Journal of International Consumer Marketing

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wicm20

The Influence of Social Media Marketing on

Consumers’ Purchase Decision: Investigating the
Effects of Local and Nonlocal Brands

Mehedi Hasan & M. Sadiq Sohail

To cite this article: Mehedi Hasan & M. Sadiq Sohail (2020): The Influence of Social Media
Marketing on Consumers’ Purchase Decision: Investigating the Effects of Local and Nonlocal
Brands, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, DOI: 10.1080/08961530.2020.1795043

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/08961530.2020.1795043

Published online: 21 Jul 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wicm20
JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING
https://doi.org/10.1080/08961530.2020.1795043

The Influence of Social Media Marketing on Consumers’ Purchase Decision:

Investigating the Effects of Local and Nonlocal Brands
Mehedi Hasana and M. Sadiq Sohailb
a
KFUPM, Marketing & Management, KFUPM Business School, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia; bDept. of Management & Marketing, King Fahd
University of Petroleum and Minerals, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Growing usage of social media has provided marketers a better space to engage with cus- Brand loyalty; local brand;
tomers. However, research examining effects of social media marketing from the perspective nonlocal brand; purchase
of branding, has been relatively unexplored. Further, few researches on international brand- intention; social
media marketing
ing have investigated the influence of brand’s localness/non-localness on consumer-brand
relationships. The purpose of this paper is to increase an understanding of the antecedents
of social media marketing and their effects on purchase intention, as well as the moderating
influence of local and nonlocal brands on these relationships. Data were collected online
from 343 social media users in Saudi Arabia. The research model was empirically tested
using structural equation modeling. The findings support most of the proposed direct and
moderating effects. Brand trust, brand community, brand awareness and interaction were
found to influence purchase intention. Brand origin had a moderating effect in the relation-
ships between brand trust and interaction with purchase intention. The proposed frame-
work contributes to social media marketing and branding research by integrating the
contingent effect of brand localness and non-localness. Detailed discussion of the theoretical
and practical implications concludes the paper.

Introduction and business of conducting activities in the

The enormous popularity of social media digital arena (Ngai et al. 2015).
amongst consumers, as well as business, has Increasing presence and participation of con-
sumers/customers in social media poses both
transformed the traditional means of conducting
opportunities and challenges to the marketers, as
business and marketing (Nambisan and Baron
consumers base their purchase decisions on peer
2007; Turban, Bolloju, and Liang 2010).
interaction in social media (Hutter et al. 2013).
Consumers are increasingly engaging in social
Purchase behavior and brand loyalty have been
media such as Facebook, YouTube, Twitter,
drawing the attention of marketing researchers
Instagram, and so on, and spend more time on for a long time (Oliver 1999; Chaudhuri and
such platforms, resulting in an increasing amount Holbrook 2001; Bennett and Rundle-Thiele
of communication through social media (Hutter 2002). In the context of social media, few past
et al. 2013; Schivinski and Dabrowski 2015; studies have examined the dimensions of social
Islam, Rahman, and Hollebeek 2018). Consumers media, which provide marketers with remarkable
have gained the power to influence the direction opportunities to reach customers (Barger, Peltier,
of the branding process (Constantinides and and Schultz 2016; Godey et al. 2016) or build
Fountain 2008; Hutter et al. 2013). The rising brand trust (Sohail, Hasan, and Sohail 2020).
popularity and shift of power are the cornerstone Nevertheless, from the standpoint of branding lit-
of businesses operating in the social media plat- erature, researches investigating the consequences
form (Gamboa and Gonçalves 2014). Social of social media marketing (SMM) is still explora-
media has reshaped the living style of individual tory and lacks empirical evidence (Hollebeek,

CONTACT M. Sadiq Sohail [email protected] Dept. of Management & Marketing, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, Dhahran
31261, Saudi Arabia.
ß 2020 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 M. HASAN AND M. S. SOHAIL

Glynn, and Brodie 2014). Further, despite exten- SMM is a type of online marketing that uses the
sive studies documenting the importance of con- cultural context of society to meet communica-
sumer-brand relationships, a few studies on tion and branding objectives (Tuten 2009). Social
international branding have investigated the media converts consumers to marketers as they
influence of brand’s localness/non-localness on generate, edit, create, and share online informa-
consumer-brand relationships (Sichtmann, tion about organizations and brands (Hartmann
Davvetas, and Diamantopoulos 2019). Thus, in and Apaolaza-Ib
an ~ez 2012). Several benefits of
this study, brand origin (i.e., localness/non-local- SMM to marketers have been reported in the lit-
ness) is included as moderating effects on the erature, for example, enabling two-way commu-
linkage between customers’ purchase intention nication (Davis 2010) and reduced efforts to
and its determinants. search for information (Laroche, Habibi, and
In addressing this important area of research, Richard 2013).
the main objective of the research is to investi- Several theoretical perspectives have been pro-
gate the antecedents of purchase intention in posed to explore the brand influence on purchase
SMM from a different geographic context and intention. Extant social media research has devel-
cultural perspective. While past studies have oped and used a large number of theories to
examined only a few elements of social media- study the behavior of social media users.
based branding items such as brand community Undertaking a systematic review of the literature
(Laroche, Habibi, and Richard 2013) and brand covering 46 reviewed articles, a study identified
awareness (Hutter et al. 2013), to our best know- 35 theories and grouped them into three groups
ledge, few studies have been undertaken to com- of theories- personal behavior, social behavior,
bine these predictors of purchase intention to and mass communication (Ngai et al. 2015).
examine the moderating effect of brand localness/ Drawing from this literature and consolidating
non-localness on the relationship between pur- from relevant studies, we have identified variables
chase intention and its antecedents. In addition, affecting SMM. This study has extracted some
few studies have been conducted to examine how relational variables relevant to the research setting
these determinants affect the brand’s social media and developed a conceptual framework for testing
with the hypothesized relationships.
presence and help to build consumer brand loy-
alty by influencing their purchase decision. From
a theoretical perspective, the results of this study Development of hypotheses
contribute to our understanding of the purchas- Brand trust
ing decision formation process while selecting Incorporating different perspectives (Moorman,
local or non-local brands, and of how this pur- Deshpande, and Zaltman 1993; Morgan and
chasing decision process influences in forming Hunt 1994; Doney and Cannon 1997; Chaudhuri
long-term customer loyalty toward the brands. and Holbrook 2001; Sirdeshmukh, Singh, and
For managers, this study is of value, as it indi- Sabol 2002; Erdem and Swait 2004), brand trust
cates the critical need for companies to manage can be defined as the confidence a product,
customers purchasing decisions in SMM. brand, or service builds on the customer’s ability
to rely on the brand to perform its stated func-
Review of literature tions. Brand trust reflects the perception of brand
reliability (Erdem and Swait 2004). It is a neces-
Social media marketing activities
sary component in formulating successful mar-
In recent times, organizations have been increas- keting intimacy (Morgan and Hunt 1994; Urban,
ingly using social media to engage customers Sultan, and Qualls 2001; Herbst et al.
with their brands (Okazaki et al. 2015). Yet, 2012).44The connection between trust and pur-
many have failed to achieve brand loyalty as they chase intention has been studied frequently in
have not been able to build brand relationships the past in the context of online shopping. Liu
in the SMM setting (Fournier and Lee 2009). et al. (2005) examined individual consumers’
 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING 3

assumptions of privacy and how it is linked to Facebook (Essamri, McKechnie, and Winklhofer
his or her purchase intentions to shape online 2019). The sites help users with a feeling of inde-
purchases. Liu et al. (2005) showed that trust was pendence and facilitate them to interact in vari-
an important factor to influence consumers’ pur- ous languages, topics, and issues, which flourish
chase intention for online purchase decisions. In an ambiance that facilitates the open-access of
an online shopping context, Kuan and Bock messages and information (Rheingold 1991;
(2007) scrutinized the relationship between trust Lenhart and Madden 2007; Yasin, Porcu, and
and purchase intention in the grocery shopping Li
ebana-Cabanillas 2019). Such kind of brand
context and found a positive relationship. Lee communities that are built for integrating infor-
and Jeong (2014), in the multi-channel banking mation rather than for only business purposes
scenario found that consumer trust in offline excerpts the utmost effect on members’ feelings
banking services motivated the consumer to use and purchase intentions (Algesheimer, Dholakia,
online banking services of the offline bank. and Herrmann 2005; Wirtz et al. 2013; Le and
Further, Zboja and Voorhees (2006) scrutinized Duong 2020). The increasing acceptance of cus-
the consumers’ perception of brand trust and tomers’ online brand communities and their
repurchase intention and showed that brand trust motivation to engage in such communities are
was evidently related to consumers’ level of satis- likely to influence their purchase intention.
faction and repurchase intention. In social media, Hence, we posit,
the presence of marketers develops an acquaint- H2: Social media-based brand communities positively
ance, which could presumably influence purchase influence consumer purchase intention.
intention. Hence, the hypothesis,
H1: Brand trust in social media positively influences Brand awareness
consumer purchase intention. Brand awareness is defined as the ability of a cus-
tomer to recognize and recall a brand in different
Brand community scenarios (Aaker 1991). Brand awareness com-
A brand community is "a focused, non-geograph- prises two elements, brand recognition, and
ically bound community, based on an organized brand recall. Consumer ability to recall a brand
set of social links among the enthusiasts of a name exactly after seeing a product category is
brand" (Muniz and O’Guinn 2001). A social called brand recall, and brand recognition is con-
media-based brand community is the combin- sumers’ ability to recognize a product when there
ation of brand community and social media- is a brand cue. Further, Hoeffler and Keller
based interactions. A social media-based brand (2002) distinguished brand depth from brand
community is the subset of "virtual brand com- width and established the relationship with brand
munity" or "online brand community"; however, awareness. Depth refers to the means of making
the main difference is their platform of a customer recall or remember a brand easily,
interactions. while width denotes a situation wherein at the
Several companies are employing social media time of purchase, the brand name comes to the
sites, because of their popularity in recent times, mind of the consumer instantly. When the brand
to build brand communities based on social net- depth and width work at the same time in con-
working sites (Muniz and O’Guinn 2001; Kaplan sumers’ minds, consumers will choose to pur-
and Haenlein 2010; Essamri, McKechnie, and chase the brand. This implies that the product
Winklhofer 2019; Yasin, Porcu, and Li
ebana- has high brand awareness. Additionally, brand
Cabanillas 2019). Brands such as Aston Martin, name is the most vital factor in brand awareness
besides their offline brand community’s existence (Davis, Golicic, and Marquardt 2008). Therefore,
attempt to uphold their online presence to con- brand awareness will influence purchase intention
nect with their consumers online, and thereby through brand association, and a product positive
enhance their brand communities’ members’ brand image help in the marketing activities
interaction on social media sites such as (Keller 1993).
4 M. HASAN AND M. S. SOHAIL

Prior research has also highlighted that as cus- Kim, and Cardona Forney 2006). For example,
tomers tend to purchase a familiar and renowned Slater (2000) recognized that consumers demon-
product, brand awareness plays an important role strate favorable emotional attachments toward
to influence purchase intention (Keller 1993; brands such as Coca-Cola and Hallmark.
Macdonald and Sharp 2000; Martins et al. 2019). Likewise, Percy, Hansen, and Randrup (2004)
To differentiate a brand from a product category identified that consumers demonstrate feelings of
and formulate purchase decisions, brand aware- love and warmth toward brands such as Dove
ness helps customers (Percy and Rossiter 1992). and Sensex. With the increasing prominence of
Brand awareness exerts a strong influence on social media in people’s lives, users are develop-
product selection and can act as a prior consider- ing emotional connections with their preferred
ation base in a product cue (Hoyer and Brown social media brands (Jenkins-Guarnieri, Wright,
1990; Dabbous and Barakat 2020). Therefore, we and Johnson 2013; Harrigan et al. 2017; Dwivedi
posit the link between awareness of the brand
et al. 2018).
through social media and purchase intention. During the product selection stage, the actual
H3: Social media-based brand awareness positively emotional factor plays a dominant role over func-
influences consumer purchase intention. tional factors, depending on the product category
(Pawle and Cooper 2006). These researchers also
Interaction found that emotional factors, supported by sensu-
Social media platform-based interaction is dra- ality, have the overall strongest influence pur-
matically changing the way information sharing chase intention. To create strong brand intimacy,
among the brands with their consumers emotional intimacy works as a key trigger for
(Gallaugher and Ransbotham 2010; Kaplan and strengthening consumer-brand relationships
Haenlein 2010). Social media interaction occurs (Pawle and Cooper 2006). Consumers’ emotional
within the users who own/use such brands that attachment with brands in social media makes
are associated with social media platforms for them feel passionate about the brand (Dwivedi
sharing their thought and idea related to the et al. 2018). Such an emotional attachment
brand or product with similar people who own through interactions in social media could pre-
or use similar products or brands (Muntinga, sumably lead to purchase intentions. This leads
Moorman, and Smit 2011; Mart
ın-Consuegra
to the hypothesis,
et al. 2019). Daugherty, Eastin, and Bright (2008)
stated that social interaction helps marketers to H5: Social media-based emotional attachment
positively influences consumers’ purchase intention.
generate user-inspired themes. The interaction in
social media facilitates the customer to share
their idea as well as offer a platform for conver- Moderating effect of local and nonlocal brands
sation. Thus, we hypothesize: In the global branding literature, the concept of
H4: Interaction in social network positively affect brand origin as local and non-local has been
consumer purchase intention. emerging (Winit et al. 2014). There is a plethora
of research defining the local and nonlocal or
Emotional attachment foreign brands. Local brands are those originating
Consumer behavior literature has recognized that from a consumer’s home country (Eckhardt 2005;
consumers develop emotional attachments with Morimoto and Chang 2009); or those available
marketable entities, such as material possessions only within a limited geographic region
(Kleine et al. 2004), gifts (Mick and Demoss (Dimofte, Johansson, and Ronkainen 2008).
1990), places (Williams et al. 1992), celebrities Nonlocal or foreign brands have been defined as
(Thomson 2006) and brands (Slater 2000; Percy, those brands having a market presence in mul-
Hansen, and Randrup 2004). These attachments tiple countries (Dimofte, Johansson, and
are developed so that people fulfill experiential, Ronkainen 2008) or brands that are owned by
symbolic, and emotional needs (Joo Park, Young multinational firms marketing in a centrally
 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING 5

€
coordinated and standardized manner (Ozsomer (H6c), interaction (H6d), emotional attachment (H6e)
and Altaras 2008). and consumer purchase intention.
Prior researches have investigated the influence
of brand’s globalness and localness on consumers’ Brand loyalty
brand preference and/or identification. But find- When a consumer is consistently preferring to
ings have been mixed. A research using several purchase a brand, despite the existence of several
brands across multiple product categories and other brands, a consumer is known to exhibit
with samples from two nations, a mature market brand loyalty. A high level of satisfaction leads
(Austria) and an emerging market (Bulgaria), both emotional and rational loyalty through
revealed that both perceived brand globalness which there is a good possibility that the satisfied
and localness have positive effects on consumer- customer will become a loyal customer (Berry
brand identification (Sichtmann, Davvetas, and and Carbone 2007). Brand loyalty also results in
Diamantopoulos 2019). A few other studies have the inclination to pay more for the desired brand
shown consumer perceptions of local and nonlo- even though similar other brands are available
cal brands are different (Alden, Steenkamp, and and to recommend the same brands to others.
Batra 1999; Batra et al. 2000; Liu, Tsai, and Tao Brand loyalty is important as the number of
2020). Some studies have concluded that consum- firms serving the same customer segment and
ers prefer non-local brands as they provide better offering similar products or services are increas-
customer value and carry a prestigious image of ing. An absence of brand loyalty will lead to con-
international recognition and have competitive sumers switching to competitors’ offerings or
advantages of high-quality standardized products brands. Past research has confirmed that brand
(Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra 1999; Kapferer loyalty tends to demonstrate an intention to buy
€
2002; Ozsomer 2012; Steenkamp 2014). The pref- a brand a primary choice (Yoo, Donthu, and Lee
erence for non-local brands have also been sup- 2000). The attitudinal theory proposes that brand
ported by other studies (Davvetas, Sichtmann, loyalty is characterized by a favorable attitude
and Diamantopoulos 2015; Steenkamp, Batra, toward a brand and a repeat purchase intention
and Alden 2003).
over time (Rossiter and Percy 1991). Social media
On the other hand, a few studies have reported
engagement and interaction presumably will cre-
that consumers prefer local brands due to the
ate a favorable attitude and will lead to purchase
strong connections they felt with the local brands
intention. Hence the hypothesis,
(Schuiling and Kapferer 2004; Strizhakova and
Coulter 2015). Local culture plays a critical role H7: The purchase intention of the customer through
social media has a positive influence on brand loyalty.
in shaping consumer behavior (Petersen,
Kushwaha, and Kumar 2015) and individual
identity (Samli 2013). The preference for local
Research model
brands over non-local brands and products might
be because of consumers’ cultural integrity and Based on the proposed hypotheses, a research
identity, (Steenkamp and De Jong 2010). model depicting the antecedents of SMM and
On the basis of the above evidences and given their effect on purchase intention is drawn. SMM
that there is a lack of research addressing the antecedents comprise five constructs: (1) brand
effect of local and nonlocal brands on SMM trust (2) brand community (3) brand awareness,
influences and consumer purchase intentions, we (4) interaction, and (5) emotional attachment.
expect the moderating impact of brand origin on These SMM antecedents are the independent
the influences of SMM antecedents and consumer variable of purchase intention. Purchase intention
purchase intentions. Thus, the follow- influences brand loyalty. Additionally, this model
ing hypothesis, incorporates the moderating effect of brand ori-
H6: Brand origin (local or nonlocal) moderates the gin on SMM antecedents in consumer purchase
relationship between social media-based brand trust intention. The conceptual framework is presented
(H6a), brand community (H6b), brand awareness in Figure 1.
6 M. HASAN AND M. S. SOHAIL

Figure 1. Research Model.

Methods promising and represents the emerging trend in

Research setting
Saudi Arabia. Its growth is even one of the larg-
est in the world according to an Ipsos survey
This research attempts to understand the impact conducted in 2018 (CIGI 2018). The total value
of SMM on consumers’ purchase intention in an of the e-commerce market for consumer goods in
emerging Arabian Gulf economy, Saudi Arabia. the country was estimated at $6.36 billion in
In the Arab world, social media users have been 2018, a 15% increase over the previous year
growing exponentially, particularly after the so- (Ipsos 2018). For example, 64% of Saudis now
called Arab spring (Bruns, Highfield, and Burgess report buying a product or service online every
2013). Despite the increasing usage of social month. A behavior strongly focused on their
media, there is a paucity of exploration of SMM, mobile phones with 51% of internet users making
especially in Saudi Arabia. A recent study exam- their purchases smartphones and barely 24% on a
ined the factors affecting consumer attitudes computer (Ipsos 2018). This is mainly due to the
toward social media marketing and the use of predominance of a young and connected popula-
social media (Sohail and Al-Jabri 2017). tion (86.8% of households have access to the
Moreover, according to a survey by McKinsey & internet) that seeks to save time and money, but
Company (2018), Saudi consumers prefer quality also by the arrival in Saudi Arabia of new secure
over quantity (66% of the consumers value qual- online payment methods (Nordea Trade 2019).
ity over price) and are especially attracted by Besides, Saudi Internet users are the most active
international brands. Nevertheless, it has been and active in the MENA region on social net-
observed that the consumers’ behavior has been works. For example, they account for 9% of glo-
changing in recent years in the Arab world in bal Snapchat users according to the Crowd
general, and especially in Saudi Arabia. Analyzer (2020) Institute. There are mainly men,
Consumers are more concerned about the prices interested in Arabic content news or fashion. It is
and, thus, demonstrate less loyalty to the brand. common for these internet users to subscribe to
The e-commerce market in the Middle East one or more brand-owned accounts and to come
and North Africa (MENA) region is particularly in contact with them directly through this
 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING 7

according to a study conducted by Salford measured using three items adapted from
University in 2017 (Helal 2017). The researchers Jarvenpaa, Tractinsky, and Vitale (2000). Finally,
highlighted the positive impact of social media brand loyalty was assessed by borrowing five
on the development of companies located in the items from Aaker (1991) and Yoo, Donthu, and
country, particularly in terms of communication Lee (2000). A five-point Likert-type scale ranging
with customers and business partners. Thus, it is from 5 (strongly agree) to 1 (strongly disagree)
worth researching how consumer behavior is was employed to record all these responses.
changing in Saudi Arabia, which may resemble
the Arab world. Data collection
To date, the authors have not found any com-
prehensive study, which examined the brand- The sample was collected from across the king-
related and social motives behind social media dom of Saudi Arabia. The questionnaires were
usage and the contingent effect on purchase distributed using social media platforms such as
intention and brand loyalty. From a contextual Facebook, Twitter, Facebook Messenger,
perspective, it has been found that SMM culture WhatsApp, and other similar platforms. To
makes a distinction between conservatism, which ensure that the sample must be collected from all
is represented by a traditional mass advertising around Saudi Arabia, respondents were asked to
approach and modernism which is encapsulated provide their cell phone numbers. To deal with
in a more open and flexible approach to SMM the time limitation, the social media platform
(Felix, Rauschnabel, and Hinsch 2017). This was used to collect the data, and the responses
study adds value not only to building theory but were collected for 24 days. In total, 343 respond-
also to managerial practice by enhancing context- ents participated in this study, and 314 valid
ual knowledge of digital consumer behavior. responses were collected. An Arabic version of
Although considered a traditional society, Saudi the questionnaire (verified to match with the
Arabia has a long-standing relationship with the English version by back translation) was used
Western world and the wide diffusion of technol- when finding out that the respondents were not
ogies (Sohail and Al-Jabri 2014). This study pro- comfortable with the English version, and a pilot
vides valuable information for developing test was conducted among 20 people before dis-
effective entry and growth strategies by globaliz- tributing both the English and the Arabic version
ing service firms targeting the Arab region and questionnaire to verify the reliability of
other emerging markets. both versions.
This study was restricted to the respondents
who had purchased at least one product of the
Measurement and survey instrument
brand of which brand page they followed and
The authors studied the relevant pieces of litera- who had experienced in following the brand page
ture to device the construct and identify ques- for at least three months. Each respondent
tionnaire items. All the measured construct items answered a questionnaire that included questions
selected for this study were adopted from a well- (among others) on background demographics,
established scale. To measure three items were and psychographics. Then each participant was
borrowed for the construct brand trust from asked whether they used social media. On receiv-
Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001). The brand ing a negative answer, the online system auto-
community was assessed using five items from matically stopped generating further questions to
Zha, Ju, and Wang (2006). Brand awareness was be answered and thanked the participants for
measured using three items from the work of participation. Respondents were asked to name
Yoo, Donthu, and Lee (2000). Four items were their favorite brand and marked whether their
adopted from Kim and Ko (2012) to measure the favorite brand they named is either the local or
interaction. Ten items were adopted from the non-local brands. During the data screening
Thomson, MacInnis, and Park (2005) to measure process, the name of the brands that the respond-
emotional attachment. Purchase intention was ents mentioned was checked for accuracy of
8 M. HASAN AND M. S. SOHAIL

Table 1. Demographic profile. and the rest are from high school or under. On
Frequency Percent nationality, 65.6 percent were from Saudi and the
Age
16–20 19 6.1
rest were non-Saudis. Further, the highest per-
21–25 84 26.8 centage of participants used Twitter (22 percent)
26–30 120 38.2
31–40 76 24.2 and WhatsApp (21.8 percent) and among all the
41 and above 10 3.2 respondents, 43 percent spent two to five hours
Gender
Male 235 74.8 per day on social media. Among the participants,
Female 79 25.2 nonlocal brands (69.70 percent) were more popu-
Marital status
Single 182 58 lar than local brands (30.30 percent).
Married 132 42
Level of education
School or college or under 97 30.89
Undergraduate 130 41.40 Normality, validity, and reliability of measures
Graduate 87 27.71
Nationality For data analysis, SPSS-20 and AMOS-24 soft-
Saudi 206 65.6 ware were employed. Skewness and kurtosis
Non-Saudi 108 34.4
Social media name showed absolute values of less than 1, indicating
Facebook 40 12.7
Instagram 52 16.6
that the data were normally distributed (Hair Jr
Twitter 69 22 et al. 2010). On further examination of the values
YouTube 38 12.1
WhatsApp 68 21.7 of skewness and kurtosis, these were found to be
Facebook Messenger 16 5.1 close to zero, indicating that the assumptions of
LinkedIn 12 3.8
Others 19 6 multivariate normality are not violated.
Frequency of use of social media Although recent research suggested that com-
< 1 Hour per day 53 16.9
2–5 hours per day 135 43 mon method variance (CMV) does not carry a
6–9 hours per day 72 22.9
< 10 Hours per day 38 12.1
serious threat for survey research (Fuller et al.
Once in a week 10 3.2 2016), the same priori procedures were followed
Not very often 6 1.9
Local/nonlocal in this research to test for potential CMV.
Local brand 95 30.3 Because the data were self-reported and collected
Nonlocal brand 219 69.7
from the same source, common method bias
(CMB) could be present in the data. Therefore,
brand localness or non-localness. Furthermore, to control the common method variance, both
each participant answered questions covering procedural remedies and ex-ante approaches were
brand trust, brand community, brand awareness, implemented. First, during the questionnaire
interaction, emotional attachment, purchase designing phase, each scale was systematically
intention, and brand loyalty. evaluated to minimize the ambiguity and vague-
ness, and the questions were presented to the
Results respondents in a randomized manner (Malhotra,
Kim, and Patil 2006). Second, in the explanatory
Descriptive statistics
verbal statement of the questionnaire, respond-
Table 1 describes the demographic profile of the ents were guaranteed the confidentiality and ano-
respondents. As mentioned earlier, the final sam- nymity of their identity. Third, Harman’s one-
ple comprised of 314 completed and usable factor and maker variable tests were performed
responses. The respondents aged between 26 to as suggested by (Podsakoff et al. 2003). Common
30 years were over one-third (38.10 percent). method variance (CMV) poses a serious threat if
Almost 33 percent of the respondents were aged an unrotated single factor test resulted in one fac-
16 to 25 years old. That means two-thirds of the tor that accounts for more than 50 percent of the
respondents were between 16 to 30 years of age. variance (Podsakoff et al. 2003). In the present
Among the respondents, 42 percent were mar- study, Harman’s single factor test results showed
ried, and the rest were single. On educational sta- that the first factor accounted for 17.28 percent
tus, 27 percent of the respondents were (i.e., < 50 percent) of the variance and indicated
graduates, 41 percent were from undergraduate that common method variance is unlikely to be a
 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING 9

Table 2. Factor loadings and psychometric properties.

Latent construct Items Factor loading CA Mean Std. deviation AVE CR
Brand trust 0.813 3.609 0.864 0.695 0.872
BTR1 0.826
BTR2 0.853
BTR3 0.822
Brand community 0.730 3.785 0.834 0.663 0.887
BCOM1 0.857
BCOM2 0.817
BCOM3 0.824
BCOM4 0.757
Brand awareness 0.865 2.895 0.965 0.708 0.879
BARNS1 0.817
BARNS2 0.811
BARNS3 0.893
Interaction 0.866 3.522 0.760 0.643 0.878
INTR1 0.807
INTR2 0.815
INTR3 0.833
INTR4 0.750
Emotional attachment 0.880 3.625 0.832 0.509 0.892
EMNAT3 0.689
EMNAT4 0.658
EMNAT5 0.763
EMNAT6 0.681
EMNAT7 0.757
EMNAT8 0.652
EMNAT9 0.780
EMNAT10 0.718
Purchase intention 0.798 3.612 0.609 0.693 0.871
PURINT1 0.800
PURINT2 0.860
PURINT3 0.837
Brand loyalty 0.837 2.903 0.935 0.603 0.884
BL1 0.779
BL2 0.801
BL3 0.746
BL4 0.787
BL5 0.768
Notes: AVE > 0.5; CR > 0.7; Cronbach’s alpha >0.8 (Nunnally, 1978; Fornell and Larcker 1981).

major issue in this study. However, due to its (EMNAT1 and EMNAT2) were also dropped
insensitivity, Harman’s single factor test is con- from the construct of emotional attachment since
sidered inefficient in assessing CMV (Podsakoff the loading was less than 0.50. Moreover,
et al. 2003). Furthermore, the marker variable Bartlett’s test of Sphericity and ’Kaiser-Mayer-
test was conducted as suggested by Podsakoff Olkin’ (KMO) measures of sampling adequacy
et al. (2003). Marker variable results showed that were also assessed to determine the degree of
all the adjusted variables and items correlations correlation among the variables. The test results
are below the 0.30 threshold, which indicates that were significant (p < 0.001). A good degree of
common method variance is unlikely to be pre- correlation (>0.50) was found in the KMO
sent in this study (Bagozzi and Yi 1988; Lindell results (0.826).
and Whitney 2001; Lages and Piercy 2012). After conducting EFA to purify and validate
Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was per- the measures, Cronbach’s alphas were calculated
formed to determine the factor structure of the for the scale items to assess the internal con-
constructs. During the EFA, the maximum likeli- sistency of each construct (Rosner and
hood extraction method with varimax rotation Cronbach 1960). Table 2 demonstrates the
was used. The EFA resulted in a six-factor descriptive statistics and Cronbach’s alphas for
solution after multiple iterations. In this study, each construct. Cronbach’s alphas for each of
Six-factor with Eigenvalues greater than 1.0 com- the construct exceeded the recommended value
bined explained 65.08 percent of the variance. of 0.70 (Cronbach 1951), confirming the satis-
However, from the brand community (BCOM), factory level of internal consistency for
one item (BCOM5) was dropped and two items each construct.
10 M. HASAN AND M. S. SOHAIL

Table 3. Fit indices for the measurement models.

Fit indices Suggested value Recommended by author Measurement model (present study)
v2/df <3 Fox and Hayduk (1989) 1.860
Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) >0.9 Scott (1995) 0.912
Adjusted for degrees of freedom (AGFI) >0.8 Scott (1995) 0.801
Normed Fit Index (NFI) >0.9 Bentler and Bonett (1980) 0.931
Comparative Fit Index (CFI) >0.9 BBagozzi and Yi (1988) 0. .903
Root Mean Square Error Estimation (RMSEA) <0.08 BBagozzi and Yi (1988) 0.053

To further validate the survey questionnaire, before they can be judged for model fitness. v2/df
content, convergent, discriminant validity test (CMIN/DF), GFI, AGFI, CFI, and RMSEA are
was performed. in the content validity test, a some of the subset indices of model fit which are
two-stage development and judgment procedures well-established and suggested by the SEM
were followed (Lynn 1986). All the items used in researchers (Lee and Jeong 2014; Mahrous and
this study were adopted from the previous study, Abdelmaaboud 2017). Table 3 shows (without
confirming the development of content validity. brand origin as a moderating factor) that every
Three experts from the author’s institution were model-fit index meets the recommended value
asked to assess the validity of the items and requirement from previous studies, exhibiting an
measurements to confirm the judgment process adequate fit to the collected data.
of content validity. A few minor changes were
done in the phrasings of two questions after the
Hypothesis testing
evaluation of the items and measurements by the
experts. To assess the convergent validity, com- The structural model results, without considering
posite reliability (CR), Cronbach alpha’s (CA), the moderating effect, presented in Table 4 dem-
and average variance extracted was measured. onstrate that H1-H4 and H7 are supported by
The means, standard deviation (SD), CA, CR, the data. H1, H2, H3, H4, and H5 examined the
and AVE are demonstrated in Table 2. From effect of brand trust, brand community, brand
Table 2, the CR values are more than the sug- awareness, brand image, interaction, and emo-
gested value of 0.70 (Nunnally 2010), suggesting tional attachment. Brand trust, brand community,
the reliability of the construct. AVE is an assess- brand awareness, and interaction positively affect
ing criterion of convergent and discriminant val- purchase intention, thus supporting H1, H2, H3,
idity. Table 2 demonstrates that all the AVE and H4. The results also show that purchase
scores range from 0.508 to 0.708, which are more intention has a significant positive effect on
than the suggested value of 0.50 (Fornell and brand loyalty, supporting the hypothesis H7. The
Larcker 1981). Thus, the convergent validity of results demonstrated that emotional attachment
the constructs was substantiated. does not have any significant effect on purchase
By comparing AVE values with the squared intention; thus, hypothesis H5 is rejected.
correlation between each pair of construct and
constructing a 95% confidence interval around Moderating effect of Brand origin
the inter-construct correlations (Fornell and
Larcker 1981), the discriminant validity of the To test the moderating effect of brand origin on
model was measured. The AVE exceeded all the the path relationships between brand trust, brand
corresponding construct correlations, indicating community, brand awareness, interaction, and
that the discriminant validity of the constructs emotional attachment on purchase intention, the
was established (Fornell and Larcker 1981). sample was split into two groups: local (n ¼ 118)
and nonlocal (n ¼ 196). The model (with brand
origin as a moderating factor) exhibited a reason-
Results of the structural model
able overall fit: v2/df (CMIN/DF) ¼ 2.078, GFI¼
The model fit of the constructs was assessed 0.914, AGFI¼ 0.811, CFI¼ 0.826, and RMSEA¼
(Hair Jr et al. 2010). The model fit indices of the 0.059. A multi-group analysis was run, which
constructs should reach the desired standard compared differences in path coefficients of the
 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING 11

Table 4. Hypotheses testing results.

Hypotheses b p-Value Decision
H1: Brand Trust —> Purchase Intention 0.178 0.002 Supported
H2: Brand Community —> Purchase Intention 0.205 0.001 Supported
H3: Brand Awareness —> Purchase Intention 0.139 0.000 Supported
H4: Interaction —> Purchase Intention 0.192 0.006 Supported
H5: Emotional Attachment —> Purchase Intention 0.084 0.134 Not supported
H7: Purchase Intention —> Brand Loyalty 0.233 0.000 Supported

corresponding structural paths for local and non- ideal strategy to reach customers (Kaplan and
local sample groups (Zhou, Jin, and Fang 2014). Haenlein 2010; Fournier and Avery 2011). This
The p-value of the chi-square difference test was study suggests marketers having a virtual pres-
significant (Unconstrained: v2/df¼ 12.26/8; con- ence in social media can help in engaging and
strained: v2/df ¼32.12/19, p-value: 0.047); thus, interacting with the brand community, which will
the model differed across groups. As shown in help in creating brand awareness and trust,
Table 5, the significant impact of brand trust ultimately influencing the purchase decision. The
(local: b ¼ 0.087, nonlocal: b ¼ 0.233) and inter- findings provide both theoretical and managerial
action (local: b ¼ 0.326, nonlocal: b ¼ 0.166) on implications.
purchase intention varied across brand origin
and supporting H6a and H6d. On the other Theoretical and practical implication
hand, the effect of brand awareness (local:
b ¼ 0.194, nonlocal: b ¼ 0.110), brand community There are several theoretical implications for
(local: b ¼ 0.135, nonlocal: b ¼ 0.022) and emo- research and practice emerging from this study.
tional attachment (local: b ¼ 0.027, nonlocal: First, though the role of brand trust, brand com-
b ¼ 0.063) on purchase intention did not vary munity, brand awareness, interaction, and emo-
across brand origin, resulting in lack of support tional attachment has been extensively used in
for H6b, H6c, and H6e. prior literature on social commerce, little research
has been done to combine brand trust, brand
community, brand awareness, interaction, and
Discussion and implications
emotional attachment to examine their effects on
The primary objective of this research was to purchase intention simultaneously and to scrutin-
examine the antecedents of SMM and their influ- ize the transaction experience on these con-
ence on consumer purchase intention, as well as structs. Hence, developing a research model
the consequent impact on brand loyalty. based on the literature of social media to explain
Additionally, the study also examined the moder- purchase intention, which enhances the under-
ating effect of brand localness and non-localness standing of the antecedents of purchasing behav-
on the relationship between antecedents of SMM ior in a social media context, is the contribution
and purchase intention. Our findings indicate of this study. Furthermore, the previous studies
that brand trust, brand awareness, interaction, have mainly focused on only a few elements of
brand community, have a significant positive social media-based branding items such as brand
influence on purchase intention. This finding is community (Laroche, Habibi, and Richard 2013)
in line with previous studies that SMM positively and brand awareness (Hutter et al. 2013).
influences brand purchasing behavior and builds Previous studies showed that branding activ-
brand loyalty (Kardaras, Karakostas, and ities can influence purchase decisions, but our
Papathanassiou 2003; Casal
o, Flavi
an, and study reveals how this can happen and the man-
Guinal
ıu 2010; Laroche, Habibi, and Richard ner in which this relation can lead to brand loy-
2013; Laroche et al. 2012). Marketers can use the alty by demonstrating the direct relationships of
social media platform to influence consumer pur- the antecedents of purchasing behavior in SMM.
chase intention and create brand loyalty. A few This has been largely neglected in previous stud-
but limited, studies have concluded that social ies. By incorporating more variables to the
media-based marketing and branding is not an model, this study describes the branding process
12 M. HASAN AND M. S. SOHAIL

Table 5. Path comparison results across the brand origin.

Hypotheses Local b Nonlocal b b Differences p-Value Decision Interpretation
H6a: Brand Trust —> 0.087 0.233 0.146 0.002 Supported The positive relationship
Purchase Intention between purchase
intention and brand
trust is only significant
for nonlocal brand
H6b: Brand Community 0.135 0.022 0.113 0.195 Not Supported No differences
—>
Purchase Intention
H6c: Brand Awareness 0.194 0.110 0.084 0.244 Not Supported No differences
—>
Purchase Intention
H6d: Interaction —> 0.326 0.166 0.160 0.051 Supported The positive relationship
Purchase Intention between purchase
intention and
interaction is stronger
for local brand
H6e: Emotional 0.027 0.063 0.036 0.472 Not Supported No differences
Attachment —>
Purchase Intention
p < 0.050,
p < 0.010,
p < 0.001

in virtual communities. Besides, while practi- 2013; Alalwan 2018; Lindh et al. 2020) this study
tioners may still doubt the benefits of using social has investigated the moderating effect of brand
media as a platform for marketing channel to localness and non-localness on purchasing behav-
motivate customers, our findings underpin the ior antecedents in a social media setting. The
importance of social media as a vehicle and as an findings of this study suggested that the relation-
integral part of designing marketing strategies. ship between brand trust and interaction, and
The positive effects of the antecedents of social behavioral intention is contingent on consumer
media-based consumers’ engagement on purchase online product choice of local and non-local ori-
intention and brand loyalty forms a strong logical gin. This findings added new dimensions to the
reasoning for using social media to manage con- SMM research and dictate that consumer brand
sumer-brand relationship activities. Brand man- trust and brand interaction varies based on
agers should not use social media as a marketing whether the brand has a local or non-local origin
tool simply because other brand managers are and reveal that consumer exerts strong brand
using it; rather, brand managers should use SMM trust on the non-local brands whereas brand
as a source for obtaining in-depth insight infor- interaction demonstrates that consumers show
mation about consumers’ preferences and behav- more interactions with a local brand compared to
ioral intention and pattern. Brand managers non-local brands. From a practical perspective,
should focus on designing their marketing strat- the findings suggest that brand trust and interac-
egies that would nurture consumer-brand engage- tions are important factors in stimulating con-
ment in social media by improving brand trust, sumer purchase intention in the case of local and
brand community, brand awareness, interaction, non-local brands. If the practitioners are dealing
and purchase intention, and, in turn, improve the with non-local products, they should first of all
economic prospects of the brands’ firm. This can focus on creating brand trust. Once the desired
be done by letting the consumers engage in social level of brand trust is achieved, SMM practi-
media communities by likes, comments, and tioners should encourage customers to visit sell-
posts and generating contents, which will help ers’ websites automatically, as recommended by
the marketers to know more about the consum- Chiu et al. (2012). Hence, SMM practitioners can
ers and their preferences and to design appropri- encourage frequent usage by providing incentives
ate marketing tools. (e.g., gift and bonuses) and develop customers’
Second, although prior studies on SMM have sites for more customer interactions with
focused on purchase intention (e.g., Hutter et al. the brands.
 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING 13

Third, our research shows that social media intention becomes stronger as customers’ prefer-
marketing-based purchase decision indeed influ- ence for brand localness increases, brand local-
ences consumer brand loyalty. The finding of the ness or non-localness does not have any bearing
study suggests that emotional attachment does on emotional attachment and purchase intention
not have any bearing on the purchase intention. relationship. Moreover, the results showed that
The plausible explanation could be consumers the brand community is the most important pre-
develop an emotional attachment with a brand in dictor of customers’ purchase intention. From a
the long run and, thus, develop loyalty toward management perspective, customers’ participation
the brand. The research effectively theorized and in the SMM brand community should be given
empirically showed that brand trust, brand com- higher priority to motivate customers’ pur-
munity, brand awareness, and interaction are the chase decisions.
antecedents of purchasing behavior and contribu-
ting to consumer brand loyalty. Our study com- Limitations and future research
plements the findings of previous research by While the findings of this study provide several
Hutter et al. (2013) and extends Hutter et al. theoretical and practical implications, there are
(2013) findings by demonstrating that brand’s some limitations, which offer further scope for
social media presence helps to build consumer future research. First, the study is undertaken in
brand loyalty by influencing their purchase deci- a single (Saudi Arabia) cultural and social setting.
sion. Since attaining a new customer is more Even within the MENA region, cultures and life-
expensive than retaining an old customer, from styles differ among countries, so the results may
practical perspectives, SMM practitioners could differ outside Saudi Arabia. Therefore, it is sug-
emphasize on sustainable long-term customer- gested that future studies cross-cultural in nature
brand relationships by focusing on the antece- may be undertaken to enhance the generalizabil-
dents of purchase intentions and building brand
ity of findings by empirically examining the effect
loyalty. Moreover, concerning the relationship
of SMM on purchase behavior within MENA or
between customer purchase intention and brand
even globally. Second, future researchers are also
loyalty, which can be redefined as a long-term
urged to investigate whether the relational effect
behavioral variable, the two factors connect each
of brand localness/non-localness on purchase
other very intensely. Thus, the practitioners
intention and its antecedents are enduring over
should focus on improving the antecedents of
time. Due to the cross-sectional nature of our
purchase intention which, eventually, affect long
study, our findings cannot reveal the impact of
term consumer behaviors. Since SMM influence
these factors, taking social media marketing into brand localness/non-localness on relationship
account is the best possible choice. duration which, however, is a key aspect of this
Finally, the results of the moderating effect of relationship types. Consumer-brand relationships
brand localness and non-localness on the rela- are dynamic in nature and often follow trajecto-
tionship between purchase intention and its ante- ries identified by peaks and lows over time
cedents in SMM indicated that brand community (Fournier 1998). Examining whether brand local-
and brand awareness have a strong non-signifi- ness/non-localness predict these trajectories
cant effect on purchase intention for customers through longitudinal study design would also be
preference with brand localness. Although for valuable for long-term brand strategy develop-
brand non-localness, these relationships were ment for motivating consumer purchasing deci-
found to be very weak. These findings provide a sion. Finally, this study adopted five variables as
possible explanation for the mixed results of antecedents of purchase intention to explain the
Demiray and Burnaz (2019) Dabbous and formation mechanism of purchase intention.
Barakat (2020) Llonch-Andreu, L
opez-Lomel
ı, Because purchase intention antecedents are
and G
omez-Villanueva (2016) and Anderson and multidimensional concepts, other dimensions
Srinivasan (2003). While the effect of brand com- should be examined (Hsiao and Chen 2018) such
munity and brand awareness on purchase as brand experience and brand attitude. All these
14 M. HASAN AND M. S. SOHAIL

promising questions are left for future research https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%

to explore. 2C5&q=
Build+loyalty+through+experience+management&btnG¼.
Bruns, A., T. Highfield, and J. Burgess. 2013. The Arab
ORCID spring and social media audiences. American Behavioral
Scientist 57 (7):871–98. doi:10.1177/0002764213479374.
Mehedi Hasan http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3294-7402
o, L. V., C. Flavi
an, and M. Guinal
ıu. 2010.
Casal

M. Sadiq Sohail http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9253-8515
Determinants of the intention to participate in firm-
hosted online travel communities and effects on con-
References sumer behavioral intentions. Tourism Management 31
(6):898–911. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2010.04.007.
Aaker, D. 1991. Managing brand equity. Journal of
Chaudhuri, A., and M. B. Holbrook. 2001. The chain of
Marketing 56 (2):125. https://scholar.google.com/schol-
effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand per-
ar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Aaker%2C+D.+A.+%281991
formance: The role of brand loyalty. Journal of Marketing
%29.+Managing+brand+equity.+New+York%3A+Freeþ
65 (2):81–93. doi:10.1509/jmkg.65.2.81.18255.
Press.&btnG¼.
Chiu, C. M., M. H. Hsu, H. Lai, and C. M. Chang. 2012.
Alalwan, A. A. 2018. Investigating the impact of social
Re-examining the influence of trust on online repeat pur-
media advertising features on customer purchase inten-
chase intention: The moderating role of habit and its
tion. International Journal of Information Management
antecedents. Decision Support Systems 53 (4):835–45. doi:
42:65–77. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.06.001.
10.1016/j.dss.2012.05.021.
Alden, D. L., J. B. E. M. Steenkamp, and R. Batra. 1999.
CIGI. 2018. Centre for International Governance
Brand positioning through advertising in Asia, North
Innovation: CIGI-Ipsos Global Survey on Internet
America, and Europe: The role of global consumer cul-
Security and Trust. https://www.cigionline.org/internet-
ture. Journal of Marketing 63 (1):75–87. doi: 10.2307/
survey-2018.
1252002.
Constantinides, E., and S. J. Fountain. 2008. Web 2.0:
Algesheimer, R., U. M. Dholakia, and A. Herrmann. 2005.
The social influence of brand community: Evidence from Conceptual foundations and marketing issues. Journal of
European car clubs. Journal of Marketing 69 (3):19–34. Direct, Data and Digital Marketing Practice 9 (3):231–44.
doi:10.1509/jmkg.69.3.19.66363. doi:10.1057/palgrave.dddmp.4350098.
Anderson, R. E., and S. S. Srinivasan. 2003. E-Satisfaction Cronbach, L. J. 1951. Coefficient alpha and the internal
and E-Loyalty: A contingency framework. Psychology and structure of tests. Psychometrika 16 (3):297–334. doi:10.
Marketing 20 (2):123–38. doi:10.1002/mar.10063. 1007/BF02310555.
Bagozzi, R. P., and Y. Yi. 1988. On the evaluation of struc- Crowd Analyzer. 2020. State of social media report in
tural equation models. Journal of the Academy of MENA Region 2020 – crowd analyzer. https://www.crow-
Marketing Science 16 (1):74–94. doi:10.1007/BF02723327. danalyzer.com/reports/state-of-social-media-report-in-
Barger, V., J. W. Peltier, and D. E. Schultz. 2016. Social mena-region-2020.
media and consumer engagement: A review and research Dabbous, A., and K. A. Barakat. 2020. Bridging the online
agenda. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing 10 offline gap: Assessing the impact of brands’ social net-
(4):268–87. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_ work content quality on brand awareness and purchase
sdt=0%2C5&q=Barger%2C+V.%2C+Peltier%2C+J.W. intention. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 53:
+and+Schultz%2C+D.E.+%282016%29%2Cþ.doi:10.1108/ 101966. doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.101966.
JRIM-06-2016-0065. Daugherty, T., M. S. Eastin, and L. Bright. 2008. Exploring
Batra, R., V. Ramaswamy, D. L. Alden, J.-B. B. E. M. consumer motivations for creating user-generated con-
Steenkamp, and S. Ramachander. 2000. Effects of brand tent. Journal of Interactive Advertising 8 (2):16–25. doi:10.
local and nonlocal origin on consumer attitudes in devel- 1080/15252019.2008.10722139.
oping countries. Journal of Consumer Psychology 9 (2): Davis, D. F., S. L. Golicic, and A. J. Marquardt. 2008.
83–95. doi:10.1207/S15327663JCP0902_3. Branding a B2B service: Does a brand differentiate a
Bennett, R., and S. Rundle-Thiele. 2002. A comparison of logistics service provider?. Industrial Marketing
attitudinal loyalty measurement approaches. Journal of Management 37 (2):218–27. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.
Brand Management 9 (3):193–209. doi:10.1057/palgrave. 2007.02.003.
bm.2540069. Davis, L. M. 2010. Social media marketing: An hour a day.
Bentler, P. M., and D. G. Bonett. 1980. Significance tests Technical Communication 57 (1):110.
and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance struc- Davvetas, V., C. Sichtmann, and A. Diamantopoulos. 2015.
tures. Psychological Bulletin 88 (3):588–606. doi:10.1037/ The impact of perceived brand globalness on consumers’
0033-2909.88.3.588. willingness to pay. International Journal of Research in
Berry, L. L., and L. P. Carbone. 2007. Build loyalty through Marketing 32 (4):431–4. doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2015.05.
experience management. Quality Progress 40 (9):26–32. 004.
 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING 15

Demiray, M., and S. Burnaz. 2019. Exploring the impact of login.aspx?direct=true&profile=ehost&scope=site&auth-

brand community identification on Facebook: Firm- type=crawler&jrnl=15401960&asa=Y&AN=58657257&h=
directed and self-directed drivers. Journal of Business MfvSjqbE0HcMgEOKGMs0hD%2BHM4ik7DmgJ9yjaYl1g
Research 96 (March 1): 115–24. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres. HjoMYKlpqoD7ia3r2Pwx1yI%2Bvjnd4TVOB%2FWrw61r
2018.11.016. NlPsw%3D%3D&crl=c.
Dimofte, C. V., J. K. Johansson, and I. A. Ronkainen. 2008. Gamboa, A. M., and H. M. Gonçalves. 2014. Customer loy-
Cognitive and affective reactions of U.S. consumers to alty through social networks: Lessons from Zara on
global brands. Journal of International Marketing 16 (4): Facebook. Business Horizons 57 (6):709–17. doi:10.1016/
113–35. doi:10.1509/jimk.16.4.113. j.bushor.2014.07.003.
Doney, P. M., and J. P. Cannon. 1997. An examination of Godey, B., A. Manthiou, D. Pederzoli, J. Rokka, G. Aiello,
the nature of trust in buyer-seller relationships. Journal of R. Donvito, and R. Singh. 2016. Social media marketing
Marketing 61 (2):35–51. doi:10.1177/ efforts of luxury brands: influence on brand equity and
002224299706100203. consumer behavior. Journal of Business Research 69 (12):
Dwivedi, A., L. W. Johnson, D. C. Wilkie, and L. D. 5833–41. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.181.
Araujo-Gil. 2018. Consumer emotional brand attachment Hair Jr, J. F., W. C. Black, B. J. Babin, and R. E. Anderson.
with social media brands and social media brand equity. 2010. Multivariate Data Analysis: International Version.
European Journal of Marketing 53 (6):1176–204. doi: 10. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
1108/EJM-09-2016-0511. Harrigan, P., U. Evers, M. Miles, and T. Daly. 2017.
Eckhardt, G. M. 2005. Local branding in a foreign product Customer engagement with tourism social media brands.
category in an emerging market. Journal of International Tourism Management 59:597–609. doi:10.1016/j.tour-
Marketing 13 (4):57–79. doi:10.1509/jimk.2005.13.4.57. man.2016.09.015.
Erdem, T., and J. Swait. 2004. Brand credibility, brand con- Hartmann, P., and V. Apaolaza-Ib
an ~ez. 2012. Consumer
sideration, and choice. Journal of Consumer Research 31 attitude and purchase intention toward green energy
(1):191–8. doi:10.1086/383434.
brands: The roles of psychological benefits and environ-
Essamri, A., S. McKechnie, and H. Winklhofer. 2019. Co-
mental concern. Journal of Business Research 65 (9):
creating corporate brand identity with online brand com-
1254–63. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.11.001.
munities: A managerial perspective. Journal of Business
Helal, M. 2017. An investigation of the use of social media
Research 96:366–75. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.07.015.
for E-Commerce amongst small businesses in Saudi
Felix, R., P. A. Rauschnabel, and C. Hinsch. 2017. Elements
Arabia. http://usir.salford.ac.uk/42451/1/MHelal_
of strategic social media marketing: A holistic framework.
PhDThesis.pdf.
Journal of Business Research 70 (January):118–26. doi: 10.
Herbst, K. C., E. J. Finkel, D. Allan, G. Gr
a, and G. M.
1016/j.jbusres.2016.05.001.
Fitzsimons. 2012. On the dangers of pulling a fast one:
Fornell, C., and D. F. Larcker. 1981. Evaluating structural
Advertisement disclaimer speed, brand trust, and pur-
equation models with unobservable variables and meas-
chase intention. Journal of Consumer Research 38 (5):
urement error. Journal of Marketing Research 18 (1):
39–50. doi:10.2307/3151312. 909–19. doi:10.1086/660854.
ja Fournier, S. 1998. Consumers and their brands: Hoeffler, S., and K. L. Keller. 2002. Building brand equity
Developing relationship theory in consumer research. through corporate societal marketing. Journal of Public
Journal of Consumer Research 24 (4):343–53. doi:10. Policy & Marketing 21 (1):78–89. doi:10.1509/jppm.21.1.
1086/209515. 78.17600.
Fournier, S., and J. Avery. 2011. The uninvited brand. Hollebeek, L. D., M. S. Glynn, and R. J. Brodie. 2014.
Business Horizons 54 (3):193–207. doi:10.1016/j.bushor. Consumer brand engagement in social media:
2011.01.001. Conceptualization, scale development and validation.
Fournier, S., and L. Lee. 2009. Getting brand communities Journal of Interactive Marketing 28 (2):149–65. doi:10.
right. Harvard Business Review 87 (4):105–11. www.hbr. 1016/j.intmar.2013.12.002.
org. Hoyer, W. D., and S. P. Brown. 1990. Effects of brand
Fox, J, and L. A. Hayduk. 1989. Structural Equation awareness on choice for a common, repeat-purchase
Modeling with LISREL: Essentials and Advances. product the effect of effort on sales performance and job
Canadian Journal of Sociology / Cahiers Canadiens De satisfaction view project. Journal of Consumer Research
Sociologie 14 (2):257 doi:10.2307/3341309. 17 (2):141. doi: 10.1086/208544.
Fuller, C. M., M. J. Simmering, G. Atinc, Y. Atinc, and B. J. Hsiao, K.-L., and C.-C. Chen. 2018. What drives
Babin. 2016. Common methods variance detection in Smartwatch purchase intention? Perspectives from hard-
business research. Journal of Business Research 69 (8): ware, software, design, and value. Telematics and
3192–8. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.12.008. Informatics 35 (1):103–13. doi:10.1016/j.tele.2017.10.002.
Gallaugher, J., and S. Ransbotham. 2010. Social media and Hutter, K., J. Hautz, S. Dennhardt, and J. F€ uller. 2013. The
customer dialog management at Starbucks. MIS Quarterly impact of user interactions in social media on brand
Executive 9 (4):197–212. http://search.ebscohost.com/ awareness and purchase intention: The case of MINI on
16 M. HASAN AND M. S. SOHAIL

Facebook. Journal of Product & Brand Management 22 value creation practices, brand trust and brand loyalty.
(5/6):342–51. doi:10.1108/JPBM-05-2013-0299. Computers in Human Behavior 28 (5):1755–67. doi:10.
Ipsos. 2018. Ipsos: Predictions for 2018 (January 8, 2018) 1016/j.chb.2012.04.016.
Global/National: 1–23. https://www.ipsos.com/en/ipsos- Laroche, M., M. R. Habibi, 2013. To be or not to be in
predictions-2018. social media: How brand loyalty is affected by social
Islam, J. U., Z. Rahman, and L. D. Hollebeek. 2018. media?. International Journal of Information Management
Consumer engagement in online brand communities: A 33 (1):76–82. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2012.07.003.
solicitation of congruity theory. Internet Research 28 (1): Le, L. H., and G. H. Duong. 2020. Engagement in the
23–45. doi:10.1108/IntR-09-2016-0279. online brand community: Impacts of cultural traits.
Jarvenpaa, S., N. Tractinsky, and M. Vitale. 2000. Consumer Journal of International Consumer Marketing 32 (2):
trust in an internet store. Information Technology and 146–58. doi:10.1080/08961530.2019.1649992.
Management 1 (1/2):45–71. doi:10.1023/A:101910 Lee, S., and M. Jeong. 2014. Enhancing online brand experi-
4520776. ences: An application of congruity theory. International
Jenkins-Guarnieri, M. A., S. L. Wright, and B. Johnson. Journal of Hospitality Management 40:49–58. doi:10.
2013. Development and validation of a social media use 1016/j.ijhm.2014.03.008.
integration scale. Psychology of Popular Media Culture 2 Lenhart, A., and M. Madden. 2007. Teens, privacy and
(1):38–50. doi:10.1037/a0030277. online social networks: How teens manage their online
Joo Park, E., E. Young Kim, and J. Cardona Forney. 2006. identities and personal information in the Age of
A structural model of fashion-oriented impulse buying MySpace. Pew Internet American Life Project 1–45. http://
behavior. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2007/Teens-Privacy-and-
An International Journal 10 (4):433–46. doi:10.1108/ Online-Social-Networks.aspx.
13612020610701965. Lindell, M. K., and D. J. Whitney. 2001. Accounting for
Kapferer, J.-N. 2002. Is there really no hope for local
common method variance in cross-sectional research
brands. Journal of Brand Management 9 (3):163–70.
designs. The Journal of Applied Psychology 86 (1):114–21.
doi:10.1057/palgrave.bm.2540066.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.114.
Kaplan, A. M., and M. Haenlein. 2010. Users of the world,
Lindh, C., E. Rovira Nordman, S. Mel
en Hånell, A. Safari,
unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media.
and A. Hadjikhani. 2020. Digitalization and International
Business Horizons 53 (1):59–68. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.
Online Sales: Antecedents of purchase intent. Journal of
2009.09.003.
International Consumer Marketing ( Marketing 32 (4):
Kardaras, D., B. Karakostas, and E. Papathanassiou. 2003.
324–12. doi:10.1080/08961530.2019.1707143.
The potential of virtual communities in the insurance
Liu, C., J. T. Marchewka, J. Lu, and C.-S. Yu. 2005. Beyond
industry in the UK and Greece. International Journal of
concern—a privacy-trust-behavioral intention model of
Information Management 23 (1):41–53. doi:10.1016/
electronic commerce. Information & Management 42 (2):
S0268-4012(02)00067-1.
Keller, K. L. 1993. Conceptualizing, measuring, and manag- 289–304. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/
ing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing 57 pii/S0378720604000151.
(1):1–22. doi:10.2307/1252054. Liu, Y., W. S. Tsai, and W. Tao. 2020. The interplay
Kim, A. J., and E. Ko. 2012. Do social media marketing between brand globalness and localness for iconic global
activities enhance customer equity? An empirical study of and local brands in the transitioning Chinese market.
luxury fashion brand. Journal of Business Research 65 Journal of International Consumer Marketing 32 (2):
(10):1480–6. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.10.014. 128–45. doi:10.1080/08961530.2019.1658556.
Llonch-Andreu, J., M. A.
L
opez-Lomel
ı, and J. E. G
omez-
Kleine, S., S. Baker, S. Schultz Kleine, and S. Menzel Baker.
2004. An integrative review of material possession attach- Villanueva. 2016. How local/global is your brand?.
ment. Academy of Marketing Science Review 2004 (01):1. International Journal of Market Research 58 (6):795–813.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=(Kleine+and+Baker, doi:10.2501/IJMR-2016-046.
+2004)&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5. Lynn, M. R. 1986. Determination and quantification of con-
Kuan, H. H., and G. W. Bock. 2007. Trust transference in tent validity. Nursing Research 35 (6):382–6. https://psy-
brick and click retailers: An investigation of the before- cnet.apa.org/record/1988-06371-001.
online-visit phase. Information & Management 44 (2): Macdonald, E. K., and B. M. Sharp. 2000. Brand awareness
175–87. doi:10.1016/j.im.2006.12.002. effects on consumer decision making for a common,
Lages, C. R., and N. F. Piercy. 2012. Key drivers of frontline repeat purchase product: A replication. Journal of
employee generation of ideas for customer service Business Research 48 (1):5–15. doi:10.1016/S0148-
improvement. Journal of Service Research 15 (2):215–30. 2963(98)00070-8.
doi:10.1177/1094670511436005. Mahrous, A. A., and A. K. Abdelmaaboud. 2017.
Laroche, M., M. R. Habibi, M.-O. Richard, and R. Antecedents of participation in online brand commun-
Sankaranarayanan. 2012. The effects of social media ities and their purchasing behavior consequences. Service
based brand communities on brand community markers, Business 11 (2):229–51. doi:10.1007/s11628-016-0306-5.
 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING 17

Malhotra, N. K., S. S. Kim, and A. Patil. 2006. Common Nunnally, J. 2010. Psychometric Theory 3E. https://books.
method variance in IS research: A comparison of alterna- google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=_6R_f3G58JsC&oi=
tive approaches and a reanalysis of past research. fnd&pg=PR21&dq=Nunnally,+JC,+Bernstein,+IH.
Management Science 52 (12):1865–83. doi:10.1287/mnsc. +Psychometric+theoryþ(3rd þ Ed.)þNew þ York:þ
1060.0597. McGraw-Hill.þInc.þ1994.&ots ¼ MXQEHwVyKg&sig
Mart
ın-Consuegra, D., E. D
ıaz, M. G
omez, and A. Molina. ¼ PX3LPAqUVtojCrmcOgitcfv0LhU.
2019. Examining consumer luxury brand-related behavior Okazaki, S., A. M. D
ıaz-Mart
ın, M. Rozano, and H. D.
intentions in a social media context: The moderating role Men
endez-Benito. 2015. Using Twitter to engage with
of hedonic and utilitarian motivations. Physiology & customers: A data mining approach. Internet Research 25
Behavior 200:104–10. doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2018.03.028. (3): 416–34. doi: 10.1108/IntR-11-2013-0249.
Martins, J., C. Costa, T. Oliveira, R. Gonçalves, and F. Oliver, R. L. 1999. Whence consumer loyalty? Journal of
Branco. 2019. How smartphone advertising influences Marketing 63: 33–44. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.
consumers’ purchase intention. Journal of Business 1177/00222429990634s105.
€
Ozsomer, A. 2012. The interplay between global and local
Research 94:378–87. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.12.047.
McKinsey & Company. 2018. Competing in the Middle brands: A closer look at perceived brand globalness and
East’s consumer sector j McKinsey. https://www.mckin- local iconness. Journal of International Marketing 20 (2):
sey.com/featured-insights/middle-east-and-africa/navigat- 72–95. doi:10.1509/jim.11.0105.
€
Ozsomer, A., and S. Altaras. 2008. Global brand purchase
ing-a-perfect-storm-in-the-middle-easts-consumer-sector.
Mick, D. G., and M. Demoss. 1990. Self-Gifts: likelihood: A critical synthesis and an integrated concep-
Phenomenological insights from four contexts. Journal of tual framework. Journal of International Marketing 16
Consumer Research 17 (3):322. doi:10.1086/208560. (4):1–28. doi:10.1509/jimk.16.4.1.
Moorman, C., R. Deshpande, and G. Zaltman. 1993. Factors Pawle, J., and P. Cooper. 2006. Measuring emotion – love-
marks, the future beyond brands. Journal of Advertising
affecting trust in market research relationships. Journal of
Research 46 (1):38–48. doi:10.2501/S0021849906060053.
Marketing 57 (1):81–101. doi:10.1177/
Percy, L., F. Hansen, and R. Randrup. 2004. How to meas-
002224299305700106.
ure brand emotion. Admap. https://research.cbs.dk/en/
Morgan, R. M., and S. D. Hunt. 1994. The commitment-
publications/how-to-measure-brand-emotion.
trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of
Percy, L., and J. R. Rossiter. 1992. A model of brand aware-
Marketing 58 (3):20–38. doi:10.1177/
ness and brand attitude advertising strategies. Psychology
002224299405800302.
and Marketing 9 (4):263–74. doi:10.1002/mar.4220090402.
Morimoto, M., and S. Chang. 2009. Western and Asian
Petersen, J. A., T. Kushwaha, and V. Kumar. 2015.
Models in Japanese Fashion Magazine Ads: The relation-
Marketing communication strategies and consumer
ship with brand origins and international versus domestic
financial decision making: The role of national culture.
magazines. Journal of International Consumer Marketing
Journal of Marketing 79 (1):44–63. doi:10.1509/jm.13.
21 (3):173–87. doi:10.1080/08961530802202701. 0479.
Muniz, A. M., and T. C. O’Guinn. 2001. Brand community. Podsakoff, P. M., S. B. MacKenzie, J. Y. Lee, and N. P.
Journal of Consumer Research 27 (4):412–32. doi:10. Podsakoff. 2003. Common method biases in behavioral
1086/319618. research: A critical review of the literature and recom-
Muntinga, D. G., M. Moorman, and E. G. Smit. 2011. mended remedies. The Journal of Applied Psychology 88
Introducing COBRAs: Exploring motivations for brand- (5):879–903. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.
related social media use. International Journal of Rheingold, H. 1991. Virtual reality: Exploring the brave new
Advertising 30 (1):13–46. doi:10.2501/IJA-30-1-013-046. technologies. Kazdin 531 (2000):8. https://dl.acm.org/cit-
Nambisan, S., and R. A. Baron. 2007. Interactions in virtual ation.cfm?id=583339.
customer environments: Implications for product support Rosner, B., and L. J. Cronbach. 1960. Essentials of psycho-
and customer relationship management. Journal of logical testing. The American Journal of Psychology 73
Interactive Marketing 21 (2):42–62. doi:10.1002/dir.20077. (2):323. doi:10.2307/1419921.
Ngai, E. W. T., K. L. K. Moon, S. S. Lam, E. S. K. Chin, Rossiter, J. R., and L. Percy. 1991. Emotions and motiva-
and S. S. C. Tao. 2015. Social media models, technologies, tions in advertising. Advances in Consumer Research 18
and applications: An academic review and case study. (1):100–11. http://www.acrwebsite.org/search/view-con-
Industrial Management & Data Systems 115 (5):769–802. ference-proceedings.aspx?Id=7146.
doi:10.1108/IMDS-03-2015-0075. Samli, A. C. 2013. International consumer involvement in
Nordea Trade.2019. Advertising and marketing in france - purchase decisions. In International Consumer Behavior
buying and selling - Nordea Trade Portal. Nordea Trade. in the 21st Century, 121–34. New York: Springer New
https://www.nordeatrade.com/en/explore-new-market/ York. http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-1-4614-5125-
saudi-arabia/marketing. 9_12.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric theory. NewYork, NY: Schivinski, B., and D. Dabrowski. 2015. The impact of
McGraw-Hill. brand communication on brand equity through
18 M. HASAN AND M. S. SOHAIL

Facebook. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing 9 emotional attachments to brands. Journal of Consumer
(1): 31–53. doi:10.1108/JRIM-02-2014-0007. Psychology 15 (1):77–91. doi: 10.1207/s15327663jcp1501_
Schuiling, I., and J.-N. Kapferer. 2004. Executive insights: 10.
Real differences between local and international brands: Turban, E., N. Bolloju, and T.-P. Liang. 2010. Social com-
Strategic implications for international marketers. Journal merce. In Proceedings of the 12th International
of International Marketing 12 (4):97–112. doi:10.1509/ Conference on Electronic Commerce Roadmap for the
jimk.12.4.97.53217. Future of Electronic Business - ICEC ’10, 33. New York:
Sichtmann, C., V. Davvetas, and A. Diamantopoulos. 2019. ACM Press. https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2389382.
The relational value of perceived brand globalness and Tuten, T. L. 2009. Advertising 2.0: Social media marketing
localness. Journal of Business Research 104:597–613. in a Web 2.0 world. California: ABC-CLIO.
doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.10.025. Urban, G. L., F. Sultan, and W. J. Qualls. 2001. Placing trust
Sirdeshmukh, D., J. Singh, and B. Sabol. 2002. Consumer at the Center of Your Internet Strategy. MIT Sloan
trust, value, and loyalty in relational exchanges. Journal Management Review 42 (1):39–48. https://www.research-
of Marketing 66 (1):15–37. doi:10.1509/jmkg.66.1.15. gate.net/publication/40964353.
18449. Williams, D. R., M. E. Patterson, J. W. Roggenbuck, and
Slater, J. S. 2000. Collecting the real thing: A case study A. E. Watson. 1992. Beyond the commodity metaphor:
exploration of brand loyalty enhancement among coca- Examining emotional and symbolic attachment to place.
cola brand collectors. Advances in Consumer Research 27 Leisure Sciences 14 (1):29–46. doi:10.1080/
(1)p:362–9. http://www.acrwebsite.org/search/view-con- 01490409209513155.
ference-proceedings.aspx?Id=8388. Winit, W.,. G. Gregory, M. Cleveland, and P. Verlegh. 2014.
Sohail, M. S., and I. Al-Jabri. 2017. Evolving factors influ- Global vs Local Brands: How home country bias and
encing consumers’ attitudes toward social media market- price differences impact brand evaluations. International
ing and their impact on social media usage. International
Marketing Review 31 (2):102–28. doi:10.1108/IMR-01-
Journal of Marketing, Communication and New Media 2:
2012-0001.
3–25. http://u3isjournal.isvouga.pt/index.php/ijmcnm/art-
Wirtz, J., A. den Ambtman, J. Bloemer, C. Horv
ath, B.
icle/viewFile/237/139.
Ramaseshan, J. van de Klundert, Z. G. Canli, and J.
Sohail, M. S., and I. M. Al-Jabri. 2014. Attitudes towards
Kandampully. 2013. Managing brands and customer
mobile banking: Are there any differences between users
engagement in online brand communities. Journal of
and non-users?. Behaviour & Information Technology 33
Service Management 24 (3):223–44. doi:10.1108/
(4):335–44. doi:10.1080/0144929X.2013.763861.
09564231311326978.
Sohail, M. S., M. Hasan, and A. F. Sohail. 2020. The impact
Yasin, M., L. Porcu, and F. Li
ebana-Cabanillas. 2019. The
of social media marketing on brand trust and brand loy-
effect of brand experience on customers’ engagement
alty. International Journal of Online Marketing 10 (1):
behavior within the context of online brand communities:
15–31. doi:10.4018/IJOM.2020010102.
Steenkamp, J. B. 2014. How global brands create firm value: The impact on intention to forward online company-gen-
The 4V model. International Marketing Review 31 (1): erated content. Sustainability (Switzerland) 11 (17):4649.
5–29. doi:10.1108/IMR-10-2013-0233. doi:10.3390/su11174649.
Steenkamp, J. B. E. M., R. Batra, and D. L. Alden. 2003. Yoo, B., N. Donthu, and S. Lee. 2000. An examination of
How perceived brand globalness creates brand value. selected marketing mix elements and brand equity.
Journal of International Business Studies 34 (1):53–65. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 28 (2):
doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400002. 195–211. doi:10.1177/0092070300282002.
Steenkamp, J. B. E. M., and M. G. De Jong. 2010. A global Zboja, J. J., and C. M. Voorhees. 2006. The impact of brand
investigation into the constellation of consumer attitudes trust and satisfaction on retailer repurchase intentions.
toward global and local products. Journal of Marketing 74 Journal of Services Marketing 20 (6):381–90. doi:10.1108/
(6):18–40. doi:10.1509/jmkg.74.6.18. 08876040610691275.
Strizhakova, Y., and R. A. Coulter. 2015. Drivers of local Zha, J. X., F. H. Ju, and L. S. Wang. 2006. Customer satis-
relative to global brand purchases: A contingency faction in e-commerce: An exploration of its antecedents
approach. Journal of International Marketing 23 (1):1–22. and consequences. In ICMIT 2006 Proceedings - 2006
doi:10.1509/jim.14.0037. IEEE International Conference on Management of
Thomson, M. 2006. Human brands: Investigating antece- Innovation and Technology, 1:540–4.
dents to consumers’ strong attachments to celebrities. Zhou, Z.,. X.-L. Jin, and Y. Fang. 2014. Moderating role of
Journal of Marketing 70 (3):104–19. doi:10.1509/jmkg.70. gender in the relationships between perceived benefits
3.104. and satisfaction in social virtual world continuance.
Thomson, M., D. J. MacInnis, and C. W. Park. 2005. The Decision Support Systems 65 (C):69–79. doi:10.1016/j.dss.
ties that bind: Measuring the strength of consumers’ 2014.05.004.