Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (2020) 48:1211–1228

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-020-00731-5

REVIEW PAPER

Customer engagement in social media:

a framework and meta-analysis
Fernando de Oliveira Santini 1 & Wagner Junior Ladeira 1 & Diego Costa Pinto 2 & Márcia Maurer Herter 3 &
Claudio Hoffmann Sampaio 4 & Barry J. Babin 5

Received: 17 August 2018 / Accepted: 28 April 2020 / Published online: 27 May 2020
# Academy of Marketing Science 2020

Abstract
This research examines customer engagement in social media (CESM) using a meta-analytic model of 814 effect sizes across 97
studies involving 161,059 respondents. Findings reveal that customer engagement is driven by satisfaction, positive emotions,
and trust, but not by commitment. Satisfaction is a stronger predictor of customer engagement in high (vs. low) convenience, B2B
(vs. B2C), and Twitter (vs. Facebook and Blogs). Twitter appears twice as likely as other social media platforms to improve
customer engagement via satisfaction and positive emotions. Customer engagement is also found to have substantial value for
companies, directly impacting firm performance, behavioral intention, and word-of-mouth. Moreover, hedonic consumption
yields nearly three times stronger customer engagement to firm performance effects vis-à-vis utilitarian consumption. However,
contrary to conventional managerial wisdom, word-of-mouth does not improve firm performance nor does it mediate customer
engagement effects on firm performance. Contributions to customer engagement theory, including an embellishment of the
customer engagement mechanics definition, and practical implications for managers are discussed.

Keywords Customer engagement . Firm performance . Meta-analysis . Online consumer behavior . Social media

Introduction (Hollebeek et al. 2014; Rietveld et al. 2020; Simon and Tossan
2018; Wang and Kim 2017). Nine out of ten medium and large
Marketing practitioners and scholars recognize that customer en- businesses spend a minimum of 11% of their total marketing
gagement in social media is an important marketing outcome budget on social media platforms like Twitter, Instagram,

John Hulland and Mark Houston served as editors for this article.
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article
(https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-020-00731-5) contains supplementary
material, which is available to authorized users.

* Diego Costa Pinto 1

Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos (UNISINOS), Av. Unisinos,
[email protected] São Leopoldo, RS 950, Brazil

Fernando de Oliveira Santini 2

NOVA Information Management School|, Universidade NOVA de
[email protected] Lisboa, Campus de Campolide, Lisbon, Portugal
Wagner Junior Ladeira
3
[email protected] Universidade Europeia, Quinta do Bom Nome, Estr. Correia,
53 Lisbon, Portugal
Márcia Maurer Herter
[email protected] 4
Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul (PUC/RS),
Claudio Hoffmann Sampaio Av. Ipiranga, Porto Alegre, RS 6681, Brazil
[email protected]
5
Barry J. Babin University of Mississipi, P.O. Box 1848, University, MS 38677,
[email protected] USA
1212 J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2020) 48:1211–1228

Facebook, Pinterest, and LinkedIn, in an effort to encourage This paper is organized as follows. First, we review the
greater customer engagement (Forbes 2018a; Harvard Business development of the customer engagement field and its four
Review 2018). U.S. investment in digital marketing efforts is major perspectives (intrinsic motivations, psychological mind
expected to grow from $108 in 2018 to over $150 billion in states, customer activities, or contributions to firms). Second,
2020, reflecting the continued relevance of digital platforms in- we describe the CESM conceptual framework, including its
cluding social media (Forbes 2019). Globally, the potential return main drivers and consequences, while recognizing that poten-
of social media engagement for firms is even bigger: 49% of the tial moderators may set boundaries for effects. Third, we detail
world’s population uses social media, representing about 3.8 our methodological procedures to test the CESM framework.
billion potentially engaged customers in 2020 (Forbes 2020a). And finally, we discuss the meta-analytical findings and pro-
However, companies encounter challenges in converting vide key theoretical and practical insights concerning the cus-
media investments into meaningful customer engagement. tomer engagement concept.
Although companies invest about $84 billion in social media
marketing (Zenith Media 2020), the CMO survey reveals a
lack of net positive returns: only 30% of CMOs are confident Development of the customer engagement
of social media’s positive impacts on firm performance field
(Forbes 2020b). Indeed, 40% of consumers follow their “fa-
vorite” brands on social media, but only about 25% of fol- Extant research offers numerous marketing strategies and cus-
lowers actually purchase brands they follow (Forbes 2018b). tomer management policies aimed at potentially strengthening
The marketing literature also provides inconsistent findings customer engagement and firm value (e.g., Brodie et al. 2011;
regarding the effects of customer engagement on social media Harmeling et al. 2017; Higgins and Scholer 2009; Kumar
(e.g., Hollebeek et al. 2014; Hunter and Schmidt 2004). Some 2013; Kumar and Pansari 2015; Van Doorn et al. 2010;
studies suggest that customer engagement strongly relates to Venkatesan 2017; Verhoef et al. 2002, 2010). One point that
word-of-mouth (WOM) (r = .50; Halaszovich and Nel 2017), is clear across the literature is that firms devote resources
while others find only a weak relationship (r = .14; toward developing customer engagement beyond mere dis-
Badrinarayanan et al. 2015). Still, other studies find neutral, pos- crete firm–customer transactions (Pansari and Kumar 2017).
itive, or even negative relationships between customer engage- In the 1990s, marketing research shifted attention toward
ment and firm performance (Beckers et al. 2018; Cheung et al. share-of-wallet, purchase frequency, and subsequent customer
2015; Wong and Merrilees 2015). These conflicting results sug- lifetime value of a customer to the firm (Pansari and Kumar
gest that customer engagement effects vary and that the extant 2017). Relationship marketing philosophies emerged and
literature and managerial guidelines are potentially unreliable. looked at trust and/or commitment as bases for establishing
Consequently, in this study, we synthesize the customer en- positive long-term customer relationships (Moorman et al.
gagement literature’s multiple perspectives and measures and 1993; Morgan and Hunt 1994).
present a framework for studying customer engagement in so- As the technology evolved, consumers increasingly gained
cial media (CESM framework). In the framework, we elaborate access to digital and social media platforms as a means of
on customer engagement’s contributions to marketing firms expressing opinions and interacting with companies. Many
(Kumar et al. 2010; Kumar 2013; Pansari and Kumar 2017), firms shifted promotional resources from traditional media
using a meta-analytic structural model involving 814 effect and began using digital platforms to directly interact with
sizes, across 97 studies, involving 161,059 respondents. The customers (Paruthi and Kaur 2017). For example, Coca-
meta-analysis addresses theoretical and practical gaps in the Cola, Starbucks, Dove, Microsoft, Dell, and Nike began using
literature by exploring the antecedents, consequences, and po- social media as a primary marketing tool (Baldus et al. 2015;
tential moderators of customer engagement in social media. Paruthi and Kaur 2017). Consequently, in the early 2000s, the
Thus, beyond the review, the paper makes at least three contri- relationship marketing literature began studying customer
butions to customer engagement theory and practice (e.g., engagement (Kumar 2013).
Beckers et al. 2018; Kumar et al. 2019; Pansari and Kumar Early customer engagement investigations and conceptual-
2017): (1) the paper presents a theoretically-grounded frame- izations could not address recent technological innovations
work of customer engagement in social media, (2) it provides a that continue to open new possibilities for customer–firm in-
comprehensive empirical analysis of customer engagement teraction (Paruthi and Kaur 2017). However, over the past two
drivers and consequences, and (3) it suggests under which con- decades, as digital platforms evolved, firms’ marketing strat-
ditions customer engagement in social media is more or less egies led to investments aimed at building unique brand ex-
effective. The findings help resolve inconsistencies in previous periences through interactive multimedia environments
work by testing whether customer engagement is driven by (Paruthi and Kaur 2017). Marketing managers started to use
satisfaction, positive emotions, trust, and commitment; and by social media to identify highly engaged customers for special-
exploring boundary conditions to customer engagement effects. ized marketing efforts (Kumar et al. 2010) and to ensure that
J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2020) 48:1211–1228 1213

they remain emotionally, profitably, and sustainably connect- 2013; Pansari and Kumar 2017). Perhaps the most intriguing
ed (Paruthi and Kaur 2017). aspect of the definition deals with the “mechanics.” While
some elements of the mechanics may seem clear (purchase
as a direct contribution and WOM as an indirect contribution),
Perspectives on customer engagement the notion of mechanics suggest that customer engagement
cannot be looked at as an isolated construct. Rather, a custom-
Although customer engagement studies have increasing theo- er engagement construct is relevant only as part of a process
retical and managerial relevance, researchers lack a unified ba- leveraging firm resources into success.
sis for investigating customer engagement in social media We argue that customer engagement as intrinsic motivation
(Paruthi and Kaur 2017). Customer engagement may be a rel- or as a psychological state alone cannot directly add value to
atively nascent concept in comparison with customer satisfac- the firm performance. Customer activities are required, includ-
tion or loyalty, but more than twenty studies offer relevant ing transactions, but also perhaps via behaviors that elaborate
perspectives regarding customer engagement in social media on brand-related social media content as a way of acting like
(e.g., Baldus et al. 2015; Hollebeek et al. 2014). Contrasting advertising.
perspectives provide bases for at least eight scales measuring
customer engagement in social media (Algesheimer et al. 2005;
Baldus et al. 2015; Calder et al. 2009; Hollebeek et al. 2014; Framework of customer engagement in social
Hopp and Gallicano 2016; Obilo et al. 2020; Paruthi and Kaur media (CESM)
2017; Sprott et al. 2009). Appendix A summarizes the litera-
ture’s perspectives on customer engagement by presenting the The marketing literature considers customer engagement as
various definitions, contexts, and scale dimensions. having potential predictive power regarding consumer out-
The various conceptualizations and measurements of cus- comes and firm performance (Bijmolt et al. 2010; Dutot and
tomer engagement can be divided into four main perspectives Mosconi 2016; Kumar 2013). Pansari and Kumar (2017) posit
(Harmeling et al. 2017): intrinsic motivations, psychological that customer engagement occurs when customers form satis-
mind states, customer activities, or contributions to firms. fying relationships based on trust, commitment, and emotional
Customer engagement, as intrinsic motivation, implies that bonding. We elaborate on these key theoretical components in
consumers are driven by desires to interact and cooperate with developing a three-stage CESM framework. The three stages
“community members” (Algesheimer et al. 2005, p. 21) or move from: (1) relationship formation, in which trust and
participate in “an online brand community” (Baldus et al. commitment impact satisfaction and positive emotions, (2)
2015, p. 979). Nonetheless, the intrinsic motivation concept customer engagement resulting from satisfaction, positive
fails to consider that social media users may be extrinsically emotions, trust, and commitment, and (3) customer engage-
motivated to acquire likes, comments, and recognition. ment contributes directly to firm performance and indirectly
Customer engagement as a psychological mind state indicates as mediated by behavioral intention and WOM (Fig. 1). The
that consumers “include important brands as part of their self- literature also acknowledges that customers’ contribution to
concept” (Sprott et al. 2009, p. 92) or feel “internal emotion” the firm might generate feedback effects on relationship for-
from brand attachments (Paruthi and Kaur 2017, p. 128). mation and customer engagement. However, whereas feed-
Although consumers may engage with brands relevant to their back effects are theoretically important, the lack of empirical
self-concept and feel internal emotions, from a marketing suc- research presenting feedback effects precludes a meaningful
cess standpoint, consumers must also perform brand-enhancing investigation via meta-analysis. Feedback effects are further
actions. Thus, customer engagement has been conceptualized as discussed in the limitations and future research section.
an activity, such as a “collection of experiences” (Calder et al.
2009, p. 322), “intentions to give online recommendations” Relationship formation
(Hopp and Gallicano 2016, p. 129), or to include “activities
related to specific consumer/brand interactions” (Hollebeek Customer engagement is based on trust and commitment that
et al. 2014, p. 154). Defining customer engagement as customer then generate satisfaction and positive emotions (Pansari and
activities fits the social media context, but it does not necessarily Kumar 2017).
imply that customer engagement actions add value to the firm.
Pansari and Kumar (2017, p. 295) define customer engage- Trust Trust indicates a willingness to rely on exchange part-
ment as “the mechanics of a customer’s value addition to the ners (Moorman et al. 1993). Highly trusting customers are
firm, either through direct or/and indirect contribution.” Thus, expected to be more engaged (Gustafsson et al. 2005), espe-
in a “contributions to firms” view, customer engagement is cially in social media (Tsai et al. 2012). For example, online
thought to improve firm performance by encouraging both community participants form a sense of group belonging,
direct and indirect contributions (Kumar et al. 2010; Kumar which then increases their trust in the community (Hollebeek
1214 J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2020) 48:1211–1228

Fig. 1 Framework of customer Contextual Moderators Study Characteristics

engagement in social media
Convenience Type of Firm Type of Industry Sample Size Publication Type
(CESM)
Product Type of Social
Product Value Study Setting
Involvement Media

Relationship Formation Customer Engagement Creation Customer Engagement Contributions

Satisfaction
Behavioral Intention
Trust
Customer
Performance
Engagement

Word of Mouth
Commitment
Positive Emotions

Feedback Effects*

2011). Marketing studies, including those in online commu- contexts. Thus, we expect that satisfaction positively affects
nity contexts, tend to directly associate trust with satisfaction customer engagement.
and positive emotions (e.g., Brodie et al. 2013; Geyskens et al.
1999; Zboja and Voorhees 2006). Thus, we expect that trust Positive emotions Consumer emotions represent a state of
positively affects satisfaction and positive emotions. mind arising from cognitive and affective appraisals of con-
sumption activities (Bagozzi et al. 1999). Positive emotions
Commitment Commitment indicates customers’ willingness include agreeableness and feelings of enthusiasm, freedom of
to stay in long-term relationships (Van Lange et al. 1997), to expression, and create positive outcome expectations (Pansari
be engaged in brand–community interactions, and to advocate and Kumar 2017). We propose that positive emotional ap-
for brands (Brodie et al. 2013; Mollen and Wilson 2010; Park praisals about consumption experiences will trigger mind-
and MacInnis 2006). Such interactions yield both cognitive states that determine behavior, such as hedonic value and cus-
satisfaction and positive affect (Mollen and Wilson 2010), tomer engagement (Bagozzi et al. 1999; Pansari and Kumar
forming a basis for commitment and emotional bonding 2017). Therefore, the theory suggests that positive emotions
(Bowden 2009a; Brodie et al. 2013). Thus, we propose that positively affect customer engagement.
commitment positively affects positive emotions and
satisfaction. Mediation effects The recent customer engagement theory
explains that when a relationship is formed based on trust
Customer engagement and commitment, satisfaction and positive emotions will stim-
ulate customer engagement (Pansari and Kumar 2017). We
When consumers enjoy emotionally bonding relationships propose that the nature of the interaction determines the extent
with firms, they become engaged (Pansari and Kumar of emotional attachment and satisfaction; in the case of social
2017). We posit that satisfaction and positive emotions are media, commitment and trust create temporal stability in the
the two main drivers creating customer engagement in social attachment–behavior relationship (Park and MacInnis 2006)
media and mediate the relationships between trust–CE and and cause positive emotions and satisfaction (Mollen and
commitment–CE. These activities could be related to CE, Wilson 2010; Thomson et al. 2005). We argue that trustful
such as customers’ experiences (Calder et al. 2009), brand and committed relationships lead customers and firms to enjoy
interactions (Hollebeek et al. 2014), and online consumption the satisfaction and emotional bonding. Consequently, we ex-
and recommendations (Hopp and Gallicano 2016), generating pect that satisfaction and positive emotions mediate the effects
value to firms (Pansari and Kumar 2017). of trust–CE and commitment–CE.

Satisfaction Positive cognitive and affective evaluations of Customer engagement contributions

consumption outcomes lead to satisfaction (Mano and Oliver
1993). Satisfied customers tend to show the enthusiasm and Engaged customers can contribute to firms’ well-being directly
pleasure typical of high customer engagement (Gummerus through patronage behavior and indirectly through positive
et al. 2012), to indicate the satisfaction and trust underlying WOM (Kumar et al. 2010). We propose that behavioral intention
customer engagement (Brodie et al. 2013), and to promote and WOM follow customer engagement and mediate the rela-
firms (Pansari and Kumar 2017), especially in social media tionship between customer engagement and firm performance.
J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2020) 48:1211–1228 1215

Behavioral intention Customers’ behavioral intentions imply (Villanueva et al. 2008). Perhaps the added value is because
their willingness to continue interacting in ways that will ben- WOM both attracts new consumers and retains long-term con-
efit the firm and to seek out other brand-related experiences sumers (Van Doorn et al. 2010). Therefore, we tested behav-
(Babin et al. 1994). Customer engagement and perceived per- ioral intention and WOM as mediators of customer engage-
sonal relevance then motivate behavioral intention and behav- ment on firm performance.
ior, including purchases (Algesheimer et al. 2005), that drive
firm performance. Thus, we expect that customer engagement Moderators of customer engagement
positively affects customer behavioral intention, which ulti-
mately may improve firm performance. Studies of customer engagement in social media tend to focus
on information and communication technologies (Brodie et al.
WOM WOM refers to the spontaneous propagation of positive 2013), customer–brand relationships (Hollebeek et al. 2014),
and/or negative information (Hennig-Thurau et al. 2004), dynamic interactive environments (Brodie et al. 2011), and
based on desires to establish and maintain social relationships the expression of diverse personality traits and behavioral in-
(Chu and Kim 2011). Engaged customers tend to use social clinations (Claffey and Brady 2017). The studies exhibit wide-
media and electronic WOM to share positive information and ly fluctuating effect sizes, suggesting that moderators might be
experiences (Chu and Kim 2011), which generates value for needed to better understand the way customer engagement
companies (See-To and Ho 2014; Vivek et al. 2012). Thus, we works (Rosenblad 2009). Consequently, we explore potential
expect customer engagement to be positively and directly re- customer engagement moderators that might reduce heteroge-
lated to positive WOM, which ultimately may influence the neity in observed effects.
firm’s performance. Drawing on customer engagement theory (Pansari and
Kumar 2017), we explore contextual moderators of customer
Firm performance Social media channels encourage users to engagement, such as convenience, type of firm, type of indus-
increase the number of followers and potential customers try, and product involvement. We also explore the type of
(Ashley and Tuten 2015). Marketing professionals are partic- social media (Beckers et al. 2018) and customer-value type
ularly hopeful that customer engagement has positive impli- (Babin et al. 1994) as potential contextual moderators for cus-
cations for sales growth and financial performance (Brodie tomer engagement. In typical meta-analytic fashion (Grewal
et al. 2011; Dessart et al. 2015). Some researchers suggest that et al. 2018; Lipsey and Wilson 2001), we also explore study
social media engagement is a new metric for gauging direct or characteristics used as potential moderators. Table 1 presents
correlative effects on firm performance (Ashley and Tuten the definition and coding procedure.
2015; Brodie et al. 2011; Vivek et al. 2012; Wong and
Merrilees 2015). However, customer engagement is found to Convenience Convenience indicates how much time and ef-
have neutral, moderate, or even negative relationships with fort customers must expend to purchase goods or services
firm performance (Cheung et al. 2015; Wong and Merrilees (Brown 1990). Although consumers, in general, tend to per-
2015); the nature of the relationship perhaps depending on ceive that online environments are more convenient because
conditions such as advertising intensity and corporate reputa- of the ease of accessing information, convenience character-
tion (Beckers et al. 2018). Thus, we aim to reconcile past istics are related to time, opportunity, and energy customers
inconclusive findings by examining the relationship between expend for goods or services (Pansari and Kumar 2017). We
customer engagement and firm performance. thus explore how convenience consumption contexts (i.e., re-
lated to customers’ time and effort towards a type of product
Mediation of customer contributions Engaged customers are or service) moderates customer engagement effects.
motivated to make direct and indirect contributions such as
purchasing products, spreading positive WOM, conversing on Type of firm The B2B and B2C firm distinction is thought to
social media, and providing feedback and suggestions (Kumar influence purchase decision processes (Pansari and Kumar
et al. 2010; Pansari and Kumar 2017). Based on the literature, 2017). In B2B contexts, decision-making is thought to be
we argue that behavioral intentions mediate the relationship more complex because the process involves multiple agents
between customer engagement and firm performance by pro- within the company, each with their own agenda (Pansari and
moting financial performance and sales growth (Morgan and Kumar 2017). We compare B2B and B2C effects to explore
Rego 2006). whether firm type moderates customer engagement effects.
The literature also suggests that WOM positively impacts
firm reputation and performance (Aggarwal et al. 2012). Type of industry Services contexts have intangible character-
Indeed, compared with traditional advertising, WOM pro- istics and tend to be more heterogeneous than manufacturing
duces relatively more positive performance outcomes contexts (Zeithaml et al. 1985). Consequently, service firms
(Trusov et al. 2009) and adds more to firm value must provide customers with more details to form customer
1216 J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2020) 48:1211–1228

Table 1 Coding procedure in the meta-analysis

Variable Moderators Description Coding*

Contextual Characteristics
Convenience Convenience is linked with the time and effort that customers invest 0 = Low
to purchase a product or service (Brown 1990). We coded the type 1 = High
of product/service in studies into low (N = 30) and high (N = 36) convenience.
Type of Firm B2B contexts compared to B2C tend to evoke more functional aspects 0 = B2B
and has a more complex decision-making (Pansari and Kumar 2017). 1 = B2C
Studies were coded as B2C (N = 38) or B2B (N = 6).
Type of Industry A dummy variable indicate whether the studies were applied in a product 0 = Service
(manufacturing) (N = 18) or a service (N = 37) context. 1 = Manufacturing
Product Involvement Product involvement refers to consumer’s perceptions about the relevance 0 = Low
of products or services that are linked with individual needs, values, and 1 = High
interests (Zaichkowsky 1985). We coded product involvement as high
(N = 31) or low (N = 26) based on the type of products/services mentioned
in the studies.
Product Value Product value was classified as hedonic (N = 25) or utilitarian (N = 23) based 0 = Utilitarian
on the product’s information obtained in the methodological section 1 = Hedonic
of each study.
Type of Social Media Three types of social media were identified in the studies used in this meta-analysis: 1 = Blog
Blog (N = 6), Facebook (N = 36) and; Twitter (N = 7). 2 = Facebook
3 = Twitter
Study Characteristics
Sample Size We defined the sample in two groups, small (N = 65) or large (N = 59), from 0 = Small
the sample size declared in each study. We adopt the median of the sample 1 = Large
sizes as the cut-off point.
Study Setting The study setting was coded by survey (N = 18) or experiment (N = 113). 0 = Survey
This information 1 = Experiment
was obtained from a methodological section of individual studies.
Publication Type We identified the publication type by published scientific papers in journals (N = 99) 0 = Published
or unpublished theses, congresses or working papers (N = 34). 1 = Unpublished

Notes: *Three independent judges carried out the coding of studies. Moderators sample sizes indicate the sum of coded items for satisfaction, positive
emotions, and firm performance. We also explored moderation by brand value (high vs. low), cultural orientation (Western vs. Eastern), Human
Development Index (high vs. low), sample type (students vs. non-students), publication ranking (high vs. low), engagement scale (Algesheimer,
Calder, Hollebeek, Baldus), scale items (several vs. few), and engagement theory origin (yes vs. no). However, no significant moderation among these
emerged. Further, when authors used a multidimensional representation of CE, we averaged over the correlations to get a single aggregate correlation for
use in statistical analyses

relationships and customer engagement (Hollebeek et al. typically are associated with low-arousal emotions. In con-
2016; Pansari and Kumar 2017). We explore whether industry trast, hedonic value is associated with experience, pleasure,
type (service vs. manufacturing) moderates customer engage- fun, and adventure, and can involve high-arousal emotions
ment effects. (Hirschman and Holbrook 1982; Smith and Colgate 2007);
the stronger emotions creating potential for stronger
Product involvement Highly involved consumers perceive customer–brand relationships and stronger consumer-to-
brands and their goods or services as personally relevant to consumer connections (Bowden 2009b). Thus, we explore
their needs, values, and interests (Zaichkowsky 1985). whether a hedonic and utilitarian value distinction moderates
Consumers tend to be less involved with frequently- customer engagement effects.
purchased products and experience greater motivation, arous-
al, and cognitive elaborations with infrequently-purchased Type of social media Social media enables real-time interac-
products like durable goods (Mano and Oliver 1993; Pansari tions for increasing customer-brand interactions and relation-
and Kumar 2017). We explore whether product involvement ships (Labrecque 2014). Our meta-analysis review revealed
(high vs. low) moderates customer engagement effects. that previous studies focus on three main types of social me-
dia: blogs, Facebook, and Twitter. When social media chan-
Product value Utilitarian and hedonic value results from dif- nels such as Facebook and Twitter support customer engage-
ferent customer experiences (Babin et al. 1994; Hagtvedt and ment initiatives, they tend to create greater value and customer
Patrick 2009). Functional benefits create utilitarian value but engagement relative to blogs (Beckers et al. 2018). But,
J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2020) 48:1211–1228 1217

distinctions between the channels remain theoretically unde- academic journals bias to publish studies that report statisti-
veloped. Rather than predict how the type of social media will cally significant effects (Rosenthal 1979).
influence customer engagement, we explore whether the type
of social media moderates customer engagement effects. Inclusion criteria and final sample We identified 983 articles/
papers using PRISMA (Moher et al. 2009). We included only
Study characteristics In addition to contextual moderators, we studies that (1) examined customer engagement in social me-
analyzed study-related variables. We investigated sample dia and (2) presented sufficient statistical information for use
sizes, publication types, and study settings. We allocated sam- in meta-analysis. The first condition eliminated 609 studies.
ple sizes as small or large based on the median cut-off point We also exclude 277 articles that report only qualitative data.
(Hedges and Olkin 1985), distinguished study settings be- The final sample includes 814 effect sizes from 97 studies
tween surveys and experiments (Eisend 2017), and publica- published over an 11-year span, representing 92 independent
tion types between published and unpublished manuscripts samples involving a total of 161,059 respondents. The Web
(Lipsey and Wilson 2001; Rosenthal 1979). Appendix presents a list of the primary studies included in the
meta-analysis.

Coding and extraction procedure The coding scheme for con-

Methodological procedures
textual and study-related moderators followed the procedure
suggested by Rust and Cooil (1994). After discussing the cod-
Our methodological approach follows well-grounded proce-
ing classification criteria, three research assistants individually
dural recommendations for meta-analytic approaches includ-
coded the effect sizes, compared their codification, and obtain-
ing preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-
ed an overall agreement index of 89.1%. The agreement index
analyses (PRISMA) (Moher et al. 2009), coding scheme (Rust
and the total number of observed effect sizes for each moder-
and Cooil 1994), data extraction and meta-analytic calcula-
ator was: convenience (82.5%, N = 114), type of firm (88.6%,
tions (Babić-Rosario et al. 2016; Kim and Peterson 2017),
N = 44), type of industry (100%, N = 151), product involve-
meta-analytic structural equation modeling (MASEM) (e.g.,
ment (81.9%, N = 193), product value (81.6%, N = 141), and
Cheung and Chan 2005), and hierarchical linear meta-analysis
type of social media (100%, N = 130). A fourth judge resolved
(HiLMA) (Geyskens et al. 2009).
disagreements. The procedure used for data extraction follow-
ed previous research in meta-analyses (Babić-Rosario et al.
Study retrieval 2016; Kim and Peterson 2017) and each moderator was treated
as a single class variable with different categories (e.g., type of
Search procedure To identify published and unpublished social media had three levels: Blog, Facebook, Twitter). Only
studies (Rosenthal and DiMatteo 2001) that reported empiri- a portion of studies could be coded for each moderating char-
cal results on or before May 1, 2019, we first searched Google acteristic (see Table 1 for coding details).
scholar using the keywords/terms customer engagement, con-
sumer engagement, engagement, social engagement, brand Meta-analytic calculations
engagement, and online engagement in the document title
and/or summary fields. Second, we manually checked the Effect size calculation To analyze the data, we followed pro-
studies identified through the electronic search to uncover cedures suggested in previous meta-analyses research (Babić-
additional studies that developed scales to measure social me- Rosario et al. 2016; Hedges and Olkin 1985; Kim and
dia engagement. Third, we used the same keywords to search Peterson 2017). Customer engagement correlations were ex-
eight electronic databases: JSTOR, Emerald, PsycINFO, tracted directly from articles (a Web Appendix lists all
Taylor & Francis, Elsevier, Science Direct, SCOPUS, articles). When an article employed a multidimensional CE
Scielo, and EBSCO. Fourth, we manually searched for the full measure, the multiple correlations for an effect were aggregat-
text of papers presented at leading congresses across the mar- ed into a single correlation for a particular effect. Pearson’s
keting and information systems academies: The Academy of correlation coefficient (r) is, thus, the common effect size for
Marketing Science Conferences (Annual and World the main variables in the model and was by far the most com-
Marketing Congress), the Association for Consumer monly available metric in the set of articles employed.
Research, the European Marketing Academy, American However, meta-analyses routinely perform statistical conver-
Marketing Association, Global Marketing Conference, sion procedures to provide results in a common effect metric
INFORMS, and European Conference on Information (e.g., Kim and Peterson 2017; Santini et al. 2018). When
Systems. Fifth, we checked the ProQuest Dissertations & studies failed to report correlations, we converted other statis-
Theses Global platform to find unpublished studies as an tics such as mean differences, t-tests, or F-ratios to correlations
opening for addressing the file-drawer problem arising from (see Hunter and Schmidt 2004; Peterson and Brown 2005).
1218 J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2020) 48:1211–1228

Once we assembled the relevant effect sizes, we corrected Second, the CESM model predicts that satisfaction and
them in relation to the reliability of the scales and sample size positive emotions impact customer engagement directly.
(Hedges and Olkin 1985). Table 2 presents the resulting cor- Results suggest that both satisfaction (β = .327; p < .001)
relation matrix. and positive emotions (β = .357; p < .001) positively and sig-
nificantly impacts customer engagement. In addition, results
MASEM and moderation analysis We employed MASEM to indicate that trust significantly and directly influences custom-
test the CESM framework, which performs meta-analytic er engagement (β = .352; p < .001) while commitment’s di-
analysis of covariance structure using standard structural rect effect on customer engagement is not significant
equation modeling estimation (Cheung 2015; Cheung and (β = .074; ns).
Chan 2005; Hauk et al. 2018). R packages metaSEM Third, we examined satisfaction and positive emotions po-
(Cheung 2015) and OpenMx 2.0 (Neale et al. 2016) imple- tential to mediate the trust–CE and commitment–CE paths.
mented the required analyses. The moderation analysis We tested the mediation effects following Jak’s (2015) and
employed HiLMA, a multivariate regression-based approach Cheung’s (2015) procedure that provides bias-corrected max-
(Geyskens et al. 2009) widely used in meta-analytic research imum likelihood-based confidence intervals to test indirect
(e.g., Babić-Rosario et al. 2016). In this case, the metaphor R effects on customer engagement.
package was employed (Viechtbauer 2010). The CESM model posits that both trust and commit-
ment impact customer engagement indirectly through
Meta-analytic results satisfaction and positive emotions. The indirect effect
of trust on customer engagement through satisfaction is
We placed the necessary constraints on the summary correlation statistically significant (β = .144; p < .05), as is the in-
matrix to represent the CESM framework. MASEM results pro- direct effect of commitment on customer engagement
vide indices indicating reasonably good model fit (χ2 = 110.68, mediated by satisfaction (β = .059; p < .05). The media-
df = 14, CFI = .974, and RMSEA = .01) (Hair Jr et al. 2017). tion effects of satisfaction on the trust–CE path (trust ➔
Thus, we next interpret the resulting maximum likelihood satisfaction ➔ CE) is qualified, however, by the simul-
(ML) path coefficient estimates. Figure 2 summarizes MASEM taneous presence of a direct and nontrivial effect of
parameter estimates from the proposed framework. trust on customer engagement (β = .35; p < .001).
Indeed, the direct effect is considerably stronger than
the indirect effect. The mediation effect of satisfaction
Relationship formation ➔ customer engagement on the commitment–CE path (commitment ➔ satisfac-
tion ➔ CE), although free of a simultaneous, signifi-
First, we examine the trust and commitment direct effects on cant, direct, commitment–CE path, is qualified by what
satisfaction and positive emotions. Results suggest that trust could be considered a trivial effect size (< .1)
(β = .440; p < .01) and commitment (β = .179; p < .05) posi- (Borenstein et al. 2019).
tively and significantly impact satisfaction. In contrast, the Positive emotions did not mediate the effects of trust on
direct effects of both trust (β = .216; ns) and commitment customer engagement (β = .077; ns), nor commitment indirect
(β = .160; ns) on positive emotions are insignificant. Table 3 effects (β = .057; ns). These results do not support the pro-
summarizes MASEM results for the CESM framework. posed mediation effect of positive emotions on the trust–CE

Table 2 Correlation matrix

Constructs Trust Commitment Satisfaction Positive Customer Behavioral WOM Firm

Emotion Engagement Intention Performance

Trust 1
Commitment 0.735 1
Satisfaction 0.536 0.486 1
Positive emotion 0.323 0.312 0.603 1
Customer 0.530 0.635 0.141 0.596 1
Engagement
Behavioral Intention 0.443 0.420 0.525 0.398 0.520 1
WOM 0.578 0.265 0.492 0.208 0.519 0.360 1
Firm Performance 0.470 0.593 0.209 0.306 0.433 0.571 0.276 1
J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2020) 48:1211–1228 1219

0.66
Fig. 2 MASEM results (ML ε3 .59
estimates) 1 ε6
1
Satisfaction
Behavioral Intention .38
.64
Trust
Customer .31
Performance
.72 Engagement

1
.55
Word of Mouth -.04 1
Commitment
ε5 .29
ε8
Positive Emotions .63
1

1 ε7 .69
ε4 .87

path (trust ➔ positive emotions ➔ customer engagement) and affects behavioral intention (β = .641; p < .001), WOM
commitment–CE path (commitment ➔ positive emotions ➔ (β = .555; p < .001), both with robust effect sizes, and cus-
customer engagement). tomer engagement also positively influences firm perfor-
mance (β = .313; p < .001). In addition, behavioral intention
Customer engagement ➔ CE contributions exhibits a direct, positive effect on firm performance
(β = .378; p < .001), while, surprisingly, the WOM–
Next, we analyzed if and how customer engagement might performance path is not significant (β = −.036; ns).
contribute to behaviors and firm performance. Results first The CESM model further posits behavioral intention (di-
suggest that customer engagement positively and significantly rect contributions) and WOM (indirect contributions) as

Table 3 MASEM results and

mediation analysis (ML Independent Variable → Dependent Variable Estimate LCI UCI P
estimates)
Antecedents of Customer Engagement
Trust → Satisfaction 0.440 0.158 0.723 .01
Commitment → Satisfaction 0.179 0.008 0.349 .05
Trust → Positive emotions 0.216 −0.050 0.482 NS
Commitment → Positive emotions 0.160 −0.057 0.378 NS
Satisfaction → Customer Engagement 0.327 0.154 0.500 .001
Positive emotions → Customer Engagement 0.357 0.276 0.438 .001
Trust → Customer Engagement 0.352 0.201 0.504 .001
Commitment → Customer Engagement 0.074 −0.120 0.269 NS
Consequents of Customer Engagement
Customer Engagement → Behavioral intention 0.641 0.592 0.690 .001
Customer Engagement → Word-of-Mouth 0.555 0.511 0.599 .001
Customer Engagement → Performance 0.313 0.169 0.457 .001
Behavioral intention → Performance 0.378 0.249 0.507 .001
Word-of-Mouth → Performance −0.036 −0.125 0.053 NS
Covariances
Trust <> Commitment 0.719 0.646 0.792 .001
Indirect Effects through Satisfaction Estimate LCI UCI P*
Trust ➔ Satisfaction ➔ CE 0.144 0.060 0.271 .05
Commitment ➔ Satisfaction ➔ CE 0.059 0.015 0.172 .05
Indirect Effects through Positive emotions Estimate LCI UCI P*
Trust ➔ Positive emotions ➔ CE 0.077 −0.033 0.137 NS
Commitment ➔ Positive emotions ➔ CE 0.057 −0.007 0.125 NS
Indirect Effects of CE on Performance Estimate LCI UCI P*
CE ➔ BehavioraI Intention ➔ Performance 0.243 0.153 0.337 .05
CE ➔ WOM ➔ Performance −0.020 −0.074 0.025 NS

Notes: P values of mediation analysis are based on 95% likelihood-based confidence intervals and the saturated
model, as per Jak’s (2015) indirect effects procedure for metaSEM (Cheung 2015)
1220 J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2020) 48:1211–1228

comprising the pathways between customer engagement and rather than utilitarian value contexts, is associated with a more
firm performance. The MASEM results suggest that behav- positive satisfaction–CE relationship (r hedonic = .658; r
ioral intention mediates the relationship between customer utilitarian = .241; p < .001).
engagement and firm performance, exhibiting a positive indi- Regarding social media type, results suggest that Twitter,
rect effect (β = .243; p < .05) (CE ➔ behavioral intention ➔ in contrast with blogs or Facebook, yields much stronger pos-
firm performance). However, surprisingly, the results suggest itive satisfaction–CE (r twitter = .477; r blog = .206; r
that WOM does not mediate the path between customer en- facebook = .199; p < .001) and positive emotions–CE relation-
gagement and firm performance as the indirect effect is not ships (r twitter = .840; r blog = .336; r facebook = .397; p < .05).
significant (β = −.020; ns).1 Moderation results suggest that the identified predictors can
better explain customer engagement in Twitter relative to oth-
er social media platforms. No other significant moderating
Moderation analysis: Exploring contextual
effects are found for either the satisfaction–CE or positive
characteristics
emotions–CE path.
We conducted a moderation analysis to explore the impact of
Customer engagement and firm performance Customer en-
contextual characteristics that may explain heterogeneity among
gagement effects on firm performance are significantly mod-
the paths representing customer engagement’s antecedents and
erated by convenience, industry type, product involvement,
consequences. First, we first consider the potential moderating
and product value. In exploring contextual moderators on cus-
effects of convenience, firm type, industry type, product involve-
ment, product value, and social media type using HiLMA. tomer engagement contributions, we find that the effects of
CE on firm performance are significantly lower in high versus
HiLMA, as a form of meta-regression (Grewal et al. 2018), treats
low convenience contexts (r high = .211; r low = .262; p
the effect sizes as dependent variables and potential moderators
as explanatory variables. Here, all moderator variables are dichot- < .001). For industry type as moderator, HiLMA indicates a
stronger CE–firm performance relationship among
omized for convenience, with the exception of social media type
manufacturing companies compared to service industries (r
(trichotomized). Table 4 shows results for the potential modera-
tors of customer engagement in social media. The table includes manufacturing = .333; r service = .232; p < .001).
HiLMA analysis also suggests the moderating role of prod-
the slope coefficients and the group effect sizes (correlations by
uct involvement, indicating that, high-involvement contexts
group). In the text, we focus on the group differences as clearly
are associated with a CE–firm performance correlation three
illustrative of differences due to customer engagement context.
times stronger than low-involvement contexts (r high = .341; r
low = .107; p < .001). For product value type, customer en-
Satisfaction ➔ customer engagement Results suggest that con-
gagement displays an almost three-times stronger effect on
venience, firm type, product involvement, product value, and
firm performance for hedonic rather than utilitarian consump-
social media type moderate the satisfaction–CE relationship.
tion contexts (r hedonic = .307; r utilitarian = .107; p < .001). No
Results indicate that for high convenience, satisfaction has a
other moderating effects are found for the CE–firm perfor-
stronger positive effect on customer engagement compared to
mance path. In addition, no moderating effects are found for
low convenience (r high = .629; r low = .235; p < .05). Thus,
either CE–behavioral intention or CE–WOM paths.
satisfaction more closely relates to customer engagement in
convenience–consumption contexts. In addition, firm type mod-
erates the satisfaction–CE path. For B2B firms, satisfaction
Moderation analysis: Exploring study characteristics
yields approximately twice as big an effect on customer engage-
Additionally, in keeping with meta-analytic tradition (Grewal
ment compared to B2C firms (r B2B = .543; r B2C = .250; p
et al. 2018), we explored moderation due to study character-
< .05). Results also suggest the moderating role of product in-
istics. HiLMA was used to explore the moderating effects of
volvement indicating that high rather than low product involve-
sample size, study setting, and publication type (for details see
ment enhances satisfaction–CE effects (r high = .405; r
Table 4). Only a few study characteristics displayed moderat-
low = .176; p < .05). Plus, results suggest that hedonic value,
ing effects.
1
We did examine an alternative model allowing direct effects of trust and
commitment on firm performance, behavioral intention and WOM. The chi- Satisfaction and customer engagement HiLMA results indi-
square difference between the CESM model and the alternative is 19.9 with 4
cate that sample size and publication type significantly moderate
df (p = .00052). The CFI suggests a slight improvement in fit to 0.98 versus
0.97. The improvement in fit is due largely due to a positive, significant, and the impact of satisfaction on customer engagement. Specifically,
nontrivial trust-performance relationship. More importantly, the addition of the satisfaction–CE effects are stronger for small rather than large
direct paths does not affect the parameter estimates to any large degree as the samples (r large = .201; r small = .521; p < .001). Additionally, as
correlation between the CESM estimates and the alternative model is
r = 0.922. The parameter stability further provides evidence of a lack of bias expected given publication bias expectations, published effects
due to interpretational confounding.
J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2020) 48:1211–1228 1221

Table 4 Potential moderators of

customer engagement effects Contextual Moderators Level Satisfaction-CE Firm
Performance-CE

b r B r

Convenience High 1 .629 1 .211

Low −.649* .235 .130*** .262
Type of Firm B2C 1 .250 – –
B2B −.349* .543 – –
Type of Industry Manufacturing 1 .431 1 .333
Service .380 .457 −.165*** .232
Product Involvement High 1 .405 1 .341
Low −.330* .176 −.238*** .107
Product Value Hedonic 1 .658 1 .307
Utilitarian −.315*** .241 −.189*** .107
Type of Social Media Blog 1 .206 – –
Facebook −.007 .199 – –
Twitter .309*** .477 – –
Study Characteristics Level Satisfaction-CE Firm
Performance-CE
b r B r
Sample Size Large 1 .201 1 .361
Small −.451*** .521 −.018 .355
Study Setting Experiments 1 .432 1 .126
Surveys .083 .468 −.189* .321
Publication Type Published 1 .522 1 .331
Unpublished −.417*** .242 −.127*** .269

Notes: (b) slope coefficient, (r) correlation coefficient, and (p value) level of significance
“-” Not available data. ***p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05

display larger effect sizes compared to unpublished papers (r (Grewal et al. 2018). Thus, meta-analysis seems particularly
published = .522; r unpublished = .242; p < .001). relevant for the emerging evidence concerning customer en-
gagement in social media (Hunter and Schmidt 2004; Lipsey
Customer engagement and firm performance For the firm and Wilson 2001). Our meta-analytic analysis of customer
performance–CE path, only study setting and publication type engagement in social media includes results from 97 studies
display significant moderators. In particular, HiLMA results are reported between 2009 and 2019.
consistent with a stronger CE–firm performance relationship in This research contributes to marketing theory by: synthe-
research using surveys rather than experiments (r sizing previous research, testing the conceptual framework of
experiment = .126; r survey = .321; p < .05) and in published rather customer engagement in social media (CESM); suggesting a
than unpublished studies (r published = .331; r unpublished = .269; p stronger role for trust in customer engagement vis-à-vis com-
< .001). No other moderating effects are suggested for the CE– mitment, demonstrating that satisfaction and positive emo-
firm performance path. For the behavioral intention–CE and tions are important mechanisms of customer engagement; em-
WOM–CE paths, no moderator achieved statistical significance. phasizing behavioral intention as an important outcome of
customer engagement in driving (Vivek et al. 2012), and sug-
gesting mechanisms through which customer engagement im-
Discussion pacts firm performance. Exploratory moderation analysis also
suggests the key moderators that may influence customer en-
Main findings and contributions gagement effects (e.g., satisfaction–CE, CE–firm perfor-
mance), including the type of social media and consumption
Over the last decade or so, researchers have come to recognize value-type as novel moderators. Overall, we offer 10 key in-
that social media gives customers opportunities to better en- sights for customer engagement theory and practice, which are
gage with products and brands (Hollebeek et al. 2014). summarized in Table 5.
Studies, however, suggest that customer engagement does First, the meta-analytic results support the proposed frame-
not always lead to improved firm performance (Beckers work of Customer Engagement in Social Media (CESM). A
et al. 2018). Meta-analytical methods allow researchers to key feature of the model examination is the role of trust in creat-
draw more consistent conclusions from conflicting findings ing customer satisfaction and driving customer engagement as
1222 J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2020) 48:1211–1228

previously hypothesized (Kumar et al. 2019; Pansari and Kumar extend previous research positing the process under which cus-
2017). Positive emotions strengthen customer engagement, but tomer engagement impacts firm performance (Kumar and
positive emotions do not serve as a mediator based on the results Pansari 2015; Pansari and Kumar 2017). Surprisingly, while
found here. Taken together, these findings provide support for a customer engagement is associated with increased WOM, model
process where trust builds customer engagement directly and results suggest that WOM does not facilitate improved perfor-
indirectly through satisfaction, with positive emotions playing a mance. The result is inconsistent with conventional wisdom re-
supporting and direct role, complementing previous conceptual garding WOM through social media (e.g., Harvard Business
research (Kumar et al. 2019; Pansari and Kumar 2017). Review 2019). Consequently, we can elaborate on Pansari and
Second, our meta-analysis contributes by suggesting various Kumar’s (2017) definition of customer engagement by empha-
mechanics through which customer engagement affects firm per- sizing the role of purchase-related behaviors as a key mechanism
formance through conation, as captured in previous studies by in leveraging engagement marketing into performance Table 6.
behavioral intention, and the spread of WOM through social Third, we explored a host of potential moderating factors. For
media (Algesheimer et al. 2005). Specifically, findings suggest instance, under conditions characterized by relatively high (vs.
that conation, as captured here through behavioral purchase/ low) convenience consumption contexts, the satisfaction–CE
patronage intention, plays the lead role in facilitating positive path is more than twice as great. Perhaps brands associated with
firm-performance effects from customer engagement. Thus, we convenience goods or services benefit from more frequent

Table 5 Summary of customer engagement findings

Key Findings Theoretical Practical

Implications Implications

1. Customer engagement (CE) is driven by Trust should play a prominent role in any theory Firms should work to build customer trust as a
satisfaction and trust, more than commitment. of CE. Trust plays an important role in CE way of encouraging greater engagement. One
Trust has a substantial direct effect on customer formation both directly and indirectly through tool may be heightened transparency.
engagement and a significant but smaller satisfaction.
indirect effect.
2. Positive emotions are not driven by trust and Positive emotions play a role in CE formation that Firms need to invest in making sure that
commitment, but have a direct effect on CE (no is relatively independent of other factors. touchpoints are characterized by pleasant
indirect effects) experiences as much as possible.
3. Satisfaction is a stronger predictor of customer Suggests the need for more research on the role of Investments in customer satisfaction programs
engagement in high (vs. low) convenience. convenience in CE formation. may be particularly beneficial for
convenience consumption settings.
4. B2B (vs. B2C) firms boost satisfaction to CE Satisfaction and CE more closely associated in B2C firms need to rely on factors other than
path. B2B contexts. satisfaction to build CE.
5. Twitter appears twice as likely as other social Suggests a need to better understand Twitter’s Firms should consider investing more in an
media platforms (e.g., Facebook) to improve relatively beneficial characteristics as CE tool. informational activity like Twitter to build CE
customer engagement effects via satisfaction relative to other platforms such as Facebook
and positive emotions. and blogs.
6. CE has substantial value for companies, We demonstrate the different mechanisms In general, CE is beneficial to firm performance
directly impacting firm performance, through which CE, directly and indirectly, so that in general, investments in CE are
behavioral intention, and word-of-mouth. impacts firm performance. Conative activities supported.
Behavioral intentions mediate CE effects on are important in leveraging CE into
firm performance. performance, but not all of CE’s positive
benefits are mediated.
7. Word-of-mouth does not improve firm While CE motivates WOM, WOM does not Firms should pay attention more to customer
performance nor mediate CE effects on firm mediate its effects on performance. behaviors other than WOM.
performance.
8. Low (vs. high) convenience and Suggests avenues for further research as CE for Firms associated with convenience should be
manufacturing (vs. services) exhibit stronger brands associated with frequently purchased particularly active in CE investments.
CE effects on satisfaction and firm goods may be easier to leverage.
performance.
9. High product involvement boosts CE effects More research is needed to clarify the Firms should be particularly attentive to find
on firm performance, compared to low distinctiveness between involvement and CE. ways to keep customers involved.
involvement.
10. Hedonic consumption yields nearly three Hedonic value facilitates the leveraging of CE For firms that set CE as a priority, actions that
times stronger CE–firm performance effects into performance more than does utilitarian increase hedonic value are particularly
vis-à-vis utilitarian consumption. value. productive.
J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2020) 48:1211–1228 1223

encounters with customers and more frequent share of mind than tool to create engagement, gain feedback, and build trust with
in less convenient contexts; consequently, more opportunities to your audience.”
post satisfying experiences emerge. Less convenient contexts are The research suggests that positive emotions directly affect
probably more complicated and provide other avenues to in- customer engagement but do not facilitate relationships from
crease or decrease customer engagement aside from satisfaction. trust and commitment. Thus, their effect appears to be inde-
In addition, results suggest that B2B firms exhibit a stronger pendent of other factors. We recommend that managers allo-
satisfaction–CE path than do B2C firms. Perhaps, B2B firms cate resources toward more satisfying and pleasant
tend to be more formally connected with customers through touchpoints with customers as a way of enhancing customer
more structured relationship management programs. The positive engagement. While customer engagement (as key perfor-
partnerships between suppliers and customers may create more mance indicator itself) may justify such resource expenditures,
opportunities for mutually positive engagement. as we see in the results, it is associated with other aspects of
Of particular interest, social media type moderates custom- firm performance. For instance, the Four Seasons Hotels
er engagement processes as speculated previously (Beckers earned the number one travel and hospitality brand social
et al. 2018). In the Twitter space, the satisfaction–CE path is ranking by earning not just more social media impressions,
at least twice as strong as in other social media platform con- but by earning over 80% positive impressions (Netbase Social
texts. These findings might be explained because of Twitter’s Analytics 2020). The high satisfaction and positive emotions
active and participatory role (Junco et al. 2013). Therefore, of the Four Seasons experience get customers engaged and
Twitter appears to be a convenient and accessible marketing enhances firm performance.
tool for creating a stronger customer satisfaction–CE path. The meta-analytic results suggest a particularly important role
Interestingly, the CE–firm performance path is stronger for for Twitter vis-à-vis other social media platforms (Fischer and
manufactured goods rather than for services. Customer en- Reuber 2011; Junco et al. 2013). Moderation results suggest a
gagement may be more diagnostic in the world of packaged stronger satisfaction–CE relationship via Twitter than other plat-
goods in a manner similar to that of the convenience effects. forms. The quick and convenient interface through tweets pro-
Moreover, when customers are highly involved with hedonic vides an efficient mechanism for communicating through social
rather than utilitarian consumption, customer engagement has networks. In contrast, other vehicles, such as Facebook are
about a three times greater impact on firm performance. These experiencing a drop of 50% in customer engagement, mostly
findings support the notion that customer engagement through due to competition with informational news feeds and a lack of
hedonic experiences is particularly difficult for other firms to trust (Forbes 2018c). The role of Instagram is worthy of further
replicate relative to the more mundane utilitarian aspects of research. Given that it is relatively new to the customer engage-
consumption (Babin et al. 1994; Bagozzi et al. 1999). ment scene, very few studies provide data in an Instagram con-
text. However, its emergence as a particularly popular platform
among younger consumers makes it worthy of attention.
Managerial implications Managerial practice suggests that convenience increases
customer engagement, but our findings suggest a paradox.
Customer engagement attracts considerable managerial interest The relationship between satisfaction–CE is much stronger
and the synthesis of previous findings offers practical conclu- for high convenience contexts but the relationship between
sions. Now that technology is so influential in daily interactions CE–firm performance is greater for low convenience contexts.
between firms and customers, and that consumers are increasing- The counterintuitive finding points to the need for further
ly active in social media, managers must prioritize actions that research to clarify the role of convenience on satisfaction–
directly enhance the customer engagement process (Baldus et al. CE and CE–performance relationships. Additionally, results
2015; Yadav and Pavlou 2014). Our meta-analytic results sug- suggest a stronger CE–firm performance relationship for
gest that to enhance customer engagement in social media com- manufactured goods contexts. Brands may be more salient
panies should focus on being perceived as trustworthy. Trust for tangible consumer goods and that increased brand salience
both relate directly to customer engagement and indirectly may play a role in the stronger relationship relative to services
through its positive association with satisfaction. In contrast, where brands may be more fractionated and less distinct.
commitment displays a relatively weak role in the formation of Managerial practice suggests that services could increase tan-
customer engagement through a small, positive, mediated effect gibility to increase customer engagement (Forbes 2015) and,
through satisfaction. Further, any effort to build trust will directly consequently, firm performance. Finally, another way to boost
pay off in higher customer engagement. To improve customers’ customer engagement contributions is to develop strategies
trust, firms may work hard to be transparent in all their actions, that might increase the hedonic value of products and services.
for example. According to the most recent Harvard Business Thus, to potentialize CE effects on firm performance, firms
Review (2020) article on social media marketing, “trusted brands could consider strategies to increase hedonic value (e.g., plea-
are more likely to attract business, and social media is a powerful sure, fun, and adventure).
1224 J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2020) 48:1211–1228

Limitations and other directions for future research emerging forms of social media affect customer engagement.
For example, Vero focuses on original brand content and or-
The present research has limitations that suggest avenues for ganic customer connections. Facecast uses random live video
further research. For example, the finding that trust plays an chats that focus on fun. Caffeine allows customers to enjoy
important role in creating customer engagement, but that com- real-time engagement. Frameplay interjects opportunities for
mitment does not, deserves further attention. Indeed, given a customer engagement within video games. Future research
strong correlation between trust and commitment observed could consider whether these new forms of social media in-
over the studies in the review, attention may turn toward teraction will enhance customer engagement effects.
whether it is possible to build trust independent of building Our research was limited to relationships commonly stud-
commitment? Meta-factor analysis might provide a tool useful ied in the marketing literature. Some relationships have re-
in examining the potential for a lack of discriminant validity ceived very little empirical attention beyond the specific neg-
between trust and commitment. In any event, further synthesis ative emotions mentioned above. Given that feedback effects
of the trust-commitment relationship and the variants in its have received scant empirical attention in the marketing liter-
measurement is warranted. ature, we did not include them in the meta-analysis. As the
Future studies could evaluate the role of emotions in the cus- empirical literature builds more evidence, future quantitative
tomer engagement framework more specifically. What condi- syntheses may be able to address such effects.
tions cause satisfaction to lead to CE rather than emotional bond- Finally, our meta-analytic focus was on synthesizing previ-
ing, and when are positive emotions more effective for creating ous findings within a model of customer engagement and did
CE in social media? Such investigations are crucial to determin- not directly address its measurement. We presumed that the
ing whether the prevalence of social media has altered the need to variables the authors referred to as “customer (or consumer)
regard satisfaction as a major consideration for marketing prac- engagement” measured that concept. However, the measure-
tice. Customer emotions are complex in terms of positive-versus- ment varies considerably. The customer engagement construct
negative valence, approach-versus-avoidance orientation, and depends on relationship formation (antecedents like trust, sat-
conflicting but similar emotions such as guilt versus shame isfaction, and positive emotions), customer engagement crea-
(e.g., Han et al. 2014; Labroo and Patrick 2009). Managers and tion (CE construct itself), and customer engagement contribu-
public policymakers would benefit from future research that tests tions (behavioral intentions, WOM, and firm performance).
how different emotions affect customer engagement in social Thus, when others present customer engagement measures
media because they often use emotional appeals to incentivize that share greater similarity with attitudinal or behavioral con-
particular behaviors, such as improving consumers’ health and structs, a lack of discriminant validity might be expected
safety choices (e.g., Agrawal et al. 2007). Further, the majority of (Obilo, Chefor, and Saleh 2020). Future research should ex-
research focuses on positive customer engagement. More atten- amine the distinctiveness of customer engagement as a latent
tion is needed to examine negative customer engagement poten- factor relative to other concepts. Further, we would not con-
tially driven by these various negative emotions. sider the CESM results presented here as definitive by any
As a review, we were limited by the nature of the data in means. Future research can elaborate further and more closely
previous studies. Facebook and blogs were found to be two examine its mechanics as research continues to develop.
times less effective than Twitter for creating customer engage-
ment. Twitter relies more on informational content (the fa-
mous 140 text characters) rather than images. Do the results Conclusion
hold for other image-based social media platforms such as
Instagram? In social media contexts, is “a picture worth a In the end, customer engagement will likely continue as an
thousand words,” or will consumers consider the text to be important topic in the academic marketing literature. The syn-
more engaging than images? thesis presented here helps to focus on the overall findings and
Our meta-analytical findings indicate that low convenience points to some areas in need of further research. Not the least
may be associated with stronger customer engagement effects of other reasons is the distinctiveness of customer engagement
on firm performance, which is counterintuitive to longstanding as a factor as clearly various definitions conflict and/or overlap
marketing practice and theory. Further studies should focus on with other well-established concepts (Obilo et al. 2020). But,
the interplay between convenience and customer engagement to the synthesized results suggest that to look at customer en-
examine whether changes in convenience in social media envi- gagement in isolation of other factors minimizes its impor-
ronments could boost firm performance. Similarly, research tance. The notion of customer engagement “mechanics”
needs to sort out the relative role of involvement versus conve- (Pansari and Kumar 2017) emphasizes the role that emotion
nience vis-à-vis customer engagement. and trust play in driving customer activities, with conative
Customer engagement in social media is a relatively new behaviors that involve purchase being paramount, that en-
phenomenon, and more research is needed to explore how the hance the value of both buyer and seller.
Appendix A

Table 6 Customer engagement definitions and measurements

Context / Perspective Authors Definitions Number of Items and Dimensions

Community engagement Algesheimer et al. (2005) Consumer’s intrinsic motivation to interact and 4 items for 1 dimension: Community engagement (α = .90).
(Intrinsic Motivation) cooperate with community members” – p. 21 Example: I am very attached to the community.
Online brand community Baldus et al. (2015) The compelling, intrinsic motivations to continue 42 items for 10 dimensions: Brand influence (α = .84), brand passion (α = .88),
J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2020) 48:1211–1228

engagement interacting with an online brand community” – connecting (α = .82), helping (α = .84), like-minded discussion (α = .85), rewards
(Intrinsic Motivation) p. 979 (hedonic) (α = .87), rewards (utilitarian) (α = .78), seeking assistance (α = .89),
self-expression (α = .85), up-to-date information (α = .84) and validation (α = .85).
Example: I participate in this brand community because I care about the brand
(brand passion).
Brand engagement Sprott et al. (2009) Refers to the tendencies to include important 8 items for 1 dimension: Brand engagement in self-concept (α = .94).
(Psychological state of mind) brands as part of their self-concept – p. 92 Example: I have a special bond with the brands that I like.
Online engagement Paruthi and Kaur (2017) Psychological state of mind as well as an internal 16 items for 4 dimensions: Conscious attention (α = .85), affection (α = .85),
(Psychological state of mind) emotion of the consumer – p. 128 enthused participation (α = .85) and social connection (α = .81).
Example: Engaging with X makes me feel happy (affection).
Online engagement Calder et al. (2009) “A collection of experiences” (consumer’s beliefs 32 items for 8 dimensions: Stimulation and inspiration (α = .88), social facilitation
(Activity) about how a site fits into his/her life) – p. 322 (α = .88), temporal (α = .90), self-esteem and civic mindedness (α = .91), intrinsic
enjoyment (α = .87), utilitarian (α = .88), participation and socializing (α = .88),
and community (α = .88).
Example: Engaging in… it’s a treat for me (enjoyment).
Brand engagement in social Hollebeek et al. (2014) “A consumer’s positively valenced cognitive, 10 items for 3 dimensions: Affection (α = .83), cognitive processing (α = .75) and
media (Activity) emotional and behavioral brand-related activity activation (α = .77).
during, or related to, specific consumer/brand Example: Using [brand] stimulates my interest to learn more about (cognitive
interactions.” – p. 154 processing).
Brand engagement in social Obilo et al. (2020) “Consumers’ positive and negative behavioral 21 items for 4 dimensions: Content engagement (α = .94), Advocacy (α = .83),
media interactions with a brand and all its constituent Negative engagement (α = .76), and Co-creation activities (α = .85).
(Activity) elements, beyond simple transactions, that result
from their interest in and commitment to the
brand” (p. 6)
Blog engagement (Activity) Hopp and Gallicano (2016) “Includes passive message consumption, as well as 12 items for 3 dimensions: Presence (α = .81), utility (α = .86) and virality (α = .84).
intentions to give online recommendations, Example: How likely are you to recommend the blog to someone? (virality).
depending on the engagement level” – p. 129
Contribution Kumar et al. (2019) “Customers become engaged with the firm when Theoretical
to firms Pansari and Kumar (2017) a relationship based on trust and commitment is
satisfying and has emotional bonding” – p. 308
1225
1226 J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2020) 48:1211–1228

References Cheung, C. M., Shen, X. L., Lee, Z. W., & Chan, T. K. (2015). Promoting
sales of online games through customer engagement. Electronic
Commerce Research and Applications, 14(4), 241–250.
Chu, S. C., & Kim, Y. (2011). Determinants of consumer engagement in
Aggarwal, R., Gopal, R., Gupta, A., & Singh, H. (2012). Putting money electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) in social networking sites.
where the mouths are: The relation between venture financing and International Journal of Advertising, 30(1), 47–75.
electronic word-of-mouth. Information Systems Research, 23(3- Claffey, E., & Brady, M. (2017). Examining consumers’ motivations to
part-2), 976-992. engage in firm-hosted virtual communities. Psychology &
Agrawal, N., Menon, G., & Aaker, J. L. (2007). Getting emotional about Marketing, 34(4), 356–375.
health. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(1), 100–113. Dessart, L., Veloutsou, C., & Morgan-Thomas, A. (2015). Consumer
Algesheimer, R., Dholakia, U. M., & Herrmann, A. (2005). The social engagement in online brand communities: A social media perspec-
influence of brand community: Evidence from European car clubs. tive. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 24(1), 28–42.
Journal of Marketing, 69(3), 19–34. Dutot, V., & Mosconi, E. (2016). Understanding factors of disengage-
Ashley, C., & Tuten, T. (2015). Creative strategies in social media mar- ment within a virtual community: An exploratory study. Journal of
keting: An exploratory study of branded social content and consum- Decision Systems, 25(3), 227–243.
er engagement. Psychology & Marketing, 32(1), 15–27. Eisend, M. (2017). The third-person effect in advertising: A meta-analy-
Babić-Rosario, A., Sotgiu, F., De Valck, K., & Bijmolt, T. H. (2016). The sis. Journal of Advertising, 46(3), 377–394.
effect of electronic word of mouth on sales: A meta-analytic review Fischer, E., & Reuber, A. R. (2011). Social interaction via new social
of platform, product, and metric factors. Journal of Marketing media:(how) can interactions on twitter affect effectual thinking and
Research, 53(3), 297–318. behavior? Journal of Business Venturing, 26(1), 1–18.
Babin, B. J., Darden, W. R., & Griffin, M. (1994). Work and/or fun: Forbes. (2015). How To Sell Intangibles. Retrieved July 1st, 2019 from
Measuring hedonic and utilitarian shopping value. Journal of https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrymyler/2015/08/15/how-to-sell-
Consumer Research, 20(4), 644–656. intangibles/#572772477a0a
Badrinarayanan, V. A., Sierra, J. J., & Martin, K. M. (2015). A dual
Forbes. (2018a). Want to Improve Your Social Media Strategy? Avoid
identification framework of online multiplayer video games: The
These 14 Faux Pas. Retrieved July 1st, 2019 from https://www.
case of massively multiplayer online role playing games
forbes.com/sites/forbesagencycouncil/2018/04/27/want-to-
(MMORPGs). Journal of Business Research, 68(5), 1045–1052.
improve-your-social-media-strategy-avoid-these-14-faux-pas/#
Bagozzi, R. P., Gopinath, M., & Nyer, P. U. (1999). The role of emotions
4178216574d6
in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27,
Forbes. (2018b). Social Media is Increasing Brand Engagement and
184–206.
Sales. Retrieved July 1st, 2019 from https://www.forbes.com/sites/
Baldus, B. J., Voorhees, C., & Calantone, R. (2015). Online brand com-
tjmccue/2018/06/26/social-media-is-increasing-brand-engagement-
munity engagement: Scale development and validation. Journal of
and-sales/#35a844717cb3
Business Research, 68(5), 978–985.
Forbes. (2018c). Facebook Engagement Sharply Drops 50% Over Last
Beckers, S. F. M., van Doorn, J., & Verhoef, P. C. (2018). Good, better,
18 Months. Retrieved July 1st, 2019 https://www.forbes.com/sites/
engaged? The effect of company-initiated customer engagement be-
ryanerskine/2018/08/13/study-facebook-engagement-sharply-
havior on shareholder value. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
drops-50-over-last-18-months/#58a6828b94e8
Science, 46(3), 366–383.
Bijmolt, T. H. A., Leeflang, P. S. H., Block, F., Eisenbeiss, M., Hardie, B. Forbes (2019). Creating a Marketing Budget for 2020. Retrieved April
G. S., Lemmens, A., & Saffert, P. (2010). Analytics for customer 1st, 2020 from https://www.forbes.com/sites/theyec/2019/12/19/
engagement. Journal of Service Research, 13(3), 341–356. creating-a-marketing-budget-for-2020/
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P., & Rothstein, H. R. (2019). Forbes (2020a). Why 2020 is a Critical Global Tipping Point for Social
Introduction to meta-analysis. UK: John Wiley & Sons. Media. Retrieved April 1st, 2020 from https://www.forbes.com/
Bowden, J. L. H. (2009a). The process of customer engagement: A con- sites/johnkoetsier/2020/02/18/why-2020-is-a-critical-global-
ceptual framework. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, tipping-point-for-social-media/
17(1), 63–74. Forbes (2020b). Top Ten Results from the February 2020 CMO Survey.
Bowden, J. L. H. (2009b). Customer engagement: A framework for Retrieved April 1st, 2020 from https://www.forbes.com/sites/
assessing customer-brand relationships: The case of the restaurant christinemoorman/2020/02/26/top-ten-results-from-the-february-
industry. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 18(6), 2020-cmo-survey/
574–596. Geyskens, I., Steenkamp, J. B. E., & Kumar, N. (1999). A meta-analysis
Brodie, R. J., Hollebeek, L. D., Jurić, B., & Ilić, A. (2011). Customer of satisfaction in marketing channel relationships. Journal of
engagement: Conceptual domain, fundamental propositions, and Marketing Research, 36(2), 223–238.
implications for research. Journal of Service Research, 14(3), Geyskens, I., Krishnan, R., Steenkamp, J. B. E., & Cunha, P. V. (2009). A
252–271. review and evaluation of meta-analysis practices in management
Brodie, R. J., Ilic, A., Juric, B., & Hollebeek, L. (2013). Consumer en- research. Journal of Management, 35(2), 393–419.
gagement in a virtual brand community: An exploratory analysis. Grewal, D., Puccenelli, N., & Monroe, K. B. (2018). Meta-analysis:
Journal of Business Research, 66(1), 105–114. Integrating accumulated knowledge. Journal of the Academy of
Brown, L. G. (1990). Convenience in services marketing. Journal of Marketing Science, 46, 9–30.
Services Marketing, 4(1), 53–59. Gummerus, J., Liljander, V., Weman, E., & Pihlström, M. (2012).
Calder, B. J., Malthouse, E. C., & Schaedel, U. (2009). An experimental Customer engagement in a Facebook brand community.
study of the relationship between online engagement and advertising Management Research Review, 35(9), 857–877.
effectiveness. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23(4), 321–331. Gustafsson, A., Johnson, M. D., & Roos, I. (2005). The effects of cus-
Cheung, M. W. (2015). Meta analysis: A structural equation modeling tomer satisfaction, relationship commitment dimensions, and trig-
approach. Wiley. gers on customer retention. Journal of Marketing, 69(4), 210–218.
Cheung, M. W., & Chan, W. (2005). Meta-analytic structural equation Hagtvedt, H., & Patrick, V. M. (2009). The broad embrace of luxury:
modeling: A two-stage approach. Psychological Methods, 10(1), Hedonic potential as a driver of brand extendibility. Journal of
40–64. Consumer Psychology, 19(4), 608–618.
J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2020) 48:1211–1228 1227

Hair Jr., J. F., Babin, B. J., & Krey, N. (2017). Covariance-based struc- Kumar, V., Aksoy, L., Donkers, B., Venkatesan, R., Wiesel, T., &
tural equation modeling in the journal of advertising: Review and Tillmanns, S. (2010). Undervalued or overvalued customers:
recommendations. Journal of Advertising, 46(1), 163–177. Capturing total customer engagement value. Journal of Service
Halaszovich, T., & Nel, J. (2017). Customer–brand engagement and Research, 13(3), 297–310.
Facebook fan-page “like”-intention. Journal of Product & Brand Kumar, V., Rajan, B., Gupta, S., & Pozza, I. D. (2019). Customer en-
Management, 26(2), 120–134. gagement in service. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Han, D., Duhachek, A., & Agrawal, N. (2014). Emotions shape decisions 47(1), 138–160.
through construal level: The case of guilt and shame. Journal of Labrecque, L. I. (2014). Fostering consumer–brand relationships in social
Consumer Research, 41(4), 1047–1064. media environments: The role of Parasocial interaction. Journal of
Harmeling, C. M., Moffett, J. W., Arnold, M. J., & Carlson, B. D. (2017). Interactive Marketing, 28, 134–148.
Toward a theory of customer engagement marketing. Journal of the Labroo, A., & Patrick, V. M. (2009). Why happiness helps you see the
Academy of Marketing Science, 45(3), 312–335. big picture. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(5), 800–809.
Harvard Business Review. (2018). The Basic Social Media Mistakes Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis (Vol.
Companies Still Make. Retrieved July 1st, 2018 from https://hbr. 49). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
org/2018/01/the-basic-social-media-mistakes-companies-still-make Mano, H., & Oliver, R. L. (1993). Assessing the dimensionality and
Harvard Business Review. (2019). Using Social Media to Connect With structure of the consumption experience: Evaluation, feeling, and
Your Most Loyal Customers. Retrieved January 15th, 2020 from satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(3), 451–466.
https://hbr.org/2019/12/using-social-media-to-connect-with-your- Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred
most-loyal-customers reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The
Harvard Business Review. (2020). Four Questions to Boost Your Social PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), e1000097.
Media Marketing. Retrieved January 15th, 2020 from https://hbr. Mollen, A., & Wilson, H. (2010). Engagement, telepresence, and inter-
org/2020/01/4-questions-to-boost-your-social-media-marketing activity in online consumer experience: Reconciling scholastic and
Hauk, N., Hüffmeier, J., & Krumm, S. (2018). Ready to be a silver surfer? managerial perspectives. Journal of Business Research, 63(9), 919–
A meta-analysis on the relationship between chronological age and 925.
technology acceptance. Computers in Human Behavior, 84, 304– Moorman, C., Deshpande, R., & Zaltman, G. (1993). Factors affecting
319. trust in market research relationships. Journal of Marketing, 57(1),
Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. 81–101.
Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of
Hennig-Thurau, T., Qwinner, P. K., Walsh, G., & Gremler, D. D. (2004). relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20–38.
Electronic word-of-mouth via consumer-opinion platforms: What Morgan, N. A., & Rego, L. L. (2006). The value of different customer
motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the internet? satisfaction and loyalty metrics in predicting business performance.
Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18, 38–52. Marketing Science, 25(5), 426–439.
Higgins, E. T., & Scholer, A. A. (2009). Engaging the consumer: The Neale, M. C., Hunter, M. D., Pritikin, J. N., Zahery, M., Brick, T. R.,
science and art of the value creation process. Journal of Consumer Kirkpatrick, R. M., Estabrook, R., Bates, T. C., Maes, H. H., &
Psychology, 19(2), 100–114. Boker, S. M. (2016). OpenMx 2.0: Extended structural equation
Hirschman, E. C., & Holbrook, M. B. (1982). Hedonic consumption: and statistical modeling. Psychometrika, 81(2), 535–549.
Emerging concepts, methods and propositions. Journal of Netbase Social Analytics. (2020). Social Media Rankings by Industry.
Marketing, 46, 92–101. Retrieved January 15th, 2020 from https://www.netbase.com/
Hollebeek, L. (2011). Exploring customer brand engagement: Definition social-media-rankings/
and themes. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 19(7), 555–573. Obilo, O. O., Chefor, E., & Saleh, A. (2020). Revisiting the consumer
Hollebeek, L. D., Glynn, M. S., & Brodie, R. J. (2014). Consumer brand brand engagement concept. Journal of Business Research, In Press.
engagement in social media: Conceptualization, scale development https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.12.023.
and validation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 28(2), 149–165. Pansari, A., & Kumar, V. (2017). Customer engagement: The construct,
Hollebeek, L. D., Srivastava, R. K., & Chen, T. (2016). SD logic– antecedents, and consequences. Journal of the Academy of
informed customer engagement: Integrative framework, revised Marketing Science, 45(3), 294–311.
fundamental propositions, and application to CRM. Journal of the Park, C. W., & MacInnis, D. J. (2006). What's in and what's out:
Academy of Marketing Science, 47, 1–25. Questions on the boundaries of the attitude construct. Journal of
Hopp, T., & Gallicano, T. D. (2016). Development and test of a multidi- Consumer Research, 33(1), 16–18.
mensional scale of blog engagement. Journal of Public Relations Paruthi, M., & Kaur, H. (2017). Scale development and validation for
Research, 28(3–4), 127–145. measuring online engagement. Journal of Internet Commerce,
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: 16(2), 127–147.
Correcting error and bias in research findings. SAGE Publications. Peterson, R. A., & Brown, S. P. (2005). On the use of beta coefficients in
Jak, S. (2015). Meta-analytic structural equation modelling. Dordrecht, meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(1), 175–181.
Neth: Springer. Rietveld, R., van Dolen, W., Mazloom, M., & Worring, M. (2020). What
Junco, R., Elavsky, C. M., & Heiberger, G. (2013). Putting twitter to the you feel, is what you like influence of message appeals on customer
test: Assessing outcomes for student collaboration, engagement and engagement on Instagram. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 49, 20–
success. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(2), 273– 53.
287. Rosenblad, A. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis by Michael
Kim, Y., & Peterson, R. A. (2017). A meta-analysis of online trust rela- Borenstein, Larry V. Hedges, Julian PT Higgins. Hannah R.
tionships in E-commerce. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 38, 44– Rothstein. International Statistical Review, 77(3), 478–479.
54. Rosenthal, R. (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null
Kumar, V. (2013). Profitable customer engagement - concept. Metrics results. Psychological Bulletin, 86(3), 638–642.
and Strategies: SAGE Publications. Rosenthal, R., & DiMatteo, M. R. (2001). Meta-analysis: Recent devel-
Kumar, V., & Pansari, A. (2015). Measuring the benefits of employee opments in quantitative methods for literature reviews. Annual
engagement. MIT Sloan Management Review, 56(4), 67. Review of Psychology, 52(1), 59–82.
1228 J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2020) 48:1211–1228

Rust, R. T., & Cooil, B. (1994). Reliability measures for qualitative data: purchased from a multiservice provider: Does age of relationship
Theory and implications. Journal of Marketing Research, 31(1), 1– matter? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30(3), 202–
14. 216.
Santini, F., Ladeira, W. J., Sampaio, C. H., & Pinto, D. C. (2018). The Verhoef, P. C., Reinartz, W. J., & Krafft, M. (2010). Customer engage-
brand experience extended model: A meta-analysis. Journal of ment as a new perspective in customer management. Journal of
Brand Management, 25, 519–535. Service Research, 13(3), 247–252.
See-To, E. W., & Ho, K. K. (2014). Value co-creation and purchase Viechtbauer, W. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor
intention in social network sites: The role of electronic word-of- package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36, 1–48.
mouth and trust–a theoretical analysis. Computers in Human Villanueva, J., Yoo, S., & Hanssens, D. M. (2008). The impact of
Behavior, 31, 182–189. marketing-induced versus word-of-mouth customer acquisition on
Simon, F., & Tossan, V. (2018). Does brand-consumer social sharing customer equity growth. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(1), 48–
matter? A relational framework of customer engagement to brand- 59.
hosted social media. Journal of Business Research, 85, 175–184. Vivek, S. D., Beatty, S. E., & Morgan, R. M. (2012). Customer engage-
Smith, J. B., & Colgate, M. (2007). Customer value creation: A practical ment: Exploring customer relationships beyond purchase. Journal
framework. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 15(1), 7–23. of Marketing Theory and Practice, 20(2), 122–146.
Sprott, D., Czellar, S., & Spangenberg, E. (2009). The importance of a Wang, Z., & Kim, H. G. (2017). Can social media marketing improve
general measure of brand engagement on market behavior: customer relationship capabilities and firm performance? Dynamic
Development and validation of a scale. Journal of Marketing capability perspective. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 39, 15–26.
Research, 46(1), 92–104. Wong, H. Y., & Merrilees, B. (2015). An empirical study of the anteced-
Thomson, M., MacInnis, D. J., & Whan Park, C. (2005). The ties that ents and consequences of brand engagement. Marketing Intelligence
bind: Measuring the strength of consumers’ emotional attachments & Planning, 33(4), 575–591.
to brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(1), 77–91.
Yadav, M. S., & Pavlou, P. A. (2014). Marketing in computer-mediated
Trusov, M., Bucklin, R. E., & Pauwels, K. (2009). Effects of word-of-
environments: Research synthesis and new directions. Journal of
mouth versus traditional marketing: Findings from an internet social
Marketing, 78(1), 20–40.
networking site. Journal of Marketing, 73(5), 90–102.
Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct.
Tsai, H. T., Huang, H. C., & Chiu, Y. L. (2012). Brand community
Journal of Consumer Research, 12(3), 341–352.
participation in Taiwan: Examining the roles of individual-, group-,
Zboja, J. J., & Voorhees, C. M. (2006). The impact of brand trust and
and relationship-level antecedents. Journal of Business Research,
satisfaction on retailer repurchase intentions. Journal of Services
65(5), 676–684.
Marketing, 20(6), 381–390.
Van Doorn, J., Lemon, K. N., Mittal, V., Nass, S., Pick, D., Pirner, P., &
Verhoef, P. C. (2010). Customer engagement behavior: Theoretical Zeithaml, V. A., Parasuraman, A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). Problems and
foundations and research directions. Journal of Service Research, strategies in services marketing. Journal of Marketing, 49(2), 33–
13(3), 253–266. 46.
Van Lange, P. A. M., Rusbult, C. E., Drigotas, S. M., & Arriaga, X. B. Zenith Media (2020). Social media overtakes print to become the third-
(1997). Willingness to sacrifice in close relationships. Journal of largest advertising channel. Retrieved April 1st, 2020 from https://
Personality and Social Psychology, 72(6), 1373–1395. www.zenithmedia.com/social-media-overtakes-print-to-become-
Venkatesan, R. (2017). Executing on a customer engagement strategy. the-third-largest-advertising-channel/
Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 45(3), 289–293.
Verhoef, P. C., Franses, P. H., & Hoekstra, J. C. (2002). The effect of Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic-
relational constructs on customer referrals and number of services tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.