Article (Young Consumers)

Smart Proof System Instructions
It is recommended that you read all instructions below; even if you are familiar with online
review practices.
Using the Smart Proof system, proof reviewers can easily review the PDF proof, annotate
corrections, respond to queries directly from the locally saved PDF proof, all of which are
automatically submitted directly to our database without having to upload the annotated PDF.
 Login into Smart Proof anywhere you are connected to the

internet.
 Review the proof on the following pages and mark corrections,
changes, and query responses using the Annotation Tools.
Note: Editing done by replacing the text on this PDF is not

permitted with this application.
 Save your proof corrections by clicking the "Publish Comments"

Publish Comments
button.
Corrections don't have to be marked in one sitting. You can
publish comments and log back in at a later time to add and
publish more comments before you click the "Complete Proof
Review" button below.
 Complete your review after all corrections have been published

to the server by clicking the "Complete Proof Review" button
below.
Before completing your review.....
Did you reply to all author queries found in your proof?
Did you click the "Publish Comments" button to save all your corrections?
Any unpublished comments will be lost.
Note: Once you click "Complete Proof Review" you will not be able to add or
publish additional corrections.
Complete Proof Review

J_ID: YC ART NO: 10.1108/YC-12-2018-0902 Date: 24-October-19 Page: 1 Total Pages: 22 4/Color Figure(s) ARTTYPE="ResearchArticle"
Fashion brands are engaging the

millennials: a moderated-mediation model
of customer-brand engagement,
participation, and involvement
AQ:au Nagaraj Samala and Bharath Shashanka Katkam
Abstract Nagaraj Samala is based at

Purpose – Millennial generation is fashion inclined, interactive and informative social beings. They are the ICBM School of
very conscious of the brands they wear. Millennia seek, share, inform and exchange fashion brand- Business Excellence,
related information on social networking sites (SNS). Marketers are subsequently engaging the young Hyderabad, India.
prospects and customers to keep up or improve enthusiasm and participation. The study attempts to Bharath Shashanka Katkam
investigate the role of customer-brand engagement (CBE) of millennials with fashion brands on SNS. The
is based at the School of
study simultaneously tests the moderating role of involvement levels affecting participation and CBE
Management Studies,
AQ: 1 leading to brand loyalty.
University of Hyderabad,
Design/methodology/approach – The study followed a purposive sample by collecting 466
respondents from the graduate students of a university. The study adopted structural equation modelling Hyderabad, India.
(SEM) and Hayes process macros in SPSS 20.0 to test the moderated-mediation model.
Findings – The study confirms the mediating role of CBE in the relationship between participation and
brand loyalty. Different degrees of involvement moderate the mediating role of CBE. Higher levels of
involvement enhance the positive effect of participation on CBE.
Originality/value – The study is first of its kind to investigate the role of CBE and involvement among the
millennial group. It also contributes to the related theories like service-dominant logic, social exchange
theory and consumer culture theory regarding a unique population group, which is promising and
profitable.
Keywords Social exchange theory, Involvement, S-D logic, Consumer culture theory,
moderated-mediation, Customer-brand engagement, Fashion, Millennials
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Millennials are that generational cohort that is young, educated, affluent and more social
(Howe and Strauss, 2009). They have an information aged mindset and are comfortable
and enthusiast of new technology. Millennials are friendly and fashion inclined. They tend to
adopt new trends in fashion by searching and gathering information through traditional and
social media (Geraci and Judit, 2004). They are the youngest and most innovative groups
which participate in online shopping and social media (Smith, 2011). According to
eMarketer (2018), online purchasers are going to increase from $224m in 2018 to a
whopping $329m by the year 2020. The Indian fashion market is expected to be worth
Received 17 December 2018
$59.3bn by 2022 (McKinsey, 2019). This growing fashion industry in India has attracted 15 February 2019
many domestic and global brands to enter the market (Kearney, 2014). Educated, tech- 14 May 2019
13 June 2019
savvy youngsters make up the majority of the prospective customer base of the Indian 10 July 2019
fashion industry (McKinsey, 2019). Accepted 27 July 2019
DOI 10.1108/YC-12-2018-0902 © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 1747-3616 j YOUNG CONSUMERS j
ID: akash.bhosle Time: 07:38 I Path: //mbnas01.cadmus.com/home$/akash.bhosle$/EM-YCJJ190043

In the modern business dynamic environment of increased interaction with stakeholders,

considering customer engagement is a strategic tool for generating enhanced firm
performance via increased competitive advantage (Sedley and Perks, 2008), sales growth
(Neff, 2007), and profitability (Voyles, 2007). Practitioners identified that engaged
customers play an essential role in marketing brands through recommendations and
referrals. According to Gallup (2014), customers who are fully engaged show an average of
23 per cent increase in terms of wallet share, profitability, and revenue when compared with
other customers. SocialMediaToday (2014) reported a 44 per cent increase among
engaged customers in the electronics industry. (AberdeenGroup, 2014) report indicated
that companies applying customer engagement analytics could retain 14 per cent more
customers when compared to their counterparts.
Following the growing importance for customer engagement among business firms,
Marketing Science Institute (MSI) has declared customer engagement (CE) as a critical
research topic in their research priority list for the period 2010-2012 and 2014-2016 (MSI,
2010, 2014). A properly executed customer engagement strategy with clear and relevant
content can increase the emotional connection with the brand (ARF, 2016). According to
AdAge India’s (2018) DMAsia report, 45 per cent of the India digital marketers are focusing
on customer engagement in the year 2018. In an article published on cutomerthink.com,
author Savelli (2018) has even emphasized that 51 per cent of the marketers use of artificial
intelligence (AI) in their customer engagement activities.
Marketers are using social media effectively to implement communication strategies and
engage existing and potential customers (Judson et al., 2012). The use of social media is
increasing in communicating the brand, product or firm-related information (Hanna et al.,
2011). It has evolved as a prime tool in information and knowledge sharing through
interaction with various stakeholders (Singh et al., 2010). Hence, there is an increased in
customer-brand engagement – engaging the customer through brand-related activities
online (Brodie et al., 2013; Hollebeek, 2011a, 2011b).
The terms “customer engagement,” “consumer engagement” and “brand engagement”
were limited before 2005 within the literature of academic marketing and services (Brodie
et al., 2011a; Brodie et al., 2011b). The recent surge in the literature relating to customer
engagement (CE), has made CE a prerogative aspect of marketing research during 2010-
2012 (MSI, 2010). It is observant that engaged customers predominantly do word-of-mouth
marketing by referring or recommending products or services. However, despite the
growing reputation of the term “engagement,” very few attempts were made to define and
examine its relationship with participation and involvement conceptually.
Van Doorn et al. (2010), argues that blogging activities, customer-to-customer (C2C)
interaction, and word-of-mouth activity are actually “customers engagement behaviors” and
defined it as the behaviors manifested by a brand or firm beyond purchase and
transactions. Thus, from this coherence, a model linking customer-brand engagement
(CBE) to a specific firm, customers, antecedences and consequences is highly
recommended. Likewise similar research on the consequences of CE includes
empowerment (Cova and Pace, 2006; Füller et al., 2009), satisfaction (Bowden, 2009),
loyalty (Casalo et al., 2007; Schouten et al., 2007), consumer value (Gruen et al., 2006;
Schau et al., 2009), commitment (Chan and Li, 2010), emotional connection/attachment
(Chan and Li, 2010), trust (Casalo et al., 2007; Casalo
et al., 2008; Hollebeek, 2011a) and
brand advocacy (Samala and Singh, 2019).
Millennials participate and spend a lot of time in searching, collecting, and sharing fashion
brands related information on social media (Samala and Singh, 2019), specifically brand
created fan pages on social networking sites (SNS) like Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. It
would be interesting to see their online engagement behavior with their favorite fashion
brands in India.
j YOUNG CONSUMERS j

The studies conducted on “engagement” in Indian context have highlighted the importance
of engaging both customers and employees in this dynamic developing economy. In this
diversified industrial environment, the company practices undergo rapid transformations.
Individuals have to adapt the technology to increase “engagement” (Gupta, 2018; Gupta
and Pandey, 2018). On the positive side, it is believed that employee engagement leads to
customer engagement. It would be interesting to find out the mechanism by which
employee engagement leads to customer engagement and customer delight (Gupta,
2018). In the scenario of dynamic market opportunities, with an increase in the competition,
companies in India are finding it difficult to engage their Employees. This inability to
effectively engage the employees leads to employee turnover. These consequences affect
employee familiarity with their customers and other stakeholders (Gupta and Shaheen,
2017). Especially in the fashion industry, where the interaction of the customers with the
employees is relatively high, it is an essential part to the employees to engage customers to
deliver satisfaction and increase involvement.
Among the BRICS nations, India has the fastest growing Internet Market, with an annual
growth rate of 41 per cent in terms of the Internet user base. Nearly, there are 40 million
users, who make their decision about the product purchase using the information available
on social media. (Verma, 2014; Thakur, 2016). Apparel and Textile Industry in India is one of
the largest industries, which have a compounding growth rate. Factors such as foreign
direct investment (FDI), income growth, favorable demographics, young consumer groups,
a shift in the consumer preferences towards fashion brands, made India a dynamic market
place for the fashion brands. (Islam and Rahman, 2016). Since, young consumers category,
their changing preferences in fashion, growing aspirations and readiness to change are the
major reasons for rapid changes in fashion industry, the present study aims to study
millennials engagement behavior with fashion brands in India. The main aim of the study is
to see the role of CBE in the relationship between customer participation and brand loyalty.
The study also aims to examine the moderating role of millennials involvement with fashion
brands.
Review of literature and hypotheses development

This section attempts to review the literature related to customer-brand engagement,
involvement, and participation as primary constructs since the study focuses on how the
relationship between these constructs vary when millennials engage with their favorite
brands on social media networking sites. Ever since the introduction of customer
engagement (CE) concept as a strategic marketing tool, which is enhancing firm
performance like sales growth (Neff, 2007), profitability (Voyles, 2007), and improved
competitive advantage (Sedley and Perks, 2008), CE has gained a greater importance in
both the academic and marketing world (Brodie et al., 2011a; Brodie et al., 2013). MSI has
identified it as one of the priority research topics for the year 2010-2012 (MSI, 2010) and
2014-2016 (MSI, 2014). Since then CE has grabbed the attention of marketing academics in
conceptualizing and exploring customer engagement as a marketing construct (Bowden,
2009). Previous research has focused on defining and differentiating engagement with
variously related marketing constructs (Gambetti et al., 2012). However, there is relatively
less work on empirically testing CE in different dynamic environments, with other constructs
(Hollebeek et al., 2014).
Though the term “engagement” is not new and appears in other disciplines like sociology,
psychology, and organizational behavior for more than the last ten years (Resnick, 2001;
Saks, 2006), the term was not adequately addressed until 2005 (Brodie et al., 2011a,
2011b). Similar to other disciplines, marketing defines engagement as a psychological state
of mind, which is context-specific and a behavior that manifests towards a focal object
(Hollebeek, 2011b). Although the concept of CE is linked with theories like the social
exchange theory (SET; Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005), regulatory engagement theory
j YOUNG CONSUMERS j

(Higgins and Scholer, 2009) and consumer culture theory (CCT; Arnould and Thompson,
2005), the essential characteristics of CE can be explained with the service-dominant (S-D)
logic theory (Vargo and Lusch, 2004; Vargo and Lusch, 2008), highlighting the dimensions
of interactive experience nature and value co-creation aspects within relationship
marketing. According to S-D logic, the customer is a co-creator of their service experience
through interactions with the other stakeholders like firms, brands or other customers, and
through offline or online virtual platforms (Vargo and Lusch, 2004, 2008; Verhoef et al.,
2010). These particular characteristics can be called “engagement.”
To co-create, customers have to interact and engage with firms/brands to improve service
experiences. These enhanced services would lead to better behavioral outcomes. To
communicate and co-create the customers have to participate and be involved in the
interactive platforms (Carlson et al., 2018) created by firms/brands/customers (Hoyer et al.,
2010; Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2002). Therefore, participation and involvement can be
positive drivers of customer engagement and other behavioral outcomes.
Customers participate in interactive social platforms (online) to create better experiential
services, where the critical intrinsic motive is a mutual benefit through social interactions
and relations (Gillis et al., 2018). This behavior, as an example of social exchange theory
(SET), shows that customer social behavior is an outcome of the exchange process through
social ties (Hollebeek, 2011b; Hollebeek et al., 2014). CE also links to consumer culture
theory (CCT) defining the consumer consumption behavior from a social and cultural
viewpoint (Leckie et al., 2016). As engagement is a two-way interaction process between
customers and other stakeholders, like other customers, firms or brands, there is a positive
influence of these stakeholders on the choice and consumption behavior of customers.
In the past decade, a large number of studies have been conducted on customer
engagement in a variety of contexts including online communities and brand pages and
their relationships with other marketing constructs such as brand-consciousness, brand
love, brand image and experience with different segments of the population and product
categories. The broad concept of engagement has given rise to a variety of multi- and
single-dimensional constructs like customer-brand engagement (Hollebeek et al., 2014),
customer engagement (Vivek et al., 2014), brand engagement with self-concept (BESC;
Flynn et al., 2011) and customer-engagement with tourism brands (Samala et al., 2019; So
et al., 2014). These are developed in relevance to specific contexts and environments. A
variety of studies have tested these constructs empirically to examine the role of
engagement.
The present study focuses on the role of CBE and involvement in the relationship between
customer participation and brand loyalty in the context of online fashion brand communities
in India. Similar studies have examined this topic; however, there is a clear distinction in
terms of the engagement construct measured, the product category/industry, or the age of
the subjects. For example, Ananda et al. (2019) focused on social media marketing
activities driving customers to engage in electronic word of mouth activities for fashion
brands. However, they did not restrict their study to young consumers alone or included a
customer-brand engagement scale. A study by Samala and Singh (2019) is similar to the
present study; the major difference is in the use of engagement construct. The present
study considers the multi-dimensional CBE construct with cognitive, emotional and
behavioral dimensions, whereas Samala and Singh (2019) considered a uni-dimensional
construct BESC which differs from the CBE construct in terms of the underlying theory.
Le and Kim (2016) studied “Blog Engagement” with fashion brands focusing on female
millennials. Parker and Wang (2016) conducted a qualitative study on “app engagement”
with fashion retailers; however, they did not restrict their study to millennials. Kim and Kim
(2014) studied the relationship between customer engagement, friendship, social values,
and stimulation; however, their work did not focus on millennials. Similar studies including
j YOUNG CONSUMERS j

Loureiro et al. (2017), Chu et al. (2013), and Wiegand (2017) have dealt with consumer
engagement with fashion brands. These studies differ from the present work by the
relationships and constructs examined. The present paper is distinct from earlier studies
and focuses on testing the moderated-mediation of CBE and its involvement in the
relationship between participation and loyalty.
Participation
Active participation in services results in more socialization, which enhances the satisfaction
and perceived quality of services (Claycomb et al., 2001). Previous research on customer
participation in the context of co-creation (Mekhail et al., 2013) has focused on improving
marketing strategies and operational efficiency (Kalaignanam and Varadarajan, 2015).
Although participation is an integral aspect of the customer engagement concept in
general, there exists a significant difference in terms of cognitive processing. Here the
participation of customers or customer’s participation is referred to as “the degree to which
the customer is involved in producing and delivering the service” (Dabholkar, 2015a,
p. 484).
There is a difference between the activity dimension of customer participation and CE
(Vivek, 2009; Vivek et al., 2014), and it is studied as an antecedent positively influencing
CE. Participation is a more proactive voluntary (Eisingerich et al., 2014) communication from
customer to firms to improve firm’s offerings thorough suggestions and interactions,
whereas engagement is a psychological process of getting occupied with the activities of
the brand (Brodie et al., 2011a; Brodie et al., 2013). Participation is a voluntary performance
by customers to assist firms to serve better (Bettencourt, 1997). Participation is more of an
activity-based dimension of the interaction of customers with firms seeking mutual benefits
(Dabholkar, 2015a; Gillis et al., 2018). Engagement is a multi-dimensional concept of a
cognitive, emotional and behavioral aspect of a customer in the process of interacting with
the brand/firm and is context based (Brodie et al., 2013). While participating customers
interact with firms/brands to co-create which lead to a cognitive and emotional connection
with the brand (Nysveen and Pedersen, 2014), which describes engagement. Therefore, as
prospects and customers participate in brand communities to co-create it leads to higher
levels of engagement (Bagozzi and Dholakia, 2006):
H1. Participation positively affects customer-brand engagement (CBE).
Participation can happen online or off-line depending upon the kinds of participating
community, and it often breeds mutual interest and determines the loyalty of the consumers
(Bhardwaj, 2019). Also, active participation (Bhardwaj, 2019) imparts in-depth knowledge
about the value of product and services offered. Participation influences habitual behavior
due to the increased awareness of the product and services, which brings the critical
outcome of community participation, i.e. the intention to purchase a product or services
(Apenes Solem, 2016).
The ultimate goal of customers or firms to participate in virtual communities is to co-create
better services seeking mutual benefit in the process (Hoyer et al., 2010; Nagaraj, 2018);
when the customer receives the service/product he co-created it motivates him to be more
loyal to the firm/brand regarding repurchase and positive word-of-mouth (Casalo et al.,
2007; Dabholkar, 2015b):
H2. Participation positively affects brand loyalty.
Customer-brand engagement
In the recent literature relating to the development of engagement, the concept of CBE has
won much interest and attention as it has evolved to be an important concept in marketing
literature. Unlike CE which emphasizes the involvement of customers, CBE is believed to be
j YOUNG CONSUMERS j

dichotomous, emphasizing not only on the customer’s involvement but also the
promotional aspects such as retention, loyalty, and positive word-of-mouth
communication wrapped up by co-creation of customer value (Verhoef et al., 2010).
Often the customers are regarded as proactive actors who also co-created the value
of a brand interaction through the emotional, cognitive and physical resources
(Higgins and Scholer, 2009). Most research on CBE has focused on a specific brand.
However, Sprott et al. (2009) have prioritized the attention towards a brand, which
reflects the self-concept of consumers. These different dimensions has led Hollebeek
et al. (2014) to adopt a holistic context of a brand that comprises the symbolic
aspects of a brand, including the perceived utilitarian and hedonic aspects. In
addition to this, most of the studies relating to CBE have defined the latent as multi-
dimensional taking into account the cognitive, affective and behavioral dimensions
(Gambetti et al., 2012; Hollebeek, 2011b). The most refined definition of CBE for this
study is found in Hollebeek et al. (2014, p. 149), who define CBE as “a consumer’s
positively valenced brand-related cognitive, emotional and behavioral activity during
or related to focal consumer/brand interaction.” They propose three dimensions of
CBE as there is a hierarchical effect regarding cognition, affection and conation, as
“cognitive processing,” “affection” and “activation.” The foremost depicts the level of
consumers thought processing about the brand. Affective denotes the degree of
consumer’s positive vibe about the brand through consumer-brand interaction.
Lastly, activation implies the physical behavior of consumers such as the efforts, time
and the level of energy given to a specific brand.
Past studies have provided some evidence of the relationship between the three
dimensions, i.e. cognitive processing, affection and activation, along with brand loyalty.
Consumers are more likely to develop loyalty as they concentrate on the brand allocating
their cognitive capacity. Social judgment theory can explain this loyalty (Doherty and Kurz,
1996), where one’s judgment is subjective based on prior experience. In addition to
cognitive processing, it is also the affective bonds towards a brand that determines loyalty,
including the time and energy invested in making the consumer more focused and loyal to a
particular brand (Voyles, 2007; Won-Moo et al., 2011). Based on this notion, researchers
state that a consumer who is engaged with a brand is more prone to build strong beliefs
and feelings about the brand influencing their behavior (Oliver, 1999; Vivek et al., 2012):
H3. Customer-brand engagement positively affects brand loyalty.
H4. CBE positively mediates the relationship between participation and loyalty.
Brand loyalty
Brand loyalty denotes the bonds a customer has or develops over time for a specific brand
(Liu et al., 2012). Brand loyalty is an important outcome variable in the context of marketing
literature. However, the definition of brand loyalty differs throughout the studies. In some
studies, attitudinal loyalty is the focus (Kressmann et al., 2006), while in others, behavioral
loyalty is given importance as a determinant of buying frequency (Romaniuk and Nenycz-
Thiel, 2013).
This study adopts Zeithaml et al. (1996) overall behavioral loyalty rather than direct
repurchase attitudinal loyalty of a particular brand. The sole reason for implying importance
behavioral loyalty representing recommendations, suggestions and word-of-mouth through
interaction online rather than attitudinal loyalty is that it includes commitment and
repurchase intentions of a specific brand (Russell-Bennett et al., 2007). Loyal customers are
an indicator of future performance. Therefore, brand loyalty has become paramount even
for service providers (Dwivedi, 2015).
j YOUNG CONSUMERS j

Involvement as a moderator
Similarly, consumer involvement is defined as the degree of customer’s perception about
the importance of the object relating to their built-in interests, needs and values
(Zaichkowsky, 1985). Customer involvement is different from customer engagement. The
former describes the suitability and importance to the customer, whereas the latter
describes a value derived following interactions with the service/brand (Parihar et al., 2019).
The individual ego structure centralizes the relevance of an object (Russell-Bennett et al.,
2007) depending on the degree of involvement with the brand and the need to feel
connected (Zaichkowsky, 1985) with a high need to search and process information and
stay engaged with a particular brand (Beatty and Smith, 1987).
Vivek et al. (2012) report that consumers who have extreme interest and involvement with the
brand have an escalated degree of engagement. Past studies have shown that CBE positively
influences loyalty regarding mobile phone consumers with dimensions like vigor, dedication,
and absorption (Dwivedi, 2015). This loyalty is likely due to the bond that consumers
experience and engage with a specific brand. Hollebeek et al. (2014) studied CBE in the
context of social media and state that consumer brand involvement positively influences the
three dimension of CBE, i.e. cognitive processing, affection, and activation. This is because
consumers gravitate to maintaining a committed relationship with a specific brand.
Related research on online communities by Wirtz et al. (2013) states that as the consumer’s
level of involvement with the brand intensifies, it leads to an increase in consumer
engagement. Higher involvement leads to higher levels of interest regarding greater search
and product trails, which requires a substantial level of engagement with the brand (Doherty
and Kurz, 1996; Kinley et al., 2010; Parihar et al., 2019). Similarly, prospects with less
involvement would exhibit lower levels of engagement. Therefore, we hypothesize that
F1 involvement positively moderates customer-brand engagement (Figure 1):
H5. Involvement positively moderates the relationship between participation and

customer-brand engagement.
Methodology
Sampling
The study intended to test the moderating role of involvement of customers with brand
engagement behavior. Besides selling products online, fashion brands like Shein, Wrong,
Figure 1 Conceptual model
CUSTOMER
BRAND
ENGAGEMENT
PARTICIPATION BRAND LOYALTY
j YOUNG CONSUMERS j

Zara and Being Human actively implement engagement activities on SNS by creating brand
pages (AdAge India, 2018; Chaturvedi, 2016; IndiaRetailing, 2017). A large portion of
customers follow their favorite brand’s online social networking pages for various reasons
like new fashion trends and updated information about brands (Samala and Singh, 2019).
The present research considered online fashion brands as the context of the study, with
millennial as the subject. Millennials are those born “after 1982 and before 2000” (Howe and
Strauss, 2009; Krishna, 2018) with a “median age of 29” (Forbes, 2017). As millennials are
online shoppers (Kautish and Sharma, 2018; Kinley et al., 2010) and more active on SNS
(McKinsey, 2019) and a large portion of millennials are students, this research recognized
students as the respondents. Therefore, selecting students as a sample representing the
millennial cohort is relevant (Bassiouni and Hackley, 2014; Priporas et al., 2017), and using
students as a sample for fashion related studies follows previous research (Fugate et al., 2012;
O’Cass and Siahtiri, 2014). This study selected university students as sample respondents.
The study followed a convenient and purposive research methodology and is descriptive.
Sample profile
A structured questionnaire is distributed to the students of a university to indicate their level
of engagement, involvement, and participation on social media brand pages of their favorite
fashion brand. The questionnaire asked students about their presence on SNS and their
online buying behavior. Students were asked to indicate their responses keeping in mind
their favorite brand that they follow on Facebook or Twitter.
A total of 500 questionnaires were distributed of which 466 responses were collect back
and used for data analysis. The respondents were all students of a university and are from
various courses offerings. Of the 466 responses, 46 per cent were female students and 54
per cent were male students. 57 per cent of the respondents were in the age group of 20-
25, 27 per cent were between 26-30 years of age, and 16 per cent were below 20 years of
age. Since all these age groups are within the cohort of millennia (Howe and Strauss, 2009),
the sample respondents are considered millennials. All the respondents claimed to be
online shoppers of fashion and also declared their active presence on social networking
sites, i.e. Facebook or Twitter. Respondents also indicated their favorite fashion brand that
they follow on SNS and used that brand in their questionnaire answers.
Survey instrument
The questionnaire is designed using the adapted scales developed in the customer-brand
relationship literature. The study adopted four elements of the scale developed by
Zaichkowsky (1994) to measure the involvement of the customers on social media.
Participation of the customers is measured using the four items of the participation scale
developed by Bettencourt (1997). The customer-brand engagement (CBE) scale is
adapted from the ten items on the multi-dimensional scale developed by Hollebeek et al.
(2014). Finally, to measure the outcome variable of the customer’s brand loyalty, four items
were adapted from Zeithaml et al. (1996) scale of behavioral loyalty. A total of 22 items were
used to measure the four primary constructs used in the study. Likert’s scale of five points
ranging from 1 to 5, were 1 = Strongly Disagree and 5 = Strongly Agree were used except
for the involvement scale. A sample size of 466 is considered relevant and justified for the
22 items used as per the recommended ratio of at least ten responses for each item
(Bentler and Chou, 1987; Kline, 2011).
Data analysis and results

After analyzing the data for demographics, the data is then tested for its reliability and
validity. The results of the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) along with Cronbach’s alpha
j YOUNG CONSUMERS j

values as a test for reliability and inter-item consistency (Kline, 2016; Peterson, 1994) are
T1 shown in Table I. The values are within the suggested limits for reliability measures (Santos,
1999), i.e. Cronbach’s Alpha value of the variables are more than 0.70 as per Nunnally and
Berbsteun (1991). The factor loadings are also meeting the required threshold values over
0.4 (Costello and Osborne, 2005; Tabachnick and Fidell, 2007).
The minimum sample required for the desired statistical power and effect size is calculated
using GPower 3 (Faul et al., 2007). “A priori’’ power analysis using correlation biserial model
one-tailed t-test with a statistical power of 0.95 and a medium effect of 0.3 (Cohen, 1988)
has recommended a minimum sample size of 111. The required sample to conduct a
structural model for a given number of latent and observed variables, expected effect size,
and desired statistical power is calculated using a web-based calculator by Soper (2019).
With 14 latent and 9 observed variables, a medium effect size of 0.3 (Gomer et al., 2018),
desired statistical power of 0.8 (Cohen, 1988; Westland, 2010), and 0.05 level of
significance the recommended minimum sample to detect an effect in the present structural
model is 208. Therefore, according to statistical recommendations the present sample size
of 466 falls within the limits of a moderate effect size.
Measurement model
A first-order confirmatory factor analysis is performed to test the validity concerns of the
variables. The measurement model with four variables used resulted in being fit according
to the recommended statistics (Iacobucci, 2010). The model fit indices obtained are x 2 =
284.454, df = 125, x 2/df = 2.276 (Jöreskog, 1993), p < 0.05, GFI = 0.902 (Joreskog and
Sorbom, 1988), CFI = 0.950 (Bentler, 1990), TLI = 0.932 (Hu and Bentler, 1999), IFI = 0.951,
NFI = 0.916 (Bentler and Bonett, 1980) and RMSEA = 0.069 is greater than 0.08 (Browne
Table I Results of EFA

Item Factor Cronbach’s
code Item description loading alpha value
Personal Involvement Inventory (PII) 0.722

To me [ _____ ] is:
PII_1 Important : Unimportant 0.804
PII_2 Exciting : Unexciting 0.694
PII_3 Involving : Uninvolving 0.730
Participation (PAR) 0.855
PAR_1 I let [ _____ ] know of ways that it can better serve my needs 0.783
PAR_2 I make constructive suggestions to [ _____ ] on how to improve its offerings 0.767
PAR_3 When I experience a problem with [ _____ ], I let them know so they can improve 0.885
services
Consumer-Brand Engagement (CBE) 0.825
COG_1 Using [ ______ ] gets me to think about [ ______ ] 0.872
COG_2 I think about [ ______ ] a lot when I’m using it 0.735
COG_3 Using [ ______ ] stimulates my interest to learn more about [ ______ ] 0.878
AFF_1 I feel very positive when I use [ ______ ] 0.810
AFF_2 Using [ ______ ] makes me happy 0.788
AFF_3 I feel good when I use [ ______ ] 0.848
AFF_4 I’m proud to use [ ______ ] 0.844
ACT_1 I spend a lot of time using [ ______ ], compared to other similar brands 0.809
ACT_2 Whenever I’m doing apparel shopping online, I usually use [ ______ ] 0.801
ACT_3 [ ______ ] is one of the brands I usually use when I use apparel shopping 0.885
Brand Loyalty (BLY) 0.829
BLY_1 I say positive things about [ ______ ] to other people 0.847
BLY_2 I recommend [ ______ ] to someone who seeks your advice 0.816
BLY_3 I encourage friends and relatives to do business with [ ______ ] 0.652
Note: Items with are reverse coded. In this blank [______] respondents consider their favorite brand they follow on social media
j YOUNG CONSUMERS j

and Cudeck, 1993). The validity concerns of the variables are calculated and shown in
Table II. The composite reliability values are above 0.70 as recommended by Hair et al. T2
(2010). Average variance extracted (AVE) values are also meeting the standard
recommendations of Fornell and Larcker (1981), i.e. should be above 0.50, thus confirming
the convergent validity of the constructs. Confirming the discriminant validity among the
constructs, AVE of all the constructs are higher than the corresponding maximum shared-
squared variance (Hair et al., 2010). Similarly, the square-root values of AVE of each
construct is greater than the absolute correlation values of the corresponding construct with
other constructs (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Therefore, the data is tested for its composite
reliability, discriminant and convergent validity.
Structural model
Once validated, the data is ready to test the formulated hypotheses of the study. The first AQ: 2
hypothesis was to examine the mediating effect of CBE on the relationship between
participation and loyalty. To perform this test SPPS-AMOS is used to perform a Covariance
Based-Structural Equation Modelling (CB-SEM) method. CB-SEM and Partial Least
Squares- Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM) are two robust alternative techniques to
test simple and complex models, each with their own strengths and weaknesses (Hair et al.,
2012). One of the main drawbacks of PLS-SEM is the absence of widely accepted criterions
of a model fit, which can be obtained using CB-SEM (Hair et al., 2012). PLS-SEM is used
more often for complex and reflective models; CB-SEM is more suitable for simple formative
and mediation models (Hair et al., 2011; Hair et al., 2012). Since, neither of the SEM
techniques (i.e. CB-SEM and PLS-SEM) is superior to one other (Hair et al., 2012), the study
should select the one which suits the data characteristics, research objectives and model
being tested (Fornell and Bookstein, 1982; Gefen et al., 2011). The present study tests the
simple mediation, measuring the indirect effect in the first case; a CB-SEM is more relevant
than PLS-SEM(Byrne, 2016; Fornell and Bookstein, 1982; Hair et al., 2017).
All four hypotheses H1, H2, H3 and H4, were supported, i.e. the relationship between
participation, CBE and loyalty were positively significant supporting the mediating role AQ: 3
of CBE. Hypothesis H1 indicates the positive relationship between participation and
CBE, saying that customers who participate in the brand pages would access the
brand content and experience engagement. H1 is significant at b = 0.56, p < 0.001. H2
is significant with b = 0.51, p < 0.001; indicating that participation on band pages will
positively influence brand loyalty. H3 is significant with b = 0.55, at p < 0.001 reflecting
the positive effect of CBE on brand loyalty. The fourth hypothesis, H4, was significant
confirming the (indirect) mediating role of CBE between participation and brand loyalty
with a value of b = 0.23, p < 0.05. These results confirm the positive mediating role of
CBE in the relationship between participation and brand loyalty. Table III shows the T3
results of the structural model. The mediation model is fit according to the fit indices
Table II Validity statistics

CR AVE MSV ASV PII AFF COG PAR BLY ACT
PII 0.742 0.514 0.340 0.210 0.717

AFF 0.891 0.675 0.284 0.160 0.533 0.822
COG 0.880 0.717 0.242 0.162 0.492 0.303 0.846
PAR 0.867 0.689 0.340 0.209 0.583 0.386 0.486 0.830
BLY 0.848 0.653 0.316 0.184 0.409 0.436 0.480 0.562 0.808
ACT 0.812 0.598 0.083 0.025 0.121 0.288 0.107 0.042 0.127 0.773
Notes: CR = Composite reliability, AVE = average variance extracted, MSV = maximum shared-
squared variance, ASV = average shared-squared variance, PII = involvement, AFF = affective,
COG = cognitive processing, PAR = participation, BLY = brand loyalty, ACT = activation, values in
bold and diagonal are the square-root of AVE of corresponding constructs
j YOUNG CONSUMERS j

obtained, i.e. x 2 = 113.822, df = 24, x 2/df = 4.743 (Jöreskog, 1993), p < 0.05, GFI =
0.919, CFI = 0.915, TLI = 0.873, IFI = 0.916, NFI = 0.896 and RMSEA = 0.119 (Browne
and Cudeck, 1993), which are close to the suggested model fit values in the literature
(Bentler, 1990; Bentler and Bonett, 1980; Bentler and Chou, 1987).
Moderated-Mediation
The next part of the analysis is to test H5, the moderating role of involvement construct
between participation and CBE. To test this hypothesis Model 7 of Hayes (2013) Process
T4 Macros with SPSS is followed, and Table IV shows the results of this moderation of mediator
model. According to Hayes (2015, p. 2) “to claim mediation is moderated, one should (if not
also must) have evidence that at least one of the paths in the X ! M ! Y system is
moderated.” Similarly,
[. . .] moderated mediation occurs when the strength of an indirect effect depends on the level of
some variable, or in other words when mediation relations are contingent on the level of a
moderator (Preacher et al., 2007, p. 193).
According to Hayes (2015), when a mediator alters its effect on the outcome variable
with the influence of varying levels of another variable (moderator), the model is called
moderated-mediation. Examining the change in indirect effect due to the inclusion of a
moderator variable yields exciting insights; these models are tested in the psychology
discipline, but are new in marketing studies, for example, see Nyadzayo and
Khajehzadeh (2016), Guo et al. (2018); Djelassi et al. (2018); and Samala and Singh
(2019).
The Hayes Process Macros with SPSS at 10,000 bootstrapping (Mackinnon et al., 2004;
Preacher and Hayes, 2004) is used to test the moderated-mediation (James and Brett,
1984) model for this study, i.e. the moderating effect of involvement on the relationship
between participation and engagement. In this technique, the acceptation of the
hypotheses is based on the confidence interval (CI) levels. If the CI (lower, upper) level
Table III Results of structural model

Hypothesized relationships Standardized regression effect P-value

H1: Participation ! CBE 0.558

H2: Participation ! Brand Loyalty 0.515

H3: CBE ! Brand Loyalty 0.549
H4: Participation ! CBE ! Brand Loyalty 0.228 0.012 < 0.05
Table IV. Results of moderated-mediation model

Effect(s) of independent variable on dependent variable
Confidence interval
Hypothesized relationships Estimate (LLCI, ULCI)
Direct effect 0.39 (0.05) (S) 0.28, 0.49

Indirect effect
PAR !CBE 0.22 (0.06) (S) 0.02, 0.25
PII ! CBE 0.30 (0.06) (S) 0.18, 0.42
CBE ! BLY 0.33 (0.05) (S) 0.23, 0.43
PAR ! CBE ! BLY 0.39 (0.05) (S) 0.28, 0.49
Interaction (PAR PII) 0.22 (0.06) (S) 0.10, 0.23
Notes: Estimates with the standard error values in the parenthesis. Direct and indirect effects at 95%
level of confidence intervals. (S) = Hypothesis Supported. The values are obtained at 10,000
bootstrapped sampling with Bias Corrected method using Hayes Process Macros in SPSS
j YOUNG CONSUMERS j

does not include zero, then the hypothesis is accepted (Hayes, 2015). The result
provides support for the mediating role of CBE and is moderated by involvement with a
moderated-mediation index value of 0.07 with a standard error of 0.02 and CI limits
(0.03, 0.13). The interaction effect of involvement and CBE is 0.22, significant at p <
0.05 and CI limits (0.10, 0.33). Figure 2 shows a graph of the interaction effect of F2
involvement. Involvement as a moderator strengthens the positive relationship between
participation and CBE indicating the higher the level of involvement of the customers,
the stronger the relationship between their participation and engagement with the
brand on the social media page.
Discussion
The study results indicate that customer’s participation on the social media fan pages of
their favorite brands for improving the products and services through a two-way interaction
drives them to engage themselves more with the brand and which further motivates them to
be loyal towards the brand. Customers interacting with the brand tend to participate in
discussions related to advertising, customizing, and offers, which eventually helps the
brand to understand the customer and improve their services and products. In a similar
process, customers tend to engage themselves with brand activities through liking/disliking,
commenting, recommending and related activities. This engagement is necessary to
motivate the customer to be active in the customer-brand relationship. It is evident from the
results of the present study that CBE positively mediates the relationship between
customer’s participation and their loyalty.
It was interesting to study the role of customer involvement with the brand and its effect on
customer’s engagement. The moderation analysis provided the evidence for involvement as
a positive moderator enhancing the positive relationship between participation and loyalty.
The study concludes that highly involved customers strengthen the participation-CBE
relationship greater than the low-involved customers (see graph in Figure 2). Some
customers are more involved with the brand than others due to several reasons. Similarly,
some of the customers are active participants, and some are passive. Active participants
are customers who like, comment, recommend and suggest and passive participants are
customers who just read comments, follow profiles, watch videos and other content. Greve
(2014) found that there is no significant difference between active and passive participants.
However, it was interesting to see that interacting effect of participation and involvement on
CBE.
Figure 2 Graph representing the moderating effect of involvement
4.5
3.5 Moderator
CBE
3 Low Involvement
2.5
High Involvement
2
1.5
Low Parcipaon High Parcipaon
j YOUNG CONSUMERS j

Interpreting the graph in Figure 2, it is evident that customers with high involvement would
increase the positive effect of participation on CBE and low involvement also positively
improves the positive relationship between the two. However, the enhancement of this
relationship is higher with high involvement than low involvement. Understanding the
interrelationship between these antecedents and consequences of customer-brand
engagement provides support for the role of customer involvement as a moderator of the
relationship between participation and CBE which further positively leads to customer-
brand loyalty (Samala and Singh, 2018).
Contribution to theory
The study supports the underlying principles of S-D logic (Lusch and Vargo, 2010; Vargo
and Lusch, 2008) in marketing towards understanding the CBE concept. As discussed
earlier, CBE is an iterative two-way interaction between customers and brands seeking
mutual benefit through co-creation of services. For this process, the main antecedents for
engagement are participation and involvement. This study hypothesized that engagement
and participation positively influence CBE. It is evident from the results that the varying
levels of involvement of young customers generate a higher effect of participation leading to
higher levels of engagement. The study also supports the SET (Cropanzano and Mitchell,
2005) that young customers do participate on brand pages to give suggestions on service-
related improvement and simultaneously seek information about a brand. The findings also
support CCT (Arnould and Thompson, 2005), that young consumers participate in these
social media-based brand pages to interact with peers, firms and brands. CBE is an
interaction between two entities on the social platform through the exchange of information
and knowledge, influencing their consumption and choice behavior.
Implications for marketers

The present study once again reveals the importance of brand engagement among young
customers through social media fan pages. Millennia, unlike other age groups, are more
tech-savvy and active social media participants. They demand a specific set of content to
get attracted and get involved with brands. Marketers are by now clearly aware of the
advantages and consequences of engaging young customers online through their brand’s
fan pages on social media networking sites (McKinsey, 2019). Indeed, they have already
increased their presence and activities in engaging customers. Especially fashion brands,
where the involvement of customers and the frequency of purchase are very high compared
to other categories of products; marketers have actively increased the engaging activities
for these brands (Samala et al., 2019). Today with the available latest analytics, marketers
can identify active participants and engage them with non-monetary benefits, and then
those participants can become strong positive advocates of the brand on the brand pages.
The present study is an attempt to provide support for the understanding of marketers
concerning the relationship between involvement, participation, and engagement of
customers. This study once again provides support to the practical knowledge of brand
managers that increased participation and engagement of customers lead to an increase in
positive attitudinal and behavioral loyalty of the customers.
Implications for society

The young are the backbone and future of any nation. This powerful, effective group is
ready to participate in a social group given opinions. Today’s social and digitals platforms
allow young adults to receive or exchange and disseminate information (IndiaRetailing,
2017). They are fashion oriented and at the same time smart shoppers. They are more
brand conscious but value-specific. They are making decisions based on authentic
information (Forbes, 2017). They are switching brands when a brand no longer provides
j YOUNG CONSUMERS j

value for the customer investment of time, cost and efforts. Therefore, marketers should use
social media platforms to form, educate, entertain and update brand-related information
through brand pages to increase loyalty.
Limitations
The study considered only graduate students of a university. Though these respondents
represent the age of millennia from different socio-demographic backgrounds, a millennial
sample from the general population, rather than a university, would be more justifiable to
generalize the results. Though the sample size of 466 is statistically adequate to test the
proposed model, it is considered relatively less to generalize the results. The present study
is just intended to study the relationship between respondent’s involvement, participation
and engagement; however, it would be interesting to study the effects of constructs like
perceived quality, value, brand image and attachment (Brodie et al., 2013; Hollebeek,
2011a; Hollebeek, 2011b) on millennials engagement.
The study considered Facebook and Twitter as the SNS’s for this study and did not include
other SNS like Instagram. The study did not analyze the difference between Facebook and
Twitter concerning study variables, as this was not the objective of the current research.
Future research can examine single SNS and multiple brands followed by an individual to
see how the engagement activities and content of different brands create different levels of
involvement, engagement and loyalty.
Conclusion
The current study was intended to examine the role of millennia’s engagement due to
varying levels of involvement on online brand pages of their favorite fashion brands. In other
words, the research studies the moderated-mediation effect of involvement and CBE on the
relationship between participation and loyalty. The results first confirm the partially
mediating effect of CBE on the relationship between participation and loyalty. Customers’
voluntary participation on brand pages to improve and co-create services will positively
motivate customers to engage with the brand, which in turn increases brand loyalty (Samala
et al., 2019).
The study results showed that customer involvement on brand pages moderates the
mediating effect of CBE. It is evident that customers perceive high involvement when they
find the content created by brands is relevant, exciting and essential. These customers
exhibit higher levels of CBE than customers with low involvement. The effect of participation
on CBE is higher among high-involved customers, and the same effect is also increasing
among low involved customers. However, this effect in low-involved is less than the high-
involved. Therefore, it can be concluded that millennia’s who perceive the content to be
essential and relevant would have higher involvement generating higher levels of
engagement.
References
AberdeenGroup (2014), “Customer engagement analytics: how to use data to create (and keep) happy
customers”, p. 14.
AdAge India (2018), “Customer Engagement Key Focus for 45% Marketers in 2018: Times Internet-
DMAasia Report”, available at: www.adageindia.in/marketing/customer-engagement-key-focus-for-45-
marketers-in-2018-times-internet-dmaasia-report/articleshow/65259166.cms (accessed 10 October
2018).
Ananda, A.S., Hernández-Garcı́a, Á., Acquila-Natale, E. and Lamberti, L. (2019), “What makes fashion
consumers “click”? Generation of eWoM engagement in social media”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing
and Logistics, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 398-418, doi: 10.1108/APJML-03-2018-0115.
j YOUNG CONSUMERS j

Apenes Solem, B.A. (2016), “Influences of customer participation and customer brand engagement on
brand loyalty”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 33 No. 5, pp. 332-342.
ARF. (2016), “The science of engagement – content matters”, available at: http://thearf-org-aux-assets.
s3.amazonaws.com/email/newsletter/The-Science-of-Engagement.pdf (accessed 1 May 2017).
Arnould, E.J. and Thompson, C.J. (2005), “Consumer culture theory (CCT): twenty years of research”,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 868-882.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Dholakia, U.M. (2006), “Antecedents and purchase consequences of customer
participation in small group Brand communities”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 23
No. 1, pp. 45-61, doi: 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2006.01.005.
Bassiouni, D.H. and Hackley, C. (2014), “Generation Z’children’s adaptation to digital consumer culture:
a critical literature review”, Journal of Customer Behaviour, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 113-133.
Beatty, S.E. and Smith, S.M. (1987), “External search effort: an investigation across several product
categories”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 83-95.
Bentler, P.M. (1990), “Comparative fit indexes in structural models”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 107
No. 2, pp. 238-246.
Bentler, P.M. and Bonett, D.G. (1980), “Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of
covariance structures”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 88 No. 3, pp. 588-606.
Bentler, P.M. and Chou, C.-P. (1987), “Practical issues in structural modeling”, Sociological Methods &
Research, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 78-117.
Bettencourt, L.A. (1997), “Customer voluntary performance: customers as partners in service delivery”,
Journal of Retailing, Vol. 73 No. 3, pp. 383-406, doi: 10.1016/S0022-4359(97)90024-5.
Bhardwaj, N. (2019), “From active participation to engagement in online communities: analysing the
mediating role of trust and commitment AU - Vohra, anupama”, Journal of Marketing Communications,
Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 89-114, doi: 10.1080/13527266.2017.1393768.
Bowden, J.L.-H. (2009), “The process of customer engagement: a conceptual framework”, Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 63-74, doi: 10.2753/MTP1069-6679170105.
Brodie, R.J., Hollebeek, L.D. and Smith, S.D. (2011b), “Engagement: an important bridging concept for
the emerging SD logic lexicon”, Paper presented at the University of Auckland Business School. 2011
Naples Forum On Service.
, B. and Ilic
Brodie, R.J., Hollebeek, L.D., Juric , A. (2011a), “Customer engagement: conceptual domain,
fundamental propositions, and implications for research”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 14 No. 3,
pp. 252-271, doi: 10.1177/1094670511411703.
Brodie, R.J., Ilic, A., Juric, B. and Hollebeek, L. (2013), “Consumer engagement in a virtual brand
community: an exploratory analysis”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 105-114.
Browne, M.W. and Cudeck, R. (1993), “Alternative ways of assessing model fit”, Sage Focus Editions,
Vol. 154, pp. 136-136.
Byrne, B.M. (2016), Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and
Programming, Routledge, New York.
Carlson, J., Rahman, M., Voola, R. and De Vries, N. (2018), “Customer engagement behaviours in social
media: capturing innovation opportunities”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 83-94.
Casalo, L., Flavián, C. and Guinalı́u, M. (2007), “The impact of participation in virtual brand communities
on consumer trust and loyalty: the case of free software”, Online Information Review, Vol. 31 No. 6,
pp. 775-792.
Casalo, L., Flavián, C. and Guinalı́u, M. (2008), “Promoting consumer’s participation in virtual brand
communities: a new paradigm in branding strategy”, Journal of Marketing Communications, Vol. 14
No. 1, pp. 19-36.
Chan, K.W. and Li, S.Y. (2010), “Understanding consumer-to-consumer interactions in virtual
communities: the salience of reciprocity”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 63 Nos 9/10,
pp. 1033-1040.
Chaturvedi, A. (2016), “Top fashion brands take the online route to India”, The Economic Times, available
at: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/services/retail/top-fashion-brands-take-the-online-
route-to-india/articleshow/52068385.cms (accessed 5 February 2016).
j YOUNG CONSUMERS j

Chu, S.-C., Kamal, S. and Kim, Y. (2013), “Understanding consumers’ responses toward social media
advertising and purchase intention toward luxury products”, Journal of Global Fashion Marketing, Vol. 4
No. 3, pp. 158-174.
Claycomb, C., Lengnick-Hall, C.A. and Inks, L.W. (2001), “The customer as a productive resource: a pilot
study and strategic implications”, Journal of Business Strategies, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 47-69.
Cohen, J. (1988), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed., Lawrence Earlbaum
Associates, Hillsdale.
Costello, A.B. and Osborne, J.W. (2005), “Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four
recommendations for getting the most from your analysis”, Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation,
Vol. 10 No. 7, pp. 1-9.
Cova, B. and Pace, S. (2006), “Brand community of convenience products: new forms of customer
empowerment - the case “my nutella the community”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 40 Nos 9/10,
pp. 1087-1105, doi: 10.1108/03090560610681023.
Cropanzano, R. and Mitchell, M.S. (2005), “Social exchange theory: an interdisciplinary review”, Journal
of Management, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 874-900.
Dabholkar, P.A. (2015a), “How to improve perceived service quality by increasing customer
participation”, Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 1990 Academy of Marketing Science (AMS)
Annual Conference, Cham.
Dabholkar, P.A. (2015b), “How to improve perceived service quality by increasing customer
participation”, Dunlap B.J. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1990 Academy of Marketing Science (AMS) Annual
Conference, Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 483-487.
Djelassi, S., Diallo, M.F. and Zielke, S. (2018), “How self-service technology experience evaluation affects
waiting time and customer satisfaction? a moderated mediation model”, Decision Support Systems,
Vol. 111, pp. 38-47.
Doherty, M.E. and Kurz, E.M. (1996), “Social judgement theory”, Thinking & Reasoning, Vol. 2 Nos 2/3,
pp. 109-140.
Dwivedi, A. (2015), “A higher-order model of consumer brand engagement and its impact on loyalty
intentions”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 24 No. 0, pp. 100-109, doi: 10.1016/j.
jretconser.2015.02.007.
Eisingerich, A.B., Auh, S. and Merlo, O. (2014), “Acta non verba? The role of customer participation and
word of mouth in the relationship between service firms’ customer satisfaction and sales performance”,
Journal of Service Research, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 40-53, doi: 10.1177/1094670513490836
eMarketer (2018), “Number of digital buyers in India from 2014 to 2020 (in millions)”, availble at: www-
statista-com.libproxy.library.wmich.edu/statistics/251631/number-of-digital-buyers-in-india/ .
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G. and Buchner, A. (2007), “G power 3: a flexible statistical power
analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences”, Behavior Research Methods,
Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 175-191.
Flynn, L.R., Goldsmith, R.E. and Korzenny, F. (2011), “Brand engagement in self-concept: a
psychometric and demographic analysis”, Journal of Multidisciplinary Research (1947-2900), Vol. 3
No. 2, pp. 5-18.
Forbes (2017), “India’s millennials to drive growth in four key sectors”, available at: www.forbes.com/
sites/morganstanley/2017/06/23/indias-millennials-to-drive-growth-in-four-key-sectors/#237e2da54f27
(accessed 5 October 2018).
Fornell, C. and Bookstein, F.L. (1982), “Two structural equation models: lISREL and PLS applied to
consumer exit-Voice theory”, Journal of Marketing Research ( Research), Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 440-452.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables
and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research ( Research), Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Fugate, B.S., Thomas, R.W. and Golicic, S.L. (2012), “The impact of coping with time pressure on
boundary spanner collaborative behaviors”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management, Vol. 42 No. 7, pp. 697-715, doi: 10.1108/09600031211258156.
Füller, J., MüHlbacher, H., Matzler, K. and Jawecki, G. (2009), “Consumer empowerment through
internet-based co-creation”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 71-102.
j YOUNG CONSUMERS j

Gallup (2014), “State of the American consumer: insights for business leaders”, available at: www.gallup.
com/services/178703/state-american-consumer-report.aspx (accessed 15 July 2016).
Gambetti, R.C., Graffigna, G. and Biraghi, S. (2012), “The grounded theory approach to consumer-brand
engagement”, International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 54 No. 5, pp. 659-687.
Gefen, D., Rigdon, E. E, Straub. and D, (2011), “Editor’s comments: an update and extension to SEM
guidelines for administrative and social science research”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 3-14.
Geraci, J.C. and Judit, N. (2004), “Millennials – the new media generation”, Young Consumers, Vol. 5
No. 2, pp. 17-24, doi: 10.1108/17473610410814111.
Gillis, W., Johansen, D. and Vivek, S.D. (2018), “Differentiating customer engagement and customer
participation in service marketing: an abstrac”, Paper presented at the Academy of Marketing Science
Annual Conference.
Gomer, B., Jiang, G. and Yuan, K.-H. (2018), “New effect size measures for structural equation
modeling”, Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, pp. 1-19, doi: 10.1080/
10705511.2018.1545231.
Greve, G. (2014), “The moderating effect of customer engagement on the brand image – brand loyalty
relationship”, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 148, pp. 203-210, doi: 10.1016/j.
sbspro.2014.07.035.
Gruen, T.W., Osmonbekov, T. and Czaplewski, A.J. (2006), “e”WOM: the impact of customer-to-
customer online know-how exchange on customer value and loyalty”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 59 No. 4, pp. 449-456.
Guo, G., Tu, H. and Cheng, B. (2018), “Interactive effect of consumer affinity and consumer
ethnocentrism on product trust and willingness-to-buy: a moderated-mediation model”, Journal of
Consumer Marketing, Vol. 35 No. 7, pp. 688-697.
Gupta, M. (2018), “Engaging employees at work: insights from India”, Advances in Developing Human
Resources, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 3-10.
Gupta, M. and Pandey, J. (2018), “Impact of student engagement on affective learning: evidence from a
large indian university”, Current Psychology, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 414-421.
Gupta, M. and Shaheen, M. (2017), “Impact of work engagement on turnover intention: moderation by
psychological capital in India”, Business: Theory and Practice, Vol. 18, pp. 136.
Hair, J.F., Jr, Matthews, L.M., Matthews, R.L. and Sarstedt, M. (2017), “PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: updated
guidelines on which method to use”, International Journal of Multivariate Data Analysis, Vol. 1 No. 2,
pp. 107-123.
Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2011), “PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet”, Journal of Marketing
Theory and Practice, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 139-152.
Hair, J.F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M. and Mena, J.A. (2012), “An assessment of the use of partial least
squares structural equation modeling in marketing research”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 414-433.
Hair, J.F., William, C.B., Barry, J.B. and Rolph, E.A. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed. Pearson,
NJ.
Hanna, R., Rohm, A. and Crittenden, V.L. (2011), “We’re all connected: the power of the social media
ecosystem”, Business Horizons, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 265-273.
Hayes, A.F. (2013), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A
Regression-Based Approach, 1st ed., Guilford Press, New York, NY.
Hayes, A.F. (2015), “An index and test of linear moderated mediation”, Multivariate Behavioral Research,
Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 1-22, doi: 10.1080/00273171.2014.962683.
Higgins, E.T. and Scholer, A.A. (2009), “Engaging the consumer: the science and art of the value creation
process”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 100-114.
Hollebeek, L.D. (2011a), “Demystifying customer brand engagement: exploring the loyalty nexus”,
Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 27 Nos 7/8, pp. 785-807, doi: 10.1080/0267257X.2010.500132.
Hollebeek, L.D. (2011b), “Exploring customer brand engagement: definition and themes”, Journal of
Strategic Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 7, pp. 555-573, doi: 10.1080/0965254X.2011.599493.
j YOUNG CONSUMERS j

Hollebeek, L.D., Glynn, M.S. and Brodie, R.J. (2014), “Consumer brand engagement in social media:
conceptualization, scale development and validation”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 2,
pp. 149-165.
Howe, N. and Strauss, W. (2009), “Millennials rising: the next great generation: vintage”.
Hoyer, W.D., Chandy, R., Dorotic, M., Krafft, M. and Singh, S.S. (2010), “Consumer cocreation in new
product development”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 283-296.
Hu, L.T. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), “Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
conventional criteria versus new alternatives”, Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal,
Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-55, doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118.
Iacobucci, D. (2010), “Structural equations modeling: fit indices, sample size, and advanced topics”,
Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 90-98.
IndiaRetailing (2017), “Global fashion brands entering India”, available at: www.indiaretailing.com/2017/
04/27/fashion/global-fashion-brands-entering-india/(accessed 22 October 2017).
Islam, J.U. and Rahman, Z. (2016), “Examining the effects of brand love and brand image on customer
engagement: an empirical study of fashion apparel brands”, Journal of Global Fashion Marketing, Vol. 7
No. 1, pp. 45-59, doi: 10.1080/20932685.2015.1110041.
James, L.R. and Brett, J.M. (1984), “Mediators, moderators, and tests for mediation”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 69 No. 2, pp. 307-321, doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.69.2.307.
Jöreskog, K.G. (1993), Testing Structural Equation Models, Sage, Newbury.
JOreskog, K.G. and Sorbom, D. (1988), LISREL 7: A Guide to the Program and Its Applications, SPSS,
Chicago.
Judson, K.M., Devasagayam, P.R. and Buff, C.L. (2012), “Self-perceived brand relevance of and
satisfaction with social media”, Marketing Management Journal, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 131-144.
Kalaignanam, K. and Varadarajan, R. (2015), “Customers as co-producers: implications of marketing
strategy effectiveness and marketing operations efficiency”, Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (Eds), The
Service-Dominant Logic of Marketing: dialog, Debate, and Directions, Routledge, New York, NY,
pp. 166-179.
Kautish, P. and Sharma, R. (2018), “Consumer values, fashion consciousness and behavioural intentions
in the online fashion retail sector”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 46
No. 10, pp. 894-914.
Kearney, A.T. (2014), “Most popular online shopping categories 2014, by country”, available at: www-
statista-com.libproxy.library.wmich.edu/statistics/410987/online-shopping-categories-countries/ (accessed
5 January 2015).
Kim, J. and Kim, J.-E. (2014), “Making customer engagement fun: customer-salesperson interaction in
luxury fashion retailing”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 18
No. 2, pp. 133-144, doi: 10.1108/JFMM-04-2013-0050.
Kinley, T.R., Josiam, B.M. and Lockett, F. (2010), “Shopping behavior and the involvement construct”,
Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 562-575.
Kline, R.B. (2011), Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 3rd ed., Guilford publications,
New York, NY.
Kline, R.B. (2016), Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 4th ed., Guilford, New York,
NY.
Kressmann, F., Sirgy, M.J., Herrmann, A., Huber, F., Huber, S. and Lee, D.-J. (2006), “Direct and indirect
effects of self-image congruence on brand loyalty”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 59 No. 9,
pp. 955-964.
Krishna, V. (2018), “The future of indian consumption, the millennial way”, available at: https://yourstory.
com/2018/02/future-indian-consumption-millennial-way (accessed 15 April 2018).
Le, L. and Kim, J. (2016), “impacts of brand awareness and brand responses via blog page on
millennial’s blog engagement: implications to the fashion industr”, Paper presented at the 2016 Global
Marketing Conference at Hong Kong.
Leckie, C., Nyadzayo, M.W. and Johnson, L.W. (2016), “Antecedents of consumer brand engagement
and Brand loyalty”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 32 Nos 5/6, pp. 558-578.
j YOUNG CONSUMERS j

Liu, F., Li, J., Mizerski, D. and Soh, H. (2012), “Self-congruity, brand attitude, and brand loyalty: a study on
luxury brands”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46 Nos 7/8, pp. 922-937.
Loureiro, S.M.C., Gorgus, T. and Kaufmann, H.R. (2017), “Antecedents and outcomes of online brand
engagement: the role of brand love on enhancing electronic-word-of-mouth”, Online Information Review,
Vol. 41 No. 7, pp. 985-1005, doi: 10.1108/OIR-08-2016-0236.
Lusch, R.F. and Vargo, S.L. (2010), “SD logic: accommodating, integrating, transdisciplinary”, Grand
Service Challenge, University of Cambridge.
Mackinnon, D.P., Lockwood, C.M. and Williams, J. (2004), “Confidence limits for the indirect effect:
distribution of the product and resampling methods”, Multivariate Behavioral Research, Vol. 39 No. 1,
pp. 99-99, doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr3901_4.
McKinsey (2019), “The state of fashion 2019: a year of awakening”, available at: www.mckinsey.com/
industries/retail/our-insights/the-state-of-fashion-2019-a-year-of-awakening (accessed 2 January 2019).
Mekhail, M., Elina, J. and Aino, H. (2013), “Customer participation and value creation: a systematic review
and research implications”, Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 23 No. 4,
pp. 341-359, doi: 10.1108/MSQ-03-2013-0046.
MSI (2010), “Marketing science institute. 2010–2012 research priorities”, available at: www.msi.org/pdf/
MSI_RP10-12.pdf (accessed 10 August 2014).
MSI (2014), “Marketing science institute 2014-16 reserach priorities”, available at: www.msi.org/uploads/
files/MSI_RP14-16.pdf (accessed 15 March 2017).
Nagaraj, S. (2018), “Application of TAM and the role of gender in adopting mobile apps for shopping: an
empirical analysis”, Asian Journal of Multidimensional Research (AJMR), Vol. 7 No. 9, pp. 43-52.
Neff, J. (2007), “OMD proves the power of engagement”, Advertising Age, Vol. 78 No. 27, pp. 3-4.
Nunnally, J.C. and Berbsteun, I.H. (1991), Psychometric Theory, McGraw, New York, NY.
Nyadzayo, M.W. and Khajehzadeh, S. (2016), “The antecedents of customer loyalty: a moderated
mediation model of customer relationship management quality and brand image”, Journal of Retailing
and Consumer Services, Vol. 30, pp. 262-270.
Nysveen, H. and Pedersen, P.E. (2014), “Influences of co-creation on brand experience: the role of Brand
engagement”, International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 56 No. 6, pp. 807-832, doi: 10.2501/IJMR-
2014-016.
O’Cass, A. and Siahtiri, V. (2014), “Are young adult Chinese status and fashion clothing brand
conscious?”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 18 No. 3,
pp. 284-300.
Oliver, R.L. (1999), “Whence consumer loyalty?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63 No. 4_suppl1, pp. 33-44,
doi: 10.2307/1252099.
Parihar, P., Dawra, J. and Sahay, V. (2019), “The role of customer engagement in the involvement-loyalty
link”, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 66-79, doi: 10.1108/MIP-11-2017-0318.
Parker, C.J. and Wang, H. (2016), “Examining hedonic and utilitarian motivations for m-commerce
fashion retail app engagement”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International
Journal, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 487-506, doi: 10.1108/JFMM-02-2016-0015.
Peterson, R.A. (1994), “A Meta-analysis of cronbach’s coefficient alpha”, Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 381-391.
Prahalad, C.K. and Ramaswamy, V. (2002), “The co-creation connection”, Strategy and Business,
Vol. 27, pp. 50-61.
Preacher, K.J. and Hayes, A.F. (2004), “SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in
simple mediation models”, Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, Vol. 36 No. 4,
pp. 717-731, doi: 10.3758/BF03206553.
Preacher, K.J., Rucker, D.D. and Hayes, A.F. (2007), “Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses:
theory, methods, and prescriptions”, Multivariate Behavioral Research, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 185-227, doi:
10.1080/00273170701341316.
Priporas, C.-V., Stylos, N. and Fotiadis, A.K. (2017), “Generation Z consumers’ expectations of
interactions in smart retailing: a future agenda”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 77, pp. 374-381.
j YOUNG CONSUMERS j

Resnick, E. (2001), “Defining engagement”, Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 551-566.
Romaniuk, J. and Nenycz-Thiel, M. (2013), “Behavioral brand loyalty and consumer brand associations”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 67-72.
Russell-Bennett, R., McColl-Kennedy, J.R. and Coote, L.V. (2007), “Involvement, satisfaction, and brand
loyalty in a small business services setting”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 60 No. 12,
pp. 1253-1260.
Saks, A.M. (2006), “Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement”, Journal of Managerial
Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 600-619.
Samala, N. and Singh, S. (2018), “Investigating the role of customer brand engagement and relationship
quality on brand loyalty: an empirical analysis”, International Journal of E-Business Research ( Research),
Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 34-53.
Samala, N. and Singh, S. (2019), “Millennial’s engagement with fashion brands: a moderated-mediation
model of brand engagement with self-concept, involvement and knowledge”, Journal of Fashion
Marketing and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 2-16, doi: 10.1108/JFMM-04-
2018-0045.
Samala, N., Singh, S., Nukhu, R. and Khetarpal, M. (2019), “Investigating the role of participation and
Customer-Engagement with tourism brands (CETB) on social media”, Academy of Marketing Studies
Journal, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 1-16.
Santos, J.R.A. (1999), “Cronbach’s alpha: a tool for assessing the reliability of scales”, Journal of
Extension, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 1-5.
Savelli, N. (2018), “2018 Consumer engagement trends”, available at http://customerthink.com/2018-
consumer-engagement-trends/ (accessed 9 January 2018).
Schau, H.J., Muñiz, A.M., Jr. and Arnould, E.J. (2009), “How brand community practices create value”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 73 No. 5, pp. 30-51.
Schouten, J.W., McAlexander, J.H. and Koenig, H.F. (2007), “Transcendent customer experience and
brand community”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 357-368.
Sedley, R. and Perks, M. (2008), “Six theses on digital customer engagement in a troubled economy”,
available at: http://richard-sedley.iuplog.com/default.asp?item=298747 (accessed 21 February 2010).
Singh, J., Hansen, M.T. and Podolny, J.M. (2010), “The world is not small for everyone: inequity in
searching for knowledge in organizations”, Management Science, Vol. 56 No. 9, pp. 1415-1438.
Smith, K.T. (2011), “Digital marketing strategies that millennials find appealing, motivating, or just
annoying”, Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 489-499.
So, K.K.F., King, C. and Sparks, B. (2014), “Customer engagement with tourism brands scale
development and validation”, Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 304-329.
SocialMediaToday (2014), “The social customer engagement index 2014: results, analysis, and
perspectives”, available at: www.socialmediatoday.com/sites/default/files/ebook_pdfs/
the_social_customer_engagement_index_2014_whitepaper.pdf (accessed 20 July 2015).
Soper, D.S. (2019), “A-priori sample size calculator for structural equation models [software]”, available
at: www.danielsoper.com/statcalc (accessed 10 February 2019).
Sprott, D., Czellar, S. and Spangenberg, E. (2009), “The importance of a general measure of brand
engagement on market behavior: development and validation of a scale”, Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 92-104, doi: 10.1509/jmkr.46.1.92.
Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. (2007), Using Multivariate Statistics, 5th ed., Pearson, Boston.
Thakur, R. (2016), “Understanding customer engagement and loyalty: a case of mobile devices for
shopping”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 32, pp. 151-163, doi: 10.1016/j.
jretconser.2016.06.004.
Van Doorn, J., Lemon, K.N., Mittal, V., Nass, S., Pick, D., Pirner, P. and Verhoef, P.C. (2010), “Customer
engagement behavior: theoretical foundations and research directions”, Journal of Service Research,
Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 253-266.
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2004), “Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 1-17.
j YOUNG CONSUMERS j

Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2008), “Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 1-10.
Verhoef, P.C., Reinartz, W.J. and Krafft, M. (2010), “Customer engagement as a new perspective in
customer management”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 247-252, doi: 10.1177/
1094670510375461.
Verma, S. (2014), “Online customer engagement through blogs in India”, Journal of Internet Commerce,
Vol. 13 Nos 3/4, pp. 282-301, doi: 10.1080/15332861.2014.961347.
Vivek, S.D., Beatty, S.E., Dalela, V. and Morgan, R.M. (2014), “A generalized multidimensional scale for
measuring customer engagement”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 401-420,
doi: 10.2753/MTP1069-6679220404.
Vivek, S.D. (2009), A Scale of Consumer Engagement, The University of AL TUSCALOOSA.
Vivek, S.D., Beatty, S.E. and Morgan, R.M. (2012), “Customer engagement: exploring customer
relationships beyond purchase”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 122-146.
Voyles, B. (2007), Beyond Loyalty: Meeting the Challenge of Customer Engagement, Economist
Intelligence Unit, pp. 1-15.
Westland, J.C. (2010), “Lower bounds on sample size in structural equation modeling”, Electronic
Commerce Research and Applications, Vol. 9 No. 6, pp. 476-487.
Wiegand, J.R. (2017), “Evaluation of engagement among millennial consumers with fashion brands on
social media”, Master Thesis, North Carolina State University, available at: www.lib.ncsu.edu/resolver/
1840.20/33575
Wirtz, J., Ambtman, A.D., Bloemer, J., Horváth, C., Ramaseshan, B., Klundert, J.V.D., Kandampully, J.,
et al. (2013), “Managing brands and customer engagement in online brand communities”, Journal of
Service Management, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 223-244, doi: 10.1108/09564231311326978.
Won-Moo, H., Kwang-Ho, A. and Minsung, K. (2011), “Building Brand loyalty through managing Brand
community commitment”, Management Decision, Vol. 49 No. 7, pp. 1194-1213, doi: 10.1108/
00251741111151217
Zaichkowsky, J.L. (1985), “Measuring the involvement construct”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 12
No. 3, pp. 341-352.
Zaichkowsky, J.L. (1994), “The personal involvement inventory: reduction, revision, and application to
advertising”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 59-70.
Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L. and Parasuraman, A. (1996), “The behavioral consequences of service
quality”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 31-46.
Further reading
Sarkar, A. and Sreejesh, S. (2014), “Examination of the roles played by brand love and jealousy in
shaping customer engagement”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 24-32.
Corresponding author
Nagaraj Samala can be contacted at: raajsamala.phd@gmail.com
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
j YOUNG CONSUMERS j

AUTHOR QUERIES
AUTHOR PLEASE ANSWER ALL QUERIES

AQau— Please confirm the given-names and surnames are identified properly by the colours.
j=Given-Name, j= Surname
The colours are for proofing purposes only. The colours will not appear online or in print.
AQ1— Please consider revising the article title as follows: Fashion brands are engaging the
millennials: a moderated-mediation model of customer-brand engagement, participation and
involvement.
AQ2— You have used “data” in the singular form in the text and we have retained your intended
meaning. However if you wish to imply its plural context, revisions with respect to its
associated verb usage will need to be made. Please advise.
AQ3— Please provide first column head for Table II..

Article (Young Consumers)

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Article (Young Consumers)

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Smart Proof System Instructions

 Login into Smart Proof anywhere you are connected to the

Note: Editing done by replacing the text on this PDF is not

 Save your proof corrections by clicking the "Publish Comments"

 Complete your review after all corrections have been published

Did you reply to all author queries found in your proof?

Complete Proof Review

Fashion brands are engaging the

Abstract Nagaraj Samala is based at

DOI 10.1108/YC-12-2018-0902 © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 1747-3616 j YOUNG CONSUMERS j

ID: akash.bhosle Time: 07:38 I Path: //mbnas01.cadmus.com/home$/akash.bhosle$/EM-YCJJ190043

In the modern business dynamic environment of increased interaction with stakeholders,

ID: akash.bhosle Time: 07:38 I Path: //mbnas01.cadmus.com/home$/akash.bhosle$/EM-YCJJ190043

Review of literature and hypotheses development

ID: akash.bhosle Time: 07:38 I Path: //mbnas01.cadmus.com/home$/akash.bhosle$/EM-YCJJ190043

ID: akash.bhosle Time: 07:38 I Path: //mbnas01.cadmus.com/home$/akash.bhosle$/EM-YCJJ190043

ID: akash.bhosle Time: 07:38 I Path: //mbnas01.cadmus.com/home$/akash.bhosle$/EM-YCJJ190043

ID: akash.bhosle Time: 07:38 I Path: //mbnas01.cadmus.com/home$/akash.bhosle$/EM-YCJJ190043

H5. Involvement positively moderates the relationship between participation and

Figure 1 Conceptual model

PARTICIPATION BRAND LOYALTY

ID: akash.bhosle Time: 07:38 I Path: //mbnas01.cadmus.com/home$/akash.bhosle$/EM-YCJJ190043

Data analysis and results

ID: akash.bhosle Time: 07:38 I Path: //mbnas01.cadmus.com/home$/akash.bhosle$/EM-YCJJ190043

Table I Results of EFA

Personal Involvement Inventory (PII) 0.722

ID: akash.bhosle Time: 07:38 I Path: //mbnas01.cadmus.com/home$/akash.bhosle$/EM-YCJJ190043

Table II Validity statistics

PII 0.742 0.514 0.340 0.210 0.717

ID: akash.bhosle Time: 07:38 I Path: //mbnas01.cadmus.com/home$/akash.bhosle$/EM-YCJJ190043

Table III Results of structural model

Table IV. Results of moderated-mediation model

Direct effect 0.39 (0.05) (S) 0.28, 0.49

ID: akash.bhosle Time: 07:38 I Path: //mbnas01.cadmus.com/home$/akash.bhosle$/EM-YCJJ190043

Figure 2 Graph representing the moderating effect of involvement

Low Parcipaon High Parcipaon

ID: akash.bhosle Time: 07:38 I Path: //mbnas01.cadmus.com/home$/akash.bhosle$/EM-YCJJ190043

Implications for marketers

Implications for society

ID: akash.bhosle Time: 07:38 I Path: //mbnas01.cadmus.com/home$/akash.bhosle$/EM-YCJJ190043

ID: akash.bhosle Time: 07:38 I Path: //mbnas01.cadmus.com/home$/akash.bhosle$/EM-YCJJ190043

ID: akash.bhosle Time: 07:38 I Path: //mbnas01.cadmus.com/home$/akash.bhosle$/EM-YCJJ190043

ID: akash.bhosle Time: 07:38 I Path: //mbnas01.cadmus.com/home$/akash.bhosle$/EM-YCJJ190043

ID: akash.bhosle Time: 07:38 I Path: //mbnas01.cadmus.com/home$/akash.bhosle$/EM-YCJJ190043

ID: akash.bhosle Time: 07:38 I Path: //mbnas01.cadmus.com/home$/akash.bhosle$/EM-YCJJ190043

ID: akash.bhosle Time: 07:38 I Path: //mbnas01.cadmus.com/home$/akash.bhosle$/EM-YCJJ190043

ID: akash.bhosle Time: 07:38 I Path: //mbnas01.cadmus.com/home$/akash.bhosle$/EM-YCJJ190043

ID: akash.bhosle Time: 07:38 I Path: //mbnas01.cadmus.com/home$/akash.bhosle$/EM-YCJJ190043

AUTHOR PLEASE ANSWER ALL QUERIES

ID: akash.bhosle Time: 07:38 I Path: //mbnas01.cadmus.com/home$/akash.bhosle$/EM-YCJJ190043

S-ar putea să vă placă și