Journal of Marketing Communications, 2016

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2016.1205119

Facebook fan page: the effect of perceived socialness in

consumer–brand communication
Jinhyon Kwon Hammicka and Ilyoung Jub
a
Department of Communication, Flagler College, St. Augustine, FL, USA; bDepartment of Advertising,
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Facebook has become an important platform for a brand–consumer Received 21 November 2015
Downloaded by [University of Exeter] at 23:24 15 July 2016

relationship channel. The current study investigates the influence of Accepted 14 June 2016
perceived socialness and its effect on consumers’ attitude toward
KEYWORDS
brands. Participants (N  =  404) were recruited in a large southeast Facebook; brand trust;
university. A 2 (socialness: high vs. low) × 2 (feedback control: high brand–consumer
vs. low) × 2 (brand image: high vs. low) between-subject design was relationship; feedback
conducted. The results of this study identified three important findings. control; relationship
First, high (vs. low) socialness elicited higher perceived relationship commitment
commitment, brand trust, and more favorable brand attitude. Second,
the effect of socialness on brand attitude was moderated by brand
image (positive vs. negative). Third, the mediation analysis showed
that the effect of socialness (high vs. low) on brand attitude was fully
mediated by perceived relationship commitment and brand trust.

When Duncan and Moriarty (1998, 1) suggested 20 years ago that ‘marketing today is more
communication dependent,’ they likely did not imagine how communication technologies
would affect contemporary marketing strategies.
Now is clearly the era of social media marketing. One study in 2013 found that 83% of
Fortune 500 companies had active Twitter accounts, and 80% had a solid presence on
Facebook (Barnes and Lescault 2014). Altogether, more than 97% of the Fortune 500 com-
panies were using social media as a marketing communication channel, and the percentage
is expected to continuously grow (Barnes and Lescault 2014). Companies believe that social
media allows them to engage in timely and direct end consumer contact at a relatively low
cost with higher levels of efficiency, which could not be achieved with more traditional
communication tools (Kaplan and Haenlein 2010). Furthermore, one survey revealed that 7
out of 10 consumers preferred a business with a social media presence (GoDaddy 2014).
Although its growth has slowed, Facebook is by far the most popular social media site
(Pew Research Center 2014). This has led to a trend of users incorporating daily usage habits
which then clearly redefine the normal behavior in their everyday life. Marketers find
Facebook attractive because of its substantial user base, and the ease with which it can be
used in marketing communications. According to a recent survey, ‘Customer Engagement
and Today’s Consumer,’ Facebook was ranked as the most preferred social network channel

CONTACT  Jinhyon Kwon Hammick  jhammick@flagler.edu

© 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
 2    J. K. Hammick and I. Ju

for consumers to connect with brands (Accent Marketing 2014). Since it was established in
2004, Facebook has acquired more than 1.39 billion active users worldwide (Facebook
Newsroom 2014), becoming the second most popular site on the web after Google (Alexa
2015). The popularity of Facebook also makes it a highly cost-effective marketing venue for
businesses. Facebook claims that it had 890 million daily active users on average in December
2014 (Facebook Newsroom 2014).
Researchers and marketing professionals have suggested that businesses should consider
the unique capabilities of social media as a brand–consumer relationship opportunity (Fazal
2009; Kaplan and Haenlein 2010). Instead of focusing on promotions such as coupons and
discount offers, they suggest that marketers assign more value to interacting with consumers
via social media, and measure the impact on brand attitude and loyalty over the long term
(Fazal 2009). The basic premise in this idea is that the Internet and the networking power of
social media provide the infrastructure for enhancing the development of brand community
activities. This includes interactions between the company and consumers, leading to a
Downloaded by [University of Exeter] at 23:24 15 July 2016

shared brand experience between them (Davis, Piven, and Breazeale 2014) by reducing
barriers for interaction and increasing communication effectiveness (Andersen 2005).
The objective of this study is not only to extend the study of brand–consumer relation-
ships to social media, but also to re-examine the role of companies’ individuated, social
communication (Aggarwal 2004; Fournier 1998; Wang et al. 2007) and open communication
environment on the brand–consumer relationship (Fournier and Avery 2011) in Facebook
fan page settings. The theoretical foundation of this research is grounded in commit-
ment-trust theory, and social response theory. These theories are used to formulate hypoth-
eses regarding how the socialness of a brand’s communication can influence the attitudes
of consumers toward the brand. It is hypothesized that the perceived socialness of a brand
communication and the interactive capabilities afforded to consumers on Facebook fan
pages have an influence on brand attitude through consumers’ perception of commitment
to and trust in the brand.

Literature review
Facebook as a brand–consumer relationship tool
The brand–consumer relationship has been a central focus of both academic research and
practices in the fields of marketing and mass communication (Aaker, Fournier, and Brasel
2004; Smit, Bronner, and Tolboom 2007). Brand–consumer relationships are based on the
idea that brands and consumers can form and develop a relationship with each other, and
this intimacy can progress to social bonds (Aggarwal 2004; Fournier 1998; Smit, Bronner,
and Tolboom 2007). The basic assumption underlying the concept of a brand–consumer
relationship is that brands can be perceived by consumers as relationship partners, which
in turn fosters long-lasting consumer loyalty (Aaker 1995; Fournier 1998; Garbarino and
Johnson 1999).
The role of social media in brand–consumer relationship can be explained by the way
brand consumption occurs in social media communities. Davis, Piven, and Breazeale (2014)
suggest that consumers have a desire for personalized brand interaction, and the desire may
motivate them to pursue a relationship with the brand. Ideally, Facebook fan pages provide
peer-to-peer communication that resembles interpersonal communication (Fogg 2008).
 Journal of Marketing Communications   3

While traditional media deliver brand messages to mass audiences via advertisements that
tend to be one-directional and communication oriented, social media such as Facebook are
designed to encourage conversations among consumers about marketing messages.
Companies can participate in the dialog and respond to consumers’ comments. In this regard,
Facebook fan pages can be an ideal environment for initiating social interaction and bonds
between the brand and consumers.

Perceived socialness in brand–consumer communication

The central point of interpersonal communications in brand relationships illustrates that for
a long-term, enduring relationship, brand marketers should take an interpersonal approach
in communicating with consumers (Aggarwal 2004). That is, brand interactions need to
convey human-like traits that can be found in human–human interactions (Davis, Piven, and
Breazeale 2014). Among these human-like qualities, this study focuses on the aspect of
Downloaded by [University of Exeter] at 23:24 15 July 2016

socialness – specifically, the consumers’ perception of socialness in brand communication.

The term ‘socialness’ is based on social response theory, which posits that people treat
computers as social actors even when they know that they are interacting with computers,
i.e. technology (Nass and Steuer 1993; Reeves and Nass 1996; Wakefield et al. 2011; Wang
et al. 2007). Specifically, when users perceive that the interface of a computer or a website
exhibits life-like attributes associated with humans, they respond with social behaviors and
social attributes very much like those exhibited in human–human interactions (Moon 2000;
Wakefield et al. 2011). This notion is supported by empirical studies based on social response
theory. For example, Wang et al. (2007) demonstrated that the use of social cues such as
language, voice, and interactivity on retail websites induced perceptions of socialness in
users (i.e. the website was helpful, informative, polite), leading to a positive consumer
experience.
Another empirical study by Wakefield et al. (2011) revealed that website socialness
perceptions positively influence user intentions to use the website. Such viewpoints have
become further emphasized with the emergence of social media as consumers participate
in the social media community for social values (Davis, Piven, and Breazeale 2014). Kaplan
and Haenlein (2010) argued that companies should avoid overly professional content
offerings on social media pages, and instead, try to blend in with their consumers. In terms
of socialness, Facebook fan pages represent an ideal environment for brands to exhibit social
cues that can positively influence brand–consumer relationships. With the two-way
communication capability and interactivity, Facebook provides brand marketers with an
opportunity and convenience to individually interact with their consumers and give
immediate feedback to their inquiries or comments.
However, while this highly interactive social media can facilitate brand–consumer
relationships, it can also be a challenge for brands in maintaining relationships because
consumers have higher expectations for responses from brands (Diana 2011). According to
a survey conducted by Lightspeed Research and the Internet Advertising Bureau UK, one-
fourth of respondents who complain via Facebook or Twitter expect a reply within 60 min,
and 6% expect a response within 10 min. Yet, if consumers notify a company of a problem
using its website, 50% are happy to wait up to a day for a reply and 27% are content to wait
up to three days (Diana 2011). In an interview with eMarketer, Blackshaw, a VP of Digital
Strategic Services at Nielsen, stressed that ‘if a consumer has come to one of the company’s
 4    J. K. Hammick and I. Ju

social media outposts, like Facebook or Twitter, to make a negative comment, the brand
should respond to that because it is clear that the consumer wants a response’ (Fredricksen
2010). This confirms the arguments posed by relationship marketing scholars that sending
brand messages is important, but responsiveness is just as important in relationship
marketing because well-planned communication practices produce or yield commitment,
and trust in the brand–consumer relationships (Duncan and Moriarty 1998). As a result,
Hypothesis 1 is:
H1. Participants exposed to high SBC on Facebook fan pages are expected to have (a) a higher
perceived relationship commitment, (b) brand trust, and (c) more positive brand attitude as
compared to those exposed to low SBC on Facebook fan pages.

Control on consumer feedback

However, companies often try to control the communication on their online brand sites to
Downloaded by [University of Exeter] at 23:24 15 July 2016

avoid conflicts (Cova and Cova 2002; Founier and Lee 2009) concerning the possible influ-
ences of negative consumer opinions (Smith and Vogt 1995). Founier and Lee (2009) argued
that brand operators should not only resist the urge to control the communication of their
social media sites, but also the company should be guided by their consumer feedback. If
the companies provide customers little opportunity to engage in dialog with the brand,
such brand communications are only limited as interactions between suppliers and custom-
ers (O’Malley and Tynan 2000). Some qualitative research through focus group interviews
also demonstrated that consumers tend to engage with marketers online even more when
they perceive a higher level of consumer-controlled interaction (Evans et al. 2001).
The ideal type of online communication, balanced control of both companies and con-
sumers, can be described as ‘control mutuality.’ This is defined by Hon and Grunig (1999) as
‘the degree to which parties agree on who has the rightful power to influence one another,’
between the organizations and their publics. Hon and Grunig (1999) argue that ‘stable rela-
tionships require that organizations and publics each have some control over the other’ (3).
One of the benefits of this open communication between brands and consumers is the
formation of trust (Valley, Moag, and Bazerman 1998). The act of information exchange
through two-way communication media is more likely to be the source of an information–
trust correlation than is information exchange through one-way communication media
(Fisman and Khanna 1999). A survey conducted by Fisman and Khanna (1999) revealed that
trust increases with the ease of two-way communication. Better information flows imply
greater trust, as both of these types of trust rely on learning about the behaviors and pref-
erences of others (Fisman and Khanna 1999). Burt and Knez (1996) also revealed in their
study, which is based on survey data, that the level of trust increased as the frequency of
interaction between the two parties increased.
H2. The effect of SBC on brand attitude is expected to be moderated by feedback control (high
vs. low) on Facebook fan pages.

Brand image
Marketing researchers suggest that brand image plays a key role in the development of
brand relationships (Esch et al. 2006; Veloutsou and Moutinho 2009), and further affects
 Journal of Marketing Communications   5

customer loyalty (Hung, 2008; Johnson, Andreessen, Lervik, and Cha, 2001). From survey
data collected from 912 consumers, Veloutsou and Moutinho (2009) revealed that the more
positive a brand reputation is, the more likely a strong brand relationship is to develop. Brand
image is defined as ‘perceptions about a brand as reflected by the brand associations held
in consumer memory’ (Keller, 1993, 3) or ‘the set of beliefs held about a particular brand”
(Kotler, 1988, 197). Defining brand image in relation to brand equity, Keller (1993) provided
the following summary on the effectiveness of marketing according to brand image:
A brand is said to have positive (negative) customer-based brand equity if consumers react
more (less) favorably to an element of the marketing mix for the brand than they do to the
same marketing mix element when it is attributed to a fictitiously named or unnamed version
of the product or service. (p. 8)
Research findings also supported that existing brand image differently affects the outcome
and effectiveness of marketing and public relations activities. In a survey conducted on
consumers with actual experiences in purchasing insurance, Hung (2008) found that con-
sumers perceive public relation efforts more positively when the brand image was positive.
Downloaded by [University of Exeter] at 23:24 15 July 2016

For example, a consumer survey conducted by Hanzaee and Farsani (2011) revealed that
when brand image, measured with three items (evaluating symbolic, experiential, and func-
tional benefits) was favorable, the positive effect of perceived public relations on customer
loyalty was also significant.
H3. The effect of SBC on brand attitude is expected to be moderated by brand image (positive
vs. negative) on Facebook fan pages.

Commitment and trust

Commitment and trust have been considered by relationship marketing scholars as critical
dimensions in brand–consumer relationship building (Delgado-Ballester and Munuera-
Alemán 2001; Duncan and Moriarty 1998; Garbarino and Johnson 1999; Hess and Story 2005;
Morgan and Hunt 1994; Peck 1993). Relationship marketing scholars have argued that dif-
ferences in trust and commitment are the features that most distinguish customers with
an orientation toward single or repeat transactions (Berry 1995; Webster 1992). This notion
is also supported by a consumer survey result, reached by Razorfish, an interactive marketing
firm, that consumers prioritize ‘feeling valued’ and ‘trust’ as the most important factors when
engaging with a brand (Keller 2011). Studies in relationship marketing suggest that customer
trust and commitment established by the salesperson is likely to be transferred to the firm
(Foster and Cadogan 2000). This perspective can also be applied to Facebook fan pages or
Twitter accounts of brands where communications take place between consumers and the
employees of the brand.
H4. The effect of SBC on brand attitude is expected to be fully mediated by participants’ ratings
of perceived relationship commitment and brand trust.

Method
Design and participants
A total of 404 participants, 180 male (44.6%) and 224 female (55.4%), participated in this
study through Amazon Mechanical Turk for monetary compensation.1 Participants were
 6    J. K. Hammick and I. Ju

randomly assigned to one of eight conditions by the Qualtrics’ randomization option.

Independent samples t-test, ANOVAs test, and mediation analysis were conducted to address
the proposed four hypotheses. The dependent variables were consumers’ perception on
relationship commitment, brand trust, and brand attitude.

Procedure
The experiment was conducted online over the Qualtrics site. In the introduction page, it
was stated that a brand manager contacted the researcher for an evaluation of the brand’s
marketing activities to better reflect their customers’ opinions particularly as they relate to
the brand’s Facebook fan page. The brand was described to participants as a real brand but
with a fictitious name for the objectivity of the survey. After a brief introduction to the study,
each participant was shown a Facebook wall page of a brand, by the Qualtrics survey tool.
Participants were randomly assigned to each of the four conditions. The participants were
Downloaded by [University of Exeter] at 23:24 15 July 2016

asked to read the content in the pages including the comment threads between the brand
and consumers. They were also directed to leave their opinions on the page, and they were
told that their opinions would be shown to the brand manager. After the stimuli was shown
for 3 min, the page automatically turned to a questionnaire measuring the participants’
perceived commitment and trust of the brand.

Stimuli
Eight different conditions of a Facebook fan page were created as stimuli representing each
combination of perceived socialness, feedback control, and brand image. The stimuli illus-
trated a Facebook wall page, which included the status updates and responses posted by
the brand and consumers. The Facebook fan page shown was introduced as a real Facebook
page of the brand to provide participants with a realistic experience. Moreover, the Facebook
page was created as a HTML page which included a message input box where the partici-
pants could type in their feedback. However, the page was not shown on the actual Facebook.
com site because it could be difficult to control the experimental condition. To provide a
plausible explanation to participants for the page not being on Facebook.com, the intro-
duction page stated that the participants were not directed to the actual site due to possible
privacy issues. However, it was stated that all the content shown on the page is from the real
Facebook fan page of the brand.

Manipulation
Socialness of brand communication
Socialness of brand communication (SBC) was manipulated by whether or not the brand
posted responses to consumer posts. The response of a brand to consumers is often dis-
cussed in terms of two-way communication and/or interactivity. A website socialness study,
conducted by Wang et al. (2007), included responses for the manipulation of interactivity,
and revealed that participants perceived the website as more social when there was inter-
action on the website. The high perceived SBC condition included the brand’s responses to
each of the consumer feedbacks. In the responses of the brand, the brand utilized the name
of the consumer to whom it was responding. For example:
 Journal of Marketing Communications   7

Brand:   Studies show that breakfast helps to maintain healthy weight. Check out or sign
up to our latest email newsletter for more information and new coupons!

Consumer A:  I like organic waffle with strawberries, Greek yogurt and a drizzle of maple syrup.

Brand:  Consumer A, that sounds like such a healthy breakfast that is yummy as well.
Thanks for the suggestion!
The low SBC condition, on the other hand, included no responses from the brand to con-
sumers’ feedback. For example:
Brand:  Studies show that breakfast helps to maintain healthy weight. Check out or sign
up to our latest email newsletter for more information and new coupons!

Consumer A:  I like organic waffle with strawberries, Greek yogurt and a drizzle of maple syrup.

Brand’s control on consumer communication

Control is often discussed and manipulated as an element of interactivity (Fortin and Dholakia
Downloaded by [University of Exeter] at 23:24 15 July 2016

2005; Williams, Rice, and Rogers 1988). In this study, the brand’s control on consumer com-
munication indicated how restricted Facebook fan pages are for consumer postings. In the
low-control condition, a message input box was shown at the top of the main page with the
function of attaching a photo. Because consumers were able to initiate a conversation, cus-
tomer posts were shown along with a brand post, and also listed in a section called ‘Recent
Posts by Others on Ward’s Market.2’ Alternatively, in the high-control condition, the message
input box for users did not exist, and only the messages posted by the brand were shown.
Accordingly, the section ‘Recent Posts by Others on Ward’s Market’ did not exist in the
high-control condition. In addition to the message input box and customer posts, an
announcement posted by the company was added in a different manner to each of the two
conditions for the manipulation of this control on consumer feedback as described below.
In the high-control condition:
Dear customers, we regret to inform you that unlike other brand pages, our fan page is NOT open
for customers to post content (e.g. photos) to the wall page. Instead, you can respond to the
company posts. If you have photos or opinions about Ward’s Market that you wish to post, please
email them to us. We may post them for you after review. Thank you for your understanding. ~Pat
In the low-control condition:
Dear customers, we would like to inform you that our fan page is open for customers to post
content (e.g. photos) to the wall page. Please feel free to share your opinions or photos using the
text/photo upload tool above on this page. We welcome any kind of feedback from you! ~Pat

Brand image
A fictitious brand has been used to avoid any extraneous variables such as respondents’
previous perception of the brand. Brand image (positive and negative) was manipulated
with consumers’ posts as well as their responses to brand posts on the fan page. Each of the
two conditions had all negative or all positive tones, and there was no mix of the two. There
were no neutral tone comments.
 8    J. K. Hammick and I. Ju

Measurement for manipulation checks

Socialness of brand communication
This instrument has been created with new items that are tailored to measure socialness in
the brand communication. Although there exist measurements assessing interpersonal
communication (Burgoon and Hale 1987; McCroskey and McCain 1974) and website social-
ness (McMillan and Hwang 2002; Nass and Steuer 1993; Wang et al. 2007), the instruments
were too inclusive, and therefore did not specifically measure the manipulation of this study
(Chronbach’s Alpha = .97).

Brand’s control on consumer communication

The instruments of control mutuality (Hon and Grunig 1999) were used to measure the level
of the brand’s control on consumer communication on Facebook fan pages. The measure-
ment was comprised of eight, 5-point Likert items anchored by strongly disagree and
strongly agree. Items were modified from the original instrument to make them fit the con-
Downloaded by [University of Exeter] at 23:24 15 July 2016

text of this study. Items included the following statements: ‘The brand and consumers like
me were attentive to what each other says,’ and ‘When I had an opportunity to interact with
the brand, I felt that I had some sense of control over the Facebook fan page’ (Chronbach’s
Alpha = .92)

Brand image
Brand image was measured using 5-point Likert items adapted from Veloutsou and Moutinho
(2009). The scale was based on two constructs of brand reputation (3 items) and sustainable
image (2 items): ‘This brand is trustworthy,’‘This brand is reputable,’‘This brand makes honest
claims,’ ‘This brand has a long lasting nature,’ and ‘In the past, today and in the future, the
values behind this brand will not change.’ Out of these 5 items, ‘This brand has a long lasting
nature’ was removed due to its ambiguous concept (Chronbach’s Alpha = .92)

Measurement for major variables

Perceived brand trust
Trust was measured by using six, 5-point Likert items adapted from Hon and Grunig’s trust
scale (1999). The trust scale, which measures the three dimensions of integrity, competence,
and dependability, was anchored by strongly disagree and strongly agree. Items were mod-
ified to fit the context of this. Items included: ‘The brand will treat consumers, like me, fairly
and justly,’ and ‘This brand can be relied upon to keep its promises’ (Hon and Grunig 1999;
Chronbach’s Alpha = .92)

Perceived relationship commitment

The items were adopted from Hon and Grunig (1999) to measure the perceived commitment
of the brand to the brand–consumer relationship. The measurement included eight, 5-point
Likert items anchored by strongly disagree and strongly agree. The items measuring com-
mitment were also modified from the original instruments. Examples included: ‘I feel that
this brand is trying to maintain a long-term commitment to consumers, like me,’ and ‘I would
rather continue the relationship with this brand than not’ (Hon and Grunig 1999; Chronbach’s
Alpha = .96).
 Journal of Marketing Communications   9

Attitude toward the brand

Four 7-point bipolar items were used to measure brand attitude: bad/good, dislike/like,
unpleasant/pleasant, poor quality/good quality. These scales were selected based on a
review of existing research on brand attitude (Gardner 1985; Laczniak and Muehling 1993;
Mitchell 1986; Chronbach’s Alpha = .98).

Results
Manipulation checks
Tests of analysis of variance were performed to check the manipulation of the three independ-
ent variables – SBC, the brand’s control on consumer communication, and brand image – with
the data obtained from the main experiment of this study. The Independent Sample t tests
showed that there was a significant difference in consumers’ perception of SBC between the
high (M = 5.73, SD = 1.01) and low (M = 3.44, SD = 1.65) conditions, t(402) = 16.83, p < 001,
Downloaded by [University of Exeter] at 23:24 15 July 2016

d = 1.78. The two conditions (high: M = 4.32, SD = 1.51 and low: M = 2.72, SD = 1.29) of feedback
control was also found to be significant, t(402) = 11.44, p < .001, d = 1.14. For brand image, the
difference was also significant between the scores for the positive (M = 5.52, SD = .98) and the
negative (M = 3.05, SD = 1.15) brand image conditions; t(402) = 23.27, p < .001, d = 2.31. Thus,
three manipulation checks adequately met the criteria.

Tests of hypotheses
Hypothesis 1 posited that the SBC in Facebook fan pages would have a positive effect on
consumers’ perception of the mutual commitment of the brand, brand trust, and brand atti-
tude. The results of Independent sample T tests showed that for perceived commitment, par-
ticipants in a high SBC condition (M = 4.56, SD = 1.41) showed a significantly higher score than
those in a low SBC condition (M = 3.48, SD = 1.69), t(402) = 6.98, p < .001, mean difference = 1.08,
95% CI, .78 to 1.38, d = .69. For brand trust, participants in a high SBC condition (M = 4.70,
SD = 1.21) showed a significantly higher score than those in a low SBC condition (M = 3.76,
SD = 1.41) t(402) = 7.23, p < .001, mean difference = .95, 95% CI, .69 to 1.20, d = .72. Lastly, for
brand attitude, participants in a high SBC condition (M = 4.69, SD = 1.91) showed a significantly
higher score than those in a low SBC condition (M = 3.70, SD = 2.06), t(402) = 5.05, p < .001,
mean difference = 1.00, 95% CI, .61 to 1.39, d = .50. Thus, Hypothesis 1 was supported.
Hypothesis 2 predicted that the effect of SBC on brand attitude is expected to be mod-
erated by the brand’s feedback control on the Facebook fan page. A two-way analysis of
variance was conducted to test Hypothesis 2. The results showed that there was no interac-
tion effect between SBC and feedback control on brand attitude, F(1, 400) = 2.52, p = .11,
𝜂p2 = 0.01, but, the main effect was on SBC, F(1, 400) = 28.87, p < .001, 𝜂p2 = 0.06, and feedback
control, F(1, 400) = 5.05, p = .025, 𝜂p2 = 0.01. The follow-up test showed that participants in
low feedback control (M = 4.41, SD = 2.15) showed higher brand attitude compared to those
in high feedback control (M = 3.97, SD = 1.92). Thus, Hypothesis 2 was not supported, no
interaction was identified, but the results showed that levels of feedback control affected
brand attitude.
Hypothesis 3 claimed that the effect of SBC on brand attitude is expected to be moderated
by brand image on the Facebook fan page. Similar to the analysis of H2, a two-way ANOVA
 10    J. K. Hammick and I. Ju

was conducted to test Hypothesis 3. The results showed that there was an interaction effect
between SBC and brand image, F(1, 400) = 6.35, p = .012, 𝜂p2 = 0.02, and additionally, there
was a main effect of SBC, F(1, 400) = 52.57, p < .001, 𝜂p2 = 0.12, and brand image, F(1, 400) =
396.73, p < .001, 𝜂p2 = 0.50. Follow-up tests for the interaction effect showed that brand image
moderates the effect of SBC on brand attitude [i.e. positive brand image with high SBC
(M = 5.90, SD = 1.26); positive brand image with low SBC (M = 5.25, SD = 1.51); negative brand
image with high SBC (M = 3.48, SD = 1.66); negative brand image with low SBC (M = 2.11,
SD = 1.11)]. Thus, Hypothesis 3 was supported.
Hypothesis 4 proposed that an obtained relation between SBC and brand attitude would
be mediated by perceived relationship commitment and perceived brand trust. This study
adopted Hayes’ et al. (2006) computational tool with a non-parametric bootstrapping tech-
nique (N = 1000) to analyze potential mediation effects. This method allows researchers to
find the direct and indirect effects of an independent variable (IV) on a dependent variable
(DV). The mediation analysis was conducted with the effect of each independent variable
Downloaded by [University of Exeter] at 23:24 15 July 2016

on brand attitude. The results showed that only relations between SBC (i.e. low = 0 vs.
high = 1) and brand attitude were fully mediated by perceived commitment and perceived

High-Socialness Low-Socialness
5 4.56 4.7 4.69
4.5
4 3.76 3.7
3.45
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Commitment Brand Turst Brand Attitude

Figure 1. The effect of socialness on perceived commitment, brand trust, and brand attitude.
7

5
Brand Attitude

4
High-Socialness
3 Low-Socialness

0
Brand-Postive Brand-Negative

Figure 2. The interaction effect between socialness and brand image on brand attitude.
 Journal of Marketing Communications   11

Figure 3. The mediation model: perceived relationship commitment and brand trust.
Notes: *< .05, **< .01, ***< 001.
Downloaded by [University of Exeter] at 23:24 15 July 2016

trust. There were no full or partial mediation effects in the relation between control and
brand attitude, and brand image and brand attitude.
As shown in Figure 1, the total effect of SBC on brand attitude (weight c) was significant,
t(402) = 5.05, p < . 001. As predicted, the total effect was fully mediated by perceived com-
mitment (weight a1 × b1) t(402) = 5.68, p < .001, 95% CI [.64, 1.29] and perceived trust (weight
a2 × b2) t(402) = 2.25, p < .01, 95% CI [.06, .52]. The effect of SBC on brand attitude was not
evident when perceived commitment and perceived trust were included in the model show-
ing full mediation. The direct effect (weight c′) was not significant, t(402) = −1.87, p = .06, 95%
CI [−.43, .01]. Consistent with the previous ANOVA test, SBC predicted perceived commitment
(weight a1), t(402) = 6.98, p < .001, 95% CI [.78, 1.38] and perceived trust (weight a2), t(402) =
7.23, p < .001, 95% CI [.69, 1.20]. In addition, this model also showed that the perceived com-
mitment (weight b1), t(402) = 12.09, p < .001, 95% CI [.73, 1.01] and perceived trust (weight
b2), t(402) = 3.24, p < .01, 95% CI [1.10, .45] predicted brand attitude (see Figure 1).
In summary, the mediation analyses showed that differences in brand attitude by SBC
(high vs. low) is fully mediated by perceived commitment to the brand–consumer relationship
and perceived brand trust. The Facebook fan page with high SBC was viewed as having more
perceived commitment and trust, which led to users forming a more favorable attitude
toward the brand. Thus, H4 was supported (Figures 2 and 3).

Discussion
Based on the commitment-trust theory and social response theory, this study demonstrated
three important findings. First, SBC has a positive influence on perceived relationship com-
mitment, brand trust, and brand attitude. Second, brand image, not feedback control, mod-
erated the effect of SBC on brand attitude. Third, the effect of socialness on brand attitude
was fully mediated by perceived relationship commitment, and brand trust.

SBC elicits more perceived relationship commitment, brand trust, and favorable
brand attitude
Empirical research based on social response theory suggested that perceived socialness
makes a positive influence to a relationship commitment because this human-like attribute
 12    J. K. Hammick and I. Ju

can contribute to a relational bond between the two parties in the communication (Berry
1995; Wakefield et al. 2011). The results of this study supported the fact that socialness has
a positive influence on commitment, which is consistent with this view from the literature.
A possible explanation is that the brand responded to each consumer, remembering their
name, made an impression on the participants, and indicated that the brand wants to pursue
an ongoing relationship with consumers. The results also revealed that consumers build
more trust in the brand when the company tries to communicate with socialness. Prior
research in relationship marketing showed that brand trust can be promoted by two-way
communication (Fisman and Khanna 1999), which means that trust for a relationship can
be developed over time through interactions between the two parties. When consumers
do not get any responses to their feedback from the brand, it becomes more challenging
for them to consider the brand as a relationship partner. In addition, consumers formed a
more positive attitude toward the brand when they perceived socialness in the communi-
cation of the brand with other consumers. Compared to relationship indicators such as
Downloaded by [University of Exeter] at 23:24 15 July 2016

commitment and brand trust, brand attitude refers to an overall brand evaluation (Wilkie
1986), which can be a basis for their brand choice (Keller 1993). Consumer marketing scholars
argue that consumers’ brand attitude can also result from their affective reactions to the
advertisement of the brand (Lutz 1985; Petty and Cacioppo 1986), which can explain why
participants were positively affected by socialness, a more human-like communication of
the brand on the brand fan page.

Low (vs. high) feedback control in Facebook Fan pages increased brand attitude
The brand’s control of consumer feedback had a negative influence on consumers’ attitude
toward the brand. Prior studies in online communication suggest that online users were
more satisfied with their online experience when they had a sense of control over online
communication (Wang et al. 2007). Considering that brand attitude can be influenced by
consumers’ affective judgment (Lutz 1985; Petty and Cacioppo 1986), the brand’s control of
consumer feedback could have negatively affected participants’ overall evaluation of the
brand. Marketing communication researchers argue that the use of social media alone could
bring a negative result to the marketing effort of the brand when consumers are not given
enough channels to participate in communication on the site (Cohen 2011; Fazal 2009;
Szmigin, Canning, and Reppel 2005; Varey 2002). Unlike traditional media channels such as
TV and print media, consumers expect human interactions with the brand on social media,
and they have to have access to interact with the brand operators on the site (Szmigin,
Canning, and Reppel 2005). The findings suggest that the effect of feedback control on brand
attitude can be different depending on how much consumers feel that the communication
is open on the Fan pages.

Brand image moderates the effect of SBC on brand attitude

The effect of socialness on brand attitude can be stronger or weaker depending on brand
image (positive vs. negative). The interactions between socialness and brand image for brand
attitude showed an ordinal pattern sloping downward from positive brand image to nega-
tive. Although participants in the high socialness condition tended to report greater brand
attitude than the ones in the low socialness, participants in the two socialness conditions
 Journal of Marketing Communications   13

were both affected by brand image in their responses. Therefore, brand image moderates
the effect of socialness on brand attitude. This can be an example of the halo effect which
is often used to explain the influence of brand image by cognitive psychologists and mar-
keting researchers. Literature suggests that evaluations of a particular object can be influ-
enced by the holistic impression of the object (Beckwith & Lehmann, 1976; Leuthesser, Kohli,
& Harich, 1995). When consumers have a positive brand image, such a perception is likely
to influence them to give favorable evaluations to products, services, or new information
about the brand.

The effect of SBC on brand attitude is fully mediated by perceived relationship

commitment, brand trust
Those who viewed the high socialness in brand–consumer relationships on Facebook Fan
pages showed, crucial to brand management, a more favorable brand attitude than those
Downloaded by [University of Exeter] at 23:24 15 July 2016

who viewed low socialness on Facebook fan pages. In addition, the finding showed that
perceived relationship commitment and brand trust play important roles in consumers’
attitude toward the brand. Perceived relationship commitment and brand trust fully medi-
ated the relationship between socialness on Facebook fan pages and brand attitude.
Considering the principles of successful relationship marketing, such as two-way information
flow (Fisman and Khanna 1999) and interpersonal communication (Aggarwal 2004), mar-
keters could apply this finding to social media environments. Considering the high level of
interactivity and the individuated communication of social networks, social media should
be an ideal environment to test the findings of prior relationship marketing. For advertising
and marketing communication professionals, this study could provide a theoretical ground
explaining why social media can be an effective communication channel for consumer rela-
tionships. Use of social media is suggested as an important relationship tool among social
media analysts and industry professionals. However, the relationship is without empirical
research and theoretical understanding. The findings of this study will be able to provide
clues to understand the relationship potential of social media from the perspective of rela-
tionship marketing and the online communication research.

Managerial implications
There are several managerial implications regarding Perceived SBC. First, the most important
finding in the current study is that consumers’ perceived socialness influences their attitude
toward brands. With the development of technology, the media environment has been rapidly
changing. The quality of communications in online media platforms has been improved and
becomes more similar to face-to-face communications. Meanwhile, consumers begin to dis-
close their opinions actively and seek more customized information. With this change, brand
managers should be aware that a traditional one-way communication method cannot satisfy
consumers’ needs. It becomes more important for brand managers to consider a way of
developing effective two-way communications. This will help deliver their messages more
efficiently while listening attentively to customers’ feedback. In this regard, the brand man-
agers should consider how to increase perceived socialness in the relationship with perceived
relationship commitment and brand trust. These concepts can be considered an outcome of
perceived socialness, playing important roles leading to positive brand attitude.
 14    J. K. Hammick and I. Ju

Second, the current study showed that perceived feedback control critically influences
consumers’ attitude toward brands. This finding provides an important implication in terms
of Facebook fan page management. Some companies control public opinion too much, not
giving any space for their consumers. They tend to use a Facebook fan page only to send
out news of companies or other promotion activities. This approach limits the relationship
development between consumers and brands. Similar to companies sending out their mes-
sages to the public, consumers also need spaces or channels to provide feedback. Facebook
fan pages can be an appropriate place for consumers to disclose their opinions. Notably,
consumers who join a Facebook fan page are often fans of the brands or are people highly
involved with the brands. Considering this, a Facebook fan page can be utilized as a produc-
tive brand–consumer communication media platform. Brand managers should consider this
point. They could effectively utilize the fan page to receive valuable feedback from their
consumers in a timely manner.
Third, the finding of the present study also provided an implication about existing brand
Downloaded by [University of Exeter] at 23:24 15 July 2016

images (positive vs. negative) and perceived socialness. Increasing socialness appears to be
important for both positive brands and negative brands. Remarkably, when brands have
negative images, increased socialness revealed a greater effect on brand attitude. This is
similar to a situation where ‘we are surprised more when we receive a welcome from an
unexpected person.’ For example, when existing brand images are positive, this implies that
the brands have successfully maintained a positive brand–consumer relationship. Thus, con-
sumers would be more likely to expect to receive high levels of socialness from the brands.
In contrast, when existing brand images are negative, consumers do not expect high levels
of socialness from the brands, which potentially leads to a stronger effect of perceived social-
ness on brand attitude. Thus, increasing perceived socialness in social media platforms can
be particularly beneficial for brands that have not established positive images yet, because
consumers would not have high expectations of socialness from the brands.

Limitations and future research

Despite the theoretical and practical implications, some limitations exist in this study. The
first limitation is that the topic of this study is relationship based, which tends to develop
over time. Although the results of this study suggested that Facebook has a relationship
potential in terms of commitment and brand trust, the 3-min exposure of the fan page may
not be enough time to explore the full potential of Facebook as a consumer relationship
channel. Another limitation is that the experiment was not conducted on actual Facebook
pages. Although the decision was made due to issues of privacy and experimental control,
the participants’ experience during the experiment could not be the same as the way they
communicate on the Facebook site in a natural setting. In a future study, conducting the
same experiment on actual Facebook pages will increase the internal validity of the study
while minimizing potential confounding variables. In addition, a longitudinal study of con-
sumer–brand relationships would provide more valid findings. Finally, different social media
channels such as Twitter and Google Plus should also be explored in the context of brand–
consumer relationships. Conducting similar studies on different social media platforms would
increase external validity of the current findings. This continuous effort will deepen our
understanding about the potential of social media for brand–consumer relationships.
 Journal of Marketing Communications   15

Notes
1. 
The monetary compensation offered to participants for the main study ranged from $.50 to $.70.
2. 
In the section ‘Recent Posts by Others on Ward’s Market,’ the most recent customer posts are
shown.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors
Jinhyon Kwon Hammick, PhD, is an assistant professor at Flagler College. Her research interest is in
emerging media and its effect on brands.
Ilyoung Ju is a doctoral candidate at University of Florida. His publications are based on social
­psychology and advertising.
Downloaded by [University of Exeter] at 23:24 15 July 2016

References
Aaker, D. A. 1995. Building Strong Brands. New York: The Free Press.
Aaker, J., S. Fournier, and S. A. Brasel. 2004. “When Good Brands do Bad.” Journal of Consumer Research
311: 1–16.
Accent Marketing. 2014. Customer Engagement and Today’s Consumer. Accessed March 20, 2015.
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/accent-marketing-research-emphasizes-the-value-
of-understanding-the-evolution-of-customer-engagement-and-todays-consumer-264718501.html
Aggarwal, P. 2004. “The Effects of Brand Relationship Norms on Consumer Attitudes and Behavior.”
Journal of Consumer Research 31: 87–101.
Alexa. 2015. The Top 500 Sites on the Web. Accessed March 30, 2015. http://www.alexa.com/topsites
Andersen, V. 2005. “Relationship Marketing and Brand Involvement of Professionals through
Web-enhanced Brand Communities: The Case of Coloplast.” Industrial Marketing Management 343:
285–297.
Barnes, N. G., and A. M. Lescault. 2014. The 2014 Fortune 500 and Social Media: LinkedIn Dominates
as Use of Newer Tools Explodes. http://www.umassd.edu/cmr/socialmediaresearch/2014fortune
500andsocialmedia/.
Beckwith, N. E., and D. R. Lehmann. 1976. “Halo Effects in Multiattribute Attitude Models: An Appraisal
of Some Unresolved Issues.” Journal of Marketing Research 13 (4): 418–421.
Berry, L. L. 1995. “Relationship Marketing of Services-growing Interest, Emerging Perspectives.” Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science 23: 236–245.
Burgoon, J. K., and J. L. Hale. 1987. “Validation and Measurement of the Fundamental Themes of
Relational Communication.” Communication Monographs 54: 19–41.
Burt, R., and M. Knez. 1996. “Trust and Third-party Gossip.” In Trust in Organizations, edited by R. Kramer
and T. Tyler, 68–89. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cohen, H. 2011. How Marketers Miss the Boat with Social Media Relationships. Accessed September 17,
2011. http://heidicohen.com/how-marketers-miss-the-boat-with-social-media-relationships/
Cova, B., and V. Cova. 2002. “Tribal Marketing: The Tribalisation of Society and Its Impact on the Conduct
of Marketing.” European Journal of Marketing 36 (5/6): 595–620.
Davis, R., I. Piven, and M. Breazeale. 2014. “Conceptualizing the Brand in Social Media Community: The
Five Sources Model.” Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 21: 468–481.
Delgado-Ballester, E., and J. L. Munuera-Alemán. 2001. “Brand Trust in the Context of Consumer Loyalty.”
European Journal of Marketing 35 (11/12): 1238–1258.
Diana, A. 2011. Social Media Users Expect Rapid Response to Complaints. Accessed October 6, 2011.
http://www.informationweek.com/news/smb/ebusiness/229000566
 16    J. K. Hammick and I. Ju

Duncan, T., and S. E. Moriarty. 1998. “A Communication-based Marketing Model for Managing
Relationships.” Journal of Marketing 62: 1–13.
Esch, F. R., T. Langner, B. Schmitt, and P. Geus. 2006. “Are Brands Forever? How Knowledge and
Relationships Affect Current and Future Purchases.” Journal of Product & Brand Management 15 (2):
98–105.
Evans, M., G. Wedande, L. Ralston, and S. Hul. 2001. “Consumer Interaction in the Virtual Era: Some
Qualitative Insights.” Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 4 (3): 150–159.
Facebook Newsroom. 2014. Accessed March 20, 2015. http://newsroom.fb.com/company-info/
Fazal, R. 2009. The Customer Relationship Management Opportunity on Facebook. Accessed August 2,
2011. http://www.emarketer.com/blog/index.php/customer-relationship-management-opportunity-
facebook/
Fisman, R., and T. Khanna. 1999. “Is Trust a Historical Residue? Information Flows and Trust Levels.”
Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 38: 79–92.
Fogg, B. J. 2008. “Mass Interpersonal Persuasion: An Early View of a New Phenomenon.” In Persuasive,
edited by H. Oinas-Kukkonen, P. Hasle, M. Harjumaa, K. Segerståhl, and P. Øhrstrøm, 23–34. Oulu:
Springer.
Fortin, D. R., and R. R. Dholakia. 2005. “Interactivity and Vividness Effects on Social Presence and
Downloaded by [University of Exeter] at 23:24 15 July 2016

Involvement with a Web-based Advertisement.” Journal of Business Research 58: 387–396.

Foster, B. D., and J. W. Cadogan. 2000. “Relationship Selling and Customer Loyalty: An Empirical
Investigation.” Marketing Intelligence & Planning 184: 185–199.
Fournier, S. 1998. “Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in Consumer Research.”
Journal of Consumer Research 24: 343–373.
Fournier, S., and J. Avery. 2011. “The Uninvited Brand.” Business Horizons 54: 193–207.
Founier, S., and L. Lee. 2009. “Getting Brand Communities Right.” Harvard Business Review 87: 105–111.
Fredricksen, C. 2010. Best Practices: Dealing Effectively with Customer Feedback via Social Media. Accessed
October 6, 2011. http://www.emarketer.com/blog/index.php/practices-dealing-effectively-customer-
feedback-social-media/
Garbarino, E., and M. S. Johnson. 1999. “The Different Roles of Satisfaction, Trust, and Commitment in
Customer Relationships.” Journal of Marketing 63 (2): 70–87.
Gardner, M. P. 1985. “Does Attitude to the Ad Affect Brand Attitude under a Brand Evaluation Set?”
Journal of Marketing Research 22: 192–198.
GoDaddy. 2014. Your Customers Are Searching for Businesses like Yours Online. Will You Show up?. Accessed
March 20, 2014. http://smallbiztrends.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/godaddy-infographic.jpg
Hanzaee, K. H., and F. T. Farsani. 2011. “The Effects of Brand Image and Perceived Public Relation on
Customer Loyalty.” World Applied Sciences Journal 13 (2): 277–286.
Hayes, J. B., B. L. Alford, L. Silver, and R. P. York. 2006. “Looks Matter in Developing Consumer-brand
Relationships.” Journal of Product & Brand Management 15 (5): 306–315.
Hess, J., and J. Story. 2005. “Trust-based Commitment: Multidimensional Consumer-brand Relationships.”
Journal of Consumer Marketing 22 (6): 313–322.
Hon, L. C., and J. E. Grunig. 1999. Measuring Relationships in Public Relations. Gainesville, FL: Institute
for Public Relations.
Hung, C. H. 2008. “The Effect of Brand Image on Public Relations Perceptions and Customer Loyalty.”
International Journal of Management 25 (2): 237–246.
Johnson, M. D., T. W. Andreessen, L. Lervik, and J. Cha. 2001. “The Evolution and Future of National
Customer Satisfaction Index Models.” Journal of Economic Psychology 22: 217–245.
Kaplan, A. M., and M. Haenlein. 2010. “Users of the World, Unite! The Challenges and Opportunities of
Social Media.” Business Horizons 53: 59–68.
Keller, L. K. 1993. “Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-based Brand Equity.” Journal
of Marketing 57 (1): 1–22.
Keller, E. 2011. Razorfish “Gasps”: Consumer’s aren’t Feeling the Love from Facebook and Twitter. Accessed
October 4, 2011. http://www.mediabizbloggers.com/ed-keller/Razorfish-Gasps-Consumers-Arent-
Feeling-the-Love-from-Facebook-and-Twitter—Ed-Keller.html
Kotler, P. 1988. Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning and Control. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall.
 Journal of Marketing Communications   17

Laczniak, R. N., and D. D. Muehling. 1993. “The Relationship between Experimental Manipulations and
Tests of Theory in an Advertising Message Involvement Context.” Journal of Advertising 22 (3): 59–74.
Leuthesser, L., C. S. Kohli, and K. R. Harich. 1995. “Brand Equity: The Halo Effect Measure.” European
Journal of Marketing 29 (4): 57–66.
Lutz, R. J. 1985. “Affective and Cognitive Antecedents of Attitude toward the Ad: A Conceptual
Framework.” In Psychological Processes and Advertising Effects: Theory, Research, and Applications,
edited by L. E. Alwitt and A. A. Mitchell, 45–64. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
McCroskey, J. C., and T. A. McCain. 1974. “The Measurement of Interpersonal Attraction.” Speech
Monographs 41 (3): 261–266.
McMillan, S. J., and J. S. Hwang. 2002. “Measures of Perceived Interactivity: An Exploration of the Role
of Direction of Communication, User Control, and Time in Shaping Perceptions of Interactivity.”
Journal of Advertising 31 (3): 29–42.
Mitchell, A. A. 1986. “The Effect of Verbal and Visual Components of Advertisements on Brand Attitudes
and Attitude toward the Advertisement.” Journal of Consumer Research 13 (1): 12–24.
Moon, Y. 2000. “Intimate Exchanges: Using Computers to Elicit Self‐disclosure from Consumers.” Journal
of Consumer Research 26 (4): 323–339.
Morgan, R. M., and S. D. Hunt. 1994. “The Commitment-trust Theory of Relationship Marketing.” Journal
Downloaded by [University of Exeter] at 23:24 15 July 2016

of Marketing 58: 20–38.

Nass, C., and J. Steuer. 1993. “Voices, Boxes, and Sources of Messages Computers and Social Actors.”
Human Communication Research 19 (4): 504–527.
O’Malley, L., and C. Tynan. 2000. “The Utility of the Relationship Metaphor in Consumer Markets: A
Critical Evaluation.” Journal of Marketing Management 15 (7): 587–602.
Peck, H. 1993. “Building Customer Relationships through Internal Marketing: A State of the Art Review.”
Emerging Issues in Marketing, Proceedings of the 1993 Annual Conference of the Marketing Education
Group, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK, 797–813.
Petty, R. E., and J. T. Cacioppo. 1986. Communication and Persuasion. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Pew Research Center. 2014. Pew Research Center’s Internet Project Surveys. Accessed March 30, 2015.
http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/09/social-media-update-2014/
Reeves, B., and C. Nass. 1996. The Media Equation. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Smit, E., F. Bronner, and M. Tolboom. 2007. “Brand Relationship Quality and Its Value for Personal
Contact.” Journal of Business Research 60: 627–633.
Smith, R., and C. Vogt. 1995. “The Effect of Integrating Advertising and Negative Word-of-Mouth
Communications on Message Processing and Response.” Journal of Consumer Psychology 4 (2):
133–151.
Szmigin, I., L. Canning, and A. E. Reppel. 2005. “Online Community: Enhancing the Relationship
Marketing Concept through Customer Bonding.” International Journal of Service Industry Management
16 (5): 480–496.
Valley, K. L., J. Moag, and M. H. Bazerman. 1998. “A Matter of Trust: Effects of Communication on the
Efficiency and Distribution of Outcomes.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 34: 211–238.
Varey, R. J. 2002. Relationship Marketing: Dialogue and Networks in the E-Commerce Era. Chichester: Wiley.
Veloutsou, C., and L. Moutinho. 2009. “Brand Relationships Through Brand Reputation and Brand
Tribalism.” Journal of Business Research 62 (3): 314–322.
Wakefield, R. L., K. L. Wakefield, J. Baker, and L. C. Wang. 2011. “How Website Socialness Leads to Website
Use.” European Journal of Information Systems 20: 118–132.
Wang, L. C., J. Baker, J. A. Wagner, and K. Wakefield. 2007. “Can a Retail Web Site Be Social?” Journal of
Marketing 71: 143–157.
Webster Jr, F. E. 1992. “The Changing Role of Marketing in the Corporation.” Journal of Marketing 56: 1–17.
Wilkie, W. 1986. Consumer Behavior. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Williams, F., R. Rice, and E. Rogers. 1988. Research Methods and the New Media. New York: Free Press.