Computers in Human Behavior 62 (2016) 743e753

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior

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

Full length article

Brand interactions and social media: Enhancing user loyalty through

social networking sites
Tahir M. Nisar*, Caroline Whitehead
Southampton Business School, University of Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper aims to investigate how user loyalty can be achieved and maintained through social
Received 11 November 2015 networking sites. More specifically, we intend to test the relationships between brands, user loyalty and
Received in revised form social media. The research thus provides insights into user-brand relationships through social media and
18 March 2016
argues how loyal customers can be through social networking websites. Although there are considerable
Accepted 28 April 2016
Available online 11 May 2016
numbers of studies about loyalty; there exists very limited work studying user loyalty through social
networking websites. This research presents clearly the reasons for engaging with brands online and
examines user behaviors and loyalty. Research provided strong evidence that majority of the social
Keywords:
Online relationship management
network users follow brand fan pages via social media, even though they have different reasons to do so.
Behavioral loyalty The study also measures users’ behavioral and attitudinal loyalty behaviors. Their level of trust to the
Attitudinal loyalty information they obtained about brands through social media is also established. The hypotheses tested
Brand show that brands and customer satisfaction are both positively related to users’ behavioral loyalty.
Social networking websites © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction 2014).
The emergence of social media networks has revolutionized
Customer demand for high quality goods and services keeps marketing practices and led to a shift to “user driven technologies”
increasing, which makes the issue of making customers to stay with (Smith, 2009, pp. 559; Cheung, Chiu, & Lee, 2011). Some of the most
the brand and repurchase an important one. Thus, how companies well-known social media networks include Twitter, Facebook and
can build customer loyalty has always been a challenge. The idea of YouTube. The popularity of social networks such as Twitter em-
the significance of customer loyalty and “zero defection” was first phasizes the changes in media consumption (Twitter, 2014). Con-
advanced by Reichheld and Sasser (1990). There are several factors sumers now value social media as a communication medium far
that can influence customer loyalty. For example, it is suggested more than traditional communication methods. Hence, many
that a positive brand image can lead to customer loyalty brands have taken to social media networks to connect with con-
(Antheunis, Valkenburg, & Peter, 2010; Kandampully & Suhartanto, sumers, by using them to create valuable relationships before,
2000). Retaining user relationships can no longer be achieved by during and most importantly after purchase. Careful adoption of
simply creating a better product or service; they can be achieved by social media marketing (SMM) techniques can help to reinforce and
creating value as long-term buyers can be seen as valuable assets increase brand awareness amongst consumers, as consumers
for the companies. Web 2.0 helps companies to achieve these goals spend ever-increasing amounts of time on social networks. Star-
(Craig, 2007). Therefore, companies need to restructure their bucks are an example of a brand, which makes use of social media
strategy of maintaining business relationships due to the constant networks to keep their customers actively engaged. The brand is
technological changes (Zineldin, 2006). The communication tools well known for its creative social media campaigns and as a result
between users and companies have changed significantly with the they now have 36.4 million Facebook followers and 5.9 million
emergence of the phenomenon known as Social Media (Aladwani, twitter followers (Schoultz, 2013). Social media allows brands to
discover exactly what customers are interested in and then use this
information to tailor their products and services in order to meet
those needs (Chen, Lu, Wang, Zhao, & Li, 2013; Choi & Bazarova,
* Corresponding author. 2015). This can be accomplished by targeting advertisements
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (T.M. Nisar), carolinewhitehead5@
based on potential customers’ profiles, as businesses can collect
gmail.com (C. Whitehead).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.04.042
0747-5632/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
744 T.M. Nisar, C. Whitehead / Computers in Human Behavior 62 (2016) 743e753

information such as age, demographics, interests, hobbies, music 2. Literature review

etc. - they can then advertise certain products and services only to
specific people who meet the required criteria. 2.1. Social media and online engagement
Ryan and Jones (2012) also propose marketing products and
services in this way will be cheaper and generate a higher rate of Social Media can be defined as the “umbrella term for the web-
return, therefore making social media useful in creating more based software and services that allow users to come together
efficient advertising campaigns. Social media is therefore a more online and exchange, discuss, communicate and participate in any
efficient use of marketing costs (Krasnova, Spiekermann, Koroleva, form of social interaction” (Ryan & Jones, 2012) and is one of the
& Hildebrand, 2010; Tutel, 2008), which is important for even small central features of Web 2.0, allowing for greater interaction be-
and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) as they are expected to have tween groups of people over the internet (Chen et al., 2013; Cheung
far smaller budgets than the larger companies. Moreover, firms use et al., 2011; Choi & Bazarova, 2015). Despite many people consid-
social media not just to find new customers but also to maintain ering social media as a very modern concept, its origins can be
and retain their existing customers (Lim, Hwang, Kim, & Biocca, traced back a couple of decades to online communities such as
2015; Luo, Zhang, & Liu, 2015; Mohammadi, 2015). There are CompuServe and Prodigy (Chen et al., 2013; Ryan & Jones, 2012).
several existing academic works about customer relationship However, only within the past five years or so has the reach and
management (CRM) strategies and user engagement (Oztaysi, penetration become so valuable that businesses are increasingly
Sezgin, & Ozok, 2011; Palmer & Koenig-Lewis, 2009). However, integrating it within marketing campaigns. The enormous growth
there exists no previous study examining the various reasons of and availability of the Internet has paved the way for social media
why individuals communicate with the brands through social to become an essential marketing tool for businesses as it allows
networking websites. Individuals have been rapidly increasing them to access a huge range of customers. This progress has made it
their daily use of the Internet by engaging on social networks. Still, easier for many businesses to reach a wide range of consumers,
there is a lack of academic study about user-brand loyalty through therefore making growth more achievable. According to an IBM
social media. The following research aims to fill these gaps and study, 23% of people gave “interacting with brands” as a reason for
investigate the user-brand relationship through social media and using social media (Baird & Parasnis, 2011). Social media has
the impact of social networking websites on customer loyalty. This become crucial for brands because in terms of consumer purchase
will be achieved by satisfying the following research questions: decisions, people value recommendations from friends and family
Why do individuals engage with brands through social networking as their most trusted source (Chen et al., 2013; Choi & Bazarova,
sites? To what extent individuals are willing to share their experi- 2015). Product recommendations are made persistently suggest-
ences about the brands, by using social media? Does following a ing social media has become important for brands in monitoring
brand through social networking sites improve user loyalty and engaging in this dialogue to influence their product choices
(including both behavioral and attitudinal loyalty)? What tools do (Choi & Bazarova, 2015). Brands can take advantage of consumers’
users find more trustworthy in interacting with the brands by using lack of privacy online which has become a fundamental part of
social media? Customers are shifting from traditional sources of many business models (Shuen, 2008).
communication to social media in order to conduct their views, Social media contests have become increasingly popular as a
ideas and information. Therefore, companies need to develop a user way of engaging with customers and can be a powerful catalyst for
or customer relationship management through the Internet (Ku, dispersing a brand’s message, increasing awareness and engage-
Chen, & Zhang, 2013; Ku et al., 2013). ment at the same time (Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe, 2007; Grieve,
It can be said that, due to the emergence of the technology, Indian, Witteveen, Anne Tolan, & Marrington, 2013). Competi-
companies believe that shifting to the Internet-based communi- tions may be particularly effective if coupled with a good prize; it
cation is necessary. Therefore, it is now easier to access to the would be expected that the greater the reward, the higher the
customers via social media. As just mentioned, social customer engagement for that brands. Long term customer interaction can be
relationship management is a very popular marketing strategy in linked to customer relationship management, a “comprehensive
these days (Lim et al., 2015; Luo et al., 2015). The brand and indi- strategy and process of acquiring, retaining, and partnering with
vidual interactions can be explained clearly by using customer selective customers to create superior value for the company and
engagement cycles. Although there are considerable numbers of the customer” (Dholakia, Bagozzi, & Pearo, 2004; Grieve et al.,
factors that influence buyer-seller relationships, this research fo- 2013; Parvatiyar & Sheth, 2001). Chaffey and Ellis-Chadwick
cuses on user-brand loyalty. Companies aim to achieve user loyalty (2012) state the importance of a strong customer engagement
and by the Internet it is now possible to provide services 24/7. By strategy and good customer service through social media to
creating customer loyalty, sellers keep their customers committed encourage the interaction and participation of consumers with a
and the committed customers share companies’ products and ser- brand, which can be beneficial to brands in reaching a large audi-
vices, and recommend them to other potential customers. By doing ence with virtually no cost. Engaging with customers on such a
so both individuals and firms will perceive a mutual value. Our large scale and bringing them “on-side” can lead to benefits asso-
current focus on both behavioral and attitudinal loyalty behaviors ciated with viral marketing. Viral marketing can be achieved
(Horppu, Kuivalainen, Tarkiainen, & Ellonen, 2008) will provide an through businesses working hard to deliver good customer service
additional insight into the relationship between social networking online so people tell their friends through highly effective word-of-
sites and customer loyalty. mouth marketing (Grieve et al., 2013). This is defined as “oral,
The investigation will proceed to Section 2 whereby literature person-to-person communication between a perceived non-
around the topic is presented to inform the research. Section 3 commercial communicator and a receiver concerning a brand, a
discusses the quantitative research approach of a quantitative product or a service offered for sale” (Stokes & Wilson, 2010). Some
survey instrument to examine responses of the sample population. larger companies have recognized its importance so much that they
Findings derived from the primary research are analyzed in Section are offering rewards in the form of cash, discounts and offers to
4. Section 5 interprets findings relative to existing literature and customers who participate in viral sharing (Dholakia et al., 2004;
draws a conclusion. Finally, Section 6 discusses research contribu- Hunley, 2013).
tions, limitations and future recommendations. The emergence of social media offers brands opportunities to
listen to and engage with their customers, and potentially to
 T.M. Nisar, C. Whitehead / Computers in Human Behavior 62 (2016) 743e753 745

encourage them to become long term advocates for their products company, commit to repurchase the products or the services and
(Malthouse, Haenlein, Skiera, Wege, & Zhang, 2013). The social recommend the product to others (word of mouth advertising)”
CRM “house” shows how social media and traditional CRM interact (Bowen & Chen, 2001). Story and Hess (2006) define customer
to create this new concept. It takes the three original CRM concepts loyalty as loyal behaviors such as repurchase, share of repurchase
(acquisition, maintenance and termination) and shows how social and positive attitudes towards a brand. Although for most com-
media influences consumer engagement. Malthouse et al. (2013) panies the customer loyalty is just purchasing repeatedly; Pitta,
declare brands can incorporate social media into their efforts to Franzak, and Fowler (2006) defines customer loyalty repeat pur-
retain existing customers and to maintain ongoing relationships chase behavior as well as a set of motives that underline such
with them. They express how social media has also fused the behavior. Consumers are more likely to depend on brands more in
acquisition and retention concepts together; marketing activities the online environment than in the offline environment. Therefore,
have changed as they are likely to reach current and potential electronic loyalty, also known as e-loyalty, can be described as “the
customers of the company simultaneously. Acquiring user interest customer’s favorable attitude toward an electronic business,
is vital for the companies to expand their customer base but it is resulting in repeat purchasing behavior” (Ribbink, van Riel,
also important to build up long term “user loyalty” in order to Liljander, & Streukens, 2004).
prevent current customers from becoming dissatisfied and leaving It is widely agreed that there are two aspects of customer loyalty
(Kwon & Wen, 2010). When interacting with customers over the namely behavioral and attitudinal (Jacoby & Kyner, 1973; Julander,
Internet, Ryan and Jones (2012) suggest effective social media Magi, Jonsson, & Lindqvist, 1997; Nilsson & Sandberg, 2010). A
marketing is based upon subtle consumer engagement and “leav- customer’s behavioral loyalty indicates that one will take the
ing the sledgehammer approach to product promotion at home.” preferred company as his first choice when shopping and will
This involves listening to customers and providing help and infor- repurchase from it on the next occasion (McAndrew & Jeong, 2012;
mation rather than forcefully advertise at them. Social media can Nadkarni & Hofmann, 2012), whilst the “attitudinal dimension”
assist humanizing a brand by connecting with customers and giv- refers to the feelings that an individual has over a product, service
ing it a greater personality (Ellison et al., 2007). This is important as or organization (McKenna & Bargh, 1999; Mehdizadeh, 2010),
social media is effective due to its two-way communication (Grieve which determines the degree of loyalty of him (McAndrew & Jeong,
et al., 2013). Chaffey and Ellis-Chadwick (2012) suggest many 2012; McKenna & Bargh, 1999). Also referring to Yi (1990), behav-
businesses also go as far as to empower social media participants to ioral loyalty includes increasing the scale and scope of a relation-
express themselves and many have found success in using the ship, or continuing and repeating purchases from the same
wisdom of the crowd to answer their business problems. supplier. Loyal attitude, on the other hand, includes the intention of
Customers also utilize social media to discuss their likes and recommendation by loyal customers to others (McKenna & Bargh,
dislikes in real-time so businesses can see market trends and shifts 1999; Mehdizadeh, 2010). Nevertheless, the problem is that
as they happen, resulting in companies having less out-dated stock repeat purchasing behavior does not always mean strong
or unfulfilled back orders (Ellison et al., 2007; Grieve et al., 2013). commitment (Bowen & Chen, 2001), so that repeat purchases do
Due to their non-transactional nature, social networks are partic- not equal to loyalty. For instance, a traveller who always chooses to
ularly suited for collecting information and obtaining feedback stay in a hotel may do so because it is a convenient location. When a
from customers (Dholakia et al., 2004) so could be useful in new hotel with better offers opens nearby, he will very likely switch
discovering user trends. Edelman (2010) claims marketers should (Bowen & Chen, 2001). Therefore, Bloemer and Kasper (1995)
target stages in the new consumer decision journey; the trend suggest that “true loyalty implies commitment toward a brand
nowadays is for customers to enter an open-ended relationship and not just repurchase due to inertia”. Dick and Basu (1994) also
with a brand and share experiences via social media after purchase. indicate that attitudinal commitments to a brand are necessary for
forming real loyalty and these can be measured by investigating
2.2. Customer loyalty and its importance how many people have positive feelings toward a brand, like it and
have strong commitment to it, and will make recommendations to
There have always been many literature that discuss and survey others.
customer loyalty, particularly looking at how to define and measure Thus, loyalty is both a more favorable attitude toward a brand
it. However, it is hard to clearly define what customer loyalty compared to others and repeat patronage (Dick & Basu, 1994). The
actually is (Bowen & Chen, 2001), which means that we still do not approach that combines both the behavioral and attitudinal di-
have a universally accepted definition (Dick & Basu, 1994; Oliver, mensions of customer loyalty is called the “composite measure-
1997). User loyalty can be a strategic objective for the companies ment,” which has been regarded as a valuable tool that helps to
because of its positive effect on long-term profitability. The understand customer loyalty (McAndrew & Jeong, 2012; Nadkarni
importance of user loyalty is increasing as acquiring customer alone & Hofmann, 2012). The study conducted by Horppu et al. (2008)
is not an effective way for long-term success. Developing loyalty divides loyalty into two parts. Behavioral loyalty includes
requires a business strategy (Laroche, Habibi, Richard, & repurchasing activities, re-patronage intensions and word-of-
Sankaranarayanan, 2012; Mohammadi, 2015). According to Duffy mouth communication where attitudinal behavior includes pref-
(2003), the two steps for building customer loyalty are to create erences and commitment. On the other hand, although Story and
value for the users and to create marketing programs that enhance Hess (2006) also divide loyalty behaviors into two, they are
customers. Consequently, customer loyalty can be defined as “a different compared to the previous researcher. Story and Hess
deeply held commitment to re-buy or re-patronize a preferred (2006) point out that, loyalty behaviors can be divided into two
product or service consistently in the future, despite situational which are primary and secondary behaviors. The authors argue that
influences and marketing efforts having the potential to cause the primary, also known as purchase, behaviors consider aspects
switching behavior” (Oliver, 1997, p.392). Similarly, McIlroy and such as frequency, volume, share and retention while secondary,
Barnett (2000, p.348) suggest that customer loyalty is a “cus- non-purchase, behaviors consider factors such as referrals, en-
tomer’s commitment to do business with a particular organization, dorsements or advocacy. Instead of defining customer behaviors
purchasing their goods and services repeatedly, and recommending primary or secondary, Pitta et al. (2006) emphasize the terms true
the services and products to friends and associates”. Hence, loyal loyalty and inertia. True loyalty is when a consumer keeps inter-
customers are those who “hold favorable attitudes toward the acting with a specific brand and becomes loyal to that company.
746 T.M. Nisar, C. Whitehead / Computers in Human Behavior 62 (2016) 743e753

However, when customers cut the interaction with the company perspective. The financial perspective attempts to calculate the
right after they receive better offers or when they stop interacting financial value of a brand separate to other business assets (Aaker,
with the company when there is a change with the selling condi- 1996). This is useful to businesses, as it allows them to identify the
tions, they show that they are not loyal to that brand. Thus, contribution that the brand makes to the value of the business. An
repeatedly purchasing from the same brand does not mean that the alternative perspective is the consumer based perspective of brand
customer is loyal. It can be a habit or in the other words, the cus- equity. This perspective measures customers’ reaction to a brand
tomers can be unwilling to take an action also known as the inertia (Keller, 1993). Approaches that combine the two perspectives have
(Pitta et al., 2006). been presented such as Global Brand Equity Model also known as
Apparently, customer loyalty can bring a lot of benefits to the relational branding (Porter & Claycomb, 1997). Many different ad-
company along with competitive advantages. It is widely agreed aptations have been presented, however it is commonly agreed that
that customer loyalty and profitability are positively related to each the customer plays a crucial role in the development of brand eq-
other (Bowen & Chen, 2001). Reichheld and Sasser (1990) uity (Aaker, 1996).
emphasize that all potential profit will be taken away with cus- Brand image is widely agreed as a set of customers’ perceptions
tomers who defect, but profit will be increased if a customer keeps of brand as reflected by the brand associations held in memory
buying in a same company. The evidence shows that profits of a (Herzog, 1963; Keller, 1993; Tokunaga, 2011; Valenzuela, Park, &
company can be increased by about 25%e85% by improving only 5% Kee, 2009). These associations can originate from information ob-
of its customer retention rate (Reichheld & Sasser, 1990). Loyal tained from market offering or customers’ direct experiences
customers will indeed repeat purchase and they will not switch shopping with the brand (Keller, 1993). Customers’ sets of feelings,
whatever better offers appear (Bowen & Chen, 2001). They are less attitudes as well as ideas about the brand are very important to
price-sensitive and purchase more than non-loyal customers their buying behavior (Dobni & Zinkhan, 1990; Hollenbaugh &
(Reichheld & Sasser, 1990). The possibility of a loyal customer to Ferris, 2014; Oh, Ozkaya, & LaRose, 2014; Park, Kee, & Valenzuela,
shop through multiple channels (online, offline, etc.) is also higher 2009; Steinfield, Ellison, & Lampe, 2008). Normann (1991) argues
than non-loyal customers, and by increasing their consumption that together with the effects of advertising, word of mouth, and
they will help reduce the operating costs of the business (Duffy, customers’ experiences with the products and services, brand im-
2003). In addition, it is cheaper to serve loyal customers than to age can affect customers’ minds on purchases. A favorable brand
serve new customers because they are familiar with the brand and image can both help the company to increase competition and
they require less information (Bowen & Chen, 2001; Duffy, 2003). encourage customers to repeat purchase (Porter & Claycomb, 1997).
The research undertaken by Bowen and Chen (2001) indicates that It is also stated by Martineau (1958) that customers will have a
selling products and services to new customers costs three to six certain degree of loyalty when they have a positive image of the
times more than selling to existing customers and therefore mar- brand. Story and Hess (2006) conducted a survey where 1988 re-
ginal increases in customer retention can lead to dramatic increases spondents were selected randomly whose behaviors toward the
in profits. brands are measured. Both primary and secondary loyalty behav-
Furthermore, loyal customers are willing to mention their fa- iors were used in the survey. Four hypotheses were suggested at the
vorite brand and recommend it to others. This idea is supported by beginning of the study. The first one was about customers having
Bowen and Chen (2001) who find that loyal customers spread neither functional nor personal connection with a brand will be less
strong and positive word of mouth and make recommendations. loyal to that brand; and this hypothesis was supported by the re-
Similarly, McIlroy and Barnett (2000, p.350) suggest that loyal sults. The second hypothesis was also strongly supported by the
customers are “a great source of word-of-mouth advertising” and results where it was suggested that the customers in a committed
they act as “a marketing resource by recommending the service to relationships with a brand are more likely to engage in loyalty
friends and colleagues and positively supporting the services and behaviors. The third hypothesis stated that the customers who have
products offered”. The CEO of Amazon.com online bookseller said a personal relationship with brands are more likely to pay higher
that “word of mouth is very powerful” so he decided to repeal his prices compared to the less loyal customers. Support was found for
advertising department and stopped all future television adver- it as well. However, the last hypothesis which suggested that the
tising plans (Duffy, 2003). Therefore, increases in profits result from customers with personal relationships with a brand spend more in
sales growth, lowering of customer price sensitivity, and reduction a specific time period was not supported by the results.
of operating costs and marketing costs. Furthermore, another
benefit produced by customer loyalty is that loyal customers tend 2.4. Relationship with user satisfaction and loyalty
to complain about an unpleasant experience rather than defect
(Duffy, 2003). They believe in the brand and hope that it could It is argued that satisfaction can be a factor of loyalty (Sashi,
perform better. Duffy (2003) considers that “this ‘second chance’ 2012). However, Story and Hess (2006) show that there is a
opportunity is very important in today’s business environment in broken link between loyalty and satisfaction. Additionally, satis-
which customers are so fickle”. faction is not an effective predictor of loyalty although it is neces-
sary for true commitment. However, not every satisfied customer is
2.3. Brands loyal. Committed users are emotionally bonded to a specific com-
pany or brand where they have a continuing, strong and personal
Branding is the process of creating a product with a unique connection. On the other hand, even though merely satisfied cus-
image, which is differentiated from competitor’s products (Keller, tomers show loyal behaviors such as repurchasing or sharing the
1993). The most successful brands create long-lasting relation- product they have purchased; they may prefer another brand if
ships with customers (Keller, 1993). Numerous branding theories they receive better offers or if they find a better alternative.
attempt to explain the equity that a brand can give a business Although it may be up to the users to be a loyal customer to a
(Porter & Claycomb, 1997). Brand equity is an important concept specific brand; companies also play a huge role in order to make
because it allows businesses to measure the effect that brand their customers loyal. The previous study (Story & Hess, 2006) was
knowledge has on consumers’ purchase decision making (Aaker, based on the behaviors of the loyal customers.
1996; Porter & Claycomb, 1997). Two main approaches to brand However, firms need to be trusted so that users will become
equity exist; the financial perspective and the consumer based loyal or in other words committed customers (Park et al., 2009;
 T.M. Nisar, C. Whitehead / Computers in Human Behavior 62 (2016) 743e753 747

Tokunaga, 2011). The degree of confidence users have on online H2 (a). Brands have a positive effect on user behavioral loyalty.
exchanges such as social networking websites is the customer e-
H2 (b). Brands have a positive effect on user attitudinal loyalty.
trust (Lim et al., 2015; Luo et al., 2015; Ribbink et al., 2004). Since
there is no direct contact with the company, users may find inter- H3 (a). Customer satisfaction has a positive effect on user
acting with the brands online risky. As a result, trust seems to be behavioral loyalty.
significant for creating loyalty (Steinfield et al., 2008; Valenzuela
H3 (b). Customer satisfaction has a positive effect on user attitu-
et al., 2009). Pitta et al. (2006) point out how customers become
dinal loyalty.
committed to the brands. In their point of view customer loyalty
consists of trust, perceived value and emotional attachment.
Therefore, if a company helps its consumers to reduce perceived 4. Findings
risk of a loss; it gains trust. It is believed that ability, benevolence
and integrity are the measures of trust. Perceived value has been The online questionnaire was completed by 322 individuals, out
defined differently by consumers (Steinfield et al., 2008; Valenzuela of which 59.8% of were female and 40.2% were male. Previously in
et al., 2009). For some customers finding the product can be valu- this study, it was argued that the generation Y is more willing to use
able while some others may consider finance terms, home delivery, the Internet (Lazarevic, 2012). The findings of this study show that
setup and services as a value. However, most consider cost and 79.5% of the respondents’ age is between 18 and 25, while 20.5% are
benefits. After established trust and perceived value, companies aged between 26 and 49. No respondents in this study were
usually look for deeper relationships with the individuals (Laroche recorded under 18 or over 60. Participants were asked how long
et al., 2012; Lim et al., 2015). In order to measure the impact of trust they use the Internet every day and only 11 participants out of 322
and satisfaction on customer loyalty, an electronic questionnaire stated that he/she is not a daily user of the Internet. On the other
was made available via the Internet which targeted university hand, 50% of the respondents use the Internet more than five hours
students, recent graduates and academics in Europe (Hollenbaugh each day. Social networking sites cannot be the only reasons for the
& Ferris, 2014; Oh et al., 2014; Park et al., 2009; Ribbink et al., 2004). responders to spend time on the Internet. Although 322 of the
The results show that both e-satisfaction and e-trust directly and participants already have an account on at least one social
positively influence e-loyalty. networking sites, hours spent on social networking sites per day is
slightly lower compared to the hours spent on the Internet per day.
Moving on from the point that 100% of the participants already
3. Methodology have an account on at least one social networking websites, the
participants were asked how many different social networking
We used data from an online survey of 530 users of retail ser- websites they had profiles on. Results show that Facebook is the
vices. Survey participants were drawn from a representative panel most popular social networking website on which all the partici-
of retail consumers operated by a global market research company. pants had personal profiles. In addition to Facebook, 63% of par-
The survey allowed exploration of relationships and engagement ticipants have a personal account on Twitter while 15.1%, 11.7% and
between brands and customers and the impact of social media on 6.2% use Googleþ, LinkedIn and MySpace, respectively. 7.5% of the
customer loyalty. The survey used in this study consists of both participants stated that they also have other social networking
analytical and descriptive questions. The agreement statements profiles including Instagram, Hi5, Msn, Tumblr, Flickr and Sound-
based on loyalty and trust is the analytical part where such ques- cloud. A multiple response question was asked to respondents
tions attempt to test the theory whether customers engaging with about the reasons why they use social networking sites. The most
the brands through social networking sites are loyal and whether popular reason for using social networking is to keep in touch with
they trust to the information they obtain online. The survey was friends and family. Considering that the research topic is customer-
highly structured and used closed questions to ensure quick re- brand interaction through social media, the participants were
sponses from participants. The questionnaire consisted of five asked whether or not they follow brand pages (brands, products
parts; Part 1 was the demographics, and in Part 2 participants were and services) through social networking sites.
asked to tell how often they use the Internet and social media Accordingly, 73% of the respondents follow brand pages through
where they were also asked if and which profiles they are using. In social media. They were given 9 reasons for following brand pages
Part 3, participants were asked the reasons for following brands and were asked to rank them according to the 1e5 Likert-Scale (1 is
online. Part 4 and Part 5 asked participants to indicate their Strongly Agree, 5 is Strongly Disagree). The mean value was
response to statements related to trust and loyalty behaviors. Items calculated from the results obtained. The consistency of the find-
were measured primarily using a five point Likert-scale. The survey ings was calculated by using reliability statistics in SPSS. Internal
included detailed instructions to make sure that participants un- reliability, measured by using Cronbach’s Alpha, was 0.763,
derstand questions. To increase the reliability and validity of the showing consistency considering that reliable values should be
research, the test-retest method for reliability have been adopted. above 0.7 (Field, 2009). Reliability is concerned with the consis-
Standardized questionnaires were developed with mostly closed tency of the measures used in a data collection (Bryman and Bell,
questions to ensure reliability and validity. Moreover, a pilot test 2011). When a multiple-indicator measure such as the Likert
was conducted with 6 participants. After completing the ques- response scale is used, it is possible to test the internal reliability of
tionnaire, participants were asked to explain their thoughts data using the Cronbach’s Alpha test (Field, 2009). As can be seen in
verbally. As a result, the researchers were able to determine un- Fig. 1, the most popular reason for following brand pages through
derstanding of participants. Based on our discussions in the liter- social networking sites is to obtain general information about new
ature survey section, four hypotheses are specifically examined; products. Individuals either follow or click the “like” buttons
which are outlined as follows. through social media in order to see reviews and product rankings.
Surprisingly, following brands in order to get discounts is the third
H0. Users trust information obtained via social media, if it comes
popular reason. It is now easier to follow the latest events, parties
from friends.
or meetings through social media. Therefore, being able to partic-
H1. Users trust information obtained via social media, if it comes ipate in events is the fourth popular reason for following brands
from brand’s official profile. online. Submitting own opinions as well as new ideas on current
748 T.M. Nisar, C. Whitehead / Computers in Human Behavior 62 (2016) 743e753

4.1. Website trust

In order to measure the trust level of individuals, they were

asked to rank their agreement on specific statements. They were
provided 2 statements about trusting online information about
brands. Statement 1 is trusting information obtained via social
media, if it comes from friends (experiment 1) and statement 2 is
trusting information obtained via social media if it comes from
brand’s official profile (experiment 2). Considering that two different
experimental conditions with the same participants are measured
(Statement 1 and Statement 2), paired sample t-test is applicable
(Field, 2009). The mean number for statement 1 is 2.4738 while the
value of mean for statement 2 is 2.2891. Lower mean value in-
dicates higher level of agreement of trust which shows that people
find information more trustworthy if it comes from official brand
pages.
Fig. 1. Reasons for following brands via social media. Table 1 provides paired sample statistics (trust level) and Table 2
shows the significance value (p), which tells whether two condi-
tions’ means are statistically different. In this study, p value is 0.015
products and services are the least stated reasons for following which is lower than 0.05. This shows that there is a statistically
brands. Participants were given the chance to specify if there are significant difference between the mean values of trusting infor-
other reasons for following brand pages online. Most of the other mation obtained if it comes from friends and trusting information
reasons are based on personal sympathy to the brand, where the obtained if it comes from brand’s official page. Since it is revealed
individuals use social networking pages to show their appreciation, that the mean number of trust coming from brand’s official page is
reliability and personal interests. One of the participants empha- lower, it can be concluded that participants are more likely to trust
sized that following brand pages through social media saves time. information they obtain via social media, if it comes from brand’s
Another interesting reason for following brand pages online is that official profile. We therefore find support for H1.
the owner of the brand is a friend and it would be rude to reject the
page liking request. Other reasons move from personal reasons to
business reasons. For instance, some of the customers follow brand 4.2. User loyalty
pages in order to get new ideas and inspirations while promoting
new products at their jobs, or to follow on the progress of rivals in The study then investigates the loyalty of individuals who
the market. interact with brands’ pages, measured by two conditions. The first
27% of the participants do not follow brand pages online. Still, condition is whether they say positive things about brands through
they were asked the reasons they might consider following brands social media and the second condition is if they recommend brands
and were given the same 9 options. The mean value of their to their friends through their social networking profiles. Although
agreement is calculated where 1 is Strongly Agreed and 5 is most of the participants agreed with the statement that they make
Strongly Disagreed. The results seem to be more consistent as the positive comments about brands through social media (with a
Cronbach’s Alpha is 0.831. Shown in Fig. 2, findings are slightly mean number of 2.4539), they do not recommend brands to their
different compared to the study where participants follow brand friends (see Table 3). Second condition’s mean value is 3.2657
pages via social media. Participants who do not follow brands on- which is closer to disagreement. Table 4 shows the significance (p)
line might consider following brands in order to get discount. Apart value is less than 0.05. Therefore, there is a statistically significant
from that, the ranking is almost same with different mean values. difference between the mean values of sharing experiences by
Other reasons specified by non-followers are to compare prices of saying positive things about brands through social media and
different brands before purchasing goods and services, see the sharing experiences by recommending brands to friends and rela-
competition and for good causes and personal interests. tives through social networks. For behavioral loyalty, individuals
specified that they follow brands through social media just because
they like those brands (mean ¼ 2.4653). Moreover, they are more
likely to buy the products and services of brands that they have
been following on social media (mean ¼ 2.5668) (see Tables 5 and
6). To sum up, participants are more willing to share their views
about brands they have experienced, by leaving comments and
clicking the “like” button on the brands’ online fan pages.

4.2.1. Examining relationships: factor analysis

Although descriptive statistics have provided a general sum-
mary of the responses, this study will also investigate further re-
lationships. Factor analysis enables the reduction of a set of
variables by a smaller number of variables (Field, 2009; Raskin &
Terry, 1988). Although it shows whether variables are related, it
does not allow insight into statistical causality. Participants were
asked a loyalty question at the end of the survey which included 8
statements followed by a five-point Likert-scale, ranging from
“Strongly Agree” through “Neither agree nor disagree” to “Strongly
Fig. 2. Reasons that make individuals consider following brands via social media. Disagree”. A list of these 8 statements is given below.
 T.M. Nisar, C. Whitehead / Computers in Human Behavior 62 (2016) 743e753 749

Table 1
Paired samples statistics e trust level.

Mean N Std. deviation Std. error mean

Pair 1 Trust info. obtained, if it comes from friends 2.4738 322 0.96855 0.08769
Trust info. obtained, if it comes from brand’s official profile 2.2891 322 0.89784 0.08129

Table 2
Trust level paired samples test e trust level.

Paired differences t df Sig. (2-

tailed)
Mean Std. Std. error 95% Confidence
deviation mean interval of the
difference

Lower Upper

Pair To trust information obtained, if it comes from friends eTo trust information obtained, if it 0.23871 1.10080 0.09966 0.04859 0.44321 2.467 322 0.015
1 comes from brand’s official profile

Table 3
Paired samples statistics e sharing experiences e attitudinal loyalty.

Mean N Std. deviation Std. error mean

Pair 1 I say positive things about brands through social media 2.4539 322 0.90064 0.08188
I recommend brands to my friends on social networking sites 3.2657 322 1.04328 0.09484

Table 4
Table of sharing experiences e paired samples test e sharing experiences e attitudinal loyalty.

Paired differences t df Sig. (2-

tailed)
Mean Std. Std. error 95% Confidence
deviation mean interval of the
difference

Lower Upper

Pair I say positive things about brands through social media e I recommend brands to my 0.46833 1.03240 0.09385 0.73954 0.36789 5.900 321 0.000
1 friends on social networking sites

Table 5
Paired samples statistics e behavioral loyalty.

Mean N Std. deviation Std. error mean

Pair 1 I buy the products/services of brands that I have been following on social media 2.5668 322 0.99535 0.09011
I always follow the same brands through social media because I really like them 2.4653 322 1.02459 0.09276

Table 6
Paired samples test e behavioral loyalty.

Paired differences t df Sig. (2-

tailed)
Mean Std. Std. 95% Confidence
deviation error interval of the
mean difference

Lower Upper

Pair I buy the products/services of brands that I have been following on social media e I always 0.02875 1.03639 0.09383 0.16937 0.20216 0.175 322 0.862
1 follow the same brands through Social Media because I really like them

Attitudinal loyalty iv. I would feel emotionally connected toward the brands I
i. I would say positive things about products/services/brands follow online.
through Social Media (leave comments, click “like” in the Fan Behavioral Loyalty
page). i. I would stop following brands, if other brands provide better
ii. I would recommend products/services/brands to my friends offers in their profiles/fan pages (e.g. discount coupons).
on Social Networking Sites. ii. It would be very important to me to follow a specific brand
iii. I would encourage relatives and friends about brands on Social Media rather than any other brands.
through Social Media.
750 T.M. Nisar, C. Whitehead / Computers in Human Behavior 62 (2016) 743e753

iii. I would buy the products/services of brands that I had been Table 7
following on Social Media. Regression analysis (dependent variable is behavioral loyalty).

iv. I would always follow the same brands through Social Media R2 F b t Sig.
because I really like them. Brands 0.084 9.648 0.293 3.106 0.002***
Customer satisfaction 0.106 12.426 0.325 3.525 0.001***
After doing the factor analysis, it became obvious that the first ***
Significance at p < 0.01.
statement of the behavioral loyalty has a different value compared
to the rest. The component plot is given below (Fig. 3), confirms
that the first behavioral loyalty behavior does not belong to 9.65 would happen if the hypothesis was not true. Thus, it can be
behavioral loyalty category and that it is not related with the other concluded that brands is a significant predictor of user behavioral
statements. It is then, removed from the behavioral loyalty loyalty, where b1 ¼ 0.29, t(105) ¼ 3.11, p < 0.01. It is significant that
behavior. Based on the data extracted, 53% of the participants show brands is positively related to user behavioral loyalty as when there
that they are attitudionally loyal to the brands that they have been is one standard increase in brand image, user behavioral loyalty will
interacting online, while the rest (47%) showed their disloyalty. be 0.29 higher (p < 0.01). Therefore, the hypothesis that brands can
Moreover, individuals are behaviorally less loyal to the brands positively affect user behavioral loyalty can be accepted. A simple
through social networks. 45% of the respondents showed loyal regression model in which overall customer satisfaction predicted
behaviors while 55% of the customers are behaviorally disloyal to user behavioral loyalty was also significant with F(1,105) ¼ 12.43,
the brands even though they are following brand pages online. p < 0.01, R2 ¼ 0.106. The R2 tells that overall customer satisfaction
Furthermore, as the objective of this research is to analyze how can account for 10.6% of the variation in user loyalty and there is
user loyalty can be achieved and generated as well as how it can be less than a 1% chance that an F-ratio of 12.426 would happen if the
improved, we carry out a hypothesis testing exercise. The research hypothesis was not true. Hence, overall customer satisfaction can
builds on the previous literature by focusing on two possible factors be a significant predictor of user loyalty, where b2 ¼ 0.33,
that can affect user loyalty e brand and customer satisfaction. t(105) ¼ 3.53, p < 0.01. Given that customer loyalty will be
Accordingly, four more hypotheses are tested in this research. increased by 0.33 when customer satisfaction is increased by one
unit (p < 0.01), there is a significant positive relationship between
4.3. Regression analysis customer satisfaction and user loyalty. Therefore, Hypothesis 3(a)
cannot be rejected. We then conducted regressions to test the re-
By conducting a simple regression analysis, hypothesis 2 (a,b) lationships between brands, customer satisfaction variables and
and hypothesis 3 (a,b) can be tested. These hypotheses are pro- user attitudinal loyalty (see Table 8). It can be seen that there is a
vided below. significant relationship between brands and user attitudinal loyalty
(b1 ¼ 0.318). The results also showed that there is no significant
H2 (a): Brands have a positive effect on user behavioral loyalty. relationship between customer satisfaction and user attitudinal
H2 (b): Brands have a positive effect on user attitudinal loyalty. loyalty (b2 ¼ 0.001). This means that the predictor, customer
H3 (a): Customer satisfaction has a positive effect on user satisfaction is not significant; therefore H3(b) is not supported.
behavioral loyalty. A summary of the above presented results in terms of the sup-
H3 (b): Customer satisfaction has a positive effect on user atti- ported hypotheses is provided in Table 9.
tudinal loyalty.

5. Discussion
The results indicated that a simple regression model in which
brands predicted user behavioral loyalty was significant, where F(1,
The above findings indicate a significant shift toward social
105) ¼ 9.65, p < 0.01, R2 ¼ 0.084 (see Table 7). The value of R2 tells
networking websites as earlier emphasized by Palmer and Koenig-
that brands can account for 8.4% of the variation in user behavioral
Lewis (2009). In addition to Mangold and Fauld’s (2009) findings of
loyalty. In addition, there is less than a 1% chance that an F-ratio of
the most popular social networking sites (Facebook, Twitter,
MySpace), results show that Googleþ is also becoming popular
nowadays. Furthermore, the increase in using Instagram is another
result identified in this study. As mentioned earlier, Mangold and
Faulds (2009) claimed that the social media phenomenon gives
customer power to inform thousands of other people about their
views according to their experiences with that brand. However,
findings suggest that even though customers express their appre-
ciation by leaving positive comments and show their likening on
brands’ fan pages, they are not very willing to encourage or
recommend that brand to their friends and families through social
networking sites. The mean value of sharing experiences by
through positive comments about brands through social media and
is compared to the mean value of sharing experiences by

Table 8
Regression analysis (dependent variable is attitudinal loyalty).

R2 F b t Sig.

Brands 0.079 11.193 0.318 3.087 0.001***

Customer satisfaction 0.007 0.156 0.001 0.124 0.872
***
Fig. 3. Component plot of customer loyalty. Significant at p < 0.01.
 T.M. Nisar, C. Whitehead / Computers in Human Behavior 62 (2016) 743e753 751

Table 9 who do not engage with brands’ fan pages online, but who might
Summary of the results showing supported and non-supported hypotheses. consider following them. For this specific group, getting discount
Hypothesis Expected Obtained will be the main reason that would make them follow brand pages.
H0 (þ) Not supported
Obtaining general information about products and being able to see
H1 (þ) Supported reviews and product rankings are the second and third main rea-
H2(a) (þ) Supported sons respectively. Although the ranking is slightly different, the top
H2(b) (þ) Supported three reasons are same in all participants. The lower three reasons
H3(a) (þ) Supported
are the same as well with slight changes. Third, fourth and fifth
H3(b) (þ) Not supported
reasons which would make individuals follow brand pages are
stated as event participation, seeing reviews and rankings, followed
by being part of a community, respectively. Last but not least, the
recommending brands to friends and relatives through social net-
remaining three reasons are submitting opinion on current prod-
works (Kwon & Wen, 2010). Overall findings show that even
ucts/services, submitting ideas about new products/services and
though individuals share their positive experiences by showing
being able to contact customer services.
their appreciation towards the brands through social networks,
In terms of the relationship between brand pages and customer
they do not actively encourage the fan pages to anyone else.
loyalty, the result showed that brands do have a positive effect on
In contrast to Baird and Parasnis’ argument (2011), majority of
customer loyalty and hypotheses two (a) and (b) were accepted.
the consumers were found to engage with brands via social web-
Thus, this paper supports Porter and Claycomb (1997) who found
sites. Although they mainly use social networks in order to connect
that a favorable brand image can help a company not only to gain
with their friends and relatives, considerable numbers of social
competitive advantage but also encourage customers to return. It
networking users make business contacts through social media.
also seconds Martineau (1958) who believed that customers
The results of an online survey conducted in October 2012 (Palmer
holding a positive image of the brand will have a certain degree of
& Koenig-Lewis, 2009) stated that 55% of consumers do not interact
loyalty. Similarly, we find that customer satisfaction has a positive
with brands via social media. However, the study’s findings
effect on customer loyalty. The regression analysis showed that
demonstrate that 70% of the individuals, who participated in the
there is a significant positive relationship between customer
survey, follow brand pages online. Existing literature on this field
satisfaction and user behavioral loyalty, so that hypothesis three (a)
states that the main reason for not following brands through social
can also be accepted. This result reflects the viewpoint of Fornell
networking sites is the privacy concerns (Baird & Parasnis, 2011).
(1992) that satisfied customers are more likely to be loyal and
However, this study highlights the main reason for not interacting
high satisfaction can increase user loyalty.
with the brand pages online as customers’ (41%) belief of it being a
waste of time. 33% of the respondents do not want to be contacted
6. Conclusion
and 21% of the respondents have concerns about their privacy. 5% of
the respondents specified other reasons for not following brand
The study contributes to the extant literature in a number of
pages online such as to portray a professional outlook to present
ways. For instance, we find that there is significant and positive
and potential employers or not to reveal their personal preferences.
relationships between brands, customer satisfaction and customer
The study conducted by Baird and Parasnis (2011) ranks the
loyalty. Thus, brand pages and customer satisfaction can be used to
most popular reasons for interacting with the brand fan pages
obtain and maintain customer loyalty. We also find that users
through social networking sites. The very first reason is to get
exhibit a greater behavioral loyalty than attitudinal loyalty. Based
discounts while the second and third reasons were to purchase
on the results, the study indicates areas that can be improved in
online and to see the reviews and product rankings respectively.
order to increase customer satisfaction; hence improved customer
The fourth reason in the ranking is to have general information
loyalty can be achieved. Extant literature discusses that acquiring
about products and services which is followed by to submit opinion
customers alone is not the best way for long-term success; it is also
on current products and services and to contact customer services
important to create value for the customers (Duffy, 2003). Horppu
respectively. The least popular reasons for following brands via
et al., (2008) had earlier divided customer loyalty into two parts:
social media are to be able to participate in events such as meetings,
attitudinal loyalty and behavioral loyalty. Therefore, the primary
to submit ideas for new products and services and finally, to be part
data collected from the survey included both types of the loyalty
of a community. However, the primary data collected during this
questions. Our study thus contributes to the extant literature by
research suggests a different ranking. Even participants who do not
emphasizing the role of both types of user loyalties: behavioral
follow brand pages online were asked to rank so that they might
loyalty and attitudinal loyalty. Furthermore, majority of the par-
consider following brand pages via social media. Surprisingly, the
ticipants agreed with the statement that they make positive com-
main reasons of the ranking identified from the customers who
ments about brands through their social networking profiles. Still,
engage with the brand pages online is not to get discounts but to
they do not agree with the other statements that they encourage
obtain general information about new products. The second reason
and recommend brands to their friends and relatives as much as
is to see reviews and product rankings while being able to get
they agreed with the first one. For behavioral loyalty, individuals
discounts is the third reason. Fourth, fifth and sixth reasons are to
stated that they follow brands through social media just because
participate in events, post reviews and product rankings and be
they like those brands. They are more likely to buy the products and
part of a community, respectively. The results indicate that cus-
services of brands that they have been following on social media.
tomers’ desire to be able to participate in events became a more
From the agreement scales given in the loyalty question, it seems
popular reason compared to the existing literature (Baird &
that individuals somewhat show behavioral loyalty behaviors more
Parasnis, 2011). Contacting customer services and submitting
than attitudinal loyalty behaviors. These findings have been further
opinion on either current or new products/services are the least
confirmed by the regression analysis. According to Pitta et al.
common reasons in terms of following brands. This shows that
(2006), customers become committed to the brands if they gain
even though individuals follow the brand pages through social
trust. Findings show that individuals trust information they obtain
networking sites, they do not actively interact.
through social media if it comes from brands’ official profiles.
The findings also provide ranking obtained from the individuals
However, most of them disagree with the idea that brands do not
752 T.M. Nisar, C. Whitehead / Computers in Human Behavior 62 (2016) 743e753

make false statements and the information they offer is sincere and Journal of Consumer Marketing, 20(5), 480e485.
Edelman, D. C. (2010). Branding in the digital age you’re spending your money in all
honest. Still, it is an unexpected result that instead of trusting the
the wrong places. Harvard Business Review, 63e69. Dec 2010.
information that comes from friends and relatives, participants Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of facebook “friends:”
agreed that information on brands’ official web pages is more social capital and college students? Use of online social network sites. Journal of
trustworthy. Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1143e1168.
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). London: SAGE Publica-
The results obtained under this research study conclude that tions Ltd.
due to the emergence of the technology it is now easier to access to Fornell, C. (1992). A national customer satisfaction barometer: the Swedish expe-
the users via social media. Firms use social media not just to find rience. Journal of Marketing, 56, 6e21.
Grieve, R., Indian, M., Witteveen, K., Anne Tolan, G., & Marrington, J. (2013). Face-
new customers but also to maintain and retain their existing cus- toface or facebook: can social connectedness be derived online? Computers in
tomers. The brand and individual interactions can be explained Human Behavior, 29(3), 604e609.
clearly by using customer engagement cycles. Although there are Herzog, H. (1963). Behavioral science concepts for analyzing the consumer. In
P. Bliss (Ed.), Marketing and the behavioral sciences (pp. 76e86). Boston: Allyn
considerable numbers of factors that influence buyer-seller re- and Bacon, Inc.
lationships, the most significant finding is trust, which influences Hollenbaugh, E. E., & Ferris, A. L. (2014). Facebook self-disclosure: examining the
customer loyalty. Companies aim to achieve user loyalty and by the role of traits, social cohesion, and motives. Computers in Human Behavior, 30,
50e58.
Internet it is now possible to provide services 24/7. Having quan- Horppu, M., Kuivalainen, O., Tarkiainen, A., & Ellonen, H. K. (2008). Online satis-
titative data about customer loyalty, it can be said that users follow faction, trust and loyalty, and the impact of the offline parent brand. Journal of
brand pages through their personal social networking profiles. Product & Brand Management, 17(6), 403e413.
Hunley, J. (2013). Viral Marketing vs. Viral Business: Which matters more to your
Although they mainly use social networks to keep in touch with
company’s success. Available: http://www.getmoreengagement.com/social-
their friends, they follow brand pages to be updated about marketing/viral-marketing-vs-viral-business-which-matters-more. Last
products. accessed 01.04.15.
The study adopts a focus on customer-brand relationship Jacoby, J., & Kyner, D. B. (1973). Brand loyalty vs. repeat purchasing behavior. Journal
of Marketing Research, 1e9. February.
through social networks. Although the research has reached it aims, Julander, C., Magi, A., Jonsson, J., & Lindqvist, A. (1997). Linking customer satisfac-
there were some unavoidable limitations. One problem is that tion to financial performance data. In Edvardsson, et al. (Eds.), Advancing service
generalized findings can become irrelevant in the future as a result quality: A global perspectives, quiz 5, conference processing (pp. 301e310). Swe-
den: University of Karlstad.
of technological developments. Considering that social networking Kandampully, J., & Suhartanto, D. (2000). Customer loyalty in the hotel industry: the
websites is a new phenomenon, further research is possible. There role of customer satisfaction and image. International Journal of Contemporary
are some unanswered questions such as how to improve customer Hospitality Management, 12(6), 346e351.
Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing consumer-based
loyalty and customer interaction on social networks. It is, therefore, brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1e22.
reasonable to invest in these specific areas. Furthermore, studies Krasnova, H., Spiekermann, S., Koroleva, K., & Hildebrand, T. (2010). Online social
could focus more on how individuals can trust information about networks: why we disclose. Journal of Information Technology, 25(2), 109e125.
Ku, Y., Chen, R., & Zhang, H. (2013). Why do users continue using social networking
brands that filter through social media and what brands can do sites? an exploratory study of members in the United States and Taiwan. In-
about this. The study adopts a focus on customer and brand rela- formation & Management, 50(7), 571e581.
tionship from the user perspective. Future studies could further Kwon, O., & Wen, Y. (2010). An empirical study of the factors affecting social
network service use. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(2), 254e263.
explore these issues from the brand and branding perspectives.
Laroche, M., Habibi, M. R., Richard, M., & Sankaranarayanan, R. (2012). The effects of
social media based brand communities on brand community markers, value
creation practices, brand trust and brand loyalty. Computers in Human Behavior,
References 28, 1755e1767.
Lazarevic, V. (2012). Encouraging brand loyalty in fickle generation Y consumers.
Aaker, D. (1996). Building strong brands. New York: The Free Press. Young Consumers: Insight and Ideas for Responsible Marketers, 13(1), 45e61.
Aladwani, A. M. (2014). Gravitating towards facebook (GoToFB): what it is? and how Lim, J., Hwang, Y., Kim, S., & Biocca, F. (2015). How social media engagement leads to
can it be measured? Computers in Human Behavior, 33(4), 270e278. sports channel loyalty: mediating roles of social presence and channel
Antheunis, M. L., Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2010). Getting acquainted through commitment. Computers in Human Behavior, 46, 158e167.
social network sites: testing a model of online uncertainty reduction and social Luo, N., Zhang, M., & Liu, W. (2015). The effects of value co-creation practices on
attraction. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(1), 100e109, 1. building harmonious brand community and achieving brand loyalty on social
Baird, C. H., & Parasnis, G. (2011). From social media to social customer relationship media in China. Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 492e499.
management. Strategy & Leadership, 39(5), 30e33. Malthouse, E., Haenlein, M., Skiera, B., Wege, E., & Zhang, M. (2013). Managing
Bloemer, J. M. M., & Kasper, H. D. P. (1995). The complex relationship between customer relationships in the social media era: introducing the social CRM
consumer satisfaction and brand loyalty. Journal of Economic Psychology, 16, house. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 270e280.
311e329. Mangold, W. G., & Faulds, D. J. (2009). Social media: the new hybrid element of the
Bowen, J. T., & Chen, S. (2001). The relationship between customer loyalty and promotion mix. Business Horizons, 52(4), 357e365.
customer satisfaction. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Man- Martineau, P. (1958). The personality of retail store. Harvard Business Review, 36(1),
agement, 13(5), 213e217. 47e55.
Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2011). Business research methods (3rd ed., pp. 1e663). Oxford, McAndrew, F. T., & Jeong, H. S. (2012). Who does what on facebook? age, sex, and
U.K: Oxford University Press. relationship status as predictors of facebook use. Computers in Human Behavior,
Chaffey, D., & Ellis-Chadwick, F. (2012). Digital marketing: Strategy, implementation 28(6), 2359e2365.
and practice. UK: Pearson Education. McIlroy, A., & Barnett, S. (2000). Building customer relationships: do discount cards
Chen, A., Lu, Y., Wang, B., Zhao, L., & Li, M. (2013). What drives content creation work. Managing Service Quality, 10(6), 347e355.
behavior on SNSs? a commitment perspective. Journal of Business Research, McKenna, K. Y. A., & Bargh, J. A. (1999). Causes and consequences of social inter-
66(12), 2529e2535. action on the internet: a conceptual framework. Media Psychology, 1(3),
Cheung, C. M. K., Chiu, P., & Lee, M. K. O. (2011). Online social networks: why do 249e269.
students use facebook? Computers in Human Behavior, 27(6), 2322e2339. Mehdizadeh, S. (2010). Self-presentation 2.0: narcissism and self-esteem on face-
Choi, Y. H., & Bazarova, N. N. (2015). Self-disclosure characteristics and motivations book. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 13(4), 357e364.
in social media: extending the functional model to multiple social network Mohammadi, H. (2015). A study of mobile banking loyalty in Iran. Computers in
sites. Human Communication Research, 41(4), 480e500. Human Behavior, 44, 35e47.
Craig, E. (2007). Changing paradigms: managed learning environment and web 2.0. Nadkarni, A., & Hofmann, S. G. (2012). Why do people use facebook? Personality and
Campus-Wide Information Systems, 24(3), 152e161. Individual Differences, 52(3), 243e249.
Dholakia, U. M., Bagozzi, R. P., & Pearo, L. K. (2004). A social influence model of Nilsson, C., & Sandberg, E. (2010). Building customer loyalty by service recovery e
consumer participation in network- and small-group-based virtual commu- Turning frustration into sensation. University of Gothenburg: School of Business,
nities. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21(3), 241e263. Economics and Law.
Dick, A. S., & Basu, K. (1994). Customer loyalty: toward an integrated conceptual Normann, R. (1991). Service management: Strategy and leadership in service business.
framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22(2), 99e113. John Wiley & Sons.
Dobni, D., & Zinkhan, G. M. (1990). In search of brand image: a foundation analysis. Oh, H. J., Ozkaya, E., & LaRose, R. (2014). How does online social networking
Advances in Consumer Research, 17(1), 110e119. enhance life satisfaction? the relationships among online supportive interac-
Duffy, D. L. (2003). Internal and external factors which affect customer loyalty. tion, affect, perceived social support, sense of community, and life satisfaction.
 T.M. Nisar, C. Whitehead / Computers in Human Behavior 62 (2016) 743e753 753

Computers in Human Behavior, 30(1), 69e78. digital generation. London, UK: Kogan Page Limited.
Oliver, R. L. (1997). Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on the consumer. New York: Sashi, C. M. (2012). Customer engagement, buyer-seller relationships, and social
Irwin/McGraw Hall. media. Management Decision, 50(2), 253e272.
Oztaysi, B., Sezgin, S., & Ozok, A. F. (2011). A measurement tool for customer rela- Schoultz, M. (2013). Starbucks marketing strategy: Making social media a difference
tionship management processes. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 111(6), maker. Available: http://www.digitalsparkmarketing.com/creative-marketing/
943e960. social-media/starbucks-marketing/ Accessed 10.02.16.
Palmer, A., & Koenig-Lewis, N. (2009). An experiential, social network-based Shuen, A. (2008). Web 2.0: A strategy guide: Business thinking and strategies behind
approach to direct marketing. Direct Marketing: An International Journal, 3(3), successful web 2.0 implementations. Canada: O’Reilly Media.
162e176. Smith, T. (2009). The social media revolution. International Journal of Market
Park, N., Kee, K. F., & Valenzuela, S. (2009). Being immersed in social networking Research, 51(4), 559e561.
environment: facebook groups, uses and gratifications, and social outcomes. Steinfield, C., Ellison, N. B., & Lampe, C. (2008). Social capital, self-esteem, and use of
CyberPsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 12(6), 729e733. online social network sites: a longitudinal analysis. Journal of Applied Develop-
Parvatiyar, A., & Sheth, J. N. (2001). Customer relationship management: emerging mental Psychology, 29(6), 434e445.
practice, process, and discipline. Journal of Economic and Social Research, 3(2), Stokes, D., & Wilson, N. (2010). Small business management and entrepreneurship
1e34. (6th ed.). Hampshire: Cengage Learning.
Pitta, D., Franzak, F., & Fowler, D. (2006). A strategic approach to building online Story, J., & Hess, J. (2006). Segmenting customer-brand relations: beyond the per-
customer loyalty: integrating customer profitability tiers. Journal of Consumer sonal relationship metaphor. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 23(7), 406e413.
Marketing, 23(7), 421e429. Tokunaga, R. S. (2011). Social networking site or social surveillance sites under-
Porter, S. S., & Claycomb, C. (1997). The influence of brand recognition on retail store standing the use of interpersonal electronic surveillance in romantic relation-
image. The Journal of Product and Brand Management, 6, 373e384. ships. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(2), 705e713.
Raskin, R., & Terry, H. (1988). A principal-components analysis of the narcissistic Tutel, T. (2008). Advertising 2.0: Social media marketing in a web 2.0 world. Westport:
personality inventory and further evidence of its construct validity. Journal of Greenwood Publishing Group.
Personality and Social Psychology, 54(5), 890. Twitter. (2014). Twitter general information. Available: http://support.twitter.com/
Reichheld, F. F., & Sasser, W. E. (1990). Zero defections: Quality comes to services articles/13920-new-user-faqs Accessed 2.02.16.
(online). Available at: http://academics.eckerd.edu/instructor/trasorrj/ Valenzuela, S., Park, N., & Kee, K. F. (2009). Is there social capital in a social network
Consumer%20behavior/Consumer%20Behavior%20Articles/Retention/Zero% site? Facebook use and college students’ life satisfaction, trust, and participa-
20Defections.pdf Accessed on 21.04.15. tion. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(4), 875e901.
Ribbink, D., van Riel, A. C. R., Liljander, V., & Streukens, S. (2004). Comfort your Yi, Y. (1990). A critical review of consumer satisfaction. In V. Zeithaml (Ed.), Review
online customer: quality, trust and loyalty on the Internet. Managing Service of marketing, 1990 (pp. 68e123). Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association.
Quality, 14(6), 446e456. Zineldin, M. (2006). The royalty of loyalty: CRM, quality and retention. Journal of
Ryan, D., & Jones, C. (2012). Digital marketing: Marketing strategies for engaging the Consumer Marketing, 23(7), 430e437.