See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/305877806

Influences of customer participation and customer brand engagement on

brand loyalty:

Article in Journal of Consumer Marketing · August 2016

DOI: 10.1108/JCM-04-2015-1390

CITATIONS READS

169 7,066

1 author:

Birgit Solem
University College of Southeast Norway
24 PUBLICATIONS 728 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Birgit Solem on 20 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Consumer Marketing
Influences of customer participation and customer brand engagement on brand loyalty
Birgit Andrine Apenes Solem
Article information:
To cite this document:
Birgit Andrine Apenes Solem , (2016),"Influences of customer participation and customer brand engagement on brand loyalty ",
Downloaded by OSLO AND AKERSHUS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF APPLIED SCIENCES At 05:34 01 February 2017 (PT)

Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 33 Iss 5 pp. 332 - 342

Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JCM-04-2015-1390
Downloaded on: 01 February 2017, At: 05:34 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 92 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2018 times since 2016*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2016),"Co-creation of brand identities: consumer and industry influence and motivations", Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol.
33 Iss 5 pp. 313-323 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JCM-07-2015-1500
(2016),"Brand personality as a direct cause of brand extension success: does self-monitoring matter?", Journal of Consumer
Marketing, Vol. 33 Iss 5 pp. 343-353 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JCM-04-2014-0954

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:475509 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics
(COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 Influences of customer participation and
customer brand engagement on brand loyalty
Birgit Andrine Apenes Solem
Department of Business and Management, Institute of Business and Social Sciences,
University College of Southeast-Norway, Borre, Norway and Department of Strategy and Management,
Norwegian School of Economics, Bergen, Norway

Abstract
Downloaded by OSLO AND AKERSHUS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF APPLIED SCIENCES At 05:34 01 February 2017 (PT)

Purpose – Value co-creation assumes that customers take active roles and create value together with firms. This paper aims to investigate the short-
and long-term effects of customer participation on brand loyalty, through brand satisfaction. Participation effects were also examined among social
media-using customers with the additional explanatory factor of brand engagement.
Design/methodology/approach – Two studies were conducted among insurance customers: a cross-sectional study using a nationwide sample
(N ⫽ 954) and a subsample of social media users (N ⫽ 145) to examine short-term effects, and a longitudinal study using data from three
assessment timepoints (N ⫽ 376) to enable empirical long-term testing.
Findings – The cross-sectional study showed positive short-term effects of customer participation on brand loyalty, mediated by satisfaction. Among
customers using social media, positive participation effects gained from brand engagement strengthened brand satisfaction. The longitudinal study
did not show similar positive long-term effects of customer participation.
Practical implications – These findings help deepen service marketers’ understanding of the possible short-term effects of customer participation
and customer brand engagement, and caution them to not expect that customer participation will have long-term positive satisfaction and loyalty
effects.
Originality/value – This research provides interesting short- and long-term findings, due to the complementary cross-sectional and longitudinal
study designs.
Keywords Brand satisfaction, Customer participation, Brand loyalty, Customer brand engagement
Paper type Research paper

Service firms continually strive to maintain long-term considered to be a particularly important phenomenon in
relationships with customers and to understand the factors social media (e.g. chats, blogs, videos and brand
that build and sustain brand loyalty. From a value co-creation communities) (Brodie et al., 2011a; Fournier and Avery,
perspective, which recognizes customers’ active participatory 2011; Jahn and Kunz, 2012; Dessart et al., 2014). The
roles in value creation (Ranjan and Read, 2014; Pralahad and interactive nature of social media gives service firms the
Ramaswamy, 2004; Jaakkola and Alexander, 2014), opportunity to become more customer-centric, thereby
customers’ participation (Nysveen and Pedersen, 2014) and encouraging customer participation (Kaplan and Haenlein,
engagement (Brodie et al., 2011b; Hollebeek, 2011a) can be 2010; Hoffman and Novak, 2012) and engagement in certain
prioritized to ensure their loyalty. Firms considering customers brand activities (Schamari and Schaefers, 2015). Thus, social
as value co-creators view them as partners or co-producers, media complement brands’ physical-world counterparts and
instead of “external elements” (Fuat Firat et al., 1995), as they serve as platforms for customers’ sharing of feelings, thoughts
engage and participate in specific interactions and activities. and content (Schau et al., 2009). An increasing number of
Thus, interaction manifests through participation (Grönroos and service brands invests time and marketing resources in the
Ravald, 2011) and engagement (Zhu, 2006). organization of social media-based brand communities and
Modern technology plays a crucial role in supporting the Facebook brand pages (McAlexander et al., 2002; Shankar
manner in which firms and customers interact (Flores and and Batra, 2009; Laroche et al., 2012; Vries et al., 2012),
Vasquez-Parraga, 2015). Social media comprise a major arena positively encouraging engagement (Algesheimer et al., 2005;
in which customers participate in co-production, and which Brodie et al., 2011b; Hollebeek, 2011a, 2011b), in the hope
supports the development of collaborative customer that customers will participate. Previous studies have
relationships (Maklan and Klaus, 2011). Engagement is investigated customer preferences for online versus offline
interaction (Frambach et al., 2007), customer satisfaction and
loyalty in online versus offline contexts (Shankar et al., 2003),
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on and customer participation in virtual brand communities
Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/0736-3761.htm (Casaló et al., 2008) and service recovery using online

Journal of Consumer Marketing Received 7 April 2015

33/5 (2016) 332–342 Revised 15 October 2015
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 0736-3761] 18 April 2016
[DOI 10.1108/JCM-04-2015-1390] Accepted 23 April 2016

332
 Customer participation and customer brand engagement Journal of Consumer Marketing
Birgit Andrine Apenes Solem Volume 33 · Number 5 · 2016 · 332–342

platforms (Dong et al., 2008). However, empirical research on Co-production consists of direct and indirect co-working
brand loyalty effects of the participation of customers using between a firm and its customers, or customers’ participation
and not using social media, and that incorporating the effects in product design (Lemke et al., 2011). Customer
of customer brand engagement (CBE) in social media, is participation might be evidenced in a facilitatory role at the
lacking. Thus, in relation to insurance firms’ Facebook brand periphery of a firm’s processes (Auh et al., 2007) or in an
pages, this research explored short- and long-term effects of active role through the application of knowledge and sharing
customer participation on brand loyalty through the bridging of information with the firm (Ranjan and Read, 2014).
element of brand satisfaction; it also investigated whether Following Ranjan and Read (2014), customer participation
CBE among social media users explained customer should be considered a component of co-production. In
participation, further enhancing brand satisfaction and brand co-production, the firm is the predominant locus of process
loyalty. control (Vargo and Lusch, 2004, 2008). Etgar (2008) defined
Downloaded by OSLO AND AKERSHUS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF APPLIED SCIENCES At 05:34 01 February 2017 (PT)

Given the high cost of attracting new customers, service co-production as customers’ participation in one or more
firms must increasingly reinforce established customer ties activities in a firm’s network chain (design, production,
(Casaló et al., 2007). The insurance sector is known to have delivery, executing use) and referred to the co-production
low switching barriers; 17 per cent of the customer base phase of value co-creation as the activation stage. This stage,
switches insurance providers each year (Lavik and Schjøll, which is the focus of this research, is where customer
2012), which makes it imperative for insurance firms to gain participation via co-production occurs and results in the
knowledge about factors that build and sustain brand loyalty. production of the core offering. Similarly, Auh et al. (2007)
Brand loyalty denotes an intended behavior in relation to the defined co-production as customers’ cooperative participation
brand and/or its services. If real alternatives exist or switching in service creation and delivery, and Chen et al. (2011) defined
barriers are low, a service brand will discover its inability to it as constructive participation in the service process.
satisfy customers via two feedback mechanisms: exit and voice
(Hirschman, 1970). This paper considers brand loyalty as the Customer brand engagement
expression of individual preferences – an attitudinal concept The concept of engagement has received considerable
(e.g. intentions to stay loyal, recommend the brand, and attention in several academic disciplines (e.g. educational
choose the brand again) (Jacoby and Chestnut, 1978; psychology and organizational behavior), but only recently in
Andreassen and Lindestad, 1998). the field of marketing (Gambetti and Graffigna, 2010;
Previous studies of the loyalty effects of customer participation Hollebeek, 2011a, 2011b). In recent marketing and service
have used cross-sectional data (Casaló et al., 2007; Nysveen and research, CBE was found to be a core explanatory element in
Pedersen, 2014). Although marketing scholars frequently online brand communities (Brodie et al., 2011a), the
conduct cross-sectional studies, several researchers have argued emergence of social media networking sites (Jahn and Kunz,
that longitudinal studies are more trustworthy, as they more 2012) and, particularly, social media (e.g. Facebook)-based
precisely characterize long-term effects (Brodie et al., 2011b; brand communities (Gummerus et al., 2012; Laroche et al.,
Hollebeek, 2011a, 2011b). Longitudinal studies enable 2012; Habibi et al., 2014). As social media use has been added
consideration of auto-correlational (i.e. historical) effects, which to firms’ marketing and brand-building activities (Kaplan and
is expected to weaken between-variable effects in comparison Haenlein, 2010), attracted by the large number of users, firms
with cross-sectional studies (Rindfleisch et al., 2008). In the have begun to create Facebook brand pages (Gummerus et al.,
present empirical research, cross-sectional and longitudinal 2012) to encourage CBE. Following Brodie et al. (2011b) and
studies were conducted to investigate observed effect patterns Hollebeek et al. (2014), CBE is considered in this study to be
over short- and long-term periods. The hypotheses were that a context-dependent, psychological construct, reflected by
customers’ willingness to participate over time would affect their emotional, cognitive and intentional states generated by
brand satisfaction positively, thereby affecting their subsequent interactive experiences underlying behavioral interactions (e.g.
loyalty, in the short and long terms. in social media). After Hollebeek et al. (2014), emotional CBE
This paper proceeds as follows. First, it presents a is considered to be a customer’s degree of positive brand
theoretical framework, describing the concepts of customer activity-related affect, and cognitive CBE is conserved to be
participation and CBE, and the study hypotheses. Next, the his/her level of brand activity-related thought processing and
methodological approaches and results of the cross-sectional elaboration. Intentional CBE refers to a customer’s interest in
and longitudinal studies are described. In the discussion spending energy, effort and time on a brand activity. Brodie
section, findings from the two studies are compared and et al. (2011a) highlighted the fluctuating nature of CBE state
interpreted, with consideration of their implications and dimensions. Intensity levels of cognitive, emotional and
limitations, and suggestions for future research are made. intentional states can change rapidly, from one moment or
situation to another, in engagement processes (Hollebeek,
Conceptual background 2011a).
Customer participation
Customer participation specifies the degree to which a Hypotheses
customer puts effort and resources into the process of The disconfirmation-of-expectation paradigm (Oliver, 1980)
production (Dabholkar, 1990), thus taking an active part in holds that customer loyalty (e.g. intention to stay loyal,
consuming and producing value (Nysveen and Pedersen, willingness to recommend a brand to others) is a function of
2014). It includes the physical and mental inputs required customer satisfaction. Thus, when customers realize that their
for co-production (Flores and Vasquez-Parraga, 2015). patronage has been a good choice and that the brand offers

333
 Customer participation and customer brand engagement Journal of Consumer Marketing
Birgit Andrine Apenes Solem Volume 33 · Number 5 · 2016 · 332–342

good solutions, they likely intend to stay loyal to the brand in (Auh et al., 2007). However, customers’ engagement with an
the future. They are also more willing to recommend the object (e.g. a brand) is assumed to fluctuate frequently (Brodie
brand to other people. From a value co-creation perspective et al., 2011a), thus evoking short-term positive effects. In the
(Ranjan and Read, 2014), customers’ participation in short term, customers who engage and participate in brand
co-production is argued to help to build brand loyalty in this activities will be satisfied (Chan et al., 2010; Flores and
study. To encourage customer participation, a firm creates Vasquez-Parraga, 2015) and loyal (Hollebeek, 2011b). In
platforms for value creation that suit customers’ unique interactive social media, customers who enter positively
interests, thereby enhancing brand satisfaction personally and valenced engagement states are assumed to participate
subjectively and affecting brand loyalty positively. willingly in joint activities, leading to brand satisfaction and
Co-production has been found to be a positive predictor of loyalty. In this paper, customers’ participation is argued to
attitudinal loyalty (Auh et al., 2007; Hosseini, 2013) and generate satisfaction with their own performance (individual
Downloaded by OSLO AND AKERSHUS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF APPLIED SCIENCES At 05:34 01 February 2017 (PT)

satisfaction (Ranjan and Read, 2014; Flores and value) and with the engagement object (e.g. brand or brand
Vasquez-Parraga, 2015). When customers participate in activity; relational value), with the positive outcome of
co-production activities, they tend to share their new ideas, strengthened brand loyalty. This extensive affect chain is
suggestions and problems with a service firm (Chen et al., expressed in the following hypothesis, tested in the
2011), and thus are expected to become more satisfied due to cross-sectional study:
their personal investment (Cermak et al. 1994). Ranjan and
Read (2014) argued that co-production is a cooperative act of H2. In social media, CBE will positively affect customer
satisfaction, as customers outlay resources in this process. In participation, generating positive brand satisfaction and
this paper, customers who obtain more customized services loyalty effects.
through brand activity participation are argued to be more
satisfied (Bendapudi and Leone, 2003), with competitors Study 1
facing more difficulty in attracting them. The short- and
Design, sample and measurement
long-term effects of this process were tested using the
This cross-sectional study was conducted in April 2012 in
following hypothesis:
partnership with Norstat (the largest online panel data
H1. Through brand satisfaction, customer participation provider in Norway) using a nationwide online panel survey of
positively affects brand loyalty. insurance customers aged ⱖ 15 years. Respondents were
rewarded through the Norstat system. To make the sample
Chan et al.’s (2010) findings provide empirical support for the representative, Norstat controlled recruitment according to
argument that customers’ involvement beyond good/service age, gender, education, income and non-disclosed
consumption can add value for them. Similarly, Van Doorn customer-related variables. Participating customers of seven
et al. (2010) argued that customer engagement goes beyond insurance brands filled out questionnaires with reference to
transactions, with positive brand/firm and customer the brand with which each had a relationship, and those
consequences. Little research has investigated relationships of reporting use of Facebook as a customer channel answered
CBE to other concepts, but CBE appears to positively affect questions regarding their relationships with the brands in that
brand satisfaction (Van Doorn et al., 2010; Hollebeek, 2011a) context. Included insurance brands had used Facebook brand
and brand loyalty (Brodie et al., 2011a; Hollebeek, 2011a, pages as customer channels since 2011. Customers had been
2011b). The relationship between CBE and customer invited to express their preference for the brands by “liking”
participation remains unclear. Sawhney et al. (2005) argued them; content on the firms’ Facebook brand pages was then
that customer engagement in virtual communities comprised posted automatically to these customers’ Facebook news
customer participation in innovation, and Sashi (2012) feeds, where they were expected to engage emotionally,
proposed an engagement cycle in social media, in which cognitively and through behavioral intentions.
customer connection and interaction are outcomes of Self-reported questionnaire items measured latent constructs
engagement. Other researchers have suggested that customer using modifications of previously used scales (Appendix).
participation is an antecedent of CBE (Nysveen and Pedersen, Customers rated their willingness to participate with the brand
2014; Ramaswamy and Gouillart, 2010; Vivek, 2009), with [four items reflecting customer participation in creating value
engagement resulting from customers’ efforts and resource together with a service brand (Nysveen and Pedersen, 2014;
integration in co-production processes. Wirtz et al. (2013) Chan et al., 2010)]. CBE in social media was measured using a
argued that customer expertise is a moderator between three-dimensional scale reflecting states of emotional, cognitive
brand-related social and functional drivers and online brand and intentional CBE [Solem and Pedersen (2016), based on the
community engagement. work engagement scale of Rich et al. (2010)]. Item wording was
Leaning toward the view of Brodie et al. (2011a) by amended slightly for the Facebook brand page (reflecting brand–
considering CBE to reflect inherent motivational, emotional, customer interactivity), following Reitz (2012) and Casaló et al.
cognitive and intentional states, with CBE intensity based on (2010). The questionnaire also assessed brand satisfaction [five
brand stimuli (e.g. activities), CBE investment in social items reflecting overall satisfaction, meeting of expectations
media-based brand activities is argued here to generate (Fornell, 1992), and acceptability of brand choice (Oliver, 1980;
participation (willingness to consume and produce value, e.g. Gottlieb et al., 1994)] and brand loyalty [four items reflecting
sharing ideas, participating in valuable discussions). For future loyalty and continued patronage (Selnes, 1993; Brakus
example, customers with greater emotional attachment to a et al., 2009; Wagner et al., 2009), recommendation to others
brand will be more motivated to participate in brand activities (Brakus et al., 2009) and repeat selection (Selnes, 1993)].

334
 Customer participation and customer brand engagement Journal of Consumer Marketing
Birgit Andrine Apenes Solem Volume 33 · Number 5 · 2016 · 332–342

Responses were structured by a seven-point scale ranging from The estimated measurement model for the total sample (N ⫽
“totally disagree” to “totally agree”. 954) showed a reasonably good fit [␹2/df ⫽ 4.90, comparative fit
A total of 964 invited panel members completed the index (CFI) ⫽ 0.98, root mean square error of approximation
questionnaire. Ten “outliers” showing no variance in CBE (RMSEA) ⫽ 0.064]. All constructs showed acceptable reliability
were excluded, resulting in a final sample of 954 respondents, (Cronbach’s á ⬎ 0.7). Brand satisfaction and brand loyalty
145 (15 per cent) of whom reported using Facebook in showed acceptable convergent validity, whereas customer
relation to the insurance brands. Gender was distributed participation did not [Cronbach’s á ⬍ average variance extracted
evenly in the sample, 59 per cent of respondents were aged ⬎ (AVE) ⬎ 0.5], indicating that the items did not optimally reflect
45 years, 66 per cent were well educated and 47 per cent had the concept. No discriminant validity issue was observed, except
household incomes ⬎ 600,000 NOK (Table I). for brand loyalty (maximum shared variance ⬎ AVE; Table II).
The square root of AVE for brand loyalty was lower than its
Downloaded by OSLO AND AKERSHUS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF APPLIED SCIENCES At 05:34 01 February 2017 (PT)

Reliability and validity testing correlation with brand satisfaction.

The data were examined through confirmatory factor analysis As the strong correlation between brand satisfaction and
with maximum likelihood estimation (Bollen, 1989) using brand loyalty may have been due to common method bias, the
IBM SPSS AMOS 21. To assess nomological validity, marker variable technique (Lindell and Whitney, 2001;
concept positions were tested using a measurement model for Malhotra et al., 2006) was applied. A theoretically unrelated
the total sample of respondents. Convergent and divergent two-item variable (“Facebook can be used to read what other
validity were assessed following Fornell and Larcker (1981a, people are writing”, “Facebook can be used to achieve
1981b). personal gains”), structured by a seven-point Likert scale
anchored by “totally disagree” and “totally agree”, served as a
Table I Sample demographics from the cross-sectional study marker. The two lowest correlations with the marker (r ⫽ 0.15
and r ⫽ 0.12) fell below the suggested 0.20 threshold for
Sample demographics (N ⴝ 954) (%)
problematic method variance (Malhotra et al., 2006). All
Gender correlations in the model remained significant, with signs
Male 54.4 unchanged. These results indicated that method bias was not
Female 45.6 a significant risk in this data set.
Age
Hypothesis testing
15-24 9.7
The hypotheses were tested using structural equation modeling
25-34 14.0
(SEM; IBM SPSS AMOS 21), following the procedure of Bollen
35-44 17.2
and Long (1993). H1 was tested using data from the 809
45-54 17.9 respondents who did not use Facebook in relation to the brands.
55-64 19.2 This model showed acceptable fit (␹2/df ⫽ 4.70, CFI ⫽ 0.98,
64- 21.9 RMSEA ⫽ 0.068; Figure 1). Customer participation affected
Education brand satisfaction positively (␤ ⫽ 0.27), and brand satisfaction
Primary 5.2 affected brand loyalty positively (␤ ⫽ 0.85). Customer
Secondary 28.6
participation had no significant direct effect on brand loyalty.
These results supported H1.
University/College < 3 years 30.8
Possible different effects of customer participation were
University/College > 3 years 35.3
controlled by introducing brand as a control variable
Household income (in NOK) (covariate) in the analysis to test direct effects on brand
<200,000 4.9 satisfaction and loyalty. All models yielded insignificant
200,000-399,000 15.7 results, except the model for one brand (␹2/df ⫽ 4.37, CFI ⫽
400,000-599,000 23.4 0.98, RMSEA ⫽ 0.065), which showed that brand negatively
600,000-799,000 18.1 affected brand satisfaction (␤ ⫽ ⫺0.11). Comparison of
>800,000 28.9 results from this model and the original model showed that the
No response 8.9 effect of customer participation on brand satisfaction
remained positive, although marginally lower (␤ ⫽ 0.26), and
Using social media the effects of customer participation and brand satisfaction on
Using Facebook in relation to brand 15.2 brand loyalty were unchanged.

Table II Reliability, validity and the correlation matrix for the total sample (N ⫽ 954)
Constructs ␣ AVE MSV ASV Customer participation Brand satisfaction Brand loyalty
Customer participation 1.01 1.04 0.06 0.06 1.02
Brand satisfaction 0.95 0.78 0.77 0.41 0.24ⴱⴱⴱ 0.88
Brand loyalty 0.90 0.69 0.77 0.41 0.23ⴱⴱⴱ 0.88ⴱⴱⴱ 0.83
Notes: ␣ ⫽ Cronbach’s alpha; AVE ⫽ average variance extracted; MSV ⫽ maximum shared squared variance; ASV ⫽ average shared squared
variance; the bold values on the diagonal of the matrix represent the square root values for each AVE; significant covariances: ⴱ p ⬍ 0.1; ⴱⴱ
p ⬍
0.05; ⴱⴱⴱ p ⬍ 0.01; N ⫽ 954

335
 Customer participation and customer brand engagement Journal of Consumer Marketing
Birgit Andrine Apenes Solem Volume 33 · Number 5 · 2016 · 332–342

Testing for a mediating effect brand interaction. The effect of brand satisfaction on brand
The assumed mediating effect of brand satisfaction on the loyalty (␤ ⫽ 0.85) was similar. These results support H2. To
relationship between customer participation and brand loyalty clarify the theorized relationship between CBE and customer
was further examined using a bootstrap resampling method. participation, an alternative model with customer participation
Bootstrapping is not bound by the assumptions of normal serving as the predictor variable and CBE as the proximal
theoretical approaches (e.g. the Sobel test), and thus mediator was tested. Although this model showed acceptable fit
characterizes indirect effects more accurately (Hayes and (␹2/df ⫽ 2.05, CFI ⫽ 0.98, RMSEA ⫽ 0.085) and a significant
Preacher, 2013). An indirect effect is considered to be effect of customer participation on CBE (␤ ⫽ 0.52), it was not as
significant when the bootstrap confidence interval (CI) strong as the original model used to test H2.
excludes zero. In the present study, a 95 per cent CI for the
indirect effect was obtained using 5,000 bootstrap re-samples. Study 2
Downloaded by OSLO AND AKERSHUS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF APPLIED SCIENCES At 05:34 01 February 2017 (PT)

The results confirmed that brand satisfaction significantly

This longitudinal study was conducted to test H1.
mediated the relationship between customer participation and
Longitudinal analysis allows one to account for potential
brand loyalty (95 per cent CI ⫽ 0.15-0.25).
common-method variance (Bijleveld et al., 1998; Griffith
et al., 2006; Rindfleisch et al., 2008; Ployhart and
Incorporation of customer brand engagement in
Vandenberg, 2011). It also shows auto-correlation effects,
social media
reducing between-variable effects while strengthening the
To test H2 with data from customers who engaged with the
validity of effect patterns (Menard, 1991). Thus, Study 2 was
brands in social media, CBE was incorporated as a predictor
expected to provide similar, but weaker, support for H1
variable. Composite (aggregated average) scores were used for
compared with Study 1. The effect of customer participation
the multidimensional CBE concept, following Brakus et al.
subsequent to brand satisfaction was assessed, with brand
(2009). Total, rather than individual dimensional, effects of
loyalty serving as the outcome (Jap and Anderson, 2004) and
these variables were thus examined. The SEM model showed
with the incorporation of historical (auto-correlational)
acceptable fit (␹2/df ⫽ 1.63, CFI ⫽ 0.98, RMSEA ⫽ 0.066;
effects.
Figure 2).
In this subsample, CBE positively affected customer
Design and sample
participation (␤ ⫽ 0.60), which positively affected brand
Norstat collected data from the same insurance customers
satisfaction (␤ ⫽ 0.49). These effects were substantially
over an 18-month period in autumn 2011 (T0), spring 2012
greater than observed for customers with no social media
(T1, data set used in Study 1), and spring 2013 (T2) using
the methodology and measures described for Study 1. The
Figure 1 H1 test results from the cross-sectional study three-wave structure was selected according to the
recommended minimum number of repeated measures
Customer 0.27***
Brand 0.85***
Brand (Chan, 1998 in Ployhart and Vandenberg, 2011), and to
Participation Satisfaction Loyalty ensure validity and avoid variance (Vandenberg, 2002). The
unequal intervals between surveys were planned, together with
0.05(ns)
the insurance firms’ marketing managers, to ensure that they
N=809 would appropriately reflect changes (Gollob and Reichardt,
χ2/df =4.70
1991) and to capture the predictive effects of customer
CFI= 0.98
RMSEA= 0.068 participation and brand satisfaction on loyalty, as described
for mediational models (Cole and Maxwell, 2003).
Notes: All coefficient values are standardized. Significance level: Respondents to the first survey were asked by email to
***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, * p < 0.05; N = 809; x2/df = 4.70; complete additional surveys at T1 and T2. To account for a
CFI = 0.98; RMSEA = 0.068 dropout rate of up to 75 per cent between T0 and T2, a much

Figure 2 H2 test results from the cross-sectional study

Emotional Cognitive Intentional

Brand
0.95 0.83 0.94 0.49*** Satisfaction

Customer
CBE 0.85***
Participation
0.60***
Brand
0.04 (ns) Loyalty

Notes: All coefficient values are standardized; the concept of CBE is presented by
dimensions. Significance level: ***p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05; N = 145;
x2/df = 1.63; CFI = 0.98; RMSEA = 0.066

336
 Customer participation and customer brand engagement Journal of Consumer Marketing
Birgit Andrine Apenes Solem Volume 33 · Number 5 · 2016 · 332–342

larger sample than required was recruited at T0 (Ployhart and Analysis and results
Vandenberg, 2011). The numbers of participants at T0, T1 Mplus 7.11 software was used to perform SEM of
and T2 were 1,389, 964 and 1,172, respectively. The study between-variable auto-correlational effects (Muthén and
sample comprised 376 respondents who completed surveys at Muthén, 2007), with maximum likelihood estimation. The
all timepoints. model showed a good fit (CFI ⫽ 0.94, Tucker–Lewis index ⫽
Following Cole and Maxwell (2003), the effects of the 0.93, RMSEA ⫽ 0.065, Bayesian information criterion ⫽
independent variable (customer participation) at T0 were 39,295.219). Customer participation at T0 had a non-significant
considered to predict the mediating variable (brand negative effect on brand satisfaction at T1 and T2 (␤ ⫽ ⫺0.009)
satisfaction) at T1. In turn, the mediating variable was thought and a non-significant positive effect on brand loyalty at T2 (␤ ⫽
to predict the dependent variable (brand loyalty) at T2. The 0.03). Brand satisfaction at T0 and T1 had a significant positive
potentially confounding auto-correlational effects of all effect on brand loyalty at T1 and T2 (␤ ⫽ 0.17). All
Downloaded by OSLO AND AKERSHUS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF APPLIED SCIENCES At 05:34 01 February 2017 (PT)

variables were controlled to avoid spuriously inflated estimates auto-correlational relationships were significantly positive
of the causal path of interest (Figure 3) (Cole and Maxwell, (customer participation, ␤ ⫽ 0.56; brand satisfaction, ␤ ⫽ 0.70;
2003; Orth et al., 2009). For example, Chandler and Lusch brand loyalty, ␤ ⫽ 0.50; Table III). These results do not support
(2014) characterize temporal connections as current H1 or the short-term results from Study 1.
connections stemming from past customer participation and
giving rise to future participation.
In contrast to cross-sectional research, in which construct Discussion, implications and directions for
residuals are assumed to be uncorrelated and normally future research
distributed, residual correlation was allowed (Ployhart and
This paper contributes to the marketing literature by shedding
Vandenberg, 2011). The causal structure (the degree to which
light on the short- and long-term effects of customer
one set of variables produces change in another set) was assumed
participation on brand loyalty (through brand satisfaction) from
to remain unchanged over time (Bijleveld et al., 1998). The
a value co-creation perspective. It documents the short-term
observed invariance (equality of standardized factor loadings of
effects of CBE on these variables in a social media context. The
like items across timepoints; Appendix) indicated that the items
findings support the disconfirmation-of-expectation theory,
retained the same meanings for participants throughout the study
which predicts that satisfaction is the primary route to loyalty
period (Ployhart and Vandenberg, 2011).
(Anderson and Sullivan, 1993; Bloemer and Kasper, 1995;
Oliver, 1999), in the short and long terms.
Figure 3 An illustrative path diagram of a longitudinal model of
Study 1 documented substantial positive effects of customer
mediation
participation on brand loyalty through brand satisfaction.
X0 Customer
CBE was an important driver of customer participation and
X1 Customer X2 Customer
Participation Participation Participation enhanced the positive effects of customer participation on
brand satisfaction, although these results were derived from a
limited subsample and survey data leaned toward correlation.
M0 Brand M1 Brand M2 Brand When customers engage emotionally, cognitively and/or
Satisfaction Satisfaction Satisfaction
intentionally in certain brand activities and content on a
brand’s Facebook page, they show more interest in
Y0 Brand Y1 Brand Y2 Brand participating with the brand. The alternative model tested in
Loyalty Loyalty Loyalty Study 1 supported this positive effect of CBE on customer

Table III H1 test results from the longitudinal study (N ⫽ 376)

SEM analysis in Mplus Results Acceptance level
Model results Acceptable fit
CFI 0.94 ⬎0.95
TLI 0.93 ⬎0.95
RMSEA 0.065 ⬍0.080
BIC 39,295.219 As low as possible

Test results
Customer participation on brand satisfaction ⫺0.009 (ns)
Customer participation on brand loyalty 0.032 (ns)
Brand satisfaction on brand loyalty 0.17ⴱⴱⴱ

Autocorrelation effects
Customer participation on customer participation 0.56ⴱⴱⴱ
Brand satisfaction on brand satisfaction 0.70ⴱⴱⴱ
Brand loyalty on brand loyalty 0.50ⴱⴱⴱ
Notes: CFI ⫽ comparative fit index; TLI ⫽ Tucker–Lewis Index; RMSEA ⫽ root-mean-square-error of approximation; BIC ⫽ Bayesian information
criterion; ⴱ p ⬍ 0.10 (two-sided); ⴱⴱ p ⬍ 0.05 (two-sided); ⴱⴱⴱ p ⬍ 0.01 (two-sided)

337
 Customer participation and customer brand engagement Journal of Consumer Marketing
Birgit Andrine Apenes Solem Volume 33 · Number 5 · 2016 · 332–342

participation, suggesting reciprocal effects between these practical insight gained from Study 2 is that managerial creativity
variables in social media contexts. The greater effect of might be necessary for engagement and participation effects to
customer participation on brand satisfaction among customers stand the test of time.
engaging with brands in social media is a promising result for Marketers must take the consequences of customer
service firms that are using social media strategically as a participation seriously, strategically developing systems and
marketing and service channel. (online and offline) network platforms that recognize customers’
In contradiction of cross-sectional findings (Auh et al., 2007; concerns and interests, and facilitate their engagement and
Hosseini, 2013; Flores and Vasquez-Parraga, 2015), the effects participation. They must systemize changes based on customer
of customer participation were not significant in Study 2. These input so that customers can benefit personally. These measures
results provide a useful contribution to the marketing literature, may enhance short- and long-term brand satisfaction and loyalty.
although customer participation produces positive short-term The study results are particularly promising for insurance firms
Downloaded by OSLO AND AKERSHUS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF APPLIED SCIENCES At 05:34 01 February 2017 (PT)

outcomes, it does not appear to result in long-term brand wishing to use social media for CBE and customer participation
satisfaction or loyalty. Observed auto-correlational effects purposes. However, for insurance firms struggling with high
showed that participating customers are likely to participate again annual turnover rates and failing loyalty, the absence of
later, which is promising for service firms. long-term effects is not promising. Like other service firms,
These findings may be explained by the fluctuating nature of insurance firms must form strategies for the development of
customer participation with brands and in brand activities (as platforms and networks that facilitate customer participation, in
with CBE); co-producing customers may forget such the hope that brand loyalty will become a positive long-term
participation soon after completing it. Another explanation could effect.
be that service firms do not plan the foundation for customer
participation well, consequently providing random and
Limitations and future research possibilities
unsystemized handling of feedback over time. If customers see no
The use of correlational survey data in Study 1 precluded
service improvement based on their input, then their satisfaction
causality prediction; future studies should examine customer
and loyalty will probably remain unchanged.
participation effects using small-scale experiments in an online
Other explanations may be plausible. For example, the effects
panel context. Given the small subsample of customers who used
of customer participation on satisfaction may depend on
social media to relate to the brands, the findings cannot be
customers’ expectations of outcomes. Bendapudi and Leone
considered to provide definitive evidence of CBE effects. Larger
(2003) found that customers who participated in production
and more diverse samples are needed in future studies. The
with a firm were less satisfied with the firm than were those who
convergent validity of the customer participation concept should
chose not to participate when outcomes were better than
also be addressed by improving relevant survey items.
expected and more satisfied when outcomes were worse than
CBE effects were examined holistically in this research.
expected. Thus, the “outcome as expected” condition may be an
Dimension effects should be examined separately in future to
“invisible” factor that should be incorporated in future empirical
gain more detailed and sophisticated knowledge. Following
studies of customer participation effects on brand satisfaction.
research tradition, CBE was measured using positively valenced
Customers allocate credit for positive outcomes or blame for
scales (Brakus et al., 2009; Hollebeek et al., 2014). In practice,
negative outcomes to themselves and the firm, which may affect
however, customers can become negatively engaged (e.g. in
satisfaction. The absence of a longitudinal effect of customer
social media) (Laroche et al., 2012; Hollebeek and Chen, 2014).
participation may also be due to the lack of moderating (e.g.
Thus, researchers should seek to assess valence more accurately
“easy” versus “difficult” design example) and/or mediating (e.g.
(e.g. by evaluating positively and negatively worded versions of
self-congruity) variables (Chang et al., 2009).
scales), as recommended by Brakus et al. (2009).
In this research, brand loyalty was operationalized as
Managerial implications customers’ brand-related intended behavior (i.e. an attitudinal
For service marketers, these study findings have important concept). It was not defined based on repeat purchase patterns.
implications with regard to brand-building strategies. Brand By considering brand loyalty as a behavioral construct, panel data
satisfaction remains key to brand loyalty in the short and long on registered repeat-purchase behavior could have been used to
terms. Service firm customers’ co-creative activities, such as assess repeat-purchase loyalty (e.g. penetration, purchase
innovation and service improvement initiatives, provide service frequency, market share, repeat buying) and analyzed using
marketers with positive short-term brand satisfaction and brand Dirichlet models/negative binominal distribution (Ehrenberg
loyalty effects. Service firms can encourage CBE by using social et al., 2004; Sharp et al., 2012). Future studies could benefit from
media platforms, such as Facebook brand pages, which will the conceptualization of brand loyalty as a hybrid attitudinal/
positively affect customer participation, with subsequent positive behavioral construct, enabling the analysis of attitudinal and
short-term effects on brand satisfaction. Thus, for short-term repeat-purchase loyalty.
purposes, customer participation should be encouraged through In assessments of relationship variables, including the present
CBE in social media contexts, in relation to activities beyond longitudinal study, optimal timepoints for data collection are
exchange. difficult to determine. The 18-month period may have been
Service marketers should not have overly high expectations for insufficient for insurance brand loyalty analysis. However, with
long-lasting effects of customer participation. Customers willing 17 per cent of customers switching insurance providers annually,
to participate in brand relationships (e.g. expressing their needs, much can happen in this period. Regardless, longitudinal data
suggesting service improvements) will not necessarily become collection is probably more valuable in situations involving daily
more satisfied and/or loyal over the long term. An interesting observation and data recording, rather than the administration of

338
 Customer participation and customer brand engagement Journal of Consumer Marketing
Birgit Andrine Apenes Solem Volume 33 · Number 5 · 2016 · 332–342

self-reported questionnaires at one-year intervals. These International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Vol. 15 No. 2,
limitations make it difficult to favor the Study 2 results over those pp. 137-167.
of Study 1; rather, they should be considered as supplementary. Cermak, D.S., File, K.M. and Prince, R.A. (1994),
“Customer participation in service specification and
delivery”, Journal of Applied Business Research, Vol. 10
References No. 2, pp. 90.
Algesheimer, R., Dholakia, U.M. and Herrmann, A. (2005), Chan, D. (1998), “The conceptualization and analysis of
“The social influence of brand community: evidence from change over time: an integrative approach incorporating
European car clubs”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 69 No. 3, longitudinal mean and covariance structures analysis
pp. 19-34. (LMACS) and multiple indicator latent growth modelling
(MLGM)”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 1,
Downloaded by OSLO AND AKERSHUS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF APPLIED SCIENCES At 05:34 01 February 2017 (PT)

Anderson, E.W. and Sullivan, M.W. (1993), “The

antecedents and consequences of customer satisfaction for pp. 421-483.
firms”, Marketing Science, Vol. 12, pp. 125-143. Chan, K.W., Yim, C.K. and Lam, S.S.K. (2010), “Is
Andreassen, T.W. and Lindestad, B. (1998), “Customer customer participation in value creation a double-edged
loyalty and complex services, the impact of service image on sword? Evidence from professional financial services across
quality, customer satisfaction and loyalty for customers with cultures”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 74 No. 5, pp. 48-64.
varying degrees of service expertise”, International Journal of Chandler, J.D. and Lusch, R.F. (2014), “Service systems: a
Service Industry Management, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 7-23. broadened framework and research agenda on value
Auh, S., Bell, S.J., McLeod, C.S. and Shih, E. (2007), propositions, engagement, and service experience”, Journal
“Co-production and customer loyalty in financial services”, of Service Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 6-22.
Journal of Retailing, Vol. 83 No. 3, pp. 359-370. Chang, C.C., Chen, H.Y. and Huang, I.C. (2009), “The
Bendapudi, N. and Leone, R.P. (2003), “Psychological interplay between customer participation and difficulty of
implications of customer participation in co-production”, design examples in the online designing process and its
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 67 No. 1, pp. 14-28. effect on customer satisfaction: mediational analyses”,
Bijleveld, C.C.J.H., Th. Van der Kamp, L.J., Mooijaart, A., Cyberpsychology & Behavior, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 147-154.
van der Kloot, W.A., van der Leeden, R. and van der Burg, Chen, J.S., Tsou, H.T. and Ching, R.K. (2011),
E. (1998), Longitudinal Data Analysis, Designs, Models and “Co-production and its effects on service innovation”,
Methods, Sage Publications, London, Thousand Oaks. Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 40 No. 8,
Bloemer, J. and Kasper, H. (1995), “The complex pp. 1331-1346.
relationship between consumer satisfaction and brand Cole, D.A. and Maxwell, S.E. (2003), “Testing mediational
loyalty”, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 16, models with longitudinal data: questions and tips in the use
pp. 311-329. of structural equation modeling”, Journal of Abnormal
Bollen, K.A. (1989), Structural Equations with Latent Variables, Psychology, Vol. 112 No. 4, pp. 558-577.
John Wiley, New York, NY. Dabholkar, P. (1990), “How to improve perceived quality by
Bollen, K.A. and Long, J.S. (1993), Testing Structural Equation improving customer participation” in Dunlap, B.J. (Ed.),
Models, Sage, Newbury Park, NJ. Developments in Marketing Science, Academy of Marketing
Brakus, J.J., Schmitt, B.H. and Zarantonello, L. (2009),
Science, Cullowhee, NC, pp. 483-487.
“Brand experience: what is it? How is it measured? Does it
Dessart, L., Morgan-Thomas, A. and Veloutsou, C. (2014),
affect loyalty?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 73 No. 5,
“Customer engagement in online brand communities: a
pp. 52-68.
social media perspective”, 9th Global Brand Conference, AM
Brodie, R.J., Hollebeek, L.D., Juric, B. and Ilic, A. (2011b),
SIG, Hertfordshire, 9-11 April.
“Customer engagement: conceptual domain, fundamental
Dong, B., Evans, K.R. and Zou, S. (2008), “The effects of
propositions, and implications for research”, Journal of
customer participation in co-created service recovery”,
Service Research, Vol. 14.
Brodie, R.J., Ilic, A., Juric, B. and Hollebeek, L.D. (2011a), Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 36 No. 1,
“Consumer engagement in a virtual brand community: an pp. 123-137.
exploratory analysis”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66 Ehrenberg, A.S., Uncles, M.D. and Goodhardt, G.J. (2004),
No. 1, pp. 105-114. “Understanding brand performance measures: using
Casaló, L., Flavián, C. and Guinalíu, M. (2007), “The impact Dirichlet benchmarks”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 57
of participation in virtual brand communities on consumer No. 12, pp. 1307-1325.
trust and loyalty: the case of free software”, Online Etgar, M. (2008), “A descriptive model of the consumer
Information Review, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 775-792. co-production process”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Casaló, L.V., Flavián, C. and Guinalíu, M. (2008), Science, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 97-108.
“Promoting consumer’s participation in virtual brand Flores, J. and Vasquez-Parraga, A.Z. (2015), “The impact of
communities: a new paradigm in branding strategy”, choice on co-produced customer value creation and
Journal of Marketing Communications, Vol. 14 No. 1, satisfaction”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 1,
pp. 19-36. pp. 15-25.
Casaló, L.V., Flavián, C. and Guinaliu, M. (2010), Fornell, C. (1992), “A national customer satisfaction
“Antecedents and consequences of consumer participation barometer – the Swedish experience”, Journal of Marketing,
in on-line communities: the case of the travel sector”, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 6-21.

339
 Customer participation and customer brand engagement Journal of Consumer Marketing
Birgit Andrine Apenes Solem Volume 33 · Number 5 · 2016 · 332–342

Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981a), “Evaluating structural Hollebeek, L.D. and Chen, T. (2014), “Exploring positively-
equation models with unobservable variables and versus negatively-valenced brand engagement: a conceptual
measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 model”, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 23
No. 1, pp. 39-50. No. 1, pp. 62-74.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981b), “Structural equation Hollebeek, L.D., Glynn, M.S. and Brodie, R.J. (2014),
models with unobservable variables and measurement error: “Consumer brand engagement in social media:
algebra and statistics”, Journal of Marketing Research, conceptualization, scale development and validation”,
Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 382-388. Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 149-165.
Fournier, S. and Avery, J. (2011), “The uninvited brand”, Hosseini, M.H. (2013), “The impact of co-production on
Business Horizons, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 193-207. customer loyalty in banking services: a case of Saman
Frambach, R.T., Roest, H.C.A. and Krishnan, T.V. (2007),
Downloaded by OSLO AND AKERSHUS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF APPLIED SCIENCES At 05:34 01 February 2017 (PT)

Bank”, Iranian Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 6 No. 6,

“The impact of consumer internet experience on channel pp. 105-129.
preference and usage intentions across the different stages
Jaakkola, E. and Alexander, M. (2014), “The role of customer
of the buying process”, Journal of Interactive Marketing,
engagement behavior in value co-creation: a service system
Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 26-41.
perspective”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 17 No. 3,
Fuat Firat, A., Dholakia, N. and Venkatesh, A. (1995),
pp. 247-261.
“Marketing in a postmodern world”, European Journal of
Jacoby, J. and Chestnut, R.W. (1978), Brand Loyalty:
Marketing, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 40-56.
Gambetti, R. and Graffigna, G. (2010), “The concept of Measurement and Management, Wiley, Chichester, NY.
engagement”, International Journal of Market Research, Jahn, B. and Kunz, W. (2012), “How to transform consumers
Vol. 52 No. 6, pp. 801-826. into fans of your brand”, Journal of Service Management,
Gollob, H.F. and Reichardt, C.S. (1991), Best Methods for the Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 344-361.
Analysis of Change: Recent Advances, Unanswered Questions, Jap, S.D. and Anderson, E.M. (2004), “Challenges and
Future Directions, 1st ed., American Psychological advances in marketing strategy field research”, in
Association. Moorman, C. and Lehmann, D.R. (Eds), Assessing
Gottlieb, B.H., Grewal, D. and Brown, S.W. (1994), Marketing Strategy Performance, Marketing Science
“Consumer satisfaction and perceived quality: Institute, Cambridge, MA, pp. 269-292.
complementary or divergent construct?”, Journal of Applied Kaplan, A.M. and Haenlein, M. (2010), “Users of the world,
Psychology, Vol. 79, pp. 875-885. unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media”,
Griffith, D.A., Harvey, M.G. and Lusch, R.F. (2006), “Social Business Horizons, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 59-68.
exchange in supply chain relationships: the resulting Laroche, M., Habibi, M.R. and Richard, M-O. (2012), “To
benefits of procedural and distributive justice”, Journal of be or not to be in social media: how brand loyalty is affected
Operations Management, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 85-98. by social media?”, International Journal of Information
Grönroos, C. and Ravald, A. (2011), “Service as business Management, Vol. 33, pp. 76-82.
logic: implications for value creation and marketing”, Lavik, R. and Schjøll, A. (2012), “Mobility in different
Journal of Service Management, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 5-22. markets, information channels and boarder Trade”,
Gummerus, J., Liljander, V., Weman, E. and Pihlström, M. Prosjektnotat, SIFO National Institute for Consumer
(2012), “Customer Engagement in a Facebook brand Research, Oslo.
Community”, Management Research Review, Vol. 35 No. 9, Lemke, F., Clark, M. and Wilson, H. (2011), “Customer
pp. 857-877. experience quality: an exploration in business and consumer
Habibi, M.R., Laroche, M. and Richard, M.-O. (2014), “The contexts using repertory grid technique”, Journal of the
roles of brand community and community engagement in Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 39 No. 6, pp. 846-869.
building brand trust on social media”, Computers in Human
Lindell, M.K., and Whitney, D.J. (2001), “Accounting for
Behavior, Vol. 37, pp. 152-161.
common method variance in cross-sectional research
Hayes, A.F. and Preacher, K.J. (2013), “Statistical mediation
designs”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 1,
analysis with a multicategorical independent variable”,
pp. 114-121.
British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology,
McAlexander, J.H., Schouten, J.W. and Koenig, H.F. (2002),
Vol. 67 No. 3, pp. 451-470.
Hirschman, A.O. (1970), Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to “Building brand community”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 66
Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States, Harvard No. 1, pp. 38-54.
University Press, Vol. 25, p. 162. Maklan, S. and Klaus, P. (2011), “Customer experience: are
Hoffman, D.L. and Novak, T.P. (2012), “Toward a deeper we measuring the right things?”, International Journal of
understanding of social media”, Journal of Interactive Market Research, Vol. 53 No. 6, pp. 771-792.
Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 69-70. Malhotra, N.K., Kim, S.S. and Patil, A. (2006), “Common
Hollebeek, L.D. (2011a), “Demystifying customer brand method variance in IS research: a comparison of alternative
engagement: exploring the loyalty nexus”, Journal of approaches and a reanalysis of past research”, Management
Marketing Management, Vol. 27 Nos 7/8, pp. 785-807. Science, Vol. 52 No. 12, pp. 1865-1883.
Hollebeek, L.D. (2011b), “Exploring customer brand Menard, S. (1991), Longitudinal Research. Series: Quantitative
engagement: definition and themes”, Journal of Strategic Applications in the Social Sciences, Sage University Paper,
Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 7, pp. 555-573. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

340
 Customer participation and customer brand engagement Journal of Consumer Marketing
Birgit Andrine Apenes Solem Volume 33 · Number 5 · 2016 · 332–342

Muthén, L.K. and Muthén, B.O. (2007), Mplus: Statistical Selnes, F. (1993), “An examination of the effect of product
Analysis with Latent Variables; User’s Guide; [Version 5], performance on brand reputation, satisfaction and loyalty”,
Muthén and Muthén, Los Angeles, CA. European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 9, pp. 19-35.
Nysveen, H. and Pedersen, P.E. (2014), “Influences of Shankar, V. and Batra, R. (2009), “The growing influence of
co-creation on brand experience: the role of brand online marketing communications”, Journal of Interactive
engagement”, International Journal of Market Research, Marketing, Vol. 23, pp. 285-287.
Vol. 56 No. 6, p. 807.
Oliver, R.L. (1980), “A cognitive model of the antecedents Shankar, V., Smith, A.K. and Rangaswamy, A. (2003),
and consequences of satisfaction decisions”, Journal of “Customer satisfaction and loyalty in online and offline
Marketing Research, Vol. 17, pp. 460-469. environments”, International Journal of Research in
Oliver, R.L. (1999), “Whence consumer loyalty?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 20, pp. 153-175.
Downloaded by OSLO AND AKERSHUS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF APPLIED SCIENCES At 05:34 01 February 2017 (PT)

Marketing, Vol. 63, pp. 33-44. Sharp, B., Wright, M., Dawes, J., Driesener, C.,
Orth, U., Robins, R.W. and Meyer, L.L. (2009), Meyer-Waarden, L., Stocchi, L. and Stern, P. (2012), “It’s
“Disentangling the effects of low self-esteem and stressful a dirichlet world. modeling individuals’ loyalties reveals how
events on depression: findings from three longitudinal brands compete, grow and decline”, Journal of Advertising
studies”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 97 Research, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 203-213.
No. 2, pp. 307-321. Solem, B.A.A. and Pedersen, P.E. (2016), “The role of
Ployhart, R.E. and Vandenberg, R.J. (2011), “Longitudinal customer brand engagement in social media:
research: the theory, design and analysis of change”, Journal conceptualization, measurement, antecedents and
of Management, Vol. 36 No. 94. outcomes”, International Journal of Internet Marketing and
Pralahad, C.K. and Ramaswamy, V. (2004), “Co-creation Advertising.
experiences: the next practice in value creation”, Journal of Van Doorn, J., Lemon, K.N., Mittal, V. Nass, S., Pick, D.,
Interactive Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 5-14. Pirner, P. and Verhoef, P.C. (2010), “Customer
Ramaswamy, V. and Gouillart, F. (2010), “Building the engagement behavior: theoretical foundations and research
co-creative enterprise”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 88 directions”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 13 No. 3,
No. 10, pp. 100-109. pp. 253-266.
Ranjan, K.R. and Read, S. (2014), “Value co-creation: Vandenberg, R.J. (2002), “Toward improving measurement
concept and measurement”, Journal of the Academy of invariance methods and procedures”, Organizational
Marketing Science, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 290-315. Research Methods, Vol. 5, pp. 139-158.
Reitz, A.R. (2012), “Online consumer engagement:
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2004), “Evolving to a new
understanding the antecedents and outcomes”, Degree of
dominant logic for marketing”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68
doctor of philosophy, CO State University, Fort Collins,
No. 1, pp. 1-17.
CO.
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2008), “Service-dominant logic:
Rich, B.L., Lepine, Y.A. and Crawford, E.R. (2010), “Job
engagement: antecedents and effects on job performance”, continuing the evolution”, Journal of the Academy of
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 53 No. 3, Marketing Science, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 1-10.
pp. 617-635. Vivek, S.D. (2009), A Scale of Consumer Engagement, Degree
Rindfleisch, A., Malter, A.J., Ganesan, S. and Moorman, C. of doctor of philosophy, University of Alabama,
(2008), “Cross-sectional versus longitudinal survey Tuscaloosa, AL.
research: concepts, findings, and guidelines”, Journal of Vries, L., Gensler, S. and Leeflang, P.S.H. (2012),
Marketing Research, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 261-279. “Popularity of brand posts on brand fan pages: an
Sashi, C.M. (2012), “Customer engagement, buyer-seller investigation of the effects of social media marketing”,
relationships, and social media”, Management decision, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 26, pp. 83-91.
Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 253-272. Wagner, T., Hennig-Thurau, T. and Rudolph, T. (2009),
Sawhney, M., Verona, G. and Prandelli, E. (2005), “Does customer demotion jeopardize loyalty?”, Journal of
“Collaborating to create: the internet as a platform for Marketing, Vol. 73, pp. 69-85.
customer engagement in product innovation”, Journal of
Interactive Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 4-17. Wirtz, J., den Ambtman, A., Bloemer, J., Horváth, C.,
Schamari, J. and Schaefers, T. (2015), “Leaving the home Ramaseshan, B., van de Klundert, J. and Kandampully, J.
turf: how brands can use webcare on consumer-generated (2013), “Managing brands and customer engagement in
platforms to increase positive consumer engagement”, online brand communities”, Journal of Service Management,
Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 30, pp. 20-33. Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 223-244.
Schau, H.J., Muñiz, A.M. and Arnould, E.J. (2009), “How Zhu, E. (2006), “Interaction and cognitive engagement: an
brand community practices create value”, Journal of analysis of four asynchronous online discussions”,
Marketing, Vol. 73, pp. 30-51. Instructional Science, Vol. 34 No. 6, pp. 451-480.

341
 Customer participation and customer brand engagement Journal of Consumer Marketing
Birgit Andrine Apenes Solem Volume 33 · Number 5 · 2016 · 332–342

Appendix

Table AI Concepts and measures

Item Item Item
Concepts Dimensions and measures loading T0 loading T1 loading T2
Customer I often express my personal needs to (brand) 0.84 0.85 0.85
participation I often suggest how (brand) can improve their services 0.90 0.92 0.92
I participate in decisions about how (brand) offer its services 0.90 0.91 0.90
I often find solutions of my problems together with (brand) 0.83 0.81 0.85
Downloaded by OSLO AND AKERSHUS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF APPLIED SCIENCES At 05:34 01 February 2017 (PT)

CBE Emotional engagement

I am enthusiastic in relation to (brand) at (brand)’s Facebook page 0.93
I feel energetic in contact with (brand) at its Facebook page 0.94
I feel positive about (brand) at its Facebook page 0.86
Cognitive engagement
At (brand)’s Facebook page, my mind is very focused on (brand) 0.78
At (brand)’s Facebook page, I focus a great deal of attention to (brand) 0.80
At (brand)’s Facebook page, I become absorbed by (brand) 0.91
Intentional engagement
I exert my full effort in supporting (brand) at its Facebook page 0.78
I am very active in relation to (brand) at its Facebook page 0.92
I try my hardest to perform well on behalf of (brand) at its Facebook page 0.92
Brand satisfaction Overall, I am satisfied with (brand) 0.91 0.90 0.92
Being a customer of (brand) has been a good choice for me 0.92 0.91 0.91
(brand) has lived up to my expectations 0.91 0.92 0.94
(brand) is concerned with what solutions that is the best for me 0.87 0.80 0.79
(brand) offers me good solutions 0.93 0.91 0.92
Brand loyalty I intend to stay loyal to (brand) in the future 0.90 0.89 0.89
I intend to stay on as a customer of (brand) for the next three years 0.87 0.84 0.88
I intend to recommend (brand) to other people 0.87 0.84 0.82
If I had to choose again I would still choose (brand) 0.92 0.89 0.89
Notes: Item wording and standardized coefficients from the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA); loadings are based on the customer sample in the
longitudinal study (N ⫽ 376) for customer participation, brand satisfaction and brand loyalty; for CBE, the factor loadings are based on the
cross-sectional study conducted at T1 (N ⫽ 145)

Corresponding author
Birgit Andrine Apenes Solem can be contacted at: Birgit.A.
[email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]

342

View publication stats