The Role of Two-Way Influences on Sustaining Green Brand Engagement and Loyalty in Social Media
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review and Hypotheses Development
2.1. Green Marketing, Green Branding, and Brand Pages in Social Media
2.2. Two-Way Influences on Information Adoption
2.2.1. Dual-Process Models of Informational Influence
2.2.2. Information Usefulness and Adoption
2.3. Argument Quality as Information Credibility
2.4. Post Popularity and Attractiveness as Source Credibility
2.5. Impact of Information Usefulness on Brand Engagement and Loyalty
2.5.1. Impact of Information Usefulness on Brand Engagement
2.5.2. Impact of Brand Engagement on Brand Loyalty
3. Method
3.1. Sampling
3.2. Measures
4. Data Analysis and Results
4.1. Analysis of Measurement Model
4.2. Analysis of Structural Model
5. Discussion
5.1. Conclusions
5.2. Theoretical Implications
5.3. Managerial Implications
5.4. Limitations and Future Research
Author Contributions
Funding
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Schmidt, J.H. Social Media; Springer VS: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Drury, G. Opinion Piece: Social Media: Should Marketers Engage and How Can it be done effectively? J. Direct Data Digital Mark. Practice 2008, 9, 274–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wibowo, A.; Chen, S.C.; Wiangin, U.; Ma, Y.; Ruangkanjanases, A. Customer behavior as an outcome of social media marketing: The role of social media marketing activity and customer experience. Sustainability 2020, 13, 189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Iglesias, C.A.; Moreno, A. Customer behavior as an outcome of social media marketing: The role of social media marketing activity and customer experience. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 5037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Facebook Statistics and Trends. Available online: https://datareportal.com/essential-facebook-stats (accessed on 10 April 2022).
- Ibrahim, B.; Aljarah, A.; Sawaftah, D. Linking social media marketing activities to revisit intention through brand trust and brand loyalty on the coffee shop facebook pages: Exploring sequential mediation mechanism. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Majeed, M.U.; Aslam, S.; Murtaza, S.A.; Attila, S.; Molnár, E. Green Marketing Approaches and Their Impact on Green Purchase Intentions: Mediating Role of Green Brand Image and Consumer Beliefs towards the Environment. Sustainability 2022, 14, 11703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gong, S.; Sheng, G.; Peverelli, P.; Dai, J. Green branding effects on consumer response: Examining a brand stereotype-based mechanism. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 2020, 30, 1033–1046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, C.; Guo, R. The effect of a green brand story on perceived brand authenticity and brand trust: The role of narrative rhetoric. J. Brand Manag. 2021, 28, 60–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, Y.S. The drivers of green brand equity: Green brand image, green satisfaction, and green trust. J. Bus. Ethics 2010, 93, 307–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Erkan, I.; Evans, C. The influence of eWOM in social media on consumers’ purchase intentions: An extended approach to information adoption. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016, 61, 47–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sussman, S.W.; Siegal, W.S. Informational influence in organizations: An integrated approach to knowledge adoption. Inf. Syst. Res. 2003, 14, 47–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petty, R.E.; Cacioppo, J.T. Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Hart, S.L. A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1995, 20, 986–1014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Keller, K.L. Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. J. Mark. 1993, 57, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aaker, D.A.; Equity, M.B. Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand Name; The Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1991; Volume 28, pp. 35–37. [Google Scholar]
- Yoo, B.; Donthu, N.; Lee, S. An examination of selected marketing mix elements and brand equity. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2000, 28, 195–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muniz, A.M.; O’Guinn, T.C. Brand community. J. Consum. Res. 2001, 27, 412–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- De Vries, L.; Gensler, S.; Leeflang, P.S.H. Popularity of Brand Posts on Brand Fan Pages: An Investigation of the Effects of Social Media Marketing. J. Interact. Mark. 2012, 26, 83–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhattacherjee, A.; Sanford, C. Influence processes for information technology acceptance: An elaboration likelihood model. MIS Q. 2006, 30, 805–825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Deutsch, M.; Gerrard, H.B. A Study of Normative and Informational Social Influence upon Individual Judgment. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 1955, 53, 629–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- McKnight, D.H.; Kacmar, C.J. Factors and effects of information credibility. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Electronic Commerce, AMC, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 19–22 August 2007; pp. 423–432. [Google Scholar]
- Gunawan, D.D.; Huarng, K.H. Viral effects of social network and media on consumers’ purchase intention. J. Bus. Res. 2015, 68, 2237–2241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davis, F.D. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 1989, 13, 319–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Li, R.; Suh, A. Factors Influencing Information credibility on Social Media Platforms: Evidence from Facebook Pages. Proced. Comput. Sci. 2015, 72, 314–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Metzger, M.J.; Flanagin, A.J.; Eyal, K.; Lemus, D.R.; McCann, R.M. Bringing the concept of credibility into the 21st century: Integrating perspectives on source, message, and media credibility in the contemporary media environment. Commun. Yearb. 2003, 27, 293–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, Y.T.; Yu, H.; Lu, H.P. Persuasive messages, popularity cohesion, and message diffusion in social media marketing. J. Bus. Res. 2015, 68, 777–782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Godey, B.; Manthiou, A.; Pederzoli, D.; Rokka, J.; Aiello, G.; Donvito, R.; Singh, R. Social media marketing efforts of luxury brands: Influence on brand equity and consumer behavior. J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 5833–5841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van der Heijden, H. Factors influencing the usage of websites: The case of a generic portal in The Netherlands. Inf. Manag. 2003, 40, 541–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cyr, D.; Head, M.; Ivanov, A. Design aesthetics leading to m-loyalty in mobile commerce. Inf. Manag. 2006, 43, 950–963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Doorn, J.; Lemon, K.N.; Mittal, V.; Nass, S.; Pick, D.; Pirner, P.; Verhoef, P.C. Customer engagement behavior: Theoretical foundations and research directions. J. Serv. Res. 2010, 13, 253–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vinerean, S.; Opreana, A. Measuring customer engagement in social media marketing: A higher-order model. J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2021, 16, 2633–2654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guerreiro, J.; Pacheco, M. How green trust, consumer brand engagement and green word-of-mouth mediate purchasing intentions. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hollebeek, L. Exploring customer brand engagement: Definition and themes. J. Strat. Mark. 2011, 19, 555–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alvarez-Milán, A.; Felix, R.; Rauschnabel, P.A.; Hinsch, C. Strategic customer engagement marketing: A decision-making framework. J. Bus. Res. 2018, 92, 61–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dessart, L.; Veloutsou, C.; Morgan-Thomas, A. Consumer engagement in online brand communities: A social media perspective. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 2015, 24, 28–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jacoby, J. A model of multi-brand loyalty. J. Advert. Res. 1971, 11, 25–30. [Google Scholar]
- Hagel, J. Net gain: Expanding markets through virtual communities. J. Interact. Mark. 1999, 13, 55–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brodie, R.J.; Ilic, A.; Juric, B.; Hollebeek, L. Consumer engagement in a virtual brand community: An exploratory analysis. J. Bus. Res. 2013, 66, 105–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krejcie, R.V.; Morgan, D.W. Determining sample size for research activities. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 1970, 30, 607–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, W.; Watts, S. Knowledge Adoption in Online Communities of Practice. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Information Systems, ICIS 2003 Proceedings, Seattle, WA, USA, 14–17 December 2003; pp. 15–17. [Google Scholar]
- Prendergast, G.P.; Tsang, A.S.; Chan, C.N. The interactive influence of country of origin of brand and product involvement on purchase intention. J. Consum. Mark. 2010, 27, 180–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hollebeek, L.D.; Glynn, M.S.; Brodie, R.J. Consumer brand engagement in social media: Conceptualization, scale development and validation. J. Interact. Mark. 2014, 28, 149–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mardia, K.V.; Foster, K. Omnibus tests of multiformity based on skewness and kurtosis. Commun. Stat.-Theory Methods 1983, 12, 207–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Podsakoff, P.M.; Organ, D.W. Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. J. Manag. 1986, 12, 531–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jin, X.L.; Cheung, C.M.K.; Lee, M.K.O.; Chen, H.P. How to keep members using the information in a computer-supported social network. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2009, 25, 1172–1181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Frequency (n) | Percentage (%) | ||
---|---|---|---|
Gender | Male | 160 | 38.46 |
Female | 256 | 61.54 | |
Age | Less than 20 years | 12 | 2.88 |
20–29 | 302 | 72.60 | |
30–39 | 62 | 14.90 | |
40 and over | 40 | 9.62 | |
Education | High school or lower | 46 | 11.06 |
Undergraduate degree | 196 | 47.12 | |
Postgraduate or higher degree | 174 | 41.83 | |
Occupation | Civil servant | 25 | 6.01 |
Business | 76 | 18.27 | |
Self-employed | 25 | 6.01 | |
Student | 207 | 49.76 | |
Other | 83 | 19.95 | |
Facebook experience | Less than 1 year | 4 | 0.95 |
1–5 years | 119 | 28.61 | |
6–9 years | 252 | 60.58 | |
10 years and over | 41 | 9.86 | |
Facebook daily usage | Less than 15 min | 35 | 8.41 |
15–29 min | 56 | 13.46 | |
30 min to less than 1 h | 94 | 22.60 | |
1 h to less than 3 h | 133 | 31.97 | |
3 h and over | 98 | 23.56 | |
Type of most browsed Fan page | Food and travel | 80 | 19.23 |
Idol star | 46 | 11.06 | |
Sports | 34 | 8.17 | |
Leisure entertainment | 32 | 7.69 | |
Total of others | 224 | 53.85 | |
Cumulated time spend on the most browsed Fan page | 6 months and less | 120 | 28.85 |
7 months to less than 1 year | 93 | 22.35 | |
1 year to less than 2 years | 77 | 18.51 | |
2 years to less than 3 years | 44 | 10.58 | |
3 years and over | 82 | 19.71 | |
Most browsed Fan page usage | Everyday | 125 | 30.05 |
2–5 days per week | 152 | 36.54 | |
1 day per week | 86 | 20.67 | |
2–3 days per month | 30 | 7.21 | |
Once per month | 23 | 5.53 | |
Daily spend time on the most browsed Fan page | 15 min and less | 185 | 44.47 |
16–30 min | 162 | 38.95 | |
31 min to less than 1 h | 45 | 10.82 | |
1 h to less than 3 h | 12 | 2.88 | |
3 h and over | 12 | 2.88 |
Construct | Code | Item |
---|---|---|
Post popularity [27] | PP1 | Brand pages with more people pressing like, sharing, and positively responding are trustworthy. |
PP2 | Brand pages with more people pressing like, sharing, and positively responding are reliable. | |
PP3 | I think brand pages with more people pressing like, sharing, and positively responding are believable. | |
Post attractiveness [27] | PA1 | The images displayed in posts on this brand page are attractive. |
PA2 | The images on this brand page are aesthetically appealing. | |
PA3 | The images on this brand page look attractive. | |
Source credibility [12] | SC1 | I think this brand page host has sufficient expertise in the subject area. |
SC2 | I think the host of this brand page is qualified to be called an expert in the subject area. | |
SC3 | I think the host of this brand page is trustworthy on the topic of the posts. | |
SC4 | I think the host of this brand page is reliable on the topic of the posts. | |
Argument quality [12,41] | AQ1 | This brand page provides timely information. |
AQ2 | This brand page provides definite information. | |
AQ3 | This brand page provides informative messages. | |
AQ4 | This brand page provides complete information. | |
AQ5 | This brand page provides accurate information. | |
AQ6 | This brand page provides consistent information. | |
Information Credibility [42] | IC1 | I think that the posts of this brand page are convincing. |
IC2 | I think that the posts on this brand page are strong. | |
IC3 | I think that the posts on this brand page are credible. | |
IC4 | I think that the posts on this brand page are accurate. | |
Information usefulness [12] | IU1 | I think the posts of this brand page are valuable. |
IU2 | I think that the posts of this brand page are helpful. | |
IU3 | I think that the posts of this brand page are informative. | |
Brand Cognitive Engagement [43] | CO1 | Browsing this brand page gets me to think about this brand page. |
CO2 | I think about this brand page a lot when I’m browsing it. | |
CO3 | Using this brand page stimulates my interest in learning more about its content. | |
Brand Affective Engagement [43] | AF1 | I feel very positive when I browse this brand page. |
AF2 | Browsing this brand page makes me happy. | |
AF3 | I feel good when I browse this brand page. | |
AF4 | I’m proud to join this brand page. | |
Brand Behavioral Engagement [43] | AC1 | I spend much time browsing this brand page compared to other similar ones. |
AC2 | Whenever I’m browsing brand pages, I usually browse this brand page. | |
AC3 | This brand page is my favorite among the brand pages I have browsed. | |
Brand Loyalty [28] | CL1 | I will suggest this brand page to other people. |
CL2 | I would love to recommend this brand page to my friends. | |
CL3 | I regularly browse this brand page. | |
CL4 | I intend to browse this brand page again. | |
CL5 | I am satisfied with this brand page with every browse. | |
CL6 | This brand page would be my first choice. |
Factor | Measurement Question Number | Cronbach’s α Value |
---|---|---|
Post popularity (PP) | 3 | 0.93 |
Post attractiveness (PA) | 3 | 0.886 |
Source credibility (SC) | 4 | 0.914 |
Argument quality (AQ) | 6 | 0.918 |
Information credibility (IC) | 4 | 0.942 |
Information usefulness (IU) | 3 | 0.878 |
Brand engagement (CBE) | 10 | 0.939 |
Brand loyalty (CL) | 6 | 0.94 |
Factor | Variable | Factor Loading | Composite Reliability | Average Variance Extracted | Convergent Validity | AVE Square Root |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Post popularity | PP1 | 0.895 | 0.930 | 0.816 | confirmed | 0.903 |
PP2 | 0.912 | |||||
PP3 | 0.902 | |||||
Post attractiveness | PA1 | 0.832 | 0.888 | 0.725 | confirmed | 0.852 |
PA2 | 0.833 | |||||
PA3 | 0.889 | |||||
Source credibility | SC1 | 0.779 | 0.913 | 0.724 | confirmed | 0.851 |
SC2 | 0.805 | |||||
SC3 | 0.916 | |||||
SC4 | 0.896 | |||||
Argument quality | AQ1 | 0.682 | 0.918 | 0.652 | confirmed | 0.807 |
AQ2 | 0.857 | |||||
AQ3 | 0.737 | |||||
AQ4 | 0.836 | |||||
AQ5 | 0.893 | |||||
AQ6 | 0.820 | |||||
Information credibility | IC1 | 0.881 | 0.942 | 0.804 | confirmed | 0.897 |
IC2 | 0.882 | |||||
IC3 | 0.917 | |||||
IC4 | 0.905 | |||||
Information usefulness | IU1 | 0.883 | 0.879 | 0.709 | confirmed | 0.842 |
IU2 | 0.872 | |||||
IU3 | 0.767 | |||||
Brand engagement | CO1 | 0.788 | 0.941 | 0.616 | confirmed | 0.785 |
CO2 | 0.642 | |||||
CO3 | 0.819 | |||||
AF1 | 0.799 | |||||
AF2 | 0.835 | |||||
AF3 | 0.882 | |||||
AF4 | 0.743 | |||||
AC1 | 0.803 | |||||
AC2 | 0.691 | |||||
AC3 | 0.817 | |||||
Brand loyalty | CL1 | 0.834 | 0.940 | 0.724 | confirmed | 0.851 |
CL2 | 0.830 | |||||
CL3 | 0.842 | |||||
CL4 | 0.875 | |||||
CL5 | 0.846 | |||||
CL6 | 0.876 |
Factor | Post Popularity | Post Attractiveness | Source Credibility | Argument Quality | Information Credibility | Information Usefulness | Brand Engagement | Brand Loyalty |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Post popularity | 0.903 | |||||||
Post attractiveness | 0.594 | 0.852 | ||||||
Source credibility | 0.633 | 0.577 | 0.851 | |||||
Argument quality | 0.647 | 0.593 | 0.706 | 0.807 | ||||
Information credibility | 0.676 | 0.614 | 0.763 | 0.775 | 0.897 | |||
Information usefulness | 0.594 | 0.584 | 0.704 | 0.758 | 0.804 | 0.842 | ||
Brand engagement | 0.542 | 0.617 | 0.630 | 0.677 | 0.748 | 0.766 | 0.785 | |
Brand loyalty | 0.517 | 0.547 | 0.575 | 0.642 | 0.703 | 0.656 | 0.819 | 0.851 |
Dependent Variable | Model | Nonstandardized Coefficient | Standardized Coefficient | t | Significance | Collinearity | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Beta | Standard Error | Beta | Tolerance | V.I.F. | ||||
Source credibility | Post popularity | 0.445 | 0.041 | 0.475 | 10.869 | 0.000 | 0.647 | 1.545 |
Post attractiveness | 0.318 | 0.046 | 0.305 | 6.974 | 0.000 | 0.647 | 1.545 | |
Information credibility | Argument quality | 0.860 | 0.035 | 0.773 | 24.788 | 0.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 |
Information usefulness | Source credibility | 0.235 | 0.043 | 0.246 | 5.495 | 0.000 | 0.418 | 2.394 |
Information credibility | 0.565 | 0.042 | 0.606 | 13.570 | 0.000 | 0.418 | 2.394 | |
Brand engagement | Information usefulness | 0.790 | 0.037 | 0.728 | 21.609 | 0.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 |
Brand loyalty | Information usefulness | 0.221 | 0.046 | 0.204 | 4.763 | 0.000 | 0.470 | 2.128 |
Customer brand engagement | 0.641 | 0.043 | 0.642 | 14.997 | 0.000 | 0.470 | 2.128 |
Fit Index | Ideal Standard Value | Test Result |
---|---|---|
χ2/df | 3 | 1.44 |
GFI | >0.9 | 0.95 |
AGFI | >0.9 | 0.94 |
RMSEA | <0.08 | 0.03 |
SRMR | <0.5 | 0.3038 |
NFI | >0.9 | 0.95 |
TLI(NNFI) | >0.9 | 0.98 |
IFI | >0.9 | 0.99 |
RFI | >0.9 | 0.95 |
CFI | >0.9 | 0.99 |
Hoelter’s critical N | >200 | 289.75 |
Hypothesis | Inferred Hypothesis | Path Coefficient | t Value/Significance Level | Test Result |
---|---|---|---|---|
H1: Argument quality → Information credibility | + | 0.863 | 17.936 *** | Supported |
H2: Post popularity → Source credibility | + | 0.576 | 11.023 *** | Supported |
H3: Post attractiveness → Source credibility | + | 0.357 | 7.443 *** | Supported |
H4: Information credibility → Information usefulness | + | 0.857 | 18.891 *** | Supported |
H5: Source credibility → Information usefulness | + | 0.213 | 6.117 *** | Supported |
H6: Information usefulness → Brand engagement | + | 0.788 | 14.847 *** | Supported |
H7: Information usefulness → Brand loyalty | + | 0.187 | 2.92 ** | Supported |
H8: Brand engagement → Brand loyalty | + | 0.703 | 9.467 *** | Supported |
Total Effects | Direct Effects | Indirect Effects | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lower Bounds | Upper Bounds | Lower Bounds | Upper Bounds | Lower Bounds | Upper Bounds | |
IU → BE | 0.886 | 1.111 | 0.886 | 1.111 | 0 | 0 |
IU → BL | 0.701 | 0.935 | 0.013 | 0.39 | 0.466 | 0.798 |
Standardized Direct Effects | 0.187 |
Standardized Indirect Effects | 0.554 |
Standardized Total Effects | 0.741 |
Variance Account For (VAF) | 0.747 |
Result | Partial mediating effect |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Chuang, H.-M.; Chen, C.-I. The Role of Two-Way Influences on Sustaining Green Brand Engagement and Loyalty in Social Media. Sustainability 2023, 15, 1291. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15021291
Chuang H-M, Chen C-I. The Role of Two-Way Influences on Sustaining Green Brand Engagement and Loyalty in Social Media. Sustainability. 2023; 15(2):1291. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15021291
Chicago/Turabian StyleChuang, Huan-Ming, and Chien-I Chen. 2023. "The Role of Two-Way Influences on Sustaining Green Brand Engagement and Loyalty in Social Media" Sustainability 15, no. 2: 1291. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15021291