Journal of Interactive Advertising

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujia20

I Feel Like Owning It! Exploring the Antecedents of

Psychological Ownership and Its Impact on Brand
Loyalty in Digital Content Marketing

Quan Xie & Chen Lou

To cite this article: Quan Xie & Chen Lou (07 Feb 2024): I Feel Like Owning It! Exploring the
Antecedents of Psychological Ownership and Its Impact on Brand Loyalty in Digital Content
Marketing, Journal of Interactive Advertising, DOI: 10.1080/15252019.2023.2295258

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2023.2295258

Published online: 07 Feb 2024.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 26

View related articles

View Crossmark data

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

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ujia20
JOURNAL OF INTERACTIVE ADVERTISING
https://doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2023.2295258

I Feel Like Owning It! Exploring the Antecedents of Psychological Ownership

and Its Impact on Brand Loyalty in Digital Content Marketing
Quan Xiea and Chen Loub
a
Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas, USA; bNanyang Technological University, Singapore

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Content marketing is an effective approach to brand communication on social media and Brand loyalty; content
can inspire people to develop a sense of “ownership” toward the product/brand featured in value; digital content
branded content. Drawing on the theory of psychological ownership and the uses and grati­ marketing; flow;
motivations; psychological
fication theory, this study proposed a comprehensive framework to explicate how individual ownership
motivations serve as precursors of psychological ownership toward products featured in
content marketing, via two processing routes or intermediaries, namely consumers’ flow
experience and perceived content value. As such, this study identified six motivations expli­
cating why consumers engage with content marketing: content inspiration, brand likeability,
brand conversation, incentive, habitual pass time, and personal identity. Specifically, we found
that some antecedents—the motivations of content inspiration, brand likability, brand con­
versation, and personal identity—positively predicted psychological ownership, via increas­
ing flow and content value, respectively. Furthermore, psychological ownership was
positively related to brand loyalty. These findings propose a comprehensive model explain­
ing the process through which content marketing affects psychological ownership and sub­
sequent brand loyalty.

Content marketing is “a strategic marketing approach Content marketing has often been deemed as an
focused on creating and distributing valuable, relevant, ongoing and dynamic conversation between brands
and consistent content to attract and retain a clearly and customers (Lou and Xie 2021). Extent research
defined audience—and, ultimately, to drive profitable has investigated its effectiveness on marketing out­
customers’ action” (Content Marketing Institute comes (e.g., Ahmad, Musa, and Harun 2016;
2018). In content marketing, advertisers resort to Coursaris, Van Osch, and Balogh 2016) and the mech­
helping consumers in brand communications as anism(s) through which it works (Lou and Xie 2021;
Lou et al. 2019; Xie and Lou 2020). For instance, some
opposed to pushing hard sells (e.g., overt sales or
research evidenced the positive impact of content mar­
product pitching). A successful example of content
keting on consumer engagement (e.g., Ashley and
marketing includes Patagonia’s “The Cleanest Line”
Tuten 2015; Du Plessis 2017; Kim and Ko 2012), and
blog (Sickler 2022). The outdoor brand features stories
recent findings show that social media content market­
to inspire consumers to lead a wildlife-conscious life­ ing positively affects brand equity and purchase inten­
style. These stories include compelling pieces about tions (Coursaris, Van Osch, and Balogh 2016).
people’s exciting encounters with wildlife, creating Pertaining to the mechanisms accounting for the
value for the brand’s environmentally conscious cus­ efficacy of content marketing on brand building, Lou
tomers. As such, content marketing is an alternative and Xie (2021) proposed a model explicating experi­
to building customer relations without explicitly men­ ential evaluation as the underlying mechanism that
tioning products or promotions (Du Plessis 2017). connects the value of content marketing and brand

CONTACT Quan Xie [email protected] Temerlin Advertising Institute, Meadows School of the Arts, Southern Methodist University, PO Box 750113,
Dallas, TX 75275, USA
Quan Xie (Ph.D., Ohio University) is an Assistant Professor of Advertising at the Temerlin Advertising Institute, Meadows School of the Arts, Southern
Methodist University.
Chen Lou (Ph.D., Michigan State University) is an Associate Professor of Integrated Marketing Communication in the Wee Kim Wee School of
Communication and Information, Nanyang Technological University.

� 2024 American Academy of Advertising

2 Q. XIE AND C. LOU

loyalty. Experiential evaluation is defined as a cogni­ marketing by testing a comprehensive model explain­
tive assessment of consumers in relation to branded ing how individual factors—motivations—serve as
content, which puts the spotlight on the consumers’ antecedents in the process through which content mar­
appraisal of content marketing at the content level keting affects intermediary consumer reactions (flow
(Lou and Xie 2021). However, their model neglects to experience and perceived content value) and their sub­
account for consumers’ psychological mechanisms of sequent PO of products featured in branded content.
content marketing predicting product or brand evalu­ Last, we identified two parallel intermediary factors—
ation; such evaluations are more directly connected to flow experience and content value—that mediate the
brand loyalty. Consequently, a more nuanced and in- effect of consumer motivations of engaging with con­
depth explication of the mechanism(s) accounting for tent marketing on PO. The rich findings of this
the commercial effectiveness of content marketing is research also offer workable guidance for brands and
lacking. Against this background, some research gaps marketers in strategizing their content marketing cam­
emerge in the extant literature, including (a) what fac­ paigns for efficient brand building.
tors, namely individual factors like the motivations,
drive consumers to engage with branded content have Literature Reviews
been unclear and (b) what fundamental psychological
mechanism(s) account for the process through which Digital Content Marketing and PO
branded content shape brand loyalty needs further Recent literature on content marketing often investi­
exploration. gates the role of content marketing in brand building
To address the gaps, this study focuses on the role (e.g., brand awareness, brand equity) (e.g., Ahmad,
of a key psychological state in this process driving Musa, and Harun 2016; Coursaris, Van Osch, and
brand loyalty—psychological ownership (PO), a feel­ Balogh 2016). Content marketing includes brands
ing of owning a material (e.g., product) or other posting tutorials or backstage stories or other brand-
immaterial targets (Pierce, Kostova, and Dirks 2003)— related non–hard-sell contents on their owned media
to shed light on the possible psychological mechanism (social media or websites) (Lou and Xie 2021).
accounting for the efficacy of content marketing. We Essentially, brands produce potentially interactive and
emphasize PO’s role in this investigation because appealing contents that aim to attract consumer atten­
recent literature has documented its effects on con­ tion and interactions, which often tie well with
sumer behavior and brand building in digital brand brands’ overall interactive advertising or marketing
communication, including in influencer marketing strategies (Lou and Xie 2021; Xie and Lou 2020).
(e.g., Pick 2021) and online brand communities (e.g., Social media–based content marketing has been
Kumar and Nayak 2019). We also posit that PO, the found to relate positively to consumer engagement
“feeling of possession,” is relevant to the effectiveness (Ashley and Tuten 2015; Hutchins and Rodriguez
of digital content marketing. Particularly, we first 2018; Kim and Ko 2012). Another line of research
identify key motivations of consumers’ engagement focused on how content features or traits (e.g., content
with branded content (termed “banded content novelty, use of stats, content value) affect consumer
motivations”) and explicate how these motivations engagement, brand loyalty, and purchase intentions
shape consumers’ PO of products featured in branded (Lou et al. 2019; Lou and Xie 2021; Padilla Vivero
content, which in turn positively drives brand 2016; Xie and Lou 2020). For instance, Lou and Xie
loyalty. To offer a more detailed picture, we further (2021) applied the classification of consumption values
hypothesize and argue that consumers’ flow experi­ to study branded content. They identified consumers’
ence and perceived content value (Lou and Xie 2021) experiential evaluation as the underlying mechanism
connect their key motivations with PO. Herein flow that mediates the perceived value of content market­
experience describes a state when an individual is ing on brand loyalty across both a high- and a low-
fully immersed in an activity due to full involvement involvement product. Experiential evaluation is
(Csikszentmihalyi and Csikzentmihaly 1990). defined as the consumers’ appraisal of their direct or
Theoretically, first, we draw on the PO theory, indirect interactions with brands (Holbrook and
focusing on and evidence the role of PO in the efficacy Hirschman 1982). Nevertheless, Lou and Xie (2021)
of content marketing on brand building, which greatly did not delve into the consumers’ psychological states
extends the theoretical application of individual PO in tied to the product or brand level of content market­
marketing research (Jussila et al. 2015). Second, our ing. For instance, they did not examine consumers’
findings contribute to the current literature on content psychological ownership of products mentioned in
 JOURNAL OF INTERACTIVE ADVERTISING 3

branded content. This mechanism, which closely ties these studies mainly narrowed down on individual
to product purchases and repeat purchases in the pro­ perceptions (investment of self, intimate knowledge,
cess driving brand loyalty, remains unexplored in cur­ and control of the object) and/or media experiences
rent content marketing literature. (e.g., gameful experience) that directly lead to PO.
PO refers to a state in which individuals consider However, they did not examine the full model pro­
whether the target of ownership is theirs (Pierce, posed by Jussila et al. (2015), wherein individual moti­
Kostova, and Dirks 2003). Conceptually, an individu­ vations serve as precursors that first lead to these
al’s sense of possession of an object (“It is MINE!”) is intermediary perceptions like exercise of control (or
at the core of PO (Pierce, Kostova, and Dirks 2001, mechanisms/routes), which in turn, result in PO.
2003). Also, PO is both cognitive and affective, which To offer a fuller or more comprehensive picture
“reflects an individual’s awareness, thoughts, and regarding the development of PO in digital content
beliefs regarding the target of possession and the asso­ marketing, it will be essential to examine the whole
ciated personal meaning and emotion, or affect” serial relations in which individual motivations shape
(Jussila et al. 2015, 123). intermediary reactions (mechanisms or routes) and
In digital content marketing, brands offer valuable subsequent PO. To fill this gap, we extended the
content that encourages the development of PO. model of Jussila et al. (2015) to the context of digital
Marketers often share branded content to display the content marketing and applied it to examine the ante­
life scenarios of using their products. When followers cedents and consequences of PO toward products fea­
view this content, they may feel ownership toward the tured in branded content.
product featured in the content, although they may
not formally own it. In addition, social media plat­
forms allow consumers to engage with branded con­ Branded Content Motivations and PO
tent (e.g., viewing, liking, sharing, commenting, Extant literature identifies four individual motivations
reading others’ comments). This deep participation
as the precursors of PO: efficacy and effectance, self-
further contributes to the development of “feelings of
identity, having a place, and stimulation (Pierce and
ownership” toward the products (Karahanna, Xu, and
Jussila 2011; Pierce, Kostova, and Dirks 2001, 2003).
Zhang 2015).
Efficacy and effectance refer to motivations that drive
The process through which PO emerges is associ­
individuals to attempt control over objects, leading to
ated with an interaction between individual motiva­
a sense of ownership once this control is perceived
tions and subsequent processing routes (Pierce,
(Jussila et al. 2015; Pierce, Kostova, and Dirks 2003).
Kostova, and Dirks 2003). Based on the psychological
Self-identity involves an intimate understanding of an
ownership theory (e.g., Pierce and Jussila 2011; Pierce,
object’s meaning, interacting with the object to reflect
Kostova, and Dirks 2001, 2003), Jussila et al. (2015)
proposed a model to explain the development of PO on its significance, and integrating the object into
in the marketing context. In the model, individual one’s self-concept (Pierce, Kostova, and Dirks 2001).
motivations served as the “roots” of PO, which gener­ Having a place pertains to individuals’ needs for “a
ate a sense of ownership through “routes” (or mecha­ preferred space and a fixed point of reference around
nisms), such as an investment of the self, coming to which to structure their daily lives” (Jussila et al.
know intimately, and exercise of control. As a result, 2015, 124). This concept of “my space” provides indi­
PO yields motivational, attitudinal, and behavioral viduals with emotional and mental security and com­
consequences (Jussila et al. 2015). fort, encouraging them to inhabit an object and
Related to this model, several studies have delved fostering a sense of ownership. Last, stimulation refers
further into the antecedents of PO across diverse con­ to the human need for activation and engagement,
texts. For example, Danckwerts and Kenning (2019) prompting individuals to seek and use new posses­
studied the effects of PO in music streaming consump­ sions, which in turn generates a sense of ownership
tion. They confirmed the three routes (investment of (Pierce and Jussila 2011, 48; Jussila et al. 2015). Jussila
self, intimate knowledge, and control of the object) in et al. (2015) asserted that these four motivations pave
predicting PO toward music. Mishra and Malhotra the way for the development of PO. However, these
(2021) revealed that users’ gameful experience led to motivations may not be applicable in the context of
PO toward games. Furthermore, in the influencer mar­ digital content marketing due to two main reasons:
keting context, Pick (2021) identified influencer cred­ (a) their direct application to digital content market­
ibility as a factor that positively predicted PO. In sum, ing is not evident and (b) they are too broad to
4 Q. XIE AND C. LOU

elucidate the varied driving forces behind individuals’ desire to seek out related brand information (Kwon
engagement with branded content. et al. 2014). This motivation combines brand likabil­
To bridge this gap and investigate the precursors of ity/usage and information seeking from Kwon et al.’s
PO in our research context, it is necessary to examine (2014) study. It underscores consumers’ strong desire
individuals’ specific motivations for engaging with to understand brand meanings and identify with them
branded content. To achieve this, we have drawn upon emotionally. It can be associated with consumers’
the uses and gratifications (U&G) theory. The U&G efforts to define themselves via brands (i.e., self-iden­
theory, a well-established mass communication theory, tity), therefore serving as a potential precursor of PO.
elucidates why people actively seek out different media Brand conversation is characterized by consumers’
to satisfy their needs and desires (Katz 1959). It asserts motivation to interact directly and effortlessly with a
that consumers are goal-oriented in their media choices brand by engaging with its content (e.g., sending sug­
and actively select specific media to meet their needs gestions and complaints directly to the brand, com­
(Katz, Blumler, and Gurevitch 1974). With the advent municating instantly with the brand) (Machado et al.
of online and digital media, U&G theory has been 2020). This motivation, linked with consumers’
employed to investigate consumer motivations for attempts to exert control over the brand through dir­
interacting with online brand communications and ect communication, is aligned with the efficacy and
interactive marketing (Kwon et al. 2014). effectance motivation suggested by Pierce, Kostova,
For this study, we reviewed literature on the moti­ and Dirks (2001, 2003). Incentive donates consumers’
vations behind individuals’ engagement with online motivations to obtain remunerations such as promo­
branded communications and interactive marketing tions, discounts, or giveaways from engaging with
(e.g., Casal�o et al. 2021; Croes and Bartels 2021; Kwon branded content (Kwon et al. 2014; Muntinga,
et al. 2014; Lee et al. 2022; Machado et al. 2020; Moorman, and Smit 2011). It represents a type of
Muntinga, Moorman, and Smit 2011). We also gath­ stimulation individuals seek from branded content,
ered open-ended responses from social media (i.e., potentially forming the root of PO (Pierce, Kostova,
Instagram) users about their branded content motiva­ and Dirks 2001, 2003).
tions through a survey (see the pretest section in Habitual pass time refers to the motivation for
method for details). As a result, we identified six pri­ engaging with branded content to occupy time and
mary motivations for engaging with branded content alleviate boredom (Croes and Bartels 2021). This
on Instagram (branded content motivations): content motivation connects with consumers’ need to find a
inspiration, brand likability, brand conversation, incen­ constant reference point (i.e., branded content)
tive, habitual pass time, and personal identity. These around which to structure their daily lives and attain
motivations are significant for consumers’ engagement psychological comfort (i.e., having a place); thus, it
with digital content marketing and could potentially may also function as a root of PO (Jussila et al. 2015).
act as precursors of PO through repeated exposure Last, personal identity is the motivation related to self-
(Pierce and Jussila 2011). Importantly, our research expression and self-assurance behaviors via engage­
goal is to explore the antecedents of PO in the context ment with branded content (Muntinga, Moorman,
of digital content marketing. Therefore, we have and Smit 2011). As suggested by Pierce, Kostova, and
focused exclusively on those branded content motiva­ Dirks (2001, 2003), self-identity is a critical motivation
tions that hold the potential to act as the antecedents predicting PO. Hence, we identify personal identity as
to PO. Consequently, we have not included the motiv­ a key branded content motivation that could trigger
ation of social interaction in our consideration, as it is the emergence of PO.
not associated with the generation of PO (Pierce and
Jussila 2011; Pierce, Kostova, and Dirks 2001, 2003).
Two Routes to the Generation of PO
Content inspiration refers to consumers’ motiva­
tions associated with their enjoyment of branded con­ Individual motivations are precursors of PO, via differ­
tent (i.e., branded posts) (Casal� o et al. 2021; Lee et al. ent mechanisms/routes (Jussila et al. 2015). Extant psy­
2022). It is driven by the quest for authenticity and chological ownership literature has demonstrated that
hedonic experiences from branded content, function­ individuals’ investment of the self and intimate know­
ing as a specific stimulation motivation that could ledge of the object serve as the mechanisms through
lead to PO (Pierce and Jussila 2011). Brand likability which motivations lead to PO of that object (Pierce,
encapsulates the motivations associated with consum­ Kostova, and Dirks 2001, 2003; Pierce and Jussila
ers’ affinity for and usage of a brand, along with their 2011). In relation to digital content marketing,
 JOURNAL OF INTERACTIVE ADVERTISING 5

consumers’ flow experiences, which entail full immer­ branded content motivations will be positively associ­
sion and investment of the self in branded content, and ated with flow (H1).
their perceived value of such content, or content value,
H1: Consumers’ branded content motivations—(a)
indicate their consumption and comprehension of the
content inspiration, (b) brand likability, (c) brand
content. Hence, pertaining to the content marketing
conversation, (d) incentive, (e) habitual pass time, and
context, we, specifically, suggest two pathways—flow
(f) personal identity—will positively relate to their
(Pierce, Kostova, and Dirks 2003) and perceived content
flow experiences in engaging with branded content.
value (Lou and Xie 2021)—that mediate the effects of
individual motivations on the formation of PO. We Also, in digital content marketing, consumers’ inter­
elaborate on our arguments below. actions with branded content could yield a sense of
flow (Gao, Bai, and Park 2017). When consumers
Flow Experiences experience flow, they invest their time, effort, and
Consumers engaging with branded content could energy into the activity (Csikszentmihalyi and
experience a flow state. Flow is an optimal experience in Csikszentmihalyi 1992). Such investment of one’s labor
which a person is fully immersed in an activity due to a and the self may foster the development of PO (Pierce,
feeling of energized focus and full involvement Kostova, and Dirks 2001, 2003). This is because by
(Csikszentmihalyi and Csikszentmihalyi 1992). During investing themselves in the target, people can see their
the flow state, one’s mood is more playful than usual reflection and feel their efforts in the existence of the
(Shahpasandi, Zarei, and Nikabadi 2020). Of this nature, target (Pierce, Kostova, and Dirks 2003). Thus, individ­
flow boosts satisfaction (Chang and Zhu 2012) and uals who invest themselves in an object become one
encourages people to explore (Chou and Ting 2003). with it and feel ownership of it (Pierce, Kostova, and
Extant literature has revealed that individual Dirks 2003). Furthermore, Yuan et al. (2021) revealed
motivations affect flow. For example, Finneran and that flow experience mediated the effects of perceptions
Zhang (2003) found that individuals’ motivations (i.e., perceived informativeness, aesthetics, novelty, and
impacted flow during media usage in computer- parasocial relationship) on psychological ownership in
mediated environments, such that when performing a the augmented reality context. Similarly, Yoo, Sanders,
task (e.g., searching for information on the internet), and Cerveny (2018) examined flow and PO in security
one who feels motivated experiences flow frequently. education and discovered a positive effect of flow on
Shahpasandi, Zarei, and Nikabadi (2020) revealed that PO. Given these findings, it is reasonable to hypothe­
hedonic motivation for browsing Instagram posts posi­ size that experiencing flow could be a crucial pathway
tively affected flow. Cuevas, Lyu, and Lim (2021) found for consumers to develop PO as they engage with
that visual aesthetics and text information increased the branded content. We thus propose H2:
flow experience in social search on Instagram. Choi H2: Consumers’ flow experience will positively
(2022) revealed that people’s motivations for watching relate to their psychological ownership of products
sports broadcasting (i.e., fun, host appeal, content featured in branded content.
appeal) raised their flow through interaction. Also, the
motivations of habitual pass time and self-identity were Perceived Content Value
found to increase flow with the internet, mobile devi­ In digital content marketing, consumers learn about
ces, and video games (Khang, Kim, and Kim 2013). brand-related information or product usage via engag­
Moreover, Mao et al. (2020) conducted a study on con­ ing with branded content, allowing them to extract
sumers’ usage and purchase intentions of smartphones, value from this process (Lou and Xie 2021; Lou et al.
revealing that brand-related constructs, including brand 2019). That said, consumers obtain benefits via con­
communication and brand identity, could influence tact with novel information and useful knowledge of
flow, thereby enhancing purchase intentions. In relation the brand/product during the engagement (Lou and
to digital content marketing, brand conversation per­ Xie 2021). According to psychological ownership the­
tains to an individual’s motivation to interact with a ory, developing a close understanding of the object
brand directly and with ease. Brand likability, on the gives rise to a sense of ownership (Pierce, Kostova,
other hand, refers to consumers’ fondness for and and Dirks 2003). This is because when one has more
usage of a brand, signifying their identification with it. information about a target of ownership, the connec­
Consequently, both brand conversation and brand like­ tion between them and the target becomes more
ability may positively relate to flow in the context of intimate (Pierce, Kostova, and Dirks 2003). In this
digital content marketing. As such, we assume that process, the self becomes attached to the object.
6 Q. XIE AND C. LOU

Hence, consumers’ perceived content value could satisfaction, product attitudes, and switching behavior
become another key mechanism/route to the emer­ (Jussila et al. 2015). The purpose of content marketing
gence of PO in digital content marketing. is to educate and inform consumers on various topics,
Additionally, previous literature identified individ­ share perspectives and values, and entertain them
ual motivations as essential determinants of content (Harad 2013). Content marketing, therefore, does not
value. For instance, Jiao et al. (2018) found that peo­ present explicit selling pitches, although it shares the
ple’s intrinsic motivation positively affected their per­ same goal as advertising to increase sales and build
ceived content value of social media brand brands (Lou and Xie 2021). Of this nature, we are
communities. Abbasi et al. (2021) found that incen­ particularly interested in the effect of PO on brand
tives, entertainment, and personalization influenced loyalty rather than purchase intentions.
perceived content value of in-game pop-up ads. These A consumer’s sense of possession of a product/
three motivations are similar to the incentive, content brand would likely result in a deep commitment to
inspiration, and personal identity motivations in the that product/brand (Jussila et al. 2015). As consumers
present study. Moreover, in the e-CRM (customer “inhabit” a product/brand and find a sense of belong­
relationship management) environment, Wang (2005) ing/personal space within it, loyalty is likely to
found that interactivity positively affected perceived develop (Kumar and Nayak 2019; Sinclair and Tinson
ad value. Considering that brand conversation entails 2017). Hence, we assume that consumers’ PO of the
consumer–brand interaction, we hypothesized that product will enhance their brand loyalty.
brand conversation could be positively related to per­ H5: PO of products featured in branded content
ceived content value in digital content marketing. will positively relate to brand loyalty.
Also, Waqas, Hamzah, and Salleh (2022) suggested
that individuals’ brand involvement can enhance their To the best of our knowledge, previous content mar­
social media branded content experiences by making keting literature has not investigated the emergence of
the branded content more relevant. In relation to PO by taking individual motivations (i.e., branded con­
digital content marketing, individuals’ likability and tent motivations), routes (i.e., flow and perceived con­
usage of a brand may also improve their perceived tent value), and consequences (i.e., brand loyalty)
value of branded content. As such, brand likability together into consideration. Therefore, integrating all
may be positively related to perceived content value. the hypothesized relationships, we argue that consum­
Furthermore, if consumers intend to access branded ers’ branded content motivations can eventually affect
content to relieve boredom (habitual pass time), they their brand loyalty via flow and PO (H6) and via per­
also tend to perceive branded content as valuable ceived content value and PO (H7). We developed a
(Riskos et al. 2022). To sum it up, we propose that conceptual model that contains all the proposed
consumers’ branded content motivations will lead to hypotheses (see Figure 1). For a comprehensive review
perceived content value (H3), and perceived content of the relevant literature pertaining to the key con­
value will contribute to the development of PO (H4). structs in the model, please consult Table 1.

H3: Consumers’ branded content motivations—(a) H6: Consumers’ branded content motivations—(a)
content inspiration, (b) brand likability, (c) brand content inspiration, (b) brand likability, (c) brand
conversation, (d) incentive, (e) habitual pass time, and conversation, (d) incentive, (e) habitual pass time, and
(f) personal identity—will positively relate to their (f) personal identity—will affect brand loyalty via a
serial mediation of flow and PO.
perceived content value.
H7: Consumers’ branded content motivations—(a)
H4: Consumers’ perceived content value will posi­
content inspiration, (b) brand likability, (c) brand
tively relate to their PO of products featured in
conversation, (d) incentive, (e) habitual pass time, and
branded content.
(f) personal identity—will affect brand loyalty via a
serial mediation of perceived content value and PO.
Brand Loyalty as Outcome of PO
Since content marketing centers around brand build­ Method
ing (Lou and Xie 2021), we focus on a significant
Design, Participants, and Procedure
attitudinal consequence of PO: brand loyalty.
Previous literature revealed that PO could result in An online survey was conducted to examine the
various effects, such as work motivation, consumer hypotheses in this study (Kim and Han 2014; Martins
 JOURNAL OF INTERACTIVE ADVERTISING 7

Figure 1. Proposed conceptual model. H6 refers to the effects of motivations on brand loyalty via flow and PO. H7 refers to the
effects of motivations on brand loyalty via content value and psychological ownership.

Table 1. Literature review on key constructs.

Definition Literature
Precursors of PO (motivations)
Content inspiration The motivations associated with their enjoyment of branded Casal�
o et al. 2021; Lee et al. 2022
content (i.e., branded posts). It is driven by the quest for
authenticity and hedonic experiences from branded
content.
Brand likability The motivations associated with consumers’ affinity for and Kwon et al. 2014
usage of a brand, along with their desire to seek out
related brand information.
Brand conversation The motivations to interact directly and effortlessly with a Machado et al. 2020
brand by engaging with its content (e.g., sending
suggestions and complaints directly to the brand,
communicating instantly with the brand).
Incentive The motivations to obtain remunerations such as promotions, Kwon et al. 2014; Muntinga, Moorman, and
discounts, or giveaways from engaging with branded Smit 2011
content.
Habitual pass time The motivation for engaging with branded content as a Croes and Bartels 2021
means to occupy time and alleviate boredom.
Personal identity The motivation related to self-expression and self-assurance Muntinga, Moorman, and Smit 2011
behaviors via engagement with branded content.
Routes of PO
Flow An optimal experience in which a person is fully immersed in Csikszentmihalyi and Csikszentmihalyi 1992;
an activity due to a feeling of energized focus and full Kim and Han 2014
involvement.
Perceived content value The values extracted from the process of engaging with Ducoffe 1995; Lou and Xie 2021
brand content (e.g., learning about brand-related
information or product usage).
PO A state in which individuals consider whether the target of Pierce, Kostova, and Dirks 2001, 2003
ownership is theirs. Conceptually, an individual’s sense of
possession of an object (“It is MINE!”) is at the core of PO.
Brand loyalty The attachment that a consumer has to a brand, which Aaker 1991; Gronholdt, Martensen, and
entails repeated purchases and recommendation of a Kristensen 2000
brand to others.
PO ¼ psychological ownership.

et al. 2019). We specifically focus on content market­ 2023). A staggering 90% of Instagram users follow a
ing within Instagram, as it has emerged as the most brand, and 62.3% of users state that they use the plat­
preferred social media platform for brands to share form to follow or research brands and products
branded content. With two billion monthly active (Newberry 2023). Dubbed the king of social selling,
users as of 2023, Instagram has become the premier Instagram not only provides consumers with the best
platform for people to connect with brands (Newberry in-app shopping experience of any app but also yields
8 Q. XIE AND C. LOU

the highest return on investment for brands selling motivations and develop measurements in the context of
products (Sheikh 2023). Given these factors, we branded content marketing on Instagram, we performed
believe that Instagram is the ideal social media plat­ a pretest on American MTurk with 117 Instagram users
form for examining consumers’ PO triggered by (Mage ¼ 36.55, SD ¼ 11.99; males: 57.3%; white: 88.9%)
branded content marketing, who follow at least one brand on Instagram.
We posted the survey link on Amazon Mechanical In this pretest survey, participants first reported
Turk (MTurk) to collect data. Respondents were their Instagram usage frequency. Next, they were
Instagram users who had experience engaging with asked to think about a brand they follow on
branded content on Instagram, located in the United Instagram and to write down what motivated them to
States. To select the qualified participants, we included engage with the branded content of that brand. Last,
two filter questions: “Do you use Instagram?” and “Do participants reported their demographics and received
you currently follow brands on Instagram?” An eligible compensation.
participant needs to answer “yes” to both questions. To develop the measurements, we conducted a quali-
We scrutinized the responses to each question. tative content analysis of the pretest data, following
Improper responses, such as having the same answers four phases (Schreier 2014). In phase one, the two
to all questions, having incomplete responses, or failing authors conducted an initial analysis to obtain a general
any of the three attention check questions, were sense of all the answers by immersing themselves in the
excluded from our sample. As a result, 518 qualified results. In phase two, the authors conducted the
Instagram users completed the survey (Mage ¼ 36.65, second-round analysis to code meaning units, identify
SDage ¼ 11.67; males: 52.3%; white: 73%). This study relationships among units, and generate themes
received the institutional review board approval. (Creswell and Poth 2018). Through this process, we dis-
In the survey, the participants first indicated their covered six categories as key constructs: content inspir-
Instagram usage frequency and Instagram involvement. ation, brand likability, brand conversation, incentive,
Then, we asked each participant to think about a brand
habitual pass time, and personal identity. In phase three,
they currently engage with on Instagram and answer a
we further reviewed and compared the emerged key
series of questions regarding this brand, including their
constructs with the several motivations identified in the
motivations for engaging with branded content, flow
literature. We found consistency between our analysis
experiences, perceived value of branded content, PO of
results and existing attributes. Importantly, some of our
the product featured in branded content, brand loyalty,
categories have been used to measure individuals’ moti-
as well as demographic information. Upon completion,
vations to engage with brands on other social media
they were debriefed and compensated.
platforms (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat) or in other
In this study, we propose a theoretical model to
research contexts (e.g., influencer marketing, online
examine the antecedents of PO and its influence on
sports community). However, these concepts carry dif-
brand loyalty within the context of content marketing
on Instagram. Our goal is not to concentrate on a ferent connotations when used to measure motivations
specific brand; rather, we seek to explore consumers’ for engaging with branded content on Instagram.
overall perceptions and experiences of content mar- Therefore, in phase four, we refined the six constructs
keting to evaluate the proposed model effectively. By based on our qualitative findings and modified the
employing a survey methodology and asking partici- scales we adopted from the literature to more accurately
pants to think about a brand they engage with on capture the nuances of Instagram-based content mar-
Instagram, we aim to assess the generalizability of the keting. For example, we assessed incentive motivation
proposed model (Lou and Yuan 2019). This approach by adjusting Kwon et al.’s (2014) scales. The original
yielded a more comprehensive dataset for validating scales measured users’ incentives seeking for engaging
the model’s predictions. The approach also enhanced with brand communications on Twitter and included
the credibility of our findings, ensuring the model’s five items. However, two of these items do not apply to
robustness across diverse brand settings. the Instagram context, such as “to get what I want for
less effort.” Consequently, we adopted the remaining
three items and modified them to be suitable for the
Pretest on Motivation Generation
Instagram context.
As discussed in the literature review, we identified sev- The two authors ensured inter-coder reliability by
eral motivations from the existing literature on online holding regular meetings to discuss potential codes
brand engagement motivations. To validate these and themes and resolved any discrepancies between
 JOURNAL OF INTERACTIVE ADVERTISING 9

them (Schreier 2014). As a result, we identified 21 agree). The detailed measurement items of each
items to measure the six motivations. motivation are provided in Table 2.

Measures Flow, Content Value, PO, and Brand Loyalty

We adopted Kim and Han (2014) scales to measure
Motivations for Engaging with Branded Content
flow with four items (e.g., “I concentrate on the posts
Marketing
while I look at them”). Content value was measured
Content inspiration was assessed using four items, for
by three items (i.e., “I feel that the branded posts are
example, “Its content is original” (Casal�o et al. 2021;
useful/valuable/important”) (Ducoffe 1995). We modi-
Lee et al. 2022). Brand likability was measured
fied Yuan et al.’s (2021) scale to measure PO by four
employing four items, such as “I like this brand and
items (e.g., “I feel owning its product(s) myself”).
its products” (Kwon et al. 2014). We gauged brand
Last, we gauged brand loyalty with three items (e.g.,
conversation by adopting Machado et al.’s (2020)
“I consider myself to be loyal to this brand”) (Yoo
three-item scales (e.g., “to send my suggestions and
and Donthu 2001).
complaints to the brand”). Furthermore, we measured
incentive by modifying Kwon et al.’s (2014) scales
(e.g., “to receive incentives”). Habitual pass time was Covariates
assessed by adopting Croes and Bartels’ (2021) three- Participants’ gender and Instagram involvement can
item scales, such as “to pass time, especially when I’m affect participants’ PO of the product. These two fac-
bored.” Last, we adapted Muntinga, Moorman, and tors were controlled in model testing. Instagram
Smit’s (2011) findings to gauge personal identity, involvement was measured by four items (e.g., “Using
using four items (e.g., “to express my ideas or opin- Instagram is an important life of my life”) (Lou and
ions”). We measured all the items on a 7-point scale, Yuan 2019). We also measured participants’
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly Instagram usage frequency by asking, “How frequently

Table 2. Assessment of the measurement model.

Constructs Items Std. Loading a CR AVE
Content inspiration I like its content (e.g., posts, videos, images). 0.773 0.798 0.868 0.623
Its content is original. 0.818
Its content is engaging. 0.800
Its content is enjoyable. 0.765
Brand likability I like this brand and its products. 0.766 0.793 0.864 0.614
I use this brand and its products. 0.762
It provides relevant brand information. 0.812
It provides timely brand information. 0.794
Brand conversation To send my suggestions and complaints to the brand. 0.920 0.906 0.941 0.841
To give my opinions about the brand. 0.922
To communicate instantly with the brand. 0.909
Incentive To receive incentives. 0.783 0.799 0.882 0.715
To receive rewards or giveaways (e.g., a free product). 0.891
To join a contest or game to win an award. 0.859
Habitual pass time To pass time, especially when I’m bored. 0.896 0.854 0.911 0.774
Out of habit. 0.852
Because sometimes I have nothing better to do. 0.891
Personal identity To express my ideas or opinions. 0.895 0.907 0.935 0.783
To express my personality or identity. 0.863
To make a good impression on others. 0.889
To receive others’ recognition for my ideas. 0.892
Flow I concentrate on the posts while I look at them. 0.721 0.796 0.868 0.622
When I view the posts of this brand account, time seems to pass quickly. 0.818
I usually ignore other things when viewing the posts. 0.767
While I view this brand account, I feel captivated. 0.843
Content value The branded posts are useful 0.834 0.818 0.891 0.732
The branded posts are valuable. 0.866
The branded posts are important. 0.867
Psychological ownership I feel like owning its product(s) myself. 0.849 0.896 0.928 0.763
I feel a very high degree of personal ownership of its product(s). 0.867
I feel like I own its product(s). 0.885
I feel like its product(s) is mine. 0.893
Brand loyalty I consider myself to be loyal to this brand. 0.870 0.755 0.859 0.672
This brand will be my first choice when buying relevant products. 0.835
I will not buy other brands if this brand is available. 0.749
Note. CR ¼ composite reliabilities; AVE ¼ average variance extracted.
10 Q. XIE AND C. LOU

do you use Instagram daily?” (1 ¼ never, 7 ¼ all the the measurement model assessment and structural
time) (Xie and Feng 2022). model assessment for PLS-SEM.

Data Analysis Results

To examine the proposed conceptual model, we Common Methods Bias (CMB)
adopted partial least squares (PLS)–based structural
CMB usually occurs when data are derived from a
equation modeling (SEM) (PLS-SEM), a type of vari-
single source (Avolio, Yammarino, and Bass 1991)
ance-based SEM that “determines construct scores as
and is problematic in self-reported quantitative studies
linear combinations of observed variables such that a
(Spector 2006). CMB undermines validity (MacKenzie
certain criterion of interrelatedness is maximized” and Podsakoff 2012) and affects the structural rela-
(Henseler 2017, 179). PLS-SEM outperforms covari- tionship (Kline 2015). In a study, there are two ways
ance-based SEM and PROCESS macro when it comes to minimize the risk of CMB, that is, procedural
to estimating complex models with many constructs design and statistical control (Reio 2010). In terms of
and relationships and when the research goal focuses procedural design, participants participated anonym-
on prediction (Sarstedt, Ringle, and Hair 2017). In ously. To make a succinct questionnaire, we stream-
contrast, PROCESS macro is primarily used for sim- lined the motivation constructs when adapting them
pler models, concentrating on mediation and moder- from the existing literature. Also, demographic ques-
ation effects with a limited number of predictors and tions were positioned at the end of the questionnaire,
outcomes (Hayes, Montoya, and Rockwood 2017). and the questionnaire was piloted before the final
Additionally, PLS-SEM provides model fit indices, stage of the data collection. In terms of statistical con-
such as the standardized root mean square residual trol, the full-collinearity test suggested by Kock (2015)
(SRMR), enabling a comprehensive evaluation of the was used. The results indicate that pathological vari-
model’s overall fit (Sarstedt, Ringle, and Hair 2017). ance inflation factor (VIF) values ranged from 1.02 to
PROCESS macro, however, lacks similar indices, 2.63 for all latent constructs, which is below the 3.3
which makes it more challenging to assess model fit thresholds, suggesting that CMB is not a problem for
(Hayes, Montoya, and Rockwood 2017). Considering the current study.
that the primary goal of this study is to test a complex
model proposing that consumers’ motivations, flow
experiences, and perceived content value can predict Measurement Validation
their PO and brand loyalty in the context of digital We performed a first-order confirmatory factor ana-
content marketing, we opted for PLS-SEM over lysis (CFA) to test the measurement fit. We used the
covariance-based SEM and PROCESS macro. basic PLS-SEM algorithm with a maximum of 5,000
Regarding the goodness-of-fit of PLS-SEM, previ- iterations and a stop criterion of 0.0000001 (or
ous studies cautioned that using goodness-of-fit met- 1 � 10−7). We followed the indicator reliability,
rics that are widely adopted in covariance-based SEM internal consistency reliability, convergent validity,
to evaluate PLS-SEM could be problematic (Benitez and discriminant validity steps (Sarstedt, Ringle, and
et al. 2020; Sarstedt, Ringle, and Hair 2017). Instead, Hair 2017, 15). According to the recommendations
previous research noted that the SRMR is a popular for model fits indices (Henseler 2012), the CFA model
measure of approximate model fit, with a value less produced a good model fit: SRMR ¼ 0.06. Regarding
than .08 suggesting that the degree of misfit is not indicator reliability, loadings of items indicated that
substantial (Henseler 2017). all the item loadings were above 0.72 (see Table 2).
There are two stages to perform PLS-SEM Internal consistency reliability analyses demonstrated
(Henseler 2017; Sarstedt, Ringle, and Hair 2017). First, overall satisfactory reliability of the measurements for
researchers need to complete the measurement model the latent constructs (all Cronbach’s a and composite
assessment to confirm the validity and reliability of reliability scores exceed 0.70; see Table 2). The average
latent constructs. Second, researchers need to com- variance extracted (AVE) values of all latent con-
plete the structural model assessment (path analysis) structs were greater than 0.50, and the square root of
to identify the relationships between different con- the AVE for each latent variable was higher than its
structs. Following the guideline of previous research correlation with other variables (see Table 3).
(Sarstedt, Ringle, and Hair 2017), in this research, we Therefore, all measurement instruments demonstrated
adopted SmartPLS v. 3.3.9 software to complete both adequate convergent and discriminant validities.
 JOURNAL OF INTERACTIVE ADVERTISING 11

Table 3. Discriminant validity: Fornell-Larcker criterion (1981).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. Content inspiration 0.789
2. Brand likability 0.661 0.784
3. Brand conversation 0.447 0.253 0.917
4. Incentive 0.354 0.303 0.561 0.845
5. Habitual pass time 0.256 0.082 0.391 0.423 0.880
6. Personal identity 0.478 0.246 0.742 0.541 0.469 0.885
7. Flow 0.624 0.436 0.621 0.506 0.410 0.689 0.789
8. Content value 0.651 0.608 0.526 0.412 0.230 0.523 0.607 0.856
9. PO 0.471 0.394 0.597 0.405 0.329 0.626 0.571 0.593 0.873
10. Brand loyalty 0.465 0.530 0.452 0.381 0.195 0.472 0.526 0.555 0.554 0.819
PO ¼ psychological ownership.

Table 4. Assessment of the structural model.

b SE t value p value Remarks
Direct effects
H1:
H1a: Content inspiration ! flow 0.283 0.051 5.590 0.000 Supported
H1b: Brand likability ! flow 0.100 0.048 2.038 0.042 Supported
H1c: Brand conversation ! flow 0.140 0.060 2.282 0.023 Supported
H1d: Incentive ! flow 0.077 0.054 1.428 0.154 Rejected
H1e: Habitual pass time ! flow 0.077 0.046 1.729 0.084 Rejected
H1f: Personal identity ! flow 0.347 0.059 5.868 0.000 Supported
H2:
H2a: Content inspiration ! content value 0.255 0.056 4.526 0.000 Supported
H2b: Brand likeability ! content value 0.343 0.040 8.593 0.000 Supported
H2c: Brand conversation ! content value 0.195 0.056 3.429 0.001 Supported
H2d: Incentive ! content value 0.029 0.050 0.619 0.536 Rejected
H2e: Habitual pass time ! content value −0.033 0.036 0.926 0.355 Rejected
H2f: Personal identity ! content value 0.170 0.057 3.005 0.003 Supported
H3: Flow ! PO 0.276 0.054 5.041 0.000 Supported
H4: Content value ! PO 0.333 0.056 5.929 0.000 Supported
H5: PO ! Brand loyalty 0.279 0.064 4.331 0.000 Supported
Indirect effects
H6:
H6a: Content inspiration ! flow ! PO ! brand loyalty 0.022 0.008 2.839 0.005 Supported
H6b: Brand likability ! flow ! PO ! brand loyalty 0.008 0.004 1.680 0.093 Rejected
H6c: Brand conversation ! Flow ! PO ! Brand loyalty 0.011 0.006 1.661 0.097 Rejected
H6d: Incentive ! flow ! PO ! brand loyalty 0.006 0.004 1.364 0.173 Rejected
H6e: Habitual pass time ! flow ! PO ! brand loyalty 0.006 0.004 1.484 0.138 Rejected
H6f: Personal identity ! flow ! PO ! brand loyalty 0.027 0.009 2.809 0.005 Supported
H7:
H7a: Content inspiration ! content value ! PO ! brand loyalty 0.023 0.008 2.881 0.004 Supported
H7b: Brand likability ! content value ! PO ! brand loyalty 0.032 0.010 3.302 0.001 Supported
H7c: Brand conversation ! content value ! PO ! brand loyalty 0.018 0.007 2.415 0.016 Supported
H7d: Incentive ! content value ! PO ! brand loyalty 0.003 0.005 0.572 0.568 Rejected
H7e: Habitual pass time ! content value ! PO ! brand loyalty −0.003 0.004 0.856 0.392 Rejected
H7f: Personal identity ! content value ! PO ! brand loyalty 0.016 0.008 2.045 0.041 Supported

Structural Model Testing We used SRMR (Hu and Bentler 1999), which is a
To test all the hypotheses and to answer the research measure of approximate fit, to test the structural model’s
questions, we ran the structural model in SmartPLS. GoF (Henseler 2012). The estimated model’s SRMR
First, we used the complete PLS-SEM algorithm with a value is 0.06, indicating a good fit (see Figure 2). The
maximum of 5,000 iterations and a stop criterion of results of the structural model assessment are presented
0.0000001 (or 1 � 10−7) to obtain the path coefficients in Table 4.
and R2 values of all endogenous variables. Second, to H1 proposed a positive relationship between con-
obtain t statistic and p value for each path coefficient sumers’ branded content motivations and their flow
(see Table 4), we ran the bootstrapping procedure with experiences in viewing branded content. To test H1,
1,000 samples, BCa bootstrap confidence intervals, and results revealed that content inspiration (b ¼ .28,
two-tailed testing at the .05 significance level. To control t ¼ 5.59, p < .001), brand likability (b ¼ .10, t ¼ 2.04,
for the influences of demographic and Instagram usage p < .05), brand conversation (b ¼ .14, t ¼ 2.28, p <
patterns, we included two covariates (i.e., gender and .05), and personal identity (b ¼ .35, t ¼ 5.87, p <
Instagram involvement) (see Figure 2). While using .001) positively related to flow. However, incentive (b
PLS-SEM, we checked the goodness-of-fit (GoF) index. ¼ .08, t ¼ 1.43, p ¼ .15) and habitual pass time (b ¼
12 Q. XIE AND C. LOU

Figure 2. Partial least squares–based structural equation modeling results. The R2 value for each endogenous variable is listed
inside the parentheses. � p < .05; �� p < .01; ��� p < .001.

.08, t ¼ 1.73, p ¼ .08) were not significantly associated affected brand loyalty via flow and PO. However, flow
with flow. As such, H1 was partially supported. H2 and PO did not mediate the relationships between the
proposed a positive relationship between flow and PO. other four motivations and brand loyalty: These moti-
Results confirmed this direct effect (b ¼ .28, t ¼ 5.04, vations include brand likability (b ¼ .01, t ¼ 1.68, p ¼
p < .001), supporting H2. .09), brand conversation (b ¼ .01, t ¼ 1.66, p ¼ .10),
H3 proposed that branded content motivations incentive (b ¼ .01, t ¼ 1.36, p ¼ .17), and habitual
would be positively related to perceived content value. pass time (b ¼.01, t ¼ 1.48, p ¼ .14). Hence, H6 was
Similarly, content inspiration (b ¼ .26, t ¼ 4.53, p < partially supported.
.001), brand likability (b ¼ .34, t ¼ 8.59, p < .001), In addition, H7 proposed that consumers’ branded
brand conversation (b ¼ .20, t ¼ 3.43, p < .01), and content motivations would affect brand loyalty, via a
personal identity (b ¼ .17, t ¼ 3.01, p < .01) were serial mediation of content value and PO. Results
positively associated with content value. However, revealed that content inspiration (b ¼ .02, t ¼ 2.88, p
incentive (b ¼ 03, t ¼ .62, p ¼ .54) and habitual pass < .01), brand likability (b ¼ .03, t ¼ 3.30, p < .01),
time (b ¼ −.03, t ¼ .93, p ¼ .36) were not related to brand conversation (b ¼ .02, t ¼ 2.42, p < .05), and
content value. H3 was thus partially supported. H4 personal identity (b ¼ .02, t ¼ 2.05, p < .05) signifi-
proposed a positive relationship between content value cantly affected brand loyalty via content value and
and PO. Results also confirmed this direct effect (b ¼ PO. However, incentive (b ¼ .003, t ¼ .57, p ¼ .57)
.33, t ¼ 5.93, p < .001), supporting H4. and habitual pass time (b ¼ −.003, t ¼ .86, p ¼ .39)
Moreover, H5 proposed that PO would be posi- did not significantly affect brand loyalty via content
tively associated with brand loyalty. Results confirmed value and psychological relationship. Hence, H7 was
this positive effect (b ¼ .28, t ¼ 4.33, p < .001), sug- partially supported.
gesting that brand loyalty is a critical outcome of PO
in digital content marketing. H5 was therefore
Discussion
supported.
Our findings show that consumers’ motivations in
engaging with branded content marketing indeed pre-
Serial Mediations
cede their subsequent perceptions of flow experiences
H6 hypothesized that consumers’ branded content and content value, which in turn positively relate to
motivations would affect brand loyalty, via a serial PO of the product featured in content marketing and
mediation of flow and PO. Results revealed that con- subsequent brand loyalty. In this research, we focus
tent inspiration (b ¼ .02, t ¼ 2.84, p < .01) and per- on the role of PO in accounting for the efficacy of
sonal identity (b ¼ .03, t ¼ 2.81, p < .01) significantly content marketing in brand building (brand loyalty)
 JOURNAL OF INTERACTIVE ADVERTISING 13

Table 5. Major findings and theoretical contributions.

Major findings Theoretical contributions
We uncovered six motivations for engaging with content marketing (i.e., � Contributes to the application of uses and gratifications theory (Katz
content inspiration, brand likability, brand conversation, incentive, 1959) in the context of content marketing and current literature on
habitual pass time, and personal identity) and tested how they predict content marketing.
the formation of psychological ownership (PO). � Contributes to the literature on the development of PO (Jussila et al.
2015) by pinpointing the exact precursors of PO in a particular context
(content marketing).
We uncovered flow as an intermediary route that positively relates to PO. � Advances the literature on the effect of flow on psychological states
(Yuan et al. 2021; Yoo, Sanders, and Cerveny 2018).
We uncovered content value as an intermediary route that positively � Contributes to the content value literature and the role of content value
relates to PO. in intermediary routes to advertising outcomes (Lou and Xie 2021; Lou
et al. 2019).
We proposed and tested a more nuanced and comprehensive model � Contributes to the current literature on content marketing and
accounting for consumers’ psychological mechanisms (flow and content underlying mechanisms explicating its effectiveness (Lou and Xie 2021;
value) of content marketing predicting product (PO of product) or Lou et al. 2019).
brand evaluation (brand loyalty).

and undercover the antecedents (motivations) and (2012), we examined the role of PO in a context-spe-
intermediaries (flow experience and content value) cific scenario—digital content marketing—and evi-
forming consumers’ PO. Our findings contribute to denced that PO indeed positively shaped brand
the application of U&G theory (Katz 1959) in the loyalty. It is not surprising that consumers’ PO toward
context of content marketing and current literature on products featured in content marketing will likely
content marketing (Lou and Xie 2021; Lou et al. increase their intimacy and liking toward the brand,
2019). We also contribute to the literature on the which may boost their purchase or repurchase inten-
development of PO (Jussila et al. 2015) by pinpointing tions. This finding advanced our understanding
the exact precursors of PO in a particular context regarding the effect of PO on marketing outcomes
(content marketing). (e.g., Kumar and Nayak 2019; Mishra and Malhotra
Specifically, we identified six distinct motivations 2021; Pick 2021).
explicating why consumers engage with branded con- Second, the current findings contribute to our the-
tent marketing on Instagram: content inspiration, oretical understanding of content marketing by pro-
brand likability, brand conversation, incentive, habit- posing and testing a comprehensive framework, which
ual pass time, and personal identity. We further found shows that individual motivations serve as precursors
that the motivations of content inspiration, brand lik- of the generation of PO via intermediary consumer
ability, brand conversation, and personal identity posi- perceptions and evaluations toward content marketing
tively contributed to the emergence of PO via two (flow experience and perceived content value). This
intermediaries: flow experience and perceived content finding greatly advanced what Jussila et al. (2015) pro-
value, respectively. Regarding the indirect mediating posed in the overarching theory of psychological own-
processes, we found that two motivations—content ership in a marketing context. Specifically, on one
inspiration and personal identity—positively shape hand, echoing prior literature (e.g., Kwon et al. 2014;
brand loyalty via a serial mediation of flow and PO, Machado et al. 2020; Muntinga, Moorman, and Smit
whereas four motivations—including content inspir- 2011), we identified content inspiration, brand likabil-
ation, brand likability, brand conversation, and per- ity, brand conversation, incentive, habitual pass time,
sonal identity—positively relate to brand loyalty via a and personal identity as the primary motivations to
serial mediation of content value and PO. We elabor- engage with branded content marketing. We further
ate on the findings and theoretical contributions explored how these primary motivations relate to flow
below and summarize them in Table 5. experiences. Prior literature, in various contexts,
found that information seeking (i.e., on the internet,
Finneran and Zhang 2003), habitual pass time
Theoretical Contributions and Major Findings
(Khang, Kim, and Kim 2013), and hedonic motivation
First, we center on the concept of PO to explicate the (Shahpasandi, Zarei, and Nikabadi 2020) positively
effectiveness of content marketing on brand building, affected flow experiences. We also found that content
which advances the theoretical application of PO in inspiration, brand likability, brand conversation, and
marketing research (Jussila et al. 2015). Prior literature personal identity positively related to flow experiences.
often studies PO in the realms of management and We argue that content inspiration contributes to con-
organizational research (e.g., Pierce and Jussila 2011). tent appeal that can increase the likelihood of experi-
Echoing the argument of Folse, Moulard, and Raggio encing flow (e.g., Choi 2022), and brand likability can
14 Q. XIE AND C. LOU

readily motivate individual consumers to pay keen pass time on either flow or content value. It is plaus-
attention to useful brand content where this immer- ible that these two motivations often involve a pursuit
sion can transform into a flow experience. Further, of tangible benefits or passive content consumption,
engaging with branded content that satisfies the grati- which may not contribute to intense experiences like
fications of brand conversation and personal identity flow or subjective perceptions such as content value.
can help with one’s need for information (Lou and Intriguingly, while brand likability and brand con-
Xie 2021) and self-identification, which can contribute versation were found to be positively correlated with
to increased flow experiences. Moreover, incentive flow, they did not indirectly affect brand loyalty
and habitual pass time were not significantly predict- through a serial mediation of flow and PO. These
ing flow experiences. It is understandable that these unexpected findings suggest a complex interplay
motivations often entail remuneration seeking or pas- among brand likability (or brand conversation), flow,
sive content consumption, which may not contribute PO, and brand loyalty. In particular, content value
to high-intensity experiences like flow. may serve as a more powerful mediating variable than
On the other hand, we also investigated how those flow, bridging the gap between brand likability (or
motivations relate to perceived content value. We brand conversation) and PO, which subsequently
found that content inspiration, brand likability, brand influences brand loyalty. In other words, when indi-
conversation, and personal identity increase perceived viduals have a fondness for, or prior experience with,
content value. This finding deviates from the finding a brand (brand likability), this affinity is more likely
of Abbasi et al. (2021) in the context of in-game pop- to drive them to perceive value in branded content
up ads that incentives, entertainment, and personaliza- rather than experience flow when engaging with the
tion positively influenced ad value. We sense that it content. This perception of value can help to foster a
could be that we measured content value in this sense of ownership of the products featured in
research in terms of content usefulness and impor- branded content (Pierce, Kostova, and Dirks 2003),
tance, which mostly captures the cognitive dimension thereby bolstering their brand loyalty. Likewise, when
of content value, not the entertainment value (Ducoffe individuals are highly motivated to engage in conver-
1995). It is reasonable to predict that consumers’ sations with a brand (brand conversation), they are
motivations in seeking content inspiration, brand lik- more inclined to derive value from the branded con-
ability, brand conversation, and personal identity can tent, rather than immersing themselves in the content
positively shape how they perceive the value of to experience flow.
branded content, as consumers will often find branded As such, these findings advanced our understand-
content that satisfies those actual or psychological ing of the psychological mechanisms through which
needs to be valuable (Lou and Xie 2021). content marketing affects brand building, as current
Third, we identified flow and content value as two literature often focuses on content value (Lou et al.
parallel intermediaries that mediate the effects of 2019) or consumption values (Lou and Xie 2021).
major motivations, to a varying extent, on PO, which Prior literature also identifies consumers’ experiential
in turn affects brand loyalty. Prior research has identi- evaluation as an underlying process that drives brand
fied the links between flow experiences and PO (Yoo, loyalty (Lou and Xie 2021). Against this backdrop,
Sanders, and Cerveny 2018; Yuan et al. 2021), our findings offer a more comprehensive and nuanced
between content value and PO (e.g., Pierce, Kostova, explication by including individual factors—consumer
and Dirks 2003), and between PO and brand loyalty motivations—and psychological factors—flow experi-
(Jussila et al. 2015; Sinclair and Tinson 2017), respect- ences and PO—into the processes.
ively. Yet, in the current content marketing context,
we theorized the relationships between those con-
Practical Implications
structs and identified flow, content value, and PO as
possible pathways to explain how consumers’ motiva- Our findings also offer enriched practical implications
tions shape brand loyalty in the process of their for brands to strategize their content marketing cam-
engagement with branded content marketing. paigns on social media (e.g., Instagram). First, to fos-
Interestingly, the motivations of incentive and ter followers’ PO of the products or brands
habitual pass time were found to have no indirect highlighted in branded content, brands should cater
effects on brand loyalty via (a) flow and PO and (b) to their followers’ needs for content inspiration, brand
content value and PO, respectively. This is likely due likability, brand conversation, and personal identity.
to the insignificant effects of incentive and habitual This suggests that brands should provide relatable,
 JOURNAL OF INTERACTIVE ADVERTISING 15

inspiring content; enable interactive feedback and dia- that use the non-probability sampling method also
logue with consumers; disseminate useful product apply to this current research: The current findings
information and usage tips; and post content that may not be generalizable to all populations or all
complements and boosts consumers’ personal identity. brands. Future research may conduct surveys using
Effectively satisfying these needs can trigger followers’ representative samples or focus on consumers across a
sense of psychological ownership. variety of brands to further test the current findings
Additionally, to generate an immersive flow experi- to increase their generalizability. Third, in the survey,
ence when engaging with branded content and to we asked participants to reflect on a brand they
boost brand loyalty eventually, brands should capital- engage with on Instagram and respond to subsequent
ize on consumers’ motivations for content inspiration questions. While this method serves our research goal
and personal identity. When consumers perceive con- of assessing the generalizability of the proposed
tent as inspiring, authentic, and aligned with their model, it has limitations. Specifically, it does not cap-
identities, they are more likely to remain immersed. ture participants’ real-time reactions to a specific
This immersion can cultivate a sense of ownership brand. Consequently, it cannot establish the causality
over the products or brands, ultimately contributing of the hypothesized relationships, which diminishes
to brand loyalty. Therefore, brands could share suc- the practical implications of this study. Given these
cess stories or user-generated content to meet content limitations, future researchers might consider an
inspiration motivations. Concurrently, they should experimental design to better test the proposed rela-
understand their audience’s personas and tailor con- tionships. Last, we measured content value that only
tent accordingly to fulfill personal identity captures the informative or cognitive dimension of it.
motivations. Future research may also take the affective dimension,
Last, the impact of digital content marketing on for instance, the entertainment value of branded con-
brand loyalty can also be amplified by satisfying con- tent marketing, into consideration.
sumers’ motivations in content inspiration, brand lik-
ability, brand conversation, and personal identity. In
doing so, the perceived value of branded content can Disclosure Statement
be enhanced, further solidifying psychological owner- No potential conflict of interest was reported by the
ship. To accomplish this, brands should deliver high- author(s).
quality, authentic content; provide information on
brands or products; generate content that sparks cus- Ethical Statement
tomer conversations; and post content that nurtures
This study has Southern Methodist University IRB
consumers’ self-identification. For example, to address Committee approval (Protocol ID: 21-208).
the motivation of brand likability, brands could share
behind-the-scenes content, host Q&A sessions, and
reveal the brand’s human side. To meet the brand Funding
conversation motivation, brands could create content This work was supported by the Southern Methodist
that asks for consumer input, encourages user feed- University under the Meadows Faculty Development Grant.
back, or centers on trending topics that engage con-
sumers. This strategy can boost content value, leading
to increased psychological ownership and strength- ORCID
ened brand loyalty. Quan Xie http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5768-0671
Chen Lou http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5506-5835

Limitations and Future Research

References
This study is not without limitations. First, we focused
on consumers’ engagement with branded content Aaker, D. A. 1991. Managing Brand Equity. New York: The
marketing on one social media platform—Instagram— Free Press.
Abbasi, A. Z., U. Rehman, A. Hussain, D. H. Ting, and
to eliminate the confounding factors related to plat-
J. U. Islam. 2021. “The Impact of Advertising Value of
forms. Future research may test this model with other in-Game Pop-up Ads in Online Gaming on Gamers’
social media platforms where brands often conduct Inspiration: An Empirical Investigation.” Telematics and
content marketing and study how platform factors Informatics 62: 101630. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2021.
may play a role. Second, the limitations of surveys 101630
16 Q. XIE AND C. LOU

Ahmad, N. S., R. Musa, and M. H. M. Harun. 2016. “The Csikszentmihalyi, M., and I. S. Csikszentmihalyi, eds. 1992.
Impact of Social Media Content Marketing (SMCM) Optimal Experience: Psychological Studies of Flow in
towards Brand Health.” Procedia Economics and Finance Consciousness. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
37: 331–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(16)30133-2 Cuevas, L., J. Lyu, and H. Lim. 2021. “Flow Matters:
Ashley, C., and T. Tuten. 2015. “Creative Strategies in Antecedents and Outcomes of Flow Experience in Social
Social Media Marketing: An Exploratory Study of Search on Instagram.” Journal of Research in Interactive
Branded Social Content and Consumer Engagement.” Marketing 15 (1): 49–67. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIM-
Psychology & Marketing 32 (1): 15–27. https://doi.org/10. 03-2019-0041
1002/mar.20761 Danckwerts, S., and P. Kenning. 2019. ““It’s My Service, It’s
Avolio, B. J., F. J. Yammarino, and B. M. Bass. 1991. My Music”: The Role of Psychological Ownership in
“Identifying Common Methods Variance with Data Music Streaming Consumption.” Psychology & Marketing
Collected from a Single Source: An Unresolved Sticky 36 (9): 803–816. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21213
Du Plessis, C. 2017. “The Role of Content Marketing in
Issue.” Journal of Management 17 (3): 571–587. https://
Social Media Content Communities.” South African
doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700303
Journal of Information Management 19 (1): 1–7.
Benitez, J., J. Henseler, A. Castillo, and F. Schuberth. 2020.
Ducoffe, R. H. 1995. “How Consumers Assess the Value of
“How to Perform and Report an Impactful Analysis
Advertising.” Journal of Current Issues & Research in
Using Partial Least Squares: Guidelines for Confirmatory
Advertising 17 (1): 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/
and Explanatory Is Research.” Information & 10641734.1995.10505022
Management 57 (2): 103168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im. Finneran, C. M., and P. Zhang. 2003. “A Person–Artefact–
2019.05.003 Task (PAT) Model of Flow Antecedents in Computer-
Casaló, L. V., C. Flavián, and S. Ibáñez-Sánchez. 2021. “Be Mediated Environments.” International Journal of
Creative, My Friend! Engaging Users on Instagram by Human-Computer Studies 59 (4): 475–496. https://doi.
Promoting Positive Emotions.” Journal of Business org/10.1016/S1071-5819(03)00112-5
Research 130:416–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres. Folse, J. A. G., J. G. Moulard, and R. D. Raggio. 2012.
2020.02.014 “Psychological Ownership: A Social Marketing
Chang, Y. P., and D. H. Zhu. 2012. “The Role of Perceived Advertising Message Appeal.” International Journal of
Social Capital and Flow Experience in Building Users’ Advertising 31 (2): 291–315. https://doi.org/10.2501/IJA-
Continuance Intention to Social Networking Sites in 31-2-291-315
China.” Computers in Human Behavior 28 (3): 995–1001. Gao, L., X. Bai, and A. Park. 2017. “Understanding
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.01.001 Sustained Participation in Virtual Travel Communities
Choi, E. Y. 2022. “The Mediating Role of Interaction between from the Perspectives of is Success Model and Flow
Watching Motivation and Flow of Sports Broadcasting in Theory.” Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 41
Multi-Channel Network.” SAGE Open 12 (1): (4): 475–509. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096348014563397
215824402110685. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211068513 Gronholdt, L., A. Martensen, and K. Kristensen. 2000. “The
Chou, T. J., and C. C. Ting. 2003. “The Role of Flow Relationship between Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty:
Experience in Cyber-Game Addiction.” Cyberpsychology Cross-Industry Differences.” Total Quality Management 11
& Behavior 6 (6): 663–75. https://doi.org/10.1089/ (4-6): 509–514. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544120050007823
109493103322725469 Harad, K. C. 2013. “Content Marketing Strategies to
Content Marketing Institute. 2018. “What Is Content Educate and Entertain.” Journal of Financial Planning 26
Marketing?” https://contentmarketinginstitute.com/what- (3): 18–20.
is-content-marketing/ Hayes, A. F., A. K. Montoya, and N. J. Rockwood. 2017.
Coursaris, C. K., W. Van Osch, and B. A. Balogh. 2016, “The Analysis of Mechanisms and Their Contingencies:
January. “Do Facebook Likes Lead to Shares or Sales? PROCESS versus Structural Equation Modeling.”
Australasian Marketing Journal 25 (1): 76–81. https://doi.
Exploring the Empirical Links between Social Media
org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2017.02.001
Content, Brand Equity, Purchase Intention, and
Henseler, J. 2012. “PLS-MGA: A Non-Parametric Approach
Engagement.” In 2016 49th Hawaii International
to Partial Least Squares-Based Multi-Group Analysis.” In
Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), Koloa, HI Challenges at the Interface of Data Analysis, Computer
(pp. 3546–3555). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS. Science, and Optimization: Proceedings of the 34th Annual
2016.444 Conference of the Gesellschaft f€ ur Klassifikation e. V.,
Creswell, J. W., and C. N. Poth. 2018. Qualitative Inquiry & Karlsruhe, July 21–23, 495–501. Berlin: Springer.
Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches. 4th Henseler, J. 2017. “Bridging Design and Behavioral Research
ed. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications. with Variance-Based Structural Equation Modeling.”
Croes, E., and J. Bartels. 2021. “Young Adults’ Motivations Journal of Advertising 46 (1): 178–192. https://doi.org/10.
for following Social Influencers and Their Relationship to 1080/00913367.2017.1281780
Identification and Buying Behavior.” Computers in Holbrook, M. B., and E. C. Hirschman. 1982. “The
Human Behavior 124: 106910. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Experiential Aspects of Consumption: Consumer
chb.2021.106910 Fantasies, Feelings, and Fun.” Journal of Consumer
Csikszentmihalyi, M., and M. Csikzentmihaly. 1990. Flow: Research 9 (2): 132–140. https://doi.org/10.1086/208906
The Psychology of Optimal Experience. New York: Harper Hu, L. T., and P. M. Bentler. 1999. “Cutoff Criteria for Fit
& Row. Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional
 JOURNAL OF INTERACTIVE ADVERTISING 17

Criteria versus New Alternatives.” Structural Equation Role of Materialism.” International Journal of Advertising
Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 6 (1): 1–55. https:// 41 (1): 78–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2021.
doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118 1964226
Hutchins, J., and D. X. Rodriguez. 2018. “The Soft Side of Lou, C., and Q. Xie. 2021. “Something Social, Something
Branding: Leveraging Emotional Intelligence.” Journal of Entertaining? How Digital Content Marketing Augments
Business & Industrial Marketing 33 (1): 117–125. https:// Consumer Experience and Brand Loyalty.” International
doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-02-2017-0053 Journal of Advertising 40 (3): 376–402. https://doi.org/10.
Jiao, Y., M. Ertz, M. S. Jo, and E. Sarigollu. 2018. “Social 1080/02650487.2020.1788311
Value, Content Value, and Brand Equity in Social Media Lou, C., Q. Xie, Y. Feng, and W. Kim. 2019. “Does Non-
Brand Communities: A Comparison of Chinese and US Hard-Sell Content Really Work? Leveraging the Value of
Consumers.” International Marketing Review 35 (1): 18– Branded Content Marketing in Brand Building.” Journal
41. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-07-2016-0132 of Product & Brand Management 28 (7): 773–786. https://
Jussila, I., A. Tarkiainen, M. Sarstedt, and J. F. Hair. 2015. doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-07-2018-1948
“Individual Psychological Ownership: Concepts, Evidence, Lou, C., and S. Yuan. 2019. “Influencer Marketing: How
and Implications for Research in Marketing.” Journal of Message Value and Credibility Affect Consumer Trust of
Marketing Theory and Practice 23 (2): 121–139. Branded Content on Social Media.” Journal of Interactive
Karahanna, E., S. X. Xu, and N. Zhang. 2015. Advertising 19 (1): 58–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/
“Psychological Ownership Motivation and Use of Social 15252019.2018.1533501
Media.” Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 23 (2): Machado, J. C., C. C. Martins, F. C. Ferreira, S. C. Silva,
185–207. and P. A. Duarte. 2020. “Motivations to Engage with
Katz, E. 1959. “Mass Communication in Research and Sports Brands on Facebook and Instagram – The Case of
the Study of Popular Culture.” Studies in Public a Portuguese Football Club.” International Journal of
Communication 2:1–6. Sports Marketing and Sponsorship 21 (2): 325–349.
Katz, E., J. G. Blumler, and M. Gurevitch. 1974. “Uses of https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSMS-06-2019-0066
Mass Communication by the Individual.” In Mass MacKenzie, S. B., and P. M. Podsakoff. 2012. “Common
Communication Research: Major Issues and Future
Method Bias in Marketing: Causes, Mechanisms, and
Directions, edited by W. P. Davison and F. T. C. Yu, 19–
Procedural Remedies.” Journal of Retailing 88 (4): 542–
31. New York: Praeger.
555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2012.08.001
Khang, H., J. K. Kim, and Y. Kim. 2013. “Self-Traits and
Mao, Y., Y. Lai, Y. Luo, S. Liu, Y. Du, J. Zhou, J. Ma, F.
Motivations as Antecedents of Digital Media Flow and
Bonaiuto, and M. Bonaiuto. 2020. “Apple or Huawei:
Addiction: The Internet, Mobile Phones, and Video
Understanding Flow, Brand Image, Brand Identity, Brand
Games.” Computers in Human Behavior 29 (6): 2416–
Personality and Purchase Intention of Smartphone.”
2424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.05.027
Sustainability 12 (8): 3391. https://doi.org/10.3390/
Kim, A. J., and E. Ko. 2012. “Do Social Media Marketing
Activities Enhance Customer Equity? An Empirical Study su12083391
of Luxury Fashion Brand.” Journal of Business Research Martins, J., C. Costa, T. Oliveira, R. Gonçalves, and F.
65 (10): 1480–1486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011. Branco. 2019. “How Smartphone Advertising Influences
10.014 Consumers’ Purchase Intention.” Journal of Business
Kim, Y. J., and J. Han. 2014. “Why Smartphone Advertising Research 94:378–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.
Attracts Customers: A Model of Web Advertising, Flow, 12.047
and Personalization.” Computers in Human Behavior 33: Mishra, S., and G. Malhotra. 2021. “The Gamification of in-
256–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.015 Game Advertising: Examining the Role of Psychological
Kline, R. B. 2015. Principles and Practice of Structural Ownership and Advertisement Intrusiveness.”
Equation Modeling. New York, NY: Guilford Publications. International Journal of Information Management 61:
Kock, N. 2015. “Common Method Bias in PLS-SEM: A Full 102245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102245
Collinearity Assessment Approach.” International Journal Muntinga, D. G., M. Moorman, and E. G. Smit. 2011.
of e-Collaboration 11 (4): 1–10. https://doi.org/10.4018/ “Introducing COBRAs: Exploring Motivations for Brand-
ijec.2015100101 Related Social Media Use.” International Journal of
Kumar, J., and J. K. Nayak. 2019. “Brand Engagement with­ Advertising 30 (1): 13–46. https://doi.org/10.2501/IJA-30-
out Brand Ownership: A Case of Non-Brand Owner 1-013-046
Community Members.” Journal of Product & Brand Newberry, C. 2023. “34 Instagram Stats Marketers Need to
Management 28 (2): 216–30. https://doi.org/10.1108/ Know in 2023.” https://blog.hootsuite.com/instagram-
JPBM-04-2018-1840 statistics/
Kwon, E. S., E. Kim, Y. Sung, and C. Y. Yoo. 2014. “Brand Padilla Vivero, D. 2016. “The Effect of Educational Content
Followers: Consumer Motivation and Attitude towards Marketing on Facebook Brand Engagement.” Master
Brand Communications on Twitter.” International thes., Cat� olica Lisbon School of Business and Economics,
Journal of Advertising 33 (4): 657–680. https://doi.org/10. Catholic University of Portugal.
2501/IJA-33-4-657-680 Pick, M. 2021. “Psychological Ownership in Social Media
Lee, J. A., S. Sudarshan, K. L. Sussman, L. F. Bright, and M. Influencer Marketing.” European Business Review 33 (1):
S. Eastin. 2022. “Why Are Consumers following Social 9–30. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-08-2019-0165
Media Influencers on Instagram? Exploration of Pierce, J. L., and I. Jussila. 2011. Psychological Ownership
Consumers’ Motives for following Influencers and the and the Organizational Context: Theory, Research
18 Q. XIE AND C. LOU

Evidence, and Application. Northampton, MA: Edward Research 71: 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.10.
Elgar Publishing. 002
Pierce, J. L., T. Kostova, and K. T. Dirks. 2001. “Toward a Spector, P. E. 2006. “Method Variance in Organizational
Theory of Psychological Ownership in Organizations.” Research: Truth or Urban Legend?” Organizational
The Academy of Management Review 26 (2): 298–310. Research Methods 9 (2): 221–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/
https://doi.org/10.2307/259124 1094428105284955
Pierce, J. L., T. Kostova, and K. T. Dirks. 2003. “The State Wang, C. 2005, June. “An Empirical Study on Consumer’s
of Psychological Ownership: Integrating and Extending a Perceived Value and Attitude toward Advertising.” In
Century of Research.” Review of General Psychology 7 (1): Proceedings of the 6th Global Information Technology and
84–107. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.7.1.84 Management (GITM) World Conference, Anchorage,
Reio, T. G. Jr. 2010. “The Threat of Common Method Alaska.
Variance Bias to Theory Building.” Human Resource Waqas, M., Z. L. Hamzah, and N. A. M. Salleh. 2022.
Development Review 9 (4): 405–11. https://doi.org/10. “Branded Content Experience in Social Media Settings: A
1177/1534484310380331 Consumer Culture Theory Perspective.” Journal of Brand
Riskos, K., L. Hatzithomas, P. Dekoulou, and G. Management 29: 225–40.
Tsourvakas. 2022. “The Influence of Entertainment, Xie, Q., and Y. Feng. 2022. “How to Strategically Disclose
Utility and Pass Time on Consumer Brand Engagement Sponsored Content on Instagram? The Synergy Effects of
Two Types of Sponsorship Disclosures in Influencer
for News Media Brands: A Mediation Model.” Journal of
Marketing.” International Journal of Advertising 42 (2):
Media Business Studies 19 (1): 1–28. https://doi.org/10.
317–343. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2022.2071393
1080/16522354.2021.1887439
Xie, Q., and C. Lou. 2020. “Curating Luxe Experiences
Sarstedt, M., C. M. Ringle, and J. F. Hair. 2017. “Treating
Online? Explicating the Mechanisms of Luxury Content
Unobserved Heterogeneity in PLS-SEM: A Multi-Method
Marketing in Cultivating Brand Loyalty.” Journal of
Approach.” In Partial Least Squares Path Modeling, Interactive Advertising 20 (3): 209–224. https://doi.org/10.
edited by H. Latan, R. Noonan, 197–217. Cham: 1080/15252019.2020.1811177
Springer. Yoo, B., and N. Donthu. 2001. “Developing and Validating
Schreier, M. 2014. “Qualitative Content Analysis.” In The a Multidimensional Consumer-Based Brand Equity
SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis, edited by Scale.” Journal of Business Research 52 (1): 1–14. https://
U. Flick, 170–183. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(99)00098-3
Shahpasandi, F., A. Zarei, and M. S. Nikabadi. 2020. Yoo, C. W., G. L. Sanders, and R. P. Cerveny. 2018.
“Consumers’ Impulse Buying Behavior on Instagram: “Exploring the Influence of Flow and Psychological
Examining the Influence of Flow Experiences and Hedonic Ownership on Security Education, Training and
Browsing on Impulse Buying.” Journal of Internet Awareness Effectiveness and Security Compliance.”
Commerce 19 (4): 437–465. https://doi.org/10.1080/ Decision Support Systems 108: 107–118. https://doi.org/10.
15332861.2020.1816324 1016/j.dss.2018.02.009
Sickler, J. 2022. “10 Best Content Marketing Examples to Yuan, C., S. Wang, X. Yu, K. H. Kim, and H. Moon. 2021.
Inspire You in 2022.” Terakeet. https://terakeet.com/blog/ “The Influence of Flow Experience in the Augmented
content-marketing-examples/ Reality Context on Psychological Ownership.”
Sinclair, G., and J. Tinson. 2017. “Psychological Ownership International Journal of Advertising 40 (6): 922–944.
and Music Streaming Consumption.” Journal of Business https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2020.1869387