification,
Transfer, Stimulus- Social Exchange, Social Social identification, Social
Organism-Response Capital Exchange, Attachment,
Attribution, Close
Relationships, Stimulus-
Organism-Response

Context Virtual brand community, Social network sites, Digital environments,

social media, online, social media brand social media, online
online brand community, community, Facebook, channels, Facebook,
social media brand online brand community Twitter, Weibo, brand
community, Facebook community of social

26
 network sites, social
media sites, virtual
community

5.2. Antecedents
Community-related, brand-related, social, and mass-communication factors mainly
explain the antecedents of consumer engagement in brand communities. Personal
aspects have also shown influence on the concept (Figure 3).
Community-related factors, such as dynamics (type, content, interactivity,
personalisation, member relationships, and sociability), and attitude (commitment and
trust), are a common cause (independent variable or relationship mediator) of
engagement in the three approaches (motivational, attitudinal, and behavioural).
Envisaging practical implications, researchers explored community capability and
dynamics to understand what captures consumers attention and participation (Islam et
al., 2017; Kujur & Singh, 2019; Lee et al., 2011). Community aspects, such as type and
characteristics related to its origin and dynamisation, influence consumers interactivity
(Haverila et al., 2020). For example, consumers understand consumer-generated
communities as more organic and trustworthy than marketer-managed communities
(Bowden & Mirzaei, 2021; Islam et al., 2017; Lee et al., 2011; Liu et al., 2018).
Behavioural theories, such as the theory of Reasoned Action and Attribution theory, were
suggested in those studies to explain the impact of consumers actions on their
relationships with the community. A favourable attitude towards the community, created
by trust relationships and involvement with other members, also contributes to engaging
consumers (Shing-Wang & Shih-Heng, 2017), evidencing the community's power as a
relationship strengthener instrument. Consequently:
Proposition 1: Behavioural theories explain consumer engagement in brand
communities by community-related factors.

Brand-related aspects is another cause (independent variable or relationship mediator)

of consumer engagement in the community present in the three approaches. Attitudinal
constructs, such as brand loyalty, attachment, and behavioural intentions, influence
consumer engagement in the respective community. This influence reflects the brand's
power to motivate consumers to visit and participate in the community (Islam et al., 2018;
Loureiro et al., 2015; Osakwe et al., 2016). Consumers involve themselves in the
community because of the brand, and in return, they feel satisfied by that participation
(Haverila et al., 2020). Behavioural theories, such as Attachment and Close Relationship

27
Theory, explain the link from the brand to the community (Simon & Tossan, 2018).
Hence:
Proposition 2: Behavioural theories explain consumer engagement in brand
communities by brand-related factors.

Mass-communication factors, supported by Uses and Gratification Theory (Blumler,

1979), explain consumers' motives to engage in a brand community through the benefits
consumers expect to receive from the community and the medium itself (social media)
(J. Wang et al., 2019). Understanding consumers motives to visit or interact in the
community helps to provide a customised response to consumer interests (Bianchi &
Andrews, 2018; Chiang et al., 2017). According to their interests, measuring consumers'
engagement by attitudinal or behavioural approaches allows understanding what type of
interaction they are available to perform. Therefore:
Proposition 3: Uses and Gratification Theory explains attitudinal and behavioural
consumer engagement in brand communities by mass-communication factors.

Social aspects explain how engagement is influenced by consumer needs of

belongingness to social groups, reflecting their identification, influence, and the value
obtained related to brand or community association (Habibi et al., 2016; Martínez-López
et al., 2017). Prestigious brands or those with a strong image for consumers, celebrities'
associations to products or to the brand itself attract consumers with those necessities
(Lin et al., 2018). Based on Social Identification Theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986), these
factors influence motivational and behavioural engagement (Kumar & Nayak, 2018; Thai
& Wang, 2020). Thus:
Proposition 4: Social and Identification Theory explains motivational and behavioural
consumer engagement in brand communities by social factors.

This study found more articles that approached consumer engagement from the
attitudinal perspective. Consequently, it seems that this research stream has explored a
range of possible causes, based on brand and community aspects larger than in the
motivational and behavioural approaches. Another factor contributing to that situation is
that several studies apply measures adapted from attitudinal engagement with the brand
(Hollebeek et al., 2014; Vivek et al., 2014). Those measures were available for a longer
time than recently developed measures directed to the community. Brand outcomes such
as loyalty, intentions to repurchase, attachment, trust, involvement, and positive attitude,
were found to trigger engagement in the community (Ferreira, Zambaldi, & Guerra, 2020;

28
Osakwe et al., 2016). Almost the same constructs towards the community (loyalty, trust,
and positive experience) were explored as engagement influencers (Dessart, 2017; Ha,
2018; Martínez-López et al., 2017).

5.3. Consequences
Consequences of consumer engagement in brand communities (motivational, attitudinal,
and behavioural) are expressed in community and brand outcomes, reflecting the role of
brand communities as relationship generators and maintainers (Coelho et al., 2018).
The engagement in the community gives consumers a sense of belonging to a group,
where they interact among them and with the brand or its sponsor (Martínez-López et
al., 2017). On the one hand, exchange relationships are established based on
consumers interactivity and sociability in the community (Akrout & Nagy, 2018; Baldus,
2018; J. Wang et al., 2019). On the other hand, positive experiences induce consumers
to trust in the group and feel emotionally connected (Ha, 2018), to be available to help
others, to participate in discussions, and to respond to the brand incentives (Baldus,
2018), even to identify themselves with the community. Social Exchange Theory, Social
identification Theory, and behavioural theories, such as Attachment, and Trust Transfer
Theory, are theoretical foundations used in this research line (Arya et al., 2018; Bianchi
& Andrews, 2018; Liu et al., 2018). Consequently, consumer engagement in brand
communities positively influences a favourable attitude and positive intentions towards
the community, such as word-of-mouth, loyalty, commitment (Ha, 2018; Shing-Wang &
Shih-Heng, 2017) and continued intentions of participation and contribution
(Algesheimer et al., 2005; Baldus, 2018; Martínez-López et al., 2017). So:
Proposition 5: Behavioural and social theories explain consumer engagement in brand
communities (attitudinal, motivational, and behavioural) as a trigger of consumer-
community relationships, stimulating favourable behavioural intentions towards the
community.

Brand outcomes as consequences of consumer engagement in brand communities were

found in all approaches. This research stream is widely explored as it supports the brand
community's idea as an enrichment of the consumer-brand relationship (Coelho et al.,
2018). Social Exchange Theory explains exchanging benefits between consumers and
brands by the engagement process in the community (Baldus, 2018; Kuo & Feng, 2013).
Based on Social Identification Theory, literature explains the process of consumer-brand
identification based on shared experiences and mutual knowledge (Islam et al., 2018).
Positive experiences in the community enable consumers to develop strong ties with

29
other members and the brand (Dessart, 2017). Based on theories, such as Attachment
Theory, Trust Transfer Theory, Theory of Reasoned Action, and Attribution theory,
consumers tend to transfer or attribute the community's pleasant and enjoyable
situations to the brand, as it is the community's focus (Hollebeek et al., 2019).
Consequently, a favourable attitude is developed towards the brand (Kumar & Nayak,
2018), reflected in outcomes such as brand loyalty, trust or identification (Kujur & Singh,
2019; Kuo & Feng, 2013; Langaro et al., 2018; Luo et al., 2015), and supportive
behaviours such as word-of-mouth and repurchase intentions (Časas et al., 2016;
Cheung et al., 2012; Loureiro & Kaufmann, 2018; M. Zhang et al., 2017). Accordingly:
Proposition 6: Behavioural and social theories explain consumer engagement in brand
communities (attitudinal, motivational, and behavioural) as a supporter of consumer-
brand relationships, reflected on consumers favourable attitude and supportive
behaviours towards the brand.

Consumer's benefits, classified in this study as mass-communication factors, are also a

consequence of attitudinal and behavioural engagement. Benefits, such as
entertainment, social recognition, informational and economic aspects, and self-
expression behaviours, are factors that consumers expect to get from the community
and the medium itself (De Oliveira et al., 2016). Attitudinal and behavioural approaches
to engagement impact consumers benefits form the community (Baldus et al., 2015).
Depending on their interest in the community and the brand, consumers have different
attitudes towards the community (Niedermeier et al., 2019) and perform different
behaviours (Braun et al., 2016), envisaging the benefits they expect to gain. In
consequence:
Proposition 7: Mass-communication theories, such as UGT, explain the influence of
consumer engagement in brand communities (attitudinal and behavioural) on consumers
benefits obtained from media uses (mass-communication factors).

5.4. Mediators
Depending on the community's type and characteristics, consumers infer what sort of
benefits they can expect, more social, functional or experiential. Mass-communication
factors mediate the relationship between community dynamics based on the type or
characteristics and motivational and behavioural engagement. According to their
interests, consumers develop different motivations to engage (Hartmann et al., 2015) as
well as engagement behaviours (Lee et al., 2011). Hence:

30
Proposition 8: Mass-communication factors mediate the impact of community-related
factors in motivational and behavioural consumer engagement in a brand community.

Consumer engagement in brand communities influences brand outcomes, such as

positive attitude and favourable behaviour intentions mediated by a positive attitude
towards the community (Baldus, 2018; Časas et al., 2016; Luo et al., 2015). As explained
in subsection 5.3, consumer engagement in brand communities influences consumers
attitude towards the community and the brand. Sometimes the influence on brand
attitude is not direct; the attitude toward the community mediates it. It means that
engagement in the community influences the consumer-brand relationship, but the
consumer-community relationship could mediate this relationship. Therefore:
Proposition 9: Community-related factors mediate the impact of consumer engagement
in a brand community (attitudinal, motivational and behavioural) in attitudinal and
behavioural intentions towards the brand.

5.5. Moderators
The relationship between constructs related to consumer engagement in brand
communities is affected by consumers' characteristics such as personality traits,
demographics and culture (Le & Duong, 2020), and community type (Oh et al., 2017).
As moderators, studies explored motivation to engage, personal and cultural differences,
and community types, such as consumer-created or marketeer-created (Carlson et al.,
2021). Thus:
Proposition 10: Consumers characteristics and community characteristics constrain the
relationship between consumer engagement and other variables (causes or
consequences).

5.6. Research framework

Building on the relationship marketing paradigm, as support of close relationships
between brands and consumers in social media, an integrative framework is proposed
(figure 4). The framework helps answer the research questions in subsection 3.1,
presenting the main constructs included in the literature, classified as antecedents,
consequences, mediators and moderators, and the relationships between them,
supported in the most applied theories.

31
 Antecedents Consequences

Moderators

P1
Personal Community P5
P10
Behavioural P6
P2 theories Behavioural theories
Social theories

P3 Uses and
Uses and
Gra)fica)on T.
Gra)fica)on T.
P7

Social
Iden)fica)on P9
P4 Theory P8

Mediators

Figure 4 – Integrative framework

6. Conclusion
The more targeted the strategy implemented in the community is towards its participants,
the better it will serve the brand's purpose, given the community's role as an information-
sharing focal point. Brand community research allows understanding the potential of this
strategic instrument (Dwivedi et al., 2021). Research about consumer engagement in the
brand community can be found in the marketing literature since 2011. Although a few
studies were published before, the significant increase of publications related to this topic
happened since the association of engagement and social media in the marketing
literature (Coelho et al., 2018; Laroche et al., 2012).
Conceptual and qualitative studies allow researchers to explore specific scenarios, to
observe interaction practices in order to understand the current paradigm of consumer-
brand relationships supported on social media (Fawcett et al., 2014). These exploratory
studies open the way to conceptualise constructs and relationships among them. Scale
development in consumer engagement in the brand community has become more
adapted to the context of social media in recent developments (Baldus et al., 2015;
Dessart et al., 2015, 2016). In the last four years, quantitative research benefited from
previous qualitative studies. It gained an adequate stimulus, with many researchers
investing in the field to capture the concept's different perspectives.
This paper contributes to the domain literature by identifying the main conceptualisations
of the topic and proposing an integrative framework, linking the subject to its main
antecedents and consequences, relationship mediators and moderators, and addressing

32
the central social, behavioural, and mass-communication theories supporting these
relationships.

6.1. Practical implications

Understanding the consumer's interests, emotional focus, and willingness to interact with
others and brands on social media is the key to developing Digital Marketing strategies
based on social media (Dwivedi et al., 2021; Simon & Tossan, 2018). The framework
presented allows an understanding of what variables brand strategists need to
manipulate to strengthen consumers' engagement in the community, depending on the
expected outcomes. Being aware of what moves consumers, the community
characteristics, the desire for sociability or the love for the brand, for example, allows
designing strategies more focused on attitudinal or behavioural engagement (Kaur,
Paruthi, Islam, & Hollebeek, 2020). The platform chosen for the strategy implementation
should also bear the intended audience and the variables to combine envisaging the
specific goals in mind (Tafesse, 2016). For example, if the strategy is based on handling
consumers' emotions, social desires, brand exhibitions, platforms more focused on
entertainment or social experiences sharing are more adequate (Facebook or Instagram)
than others focused on informational aspects. Social media campaigns based on
information attract consumers with other interests and other availability to connect with
brands that intend a not so close relationship. Platforms based on messaging could be
more appropriate for the binary consumers-strategy regarding the antecedents and
consequences of involved consumer engagement (Shareef, Dwivedi, Kumar, & Kumar,
2017).

6.2. Study limitations

This study aimed to perform a systematic literature review focused on the ‘consumer
engagement in brand communities' topic. The study followed literature review research
guidelines to ensure a rigorous and consistent process in selecting the journal articles to
assure compliance with the established criteria (Bandarra et al., 2011; Kitchenham,
2004, 2007; Templier & Paré, 2015). As a consequence of narrowing the concept and
compliance with the inclusion criterion (include all articles addressing specifically
'consumer engagement in brand communities'), the study did not consider close or
overlapping concepts in the literature, such as brand-related social media use (Muntinga
et al., 2011), brand interaction on social media (Nisar & Whitehead, 2016; Rohm,
Kaltcheva, & Milne, 2013), consumer-brand co-creation practices (Hamilton, Kaltcheva,
& Rohm, 2016; Piligrimiene, Dovaliene, & Virvilaite, 2015), and consumer participation

33
(Casaló, Flavián, & Guinalíu, 2007, 2008; Kamboj, Sarmah, Gupta, & Dwivedi, 2018; B.
Lin, Ming, & Bin, 2011). In marketing literature, these concepts are frequently used to
describe similar situations and ideas. Still, in this study, they were not considered
because they did not meet the established criteria. This restriction, although more
rigorous, could represent a closed view of the concept, as it does not consider the great
diversity of constructs and related operationalisation found in the literature.

6.3. Future research directions

As social media is an environment with a wide range of capabilities, combined with a
complex concept as engagement, it seems natural that the literature presents a great
diversity of approaches. Future research should articulate the different perspectives of
consumer and brand relationships within the community to provide a broader view of this
complex field of study. Based on the diversity of approaches found by this review, some
suggestions are proposed concerning future literature reviews, concept definitions,
concept operationalisation, research methods, and theories.
Considering further literature reviews in the field, researchers should focus on a broader
view of engagement, incorporating concepts such as brand-related social media use
(Muntinga et al., 2011), brand interaction on social media (Nisar & Whitehead, 2016;
Rohm et al., 2013), consumer-brand co-creation practices (Hamilton et al., 2016;
Piligrimiene et al., 2015), and consumer participation (Casaló et al., 2007, 2008; Kamboj
et al., 2018; B. Lin et al., 2011). Identifying the similarities and differences between these
constructs will contribute to clarifying definitions, related measures, and research
context, developing a more robust and consistent body of knowledge to support
consumer-brand interaction within the community. For example, consumer behaviour in
brand communities is operationalised based on actions, number, and type (Malinen,
2015); hence, which are the differences between behavioural engagement (Eigeraam et
al., 2018; Schivinski et al., 2016), consumer-brand co-creation practices (Hamilton et al.,
2016; Piligrimiene et al., 2015) and consumer participation (Casaló, Flavián, & Guinalíu,
2007, 2008; Lin, Ming, & Bin, 2011) in brand communities? A literature review focused
on these concepts will likely provide a useful framework to understand if they are or not
used as overlapping concepts.
The authors suggest more efforts from the academic community in the definition of
engagement. The idea of actions performed by people in a community, supporting
behavioural engagement, should be explored since studies revealed that very few
effectively participate (Fernandes & Castro, 2020; Heinonen, 2011). Observational
studies focus on a few elements in the community to describe their behaviour (Sun, Rau,

34
& Ma, 2014), but more consider themselves participants in the community. How are
passive participants involved in the community, knowing they constitute its majority, and
perform no or very few actions in the community, but keep accessing? A definition of
engagement based on attitude, or specifically, motives to participate, encompasses
more consumer profiles. It is not dependent on their propensity for action and reveals
the different consumer orientations related to the community or brand interaction.
However, in self-reported surveys used to measure consumers' attitudes and behaviour
towards the community, people tend to portray an ideal image of themselves and their
relationship with brands. The real motivation could be misunderstood in study results
(Malinen, 2015).
Since this topic is as yet at an early stage, most empirical studies adopted early published
definitions (Algesheimer et al., 2005) that do not fit today's context. Authors should invest
in developing measurement scales adapted to the innovative and interactive context of
social media. Recently published definitions (Baldus et al., 2015; Dessart et al., 2016;
Eigeraam et al., 2018) more adapted to current consumers and brand strategies need to
be explored in various platforms and supported in multiple theories to consolidate its
relevance and fit to the field.
It is a challenge for researchers to choose the most beneficial method to approach the
problem and data collection tool. Qualitative studies have an essential role as a vehicle
of idea generation that quantitative studies could further confirm. For example, studies
combining the observation of consumer actions and self-reported consumer attitudes
towards the community or the brand would generate a richness of information, providing
more consistent knowledge about community dynamics and their influence on consumer
attitudes towards the brand. Another critical approach to be explored in brand
communities is consumer engagement's long-term development. Longitudinal studies
are necessary to understand the evolution of the consumer-community relationship over
time and how it translates to and supports the consumer-brand connection (Prentice et
al., 2020). Today, consumers are dispersed across multiple social media platforms, and
consequently, brands try to capture their attention in each one to be present in every
moment of consumers' lives. Approaches based on social media's multi-platforms will
give a broader vision of the global influence of social media marketing in consumers
minds.
Another critical aspect of investing in future studies is the support of conceptual models
in mainstream theories since most current research does not do that. Most of the studies
eligible for this review did not mention any theoretical foundation supporting the
conceptual model.

35
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public,
commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

36
Appendix A

Conceptual papers – Community engagement

Authors Concept Context Definition Dimensions Method Model

(Hatch & Stakeholder Social media Co-creation practices Behavioural Literature Implications for brand
Schultz, engagement review management and governance
2010)
(Brodie et al., Customer General Psychological state, which occurs by Cognitive, emotional, Literature
2011) Engagement virtue of interactive customer experiences and behavioural review
with a focal agent/object within specific
service relationships
(Wirtz et al., Customer Online brand The consumer's intrinsic motivation to Literature Propose a conceptual model of
2013) engagement community interact and cooperate with community review drivers and outcomes of
members customer engagement in online
brand communities
(Dolan et al., Consumer Social media A customer's behavioural manifestations co-creation, positive Literature Propose a model of the
2016) engagement that have a social media focus, beyond contribution, review influence of social media
behaviour purchase, resulting from motivational consumption, content on consumer
drivers - adapted from (Van Doorn et al., dormancy, detachment, engagement behaviour
2010). negative contribution
and co-destruction
(Pansari & Customer General Customer engagement value Direct (buying) and Literature Propose a conceptual model of
Kumar, 2017) engagement (Kumar et al., 2010) indirect (referring, review antecedents and
influencing, feedback) consequences of customer
engagement
(Rosenthal & Fan Virtual (Brodie et al., 2011) Cognitive, emotional, Literature Propose a framework based on
Brito, 2017) engagement community and behavioural review and content, community, and
page influencers
observation
(Muñoz- Customer Twitter Metric based on Twitter parameters Literature
Expósito et engagement review
al., 2017)
(Kunz et al., Customer General Customers motives, Literature Propose a co-creation
2017) engagement situational factors, and review framework
preferred engagement
styles
Appendix B

Scale development papers - Definitions of community engagement

Authors Concept Context Definition Dimensions Scale items

(Algesheimer et Community offline The consumer's intrinsic Utilitarian, I benefit from following the brand community's rules.
al., 2005) engagement motivation to interact and hedonic, and I am motivated to participate in the brand community's activities because I feel
cooperate with community social better afterwards.
members. I am motivated to participate in the brand communities because I am able to support
other members.
I am motivated to participate in the brand community's activities because I am able
to reach personal goals.
(D. Lee et al., Consumers' Online Participation intentions Engagement How likely to participate in activities:
2011) community behaviours Providing new information about the brand to other people;
engagement Actively participating in the online brand community's activities;
behaviours Supporting other members of the online brand community;
Saying positive things about the online brand community to other people;
Recommending the online brand community to anyone who sought their advice
about the brand;
Encouraging other people to use the brand in future;
Not hesitating to refer other people to the brand
(Baldus et al., Community Online brand The compelling, intrinsic brand I am motivated to participate in this brand community because I can help improve
2015) engagement community motivations to continue influence, the brand and its products
interacting with an online brand I like to know that my comments and suggestions can influence the brand and its
brand community passion, products
connecting, Increasing the influence I have on the brand and its products makes me want to
helping, like- participate more in this brand community
minded I hope to improve the brand or product through participation and expression in this
discussion, brand community
hedonic I am motivated to participate in this brand community because I am passionate
rewards, about the brand
utilitarian I participate in this brand community because I care about the brand
rewards, I would not belong to a brand community if I did not have passion for the brand
seeking My passion for this brand’s products makes me want to participate in this brand
assistance, community
self- Increasing the strength of the connection I have with this brand community makes
expression, me want to participate more in the community
up-to-date Being part of this brand community makes me feel more connected to the brand
information Being part of this brand community makes me feel more connected to other
and validation consumers of the brand

38
I like to participate in the brand community because I can use my experience to help
other people
I like to share my experience and knowledge with others in this brand community to
help them be more educated about the brand
I really like helping other community members with their questions
I feel good when I can help answer other community member’s questions
I look forward to discussing my opinions about the brand with others who share the
same interest as me
I enjoy conversing with people similar to myself in this brand community
I look to this brand community when I want to discuss a topic with people who have
similar interests
Having conversations with people in this brand community who share the same
views about this brand is important to me
I like to participate in this brand community because it is entertaining
Having fun is my main reason for participating in this brand community
I participate in this brand community because I think it is fun
I find participating in this brand community to be very entertaining
I am motivated to participate in this brand community because I can earn money
If it weren’t for the money, I wouldn’t participate in this brand community
Receiving more money makes me want to participate more in this brand community
I am motivated to participate in this brand community because I can receive help
from other members
I am motivated to participate in this brand community because community members
can use their knowledge to help me
I like participating in this brand community because it gives me an opportunity to
receive help from other community members
It is important to me to be able to use this community to find answers to my
questions about the brand
I feel that I can freely share my interests in the brand community
I would express any opinion or idea I had about this brand in this brand community
I can always be myself when interacting with others in this community
This community makes it easy for me to express my true beliefs about the brand
This brand community is my critical connection for new and important information
about the brand and its products
When I want up-to-date information about this brand, I look to this brand community
This community keeps me on the leading edge of information about the brand
This community is the best way to stay informed about new developments with this
brand
Receiving more affirmation of the value of my comments makes me want to
participate more in the brand community

39
 I feel good about myself when other community members share my ideas
I appreciate when others agree with the ideas I express in this brand community
When others support my ideas and opinions in this brand community, I feel better
about myself
(Dessart et al., Customer Social media The level of a customer's Cognitive I feel enthusiastic about (EF)
2016) brand motivational, brand-related (attention and I am interested in anything about (EF)
engagement and context-dependent state absorption), I find (EF) interesting
of mind characterized by affective When interacting with (EF), I feel happy
(customers specific levels of cognitive, (enthusiasm I get pleasure from interacting with (EF)
engage with emotional and behavioural and Interacting with (EF) is like a treat for me
the brand activity in brand interactions enjoyment) I spend a lot of time thinking about (EF)
and the and I make time to think about (EF)
community) behavioural When interacting with (EF), I forget everything else around me
(sharing, Time flies when I am interacting with (EF)
learning and When I am interacting with (EF), I get carried away
endorsement) When interacting with (EF), it is difficult to detach myself
I share my ideas with (EF)
I share interesting content with (EF)
I help (EF)
I ask (EF) questions
I seek ideas or information from (EF)
I seek help from (EF)
I promote (EF)
I try to get other interested in (EF)
I actively defend (EF) from its critics
I say positive things about (EF) to other people
(Schivinski et Consumers’ Social media consumers' online brand- Consumption, I read posts related to brand X on social media
al., 2016) engagement related activities (based on contribution I read fan pages related to brand X on social network sites
(Muntinga et al., 2011)) and creation I watch pictures/graphics related to brand X
I follow blogs related to brand X
I follow brand X on social network sites
I comment on videos related to brand X
I comment on posts related to brand X
I comment on pictures/graphics related to brand X
I share brand X related posts
I “like” pictures/graphics related to brand X
I “like” posts related to brand X
I initiate posts related to brand X
I initiate posts related to brand X on social network sites
I post pictures/graphics related to brand X

40
 I write reviews related to brand X
I write posts related to brand X on forums
I post videos that show brand X
(Paruthi & Kaur, Online Online Consumers’ psychological conscious I like to know more about X.
2017) engagement state of mind and intensity of attention, I like events that are related to X.
their awareness, affection, affection, I like to learn more about X.
participation, and connection enthused I pay a lot of attention to anything about X.
with the brand. It is participation, I keep up with things related to X.
characterized by the and social Anything related to X grabs my attention.
consumers’ specific connection Engaging with X makes me feel happy.
interactive experiences with I feel the experience on X to be pleasurable.
the brand. Browsing X satisfies me.
I spend a lot of my free time on X.
I am heavily into X.
I am passionate about X.
I try to fit accessing X into my schedule.
I love accessing X with my friends.
I enjoy using X more when I am with others.
X is more fun when other people around me also access it.
(Eigeraam et al., Customer Digital Digital customer engagement For fun, Playing a game
2018) engagement environments practices learning Participating in a contest
practices about the Viewing a video about the brand
brand, Watching pictures of the brand
working for Signing up for updates about the brand
the brand, Providing assistance for the brand
customer Making an advertisement for the brand
feedback, Providing feedback to the brand
talking about Filling out a customer satisfaction survey about the brand
the brand Making suggestions for service or product improvements about the brand
with other Responding to content about the brand
consumers Writing a recommendation for the brand
Blogging about the brand
Interacting with other consumers of the brand
Recommending the brand
Engaging in conversations about the brand
Helping other customers of the brand

41
Appendix C

Table 1 – Qualitative papers

Authors Concept Context Definition Dimensions Method Model Especial

situation
(Vivek et al., customer General the intensity of an Cognitive, emotional In-depth Proposition of model Scale
2012) engagement individual's participation and and behavioural interviews with involving customer development
connection with the executives, focus engagement as a
organization's offerings and group and mediator between
activities initiated by either qualitative survey consumer participation
the customer or the with consumers and consumer-brand
organization relationship drivers
(Dessart et consumer online brand The level of a customer's Cognitive (attention and Semi-structured Proposition of model Scale
al., 2015) engagement community motivational, brand-related absorption), affective interviews with involving customer development
(brand and and context-dependent (enthusiasm and social media engagement as a
community) state of mind characterized enjoyment) and community mediator between brand-
by specific levels of behavioural (sharing, members related, social and
cognitive, emotional and learning and community drivers and
behavioural activity in brand endorsement) brand loyalty
interactions
(Marbach et Online Social Cognitive, emotional Semi-structured Propose a theoretical Products and
al., 2016) customer media and behavioural interviews with framework where services
engagement members of social customer engagement is delivered
media brand driven by personality traits online
communities and influences customer-
perceived value.
(Roncha & Consumer Instagram Behavioural Semi-structured Suggests new Shoe’s brand
Radclyffe- engagement engagement with interviews with approaches to getting (Tom’s)
Thomas, content, co-creation professional useful insights about how
2016) brands can use social
media to further engage
with their target audience
through an integrative
framework
of brand value co-creation
with theoretical
underpinning.
(Bowden et Consumer Social Positive and negative In-depth Propose a framework Luxury brands
al., 2017) engagement media consumer interviews with involving engagement
manifestations online brand valence, outcomes and

42
 community directions. Engagement
members with the brand, the
community and spillover
effect
(Choi & Consumer Social Semi-structured Small companies use Music
Burnes, engagement media interviews with social media to establish
2017) members of social relationships and interact
media brand with fans in order to co-
communities create value and
vitalise collective
consumption,
engagement, and
participation
(Coelho et Consumer Social In-depth Preposition of conceptual FMCG
al., 2018) engagement media brand interviews with model of consumer
community experts and focus engagement as
group with social consumer-brand
media community relationship driver
members
(Ramadan Consumer Social In-depth Identify categories of Luxury brands
et al., 2018) engagement media interviews with online brand followers
luxury brand
online followers
(Pentina et Consumer Social Engagement behaviour In-person Identify social media Luxury brands
al., 2018) engagement media interviews with engagement behaviours
behaviours luxury brand
shoppers
(Kristina Consumer Online Cognitive, emotional Abductive Identify factors influencing Service
Heinonen, engagement platforms and behavioural research approach consumer engagement
2018)
(Zhang et Customer Online Engagement behaviour Value co-creation or co- Open-ended Understand co-creation or Several
al., 2018) engagement channels destruction experiences questions (critical co-destruction of value
incidents
technique)
(Naeem & Consumer Social Engagement behaviour User generated content Semi-structured Social responsibility, Fashion retail
Ozuem, engagement media interviews sharing experience,
2020) staying connected and
updated, and reward
sharing are the major
factors leading to creation,

43
 exchange and
consumption of UGC.

Table 2 – Qualitative + netnographyc papers

Authors Concept Context Definition Dimensions Method Results Industry

(Seraj, 2012) Engagement Online Consumers Netnography and Characteristics of online Case study
community actions interviews with community brand community that airline
members instigate engagement
(Brodie et al., Consumer Virtual brand (Brodie et al., Cognitive, Netnography and in-depth Consumer engagement Case study
2013) engagement community 2011) emotional and interviews with community influence consumer-brand Health and
behavioural members relationships fitness
(Fujita et al., Customer Social media Consumers Netnography and in-depth Customer engagement as a Case study
2017) engagement actions interviews with community result of acculturation and education -
members social identity University
(Lima et al., Consumer Facebook (Brodie et al., Consumers Netnography and group Participation and Case study -
2019) engagement 2011) actions discussions involvement do not mean Beauty
engagement
(Rossolatos, Consumer Social media Engagement User-generated Netnography and Model of brand engagement Fashion
2020) engagement behaviour content discourse analysis funnel industry
(Morgan- Consumer Digital eco- Engagement Consumer actions Interviews and Engagement ecosystem Several
Thomas et al., engagement system behaviour netnography generates new engagement
2020) practices

Table 3 – Netnographyc papers

Authors Concept Context Definition Dimensions Results Industry

(Skålén et al., Engagement Facebook Engagement Comments and posts 3 groups of collaborative Cars -
2015) behaviour practices: interacting, identity Alfisti
and
organizing practices
(Peeroo et al., Customer Facebook Engagement Respond to company posts Identification of reasons why Grocery
2017) engagement behaviour customer respond to
company posts
(Hollebeek, Community Social Engagement Value co-creation practices Identification of engagement Luxury
Juric, & Tang, engagement media practices (Schau et al., 2009) practices
2017b)

44
(Potdar et al., Online Facebook Communication, interaction, Identification of consumer Banks
2018) customer experience, satisfaction, patterns leading to
engagement continued involvement, recommendation
bonding, and recommendation
(Le, 2018) Online Facebook Online Number of likes, comments and Understanding of the impact Cars
engagement engagement shares on Facebook posts of WOM on online
metrics engagement
(Uzunboylu et Engagement Instagram Instagram Instagram metric in brand understand how
al., 2020) Metrics selfies the selfie phenomenon could
mobilize the interactivity
between brands and target
audiences

45
Appendix D

Quantitative papers by content analysis

Authors Concept Unit of analysis Context Measures Model Key findings Industry
(Chen et al., Consumer Consumer posts Facebook Number of likes, shares Brand personification in Engaged consumers Several
2015) engagement and comments consumer-brand treat brands as
relationships humanlike social agents
(Wang, Qiao, & User Brand post Social Comments and valence Evaluative aspect of the Socializing purpose Starbucks
Peng, 2015) engagement media emotional process links of online communities is brand
engagement with purchase related to the affective
intention and evaluative valence
of proactive engagement
(Geissinger & User User-generated Social Manifestations of user How ten Swedish fashion Expressions of Fashion
Laurell, 2016) engagement content media engagement brands have been integrated engagement vary across
by integrating these in expressions of user social media platforms
brands in expressions of engagement in social media and over time
engagement that
materialize in the user-
generated content that
they create online
(Khan et al., Fan page Brand posts Facebook Number of likes, shares The effect of cultural Posts characteristics One
2016) engagement and comments differences on effectiveness influence engagement, product
of social media metrics and differences across category
cultures were observed
(Noguti, 2016) User Brand posts Reddit Posts’ elements Relationship between posts Language features add
engagement elements and user explained variance to
engagement models of online
engagement variables,
providing significant
contribution to both
language and social
media researchers and
practitioners
(Schultz, 2016) Consumer Consumer social Facebook Number of likes, shares Fan number, brand posting, Identification of Apparel
social interactions and comments and response behaviour engagement brand retail
interaction strategies
(Swenson, Consumer Consumer Offline Letters analysis women engaged in Betty
2016) engagement response dialogue with the Crocker
brand

46
 company to reify brand
values, express
gratitude and loyalty,
and seek more social
support and connection
(Tafesse, Consumer Brand page Facebook Number of likes, shares Experiential affordances of Brands that facilitate Several
2016) engagement and comments Facebook brand pages experiential affordances
influence consumer generate higher levels of
engagement engagement
(Willis & Wang, Consumer Member Facebook Number of likes, shares To understand the role engage consumers with Weight
2016) engagement interactions and comments consumer engagement plays content Watchers
in shaping brand meaning delivered through online
and how brand meaning is communities.
transferred through
computer-mediated content
(Gutiérrez- User Brand posts Facebook Frequency of likes, shares How posts content Brand page engagement 1 fashion
Cillán et al., engagement and comments contributes to users’ as outcome of brand
2017) engagement experiential value (utility
and entertainment) of
brand posts
(Ibrahim et al., User Tweets Twitter Number of replies and text Influence on users’ Effects on users’ Retail
2017) engagement length perception of brand image sentiment
and service
(Lei et al., Customer Brand posts Facebook Number of likes, shares Factor influencing consumer Content brand type Several
2017) engagement and comments engagement with branded influences customer
content engagement
(Oh et al., Consumer Social media Social Platform parameters Associates consumer Differences across Films
2017) engagement posts media engagement behaviour to social media platforms
behaviour economic performance
(Schultz, 2017) Consumer Brand posts Facebook Number of likes, shares Post characteristics influence Identification of Several
engagement and comments consumer engagement differences across
engagement activities
and industries

(Lin, Yang, Ma, Brand Advertising data Weibo Identification of 2 forms of Both types of
& Huang, engagement via and actions data engagement (consumer- engagement influence
2018) social media initiated and firm-initiated) advertising
platforms and how they affect effectiveness, but
advertising effectiveness depends on the type of
brand (strong or weak)

47
(Viswanathan Customer Tv show tweets Twitter Volume, sentiment, and Theoretical framework Different influences of Television
et al., 2018) engagement richness of user- involving brands actions, action brands on product shows
behaviours generated content consumer engagement consumption, live or
behaviours and, consumer shifted viewing
consumption
(Yoon et al., User digital Brand posts Facebook Users’ comments How social media affects Number of users’ Several
2018) engagement company’s business comments influences
performance company’s revenue
(Wu et al., Customer Information about Social Number of posting and How community engagement Community engagement several
2018) engagement transactions and media replies affects online WOM increases the likelihood
consumer behaviour (reviews and of positive online WOM
reviews ratings) behaviour
(Cooper et al., Engagement Brand posts Facebook Number of likes, shares Balance between community Appealing, consuming Clothing
2019) behaviours and comments goals and company needs and affiliate actions brand
(Smith, 2019) Stakeholder Brand posts Facebook Number of likes, shares Strong social media voice Built a strong and Small
Engagement and comments serves as an effective tool to trusted digital voice airport
attract new business, as well using a surprisingly
as mitigate rumours, simple in-house strategy
misinformation and build
brand loyalty
(Kang, Lu, Customer Consumption, Sina Likes, gifts, comments Interactivity impacts tie Curvilinear relationships Social
Guo, & Li, engagement contribution, and Weibo strength and customer between interactivity and commerce
2021) behaviours creation Live engagement behaviour. CE
Moderators: popularity and
tenure membership

48
Appendix E

Quantitative papers by survey research

Authors Concept Context Definition Dimensions Scale Method Model Key findings
(Algesheime Community offline The Utilitarian, I benefit from SEM Consumer-community
r et al., engagement consumer’s hedonic, and following the relationships
2005) intrinsic social brand
motivation to community’s
interact and rules.
cooperate I am motivated to
with participate in the
community brand
members. community’s
activities because
I feel better
afterwards.
I am motivated to
participate in the
brand
community’s
activities because
I am able to
support other
members.
I am motivated to
participate in the
brand
community’s
activities because
I am able to reach
personal goals.
(Lee et al., Consumers’ Online Participation Engagement How likely to ANOVA Community engagement Positive influence
2011) community intentions behaviours participate in ANCOVA as a result of intrinsic
engagement activities: (a) motives of altruism and
behaviours providing new social identification
information about motivation
the brand to other
people; (b)
actively
participating in the
 online brand
community’s
activities; (c)
supporting other
members of the
online brand
community; (d)
saying positive
things about the
online brand
community to
other people; (e)
recommending
the online brand
community to
anyone who
sought their
advice about the
brand; (f )
encouraging other
people to use the
brand in future;
and (g) not
hesitating to refer
other people to
the brand
(Laroche et Community Social Attitude Based on SEM Community engagement
al., 2012) engagement media (Algesheimer et as a value creation
al., 2005) practice influences brand
trust and brand loyalty
(Cheung, Consumer Brand Behavioural: Adapted from PLS Consumer engagement Positive effects
Zheng, & engagement community participation and (Algesheimer et behaviour (participation
Lee, 2012) of social promotion al., 2005) and e- and promotion) affect
networking business (Koh & online community
sites Kim, 2004) commitment, which
affects brand
commitment, purchase
intentions and WOM
intentions

50
(Hutter et al., user Facebook Attitude Case study – How social media Engagement with a
2013) Mini activities and user Facebook fan page has
SEM interactions with these positive effects on
brand-related activities consumers’ brand
affect the perception of awareness, WOM
brands and ultimately activities and purchase
influence consumers intention
purchase decision
(Kuo & Community Online Motives (Algesheimer et PLS Community engagement CE influences
Feng, 2013) engagement community al., 2005) as an interaction perceived benefits:
characteristic influence learning, social, self-
perceived benefits and, esteem, and hedonic
consequently, community
commitment
(Tsai & Men, Consumer Social Motives Adapted from HRA Motives to engage in Positive influence
2013) engagement networking (Muntinga et al., Facebook brand pages
sites 2011)

(Gamboa & Fans and Facebook PLS Examining fans and non- Relations are stronger
Gonçalves, non fans Case study fans of the Zara brand on for fans of the brand
2014) engagement Zara brand Facebook, we discovered than for non-fans, and
that Facebook enhances customer satisfaction is
engagement the strongest
determinant of loyalty.
(Lee, Han, & Opinion Online Exploratory Research model that Opinion leaders'
Suh, 2014) leader brand Case study includes the types of engagement positively
engagement community Starbucks customer expectations, affects the interaction
opinion leader among community
engagement, negative members
valence of VOC,
interaction, and
innovation.
(Tsai & Men, Consumer Social Motives Adapted from t-test Motives to engage in Differences across
2014) engagement networking (Muntinga et al., Facebook brand pages, cultures
sites 2011) comparing two cultures

(Habibi et Community Social Motives (Algesheimer et Community engagement CE moderates

al., 2014b) engagement media al., 2005) moderates the effect of positively
brand community

51
 relationships on brand
trust
(Ray et al., Community online Motives (Algesheimer et SEM A conceptual model Positive influences
2014) engagement al., 2005) where community
engagement results from
knowledge self-efficacy,
self-identity verification,
community identification
and satisfaction. CE
influences WOM and
knowledge contribution
(Luo et al., Community Social Attitude Adapted from SEM Community engagement
2015) engagement media (Algesheimer et as a value creation
al., 2005; Laroche practice influences
et al., 2012) consumer-brand
relationship and
consumer-other
consumer relationship,
leading to community
commitment and brand
loyalty
(Verhagen et Customer Virtual Customer Behaviour (Algesheimer et PLS Model relating virtual Positive influence
al., 2015a) engagement community engagement al., 2005; Hennig- environment
intentions Thurau, Gwinner, characteristics, perceived
Walsh, & Gremler, benefits (cognitive,
2004) social, hedonic, and
personal) and customer
engagement intentions
(behavioural)
(Hartmann et Community Online Motives (Algesheimer et PLS How different Direct and vicarious
al., 2015) engagement community al., 2005) consumptive moments moments have different
influence community roles in the creation of
engagement community
engagement and
vitality
(Loureiro, Community Offline Motives (Algesheimer et PLS Antecedents: brand Positive influence of
Pires, & engagement al., 2005) identification, community drivers. Engagement
Kaufmann, satisfaction, other influences participation.
2015) members.
Consequences:

52
 community participation,
and indirectly brand
loyalty, brand knowledge
and WOM
(Y. Wang et Community Social Proactive Behaviour
al., 2015) engagement media engagement
(Hall-Phillips Consumer Social Attitude (Lee, Kim, Kim, SEM To foster consumer Site experience:
et al., 2016) engagement media sites 2011) identification with social Excitement, aesthetics,
venture Educational
Value, Escapism
influence CE.
Consumer engagement
and attractiveness of
identity influence
consumer identification
of consumer with social
venture
(Osakwe et Consumer Social Attitude Adapted from PLS Conceptual model CE do not affect WOM
al., 2016) engagement media brand involving consumer
engagement engagement in social
(Hollebeek et al., media in consumer
2014) purchase decision,
mediated by WOM
(Nguyen et Consumer Online Attitude Adapted from SEM Conceptual model Positive influence, fully
al., 2016) engagement community brand involving online mediated by
engagement community engagement community norms and
(Hollebeek et al., and perception of price rule familiarity
2014) fairness
(Fernandes Customer Virtual Willingness Attitude Based on co- Identification of reasons
& Remelhe, engagement community to engage creation and to participate in co-
2016) virtual creation activities
communities’
insights from
different authors
(Islam & Customer Facebook Attitude Adapted from SEM Customer engagement Customer engagement
Rahman, engagement brand influences brand trust influences brand trust
2016) engagement and WOM and WOM
(Vivek et al.,
2014)

53
(De Oliveira User Facebook User Contribution and Adapted from PLS Extended model of social User engagement
et al., 2016) engagement engagement interaction consumers media participation intentions are driven by
intentions behaviours participation subjective norms,
(Cheung & Lee, social identity,
2011) maintaining
interpersonal
interconnectivity, and
entertainment value
(Habibi et Community Engaging in Attitude This brand SEM Community engagement
al., 2016) engagement value community has as a value creation
creation several specific practice influences brand
practices re- domains to which relationship quality and
quires members can brand loyalty
members to contribute.
have strong There are many
feelings of pages on social
brand media that are
community devoted to a
markers specific aspect of
such as this brand
obligations Members of this
to the brand community
community remember and
and shared share their first
consciousne personal
ss, creating experiences with
a sense of this brand.
meaning and Seminal
identity for experiences with
members the brand are
highly valued in
the brand
community.
There are many
photos in the
brand community
page depicting
consumers'
experience with
their brand.

54
 Members of this
brand community
use symbols or
badges to reflect
important
experiences with
this brand
Members share
narratives of their
brand relationship
journey on the
brand's page.
(Časas et Brand Online Motives Adapted from EFA and Community Engagement Community
al., 2016) community (Baldus et al., MLR as motives to interact Engagement as
engagement 2015) influence community motives to interact
commitment and influence community
repurchase intention commitment and
repurchase intention
(M. Kang, Community Online Attitude Adapted from PLS Brand community Positive influence
Shin, & engagement brand (Algesheimer et engagement is affected
Gong, 2016) community al., 2005) and by personalization,
(Habibi et al., familiarity among
2014b) members and quality of
C2C interactions
(Braun et al., Customer Online Behaviours: Adapted from The effect of customer Benefits: social,
2016) engagement brand value-creation (Habibi et al., engagement behaviours relationship,
community practices, online, 2014b) on perceived benefits autonomous, altruistic,
customer-to- economic, and self-
customer fulfilment
interaction
(Kim & Consumer Social Motivations and Adapted from 2x2 design For consumers with consumers’ perceived
Drumwright, engagement media intentions to behavioural different motivations to social relatedness
2016) And brand consuming and to engagement engage with brands, moderates the effects
consumer community contributing (Muntinga et al., explores the mechanism of consumer motivation
engagement 2011) and (Tsai & that enables perceptions on
intention Men, 2013) of social engagement,
relatedness to contribute consuming intention,
to consumer engagement satisfaction, affective
and relationship building commitment, and trust

55
(Dessart, Community Social (Dessart et Attitude (Dessart et al., SEM Community engagement
2017) engagement media al., 2015, 2016) influences brand
brand 2016) engagement,
community commitment, trust and
loyalty
(Shing-Wang Fan brand Facebook Attitude Participation, Adapted from SEM Antecedents: social
& Shih- Facebook and engagement (Casaló, Flavián, interaction tie, self-image
Heng, 2017) page & Guinalíu, 2010; congruence, and content
engagement Laroche et al., value (utilitarian and
2012; Pöyry, hedonic). Consequences:
Parvinen, & continued intention to use
Malmivaara, and affective commitment
2013) to FBP
(Islam & Community Social Attitude Adapted from SEM Customer engagement
Rahman, engagement media brand mediates the relationship
2017) brand engagement between community
community (Hollebeek et al., characteristics and brand
2014) loyalty
(Islam, Community online Attitude Adapted from SEM Customer engagement Extraversion is the
Rahman, & engagement brand brand mediates the relationship strongest driver of CE,
Hollebeek, community engagement between personality traits openness to
2017) (Hollebeek et al., and purchase intention experience,
2014) neuroticism and
agreeableness also
have positive influence.
Consciousness has
negative impact. EC
influences intention to
purchase.
(Martínez- Consumer Social Attitude Adapted from SEM Drivers: OBC trust, OBC
López et al., engagement media (Algesheimer et identification, OBC
2017) in online al., 2005; Laroche experience. Outcome:
brand et al., 2012) OBC participation
community
(Phua et al., Community Social Motivation Adapted from SEM Community engagement
2017) engagement media (Sung, Kim, as an outcome from
Kwon, & Moon, frequency of use
2010)

56
(Claffey & Consumer Social Attitudinal Cognitive, Several measures SEM Motivational drivers of Cognitive appraisal
Brady, 2017) engagement media engagement affective, and adapted from consumer engagement in influences participation,
in virtual participation in different authors virtual brand communities moderated by affective
brand value co-creation from psychology states. Motives:
community activities field hedonic, social and
personal integrative,
positive self-
enhancement and
utilitarian effect
cognitive and
participation
(Chiang et Customer Social Behavioural Adapted from PLS How customer learning Positive influence, and
al., 2017) engagement media social commerce factors (collaborative and CBE have a positive
(Kim, 2013) motivation) affect influence on loyalty
I spend a lot of satisfaction, and
time here satisfaction affect
I tell my friends customer engagement
about the behaviour and loyalty
information I
obtain here
I tell the firm what
I need
I recommend this
firm’s brand to my
friends

(Guo et al., Customer Social Behavioural Case study how individuals' Personal factors and
2017) engagement networks Online simply follow, purely Environmental factors
questionnair aiming for information but have a significant
e with little contribution, impact on determining
SEM could affect fans followers' proclivity to
behaviour and make engage in CNSs
them engage in CSN
(He & Consumer Social Behavioural Social media Case study How consumers' roles The overall consumer
Negahban, engagement media platform metrics Fashion and behaviours can engagement behavior
2017) Exploratory shape and affect social has a significant
media-based brand predictive
communities. relationship with the
growth rate of brand
community in both

57
 short term and long
term
(Phua et al., User Social Behavioural Social media Case study Facebook, Results depend on
2017) engagement media platform metrics Fashion Twitter, Instagram, or Social media platform
Exploratory Snapchat, for following
brands, and their
influence on brand
community-related
outcomes
(Zhang, Customer Online Attitude Conscious (Vivek et al., SEM How customer Positive influence
Guo, et al., engagement brand participation, 2012) engagement influences
2017) community Enthusiasm, and brand stickiness and
social interaction wom intentions
(Chang & Fan Brand Attitude SEM Predictors of fan’s Engagement is
Fan, 2017) engagement social engagement and influenced by social
network affective commitment interaction tie, content
site value and affective
(Facebook) commitment
(Ha, 2018) Community Online Attitude Adapted from Online Value creation practices Positive influence
engagement brand (Algesheimer et questionnair influence community
community al., 2005) es SEM engagement.
(Kumar & Brand General Motives (Algesheimer et Offline BCE Influences brand
Nayak, community al., 2005) questionnair loyalty intentions and
2018) engagement es PLS-SEM brand engagement. BCE
is influenced by brand
community identification
(Simon & Brand Facebook Behaviour Adapted from Online Outcome of consumer Brand gratitude and
Tossan, Facebook (Muntinga et al., questionnair brand relationships brand page satisfaction
2018) page 2011) es SEM positively influence
engagement BFPE
(Liu et al., Consumer Social Attitude Cognitive, Adapted from Online Consumer engagement CE partially mediates
2018) engagement media emotional and brand questionnair mediates the relationship the relationship
brand behavioural engagement es PLS-SEM between consumer to
community (Hollebeek et al., consumer and consumer
2014) to marketer trust and
brand trust
(Loureiro & Online Social Motives (Baldus et al., Online Dimensions of OCE Emotions, passion and
Kaufmann, community media 2015) questionnair affect WOM in love and validation affect
2018) engagement brand es HRA hate communities positive WOM in love
community communities. Brand

58
 influence, brand
aversion and hedonic
rewards affect negative
WOM in hate
communities
(Akrout et Fans of Facebook Behaviour of Levels of Online Engagement as a Young and female fans
al., 2018) Facebook visiting frequency of questionnair multigroup moderator with a high level of
brand pages visiting the brand e (combined with age and engagement and
page SEM gender) affecting the having a strong brand
relationship between relationship, spread
commitment and trust in positive WOM
virtual brand community
and WOM
(Triantafillido Consumer Facebook Behavioural Consuming and Adapted from Online Model of the effects of Flow and communitas
u& brand engagement contributing brand questionnair Facebook experience in influence positively
Siomkos, engagement (Motives) engagement es PLS consumer behavioural consuming, and
2018) (Tsai & Men, engagement escapism influence
2013) negatively.
Entertainment, flow,
socializing, and
communitas influence
positively contributing
(Islam, Consumer Online Attitude Adapted from Online Customer engagement Positive impacts. Did
Rahman, & engagement brand brand questionnair mediates the relationship not differ by gender
Hollebeek, community engagement es SEM between self-brand
2018) (Hollebeek et al., image congruity and
2014) value congruity and
brand loyalty
(Carlson et Customer Social Engagement Feedback and Adapted from Online Environmental stimulus Value resulting from
al., 2018) engagement media behaviour collaboration (Hamilton et al., questionnair influence virtual customer customer experience
brand intentions intentions 2016; Shi, Chen, es PLS experiences, that influences intentions to
communiti & Chow, 2016) influence customer give feedback and
es engagement behaviours collaboration
in the community
(Bianchi & Consumer- Social Engagement Attitude towards Adapted from Online Attitude towards
Andrews, brand media behaviour engagement and visiting pages and questionnair engaging influence
2018) engagement (Facebook) Intention to intentions to e SEM engagement intentions,
engage (visiting continue using that influence intentions
pages) (Lin, Fan, & Chau, to purchase through SM
2014; Yang, 2010)

59
(Baldus, Community Online Intrinsic Motives (Baldus et al., Longitudinal OBCE influences Positive relationships:
2018) engagement brand motivation to 2015) study psychological sense of brand commitment,
community interact with community. That will loyalty, WOM,
the affect brand and community
community community supportive participation intentions
behaviours
(Arya et al., Consumer Social Engagement Communication, Online The influence of CESNS Brand communication
2018) engagement network behaviour building questionnair in brand attachment mediates the
sites es SEM behaviours, mediated by relationship
brand communication
(Nagaraj & Customer Facebook Engagement Customer Online mediation of CBE and CBE does not mediate
Singh, 2018) engagement behaviour activities questionnair RQ between customer among the purchasers'
es, quasi- participation and brand group, however, CBE
experimental loyalty. and RQ exhibit serial
design mediation. Also, RQ
Case study does not mediate
among the non-
purchasers' group.
(Kujur & Consumer Brand Engagement Behaviour (Schivinski et al., Online and Content related factors, The 3 factors have
Singh, 2019) engagement social behaviour 2016) offline social factors and positive impact on
network questionnair perceptual factors CE.CE influences C-O
sites pages e influence consumer relationship
(Facebook) SEM engagement. How
consumer engagement
behaviour influences the
customer organization
relationship
(Lima et al., Customer Facebook Engagement Passive and Customer Online How customer Positive influence
2019) engagement behaviour active behaviour activities questionnair engagement affects
e PLS customer happiness and
consequently WOM and
purchase intentions
(Niedermeier Online Facebook Attitudinal Attitude Adapted from Online Explores the relationship Extraversion, openness
et al., 2019) consumer engagement brand questionnair between personality to experiences and
engagement engagement e SEM traits, OCE, perceived altruism – are positively
(Hollebeek et al., value and the moderating correlated with OCE.
2014) role of personal values. OCE is related social
value and aesthetic
value.

60
(Ferreira & Consumer Facebook Attitudinal Attitude Adapted from Online Explores the impact of community
Zambaldi, engagement engagement (Vivek et al., questionnair brand involvement and engagement has a
2019) 2014) e SEM perceived homophily on strong, positive
consumer association with
engagement with brand corporate
communities in social reputation and fully
media and the mediates the
effect of the latter on relationship between
corporate reputation brand
involvement and
perceived homophily
with corporate
reputation
(Hanson et Consumer Facebook Behaviour Engagement Intentions to Online how the type of signal Signals that evoke a
al., 2019) engagement intentions participate, visit, questionnair used to indicate positive social role
communicate and e user reputation can have the ability to drive
contribute SEM enhance (or diminish) greater engagement
consumers’ community than signals that do
engagement. not provide role clarity
(J. Wang et Brand Online Motives (Algesheimer et Online and Based on the UGT product complexity
al., 2019) community al., 2005) offline investigate positively moderates
engagement questionnair the moderation of product the impact of
e complexity, brand information value on
SEM and symbolism, and BCE and brand
HRA extraversion in the symbolism positively
relationship between moderates the effect of
brand community social value on
gratification and brand BCE. Extraversion
community engagement positively interacts with
social value in
enhancing BCE
(Dessart et Community Facebook Motives (Algesheimer et Online Negative brand Negative brand
al., 2020) engagement al., 2005) questionnair relationships and relationship (negative
e emotions to emotional
SEM evidence how such connection and two-
relationships transpose way communication)
into the willingness to lead to community
participate in collective participation in anti-
actions in antibrand brand communities,
communities

61
 through the mediating
role of social approval
and oppositional loyalty
(Fernandes Consumer Facebook Behaviour Passive and Adapted from PLS-SEM How consumer benefits Passive/lurker
& Castro, engagement active (Schivinski et al., influence their behaviour behaviour has a
2020) engagement 2016) (active or passive), and stronger impact on
behaviours brand loyalty brand loyalty than
active/posting
behaviour
Hasim,
Tajuddin, &
Zainol, 2020)
(Haverila et Customer Online Attitude (Dessart, Aldás- 1. Passionate Online Segment brand Segment one has a
al., 2020) engagement Manzano, & about visiting the survey, communities based on stronger relationship
Veloutsou, 2019) brand community SEM, participation behaviour between identification
(Fernandes & 2. Continue FMPLS and their identification and other outcomes
Remelhe, 2016) visiting the brand with the brand and is also more
community for community, loyalty and motivated by social
very benefits gained from enhancement than
long periods membership segment two
3. Enthusiastic
when interacting
with the brand
community
4. Proud of the
brand community
5. Getting carried
away when I
interact with the
brand community
6. Happy when I
am interacting
with the brand
community
(Kumar & Brand Online (Algesheime Motives SEM How community benefits Positive effects
Kumar, community brand r et al., influence CE, and CE
2020) engagement community 2005) influences brand and
community relationships
(Kwon et al., Consumer Social (Brodie et Attitude (Vivek et al., SEM The effects of marketing Advertisement/promoti
2020) engagement media al., 2013) 2014) communications, such as on and SNS content

62
 (Dessart et al., advertisement/promotion have a positive effect
2016) and social network on CE. CE has a
service (SNS) content, on positive effect on brand
consumer engagement trust, and CE and
(CE), brand trust and brand trust have a
brand loyalty positive effect on brand
loyalty.
(Le & Customer Online Attitude Adapted from Online How cultural traits Cultural values such as
Duong, engagement brand (Martínez-López questionnair influence customer collectivism,
2020) community et al., 2017) e, engagement uncertainty avoidance,
PLS-SEM and long-term
orientation have an
impact on OBC
engagement
(Liao et al., Brand Baidu Participation and I frequently Online Oppositional loyalty is a Self-brand similarity,
2020) community Tieba communication interact with other questionnair brand identity-driven brand prestige and
engagement community e, outcome. CE moderates brand uniqueness lead
members SEM the relationship. to consumer-brand
I spend a lot of identification, which
time participating facilitates oppositional
in the brand loyalty. BCE
community’s strengthen the
activities relationship between
I often consumer-brand
communicate with identification and
members of the oppositional
community loyalty.
I have
bidirectional
communication
with other
community
members
(Naumann et Customer Social Attitude Positive and (Vivek et al., Online The effects of negative Involvement is a strong
al., 2020) engagement media negative CE 2014) questionnair customer driver of positive CE,
dual focus: (Hollebeek et al., e engagement (CE) and and positive CE has a
brand and 2014) SEM positive CE in relation to strong effect on WOM
community the antecedent of
involvement and outcome
of word-of-mouth.

63
(Osemeahon Consumer Social Behaviours Adapted from (Liu Online FOMO and smartphone Positive effects
& Agoyi, engagement media et al., 2018) questionnair use affects CE, and CE
2020) in social e affects brand loyalty
media brand PLS-SEM
communities
(Prentice et Organic Online Behaviours Information Adapted Longitudinal Organic customer Organic customer
al., 2020) customer brand support, measures from study engagement behaviours engagement
engagement community information several authors influence customer behaviours have a
sharing, and loyalty positive effect on
consumers customer loyalty
interaction
(Thai & Consumer Facebook Behaviours Consumption, (Schivinski et al., Online How life-cycling activities Friends and crowd
Wang, 2020) engagement contribution, and 2016) questionnair on sm influence endorsement influence
creation e consumer behaviour and consumer behaviour.
SEM c-b relationships Liking behaviour
influences CE.
(Yuan et al., Consumer Online Attitude Conscious Adapted from Online How Consumer online High levels of
2020) online brand brand participation, (Vivek et al., questionnair brand community engagement and
community community enthusiasm, and 2014) e engagement influences forgiveness can off-set
engagement social interaction (Zhang, Hu, Guo, PLS-SEM consumer forgiveness the negative
& Liu, 2017) and repurchase consequences for
intentions in a product- consumer-brand
harm crises relationships
(Bowden & Consumer Facebook attitude Cognitive, Online consumer engagement Positive effects.
Mirzaei, engagement affective, questionnair with branded content is Stronger effects of
2021) behavioural, and e created through cognitive and affective
social Multi-group consumer-initiated OBC engagement on b.
analysis and brand-initiated digital loyalty in OBC channel,
content marketing (DCM) than in DCM
communications. Self- communications.
brand connections are
important antecedent of
CE and the subsequent
impact on loyalty
(Carlson et Customer Facebook Attitude Absorption, Adapted from Online How OBS-site quality Positive impacts. The
al., 2021) engagement and Weibo activation, brand questionnair affects consumer impact varies across
affection, and engagement e engagement, and how generations
socialisation (Hollebeek et al., PLS-SEM CE impacts behavioural
2014) and loyalty

64
(Carlson et al.,
2018)

65
 References
Ahmed, Y. A., Ahmad, M. N., Ahmad, N., & Zakaria, N. H. (2019). Social media for knowledge-
sharing : A systematic literature review. Telematics and Informatics, 37(January 2018),
72–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2018.01.015
Akrout, H., & Nagy, G. (2018). Trust and commitment within a virtual brand community: The
mediating role of brand relationship quality. Information and Management, 55(8), 939–
955. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2018.04.009
Akrout, H., Nagy, G., Allen, M. W., Spialek, M. L., Sijabat, T. W. S., Zhang, T., … Kim, J. K. (2018).
The Impact of Online Brand Community Type on Consumer’s Community Engagement
Behaviors: Consumer-Created vs. Marketer-Created Online Brand Community in Online
Social-Networking Web Sites. Journal of Services Marketing, 32(1), 939–955.
https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2016.44.10.1661
Algesheimer, R., Dholakia, U. M., & Herrmann, A. (2005). The social influence of brand
community: Evidence from European car clubs. Journal of Marketing, 69(July), 19–34.
https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.69.3.19.66363
Algharabat, R., Rana, N. P., Alalwan, A. A., Baabdullah, A., & Gupta, A. (2020). Investigating the
antecedents of customer brand engagement and consumer-based brand equity in social
media. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 53. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.01.016
Amichai-hamburger, Y., Gazit, T., Bar-ilan, J., Perez, O., Aharony, N., Bronstein, J., & Sarah, T.
(2016). Psychological factors behind the lack of participation in online discussions.
Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 268–277.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.09.009
Arya, V., Sethi, D., & Verma, H. (2018). Are emojis fascinating brand value more than textual
language? Mediating role of brand communication to SNS and brand attachment: An
insight from India. Corporate Communications, 23(4), 648–670.
https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-03-2018-0036
Baldus, B. J. (2018). Leveraging Online Communities to Support the Brand and Develop the
Community. Journal of Internet Commerce, 17(2), 115–144.
Baldus, B. J., Voorhees, C., & Calantone, R. (2015). Online brand community engagement: Scale
development and validation. Journal of Business Research, 68(5), 978–985.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.09.035
Bandarra, W., Suraya, M., & Fielt, E. (2011). Proceedings of the 19th European Conference on
Information Systems (ECIS 2011). In V. Tuunainen, J. Nandhakumar, M. Rossi, & W.
Soliman (Eds.), A systematic, tool-supported method for conducting literature reviews in
information systems (pp. 221–233). Helsinki, Finland. Retrieved from
https://eprints.qut.edu.au/42184/1/42184c.pdf
Barger, V., Peltier, J. W., & Schultz, D. E. (2016). Social media and consumer engagement: a
review and research agenda. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 10(4), 268–
287. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIM-06-2016-0065
Bianchi, C., & Andrews, L. (2018). Consumer engagement with retail firms through social
media: An empirical study in Chile. International Journal of Retail and Distribution
Management, 46(4), 364–385. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-02-2017-0035
Blumler, J. G. (1979). The role of theory in uses and gratifications studies. Communication
 Research, 6(1), 29–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365027900600102
Boell, S. K., & Cecez-Kecmanovic, D. (2015). On being ‘systematic’ in literature reviews.
Formulating Research Methods for Information Systems: Volume 2, 30, 161–173.
https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137509888_3
Bowden, J. L. H., Conduit, J., Hollebeek, L. D., Luoma-aho, V., & Solem, B. A. (2017).
Engagement valence duality and spillover effects in online brand communities. Journal of
Service Theory and Practice, 27(4), 877–897. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSTP-04-2016-0072
Bowden, J., & Mirzaei, A. (2021). Consumer engagement within retail communication
channels: an examination of online brand communities and digital content marketing
initiatives. European Journal of Marketing, ahead-of-p(ahead-of-print).
https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-01-2018-0007
Braun, C., Batt, V., Bruhn, M., & Hadwich, K. (2016). Differentiating customer engaging
behavior by targeted benefits – an empirical study. Journal of Consumer Marketing,
33(7), 528–538. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCM-02-2016-1711
Briggs, E., Yang, Z., Harmon-Kizer, T. R., & Arnold, T. J. (2016). How do differing community
engagement strategies affect consumer responses to a retailer? Journal of Marketing
Theory and Practice. https://doi.org/10.1080/10696679.2016.1089767
Brodie, R. J., Hollebeek, L. D., Juric, B., & Ilic, A. (2011). Customer Engagement: Conceptual
Domain, Fundamental Propositions, and Implications for Research. Journal of Service
Research, 14(3), 252–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670511411703
Brodie, R. J., Ilic, A., Juric, B., & Hollebeek, L. (2013). Consumer engagement in a virtual brand
community: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Business Research, 66(1), 105–114.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.07.029
Calder, B. J., Malthouse, E. C., & Schaedel, U. (2009). An experimental study of the relationship
between online engagement and advertising effectiveness. Journal of Interactive
Marketing, 23(4), 321–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2009.07.002
Carlson, J., Rahman, M., Voola, R., & De Vries, N. (2018). Customer engagement behaviours in
social media: capturing innovation opportunities. Journal of Services Marketing, 32(1),
83–94. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-02-2017-0059
Carlson, J., Rahman, S. M., Rahman, M., Wyllie, J., & Voola, R. (2021). Engaging Gen Y
Customers in Online Brand Communities: A Cross-National Assessment. International
Journal of Information Management, 56, 102–252.
Casaló, L. V., Flavián, C., & Guinalíu, M. (2007). The impact of participation in virtual brand
communities on consumer trust and loyalty The case of free software. Online Information
Review, 31(6), 775–792. https://doi.org/10.1108/14684520710841766
Casaló, L. V., Flavián, C., & Guinalíu, M. (2008). Promoting Consumer’s Participation in Virtual
Brand Communities: A New Paradigm in Branding Strategy. Journal of Marketing
Communications, 14(March 2015), 19–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527260701535236
Casaló, L. V., Flavián, C., & Guinalíu, M. (2010). Relationship quality, community promotion and
brand loyalty in virtual communities: Evidence from free software communities.
International Journal of Information Management, 30, 357–367.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2010.01.004
Časas, R., Palaima, T., & Mironidze, L. (2016). The Links Between Social Motivational

67
 Engagements , Brand Community Commitment and Repurchase Intention Across Online
Brand Communities. Organizations and Markets in Emerging Economies, 7(2), 7–24.
Chan, T. K. H., Cheung, C. M. K., & Lee, Z. W. Y. (2017). The state of online impulse-buying
research: A literature analysis. Information and Management, 54, 204–217.
https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2016.06.001
Chang, S. W., & Fan, S. H. (2017). Cultivating the brand-customer relationship in Facebook fan
pages: A study of fast-fashion industry. International Journal of Retail and Distribution
Management, 45(3), 253–270. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-05-2016-0076
Chen, K.-J., Lin, J.-S., Choi, J. H., & Hahm, J. M. (2015). Would You Be My Friend? An
Examination of Global Marketers’ Brand Personification Strategies in Social Media.
Journal of Interactive Advertising, 2019(September), 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2015.1079508
Cheung, C. M. K., & Lee, M. K. O. (2011). Customer Engagement in an Online Social Platform: a
Conceptual Model and Scale Development. In Thirty Second International Conference on
Information Systems.
Cheung, C., Zheng, X., & Lee, M. (2012). Consumer Engagement Behaviors in Brand
Communities of Social Networking Sites. AMCIS 2012 Proceedings. Paper 20, (July).
Retrieved from
http://elibrary.aisnet.org/Default.aspx?url=http://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?ar
ticle=1128&%5Crcontext=amcis2012)
Chiang, C. T., Wei, C. F., Parker, K. R., & Davey, B. (2017). Exploring the drivers of customer
engagement behaviours in social network brand communities: towards a customer-
learning model. Journal of Marketing Management, 33(17–18), 1443–1464.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2017.1399922
Choi, H., & Burnes, B. (2017). Bonding and spreading: Co-creative relationships and interaction
with consumers in South Korea’s indie music industry. Management Decision, 55(9),
1905–1923. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-10-2016-0691
Claffey, E., & Brady, M. (2017). Examining Consumers’ Motivation to Engage in Firm-Hosted
Virtual Communities. Psychology and Marketing, 34(4), 356–375.
Coelho, P. S., Rita, P., & Santos, Z. R. (2018). On the relationship between consumer-brand
identification, brand community, and brand loyalty. Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, 43(March), 101–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.03.011
Cooper, T., Stavros, C., & Dobele, A. R. (2019). The levers of engagement: an exploration of
governance in an online brand community. Journal of Brand Management.
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41262-018-0132-2
De Oliveira, M. J., Huertas, M. K. Z., & Lin, Z. (2016). Factors driving young users’ engagement
with Facebook: Evidence from Brazil. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 54–61.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.038
de Valck, K., van Bruggen, G. H., & Wierenga, B. (2009). Virtual communities: A marketing
perspective. Decision Support Systems, 47(3), 185–203.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2009.02.008
de Vries, L., Gensler, S., & Leeflang, P. S. H. (2012). Popularity of brand posts on brand fan
pages: An investigation of the effects of social media marketing. Journal of Interactive
Marketing, 26, 83–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2012.01.003

68
Dessart, L. (2017). Social media engagement: a model of antecedents and relational outcomes.
Journal of Marketing Management, 33(5–6), 375–399.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2017.1302975
Dessart, L., Aldás-Manzano, J., & Veloutsou, C. (2019). Unveiling heterogeneous engagement-
based loyalty in brand communities. European Journal of Marketing, 53(9), 1854–1881.
https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-11-2017-0818
Dessart, L., Veloutsou, C., & Morgan-Thomas, A. (2015). Consumer engagement in online
brand communities: a social media perspective. Journal of Product & Brand
Management, 24(1), 28–42. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-06-2014-0635
Dessart, L., Veloutsou, C., & Morgan-Thomas, A. (2016). Capturing consumer engagement:
Duality, dimensionality and measurement. Journal of Marketing Management, 32(5–6),
399–426. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2015.1130738
Dessart, L., Veloutsou, C., & Morgan-Thomas, A. (2020). Brand negativity: a relational
perspective on anti-brand community participation. European Journal of Marketing,
54(7), 1761–1785. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-06-2018-0423
Dolan, R., Conduit, J., Fahy, J., & Goodman, S. (2016). Social media engagement behaviour: a
uses and gratifications perspective. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 24(3–4), 261–277.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2015.1095222
Dwivedi, Y. K., Ismagilova, E., Hughes, D. L., Carlson, J., Filieri, R., Jacobson, J., … Wang, Y.
(2021). Setting the future of digital and social media marketing research: Perspectives
and research propositions. International Journal of Information Management.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102168
Eigeraam, A. W., Eelen, J., Lin, A. van, & Verlegh, P. W. J. (2018). A Consumer-Based Taxonomy
of Digital Customer Engagement Practices. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 44, 102–121.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2018.07.002
Fawcett, S. E., Waller, M. a., Miller, J. W., Schwieterman, M. a., Hazen, B. T., & Overstreet, R. E.
(2014). A trail guide to publishing success: Tips on writing influential conceptual,
qualitative, and survey research. Journal of Business Logistics, 35(1), 1–16.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jbl.12039
Fernandes, T. (2018). UNDERSTANDING CUSTOMER BRAND ENGAGEMENT WITH VIRTUAL
SOCIAL COMMUNITIES : A COMPREHENSIVE MODEL OF DRIVERS, 26, 23–37.
Fernandes, T., & Castro, A. (2020). Understanding drivers and outcomes of lurking vs. posting
engagement behaviours in social media-based brand communities. Journal of Marketing
Management, 36(7–8), 660–681. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2020.1724179
Fernandes, T., & Remelhe, P. (2016). How to engage customers in co-creation: customers’
motivations for collaborative innovation. Journal of Strategic Marketing.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2015.1095220
Ferreira, M., & Zambaldi, F. (2019). The Mediating Role of Consumer Engagement with the
Brand Community and Its Effect on Corporate Reputation. JMM International Journal on
Media Management, 21(1), 45–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/14241277.2019.1585354
Ferreira, M., Zambaldi, F., & Guerra, D. de S. (2020). Consumer engagement in social media:
scale comparison analysis. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 29(4), 491–503.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-10-2018-2095

69
Fournier, S., & Alvarez, C. (2012). Brands as relationship partners: Warmth, competence, and
in-between. Journal of Consumer Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2011.10.003
Fujita, M., Harrigan, P., & Soutar, G. N. (2017). International students’ engagement in their
university’s social media: An exploratory study. International Journal of Educational
Management, 31(7), 1119–1134. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-12-2016-0260
Gambetti, R. C., & Graffigna, G. (2010). The concept of engagement. International Journal of
Market Research, 52(6), 801–826. https://doi.org/10.2501/S1470785310201661
Gamboa, A. M., & Gonçalves, H. M. (2014). Customer loyalty through social networks: Lessons
from Zara on Facebook. Business Horizons. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2014.07.003
Geissinger, A., & Laurell, C. (2016). User engagement in social media – an explorative study of
Swedish fashion brands. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International
Journal. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFMM-02-2015-0010
Graffigna, G., & Gambetti, R. C. (2015). Grounding Consumer-Brand Engagement. International
Journal of Market Research, 57(4), 605–629.
Grewal, D., Roggeveen, A. L., Sisodia, R., & Nordfalt, J. (2017). Enhancing Customer
Engagement Through Consciousness. Journal of Retailing, 93, 55–64.
Guo, L., Zhang, M., Kang, K., & Hu, M. (2017). Transforming followers into fans: a study of
Chinese users of the WeChat Official Account. Online Information Review, 41(7), 1029–
1045. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-01-2016-0013
Gutiérrez-Cillán, J., Camarero-Izquierdo, Carmen, & José-Cabezudo, R. S. (2017). How brand
posts contribute to user’s Facebook brand-page engagement. The experiential route of
active participation. Business Research Quarterly, 20, 258–274.
Ha, Y. (2018). Online Brand Community and Its Outcomes. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics
and Business, 5(4), 107–116. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2018.vol5.no4.107
Habibi, M. R., Laroche, M., & Richard, M. O. (2014a). Brand communities based in social media:
How unique are they? Evidence from two exemplary brand communities. International
Journal of Information Management, 34(2), 123–132.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2013.11.010
Habibi, M. R., Laroche, M., & Richard, M. O. (2014b). The roles of brand community and
community engagement in building brand trust on social media. Computers in Human
Behavior, 37, 152–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.016
Habibi, M. R., Laroche, M., & Richard, M. O. (2016). Testing an extended model of consumer
behavior in the context of social media-based brand communities. Computers in Human
Behavior, 62, 292–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.079
Hall-Phillips, A., Park, J., Chung, T. L., Anaza, N. A., & Rathod, S. R. (2016). I (heart) social
ventures: Identification and social media engagement. Journal of Business Research,
69(2), 484–491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.05.005
Hamilton, M., Kaltcheva, V. D., & Rohm, A. J. (2016). Social Media and Value Creation: The Role
of Interaction Satisfaction and Interaction Immersion. Journal of Interactive Marketing.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2016.07.001
Hanson, S., Jiang, L., & Dahl, D. (2019). Enhancing consumer engagement in an online brand
community via user reputation signals: a multi-method analysis. Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science, 47(2), 349–367. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-018-0617-2

70
Hartmann, B., Wiertz, C., & Arnould, E. J. (2015). Exploring Consumptive Moments of Value-
Creating Practice in Online Community. Psychology and Marketing, 32(3), 319–340.
Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. (2010). Toward a theory of brand co-creation with implications for
brand governance. Journal of Brand Management, 17(8), 590–604.
https://doi.org/10.1057/bm.2010.14
Haverila, M., McLaughlin, C., Haverila, K. C., & Arora, M. (2020). Beyond lurking and posting:
segmenting the members of a brand community on the basis of engagement, attitudes
and identification. Journal of Product & Brand Management, ahead-of-p(ahead-of-print).
https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-08-2019-2543
He, X., & Negahban, A. (2017). The Effects of Consumer Engagement Behavior on the Growth
of Social Media Brand Community. International Journal of E-Business Research, 13(1),
25–43. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJEBR.2017010102
Heinonen, K. (2011). Consumer activity in social media: Managerial approaches to consumers’
social media behavior. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 10, 356–364.
Heinonen, Kristina. (2018). Positive and negative valence influencing consumer engagement.
Journal of Service Theory and Practice. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSTP-02-2016-0020
Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K. P., Walsh, G., & Gremler, D. D. (2004). Electronic word-of-
mouth via consumer-opinion platforms: What motivates consumers to articulate
themselves on the Internet? Journal of Interactive Marketing.
https://doi.org/10.1002/dir.10073
Hollebeek, L. (2012). Exploring customer brand engagement : definition and themes. Journal of
Strategic Marketing, 19(7), 555–573.
https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2011.599493
Hollebeek, L. D. (2011). Demystifying customer brand engagement : Exploring the loyalty
nexus. Journal of Marketing Management, 27(July), 785–807.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2010.500132
Hollebeek, L. D., Glynn, M. S., & Brodie, R. J. (2014). Consumer brand engagement in social
media: Conceptualization, scale development and validation. Journal of Interactive
Marketing, 28(2), 149–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2013.12.002
Hollebeek, L. D., Juric, B., & Tang, W. (2017a). Virtual brand community engagement practices:
a refined typology and model. Journal of Services Marketing.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-01-2016-0006
Hollebeek, L. D., Juric, B., & Tang, W. (2017b). Virtual brand community engagement practices:
a refined typology and model. Journal of Services Marketing.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-01-2016-0006
Hollebeek, L. D., Srivastava, R. K., & Chen, T. (2019). S-D logic–informed customer engagement:
integrative framework, revised fundamental propositions, and application to CRM.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 47(1), 161–185.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-016-0494-5
Hollenbeck, C. R., & Kaikati, A. M. (2012). Consumers’ use of brands to reflect their actual and
ideal selves on Facebook. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 29(4), 395–405.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2012.06.002
Hudson, S., Roth, M. S., Madden, T. J., & Hudson, R. (2015). The effects of social media on

71
 emotions, brand relationship quality, and word of mouth: An empirical study of music
festival attendees. Tourism Management, 47, 68–76.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.09.001
Hudson, S., & Thal, K. (2013). The Impact of Social Media on the Consumer Decision Process:
Implications for Tourism Marketing. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 30(1–2),
156–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2013.751276
Hutter, K., Hautz, J., Dennhardt, S., & Füller, J. (2013). The impact of user interactions in social
media on brand awareness and purchase intention: the case of MINI on Facebook.
Journal of Product & Brand Management, 22(5), 342–351. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-
05-2013-0299
Ibrahim, N. F., Wang, X., & Bourne, H. (2017). Exploring the effects of user engagement in
online brand communities: Evidence from Twitter. Computers in Human Behavior, 72,
321–338.
Islam, J., & Rahman, Z. (2017). The impact of online brand community characteristics on
customer engagement: An application of Stimulus-Organism-Response paradigm.
Telematics and Informatics, 34(4), 96–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.01.004
Islam, J. U., & Rahman, Z. (2016). Linking Customer Engagement to Trust and Word-of-Mouth
on Facebook Brand Communities: An Empirical Study. Journal of Internet Commerce,
15(1), 40–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332861.2015.1124008
Islam, J. U., Rahman, Z., & Hollebeek, L. D. (2017). Personality factors as predictors of online
consumer engagement: an empirical investigation. Marketing Intelligence and Planning.
https://doi.org/10.1108/MIP-10-2016-0193
Islam, J. U., Rahman, Z., & Hollebeek, L. D. (2018). Consumer engagement in online brand
communities: a solicitation of congruity theory. Internet Research, 28(1), 23–45.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-09-2016-0279
Islam, J. U., Rahman, Z., Osakwe, C. N., Boateng, H., Popa, S., Chovancová, M., … Merikivi, J.
(2016). Benefitting from virtual customer environments: An empirical study of customer
engagement. Computers in Human Behavior, 33(17–18), 340–357.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15332861.2018.1433909
Kamboj, S., Sarmah, B., Gupta, S., & Dwivedi, Y. (2018). Examining branding cocreation in
brand communities on social media: Applying the paradigm of Stimulus-Organism-
Response. International Journal of Information Management, 39, 169–185.
Kang, K., Lu, J., Guo, L., & Li, W. (2021). The dynamic effect of interactivity on customer
engagement behavior through tie strength: Evidence from live streaming commerce
platforms. International Journal of Information Management, 56.
Kang, M., Shin, D. H., & Gong, T. (2016). The role of personalization, engagement, and trust in
online communities. Information Technology and People, 29(3), 580–596.
https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-01-2015-0023
Kannan, P. K., & Li, H. A. (2017). Digital marketing - A framework, review and research agenda.
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 34(January), 22–45.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2016.11.006
Kaur, H., Paruthi, M., Islam, J. U., & Hollebeek, L. D. (2020). The role of brand community
identification and reward on consumer brand engagement and brand loyalty in virtual
brand communities. Telematics and Informatics, 46(November 2019), 101321.

72
 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2019.101321
Khan, I., Dongping, H., & Wahab, A. (2016). Does culture matter in effectiveness of social
media marketing strategy? An investigation of brand fan pages. Aslib Journal of
Information Management, 68(6), 670–693. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-03-2016-0035
Khang, H., Han, E.-K., & Ki, E.-J. (2014). Exploring influential social cognitive determinants of
social media use. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 48–55.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.038
Kim, D. (2013). Under what conditions will social commerce business models survive?
Electronic Commerce Research and Applications.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2012.12.002
Kim, E., & Drumwright, M. (2016). Engaging consumers and building relationships in social
media: How social relatedness influences intrinsic vs. extrinsic consumer motivation.
Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 970–979. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.06.025
Kitchenham, B. (2004). Procedures for Performing Systematic Reviews. Retrieved from
http://www.it.hiof.no/~haraldh/misc/2016-08-22-smat/Kitchenham-Systematic-Review-
2004.pdf
Kitchenham, B. (2007). Guidelines for performing Systematic Literature Reviews in Software
Engineering. Retrieved from
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.117.471
Koh, J., & Kim, Y. G. (2004). Knowledge sharing in virtual communities: An e-business
perspective. Expert Systems with Applications. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0957-
4174(03)00116-7
Kujur, F., & Singh, S. (2019). Antecedents of relationship between customer and organization
developed through social networking sites. Management Research Review, 42(1), 2–24.
https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-07-2017-0218
Kumar, J., & Kumar, V. (2020). Drivers of brand community engagement. Journal of Retailing
and Consumer Services, 54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.101949
Kumar, J., & Nayak, J. K. (2018). Brand community relationships transitioning into brand
relationships: Mediating and moderating mechanisms. Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, 45, 64–73. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.08.007
Kumar, M., Singh, J. B., Chandwani, R., & Gupta, A. (2020). “Context” in healthcare information
technology resistance: A systematic review of extant literature and agenda for future
research. International Journal of Information Management, 51(April 2019), 102044.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.102044
Kumar, V., Aksoy, L., Donkers, B., Venkatesan, R., Wiesel, T., & Tillmanns, S. (2010).
Undervalued or Overvalued Customers: Capturing Total Customer Engagement Value.
Journal of Service Research, 13(3), 297–310. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670510375602
Kunz, W., Aksoy, L., Bart, Y., Heinonen, K., Kabadayi, S., Ordenes, F. V., … Theodoulidis, B.
(2017). Customer engagement in a Big Data world. Journal of Services Marketing, 31(2),
161–171. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-10-2016-0352
Kuo, Y. F., & Feng, L. H. (2013). Relationships among community interaction characteristics,
perceived benefits, community commitment, and oppositional brand loyalty in online
brand communities. International Journal of Information Management, 33(6), 948–962.

73
 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2013.08.005
Kwon, J.-H., Jung, S.-H., Choi, H.-J., & Kim, J. (2020). Antecedent factors that affect restaurant
brand trust and brand loyalty: focusing on US and Korean consumers. Journal of Product
& Brand Management, ahead-of-p(ahead-of-print). https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-02-
2020-2763
Langaro, D., Rita, P., & de Fátima Salgueiro, M. (2018). Do social networking sites contribute
for building brands? Evaluating the impact of users’ participation on brand awareness
and brand attitude. Journal of Marketing Communications, 24(2), 146–168.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2015.1036100
Laroche, M., Habibi, M. R., Richard, M. O., & 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, 28(5), 1755–1767.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.04.016
Le, L. H., & Duong, G. H. (2020). Engagement in the Online Brand Community: Impacts of
Cultural Traits. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 32(2), 146–158.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08961530.2019.1649992
Le, T. D. (2018). Influence of WOM and content type on online engagement in consumption
communities : The information flow from discussion forums to Facebook. Online
Information Review, 42(2), 161–175. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-09-2016-0246
Lee, D., Kim, H. S., & Kim, J. K. (2011). The Impact of Online Brand Community Type on
Consumer’s Community Engagement Behaviors: Consumer-Created vs. Marketer-Created
Online Brand Community in Online Social-Networking Web Sites. Cyberpsychology,
Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(1–2), 59–63.
https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2009.0397
Lee, H., Han, J., & Suh, Y. (2014). Gift or threat? An examination of voice of the customer: The
case of MyStarbucksIdea.com. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 13(3),
205–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2014.02.001
Lei, S. S. I., Pratt, S., & Wang, D. (2017). Factors influencing customer engagement with
branded content in the social network sites of integrated resorts. Asia Pacific Journal of
Tourism Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2016.1250792
Liao, J., Dong, X., Luo, Z., & Guo, R. (2020). Oppositional loyalty as a brand identity-driven
outcome: a conceptual framework and empirical evidence. Journal of Product and Brand
Management, (October). https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-08-2019-2511
Lima, V. M., Irigaray, H. A. R., & Lourenco, C. (2019). Consumer engagement on social media:
insights from a virtual brand community. Qualitative Market Research, 22(1), 14–32.
https://doi.org/10.1108/QMR-02-2017-0059
Lin, B., Ming, S., & Bin, H. (2011). Virtual brand community participation and the impact on
brand loyalty: A conceptual model. In BMEI 2011 - Proceedings 2011 International
Conference on Business Management and Electronic Information (Vol. 1, pp. 489–492).
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICBMEI.2011.5916980
Lin, H., Fan, W., & Chau, P. Y. K. (2014). Determinants of users’ continuance of social
networking sites: A self-regulation perspective. Information and Management, 51(5),
595–603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2014.03.010
Lin, S., Yang, S., Ma, M., & Huang, J. (2018). Value co-creation on social media: Examining the

74
 relationship between brand engagement and display advertising effectiveness for
Chinese hotels. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-08-2016-0484
Liu, L., Lee, M. K. O., Liu, R., & Chen, J. (2018). Trust transfer in social media brand
communities: The role of consumer engagement. International Journal of Information
Management, 41(28), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.02.006
Loureiro, M. S. C., & Kaufmann, H. R. (2018). The role of online brand community engagement
on positive or negative self-expression. Cogent Business & Management, 5(1), 1–24.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2018.1508543
Loureiro, S. M. C., Pires, A. R., & Kaufmann, H. R. (2015). Creating value for customers through
engagement and participation in brand communities. International Journal of Business
Performance Management, 16(2/3), 114. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijbpm.2015.068720
Luo, N., Zhang, M., & Liu, W. (2015). The effects of value co-creation practices on building
harmonious brand community and achieving brand loyalty on social media in China.
Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 492–499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.02.020
Malinen, S. (2015). Understanding user participation in online communities: A systematic
literature review of empirical studies. Computers in Human Behavior, 46, 228–238.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.004
Marbach, J., Lages, C. R., & Nunan, D. (2016). who are you and what do you do? Investigating
the role of personality traits and customer-perceived value in online customer
engagement. Journal of Marketing Management, 32(5), 502–525.
Martínez-López, F. J., Anaya-Sánchez, R., Molinillo, S., Aguilar-Illescas, R., & Esteban-Millat, I.
(2017). Consumer engagement in an online brand community. Electronic Commerce
Research and Applications, 23, 24–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2017.04.002
Merrilees, B. (2016). Interactive brand experience pathways to customer-brand engagement
and value co-creation. Journal of Product and Brand Management.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-04-2016-1151
Morgan-Thomas, A., Dessart, L., & Veloutsou, C. (2020). Digital ecosystem and consumer
engagement: A socio-technical perspective. Journal of Business Research, 1–44.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.03.042
Muñoz-Expósito, M., Oviedo-García, M. Á., & Castellanos-Verdugo, M. (2017). How to measure
engagement in Twitter: advancing a metric. Internet Research, 27(5), 1122–1148.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-06-2016-0170
Muntinga, D. G., Moorman, M., & Smit, E. G. (2011). Introducing COBRAs: Exploring
motivations for brand-related social media use. International Journal of Advertising,
30(1), 13. https://doi.org/10.2501/IJA-30-1-013-046
Naeem, M., & Ozuem, W. (2020). Developing UGC social brand engagement model: Insights
from diverse consumers. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.1873
Nagaraj, S., & Singh, S. (2018). Investigating the Role of Customer Brand Engagement and
Relationship Quality on Brand Loyalty. International Journal of E-Business Research, 14(3),
34–53. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJEBR.2018070103
Naumann, K., Bowden, J., & Gabbott, M. (2020). Expanding customer engagement: the role of

75
 negative engagement, dual valences and contexts. European Journal of Marketing, 54(7),
1469–1499. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-07-2017-0464
Nguyen, L. T. V., Conduit, J., Lu, V. N., & Hill, S. R. (2016). Engagement in online communities
implications: implications for consumer price perceptions. Journal of Strategic Marketing,
24(4), 241–260.
Niedermeier, A., Albrecht, L., & Jahn, B. (2019). “Happy Together”: Effects of Brand Community
Engagement on Customer Happiness. Journal of Relationship Marketing, 18(1), 54–76.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15332667.2018.1534063
Nisar, T. M., & Whitehead, C. (2016). Brand interactions and social media : Enhancing user
loyalty through social networking sites. Computers in Human Behavior, 62, 743–753.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.04.042
Noguti, V. (2016). Post language and user engagement in online content communities.
European Journal of Marketing, 50(5/6), 695–723. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-12-2014-
0785
Oh, C., Roumani, Y., Nwankpa, J. K., & Hu, H. F. (2017). Beyond likes and tweets: Consumer
engagement behavior and movie box office in social media. Information and
Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2016.03.004
Osakwe, Christian Nedu, Boateng, H., Popa, S., Chovancová, M., & Soto-Acosta, P. (2016).
Understanding cosmopolitan consumers’ repeat purchasing in the emarketplace:
Contribution from a brand orientation theoretical perspective. E a M: Ekonomie a
Management, 19(4), 149–166. https://doi.org/10.15240/tul/001/2016-4-011
Osakwe, Cristian Nedu, Boateng, H., Popa, S., Chovancová, M., & Soto-Acosta, P. (2016).
UNDERSTANDING COSMOPOLITAN CONSUMERS’ REPEAT PURCHASING IN THE
eMARKETPLACE: CONTRIBUTION FROM A BRAND ORIENTATION THEORETICAL
PERSPECTIVE. E & M Ekonomie and Management, 19(4), 149–166.
Osemeahon, O. S., & Agoyi, M. (2020). Linking FOMO and smartphone use to social media
brand communities. Sustainability (Switzerland). https://doi.org/10.3390/su12062166
Pansari, A., & Kumar, V. (2017). Customer engagement : the construct, antecedents, and
consequences. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45, 294–311.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-016-0485-6
Paré, G., Tate, M., Johnstone, D., & Kitsiou, S. (2016). Contextualizing the twin concepts of
systematicity and transparency in information systems literature reviews. European
Journal of Information Systems, 25(6), 493–508. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41303-016-
0020-3
Paruthi, M., & Kaur, H. (2017). Scale Development and Validation for Measuring Online
Engagement. Journal of Internet Commerce, 16(2), 127–147.
https://doi.org/http//dx.doi.org/10.1080/15332861.2017.1299497
Peeroo, S., Samy, M., & Jones, B. (2017). Facebook: a blessing or a curse for grocery stores?
International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 45(12), 1242–1259.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-12-2016-0234
Pentina, I., Guilloux, V., Micu, A. C., & Pentina, I. (2018). Exploring Social Media Engagement
Behaviors in the Context of Luxury Brands Exploring Social Media Engagement Behaviors
in the Context of Luxury Brands. Journal of Advertising, 3367(1), 55–69.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2017.1405756

76
Phua, J., Jin, S. V., & Kim, J. (Jay). (2017). Gratifications of using Facebook, Twitter, Instagram,
or Snapchat to follow brands: The moderating effect of social comparison, trust, tie
strength, and network homophily on brand identification, brand engagement, brand
commitment, and membership intention. Telematics and Informatics, 34(1), 412–424.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2016.06.004
Piligrimiene, Z., Dovaliene, A., & Virvilaite, R. (2015). Consumer engagement in value co-
creation: What kind of value it creates for company? Engineering Economics, 26(4), 452–
460. https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.ee.26.4.12502
Pongpaew, W., Speece, M., & Tiangsoongnern, L. (2017). Social presence and customer brand
engagement on Facebook brand pages. Journal of Product and Brand Management.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-08-2015-0956
Potdar, V., Joshi, S., Harish, R., Baskerville, R., & Wongthongtham, P. (2018). A process model
for identifying online customer engagement patterns on Facebook brand pages.
Information Technology and People, 31(2), 595–614. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-02-
2017-0035
Pöyry, E., Parvinen, P., & Malmivaara, T. (2013). Can we get from liking to buying? Behavioral
differences in hedonic and utilitarian Facebook usage. Electronic Commerce Research and
Applications, 12(4), 224–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2013.01.003
Prentice, C., Wang, X., & Lin, X. (2020). An Organic Approach to Customer Engagement and
Loyalty. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 60(4), 326–335.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2018.1485528
Ramadan, Z., Farah, M. F., & Dukenjian, A. (2018). Typology of social media followers: the case
of luxury brands. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 36(5), 558–571.
https://doi.org/10.1108/MIP-01-2018-0039
Ray, S., Kim, S. S., & Morris, J. G. (2014). The central role of engagement in online
communities. Information Systems Research, 25(3), 528–546.
https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2014.0525
Rohm, A., Kaltcheva, V. D., & Milne, G. R. (2013). A mixed-method approach to examining
brand-consumer interactions driven by social media. Journal of Research in Interactive
Marketing, 7(4), 295–311. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIM-01-2013-0009
Roncha, A., & Radclyffe-Thomas, N. (2016). How TOMS’ “one day without shoes” campaign
brings stakeholders together and co-creates value for the brand using Instagram as a
platform. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 20(3), 300–321.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JFMM-10-2015-0082
Rosenthal, B., & Brito, E. P. Z. (2017). How virtual brand community traces may increase fan
engagement in brand pages. Business Horizons, 60(3), 375–384.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2017.01.009
Rossolatos, G. (2020). The depth of brand engagement funnel: dimensionalizing interaction in
social media brand communities. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal,
ahead-of-p(ahead-of-print). https://doi.org/10.1108/QMR-03-2019-0041
Schau, H. J., Muñiz, A. M., & Arnould, E. J. (2009). How brand community practices create
value. Journal of Marketing, 73(5), 30–51. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.73.5.30
Schivinski, B., Christodoulides, G., & Dabrowski, D. (2016). Measuring Consumers ’ Engagement
With Brand-Related Social-Media Content Development and Validation of a Scale That

77
 Identifies Levels of Social-Media Engagement with Brands. Journal of Advertising
Research, (March), 64–81. https://doi.org/10.2501/JAR-2016-004
Schultz, C. D. (2016). Insights from consumer interactions on a social networking site: Findings
from six apparel retail brands. Electronic Markets. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-015-
0209-7
Schultz, Carsten D. (2017). Proposing to your fans : Which brand post characteristics drive
consumer engagement activities on social media brand pages ? Electronic Commerce
Research and Applications, 26, 23–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2017.09.005
Senyo, P. K., Liu, K., & Effah, J. (2019). Digital business ecosystem: Literature review and a
framework for future research. International Journal of Information Management,
47(June 2018), 52–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.01.002
Seraj, M. (2012). We Create, We Connect, We Respect, Therefore We Are: Intellectual, Social,
and Cultural Value in Online Communities. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 26(4), 209–
222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2012.03.002
Shao, G. (2009). Understanding the appeal of user-generated media: a uses and gratification
perspective. Internet Research, 19(1), 7–25.
https://doi.org/10.1108/10662240910927795
Shareef, M. A., Dwivedi, Y. K., Kumar, V., & Kumar, U. (2017). Content design of advertisement
for consumer exposure: Mobile marketing through short messaging service. International
Journal of Information Management, 37(4), 257–268.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2017.02.003
Shi, S., Chen, Y., & Chow, W. S. (2016). Key values driving continued interaction on brand pages
in social media: An examination across genders. Computers in Human Behavior.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.04.017
Shing-Wang, C., & Shih-Heng, F. (2017). Cultivating the brand-customer relationship in
Facebook fan pages: A study of fast- fashion industry. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF
RETAIL & DISTRIBUTION MANAGEMENT, 45(3), 253–270.
Simon, F., & Tossan, V. (2018). Does brand-consumer social sharing matter? A relational
framework of customer engagement to brand-hosted social media. Journal of Business
Research, 85, 175–184.
Skålén, P., Pace, S., & Cova, B. (2015). Firm-brand community value co-creation as alignment of
practices. European Journal of Marketing, 49(3–4), 596–620.
https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-08-2013-0409
Smith, D. G. (2019). Centennial airport: A case study for small airport social media strategy.
Journal of Airport Management, 13(3), 225–237.
Sprott, D., Czellar, S., & Spangenberg, E. (2009). The Importance of a General Measure of
Brand Engagement on Market Behavior: Development and Validation of a Scale. Journal
of Marketing Research. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.46.1.92
Sun, N., Rau, P. P., & Ma, L. (2014). Understanding lurkers in online communities : A literature
review. Computers in Human Behavior, 38, 110–117.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.05.022
Sung, Y., Kim, Y., Kwon, O., & Moon, J. (2010). An Explorative Study of Korean Consumer
Participation in Virtual Brand Communities in Social Network Sites. Journal of Global

78
 Marketing, 23(October 2014), 430–445. https://doi.org/10.1080/08911762.2010.521115
Swenson, R. (2016). Building Betty Crocker’s brand community: conversations with consumers,
1940-1950. Journal of Communication Management, 20(2), 148–161.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-12-2014-0079
Tafesse, W. (2016). An experiential model of consumer engagement in social media. Journal of
Product and Brand Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-05-2015-0879
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In Social
Psychology of Intergroup Relations (2nd ed., pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson- Hall: Stephen
Worchel and William G. Austin.
Templier, M., & Paré, G. (2015). A Framework for Guiding and Evaluating Literature Reviews.
Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 37(August), 2–28.
https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.03706
Thai, T. D. H., & Wang, T. (2020). Investigating the effect of social endorsement on customer
brand relationships by using statistical analysis and fuzzy set qualitative comparative
analysis (fsQCA). Computers in Human Behavior, 113.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106499
Triantafillidou, A., & Siomkos, G. (2018). The impact of Facebook experience on consumers’
behavioral Brand engagement. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIM-03-2017-0016
Tsai, Wan-hsiu Sunny, & Men, L. R. (2014). Consumer engagement with brands on social
network sites : A cross-cultural comparison of China and the USA. Journal of Marketing
Communications, (October 2014), 37–41.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2014.942678
Tsai, Wan-hsui Sunny, & Men, L. R. (2013). Motivations and Antecedents of Consumer
Engagement With Brand Pages on Social Networking Sites. Journal of Interactive
Advertising, 13(April 2015), 76–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2013.826549
Uzunboylu, N., Melanthiou, Y., & Papasolomou, I. (2020). Hello Brand, let’s take a selfie.
Qualitative Market Research, 23(1), 109–121. https://doi.org/10.1108/QMR-12-2017-
0183
Van Doorn, J., Lemon, K. N., Mittal, V., Pirner, P., Verhoef, P. C., & Nass, S. (2010). Customer
Engagement Behavior : Theoretical Foundations and Research Directions. Journal of
Service Research, 13(3), 253–266. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670510375599
Verhagen, T., Swen, E., Feldberg, F., & Merikivi, J. (2015a). Benefitting from virtual customer
environments: An empirical study of customer engagement. Computers in Human
Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.061
Verhagen, T., Swen, E., Feldberg, F., & Merikivi, J. (2015b). Benefitting from virtual customer
environments: An empirical study of customer engagement. Computers in Human
Behavior, 48, 340–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.061
Viswanathan, V., Malthouse, E. C., Maslowska, E., Hoornaert, S., & Van den Poel, D. (2018).
Dynamics between social media engagement, firm-generated content, and live and time-
shifted TV viewing. Journal of Service Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-09-
2016-0241
Vivek, S. D., Beatty, S. E., & Morgan, R. M. (2012). Customer Engagement: Exploring Customer

79
 Relationships Beyond Purchase. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 20(2), 127–
145. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679200201
Vivek, S. D., Beatty, S. E., & Morgan, R. M. (2014). A Generalized , Multidimensional Scale for
Measuring Customer Engagement. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice,
22(December 2013), 401–420. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679220404
Wang, J., Liao, J., Zheng, S., & Li, B. (2019). Examining drivers of brand community
engagement: The moderation of product, brand and consumer characteristics.
Sustainability (Switzerland), 11(17). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11174672
Wang, Y., Qiao, F., & Peng, W. (2015). Is the Size or the Valence of Proactive Engagement
Associated with Purchase Intention? A Case Study of Branded Blogs of Starbucks.
International Journal of Strategic Communication, 9(3), 197–216.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1553118X.2014.924125
Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: writing a
literature review. MIS Quarterly - Management Information Systems, 26(2), 13–23.
https://doi.org/10.2307/4132319
Willis, E., & Wang, Y. (2016). Blogging the brand: Meaning transfer and the case of Weight
Watchers’ online community. Journal of Brand Management, 23(4), 457–471.
https://doi.org/10.1057/bm.2016.16
Wirtz, J., den Ambtman, A., Bloemer, J., Horváth, C., Ramaseshan, B., van de Klundert, J., …
Kandampully, J. (2013). Managing brands and customer engagement in online brand
communities. Journal of Service Management, 24(3), 223–244.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09564231311326978
Wu, J., Fan, S., & Zhao, J. L. (2018). Community engagement and online word of mouth: An
empirical investigation. Information and Management, 55(2), 258–270.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2017.07.002
Yang, K. (2010). Determinants of US consumer mobile shopping services adoption: Implications
for designing mobile shopping services. Journal of Consumer Marketing.
https://doi.org/10.1108/07363761011038338
Yoon, G., Li, C., Ji, Y. (Grace), North, M., Hong, C., & Liu, J. (2018). Attracting Comments: Digital
Engagement Metrics on Facebook and Financial Performance. Journal of Advertising.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2017.1405753
Yuan, D., Lin, Z., Filieri, R., Liu, R., & Zheng, M. (2020). Managing the product-harm crisis in the
digital era: The role of consumer online brand community engagement. Journal of
Business Research, 115, 38–47. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.04.044
Zaglia, M. E. (2013). Brand communities embedded in social networks. Journal of Business
Research, 66(2), 216–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.07.015
Zhang, M., Guo, L., & Liu, W. (2017). Influence of customer engagement with company social
networks on stickiness: Mediating effect of customer value creation. International Journal
of Information Management, 37, 229–240.
Zhang, M., Hu, M., Guo, L., & Liu, W. (2017). Understanding relationships among customer
experience, engagement, and word-of-mouth intention on online brand communities:
The perspective of service ecosystem. Internet Research, 27(4), 839–857.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-06-2016-0148

80
Zhang, T., Lu, C., Torres, E., & Chen, P. J. (2018). Engaging customers in value co-creation or co-
destruction online. Journal of Services Marketing, 32(1), 57–69.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-01-2017-0027

81