Computers in Human Behavior 63 (2016) 970e979

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior

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

Full length article

Engaging consumers and building relationships in social media: How

social relatedness inuences intrinsic vs. extrinsic consumer
motivation
Eunice Kim a, *, Minette Drumwright b
a
Department of Advertising, College of Journalism and Communications, University of Florida, 2084 Weimer Hall, PO Box 118400, Gainesville, FL 32611,
United States
b
Stan Richards School of Advertising & Public Relations, University of Texas at Austin, 300 W. Dean Keeton, Austin, TX 78712, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 30 November 2015
Received in revised form
2 June 2016
Accepted 15 June 2016

An important component of the consuming experience is a consumers sense of belonging or relatedness.

This is true not only in traditional shopping contexts but also in a social media environment. Nonetheless, little empirical research has addressed how the sense of belonging that consumers experience
during their brand-related activities in social mediadfeelings of social relatednessdinuence the
effectiveness of social media marketing programs. The present study explores, across various consumers
who have different motivations to engage with brands, the mechanism that enables perceptions of social
relatedness to contribute to consumer engagement and relationship building. The results of the study
reveal that consumers perceived social relatedness moderates the effects of consumer motivation on
engagement, consuming intention, satisfaction, affective commitment, and trust. The ndings highlight
the importance of fullling consumers need for social relatedness in the context of social media,
especially for those who are motivated to engage in brand activities via extrinsic factors.
2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Social media
Consumer engagement
Relationship building
Consumer motivations
Social relatedness

1. Introduction
Social media platforms provide powerful venues for consumers
to interact not only with brands but also with other consumers as
they engage in the processes of curation, creation, and collaboration (Evans, McKee, & Bratton, 2010). Consumers exposure to
brand information and their participation in social media are
voluntary, possibly enhancing the effectiveness of social media
marketing. For example, on Facebook, consumers voluntarily opt in
to receive brand messages and pass them along to other consumers
by becoming a friend or fan or by clicking on the like or share
button. This shift to a more user-centered form of communication
has pressured businesses to go far beyond merely maintaining a
brand presence in social media to look for opportunities to foster
engagement (Evans et al., 2010). As such, marketers must choose
among a wide variety of engagement strategies that range from
coupons and other economic incentives to activities that cater to

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: eunicekim@jou.u.edu (E. Kim), minette.drumwright@austin.
utexas.edu (M. Drumwright).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.06.025
0747-5632/ 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

consumers interests and passions. For marketers, social media

should serve as an ideal channel for engaging consumers through a
variety of brand activities that will lead them to subsequent
engagement behaviors (e.g., trial or purchase) (Baird & Parasnis,
2011).
Social media holds enormous potential for brands to build a
connection with consumers by fostering a sense of belonging
through interpersonal interactions and dialogue (Baird & Parasnis,
2011). Because social media fuses unique communicative capabilities, consumers sense of belongingdor their feelings of social
relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 2000)dmay to be central to both
engagement and brand-consumer relationship building. Social
media fullls peoples need for social relatedness through parasocial gratication; that is, it offers individuals a virtual space in
which they can communicate and maintain relationships with
others (Chen, 2011; Pfeil, Arjan, & Zaphiris, 2009). Individuals can
utilize social media to bridge and bond with their weak ties, people
with whom they do not interact on a regular basis, and to deepen
relationships with their strong ties, the people with whom they
have close relationships (Ellison, Steineld, & Lampe, 2007). Social
relatedness in social media can stem from sharing information with
friends or other users and joining a community as a means to

E. Kim, M. Drumwright / Computers in Human Behavior 63 (2016) 970e979

interact with others with a shared interest. The need for social
relatedness is fullled through multiple social factors, which
include social approval and affection as well as the potential to
inuence others (Gangadharbatla, 2008). An important dimension
of social media is thus the interpersonal perspective (e.g., Sheldon,
Abad, & Hinsch, 2001). Yet the topic of consumers perceptions of
social relatedness arising from social media is scarcely addressed in
the extant literature.
In addition, little is known about which marketing efforts
companies and brands should undertake to engage and build
strong relationships with various segments of consumers who may
have widely differing motivations to engage with brands. For
example, some consumers are motivated to engage in brandrelated activities to satisfy their own intrinsic goals related to
their interests and passions, while other consumers interact with
brands in social media to receive economic incentives, which are
extrinsic motivators (e.g., Kwon, Kim, Sung, & Yoo, 2014; Muntinga,
Moorman, & Smit, 2011; Tsai & Men, 2013). How should marketers
appeal to these different segments of consumers, and what role
does social relatedness play in the effectiveness of social media
marketing programs?
The primary objective of this research is to explore, in the
context of social media, the mechanism by which consumer motivations and perceptions of social relatedness inuence consumer
engagement and relationship building. This research uses selfdetermination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000; Ryan & Deci,
2000a) to better understand the nature of underlying consumer
motivations to engage in brand-related activities in social media. It
examines the extent to which consumers experience of social
relatedness in social media interacts with different types of consumer motivation (i.e., intrinsic vs. extrinsic) to inuence outcomes
related to engagement and relationship building. The present study
sheds light on the role of social relatedness in enhancing the
effectiveness of social media marketing programs. The ndings
from this research enhance our theoretical understanding of selfdetermination theory and provide meaningful managerial implications for identifying conditions that motivate both intrinsically
and extrinsically-driven consumers to engage with brands and
build relationships.
2. Background and theoretical underpinnings
2.1. Self-determination theory
A useful theoretical framework for understanding the role of
consumer motivations in the process of consumer engagement and
relationship building via social media is self-determination theory
(SDT). Self-determination is dened as a sense of autonomy and
control over ones own actions and decisions (Deci, Vallerand,
Pelletier, & Ryan, 1991). This motivational perspective emphasizes
an individuals tendency to take initiative in an action or a decision,
thereby engendering better quality outcomes through the satisfaction of basic human needs (Sheldon & Elliot, 1999). SDT predicts
that the more self-determined a persons motivation to engage in a
behavior is, the more positive will be the outcomes that result from
that behavior; positive outcomes will include enjoyment, need
satisfaction, and general well-being.
Broadly, SDT proposes two types of motivation determined by
the reasons for or goals of an action: intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000b). Intrinsic motivation is dened as
doing an activity for its inherent interests, such as curiosity, fun, or
enjoyment. An intrinsically motivated activity is one that people
voluntarily perform in the absence of reinforcement or reward
because the intrinsically motivated person nds the activity itself
enjoyable and satisfying (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Extrinsic motivation

971

pertains to a variety of behaviors in which the actions are instrumental (Deci et al., 1991) and performed for an outcome separate
from the activity itself, such as the pursuit of an external reward or
the avoidance of punishment (Ryan & Deci, 2000b). A considerable
amount of research has demonstrated that intrinsic motivation, as a
prototype of a self-determined activity, leads to numerous outcomes for consumers; among them are greater enjoyment (e.g.,
Ryan & Connell, 1989) and engagement (e.g., Connell & Wellborn,
1991) as well as enhanced concentration on the activity and
greater persistence in pursuing the activity (Grouzet, Vallerand,
Thill, & Provencher, 2004).
The concept of self-determination has received scholarly
attention in the marketing literature in terms of its implications for
understanding consumer psychology and behavior (e.g., Dholakia,
2006; Zhang, Xu, Jiang, & Huang, 2011). Findings by Dholakia
(2006) indicate that self-determined consumers are more likely
to engage in motivational and relational behaviors than those who
believe that they were induced to support the rm in response to a
marketing initiative. Furthermore, consumers self-determination
increases their relational behaviors toward the company when
they are offered a relational rewards program (e.g., loyalty program), whereas an extrinsic rewards program (e.g., coupon) undermines relational outcomes among such consumers. Similarly,
previous studies have suggested that extrinsically-driven consumer
motivations possibly have a detrimental effect on the effectiveness
of social media marketing (e.g., Kwon et al., 2014; Tsai & Men,
2013). For example, Kwon et al. (2014) showed empirically that
consumers incentive-seeking motivationsddriven by external
factorsdto follow brands in social media did not signicantly inuence their relationships with the brands. However, both consumers social interaction-seeking and intrinsic altruistic
motivations did signicantly inuence their relationships with the
brands.
2.2. The role of social relatedness
SDT recognizes that intrinsically motivated behaviors are performed to satisfy inherent psychological needs (Ryan & Deci,
2000b); therefore, experiencing fundamental perceptions of autonomy, competence, and social relatedness promotes individuals
intrinsic motivation, each of which has independent effects in
multiple contexts (Deci & Ryan, 2000). The need for autonomy
reects a desire to control ones actions when one feels volitional in
pursing the activity (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Connell, 1989). The
need for competence refers to an individuals tendency to perform
effectively and achieve a desired outcome, which is similar to the
concept of self-efcacy. Finally, the need for social relatedness
pertains to the need to feel connected and experience a sense of
belonging with others. The need for social relatedness can be understood as the tendency to interact with and be socially accepted
by others. This is referred to as the need to connect or need to
belong. Such a need is a fundamental human motivation that is
something all human beings possess to form and maintain at
least a minimum quantity of lasting, positive, and signicant
interpersonal relationships (Baumeister & Leary, 1995, p. 497). The
need to belong is associated with a need for approval and acceptance by others, which is a requisite for forming and maintaining a
positive social relationship and relational intimacy (Baumeister &
Leary, 1995; Park, Jin, & Jin, 2011). In the current context, the
need for social relatedness is examined in relation to the broader
idea of a sense of community, dened as a feeling of belonging and
being important to other users in the social network (Chen, 2011).
As theorized in SDT, feelings of social relatedness contribute to
relationship building and lead to subsequent behaviors. Indeed,
they help individuals maintain their intrinsic motivation or

972

E. Kim, M. Drumwright / Computers in Human Behavior 63 (2016) 970e979

facilitate the internalizing of extrinsic motivation (Connell &

Wellborn, 1991; Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000b). Evidence exists that even in a situation where an individual feels low
intrinsic motivation, that motivation increases with the fulllment
of her social relatedness need (Anderson, Manoogian, & Reznick,
1976; Ryan & Grolnick, 1986). These ndings suggest that the
process of consumer engagement, implied in the concept of
intrinsic motivation (i.e., interest and enjoyment), can be facilitated
by the extent to which a marketing program satises the fundamental need to connect with and attach to others.
2.3. Hypotheses development
The impact of social relatedness on consumers intrinsic motivation may differ between consumers with intrinsic and extrinsic
motivations toward brand activities in social media. From the
perspective of SDT, consumers who are intrinsically-motivated are
likely to experience greater engagement and relationship outcomes
than those with extrinsic motivation. Thus, for those who are
already intrinsically motivated in their brand activities, their level
of engagement should notdregardless the level of social
relatednessdbe reduced signicantly. Those consumers value the
goal they pursue in their brand activities in social media, and any
efforts they make within the environment enhance the goal value
and their subsequent motivation (Zhang et al., 2011). Therefore, in
deciding on their level of engagement with brand activities, they
would not rely heavily on the social support of others.
On the other hand, the experience of social relatedness in social
media may exert a more notable inuence on externally-motivated
consumers. This phenomenon can be explained by the process of
internalizing extrinsic motivation. Although consumers are motivated by external factors, the experience of social relatedness can
integrate external regulation into their sense of self (Deci, Eghrari,
Patrick, & Leone, 1994), thus allowing those consumers to internalize their reasons to engage in brand-related activities in social
media. Experiencing a high level of social relatedness in a social
media environment may be a factor strong enough to facilitate
internalization and intrinsic motivation among consumers with
low self-determination.
In sum, this research proposes that the impact of social relatedness will be greater for extrinsically-motivated consumers than
for their intrinsically motivated counterparts. When social relatedness is perceived as high, the two groups will vary little in their
engagement and relationship outcomes. In contrast, when consumers exhibit a low level of social relatedness, those who are
intrinsically motivated will generate greater engagement and
relational outcomes than will their extrinsically motivated counterparts. Thus, the following hypotheses are proposed:
H1. Regarding consumer engagement (i.e., interest in and enjoyment of brand activities in social media), consumer motivation and
social relatedness will produce an interaction effect such that the
inuence of social relatedness on consumer engagement will be
greater for extrinsically motivated consumers than for intrinsically
motivated consumers.
H2. Regarding consumers future intention to engage in brand
activities (H2a: intention to consume brand content; H2b: intention to contribute to brand content), consumer motivation and
social relatedness will produce an interaction effect such that the
inuence of social relatedness will be greater for extrinsically
motivated consumers than for intrinsically motivated consumers.
Realizing the role of engagement in establishing and maintaining customer relationships, marketers understand that the
engaging experiences consumers have with brand activities in

social media can affect various relational outcomes. In this study,

relational outcomes were measured with ve relationship variables: satisfaction, affective commitment, control mutuality,
competence trust, and benevolence/integrity trust.
Based on the SDT literature, satisfying consumers relatedness
needs can promote relationship well-being (Patrick, Ryan, &
Kaplan, 2007). Relationship well-being, which includes satisfaction, occurs when consumers feel favorably toward the brand activities because their positive expectations about the relationship
have been reinforced (Hon & Grunig, 1999). Affective commitment
reects identication with, involvement in, and emotional
attachment, (Allen & Meyer, 1996, p. 253), and it was assessed with
respect to consumers emotional bonding and attachment to brand
activities in social media.
The quality of the relationship between consumers and brands
resulting from consumers brand activities in social media can be
represented by three outcome variablesdcontrol mutuality and
two dimensions of trust (i.e., competence and benevolence/integrity). Control mutuality is understood as the degree to which relational partners are in agreement as to who has power and inuence
(Hon & Grunig, 1999). Relationship maintenance strategies used in
the context of social media campaigns are strongly correlated with
the credibility assigned to an organization (Sweetser, 2010). As
such, trust is regarded as a key factor that determines the effectiveness of relational marketing in social media, and it consists of
two dimensions: competence and benevolence/integrity
(McKnight, Choudhury, & Kacmar, 2002; Ridings, Gefen, & Arinze,
2002). The competence component of trust refers to consumers
condence that brands have the ability and skills to perform
competently. The benevolence/integrity component of trust refers to
consumers expectations that brands will act in consumers interests as well as in accordance with socially accepted standards of
honesty and promise keeping (McKnight et al., 2002). Again, this
study aims to examine whether the proposed interaction effects of
consumer motivation and social relatedness affect relational outcomes. Thus, the following research question is posed:
RQ1. Will there be an interaction effect between consumer
motivation and social relatedness on relational outcomes (i.e.,
satisfaction, affective commitment, control mutuality, competence
trust, and benevolence/integrity trust)?
3. Method
3.1. Study design and procedure
This study was conducted as an online experiment and
employed a 2 (consumer motivation: intrinsic vs. extrinsic)
2
(perceived social relatedness: high vs. low) between-subjects
design. Consumer motivations were experimentally manipulated
with two priming scenarios following Hoffman and Novaks procedure (2013) for priming motivations in the context of social
media. The scenarios described sample behaviors that illustrated
intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivation to participate in brand activities in
social media, and each participant was exposed to one of the two
scenarios. Participants were asked to think about brand-related
activities in which they had participated in social media that
involved something similar to the scenario. They were then asked
to identify a single brand for which they had recently engaged in an
activity in social media and then describe that activity in detail.
Using the scales derived from the SDT literature, they indicated the
extent to which they had experienced social relatedness while
engaging in the brand activity. The study measured consumers
interest and enjoyment associated with their brand activities, followed by intention in terms of how much they intended to engage

E. Kim, M. Drumwright / Computers in Human Behavior 63 (2016) 970e979

in passive or reactive behaviors (i.e., content-consuming activities)

and proactive behaviors (i.e., content-contributing activities) in
social media. Finally, they were asked to complete a questionnaire
that contained measures of relational outcomes.
Overall, 316 participants participated in this study, including a
pre-test and the main experiment. Before proceeding with the
main experiment, a pre-test was conducted with a sample of 69
college students (46% female, age M 20.36) to test the effectiveness of the manipulation of the consumer motivation scenarios. For
the main experiment, participants (N 247; 39% female; age
M 32) were recruited from Amazons Mechanical Turk (MTurk).
Only those individuals who had engaged in brand-related activities
in social media were qualied to participate.
3.2. Measures
The measures for all the variables can be found in the Appendix.
3.2.1. Perceived social relatedness
Participants responded to a three-item measure of relatedness
based on the brand-related activity they had engaged with in social
media. The measure was adapted from the literature on relatedness
need satisfaction (La Guardia, Ryan, Couchman, & Deci, 2000;
Sheldon, Abad et al., 2001) and adjusted to t the context of social media. Participants were asked to indicate whether they felt
social relatedness while engaging in the brand activity in social
media (1 not at all true, 7 very true). An index score, created
by averaging the three items (a 0.89), was dichotomized, using
median splits, into two groups (i.e., high vs. low relatedness).
3.2.2. The effectiveness of manipulation
The study used a six-item measure corresponding to consumer
intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. After completing the description
of brand-related activities in social media, participants were asked
to rate, on a seven-point Like scale (intrinsic motivation a 0.92;
extrinsic motivation a 0.86), the extent to which each reason was
true for them to engage in the brand activity described (1 not at
all a reason, 7 denitely a reason).

973

which consumers perceived that both their voices and the brands
voices could be heard in the decision-making process (a 0.69).
Adopted from McKnight et al. (2002) and Ridings et al. (2002),
three items were used to assess the competence component of
trustda measure of consumers perceptions of how capable the
brand would be at serving and dealing with its consumers. Finally,
the extent to which consumers believed the brand was acting in
their best interest was measured with the ve-item benevolence/
integrity component of trust scale (Hon & Grunig, 1999; McKnight
et al., 2002; competence trust a 0.84; benevolence/integrity
trust a 0.90). All of the relational outcomes were measured with
seven-point Likert scales.
3.2.5. Covariates
The effects of basic psychological need satisfactiond autonomy
and competence need satisfactionewere separately controlled in
this study. A seven-item measure was employed to assess the
extent to which consumers perceived a sense of autonomy (La
Guardia et al., 2000; Mathwick & Rigdon, 2004) and competence
(Meuter, Bitner, Ostrom, & Brown, 2005) while engaging in a brand
activity in social media. These two measures were rated on sevenpoint Likert scales (autonomy need satisfaction a 0.82; competence need satisfaction a 0.88). In addition, the effects of brand
identication and brand involvement were controlled. The threeitem brand identication measure (Algesheimer, Dholakia, &
Herrmann, 2005) was adapted to measure the strength of the
relationship consumers have with the brand in social media
(a 0.89). The two-item scale (Chandrashekaran, 2004) was
adapted to assess consumers interest in the brand and the personal
relevance of the brand for which they had engaged in an activity in
social media (a 0.74). Both scales were measured with a sevenpoint Likert-type scale. In addition, the study controlled consumers motivational orientation in their relationships with brands
in terms of the degree to which they were concerned about the
needs of the brands (i.e., communal relationship orientation) using
a seven-item communal relationship scale (Johnson & Grimm,
2010) (a 0.93).
4. Results

3.2.3. Engagement and engagement intention

Five items derived from McAuley, Duncan, and Tammen (1989)
and Ryan (1982) were adjusted to the study context to assess the
level of consumers inherent interest and enjoyment associated
with their brand activities in social media. All items were measured
along a Likert-type scale (1 strongly disagree, 7 strongly
agree; a 0.86).
Consumers engagement intention was measured using an
eight-item measure that was adapted from Muntinga et al. (2011)
and Tsai and Men (2013) to assess their future intention to
engage in passive (i.e., content-consuming) and proactive (i.e.,
contributing content) brand-related activities in social media. The
consuming engagement intention measure and the contributing
engagement intention measure were made up of four items each.
These two measures were assessed with seven-point Likert scales
(consuming activity a 0.84; contributing activity a 0.88).
3.2.4. Relational outcomes
Relational outcomes were measured with ve variables. The
ve-item satisfaction scale (Hon & Grunig, 1999) measured the
extent to which participants reported their satisfaction with brandrelated activities (a 0.90). The three-item affective commitment
measure (Bansal, Irving, & Taylor, 2004) assessed the extent to
which consumers were emotionally attached to the brand activities
in social media (a 0.90). Control mutuality was measured with a
ve-item scale (Hon & Grunig, 1999) that assessed the degree to

4.1. Manipulation check

The results of the manipulation check revealed that the scenario
manipulation successfully primed the two types of consumer
motivation. Participants in the intrinsic motivation condition
scored higher on the intrinsic motivation scale than those in the
extrinsic motivation condition, t(245) 6.73, p < 0.001. Participants in the extrinsic motivation condition scored higher on the
extrinsic motivation scale than those in the intrinsic motivation
condition, t(245) 10.45, p < 0.001.
4.2. Hypotheses and research question testing
To test the proposed hypotheses and explore the research
question, a series of two-way multivariate analyses of covariance
(MANCOVA) were carried out separately with the two outcome
dimensions (engagement outcomes and relational outcomes) as
dependent variables. The effects of the ve covariates were
controlled (autonomy, competence need satisfaction, brand identication, brand involvement, and communal relationship
orientation).
4.2.1. Engagement outcomes
Results demonstrated signicant interaction effects of consumer
motivation and social relatedness on consumer engagement

974

E. Kim, M. Drumwright / Computers in Human Behavior 63 (2016) 970e979

outcomes, FWilkss lambda 5.72, p < 0.01. To test the hypotheses

specically, follow-up ANCOVAs based on covariate-adjusted
means were conducted. While controlling for the effects of the
covariates, a signicant interaction effect was found between
consumer motivation and perceived social relatedness on engagement (i.e., interest/enjoyment), F(1, 238) 10.64, p < 0.01. As
shown in Fig. 1, when consumers showed extrinsic motivation toward their brand activities, those with high perceptions of relatedness within social media generated greater engagement toward
the activities than those who showed a low level of relatedness, F(1,
238) 17.60, p < 0.001. When consumers were intrinsically motivated, however, social relatedness did not signicantly inuence
their level of engagement, p 0.95. These results were consistent
with the predictions, supporting H1.
Examination of H2 considered the interaction effects of consumer motivation and social relatedness on future engagement
intention, and the results showed a signicant interaction effect on
consuming engagement intention, F(1, 238) 8.90, p < 0.01. As
Fig. 2 shows, when consumers were extrinsically motivated, those
who had perceived high social relatedness in social media reported
greater consuming intention toward their brand activities than
those who had perceived low social relatedness, F(1, 238) 18.06,
p < 0.001. That is, consumers with high social relatedness expressed
higher intentions to consume social media content about the brand,
which is a passive behavior, than consumers with low social
relatedness. As might be expected, there was no signicant difference in consuming intention among consumers with intrinsic
motivations, p 0.74. These results lended support for H2a. However, no signicant interaction effect was found for contributing
engagement intention, p 0.99. That is, no signicant interaction
effect was found with respect to consumers intention to proactively contribute content about the brand, disconrming H2b.
Overall, H2 was partially supported.

4.2.2. Relational outcomes

Regarding RQ1, the results indicated that there were signicant
interaction effects of the level of consumer motivation and social
relatedness on relational outcomes, FWilkss lambda 2.75, p < 0.05
(Table 1). Follow-up univariate tests revealed that, while holding
the covariates constant, the effects of consumer motivation on
consumer satisfaction, F(1, 238) 4.24, p < 0.05, affective
commitment, F(1, 238) 6.45, p < 0.05, and benevolence/integrity
trust, F(1, 238) 4.33, p < 0.05, were dependent on the degree of

consumers perceived relatedness in social media. The results

showed that, only among consumers with extrinsic motivations,
those who experienced a high level of perceived relatedness in
social media exhibited higher satisfaction with the activities and
showed higher benevolence/integrity trust toward the brand than
those experiencing a low level of perceived relatedness, F(1,
238) 11.26, p < 0.01, and F(1, 238) 5.48, p < 0.05, respectively.
On the other hand, among consumers with intrinsic motivations,
the degree of consumer satisfaction and benevolence/integrity
trust scores were not signicantly inuenced by the perceptions of
relatedness experienced in social media, p 0.52 and p 0.72.
Consumers perceptions of social relatedness exerted a signicant inuence on affective commitment for both intrinsically and
extrinsically-motivated consumers, F(1, 238) 24.86, p < 0.001, and
F(1, 238) 72.23, p < 0.001. Similar to the other patterns detected
in the current study, perceptions of social relatedness had a greater
impact for consumers who were extrinsically motivated. However,
there were no signicant interaction effects for control mutuality
and competence trust (Fs < 1).
5. Discussion
Social media platforms have become a powerful venue through
which consumers can interact and collaborate with brands and
other consumers to co-create unique brand experiences. Consequently, social media marketers and researchers have sought to tap
into consumer engagement and relationship building by creating
interpersonal environments that can facilitate dialogue and mutual
communication. This prompts the question: will consumers perceptions of the social relatedness they experience within social
media increase their level of engagement and the relational outcomes? In an attempt to address this important question, this study
took into account different types of consumer motivation toward
brand activities in social media.
The study revealed an interaction effect of consumer motivation
and social relatedness on consumer engagement with brand activities in social media. This research provided evidence that consumers perceptions of the social relatedness they experience
within social media moderated the effect of consumer motivation.
Specically, the engagement of consumers who were extrinsically
motivated was more greatly enhanced by perceptions of high social
relatedness than was that of extrinsically-motivated consumers
perceiving low social relatedness. However, the engagement of

Fig. 1. Engagement as a function of consumer motivation and perceived social relatedness.

E. Kim, M. Drumwright / Computers in Human Behavior 63 (2016) 970e979

975

Fig. 2. Consuming engagement intention as a function of consumer motivation and perceived social relatedness.

Table 1
Univariate and multivariate analyses of factors inuencing consumer engagement and relational outcomes in social media.
Main effects

Engagement outcomes
Engagement
Consuming intentiona
Contributing intentionb

Interaction effects

Consumer motivation

Social relatedness

Consumer motivation
social relatedness

4.08*
0.69
1.36

6.96**
8.65**
22.87***

10.64**
8.90**
0.00

Multivariate analysis
Wilks Lambda
Multivariate F
Relational outcomes
Satisfaction
Affective commitment
Control mutuality
Competence trust
Benevolence/integrity trust

0.97
2.39

0.89
9.37***

0.93
5.72**

0.53
0.46
1.73
0.02
0.01

6.60*
76.48***
5.26*
3.95*
1.57

4.24*
6.45*
0.50
0.00
4.33*

Multivariate analysis
Wilks Lambda
Multivariate F

0.98
0.98

0.25
15.81***

0.95
2.75*

Note. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.

a
Consuming engagement intention.
b
Contributing engagement intention.

intrinsically motivated consumers was not inuenced by their

perceptions of social relatedness.
Several aspects of the ndings are notable. When consumers
were extrinsically motivated to participate in brand activities,
perceptions of high social relatedness resulted in higher future
consuming engagement intention (i.e., passive consuming of brand
content) than did perceptions of low social relatedness. For
intrinsically motivated consumers, perceptions of social relatedness did not inuence motivation, as was predicted. The results
demonstrated the interesting phenomenon of the interaction effect
not holding for consumers contributing engagement intention (i.e.,
proactive contribution of content). A possible explanation for this is
that providing social relatedness in social media may not be sufcient to result in proactive engagement behavior among consumers
extrinsically motivated to engage in brand activities. The ndings
are consistent with the results from prior studies showing that
individuals who are extrinsically motivated via economic rewards
are not inclined to engage actively in sharing their knowledge, or if

they do, they do so only for a short period (Bock & Kim, 2001; Hung,
Durcikova, Lai, & Lin, 2011). As such, extrinsic motivation creates
situational self-relevance, whereas intrinsic motivation leads to
enduring self-relevance (Celsi & Olson, 1988; Richins & Bloch,
1986). A psychological threshold for extrinsically motivated consumers may be showing the intention to engage in contentconsuming behavior, such as viewing brand-related videos or
watching brand pictures in social media. This leads to the tentative
conclusion that social relatedness is too weak a factor to prompt
extrinsically motivated consumers to contribute brand content,
such as conversing with other consumers about brands. Indeed,
intrinsically motivated consumers who are driven by self enjoyment are more likely to contribute brand content compared to
those driven by extrinsic rewards (Teichmann, Stokburger-Sauer,
Plank, & Strobl, 2015).
As for relational outcomes, the results provided evidence of an
interaction effect of consumer motivation and social relatedness on
consumers affective commitment to and benevolence/integrity

976

E. Kim, M. Drumwright / Computers in Human Behavior 63 (2016) 970e979

trust in brand activities. These results showed that extrinsically

motivated consumers felt greater affective commitment to and
trust in brand activities in social media when they experienced high
perceived social relatedness. The results further showed that the
moderating effects of social relatedness were found in the relationship between consumer motivation and satisfaction. Consumers satisfaction with and affective commitment to brand
activities are related to the quality of brand relationships created
within social media; this reects the level of interactivity in communications with consumers and how well the brand performs
functionally and technologically within computer-mediated environments (Morgan-Thomas & Veloutsou, 2013). The ndings thus
imply that the primary contribution of social relatedness is in
building online brand relationships. Similar to service marketing
contexts such as one-to-one customer service or an interactive
customer support center, consumers experience of relatedness in
social media may function as a key driver in securing their satisfaction with, trust in, and emotional connection to brand activities
in social media.
5.1. Theoretical implications
First, the ndings were consistent with the general theoretical
perspectives of SDT that intrinsic motivation and social relatedness
are both important in promoting engagement. Our ndings concerning the interaction effects of consumer motivation and social
relatedness added a unique and previously untested perspective to
the understanding of SDT. Moreover, our ndings underlined the
importance of fullling consumers need for social relatedness in
the context of social media through building a sense of membership
and an imagined community (Anderson, 1983). This was especially the case for those who were motivated to engage in brand
activities via external factors such as economic incentives or
rewards.
Second, the study advanced our understanding of the role of
relatedness in social media by showing the robust effects of social
relatedness in buffering the effect of extrinsic motivation on the
emotional component of consumer-brand relationship outcomes.
Affective commitment, which involves feelings of enjoyment or a
sense of attachment and belongingness, is distinct from cognitive
awareness of ones membership and identity in a brand community
(Bergami & Bagozzi, 2000). The benevolence/integrity component
of trust connotes that consumers believe that brands care about
them and will keep their promises, which is more emotionally
laden than the competence component of trust that involves the
brands skills and abilities. Such a psychological sense of brand
community can be enhanced when consumers perceive, even in
the absence of social interaction, a high level of social relatedness
within social media (Carlson, Suter, & Brown, 2008). The ndings
imply that when social relatedness is perceived as salient, the
emotional component of social identication is activated to a
greater extent for extrinsically motivated consumers than for
intrinsically motivated consumers.
5.2. Managerial implications
Brand managers can use the ndings of this study to customize
brand relationship marketing activities in social media. When
determining whether and how to implement relational marketing
programs, brand managers should consider the types of motivations the majority of their consumers have toward the brand activities in social media. Brand managers can include measures of
consumer self-determination in their market research to estimate
the degree of self-determination of their primary consumer segments. By taking into account the varying degrees of consumer self-

determination (Dholakia, 2006), brand managers can develop a

taxonomy of consumer self-determination in social media to guide
their marketing programs. For example, providing a marketing
program that emphasizes creating social relatedness to highly selfdetermined consumers (e.g., encouraging consumers to get
involved in interpersonal communication with other social media
users or brands) will not generate any signicant increase in consumer engagement and relational outcomes. Although this
segment may not require serious marketing investment in social
relational programs, brand managers should offer social rewards in
the long run to such segments to encourage consumers to maintain
high levels of self-determination toward brand activities. In
contrast, for those consumers who are extrinsically driven, the
provision of social relational marketing programs will increase
their level of intrinsic motivation, consuming engagement, satisfaction, affective commitment, and benevolence/integrity trust. As
such, segments of extrinsically-driven consumers should be the
primary candidates for relationship programs in social media. For
these segments, the purpose of a social media marketing campaign
should center on creating an entertaining and enjoyable social
media experience, which will serve as a base for the development
of consumer-brand relationships. It is important to note that consumers in extrinsically-driven segments tend to exhibit passive
engagement behavior in social media. As a rst step, one possible
approach is to create brand content from which consumers will feel
a sense of membership and nd valuable to consume in social
media. Although they are not likely to participate actively in the
short term, in further brand activities (e.g., sharing brand messages
to others), the feelings of enjoyment and social relatedness they
experience in social media will ultimately increase their level of
intrinsic motivation and possibly result in proactive brand activities
in social media.
In reaction to the increasing number of marketing practices
offering incentives to foster consumer participation in social media,
some scholars have expressed concerns regarding the use of incentives in social media marketing programs (e.g., Wong, 2010).
Indeed, social relational programs often require more expertise and
innovativeness than programs that merely focus on extrinsic rewards. Brands can use our ndings to allocate resources and tailor
marketing activities in social media according to the expected
engagement and relational outcomes of their various segments.
5.3. Limitations and future research
This research has several limitations and suggests a number of
areas for future research. One limitation is the studys reliance on
self-reported measures of social relatedness in determining the
impact of social relatedness on engagement and relational outcomes. Although this study provides valuable insight into understanding the role of social relational marketing programs, it did not
directly measure the impact of relational programs in social media.
Future research should directly investigate empirically the impact
of social relational programs in the context of social media. The
results of such an investigation could replicate the ndings of this
study and further contribute to developing a richer classication of
social media marketing programs that prompt consumers to
engage with brands according to their motivational drivers.
Another important area for future research involves examining
contextual factors that could possibly inuence the impact of social
relatedness. For example, a promising avenue relates to investigating a cross-cultural approach to social relatedness. Social relatedness may be perceived as more important in collectivistic
cultures in which people place high value on interrelatedness with
others (Kim, Sohn, & Choi, 2011; Sheldon, Elliot, Kim, & Kasser,
2001) than in individualistic cultures in which people place value

E. Kim, M. Drumwright / Computers in Human Behavior 63 (2016) 970e979

on their independence and separateness from others. Future

research should therefore examine the role of social relatedness in
consumer engagement across different cultures in which consumers perceived value of relatedness may differ.
Because a consumers relationship with a given brand may be an
important predictive variable of her behavior in following other
brands in social media (Kim, Sung, & Kang, 2014), more research is
warranted to control for potential confounding effects in relation to
consumer-brand relationship outcomes in the context of social
media. To control for the effects of consumer relationships with
brands, it would be of great value to study the effects of social
relatedness among followers of a specic single brand in social
media. Such an investigation could provide a more accurate
assessment of the role of social relatedness in social media in
fostering consumer engagement for a specic brand.
Finally, it is important to replicate the current ndings in diverse
social media contexts in which social relatedness is experienced in
various ways arising from the nature of different media environments. For example, the effects of social relatedness could be
investigated in various types of social media in which consumers
have established varying degrees of trust in social media technology
and its media structure (McKnight et al., 2002). Another important
area of future research is to expand the framework of this study from
a focus on commercial brands to non-commercial brands utilizing
social media to promote social causes. Nonprot and government

Perceived social relatedness

Engagement

Consuming engagement intention

Contributing engagement intention

Satisfaction

Affective commitment

Control mutuality

Competence trust

Benevolence/integrity trust

Autonomy need satisfaction

Competence need satisfaction

977

organizations increasingly are turning to social media because of

their tight communication budgets and the relatively low cost of
social media programs (Lovejoy & Srdaxton, 2012).

6. Conclusion
This study extends and augments knowledge about the mechanism underlying consumer engagement and relationship building
in a social media environment. It increases our understanding of
the theory of self-determination and the importance of intrinsic vs.
extrinsic motivations among consumers in social media. It demonstrates both the power of social media marketing programs that
foster social relatedness among extrinsically motivated consumers
and the limits of these same marketing programs among consumers who are intrinsically motivated. As such, it enables marketers to utilize their social media marketing resources more
effectively by understanding consumers motivations underlying
their participation in brand-activities in social media. Yet much
remains to be learned regarding the unique and burgeoning capabilities of social media.

Appendix. Operationalization of variables

While engaging in the brand activity in social media, I felt

A sense of contact with other people in social media.
Close and connected with other consumers because of a shared interest.
A strong sense of intimacy with the people in my social network.
When I engage in such brand activity in social media, I enjoy it very much.
The brand activity in social media is fun.
I would describe the brand activity as very interesting.
While engaging in such brand activity in social media, I think about how much I enjoy doing it.
The brand activity does not hold my attention*.
I intend to view pictures of the brand or product in social media.
I intend to watch videos about the brand or product in social media.
I intend to read the brands posts, user comments, or product reviews.
I intend to like or follow the brand pages (e.g., becoming a fan of or following).
I intend to engage in conversations about the brand (e.g., commenting, asking questions, and sharing questions).
I intend to share the brands posts (e.g., videos, audio, pictures, or texts) on my own social media page.
I intend to recommend brand-related content to my social media contacts (e.g., retweeting).
I intend to upload brand-related videos, audio, pictures, or images.
I am happy with the brand activity in social media.
Both the brand and consumers like me benet from our relationship in social media.
Most consumers like me are happy in their interactions with this brand in social media.
Generally speaking, I am pleased with the relationship this brand has established with consumers like me in social media.
Most consumers enjoy engaging in activities for this brand in social media.
While engaging in the brand activity in social media, I felt
A sense of community from engaging in the brand activity.
Emotionally attached from engaging in the activity.
A strong sense of belonging from engaging in the activity.
The brand and consumers like me are attentive to what each other say.
The brand believes the opinions of consumers like me are legitimate.
The brand has a tendency to throw its weight around.
The brand really listens to what consumers like me have to say.
The management of the brand gives consumers like me enough say in the decisionemaking process.
The brand is competent at serving consumers like me.
The brand has the ability to meet consumer needs.
The brand seems to be successful in the activities they undertake.
I feel the brand would act in consumers best interests.
The brand would do their best to help consumers.
The brand is interested in consumers well-being, not just their own well-being.
While engaging in the brand activity in social media, I felt
I made a lot of decisions on my own.
I had a lot to say about what happened and could voice my opinion.
I had exibility in my activity.
While engaging in the brand activity in social media, I felt
It was entirely within my control.
(continued on next page)

978

E. Kim, M. Drumwright / Computers in Human Behavior 63 (2016) 970e979

(continued )

Brand involvement
Brand identication

Communal relationship orientation

Note:

I felt competent.
It was well within the scope of my abilities.
I am particularly interested in the brand.
Overall, I am quite involved when I am purchasing the brand for personal use.
The brand says a lot about the kind of person I am.
The brands image and my self-image are similar in many respects.
The brand plays an important role in my life.
The brand says a lot about the kind of person I am.
I will support the brand to see them succeed.
I will support the brand because I want to.
The brands success will make me happy.
I will support the brand if they need help from consumers like me.
I feel good when I support the brand.
I pay attention to the brands needs.
I care about the brands success.

Reversed scale.

References
Algesheimer, R., Dholakia, U. M., & Herrmann, A. (2005). The social inuence of
brand community: Evidence from European car clubs. Journal of Marketing,
69(3), 19e34.
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1996). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment
to the organization: An examination of construct validity. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 49(3), 252e276.
Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined communities: Reections on the origin and spread of
nationalism. London: Verso.
Anderson, R., Manoogian, S. T., & Reznick, J. S. (1976). The undermining and
enhancing of intrinsic motivation in preschool children. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 34(5), 915e922.
Baird, C. H., & Parasnis, G. (2011). From social media to social customer relationship
management. Strategy & Leadership, 39(5), 30e37.
Bansal, H. S., Irving, P. G., & Taylor, S. F. (2004). A three-component model of
customer to service providers. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
32(3), 234e250.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal
attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117,
497e529.
Bergami, M., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2000). Self-categorization, affective commitment and
group self-esteem as distinct aspects of social identity in the organization.
British Journal of Social Psychology, 39(4), 555e577.
Bock, G. W., & Kim, Y. G. (2001). Breaking the myths of rewards: An exploratory
study of attitudes about knowledge sharing. Pacis 2001 Proceedings, 78,
1112e1125.
Carlson, B. D., Suter, T. A., & Brown, T. J. (2008). Social versus psychological brand
community: The role of psychological sense of brand community. Journal of
Business Research, 61(4), 284e291.
Celsi, R. L., & Olson, J. C. (1988). The role of involvement in attention and
comprehension processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 210e224.
Chandrashekaran, R. (2004). The inuence of redundant comparison prices and
other price presentation formats on consumers evaluations and purchase intentions. Journal of Retailing, 80(1), 53e66.
Chen, G. M. (2011). Tweet this: A uses and gratications perspective on how active
Twitter use graties a need to connect with others. Computers in Human
Behavior, 27(2), 755e762.
Connell, J. P., & Wellborn, J. G. (1991). Competence, autonomy, and relatedness: A
motivational analysis of self-system processes. In M. R. Gunnar, & L. A. Sroufe
(Eds.), Minnesota symposium on child psychology (Vol. 23, pp. 43e77). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Deci, E. L., Eghrari, H., Patrick, B. C., & Leone, D. R. (1994). Facilitating internalization:
The self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Personality, 62, 119e142.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human
behavior. New York: Plenum.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The what and why of goal pursuits: Human
needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4),
227e268.
Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motivation and education: The self-determination perspective. Educational Psychologist, 26(3e4),
325e346.
Dholakia, U. M. (2006). How customer self-determination inuences relational
marketing outcomes: Evidence from longitudinal eld studies. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(1), 109e120.
Ellison, N. B., Steineld, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benets of Facebook friends:
Social capital and college students use of online social network sites. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1143e1168.
Evans, D., McKee, J., & Bratton, S. (2010). Social media and customer engagement. In
Social media marketing: The next generation of busines engagement (pp. 3e21).
John Wiley & Sons.
Gangadharbatla, H. (2008). Facebook me: Collective self-esteem, need to belong,

and Internet self-efcacy as predictors of the igenerations attitudes toward

social networking sites. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 8(2), 5e15.
Grouzet, F. M. E., Vallerand, R. J., Thill, E. E., & Provencher, P. J. (2004). From environmental factors to outcomes: A test of an integrated motivational sequence.
Motivation and Emotion, 28(4), 331e346.
Hoffman, D. L., & Novak, T. (2013). The social life of content: How negative motivations
to interact with content-focused pursuits can lead to positive feelings in social
media.
Retrieved
from
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?.
abstractid2371461.
Hon, L. C., & Grunig, J. E. (1999). Guidelines for measuring relationships in public
relations. The Institute for Public Relations. Retrieved from http://www.aco.
nato.int/resources/9/conference%202011/guidelines_measuring_relationships%
5B1%5D.pdf.
Hung, S. Y., Durcikova, A., Lai, H. M., & Lin, W. M. (2011). The inuence of intrinsic
and extrinsic motivation on individuals knowledge sharing behavior. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 69(6), 415e427.
Johnson, J. W., & Grimm, P. E. (2010). Communal and exchange relationship perceptions as separate constructs and their role in motivations to donate. Journal
of Consumer Psychology, 20(3), 282e294.
Kim, Y., Sohn, D., & Choi, S. M. (2011). Cultural difference in motivations for using
social network sites: A comparative study of American and Korean college
students. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 365e372.
Kim, E., Sung, Y., & Kang, H. (2014). Brand followers retweeting behavior on
Twitter: How brand relationships inuence brand electronic word-of-mouth.
Computers in Human Behavior, 37, 18e25.
Kwon, E. S., Kim, E., Sung, Y., & Yoo, C. Y. (2014). Brand followers: Consumer motivations and attitudes toward brand communications on Twitter. International
Journal of Advertising, 33(4), 657e680.
La Guardia, J., Ryan, R. M., Couchman, C., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Within-person variation in security of attachment: A self-determination theory perspective on
attachment, need fulllment, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 79, 367e384.
Lovejoy, K., & Srdaxton, G. D. (2012). Information, community, and action: How
nonprot organizations use social media. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, 17, 337e353.
Mathwick, C., & Rigdon, E. (2004). Play, ow, and the online search experience.
Journal of Consumer Research, 31(2), 324e332.
McAuley, E., Duncan, T., & Tammen, V. V. (1989). Psychometric properties of the
intrinsic motivation inventory in a competitive sport setting: A conrmatory
factor analysis. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 60(1), 48e58.
McKnight, D. H., Choudhury, V., & Kacmar, C. (2002). Developing and validating
trust measures for e-commerce: An integrative typology. Information Systems
Research, 13(3), 334e359.
Meuter, M. L., Bitner, M. J., Ostrom, A. L., & Brown, S. W. (2005). Choosing among
alternative service delivery modes: An investigation of customer trial of selfservice technologies. Journal of Marketing, 69(2), 61e83.
Morgan-Thomas, A., & Veloutsou, C. (2013). Beyond technology acceptance: Brand
relationships and online brand experience. Journal of Business Research, 66(1),
21e27.
Muntinga, D. G., Moorman, M., & Smit, E. G. (2011). Introducing COBRAs: Exploring
motivations for brand-related social media use. International Journal of Advertising, 30(1), 13e46.
Park, N., Jin, B., & Jin, S. A. (2011). Effects of self-disclosure on relational intimacy in
Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(5), 1974e1983.
Patrick, H., Ryan, A. M., & Kaplan, A. (2007). Early adolescents perceptions of the
classroom social environment, motivational beliefs, and engagement. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 99, 83e98.
Pfeil, U., Arjan, R., & Zaphiris, P. (2009). Age differences in online social
networkingeA study of user proles and the social capital divide among
teenagers and older users in MySpace. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(3),
643e654.
Richins, M. L., & Bloch, P. H. (1986). After the new wears off: The temporal context of
product involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 280e285.

E. Kim, M. Drumwright / Computers in Human Behavior 63 (2016) 970e979

Ridings, C. M., Gefen, D., & Arinze, B. (2002). Some antecedents and effects of trust
in virtual communities. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 11(3e4),
271e295.
Ryan, R. M. (1982). Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: An
extension of cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 450e461.
Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization:
Examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 57, 749e761.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000a). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic denitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54e67.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000b). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of
intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist,
55(1), 68e78.
Ryan, R. M., & Grolnick, W. S. (1986). Origins and pawns in the classroom: Selfreport and projective assessments of individual differences in childrens perceptions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 550e558.
Sheldon, K. M., Abad, N., & Hinsch, C. (2001). A two-process view of Facebook use
and relatedness need-satisfaction: Disconnection drives use, and connection
rewards it. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(4), 766e775.

979

Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1999). Goal striving, need satisfaction, and longitudinal
well-being: The self-concordance model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 546e557.
Sheldon, K. M., Elliot, A. J., Kim, Y., & Kasser, T. (2001). What is satisfying about
satisfying events? Testing 10 candidate psychological needs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(2), 325e339.
Sweetser, K. D. (2010). A losing strategy: The impact of nondisclosure in social
media on relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research, 22(3), 288e312.
Teichmann, K., Stokburger-Sauer, N. E., Plank, A., & Strobl, A. (2015). Motivational
drivers of content contribution to company-versus consumer-hosted online
communities. Psychology & Marketing, 32(3), 341e355.
Tsai, W. H. S., & Men, L. R. (2013). Motivations and antecedents of consumer
engagement with brand pages on social networking sites. Journal of Interactive
Advertising, 13(2), 76e87.
Wong, E. (2010). Why more brands are dangling incentives on Facebook. Adweek.
Retrieved from http://www.adweek.com/news/advertising-branding/whymore-brands-are-dangling-incentives-facebook-107921.
Zhang, Y., Xu, J., Jiang, Z., & Huang, S. C. (2011). Been there, done that: The impact of
effort investment on goal value and consumer motivation. Journal of Consumer
Research, 38(1), 78e93.