AM Conference 2014 – Doctoral Colloquium
THE INFLUENCE OF BRAND IMMEDIACY IN CONSUMER
ENGAGEMENT BEHAVIOURS: A REVISED SOCIAL IMPACT
MODEL
INTRODUCTION
The changes in behaviour, attitudes and beliefs of individuals as a result of their interaction
with others have been studied extensively in social psychology where the concept of ‘social
influence’ is widely accepted (Cialdini and Goldstein, 2004; Cialdini and Trost, 1998). Social
influence has also interested marketers as consumer-to-consumer interactions are believed to
affect consumer behaviour, attitudes and feelings towards a product or brand (Libai et al.,
2010).The increasing presence of brands in online environments (Fournier and Avery, 2011)
plus the innate human need to antrophormise objects in order to facilitate interactions with the
non-material objects (Brown, 1991) make brand-consumer interactions in online
environments subject to similar effects.
Taking social impact theory (SIT) as a departing framework, this paper aims to provide a finer
grained understanding of immediacy in brand-consumer interactions. Immediacy, as one of
the social forces proposed by Latane’s SIT (1981), is a construct that has important
implications when translated to online environments, in particular social media. Social media
websites are those that “make it possible for people to form online communities, and share
user-created contents (UCCs)’ (Kim et al., 2010, p.216). These characteristics make that the
exchange of interactions between consumers and other actors present in this environment (e.g.
brands) a central part of the nature of this type of website. In addition, online environments
differ from offline environments in terms of how communication occurs, allowing both
synchronous and asynchronous interaction (Mangold and Faulds, 2009), allowing users to
interact with people they already know offline and facilitating meeting new people (Ellison et
al., 2007). Internet-mediated communications also reduce the limitation that physical distance
has on communication (Moon, 1999).
This makes that the immediacy of the sources in the form of time distance, social distance and
physical distance are constantly being manipulated and changing for the user of social media
websites. Yet, its effect as a determinant of social impact in social media environments
remains an understudied subject. This paper introduces a conceptual model that takes the
construct of brand immediacy as a factor influencing consumer engagement behaviour.
Through a series of experiments, the effect of the different types of immediacy as suggested
in SIT are tested. At this stage, the paper presents partial results from the testing of the
conceptual model.
LITERATURE REVIEW AND CONCEPTUAL MODEL
Social impact and immediacy
Social impact is considered as a manifestation of social influence, and is defined as the
“changes in physiological states and subjective feelings, motives and emotions, cognitions
and beliefs, values and behaviour, that occur in an individual, human or animal, as a result of
the real, implied, or imagined presence or actions of other individuals” (Latane, 1981, p.343).
This construct that find its roots in in social psychology is used to explain the changes in
behaviour, attitudes and beliefs of individuals as a result the presence and interaction with
others (Cialdini and Goldstein, 2004; Cialdini and Trost, 1998). Its influence is recognised as
critical shaper of consumer behaviour (Mangleburg et al., 2004) and its effects are
AM Conference 2014 – Doctoral Colloquium
acknowledged in marketing literature (Naylor et al., 2012; Algesheimer et al., 2005; Argo et
al., 2005; Dholakia et al., 2004; Burnkrant and Cousineau, 1975).
Social Impact Theory (SIT) was introduced by Latane (1981) and it introduces three social
forces that are considered to affect consumer behaviour, emotions and cognitions as a
consequence of the presence of others. These forces are strength, immediacy and number of
sources. Strength refers to the characteristics (i.e. salience, importance, or intensity) that a
source holds and that play a role at influencing a target (Latane, 1996, 1981). Immediacy can
be defined as the distance relationship that exists between a source and the object being
communicated about, the target of this communication or the communication itself (Nowak et
al., 1990). The final social force in SIT relates to the number of sources exerting influence.
The theory suggests that as the number of sources of influence increases, this will have a
multiplying effect on the final impact.
SIT has been tested in both social psychology (DiFonzo et al., 2013; Doohwang Lee et al.,
2011; DeWall et al., 2010; Miller and Cryss Brunner, 2008; Pedersen et al., 2008; Latané and
L’Herrou, 1996, 1996; Latané, 1996; Jackson and Latane, 1982) and marketing literature
(Kwahk and Ge, 2012; Naylor et al., 2012) resulting in supportive evidence that at least one
of the social forces proposed by the theory (strength, immediacy and number of sources)
affect consumers’ behaviour.
From the social forces identified in the theory, immediacy is a multi-dimensional construct
that has generated contradictory results when tested empirically (Jackson, 1986; Mullen,
1985; Jackson and Latane, 1982) and this has resulted in overlooking the construct in recent
studies that used the theory for empirical testing (Naylor et al., 2012; Thompson and Ward,
2008; Mangleburg et al., 2004). Different types of immediacies can exist between source and
target, and can be categorise in time, temporal and social distances. To date the different types
of immediacies as suggested in this theory have been tested empirically in a range of offline
and online settings (Blaskovich, 2008; Miller and Cryss Brunner, 2008; Pedersen et al., 2008;
Bourgeois and Bowen, 2001; Hart et al., 1999; Jackson and Latane, 1982; Bassett and Latane,
1976) and through computer simulations (Fink, 1996; Latané and L’Herrou, 1996; Latané and
Liu, 1996; Latané et al., 1995).
The evidence from these studies suggest that the immediacy of a source can affect the impact
that this source has on the target at behavioural (Chidambaram and Lai Tung, 2005; Miller
and Cryss Brunner, 2008; Pedersen et al., 2008) and cognitive levels (Blaskovich, 2008; Argo
et al., 2005; Bourgeois and Bowen, 2001; Knowles, 1983). Despite the extant efforts to test
the effect of a source’s immediacy on a target, this has always been made using only one form
of immediacy as explaining variable for changes in behaviour. However interactions between
sources and targets occur in an environment where more than one form of immediacy is
affecting the target at the same time, especially when these interactions occur in Internetmediated environments.
Consumer engagement behaviours
Consumer engagement behaviours are defined as a behavioural manifestation toward a brand
or firm beyond purchase (Doorn et al., 2010). These manifestations can take the form of
word-of-mouth activities, or other interactive activities such as sharing and commenting on
both user-generated and brand-generated content (Doorn et al., 2010). Consumer engagement
behaviours are a result of a state known as consumer engagement, that is currently of great
interest for academics (Brodie et al., 2013, 2011; Mollen and Wilson, 2010) and has become
one of the main goals of marketing practitioners when conducting social media marketing
activities (eMarketer, 2013). The reason behind this interest is that consumer engagement has
been associated with consumer trust (Hollebeek, 2011), satisfaction and loyalty (Bowden,
AM Conference 2014 – Doctoral Colloquium
2009) and commitment (Chan and Li, 2010) all of them strong indicators of long-term sales,
word-of-mouth and brand advocacy.
In this particular study, consumer engagement behaviours are operationalized using as
variables the simulated intention to (1) follow the brand, as well as interacting with the brand
content by (2) liking it, (3) commenting on it, (4) sharing it with others and by (5)
participating in promotional activities.
There is some evidence that consumer engagement behaviours are subject to social influence.
For instance, Chu and Kim (2011) found that susceptibility to normative and informative
influence is significant to the generation of word-of-mouth communication, a manifestation of
consumer engagement behaviour. Social loafing, which is the tendency for individuals to
expend less effort when working collectively than when working individually (Karau and
Williams, 1993), has also be found to affect the motivation of online communities to engage
in word-of-mouth communication (Ling et al., 2005). Even mere virtual presence of others
have had an effect on consumer’s brand evaluations and purchase intent of certain brands and
products (Naylor et al., 2012). This evidence suggests that other determinants of social
influence such as immediacy, as suggested in social impact theory, may also have an effect on
other forms of consumer engagement behaviours.
Figure 1. Conceptual Model
METHOD
A causal enquiry drives the methods of this research. Causal research explores the effect of a
given variable/factor on another one (Bryman, 2012). In this case, the research aims to
determine the effect of immediacy over consumer engagement behaviours. Experiment is the
chosen method as it is well-suited to investigate a cause-effect relationship among variables,
as well as the controlled manipulation of independent variables and the measurement of its
effects on one or many dependent variables (Freedman, 2005). Experiments are strong
methods for establishing causal relationships because of the nature of their design and the
controlled environment that is associated with the manipulation and measurement of both
dependent and independent variables.
Experimental design
This study is divided in three (physical, time and social distance) one factor experimental
design with three levels of treatments each (control/low/high). Due to the nature of the
AM Conference 2014 – Doctoral Colloquium
consumer engagement behaviours being used in this experiment, a moderating factor is also
controlled for, in this case referring to the intensity of usage and commitment to the platform
(Facebook) as they might moderate the propensity to perform the measured dependent
variable (Smock et al., 2011).
Measures
Independent variable
Immediacy is defined in SIT as the distance relationship that exists between a source and a
target (Nowak et al., 1990). From a consumer perspective, brand immediacy is therefore a set
of factors that represent the relationship between a brand and the consumer. This relationship
can be summarised in terms of physical, temporal and social distance. The first study will test
the effect of physical distance over the dependent variables. This is consistent with the
majority of studies using SIT, as they usually operationalize only one form of immediacy. The
most common operationalisation of immediacy is physical distance, as it the most basic form
to represent immediacy. Physical distance is learned earlier than other types of distances, and
can be more clearly detected, less ambiguous and easy to communicate about than temporal
or social distance (Trope and Liberman, 2010).
Physical distance was manipulated by showing the participants a message coming from a
fictitious concert venue, and one was supposed to be Edinburgh based (high immediacy) and
another based in London (low immediacy) and the controlled manipulation did not mention
anything about the physical location of the venue. The images used for high/low/control can
be referred to in Error! Reference source not found..
Dependent Variable
Consumer engagement behaviours
Consumer engagement behaviours are operationalized using as variables the simulated
intention to (1) follow the brand, as well as interacting with the brand content by (2) liking it,
(3) commenting on it, or (4) sharing it with others. Intention simulation is a valid approach to
measure actual behaviour, since it approximates real situations (Francis et al., 2004).
The scale used to measure the intention to act was based on a single item question measuring
each of the featured interaction using a 5-point Likert type scale ranging from “Very
Unlikely” to “Very Likely” modified from Facebook feature use by Smock et al. (2011).
Confounding Variables
Facebook Intensity Usage
The context where this research is social media websites, in particular the social networking
site Facebook. The usage of this kind of platforms was measured using the Facebook
intensity scale developed by (Smock et al., 2011; Yoder and Stutzman, 2011; Ellison et al.,
2007).
Procedures
An online-based pilot test was conducted to verify the design of experiment one testing all H1
hypotheses. Pilot studies are a common practice in experimental designs and can help detect
problems in the implementation of larger studies (Prescott and Soeken, 1989). In particular
for this study, feasibility of the method, adequacy of the instrumentation and manipulations
(low/high physical brand immediacy), were the objectives sought. A sample of 32 participants
were recruited from postgraduate and undergraduate students. Although several authors do
not give any recommendation on the number of sample size when conducting pilot studies
AM Conference 2014 – Doctoral Colloquium
(Polit and Beck, 2004; Burns and Grove, 2001) at least ten participants or 10% of the final
expected sample in the main study can be adequate for this type of studies
(Nieswiadomy,2002; Lackey and Wingate, 1998). Since the main study is expected to be
conducted with 60 participants, the 10% rule would have led with a sample size smaller than
10 participants per condition. The sample size for the study was used taking average known
values (µ0=3.12, SD= 1.11) of consumer interactions on Facebook from previous studies, and
expected values of (µ1=4.12) resulting in a sample size of 20 for each level (Smock et al.,
2011; Ellison et al., 2007).
Results
Pilot study and manipulation checks. A total of 32 participants completed the pilot test (12
female and 20 male) with an average age of 24 years. The manipulation check in the pilot test
revealed that there was a significant difference on the perception physical closeness of the
brand for participants in the high brand immediacy (HBI, M=3.60) than those in the low
brand immediacy level (LBI, M=2.40) and the control group (M=2.33 F (2, 29) = 5.561, p <
0.01). Similar differences were also found in the perception of physical closeness of the
content at HBI level (M=3.50) versus LBI level (M=2.40) and the control level (M=2.50, F
(2, 29) =3.934, p < 0.05).
Brand immediacy effect on consumer engagement behaviours. A total of 62 participants
completed the survey for the first study (33 female and 28 male) with an average age of 20
years. All H1 null hypotheses could not be rejected except for H1d (Participate) that revealed
significant differences across HBI (M=4.48), LBI (M=2.58) and Control (M= 3.14, F (2, 58)
=4.885, p < 0.05) levels. Results of a planned contrast analysis support H1d: participants in
HBI condition showed higher intention to participate (M=4.48) at a significant level than
those at LBI (M=2.58, t (58) = -3.019, p< 0.01) and those at the Control level (M=3.14, t (58)
= -2.177, p< 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS
The results presented in this paper give an initial indication that some of the forms of
immediacy as suggested in SIT (Latane, 1981) have an effect on specific consumer
engagement behaviour. In particular, these results point out that perceived physical distance
of a brand in online environments can affect the intention to participate in promotional
activities with the brand. In addition, the non-confirmation of the other hypotheses, are an
indication that these particular types of consumer behaviour (Liking a Page, Liking a post,
commenting on a post and tagging on a post) are not affected by the perceived physical
distance of a brand in social media environments. These results challenge offline studies
testing immediacy as physical distance where a significant effect has been found (Pedersen et
al., 2008; Bourgeois and Bowen, 2001; Hart et al., 1999; Wolf and Latané, 1983; Williams
and Williams, 1983; Knowles, 1983) and provides support that in online environments social
impact yield from physical distance is less relevant.
These results are still partial ones as the other forms of immediacy are still to be tested
empirically over consumer engagement behaviours, and there is still a possibility that
interaction effects with other forms of immediacy increase the effect of physical distance over
those behaviours. This effect of one type of distance over another has already been observed
in empirical studies that support construal level theory, where manipulations of one distance
AM Conference 2014 – Doctoral Colloquium
(e.g. physical distance) increases the effect of other type of distance (Trope and Liberman,
2010; Bar-Anan et al., 2006; Fujita et al., 2006).
AM Conference 2014 – Doctoral Colloquium
APPENDIX 1
High Brand Immediacy (HBI)
Low Brand Immediacy (LBI)
AM Conference 2014 – Doctoral Colloquium
Control
AM Conference 2014 – Doctoral Colloquium
REFERENCES
Algesheimer, R., Dholakia, U.M., Herrmann, A., 2005. The Social Influence of Brand
Community: Evidence from European Car Clubs. Journal of Marketing 69, 19–34.
Argo, J.J., Dahl, D.W., Manchanda, R.V., 2005. The Influence of a Mere Social Presence in a
Retail Context. Journal of Consumer Research 32, 207–212.
Bar-Anan, Y., Liberman, N., Trope, Y., 2006. The association between psychological
distance and construal level: Evidence from an implicit association test. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: General 135, 609–622.
Bassett, R.L., Latane, B., 1976. Social influences and news stories, in: Meeting of the
American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
Blaskovich, J.L., 2008. Exploring the Effect of Distance: An Experimental Investigation of
Virtual Collaboration, Social Loafing, and Group Decisions. Journal of Information
Systems 22, 27–46.
Bourgeois, M.J., Bowen, A., 2001. Self-organization of alcohol-related attitudes and beliefs in
a campus housing complex: An initial investigation. Health Psychology 20, 434–437.
Brodie, R.J., Hollebeek, L., Juric, B., Ilic, A., 2011. Customer Engagement Conceptual
Domain, Fundamental Propositions, and Implications for Research. Journal of Service
Research 14, 252–271.
Brodie, R.J., Ilic, A., Juric, B., Hollebeek, L., 2013. Consumer engagement in a virtual brand
community: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Business Research 66, 105–114.
Bryman, A., 2012. Social research methods. OUP Oxford.
Burnkrant, R.E., Cousineau, A., 1975. Informational and Normative Social Influence in Buyer
Behavior. Journal of Consumer Research 2, 206–215.
Burns, N., Grove, S.K., 2001. The practice of nursing research: conduct, critique and
utilization. WB Saunders Company.
Chidambaram, L., Lai Lai Tung, 2005. Is Out of Sight, Out of Mind? An Empirical Study of
Social Loafing in Technology-Supported Groups. Information Systems Research 16,
149–168.
Cialdini, R.B., Goldstein, N.J., 2004. Social Influence: Compliance and Conformity. Annual
Review of Psychology 55, 591–621.
Cialdini, R.B., Trost, M.R., 1998. Social norms, conformity, and compliance. The Handbook
of Social Psychology: 2-Volume Set 151.
DeWall, C.N., Twenge, J.M., Bushman, B., Im, C., Williams, K., 2010. A Little Acceptance
Goes a Long Way Applying Social Impact Theory to the Rejection–Aggression Link.
Social Psychological and Personality Science 1, 168–174.
Dholakia, U.M., Bagozzi, R.P., Pearo, L.K., 2004. A social influence model of consumer
participation in network- and small-group-based virtual communities. International
Journal of Research in Marketing 21, 241–263.
DiFonzo, N., Bourgeois, M.J., Suls, J., Homan, C., Stupak, N., Brooks, B.P., Ross, D.S.,
Bordia, P., 2013. Rumor clustering, consensus, and polarization: Dynamic social
impact and self-organization of hearsay. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
49, 378–399.
Doohwang Lee, Hyuk Soo Kim, Jung Kyu Kim, 2011. The Impact of Online Brand
Community Type on Consumer’s Community Engagement Behaviors: ConsumerCreated vs. Marketer-Created Online Brand Community in Online Social-Networking
Web Sites. CyberPsychology, Behavior & Social Networking 14, 59–63.
Doorn, J. van, Lemon, K.N., Mittal, V., Nass, S., Pick, D., Pirner, P., Verhoef, P.C., 2010.
Customer Engagement Behavior: Theoretical Foundations and Research Directions.
Journal of Service Research 13, 253–266.
AM Conference 2014 – Doctoral Colloquium
Ellison, N.B., Steinfield, C., Lampe, C., 2007. The benefits of Facebook “friends:” Social
capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of ComputerMediated Communication 12, 1143–1168.
eMarketer, 2013. Social’s Value Measured in Engagement Over Sales [WWW Document].
URL http://www.emarketer.com/Article/Socials-Value-Measured-Engagement-OverSales/1010116 (accessed 8.27.13).
Fink, E.L., 1996. Dynamic social impact theory and the study of human communication.
Journal of Communication 46, 4–12.
Fournier, S., Avery, J., 2011. The uninvited brand. Business Horizons 54, 193–207.
Francis, J.J., Johnston, M., Walker, A., Grimshaw, J.M., Foy, R., Bonnetti, D., 2004.
Constructing questionnaires based on the theory of planned behaviour. A manual for
health services researchers 2–12.
Freedman, D., 2005. Statistical Models: Theory and Practice. Cambridge University Press.
Fujita, K., Henderson, M.D., Eng, J., Trope, Y., Liberman, N., 2006. Spatial Distance and
Mental Construal of Social Events. Psychological Science 17, 278–282.
Hart, J.W., Stasson, M.F., Karau, S.J., 1999. Effects of source expertise and physical distance
on minority influence. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice 3, 81–92.
Jackson, J.M., 1986. In defense of Social Impact Theory: Comment on Mullen. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 50, 511–513.
Jackson, J.M., Latane, B., 1982. Experimenter immediacy and social loafing.
Karau, S.J., Williams, K.D., 1993. Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical
integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65, 681–706.
Kim, W., Jeong, O.R., Lee, S.W., 2010. On social Web sites. Information Systems 35, 215–
236.
Knowles, E.S., 1983. Social physics and the effects of others: Tests of the effects of audience
size and distance on social judgments and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 45, 1263–1279.
Kwahk, K.-Y., Ge, X., 2012. The Effects of Social Media on E-Commerce: A Perspective of
Social Impact Theory, in: 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on System
Science (HICSS). Presented at the 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on
System Science (HICSS), pp. 1814 –1823.
Latané, B., 1981. The psychology of social impact. American Psychologist 36, 343–356.
Latané, B., 1996. Dynamic Social Impact: The Creation of Culture by Communication.
Journal of Communication 46, 13–25.
Latané, B., L’Herrou, T., 1996. Spatial clustering in the conformity game: Dynamic social
impact in electronic groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 70, 1218–
1230.
Latané, B., Liu, J.H., 1996. The intersubjective geometry of social space. Journal of
Communication 46, 26–34.
Latané, B., Liu, J.H., Nowak, A., Bonevento, M., Zheng, L., 1995. Distance Matters: Physical
Space and Social Impact. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 21, 795–805.
Libai, B., Bolton, R., Bügel, M.S., de Ruyter, K., Götz, O., Risselada, H., Stephen, A.T.,
2010. Customer-to-customer interactions: Broadening the scope of word of mouth
research. Journal of Service Research 13, 267–282.
Ling, K., Beenen, G., Ludford, P., Wang, X., Chang, K., Li, X., Cosley, D., Frankowski, D.,
Terveen, L., Rashid, A.M., Resnick, P., Kraut, R., 2005. Using Social Psychology to
Motivate Contributions to Online Communities. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication 10, 00–00.
Mangleburg, T.F., Doney, P.M., Bristol, T., 2004. Shopping with friends and teens’
susceptibility to peer influence. Journal of Retailing 80, 101–116.
AM Conference 2014 – Doctoral Colloquium
Mangold, W.G., Faulds, D.J., 2009. Social media: The new hybrid element of the promotion
mix. Business Horizons 52, 357–365.
Miller, M.D., Cryss Brunner, C., 2008. Social impact in technologically-mediated
communication: An examination of online influence. Computers in Human Behavior
24, 2972–2991.
Mollen, A., Wilson, H., 2010. Engagement, telepresence and interactivity in online consumer
experience: Reconciling scholastic and managerial perspectives. Journal of Business
Research 63, 919–925.
Moon, Y., 1999. The effects of physical distance and response latency on persuasion in
computer-mediated communication and human–computer communication. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Applied 5, 379–392.
Mullen, B., 1985. Strength and immediacy of sources: A meta-analytic evaluation of the
forgotten elements of social impact theory. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 48, 1458–1466.
Naylor, R.W., Lamberton, C.P., West, P.M., 2012. Beyond the “Like” Button: The Impact of
Mere Virtual Presence on Brand Evaluations and Purchase Intentions in Social Media
Settings. Journal of Marketing 76, 105–120.
Nowak, A., Szamrej, J., Latane, B., 1990. From private attitude to public opinion: A dynamic
theory of social impact. Psychological Review 97, 362.
Pedersen, E.R., LaBrie, J.W., Lac, A., 2008. Assessment of perceived and actual alcohol
norms in varying contexts: Exploring Social Impact Theory among college students.
Addictive Behaviors 33, 552–564.
Polit, D.F., Beck, C.T., 2004. Nursing research: Principal and methods.
Prescott, P., Soeken, K.L., 1989. The potential uses of pilot work. Nursing Research 38, 60.
Shu-Chuan Chu, Yoojung Kim, 2011. Determinants of consumer engagement in electronic
word-of-mouth (eWOM) in social networking sites. International Journal of
Advertising 30, 47–75.
Smock, A.D., Ellison, N.B., Lampe, C., Wohn, D.Y., 2011. Facebook as a toolkit: A uses and
gratification approach to unbundling feature use. Computers in Human Behavior 27,
2322–2329.
Thompson, S.A., Ward, J.C., 2008. The Evolution of New Product Rumors in Online
Consumer Communities: Social Identity or Social Impact? Advances in Consumer
Research 35, 756–757.
Trope, Y., Liberman, N., 2010. Construal-level theory of psychological distance.
Psychological Review 117, 440–463.
Williams, K.B., Williams, K.D., 1983. Social inhibition and asking for help: The effects of
number, strength, and immediacy of potential help givers. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology 44, 67–77.
Wolf, S., Latané, B., 1983. Majority and minority influences on restaurant preferences.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45, 282–292.
Yoder, C., Stutzman, F., 2011. Identifying social capital in the Facebook interface, in:
Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. pp.
585–588.