Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 24 (2015) 100109

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jretconser

A higher-order model of consumer brand engagement and its impact

on loyalty intentions
Abhishek Dwivedi n
School of Management & Marketing, Charles Sturt University, PO Box 789, Albury, NSW 2640, Australia

art ic l e i nf o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 27 October 2014
Received in revised form
2 February 2015
Accepted 17 February 2015

Consumer brand engagement is increasingly gaining popularity among practitioners and academics as a
prominent consumer-brand relationship construct. The emergent literature on consumer brand engagement, largely conceptual, offers various denitions of the construct, though without much consensus. We offer a novel higher-order model of consumer brand engagement that we derive from organizational psychology. We adapt the concept of employee engagement and examine its factorial validity in a consumer-brand relationship context, dening consumer brand engagement as consumers'
positive, fullling, brand-use-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication and absorption. We develop and empirically test a three-dimensional model of brand engagement, outlining
relevant antecedents and outcomes. More importantly, we assess the managerial utility of consumer
brand engagement by examining its impact on consumer loyalty intentions. We additionally compare the
explanatory capability of brand engagement relative to traditional consumer judgments of value, quality
and satisfaction. A survey of 408 mobile phone consumers from India provided data for empirical testing.
The results support the three-dimensional factor structure of consumer brand engagement. Brand engagement not only exerts a signicant impact on loyalty intentions, but also explains signicantly more
variation in the outcome in addition to the variation explained jointly by value, quality and satisfaction.
Theoretically, we offer a holistic multi-dimensional measure of consumer brand engagement, and examine key nomological relationships. Managerially, we demonstrate the explanatory capability of brand
engagement in explaining consumer loyalty intentions, offering a useful tool in the relationship-building
repertoire of managers.
& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Consumer brand engagement
Vigor
Dedication
Absorption
Loyalty

1. Introduction
The consumer-brand relationship paradigm has generated
substantial academic interest in understanding various forms of
consumers' relational behaviors with brands. Consumer brand
engagement has emerged as a prominent construct in recent years
and is increasingly gaining currency among practitioners and
academics, mainly due to its potential to affect consumer behavior
(Gambetti and Grafgna, 2010). A survey of 124 Chief Marketing
Ofcers revealed that developing brand engagement among consumers gured among top marketing priorities (Burt, 2013). Similarly, academic interest on the concept has accelerated (Brodie
et al., 2011; Hollebeek, 2011; Vivek et al., 2012). However, much
remains to be understood about the construct. The nature of
consumer brand engagement per se remains contentious. For instance, it is debatable whether consumer brand engagement is
largely behavioral (van Doorn et al., 2010) or has additional
n

Fax: 61 2 60519815.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2015.02.007
0969-6989/& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

emotional and cognitive aspects (Hollebeek, 2011). Additionally,

the nomological network of the construct is embryonic and largely
conceptual (Brodie et al., 2011; Vivek et al., 2012), thus creating
opportunities to empirically examine key relationships that have
theoretical and managerial implications.
We offer two contributions to the emergent literature on
consumer brand engagement. First, we empirically examine the
factorial validity of a second-order model of consumer brand
engagement that is novel to the domain of consumer-brand
relationships. We derive our conceptualization of consumer brand
engagement from the domain of organizational psychology
(Schaufeli et al., 2002; Sonnentag, 2003), conceiving consumer
brand engagement as consumers' positive, fullling, brand-userelated state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication and
absorption. In the context of consumer-brand relationships, vigor
denotes high levels of energy and mental resilience when interacting with a brand, and the consumer willingness and the ability
to invest effort in such interactions (Schaufeli et al., 2002). Dedication refers to a sense of signicance, enthusiasm, inspiration,

A. Dwivedi / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 24 (2015) 100109

pride and challenge (Schaufeli et al., 2002). Absorption refers to the

sense of being fully concentrated and happily engrossed in brand
interactions and in which time passes quickly (Schaufeli et al.,
2002). Each of the dimensions of vigor, dedication and absorption
correspond to behavioral, emotional and cognitive aspects (Brodie
et al., 2011; Hollebeek, 2011). In this paper we propose and test
empirically a holistic measure of consumer brand engagement for
use in ongoing research.
Our second contribution relates to assessing the managerial
value of consumer brand engagement. The managerial value of the
concept lies in its potential ability to explain desired marketing
outcomes, such as, consumer loyalty intentions towards a brand.
Traditionally, consumer loyalty intentions have been driven largely
by consumer judgments of perceived value, perceived quality and
overall satisfaction (e.g., Cronin et al., 2000; Yang and Patterson,
2004). In order to have managerial appeal (i.e., practical utility),
consumer brand engagement must explain consumer loyalty intentions after having controlled for the effects of these three key
judgments. Hence, our second objective is to empirically investigate the inuence of consumer brand engagement on consumer loyalty intentions. The results will inform managers of the
potential utility of consumer brand engagement and further
the theoretical understanding of the nomological network of the
construct, positioning consumer loyalty intentions as an outcome.
Moreover, we empirically examine whether consumer brand engagement explains variation in loyalty intentions that is above and
beyond the amount of explanation attained jointly by perceived
value, perceived quality and consumer satisfaction. Therefore, the
results will inform practitioners about the potency of consumer
brand engagement as a concept for attaining consumer loyalty
relative to the traditional antecedents. Next, we discuss our
adapted higher-order conceptualization of consumer brand engagement, and offer hypotheses pertaining to the nature of the
construct as well as its selected antecedents and consequences.

2. Theoretical background and hypotheses

2.1. Nature of consumer brand engagement
The concept of engagement has been investigated in the domains of organizational psychology for some time. Increasingly in
recent years the concept has been investigated in the consumer
behavior domain. Academically, consumer brand engagement has
been dened variously as the level of an individual customer's
motivational, brand-related and context-dependent state of mind
characterized by specic levels of cognitive, emotional and behavioral activity in direct brand interactions (Hollebeek, 2011,
p. 790); the intensity of an individual's participation in and connection with an organization's offerings and/or organizational
activities, which either the customer or the organization initiate
(Vivek et al., 2012, p. 127); and a customer's behavioral manifestations that have a brand or rm focus, beyond purchase, resulting from motivational drivers (van Doorn et al., 2010, p. 254).
Practitioners have the dened engagement as turning on a prospect to a brand idea enhanced by the surrounding context
(Creamer, 2006) and the emotional attachment that customers
have with a brand (Sullivan, 2009, p. 20). Some commonalties are
evident in these denitions. Aspects like participation in, connection with, a multifaceted state of mind (comprising cognitive, emotional and behavioral elements) as well as context-specicity seem to be central to the construct of consumer brand
engagement. Despite these early developments, experts agree that
the concept is yet to be fully developed (Schultz, 2013; Vivek et al.,
2012) and have called for more profound knowledge and understanding of the concept (Gambetti and Grafgna, 2010). Our

101

present study is an attempt to add to the emergent body of

knowledge in the area.
As discussed in Section 1, we draw our conceptualization of
consumer brand engagement from the domain of organizational
psychology (Schaufeli et al., 2002; Sonnentag, 2003). We therefore
dene consumer brand engagement as consumers' positive, fullling, brand-use-related state of mind that is characterized by
vigor, dedication and absorption. We derive our conceptualization
of consumer brand engagement from organizational psychology
for two main reasons. Firstly, the organizational psychology
measure of engagement effectively captures individual behavior,
whereby engagement is regarded as a trait aspect (Sonnentag,
2003) and a motivational construct (Salanova et al., 2005). This
means that engagement will likely vary between individuals. The
subject of engagement in organizational psychology as well as
marketing literatures is individuals employees in the former
and consumers in the later. Therefore, a trait- and motivationalbased measure of individual behavior is likely to perform well in a
different setting involving individual behavior. In our present case
the setting is consumer behavior. Secondly, the denition of engagement in organizational psychology is holistic, capturing multiple facets of individual engagement cognitive (absorption),
emotional (dedication) and behavioral (vigor) under a single
framework. This holistic view of engagement has been validated
over time in the organizational psychology literature. The emergent marketing literature on engagement is beginning to elucidate
a holistic nature of brand engagement, though a concrete dimensionality of the construct is yet to be rmly established. Thus,
a well-validated measure of engagement will potentially contribute to a better understanding of consumer engagement.
Given the newness of consumer brand engagement, it is important to conceptualize the level of abstraction at which the
construct operates. We conceive consumer brand engagement as
an individual-level construct which is supported by the early work
on the nature of the construct (Hollebeek, 2011). Related to the
level of abstraction, is the issue of specicity of the construct. In
other words, the subject of engagement is the individual consumer and the object is a specic brand (Hollebeek, 2011). The
consumer-brand relationship paradigm has spawned new constructs that tend to capture consumer relational behaviors with
specic brands. For example the construct of brand love (Carroll
and Ahuvia, 2006) reects consumers' passionate emotional attachment with specic brands. Likewise, supported by previous
work (Goldsmith, 2012), our conceptualization of consumer brand
engagement seeks to measure consumer (the subject) engagement with a specic brand (the object). Lastly, consumer brand
engagement denotes an interaction between consumers and
brands. Following Fournier (1998), it is increasingly recognized
that brands and consumers interact as partners in various ways.
Similarly, consumer brand engagement incorporates the interactive (dyadic) element whereby the consumers may willingly
invest effort in maintaining a degree of interaction (i.e., demonstrate vigor) with a brand, be happily engrossed in such interactions (i.e., demonstrate absorption) and feel enthusiastic and inspired in doing so (i.e., demonstrate dedication). Early research
into the consumer brand engagement clearly acknowledges such
interactive aspect of the construct (Hollebeek, 2011; Vivek et al.,
2012).
Our denition of consumer brand engagement above outlines
the multi-dimensional nature of the construct. Given that we offer
a higher-order conceptualization of consumer brand engagement,
it is important to acknowledge how we conceive each of the dimensions as measuring the higher-order construct. We conceive
consumer brand engagement as measured reectively by the three
rst-order dimensions of vigor, dedication and absorption. This
type of measurement model is referred to as a reective rst-order

102

A. Dwivedi / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 24 (2015) 100109

offered conceptual guidelines on the potential antecedents and

outcomes of consumer brand engagement (Brodie et al., 2011;
Hollebeek, 2011), however most of these relationships have not
been empirically validated to date. Additionally, these studies indicate that the direction of causality among constructs in the nomological network of may be different depending on whether
consumers are new or existing users of a brand (Brodie et al., 2011;
Hollebeek, 2011). In the present research, we adopt an existing
user perspective on consumer brand engagement. In the present
study, we outline two antecedents of consumer brand engagement
consumer product category involvement and brand usage duration.
We outline each of the hypotheses as follows.

Fig. 1. The higher-order model of consumer brand engagement.

and reective second-order model (Jarvis et al., 2003). In other

words, the three dimensions are jointly reective of the underlying construct at the second-order. Fig. 1 depicts the higher-order
model of consumer brand engagement as envisaged in this research. We expect the direction of causality to ow from the
higher-order construct to each of the dimensions, implying positive correlations among the three dimensions. Studies in organizational psychology consistently report positive correlations
among the three dimensions (Salanova et al., 2005; Schaufeli and
Bakker, 2004; Schaufeli et al., 2002). As per our conceptualization
of consumer brand engagement, we expect a similar pattern of
correlations among the dimensions. For instance, consumers investing effort in interacting with a brand (i.e., vigor) is expected to
correlate positively with being pleasantly engrossed in brand interactions (i.e., absorption). Thus, we expect the three dimensions
to be positively correlated, supporting a reective measurement
stance at the rst-order. Against this background, we offer our rst
hypothesis as follows:
H1. Consumer brand engagement is a second-order construct reected by the rst-order dimensions of vigor, dedication and
absorption.
2.2. Antecedents of consumer brand engagement
The nomological network of consumer brand engagement is
still in its nascent stage of development. Some researchers have

2.2.1. Product category involvement

Consumer involvement, dened as the consumer-perceived
relevance of a product to the interest, needs and values of the
consumer, with a product category has for long being considered
as a vital aspect of consumer behavior (Zaichkowsky, 1985). Involvement with a product category has been positively associated
with consumer motivation to search for product information, extensive decision making as well as consumer commitment towards brands (Warrington and Shim, 2000; Zaichkowsky, 1985).
The consumer brand engagement construct also implies a degree
of consumer-perceived relevance, but towards specic brands.
Thus, a clear conceptual distinction needs to be made between the
two constructs when investigating consumer brand engagement.
Some experts have drawn conceptual distinctions between consumers' product involvement and specic brand engagement
(Goldsmith, 2012; Vivek et al., 2012). In a similar vein, we argue
that, on one hand, consumer product involvement represents a
general consumer proclivity towards considering a class of products (e.g., mobile phones) as relevant, important and meaningful.
On the other hand, consumer brand engagement (as conceived in
this research) implies a high degree of relevance that consumers
attach to a specic brand (e.g., Nokia). Some experts use the term
brand engagement to denote consumers' brand-specic involvement. Don Schultz for example suggests Brand engagement
drives directly to what the marketer is trying to do-get the customer involved with the brand (Schultz, 2007, p. 7). Hence, acknowledging this distinction seems vital as product involvement
may lead to heightened consumer motivation and arousal (Mano
and Oliver, 1993), thereby affecting consumer engagement with
specic brands in a product category. From an empirical standpoint, given that the two constructs consumer product involvement and consumer brand engagement are apparently
related, it is important to empirically consider the effects of the
former on the later. This would allow the subsequent effect of
consumer brand engagement on loyalty intentions to be elucidated more clearly. Hence, in the present study we specify consumer product involvement as an antecedent to consumer brand
engagement, expecting a positive relationship. Hence
H2. Consumer product category involvement has a direct positive
impact on consumer brand engagement.
2.2.2. Brand usage duration
We expect consumers' brand usage duration to inuence consumer brand engagement. Brand usage duration refers to the total
period of time that a consumer has owned and interacted with a
brand (Dodd et al., 2005). We derive support for our expectation
from the relationship marketing literature that investigates the
effect of relationship duration on relationship outcomes (Anderson
and Weitz, 1989; Kumar et al., 1995). Although there is mixed
evidence regarding the role of relationship duration on relational
outcomes in the organizational relationship literature (Verhoef
et al., 2002; Palmatier et al., 2006), within a business-to-consumer

A. Dwivedi / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 24 (2015) 100109

103

TRADITIONAL INFLUENCES

Perceived
value

Satisfaction

Perceived
quality

Vigor

Dedication

H4 +

Consumer brand
engagement

Loyalty
intentions

Absorption

H2 +
Involvement
with category

H3 +

Brand usage
experience

Fig. 2. Examining the impact of consumer brand engagement on loyalty intentions.

services marketing context Dagger et al. (2009) observe a direct

positive effect of relationship duration on consumer-perceived
relationship strength. Similar results were observed by Bove and
Smith (2006). We expect a similar dynamic in the context of
consumer brand engagement. It is likely that consumers' prior
brand experiences stored in memory over time may affect relational outcomes (Lau and Lee, 1999). Consumers' brand usage
experience may naturally facilitate habitual-based attachment
towards brands, potentially inuencing consumers' assessment of
their relationships with brands (Esch et al., 2006). If satised with
their past interactions, consumers may also experience a sense of
dependence on the brand (Bendapudi and Berry, 1997). Further,
akin to interpersonal relationships, consumers total duration of
brand interaction may develop self-condence in their beliefs
about brands (Gill et al., 1998), potentially shaping brand engagement (Fig. 2). Hence we hypothesize:
H3. Brand usage duration has a direct positive impact on consumer brand engagement.
2.3. Impact of consumer brand engagement on loyalty intentions
The managerial value of a measure of consumer brand engagement depends on its capability in explaining consumer marketplace behavior. A focal objective of the present research is to
examine the impact of consumer brand engagement on consumer
loyalty intentions. Consumer loyalty intentions are vital to longterm nancial health of a rm since future consumer loyalty has a
direct bearing on future sales revenues. Consumer brand engagement is inevitably a relational construct, reecting an intense
consumer bonding with a brand. Additionally, consumer brand
engagement represents a rewarding experience for a consumer
that is positive and fullling. This experience encompasses emotional, cognitive and behavioral aspects as reected by the dimensions of vigor, dedication, absorption and vigor respectively.
Once such a rewarding bond is developed, consumers are likely to
commit to preserving such a relationship (Lambe et al., 2001).
Developing future loyalty intentions towards a brand acts as a
consumer mechanism of preserving their relationship with the
preferred brand. Consumer loyalty represents a deeply held
commitment to re-buy or re-patronize preferred product/services
consistently in the future (Oliver, 1999, p. 34). Once consumers
are engaged with brands, they may develop approach behaviors

(Esch et al., 2006) given the strong emotive aspect of engagement.

Further, consumer brand engagement entails sustained interactions between consumers and brands (Hollebeek, 2011), leading to
formation of psychological bonds that a consumer is likely to
sustain in future. Moreover, a consumer may also refrain from
switching to competing offerings (Oliver, 1999), as these may not
offer the same rewarding relationship (i.e., engagement). Specically, consumer may engage in loyalty behaviors such as repeat
buying, resist brand switching and spreading positive word-ofmouth. Increasingly researchers are beginning to observe a direct
impact of relational constructs on loyalty intentions (Loureiro
et al., 2012; Nysveen et al., 2014). Hence we hypothesize
H4. Consumer brand engagement has a direct positive impact on
loyalty intentions.
2.4. Consumer brand engagement versus quality, value and satisfaction as predictors
Traditionally, consumer loyalty intentions have been shown to
be primarily driven by consumer evaluative judgments, that is,
perceptions of product quality, value received and overall satisfaction (e.g., Cronin et al., 2000; Yang and Patterson, 2004;
Zeithaml et al., 1996). Satisfaction judgments mainly involve consumers' assessments of a product as meeting expectations (Anderson and Sullivan, 1993), perceived quality is largely a reection
of a product's perceived superiority (Zeithaml, 1988) and, consumer-perceived value mainly entails a give (perceived sacrice)
versus get (perceived benet) estimation (Zeithaml, 1988). The
three concepts share commonalities. For instance, quality and
value are based in consumer' cognitive evaluations (Zeithaml,
1988), and satisfaction denotes consumers' cognitive and affective
state post consumption (Aurier and NGaola, 2010). The concepts
are therefore associated empirically as well. For instance, perceived value and customer satisfaction are considered as closely
related (Yang and Patterson, 2004). The traditional judgments are
limited however in their ability to adequately capture consumerbrand relational aspects, and hence may not be sufcient for a
brand's long-term success (Carroll and Ahuvia, 2006).
The consumer-brand relationship paradigm has overtime attempted to move beyond the explanatory capability of these traditional concepts to examine the explanation in consumer outcomes as attained by relational-oriented concepts. In the present

104

A. Dwivedi / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 24 (2015) 100109

context, we are interested in examining the additional explanatory

capability of the effect of consumer brand engagement on consumer loyalty intentions, after controlling for the effects of the
three traditional consumer judgments. Although we know that
building brand engagement is among managers' top priorities
(Burt, 2013), what is more critical is whether consumer brand
engagement has explanatory capability above and beyond that of
consumers' value, quality and satisfaction judgments. Specically,
we expect consumer brand engagement to attain signicantly
higher explanation in loyalty intentions relative to the explanation
attained by the three judgments cumulatively. We expect the additional explanation in loyalty intentions to arise due to the more
interactive and immersive nature of consumer brand engagement
as compared to the three traditional judgments (as explained in
the preceding sections). Hence, we hypothesize
H5. Consumer brand engagement will explain variance in loyalty
intentions that is additional to the variance explained cumulatively by consumer satisfaction, perceived value and perceived
quality judgments.

3. Methodology
3.1. Design: survey context and data collection
We collected data using a survey of a convenience sample of
420 mobile phone users in New Delhi, India. The respondents
were business students enrolled at a management college. Mobile
phones were chosen as the context of the study since India is one
of the biggest mobile phone markets in the world (Kenny, 2014)
and young consumers represent a major segment in this market
(Chaturvedi, 2011). Recent research suggests that consumers actively engage with product brands (Sarkar and Sreejesh, 2014).
Mobile phones thus add an interesting context to the study. The
Indian mobile phone market is dynamic and becoming fragmented
in recent years. Brands such as Samsung, Apple, Nokia, Karbonn
and HTC jointly capture over three-quarters of the market share at
the time of the survey (Sen, 2013; The Hindu, 2014). We offered
these brands as well as other options as choices to respondents in
the survey, namely, Samsung, Nokia, Apple, HTC, Karbonn, LG,
Sony Ericsson and Blackberry. We also allowed the respondents to
nominate an unlisted brand given the rapid changes in the market
shares as well as emergence of local brands. Moreover, there is
increasing evidence that mobile phone usage per capita is increasing globally. For instance, in the US and the UK, reports
suggest that consumers are spending on an average around 34 and
41 hours per month respectively on mobile phones (Nielson,
2014). In India approximately 81% of the population owns a mobile
phone (Nielson, 2013), and on an average, consumers spend an
approximately 3 hours per day on mobile phones (Ericsson Consumer Lab, 2013). Thus, mobile phones offer a suitable context to
study consumer brand engagement.
The survey was paper-based and self-administered. We collected data with the assistance of the academic staff members of
the college. The academics were given explicit instructions by the
research team regarding how to brief the respondents prior to the
start of the survey. The surveys were handed out in classrooms at
the beginning of a lecture and the students were requested to
voluntarily participate in the survey. The specic research objectives were not revealed to the respondents so as to limit sociallydesirable responses. The respondents were assured that there
were no right or wrong answers. Respondents were given around
20 minutes to complete the survey. Data was collected over a three
week period.

3.2. Questionnaire design and measures

The questionnaire was designed with the objective of potentially minimizing various response biases. The self-administered
nature of the survey helped to minimize acquiescence/disacquiescence bias (Jaffe and Pasternak, 1997). The wording of the
questions was straightforward in accordance with the usage in the
literature, potentially minimizing respondent confusion that might
lead to response and non-response error. We maintained respondent anonymity throughout the survey, potentially reducing
chances of socially-desirable responses. The general topic of the
survey also minimized the chances of social desirability bias.
Lastly, the items pertaining to the antecedents and outcome
variable (i.e., loyalty intentions) were presented on separate pages,
partly addressing the threat of self-generated validity (Feldman
and Lynch, 1988). To minimize the incidence of common method
bias, the questionnaire was designed in accordance with the
guidelines of Podsakoff et al. (2003). Specically, we sub-divided
the questionnaire into sections, avoided the use of negativelyworded items, and also ensured that the survey items did not
contain hidden cues to respondents (i.e., item demand characteristics); minimizing potential common method bias. We also conducted post hoc tests to examine the severity of common method
bias (discussed later in the paper).
The constructs of the study were measured using multi-item
7-point Likert Scales anchored at strongly agree (7) to strongly
disagree (1), with fully-labeled scale points. The measures of
constructs were adapted from the literature. The measures for
consumer brand engagement were adapted from Menguc et al.
(2013). Vigor was measured using six items. Dedication and
absorption were operationalized using ve and six items respectively. Construct measurement is further discussed in the following section. Overall, the consumer brand engagement scale
comprised 17 items. Consumer product category involvement was
measured using four items derived from the involvement literature (Albrecht et al., 2013; Mittal, 1995). Brand usage duration was
operationalized using a single-item measure in accordance with
the literature (Dagger et al., 2009; Dodd et al., 2005). No measurement error was assumed for the single-item measure (Dodd
et al., 2005). Perceived quality was measured using four items
derived from Spry et al. (2011). Similarly, four items derived from
the literature measured perceived value (Johnson et al., 2006), and
four items measured consumer satisfaction (Aurier and NGaola,
2010). Loyalty intentions were operationalized using four items
based on Johnson et al. (2006).

4. Data analysis and results

4.1. Preliminary analyses
The 420 survey questionnaires were rst cleaned. There were
eight scripts that had extreme responses almost throughout the
length of the survey (i.e., respondents had marked 7s throughout
on the 7-point scales, showing no variation). These were deemed
unacceptable and suitably omitted (Malhotra, 2010). Additionally,
four scripts that had virtually no responses marked were also
eliminated. Lack of interest in the study might have led some respondents to leave their script blank. Thus, a total of 408 scripts
were available for further analysis. The useable scripts were examined for missing values. Missing values were less than 1% of the
total values and these were replaced using Expectation Maximization algorithms (Hair et al., 2010). Next, we examined the
extent of common method bias using a common factor test,
whereby a single method factor was estimated using conrmatory
factor analysis (Podsakoff et al., 2003). The hypothesized

A. Dwivedi / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 24 (2015) 100109

105

Table 1
Descriptives and bivariate correlations.
Construct

Mean

S.D.

VIG

DED

ABS

DUR

INV

QUL

VAL

SAT

Vigor (VIG)
Dedication (DED)
Absorption (ABS)
Brand usage duration (DUR)
Product category involvement (INV)
Perceived quality (QUL)
Perceived value (VAL)
Satisfaction (SAT)
Loyalty intentions (LOY)

5.21
5.06
4.70
2.09
5.35
5.54
5.40
5.60
4.82

1.23
1.25
1.31
1.71
1.21
1.11
1.14
1.13
1.60

0.81nn
0.65nn
 0.02n.s.
0.31nn
0.69nn
0.59nn
0.68nn
0.73nn

0.70nn
 0.05n.s.
0.38nn
0.66nn
0.53nn
0.63nn
0.70nn

 0.05n.s.
0.40nn
0.46nn
0.46nn
0.43nn
0.57nn

 0.06n.s.
 0.03n.s.
0.00n.s.
0.03n.s.
 0.02n.s

0.29nn
0.23nn
0.22nn
0.21nn

0.65nn
0.76nn
0.62nn

0.67nn
0.56nn

0.66nn

Cronbach's alpha

Composite reliability

AVE

0.87

0.88

0.54

0.88

0.88

0.60

0.89

0.90

0.59

Note: n.s. not signicant.

nn

Signicance at 0.01 level.

Table 2
Reliability and validity estimates of rst-order constructs.
First-order constructs and items

Standardized loading (sig.)

Vigor
I feel strong and vigorous when using my brand of mobile phone
I am passionate about using my brand of mobile phone
When interacting with my brand, I feel full of energy
I can continue using my brand for very long periods
I would like to stick with my brand despite some problems with it
When I get up in the morning, I feel like using my mobile

0.85nn
0.84nn
0.75nn
0.75nn
0.63nn
0.56nn

Dedication
I feel enthusiastic when interacting with my brand of phone
I am proud of my brand of mobile phone
My brand of mobile phone inspires me
My brand of mobile phone gives me meaning and purpose
I use my brand of mobile phone with complete dedication

0.82nn
0.80nn
0.78nn
0.77nn
0.70nn

Absorption
I get carried away when I interact with my brand of mobile phone
I am usually absorbed when using my brand of mobile phone
When I am using my mobile phone, I forget everything else
It is difcult to detach myself when I am using my mobile phone
I feel happy when I am interacting with my mobile phone
Time ies when I am interacting with my mobile phone

0.84nn
0.80nn
0.79nn
0.77nn
0.70nn
0.70nn

Product category involvement

Mobile phones interest me a lot
Mobile phones matter a lot to me
I attach great importance to mobile phones
I am fascinated by mobile phones

0.86nn
0.81nn
0.80nn
0.77nn

0.88

0.88

0.66

Perceived quality
My brand of mobile
My brand of mobile
My brand of mobile
My brand of mobile

0.79nn
0.79nn
0.78nn
0.77nn

0.86

0.86

0.61

Perceived value
My brand of mobile phone provides me good value
My brand provides a good deal relative to others
My brand offers good quality for a reasonable price
My brand of mobile phone is competitively priced

0.85nn
0.75nn
0.69nn
0.56nn

0.81

0.81

0.52

Satisfaction
I did the right thing when I bought this brand
I am satised with my brand
My brand meets my expectations
My choice is a wise one

0.83nn
0.82nn
0.80nn
0.71nn

0.86

0.87

0.63

Loyalty intentions
I would recommend this brand to friends
I will buy my chosen brand again
I will not buy another brand if this is present in the store
If I got any mobile for free, I will choose my brand

0.87nn
0.84nn
0.79nn
0.67nn

0.87

0.87

0.63

phone
phone
phone
phone

is of high quality
has excellent features
is very reliable
provides consistent quality

Note: AVE refers to average variance extracted.

nn

Signicance level p o0.01.

106

A. Dwivedi / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 24 (2015) 100109

measurement model of this research yielded an acceptable t

(2(610) 1453.77, po 0.05; CFI0.92; RMSEA 0.058) compared
to the single method factor's unacceptable t to data (i.e., Chisquare, 2(664) 4228.01, p o0.05; CFI 0.65; RMSEA 0.115). The
test suggests that common method bias does not seem to be a
serious threat.
4.2. Descriptives and correlations
A check of item Skewness indicated that all values ranged from
1.70 to  0.34. Most Kurtosis values were within  1.08 to 1.73.
Only two items pertaining to satisfaction have Kurtosis values of 3.58
and 2.02, corresponding to items I am satised with my brand of
mobile phone and The brand of mobile phone meets my expectations respectively. These values were deemed as not threatening
normality (Ory and Mokhtarian, 2010). Moreover, our chosen maximum-likelihood estimation method was considered generally robust
to moderate violations of normality (Bollen, 1989). Construct means
(factor scores), standard deviations and inter-correlation estimates
reported in Table 1. Scaled construct means range from 4.70 to 5.66
(out of 7.0) and corresponding standard deviations range from 1.12 to
1.60. Brand usage duration had a mean of 2.09 years with a standard
deviation of 1.17. Most correlations were positive and signicant for
all pairs of constructs. Brand usage duration was not signicantly
correlated with other constructs.

Given that we adapt our measure of consumer brand engagement from the organizational psychology literature (e.g., Menguc
et al., 2013), we estimated several other competing conrmatory
factor analytic models to afrm the construct's factor structure in
the present context. We engaged in this exercise since Menguc
et al. (2013) and Salanova et al. (2005) show that the three dimensions are highly correlated, implying that certain dimensions
can be potentially collapsed into (i.e., specied to load on to) one
or more latent factor/s. So we explicitly test for such possible
competing models. We rst estimated a single-factor model, specifying all items to load on a single engagement factor
(2(119) 878.35, p o0.05). Then we estimated various secondorder two-dimensional models whereby the items pertaining to
every pair of the hypothesized dimensions of engagement are
specied on to a single factor. For instance, one such model was
estimated whereby the items of Absorption and Dedication were
allowed to load on to a single factor (2(119) 750.12, p o0.05).
Other combinations were also examined. The examination suggests that our chosen higher-order three-dimensional model elicits signicantly better statistical t (at 95% condence level) as
compared to the competing measurement models, offering condence in our operationalization.
4.4. Hypotheses testing
After examining the t of our measurement model (e.g.,

4.3. Measurement model analysis

Structural equation modeling (SEM) using IBM AMOS 20.0
software was used for data analysis. We estimated our hypothesized measurement model using conrmatory factor analysis
(CFA). The measurement model elicits a signicant Chi-square (i.e.,
2(610) 1453.77, p o0.05). Other t indices suggest an acceptable
t to data (i.e., Normed 2 2.36; Comparative Fit Index, CFI 0.92,
TuckerLewis Index, TLI 0.91; Root Mean Square Error of Approximation, RMSEA 0.058) which suggest construct validity. We
also conducted others tests of reliability and validity. Table 2 reports the standardized item loadings, reliability estimates and
average variance extracted (AVE) scores. All item loadings were
greater than 0.50, suggesting adequate convergent validity (Hair
et al., 2010), further supported by AVE scores greater than 0.50
(Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Cronbach's Alpha and Composite Reliability estimates were above 0.80 for all constructs, indicating
acceptable reliability. Discriminant validity was supported for
most constructs as the square-root of AVE for most constructs was
greater than the respective standardized correlation coefcient
with most other constructs (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). However,
the two constructs of vigor and dedication do not seem to meet
the Fornell and Larcker criterion of discriminant validity. Hence,
we conducted a battery of other tests to examine whether or not
the two constructs were statistically distinct. First, we examined
the 95% condence intervals (CIs) around the correlation estimate
between vigor and dedication. The 95% CI (0.760.85) does not
include 1.0. This suggests the lack of a perfect correlation among
vigor and dedication, indicative of discriminant validity among the
two dimensions. Second, we conducted a Chi-square difference
test using a CFA. Specically, we compared our hypothesized
three-dimensional factor structure of consumer brand engagement with an alternate two-dimensional factor structure, whereby
items of vigor and dedication were allowed to load on a single
dimension. The two-dimensional model (i.e., 2(118) 602.19,
p o0.05) was signicantly worse-tting than the three-dimensional model (i.e., 2(115) 470.48, p o0.05). Therefore, these tests
jointly suggest that vigor and dedication were statistically distinct
and that consumer brand engagement was better represented as a
three-dimensional construct.

2(610) 1453.77, p o0.05; CFI 0.92; RMSEA 0.058), we examined the second-order path loadings of consumer brand engagement. We observed that consumer brand engagement
signicantly explained the rst-order dimensions: vigor (standardized beta coefcient, 0.95, Critical Ratio, CR 10.42, p o0.01),
dedication ( 0.96, CR 12.23, p o0.01) and absorption ( 0.79,
CR 10.42, p o0.01). This result supports hypothesis H1. Following
this examination, we estimated our structural model. The
structural model yielded a signicant Chi-square (i.e.,
2(646) 1779.67, p o0.05). Other t indices were TLI 0.88,
CFI0.89; RMSEA 0.066. Given the relatively small sample size
vis--vis the number of observed indicators in the present study,
we adopted a somewhat exible view towards cut-offs of various
t indices. For small samples and models with large number of
observed variables, cut-off values for CFI and TLI (i.e., cut-off value
of less than 0.90) and RMSEA (i.e., cut-off value: 0.070.08) are
considered to be indicative of acceptable t (Sharma et al., 2005).
Thus, the t of our structural model was deemed as adequate. Next
we examined the hypothesized explanatory paths.
As expected consumers' product category involvement exerted
a signicant impact on consumer brand engagement ( 0.46,
CR 7.47, p o0.01), supporting hypothesis H2. Contrary to expectations, brand usage duration did not signicantly inuence
consumer brand engagement (  0.02, CR  0.403, p 0.69).
Thus, hypothesis H3 was not supported. Consumer brand engagement did exert a signicant impact on consumer loyalty intentions ( 0.65, CR 10.35, p o0.01), thereby supporting hypothesis H4. Regarding the (controlled) impacts of perceived
quality, value and satisfaction on loyalty intentions, only satisfaction signicantly impacted loyalty intentions ( 0.43, CR 3.46,
po 0.01). The effects of perceived value and quality on loyalty
intentions were non-signicant. Table 3 reports the relevant
structural path estimates.
4.5. Examining additional explanation in loyalty intentions by consumer brand engagement
We also examined the added value of consumer brand engagement in explaining loyalty intentions (i.e., hypothesis H5) in
two steps. First, we estimated a base model specifying the effects

A. Dwivedi / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 24 (2015) 100109

107

Table 3
Structural path estimates.
Explanatory paths

Standardized coefcient ()

Critical ratio

Signicance (p)

Product category involvement-consumer brand engagement

Brand usage experience-consumer brand engagement
Consumer brand engagement-loyalty intentions

0.46
 0.02
0.65

7.47
 0.40
10.35

0.69

Traditional inuences on loyalty intentions (controls)

Perceived quality-loyalty intentions
Perceived value-loyalty intentions
Satisfaction-loyalty intentions

 0.11
0.08
0.43

 0.94
0.99
3.46

nn

**

**

0.35
0.32
**

p o0.01.

of quality, value and satisfaction on loyalty intentions. The base

model tted the data well (i.e., 2(98) 221.49, p o0.05; CFI 0.96;
RMSEA 0.056). Consumer judgments of quality ( 0.21, p 0.08)
and satisfaction ( 0.46, po 0.01) exerted signicant impacts on
loyalty intentions at 10% and 5% levels of signicance respectively.
Perceived value did not signicantly affect the outcome. The base
model explained around 57% of the variance in the outcome.
Second, we augmented the base model by specifying consumer
brand engagement as an added explanatory variable. The augmented model yielded acceptable t (i.e., 2(481) 1207.41,
p o0.05; CFI 0.92; RMSEA 0.061). The effect of consumer
brand engagement on loyalty intentions was also signicant
( 0.66, p o 0.01) and importantly, around 73% of the variance
in loyalty intentions was explained. Consumer brand engagement explained variance in loyalty intentions that is additional
to the variance explained cumulatively by perceived value,
perceived quality and consumer satisfaction judgments. Thus,
our results support hypothesis H5. Next, we discuss the results
of our study.

5. Discussion and conclusions

The small but growing body of literature on consumer brand
engagement emphasizes its role as a pivotal consumer-brand relationship construct. Our rst objective was to empirically examine a multi-dimensional model of consumer brand engagement
that is dened as consumers' positive, fullling, brand-use-related
state of mind and is characterized by vigor, dedication and absorption. Our results supported a three-dimensional factor structure. Dedication, the emotional component, emerged as the
strongest dimension of brand engagement, validating the strong
emotive nature of brand engagement. Vigor, the behavioral component, was the second strongest dimension of consumer brand
engagement, supporting that mobile phone consumers seem to be
investing effort when interacting with their preferred brand. Absorption, the cognitive component was the third strongest dimension, implying that consumers were fully concentrated and
happily engrossed in brand interactions. Our results are consistent
with the emergent group of studies that suggests a multi-dimensional nature of consumer brand engagement (Brodie et al., 2011;
Hollebeek, 2011). More broadly, our results compare favorably
with notions of value-in-use (Grnroos and Voima, 2013) and relational benets (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2002). Consumers' ongoing
interactions with brands are a fundamental characteristic of brand
engagement which may be conceived as a kind of value-in-use
(e.g., providing pleasurable and absorbing interactions). Similarly,
brand engagement seems to offer relational benets to consumers
relative to competitive offerings. Overall, we support the nature of
consumer brand engagement as a deep level of bond between
consumers and brands. A theoretical implication of our nding is
that we offer conceptual clarity to the construct, especially early in

its life-cycle. Attaining such clarity is vital since some experts

question the very nature of (and perhaps the need for) the engagement construct. For instance, Don Schultz claims that engagement, the way that it is seemingly being dened and practiced
today by marketers and supported by academic studies, often
seems to be nothing more than a reinvention of one of the oldest
tools in the marketing arsenal: sales promotion. (Schultz, 2013, p.
20). Our results offer a clearer picture of the construct, offering a
holistic multi-faceted view. Additionally, by empirically validating
an organizational-psychology-based engagement measure in the
context of consumer-brand relationship, we offer a useable measure for consumer behavior researchers.
The second objective of this research was to examine the
impact of consumer brand engagement on consumer loyalty
intentions, that is, to examine the managerial utility of brand
engagement. First, we observed that consumer brand engagement
exerted a strong direct impact on consumer loyalty intentions,
after controlling for the effects of the traditional value, quality and
satisfaction judgments. This result complements the consumerbrand relationship literature that outlines a pivotal role of
relational constructs in explaining marketing outcomes (Carroll
and Ahuvia, 2006; Loureiro et al., 2012). Specically, our study
positions consumer brand engagement as a vital predictor of
consumer loyalty intentions. From a theoretical perspective, we
position loyalty intentions as an outcome of consumer brand engagement, validating the nomological network of the construct
that is outlined in some early conceptual work in the area (Brodie
et al., 2011). A major contribution of the study has been the added
explanatory power of consumer brand engagement in explaining
consumer loyalty intentions. Specically, the results of this study
suggest that consumer brand engagement explains signicantly
more variation in loyalty intentions relative to the variation explained jointly by consumer perceptions of value, quality and satisfaction. We observed that value, quality and satisfaction jointly
explained around 57% of variation in loyalty intentions; the estimate signicantly improves by 16 percentage points upon the
introduction of consumer brand engagement as an added predictor. Besides, the consumer brand engagement emerged as the
strongest predictor among the specied antecedents. Thus, our
results complement the consumer-brand relationship paradigm,
suggesting that relational aspects are better predictors of desired
marketing outcomes than the other antecedents considered. A
managerial implication of the ndings is that consumer brand
engagement is a concept that has much practical utility, above and
beyond that of value, quality and satisfaction. It seems that provision of value, quality, and satisfaction are bare minimum requirements for brands to compete in a market. It is the relational
aspect however, specically consumer brand engagement, that
may provide competitive advantages to brands. Moreover, in an
era where consumers seek entertaining and stimulating experiences (Schmitt, 1999), generating consumer brand engagement
may help to retain customers. Thus practitioners are advised to

108

A. Dwivedi / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 24 (2015) 100109

devise ways via investing in product design that offer stimulating

and absorbing experiences to consumers.
Additionally, we examined consumer product category involvement as an antecedent of consumer brand engagement. The
constructs of involvement and engagement entail a degree of
heightened relevance, the former with a product category and the
latter with a specic brand. Given the theoretical overlap among
the two constructs, it is important to empirically differentiate the
two constructs if the subsequent effects of consumer brand engagement are to be better understood. We observed that consumer product category involvement had a signicant impact on
consumer brand engagement. This is an interesting nding because it signies that degree of relevance ascribed by consumers to
a product category has a direct inuence on subsequent postpurchase engagement with specic (preferred) brands in that category. We also provided empirical validation to the involvement
engagement relationship outlined in the conceptual literature
(Brodie et al., 2011). A managerial implication of our nding is that
practitioners should refrain from treating consumers' product category involvement and consumers' brand-specic engagement as
similar (although the two are associated). Category involvement is
seemingly a good predictor of specic brand engagement. Consumers who are generally involved with a product category are
likely to engage with preferred brands in that category. This may
create opportunities for marketers to potentially target highlyinvolved existing consumers with relationship-building programs.
Further, we also examined the role of brand usage experience
in shaping consumer brand engagement. Contrary to expectations,
we nd that brand usage experience has no direct signicant inuence on consumer brand engagement. The non-signicant
nding is interesting. It seems that habitual factors may not play a
major role in directly explaining the degree of brand engagement.
The non-signicant path may be a reection of post-modern
consumer behavior, whereby consumers largely seek ongoing experiences with brands in the present (Schmitt, 1999). Hence, brand
usage experiences of the past may not gure in consumer assessments of brand engagement. This dynamic may also be more
relevant to the nature of the cohort investigated in this research
generation Y consumers. These young consumers tend to live in
the present, adopt a short-term perspective and seek instant
gratication of needs (Viswanathan and Jain, 2013). Engagement
fulls consumers' relational needs in the present, and hence past
experience with a brand seemingly has little impact on engagement. A managerial implication is that a brand's strong historic
presence in a market may offer no guarantee of generating consumer brand engagement in the present. This may also imply that
new and emerging brands in a market (without a strong historic
presence) may yet have a reasonable chance at developing engagement with consumers, potentially developing a reasonable
market presence. A case in point is that of a local mobile phone
brand in India called Micromax, which has developed a strong
market share in the country (relative to major international
brands) in a reasonably short span of time (Khan, 2014).
An added contribution of this study has been the product brand
context in which the study was conducted. The emergent studies
on consumer brand engagement have been conducted within the
context of consumers' online behavior (Brodie et al., 2013). However there is emergent evidence that consumers can and do engage with product brands (Sarkar and Sreejesh, 2014). Given the
ubiquity of mobile phones and their growing per capita usage, we
introduced a novel context to the study of consumer brand engagement. Overall, our study suggests that consumers actively
engage with mobile phones, demonstrating vigor, dedication and
absorption. More broadly our study complements research that
investigates consumers' relationships with product brands (Carroll
and Ahuvia, 2006; Loureiro et al., 2012).

5.1. Limitations and future research

A clear limitation is the cross-sectional design, representing a
snapshot of consumer-brand dynamics. Consumer brand engagement may evolve time, and so might the weightings of the three
dimensions. Future research may investigate this issue using
temporal survey designs. Another limitation is the convenience
sampling used in the present research. Future research should be
therefore conducted using alternative sampling designs in order to
achieve generalizability across consumer groups. For instance,
systematic random sampling of a brand's customers (enrolled on a
brand's product warranty database) can be used to generate a
probability sample. Additionally, to further the understanding of
the nomological network of consumer brand engagement, it will
be useful to examine relationships of brand engagement with
other relational constructs. An interesting avenue could be to examine how consumer self-construal process ts in the nomological network of brand engagement. For instance, the role of brand
engagement in self-concept (Sprott et al., 2009) may partly explain
brand engagement. Research questions may also be framed around
the role of consumer relational tendencies (e.g., relationship orientation), as predictors of consumer brand engagement. Finally,
this research was conducted using a single country and a single
product category as context. Future research should replicate the
estimated relationships across different markets using different
product categories (and perhaps conduct cross product category
comparisons) to attain a much fuller understanding of the consumer brand engagement.

References
Albrecht, C.M., Backhaus, C., Gurzki, H., Woisetschlger, D.M., 2013. Drivers of brand
extension success: what really matters for luxury brands? Psychol. Mark. 30 (8),
647659.
Anderson, E., Weitz, B., 1989. Determinants of continuity in conventional industrial
channel dyads. Mark. Sci. 8 (4), 310323.
Anderson, E.W., Sullivan, M.W., 1993. The antecedents and consequences of customer satisfaction for rms. Mark. Sci. 12 (2), 125143.
Aurier, P., NGaola, G., 2010. The differing and mediating roles of trust and relationship commitment in service relationship maintenance and development.
J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 38 (3), 303325.
Bendapudi, N., Berry, L.L., 1997. Customers' motivations for maintaining relationships with service providers. J. Retail. 73 (1), 1537.
Bollen, K.A., 1989. Structural Equations with Latent Variables. Wiley, New York.
Bove, L.L., Smith, D.A., 2006. Relationship strength between a customer and service
worker. Serv. Mark. Q. 27 (3), 1734.
Brodie, R.J., Hollebeek, L.D., Juric, B., Ilic, A., 2011. Customer engagement: conceptual domain, fundamental propositions, and implications for research. J.
Serv. Res. 14 (3), 252271.
Brodie, R.J., Ilic, A., Juric, B., Linda Hollebeek, L., 2013. Consumer engagement in a
virtual brand community: an exploratory analysis. J. Bus. Res. 66 (1), 105114.
Burt, T., 2013. Customer Engagement Top Priority for CMOs. 02 July. Fierce CMO,
Available at: http://www.ercecmo.com/story/customer-engagement-toppriority-cmos/2013-07-02 (accessed 23.10.14).
Carroll, B.A., Ahuvia, A.C., 2006. Some antecedents and outcomes of brand love.
Mark. Lett. 17 (2), 7989.
Chaturvedi, P., 2011. India's Big Three Mobile Brands and Life Beyond the Price War
(WARC Exclusive). World Advertising Research Centre. Available at: http://
www.warc.com/Content/ContentViewer.aspx?MasterContentRef c063d0d99390-46eb-b3d4615700f4d09e&q Indias big three mobile brands and life beyond
the price war&CID A94914&PUB WARC-EXCLUSIVE (accessed 23.10.14).
Creamer, M., 2006. ARF Reveals Working Denition of Engagement in Moving from
Buzzword to Industry Standard, It's a Start. Advertise Age, March 21. Available
at: http://adage.com/article/media/arf-reveals-working-denition-engage
ment/107946/ (accessed 23.10.14).
Cronin, J.J., Brady, M.K., Hult, G.T.M., 2000. Assessing the effects of quality, value,
and customer satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service environments. J. Retail. 76 (2), 193218.
Dagger, T.S., Danaher, P.J., Gibbs, B.J., 2009. How often versus how long: the interplay of contact frequency and relationship duration in customer-reported service relationship strength. J. Serv. Res. 11 (4), 371388.
Dodd, T.H., Laverie, D.A., Wilcox, J.F., Duhan, D.F., 2005. Differential effects of experience, subjective knowledge, and objective knowledge on sources of information used in consumer wine purchasing. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 29 (1), 319.

A. Dwivedi / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 24 (2015) 100109

Ericsson Consumer Lab, 2013. Performance Shapes Smartphone Behavior: Understanding Mobile Broadband User Expectations in India. An Ericsson Consumer
Insight Summary Report, July. Available at: http://www.ericsson.com/res/docs/
2014/performance-shapes-smartphone-behavior.pdf (accessed 23.10.14).
Esch, F.-R., Langner, T., Schmitt, B.H., Geus, P., 2006. Are brands forever? How brand
knowledge and relationships affect current and future purchases. J. Prod. Brand
Manag. 15 (2), 98105.
Feldman, J.M., Lynch, J.G., 1988. Self-generated validity and other effects of measurement on belief, attitude, intention and behavior. J. Appl. Psychol. 73 (3),
421435.
Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 18 (1), 3950.
Fournier, S., 1998. Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in
consumer research. J. Consum. Res. 24 (4), 343373.
Gambetti, R.C., Grafgna, G., 2010. The concept of engagement: a systematic analysis of the ongoing marketing debate. Int. J. Mark. Res. 52 (6), 801826.
Gill, M.J., Swann, W.B., Silvera, D.H., 1998. On the genesis of condence. J. Person.
Soc. Psychol. 75 (5), 11011114.
Goldsmith, R., 2012. Brand engagement and brand loyalty In: Kapoor, A., Kulshrestha, C. (Eds.), Branding and Sustainable Competitive Advantage: Building
Virtual Presence. IGI Global, Hershey, PA, pp. 121135.
Grnroos, C., Voima, P., 2013. Critical service logic: making sense of value creation
and co-creation. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 41 (2), 133150.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., 2010. Multivariate Data Analysis.
Prentice Hall, NJ.
Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K.P., Gremler, D.D., 2002. Understanding relationship
marketing outcomes: an integration of relational benets and relationship
quality. J. Serv. Res. 4 (3), 230247.
Hollebeek, L.D., 2011. Demystifying customer brand engagement: exploring the
loyalty nexus. J. Mark. Manag. 27 (78), 785807.
Jaffe, E.D., Pasternak, H., 1997. A note on the response effects of laboratory- versus
respondent-located computer-administered questioning. Ind. Mark. Manag. 26
(3), 237243.
Jarvis, C.B., MacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, P.M., 2003. A critical review of construct
indicators and measurement model misspecication in marketing and consumer research. J. Consum. Res. 30 (2), 199218.
Johnson, M.D., Herrmann, A., Huber, F., 2006. The evolution of loyalty-intentions. J.
Mark. 70 (2), 122132.
Kenny, J., 2014. India, other Markets to Overtake Mobile by 2019. Blouin News Blogs
(June 3). Available at: http://blogs.blouinnews.com/blouinbeattechnology/
2014/06/03/india-other-markets-to-overtake-mobile-by-2019/ (accessed
23.10.14).
Khan, D., 2014. Micromax Overtakes Samsung to Become Leading India Handset
Vendor in Q2. The Economic Times (August 04). Available at: http://articles.
economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-08-04/news/52428502_1_micromaxsmartphone-segment-phone-market (accessed 23.10.14).
Kumar, N., Scheer, L.K., Steenkamp, J.-B.E.M., 1995. The effects of supplier fairness
on vulnerable resellers. J. Mark. Res. 32 (1), 5465.
Lambe, C.J., Wittman, C.M., Spekman, R.E., 2001. Social exchange theory and research on business to business relational exchange. J. Bus. Bus. Mark. 8 (3),
136.
Lau, G.T., Lee, S.H., 1999. Consumers' trust in a brand and the link to brand loyalty. J.
Mark. Focus. Manag. 4 (4), 341370.
Loureiro, S.M.C., Ruediger, K.H., Demetris, V., 2012. Brand emotional connection and
loyalty. J. Brand Manag. 20 (1), 1327.
Malhotra, N.K., 2010. Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation. Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Mano, H., Oliver, R.L., 1993. Assessing the dimensionality and structure of the
consumption experience: evaluation, feeling, and satisfaction. J. Consum. Res.
20 (3), 451466.
Menguc, B., Auh, S., Fisher, M., Haddad, A., 2013. To be engaged or not to be engaged: the antecedents and consequences of service employee engagement. J.
Bus. Res. 66 (11), 21632170.
Mittal, B., 1995. A comparative analysis of four scales of consumer involvement.
Psychol. Mark. 12 (7), 663682.
Nielson, 2013. The Mobile Consumer: A Global Snapshot. Nielsen's 2013 Mobile
Consumer Report. Available at: http://www.nielsen.com/content/dam/corpo
rate/us/en/reports-downloads/2013%20Reports/Mobile-Consumer-Report2013.pdf (accessed 23.10.14).
Nielson, 2014. Smartphones: So Many Apps, So Much Time. July 01. Available at:
http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2014/smartphones-so-manyappsso-much-time.html (accessed 23.10.14).
Nysveen, H., Pedersen, P.E., Skar, S., 2014. Brand experiences in service organizations: exploring the individual effects of brand experience dimensions. J. Brand
Manag. 20 (5), 404423.
Oliver, R.L., 1999. Whence consumer loyalty? J. Mark. 63 (4), 3344.
Ory, D.T., Mokhtarian, P.L., 2010. The impact of non-normality, sample size and

109

estimation technique on goodness-of-t measures in structural equation

modeling: evidence from ten empirical models of travel behavior. Qual. Quant.
44 (3), 427445.
Palmatier, R.W., Dant, R.P., Grewal, D., Evans, K.R., 2006. Factors inuencing the
effectiveness of relationship marketing: a meta analysis. J. Mark. 70 (4),
136153.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.M., Lee, J.-Y., Podsakoff, N.P., 2003. Common method
biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 88 (5), 879903.
Salanova, M., Agut, S., Pier, J.M., 2005. Linking organizational resources and work
engagement to employee performance and customer loyalty: the mediation of
service climate. J. Appl. Psychol. 90 (6), 12171227.
Sarkar, A., Sreejesh, S., 2014. Examination of the roles played by brand love and
jealousy in shaping customer engagement. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 23 (1), 2432.
Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B., 2004. Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study. J. Organ. Behav. 25 (3), 293315.
Schaufeli, W.B., Martnez, I.M., Pinto, A.M., Salanova, M., Bakker, A.B., 2002. Burnout
and engagement in university students: a cross-national study. J. Cross-Cult.
Psychol. 33 (5), 464481.
Schmitt, B., 1999. Experiential marketing. J. Mark. Manag. 15 (13), 5367.
Schultz, D., 2013. Social media's slippery slope. Mark. News 47 (2), 2021.
Schultz, D., 2007. Focus on brand changes rules of engagement. Mark. News 41 (13),
78.
Sen, S., 2013. Samsung Loses Smartphone Market Share in Second Half of 2012.
Business Today, February 27. Available at: http://businesstoday.intoday.in/
story/2012-samsung-loses-smartphone-market-share-in-2ndhalf/1/192856.
html (accessed 23.10.14).
Sharma, S., Mukherjee, S., Kumar, A., Dillon, W.R., 2005. A simulation study to investigate the use of cutoff values for assessing model t in covariance structure
models. J. Bus. Res. 58 (7), 935943.
Sonnentag, S., 2003. Recovery, work engagement, and proactive behavior: a new
look at the interface between nonwork and work. J. Appl. Psychol. 88 (3),
518528.
Sprott, D., Czellar, S., Spangenberg, E., 2009. The importance of a general measure of
brand engagement on market behavior: development and validation of a scale.
J. Mark. Res. 46 (1), 92104.
Spry, A., Pappu, R., Cornwell, B.T., 2011. Celebrity endorsements, brand credibility
and brand equity. Eur. J. Mark. 45 (6), 882909.
Sullivan, E.A., 2009. Engage your target: customer engagement with your brand just
might be the proof of ROI you're looking for. Mark. News 43 (4), 20.
The Hindu, 2014. Indian Glued to Smartphones: Study. The Hindu, July 23. Available
at: http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/indians-glued-tosmartphones-study/article6239350.ece (accessed 23.10.14).
van Doorn, J., Lemon, K.N., Mittal, V., Nass, S., Pick, D., Pirner, P., Verhoef, P.C., 2010.
Customer engagement behavior: theoretical foundations and research directions. J. Serv. Res. 13 (3), 253266.
Verhoef, P.C., Franses, P.H., Hoekstra, J.C., 2002. The effect of relational constructs on
customer referrals and number of services purchased from a multiservice
provider: does age of relationship matter? J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 30 (3), 202216.
Viswanathan, V., Jain, V., 2013. A dual-system approach to understanding generation Y decision making. J. Consum. Mark. 30 (6), 484492.
Vivek, S.D., Beatty, S.E., Morgan, R.M., 2012. Customer engagement: exploring
customer relationships beyond purchase. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 20 (2), 127145.
Warrington, P., Shim, S., 2000. An empirical investigation of the relationship between product involvement and brand commitment. Psychol. Mark. 17 (9),
761782.
Yang, Z., Patterson, R.T., 2004. Customer perceived value, satisfaction, and loyalty:
the role of switching costs. Psychol. Mark. 21 (10), 799822.
Zaichkowsky, J.L., 1985. Measuring the involvement construct. J. Consum. Res. 12
(3), 341352.
Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L., Parasuraman, A., 1996. The behavioral consequences of
service loyalty. J. Mark. 60 (2), 3146.
Zeithaml, V.A., 1988. Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a meansend model and synthesis of evidence. J. Mark. 52 (3), 222.

Abhishek Dwivedi is a Lecturer in Marketing at Charles Sturt University, Australia.

His research interests are branding, consumer-brand relationships and social entrepreneurship. Some of his research appears in the Journal of Brand Management,
the Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, the Australasian Marketing Journal,
and the Journal of Consumer Marketing.