Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Journal of Interactive Marketing 32 (2015) 70 – 88
www.elsevier.com/locate/intmar

Of “Likes” and “Pins”: The Effects of Consumers' Attachment to

Social Media
Rebecca A. VanMeter a,⁎& Douglas B. Grisaffe b & Lawrence B. Chonko b
a
Department of Marketing, Miller College of Business, Ball State University, Muncie, IN 47306, United States
b
Department of Marketing, College of Business, The University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX 76019, United States

Available online 10 November 2015

Abstract

Marketing researchers and practitioners are showing substantial interest in social media communication, trying to understand the challenges and
opportunities associated with this new cultural and social phenomenon. In this research, the authors examine social media as a new attachment
phenomenon, positing likely predictive links to marketing-related social media behaviors. Researchers have demonstrated useful applicability of
psychological attachment theory to a variety of other marketing contexts, including special possessions, places, brands, and services. Attachment to
such varied focal targets has been shown to influence behaviors of interest to marketers. However, research to date has yet to develop a
conceptualization or operationalization of attachment in the social media context. The authors seek to contribute to the literature in two primary
ways: first, we provide a foundational definition of attachment to social media, and conduct four initial studies to develop a measure that meets
desired reliability and validity standards. Secondly, in a fifth study, we use this validated measure to test its empirical usefulness in predicting social
media behaviors in an applied retail setting. Taken together, the results are particularly valuable in demonstrating that attachment to social media is
a distinct, measurable phenomenon that helps to explain various activities on social media platforms, including C2C advocacy and C2B supportive
communication behaviors. Results reveal practical guidance for marketing managers wrestling with developing effective social media marketing
strategies.
© 2015 Direct Marketing Educational Foundation, Inc., dba Marketing EDGE. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Social media; Attachment theory; Scale development; Attachment behaviors; Social media advocacy; Social media support

Introduction hand, one influencer can drive thousands of potential customers

Social media has become an important new cultural and
social phenomenon, changing the way millions of people and
businesses connect and communicate. Academic researchers
and practitioners in marketing are showing substantial interest
in this new form of communication, trying to understand the
challenges and opportunities associated with social media.
According to Jim Davis, Sr., Vice President and CMO of SAS,
“just a few years ago, we were talking about the information
revolution — today, we are witnessing a social media
revolution. For business, it's a double-edged sword. On one
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: vanmeter@bsu.edu (R. VanMeter), grisaffe@uta.edu
(D.B. Grisaffe), lchonko@uta.edu (L.B. Chonko).
(or more) to a website or store. On the other hand, that same
influencer can spread his or her dissatisfaction and erode your
brand equity and profitability” (Gillan 2010). Social media is
thus radically changing the communication landscape. The
average American now spends an average of 3.2 hours a day,
or 22.4 hours a week, on social networking sites. This is not
limited to young users. Those 35–49 spend an average of
21 hours per week, and those 50–64 spend an average of
17 hours a week on social media (Ipsos 2013). Even the first
lady of the United States has used social media to engage in
“hashtag activism” (e.g., #BringBackOurGirls).
Social media has also become a major focus in corporate
marketing strategy. According to the 2014 Social Media
Industry Report (Stelzner 2014), 97% of companies are using
some form of social media to market their business. However,
only about a third of them feel like they are doing so efficiently,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2015.09.001
1094-9968/© 2015 Direct Marketing Educational Foundation, Inc., dba Marketing EDGE. All rights reserved.
 R.A. VanMeter et al. / Journal of Interactive Marketing 32 (2015) 70–88
indicating a disconnect between what marketing managers
believe they should be doing and knowing exactly what to do to
leverage social media. This poses a serious problem since ef-
fective marketing strategy depends upon concentrating re-
sources optimally against well-specified activities to increase
sales and create sustainable competitive advantage (Aaker
2008). Without a clear course of action to incorporate social
media into marketing strategy, most C-suite officers will be left
wanting regarding the link between social media marketing
efforts and return on marketing investment.
Academic research also has begun investigating various
social media phenomena including personality traits of those
who use social media (Ehrenberg et al. 2008), how use of social
media impacts the individual (Valkenburg, Peter, and Schouten
2006), as well as a host of brand-related (Gensler et al. 2013;
Hollebeek, Glynn, and Brodie 2014; Labrecque 2014; Naylor,
Lamberton, and West 2012) and organization related issues
(Blazevic et al. 2014; Rapp et al. 2013; Wang, Yu, and Wei
2012).
The motivation of our research adds to this growing literature
and stems from an interest in the core ingredient of social media,
the individual actor (Peters et al. 2013). Therefore, in our
research, we undertake a new direction in marketing-related
social media research, seeking a strong theoretical understanding
of psychological connections consumers may be forming with
social media and how this connection subsequently impacts
various consumer behaviors. Are some people forming espe-
cially strong bonds with social media itself? If so, does that
stronger affinity manifest in social media behaviors that are
important to marketers? Prior research has shown that people
develop attachments to various “targets” of attachment, includ-
ing places (e.g., Brocato, Baker, and Voorhees 2014), people
(e.g., Bowlby 1979), and brands (e.g., Thomson, MacInnis, and
Park 2005). Social media now powerfully enables connection
and interaction with these attachment foci (Wilcox and Stephen
2013). It seems plausible that individuals may develop an
attachment to the conduit itself, since social media facilitates
their interaction with other attachment target(s). As has been
historically demonstrated with other attachment research (e.g.,
Hazan and Zeifman 1999), attachment manifests itself in various
behavioral outcomes or consequences. Behavioral manifestation
of social media attachment could involve elevated activity in
social media dialogues, postings, viewings, sharings, etc., many
of which could support important marketing outcomes.
The current research makes three key contributions in both
attachment theory and social media research. First, we extend
attachment theory's role in marketing to the domain of social
media by demonstrating that individuals exhibit variation in
their attachment to social media. Second, we provide an em-
pirically validated measure that captures quantitative variation
in attachment to social media. Third, and most importantly, we
empirically demonstrate that ASM has distinct behavioral im-
plications. Attachment to social media more accurately predicts
consumer behaviors, advocacy, and supportive communication
back to the organization above attitude toward social media and
time spent on social media. Beyond their theoretical signifi-
cance, the results have significant managerial implications,
71
offering that attachment to social media is predictive of
consumer's social media behaviors. As far as we are aware,
this is the first article to examine attachment to social media,
this set of behavioral outcomes in the social media context, and
it is the first to demonstrate these effects in relation to attitude
toward social media and time spent on social media.
Theoretical Background
Key Concepts
Before presenting our conceptualizations and hypotheses, we
define two key components of our research. First, in order to
define attachment to social media (ASM) we leverage the existing
definitions from prior multi-disciplinary work on attachment
(Bowlby 1979; Brocato, Baker, and Voorhees 2014; Park et al.
2010; Thomson, MacInnis, and Park 2005). The common core
among these definitions is the strength of the bond between the
person and the attachment object. Therefore, we define attachment
to social media (ASM) simply as the strength of a bond between a
person and social media. Secondly, social media in this paper is
defined as an interactive platform that allows social actors to create
and share in multi-way, immediate, and contingent communica-
tions (Kietzmann et al. 2011; Peters et al. 2013). The focus is on
social media as a holistic phenomenon, rather than on one specific
social media platform or another (e.g., Facebook, Instagram).
Other research, such as Hollebeek, Glynn, and Brodie (2014), has
related to the brand in the context of social media. Hollebeek,
Glynn, and Brodie 2014 scale is specific to a “brand” of social
media, whereas, our scale is a psychological individual-level
difference factor with an unbranded medium.
Recent research has also taken a holistic approach (e.g.,
Rapp et al. 2013). Justification for this stance ties to the external
reality that social media is continuously evolving — new
platforms arise and old platforms become out of vogue. There-
fore for our purposes we wish to investigate attachment to
social media rather than attachment to a specific social media
platform. Our approach could be adapted in future research if
researchers seek to study attachment to a specific platform of
interest (e.g., Pinterest). With definitions of ASM and social
media in hand, we now present the theoretical logic underlying
our investigation.
Attachment Theory
Attachment theory has been particularly useful in psychol-
ogy and marketing, and we posit that it also offers an excellent
framework to investigate peoples' growing psychological con-
nections with social media. Thus in this paper, we use attach-
ment theory to test consumers' attraction to social media and
examine behavioral consequences of that attachment such as
being an advocate of a brand or company via social media
and interacting with brands and companies on social media.
Explication of this ASM construct contributes theoretically by
extending attachment theory into the domain of social media.
Originally, attachment theory described strong “bonds” be-
tween mothers and infants attachment that met fundamental
72 R.A. VanMeter et al. / Journal of Interactive Marketing 32 (2015) 70–88
needs for safety and security through maintenance of proximity
(Ainsworth and Bell 1970; Bowlby 1969). This theory has been
generalized to other relationships, such as with friends (Trinke
and Bartholomew 1997), romantic partners (Hazan and Shaver
1994), and celebrities (Thomson 2006). In marketing, researchers
have studied the development of attachments to tangible objects
such as gifts (Mick and DeMoss 1990), collectables (Slater
2001), or other types of special or favorite objects (Ball and
Tasaki 1992; Kleine, Kleine, and Allen 1995). More recently,
research in marketing has focused on emotional attachment to
brands (Park et al. 2010; Thomson, MacInnis, and Park 2005),
retail places (Brocato, Baker, and Voorhees 2014), as well as
attachment in intangible service marketing contexts (Mende,
Bolton, and Bitner 2013).
In this paper, we extend the trend toward a broader set of
potential attachment foci by proposing that consumers also
become attached to social media. In that social media prominently
facilitates people “connecting” with other people, as well as
connections with organizations, causes, companies and brands, it
logically could be a new medium by which individuals find
relationships that offer comfort, safety and security. As in other
domains, we also propose that this psychological attachment then
results in a variety of behavioral outcomes, several of which are
especially relevant to marketers.
For example, attachments have been shown to manifest in a
particularly salient classical behavioral consequence, separation
distress (e.g., Bowlby 1980; Hazan and Zeifman 1999; Thomson,
MacInnis, and Park 2005). This outcome involves the distress
that attached individuals feel when there is an actual or threatened
separation from the attachment figure (Park et al. 2010). For
example, young children may exhibit emotional distress when
taken to a daycare facility or when a babysitter arrives. The
threat of, or actual separation from, the attachment figure evokes
distress. In the same way we would expect individuals who
are attached to social media to express psychological distress at
the threat of separation from social media. Therefore, our first
attachment-focused hypothesis regarding social media follows
from this classic outcome of separation distress (Park et al. 2010):
H1. Individuals who are more strongly attached to social media
will express more distress under threat of separation from social
media than those who are less attached to social media.
In a marketing context, individuals with strong attachments
to social media might experience distress if their lifeline to
social reference information about products, services, or organi-
zations was suddenly inaccessible.
Marketing-related Outcomes of Attachment to Social Media
Social media marketing is expected to make up 21.4% of
marketing budgets by 2019 (Soat 2014). However, 63% of
marketers are currently unsure of how social media marketing
is impacting their ROI (Stelzner 2014). Why are marketers
willing to continue investing in social media marketing efforts
if the return is so elusive? Part of the issue may be the sense
of unrealized potential present in this new form of media.
Marketing researchers in particular are grappling with how social
media impacts areas such as brand management (Gensler et al.
2013); consumer brand engagement (Hollebeek, Glynn, and
Brodie 2014; Labrecque 2014); consumers' purchase intentions
(e.g., Wang, Yu, and Wei 2012); consumer self-control (Wilcox
and Stephen 2013); brand perceptions (e.g., Naylor, Lamberton,
and West 2012); seller, retailer, and consumer interactions
(Blazevic et al. 2014; Rapp et al. 2013); the appropriateness
of viral marketing via social media for various product types
(Schulze, Schöler, and Skiera 2014); as well as company ROI
(e.g., Hoffman and Fodor 2010). According to J. Walker Smith,
executive chairman of the London-based marketing consultancy
The Futures Company and a Marketing News columnist, “we are
still in the learning phase of social media. The presumption
across the industry is that social media is the TV of tomorrow, so
it is risky to put off getting to scale with digital investments, even
if there is still a lot to learn.”
Marketers sense that social media is a catalyst to capitalize
on customer generated word-of-mouth (WOM); however, very
little empirical evidence exists to support this intuition. Positive
WOM has a long history of attention as a kind of customer-
generated marketing effort by which new customer acquisition
is facilitated (de Matos and Rossi 2008). Social media has the
potential for exponentially higher degrees of positive WOM
within and across large numbers of socially networked individ-
uals. The cost and scope of reach in facilitating WOM on social
media becomes very compelling. If attachment to social media
is predictive of WOM on social media, there would be great
practical value in this insight as a driver of a critical marketing
phenomenon of interest.
Likewise, relationship marketing emphasizes payoffs for
establishing and maintaining relationships with customers. This
is no longer just one-way communication from a business to the
consumer (B2C). Social media now offers a powerful way for
customers to not only proactively and regularly communicate
with companies and brands via social media (C2B), but also
from consumers to other consumers (C2C). If such C2C and
C2B processes occur in higher degrees among individuals who
are more strongly attached to social media, the study of social
media attachment phenomenon and its resultant behavioral
consequences has very important implications for marketing.
Thus, we explore ASM in relation to social media: C2C advocacy
and supportive C2B communication with organizations.
It has long been recognized that WOM advocacy is important
in the growth and vibrancy of brands (Brown et al. 2005). This
WOM advocacy is affected by emotion (Berger and Milkman
2012), is used to gain personal and social benefits (Alexandrov,
Lilly, and Babakus 2013), and when communicated on social
media, may be used by consumers to help make their purchasing
decisions (Pan and Chiou 2011). Therefore, consumer advocacy
is especially relevant and timely in social media research because
social media has opened new ways for customers to direct com-
munication with each other (C2C communication) to specifically
discuss a company or brand. Part of the potential power here is
that social media allows C2C communication to occur in a
one-to-many format. One consumer's post can communicate
information and sentiment to hundreds of other consumers
 R.A. VanMeter et al. / Journal of Interactive Marketing 32 (2015) 70–88
instantaneously. Thus, we consider advocacy via social media to
be a very important phenomenon to marketers and posit that
higher degrees of social media based WOM are more likely to
occur for those who are more strongly attached to social media.
Specifically, we hypothesize:
H2. Individuals who are more strongly attached to social media
will engage in more C2C advocacy via social media than those
who are less attached to social media.
In the same way that social media enhances consumers'
ability to communicate with other consumers, it is also in-
creasingly recognized as a way for businesses to listen to con-
sumer feedback (Agnihotri et al. 2012). One way companies
can field consumer feedback is when consumers directly and
proactively communicate with organizations via social media
(C2B). Consumers might do so for the purposes of com-
menting, complaining, commending, or otherwise supporting
the organization. In this paper we focus on support for the
organization, because it is a more positive and active form of
behavior meant to help the organization (Bettencourt 1997)
rather than merely a passive and reactive response by cus-
tomers. We view consumer support of an organization as a
particularly valuable form of C2B communication enabled by
social media.
Customer supportive behaviors have been examined in
contexts involving service organizations (e.g., Bettencourt
1997) and concepts from that line of research are transferrable
to social media research. Social media offers a fast and
effective means for consumers to communicate to organiza-
tions and has a high level of applied marketing relevance.
Recent research shows that 83% of marketers are specifically
interested in engaging their audience via social media
(Stelzner 2014). We posit here that those who are more
strongly attached to social media are likely to engage in C2B
help and support to a greater degree than those who are less
attached to social media. Therefore, we hypothesize the
following:
H3. Individuals who are more strongly attached to social
media will engage in more C2B supportive communication
behaviors than those who are less attached to social media.
Finally, attachment theory indicates that attached individuals
spend significantly more time and effort to be in proximity to
the targets of their attachment (Hazan and Zeifman 1999).
Those who are more strongly attached to social media are likely
to have more activity on social media than those who are less
attached. For example, in the social media realm, this could
involve more posting, tweeting, reading of others' posts, and
other socially-related behaviors than others. From a marketing
perspective, those more strongly attached should be more likely
to do things like use social media to talk to others about a
brand, purchase something because of what they read on social
media, or engage in any number of other brand related
behaviors via social media. Accordingly, strong attachment to
social media likely results in more activity on social media not
73
only socially, but also in relation to consumer behaviors.
Therefore, we hypothesize the following:
H4a. Individuals who are more strongly attached to social
media will engage in notably more social-related activities on
social media than those who are less attached to social media.
H4b. Individuals who are more strongly attached to social
media will engage in notably more consumer-related activities
on social media than those who are less attached to social
media.
In the remainder of this paper, we test our four key hy-
potheses across a series of studies. Since application of attach-
ment theory to the social media context is new to the literature,
we first operationalize a measure of attachment to social media
(ASM). Then, we conduct additional studies to explore ASM as
a predictor of marketing-relevant social media behaviors. We
examine ASM in relation to C2C advocacy, C2B supportive
communication behaviors, and amount of social media activity
in social- and consumer-related life domains.
Method
Study 1
As per classically accepted psychometric procedures (e.g.,
Churchill 1979; DeVellis 2003), we first sought to generate and
test a broad pool of initial items aimed at tapping into the
proposed construct of attachment to social media.
Methodology
Participants and Design. We asked colleagues to contact
friends they felt were “frequent users” of social media, and to
request participation in a short informal survey. We sought to
obtain inputs from approximately twenty respondents in this
initial phase, being particularly interested in qualitative descrip-
tions about the role of social media in these individuals' lives.
Our aim was to gather elemental descriptions in respondents'
own words that would inform item generation.
We asked a series of four questions on 7-point Likert-type
scales: “Please indicate the degree to which you consider social
media to be part of your life; Please indicate how important social
media is in your life right now; How much would you agree or
disagree with this statement: Social Media brings meaning to my
life; and To what extent would you say you are emotionally
attached to social media?” Each item was followed by an open-
ended question asking respondents why they gave their particular
chosen rating. Ultimately, we acquired rich qualitative responses
from a convenience sample of 21 social media users (79%
female, average age 36, age range 27–59).
Item Generation. After collecting the qualitative responses,
thematic analysis was conducted on the textual data to classify
verbatims into dimensions based on the natural language of
respondents. We generated a set of working items by taking the
verbatims of respondents and transforming them into complete
74 R.A. VanMeter et al. / Journal of Interactive Marketing 32 (2015) 70–88
sentences that could be rated using Likert scales. This served as
a starting point for an initial item pool (Richins and Dawson
1992). The pool of items was then compared to extant social
media literature (e.g., Fennis, Pruyn, and Maasland 2005;
Hollenbeck and Kaikati 2012; Stephen and Galak 2012).
Additional items were generated for themes that could be
important based on the literature, but which had not been
explicitly mentioned in the exploratory research.
A preliminary set of 53 items was generated based on this
qualitative research and review of literature. Following item
purification practices (cf. Bearden, Hardesty, and Rose 2001;
Shimp and Sharma 1987) we ran several pretests of these items,
examining correlations, descriptive statistics, and item analyses
looking for early indications of potentially low communality,
ambiguity in the language that was used, and complexities in
the wording of our items that might represent more than one
underlying concept. Based on these early statistical explora-
tions and conceptual item analyses, improvements were made
to produce our initial working set of items aimed at accurately
reflecting the domain of interest.
We then utilized the key informant technique (Parasuraman,
Grewal, and Krishnan 2006) as a means of further refining the
initial item pool. We presented the working set of items to two
separate industry experts, asking for open-ended critique and
feedback. The aim was to get a preliminary check of face
validity and content validity, as well as a check of thoroughness
of the domain covered by the proposed set as a whole. Based on
the key informant expert inputs, the wording of a few items was
modified for clarity, and the proposed structure was expanded
to capture an additional theme one expert felt was missing.1 In
order to incorporate the missing theme, we developed additional
items using the language from the expert's description of the
missing subdimension.
Findings
Completion of this process resulted in a revised, starting
pool consisting of 45 items. Anticipating a reflective measure-
ment specification according to classical test theory (DeVellis
2003), overlapping statements were designed to reflect higher-
level themes from the item generation phase. For example, the
following items centered around the idea of nostalgia: “Using
social media makes me feel nostalgic about things that I have
done in the past; Sometimes social media reminds me of warm
memories from my past; I use social media to reconnect with
'the good old days'." Another example of a set of overlapping
items focused on social media's role in helping a person to stay
informed: “I use social media to see what other people's
opinions are on topics that are important to me; Social media
is one of the main ways I get information about others, and
Social media is one of my primary sources of information about
news.”
The ultimate output of Study 1 was an elementally developed,
key-informant-refined item pool. This was the starting point for
1
Influence via social media was the proposed missing dimension.
collection of quantitative data to further explore the structure of the
items, and to undertake item purification per accepted measure-
ment development practices (Churchill 1979; DeVellis 2003).
Study 2
Study 2 addressed three objectives: (1) to understand the
underlying structure of attachment to social media, (2) to
produce a purified set of items to measure those dimensions,
and (3) to test the purified subset for replicability and reliability
in a new sample. To accomplish these objectives, we collected
data from a first sample and conducted exploratory factor
analysis and item purification to arrive at a preliminary inter-
pretable set of dimensions. We then collected new data within a
non-student validation sample to enact a test of replicability of
the derived factor structure. Details of our procedures follow.
Methodology
Participants and Design. Two hundred thirty-eight under-
graduate business students (47% female, average age 24, age
range 18–49) completed an online survey in exchange for partial
course credit; twelve respondents were dropped because they did
not provide complete data. Secondly, we collected a replication
and validation sample from a distinct non-student population. As
part of an undergraduate marketing research course, about 900
faculty and staff across a southwestern university were contacted
to participate in an online survey. Participation was incentivized
with a drawing for one of seven $25 gift cards to one of five local
restaurants. Of those contacted, 328 began the survey and 226
faculty and staff (67% female, average age 44, age range 18–over
91) provided usable data.
Measures. The questionnaire first asked participants to in-
dicate the various social media platforms they use. Next,
participants responded to the working set of ASM items. Items
were randomized in blocks of nine to eleven questions, and
blocks were randomized in their presentation to respondents to
avoid the threat of order biases. All items were asked on 7-point
Likert scales (1 = “strongly disagree” to 7 = “strongly agree”).
Respondents also provided basic demographic information as
part of the survey.
Results
Factor Analyses. In the initial analysis sample, the 45 items
were subjected to exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with oblique
rotation2 using SPSS version 22. Several iterations of item
purification and re-analysis addressed issues of low loadings,
high cross-loading, low measures of sampling adequacy, a lack
of interpretability, or low communalities, to arrive at a solution
2
Both Varimax and Oblique rotations were run with each sample and
produced comparable results. The Oblique results are discussed within.
 R.A. VanMeter et al. / Journal of Interactive Marketing 32 (2015) 70–88
with statistical desiderata according to classical test theory (Hair
et al. 2010).3 The final working purified set contained 27 items
which factored to eight interpretable dimensions (Table 1). These
eight dimensions explained 79.6% of the variance in the data with
all communalities exceeding the .60 cut off (Hair et al. 2010). We
also examined the correlations between the obliquely rotated
dimensions in anticipation of a test of a second-order construct
specification (see Appendix A). A second-order structure for
overall construct measurement has been observed in the brand
attachment literature (e.g., Park et al. 2010; Thomson, MacInnis,
and Park 2005). Therefore, we believed that significantly cor-
related subdimensions would support further testing of a single
second-order conceptualization. As expected, all obliquely rotated
dimensions correlated positively and significantly. Alpha reliabil-
ity coefficients were computed for each factor and ranged from
.82 to .91, which is well within desired guidelines (Nunnally and
Bernstein 1994). We also computed an alpha reliability coefficient
across summated scales for the eight first-order factors considered
together. This preliminary view of a second-order structure also
demonstrated adequate reliability (α = .90) (Table 1).
Replication and Verification. The factor structure from the
initial item purification replicated in the non-student sample
(n = 226). The coefficients, communalities, and internal reliabil-
ities of the 27 items with eight subdimensions were thus verified
in a more generalizable replication sample (Table 1). The eight
dimensions explained 88.2% of the variance in the non-student
replication, with all communalities exceeding the .60 acceptabil-
ity cut off (Hair et al. 2010). The internal consistency of all
subdimensions was .80 or higher. A single second-order factor
indicated by the first-order dimensions also demonstrated internal
reliability with Cronbach's alpha of .93.
The results from the factor analyses provided empirical
evidence in support of eight first-order factors and collectively
one second-order factor.4 The eight first-order subdimensions
are named and defined as follows (see Table 1): the first factor,
Connecting, reflects respondents' use of social media to stay
3
We sought “simple structure” in which each variable loaded highly on one
and only one factor. Variables that cross-loaded were deleted one at a time and
the analysis re-run, per Hair et al. (2010). Besides seeking simple structure, we
also sought a solution with a sufficient number of factors to explain a large
proportion of variance in the item set. In addition to the variance explained
criterion, we also sought a solution that produced communalities of greater than
.50 for each retained item, anticipating a more rigorous future test with CFA. In
addition, we required interpretability for sets of items loading on retained
factors, particularly in light of the knowledge acquired in the item generation
phase of the research. We also tested the internal consistency reliability of each
face valid item set to ensure the solution produced reliable multi-item sets. The
final 8 factor solution had the clearest simple structure, the most interpretable
set of factors, strong communalities above the desired threshold, a high
percentage of variance explained for the solution as a whole, and internally
reliable multi-item sets. Examinations of solutions with more or less factors
were less ideal with respect to combined consideration of these criteria. See
Appendix B for the full pattern matrix for the non-student sample.
4
In both samples the Bartlett's test was statistically significant, the KMO was
above .9, and the individual measures of sampling adequacy for each item were
greater than .5 (Hair et al. 2010, see Appendix C). Collectively, these indicate
sufficient intercorrelation to justify EFA.
75
connected to others, for example, “I use social media because it
makes staying in touch with others convenient.” The second
factor, Nostalgia, taps into respondents' ability to use social
media in order to reconnect with people, places, and events
from the past, as when respondents agree with items such as,
“Sometimes social media reminds me of warm memories from
my past.” The third factor, Informed, deals with social media's
role in keeping the respondent informed about news and events,
for example, “Social media is one of the main ways I get
information about major events.” The fourth factor, Enjoyment,
reflects social media's role as a way for the respondent to
experience relaxation and enjoyment, illustrated by items such
as, “I use social media as a way for me to de-stress after a long
day.” The fifth factor, Advice, reflects respondents' ability to
seek forms of advice from others via social media. An example
item is, “If I'm unsure about an upcoming decision I get input
from friends on social media.” The sixth factor, Affirmation,
taps into respondents' ability to feel assured and supported
through their usage of social media, as demonstrated by the
following item, “It makes me feel accepted when people
comment on my social media posts.” The seventh factor,
Enhances My Life, demonstrates social media's role in making
respondents' lives better, for example, “Social media enhances
my life.” The eighth factor, Influence, taps into the ability to use
social media to encourage, influence, and help others. An
example item for this dimension is, “Sometimes I post things
just to have a positive effect on other peoples' moods.5”
Discussion
A refined set of 27 items was thus identified from the
original item pool of Study 2. These items reflect a multifaceted
structure consisting of eight subdimensions, preliminarily
considered as indicative of a second-order construct of attach-
ment to social media (ASM). Using an additional sample,
the initial findings replicated well and the dimensionality of
ASM was shown to be stable and verifiable in a non-student
sample.
Study 3
In Study 3, we sought additional psychometric evidence
regarding our operationalization while simultaneously starting
to focus on various social media outcomes of relevance to
marketers. Thus, the objective of Study 3 was threefold:
(1) to test the proposed second order structure of ASM with
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), (2) to test the proposed
structure against competing measurement models, and (3) to
begin to see how ASM relates to marketing relevant outcomes
5
The eight example items presented here may act as surrogates of their
respective first order factors, per Hair et al. (2010). Preliminary analyses show
these eight items to demonstrate favorable internal consistency as a set and to
share substantial variance with the full 27-item scale. As noted in the discussion
section, a focus for future research would be development of a short scale
version of ASM.
76 R.A. VanMeter et al. / Journal of Interactive Marketing 32 (2015) 70–88

Table 1
Study 2: Purification & replication sample.
Items Purification sample (n = 238) Replication sample (n = 226)
Mean Standard deviation Pattern coefficients Pattern coefficients
1. I use social media to interact with friends. 5.31 1.51 .82 .81
2. Social media provides a way for me to stay connected to people across 5.71 1.41 .80 .96
distances.
3. I use social media because it makes staying in touch with others 5.32 1.54 .80 .87
convenient.
4. Social media provides a way for me to keep in touch with others that I 5.42 1.46 .70 .77
care about.
Connecting (.92) (.95)
5. Social media allows me to look back at meaningful events, people, and 5.08 1.55 .78 .75
places from my past.
6. Using social media makes me feel nostalgic about things that I have 4.09 1.65 .75 .83
done in the past.
7. Sometimes social media reminds me of warm memories from my past. 4.66 1.58 .74 .71
Nostalgia (.82) (.93)
8. Social media is one of one of the main ways I get information about 3.76 1.49 .88 .85
major events.
9. Social media allows me to stay informed about events and news. 3.95 1.43 .88 .79
10. Social media is one of my primary sources of information about news. 3.40 1.59 .85 .88
Informed (.88) (.93)
11. I use social media as a way for me to de-stress after a long day. 4.29 1.77 .73 .76
12. I use social media to give myself a break when I've been busy. 5.07 1.56 .65 .84
13. Social media is an enjoyable way to spend time. 4.57 1.42 .44 .63
Enjoyment (.84) (.92)
14. I seek advice for upcoming decisions using social media. 3.10 1.63 .83 .77
15. I get advice about medical questions on social media. 2.26 1.39 .81 .89
16. If I'm unsure about an upcoming decision I get input from friends on 3.21 1.75 .81 .84
social media.
Advice (.83) (.91)
17. When others comment on my posts I feel affirmed. 4.22 1.62 .85 .85
18. When people respond to my posts in social media I feel like they care 3.55 1.36 .84 .90
about me.
19. It makes me feel accepted when people comment on my social media posts. 4.16 1.69 .82 .91
Affirmed (.91) (.95)
20. Social media makes my life a little bit better. 4.09 1.50 .75 .92
21. Social media enhances my life. 3.95 1.50 .70 .88
22. My life is a little richer because of social media. 3.78 1.66 .66 .92
Enhances My Life (.89) (.95)
23. Sometimes I post things just to have a positive effect on other peoples' 4.07 1.79 .88 .72
moods.
24. I post on social media to brighten other peoples' day. 3.89 1.75 .88 .70
25. I post things on social media that I think will be helpful to my friends' lives. 3.88 1.70 .85 .68
26. I want to inspire other people with my social media posts. 3.73 1.75 .79 .74
27. I think it is important to share things on social media so those I care 3.84 1.69 .58 .50
about stay informed.
Influence (.91) (.94)
EASM (.90) (.93)
Bolded numbers in parenthesis are the Cronbach's alpha. All items had the full range from 1–7.

by formally testing Hypotheses H1 regarding separation distress
(Bowlby 1980; Hazan and Zeifman 1999).
Methodology
Participants and Design. Two hundred forty-six undergrad-
uate business students (44% female, average age 24, age range
19–46) completed an online survey in exchange for partial
course credit. Of those, five responses were dropped because
they did not provide complete data, and thirty-two were
dropped because individuals reported not using social media
at all. The final sample contained two hundred and nine
respondents.
Measures. The 27 items for ASM and a set of 5 items
measuring separation distress were randomly presented in
blocks of five to ten items. The 27 ASM items (Table 1) were
measured on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = “Strongly Disagree”
to 7 = “Strongly Agree”). Regarding separation distress, we
adapted existing items from the literature (Fraley and Davis
 R.A. VanMeter et al. / Journal of Interactive Marketing 32 (2015) 70–88 77

Influence

Advice

Informed

Connecting
ASM
ASM
Enjoyment

Nostalgia

Affirmed

Enhances
My Life

a) Second-Order Structure b) Competing First-Order Structure

Influence

Influence

Advice
Advice
Cognitive
Informed
Informed

Connecting
Connecting

Enjoyment
Enjoyment

Nostalgia Affective Nostalgia

Affirmed Affirmed

EnhancesLife
Enhances My
Life

c) Competing Second-Order Structure d) Competing 8 Factor First-Order

Structure

Fig. 1. Study 3: Competing measurement model specification for ASM. a. Second-order structure. b. Competing first-order structure. c. Competing second-order
structure. d. Competing 8 factor first-order structure.
78 R.A. VanMeter et al. / Journal of Interactive Marketing 32 (2015) 70–88

1997; Hazan and Zeifman 1994) to appropriately reflect a Table 2

social media context (I would miss social media if I didn't have Study 3: Second-order CFA measurement model results.
it, social media would be hard for me to live without, I would be Loadings CR Ave
sad without social media). Additional items were adapted from Connecting .79 .88 .71
Park et al. (2010) who employed two separation distress items 1. Interact .85
measured on 11-point scales (anchored by 0 = “not at all” 2. Connected across distances .78
3. Convenient staying in touch .93
and 10 = “completely”) (to what extent would you be distressed
4. Keep in touch .81
if the social media you use were discontinued? and to what Nostalgia .88 .83 .70
extent is it difficult to imagine life without the social media you 5. Look back on past .87
use?). 6. Nostalgic .76
7. Warm memories from past .87
Informed .71 .87 .75
Results
8. Main ways get info .88
9. Stay informed .90
Measurement Model. Following previous second-order con- 10. Primary source of info .82
ceptualizations in the brand domain (Park et al. 2010; Thomson, Enjoyment .90 .83 .70
MacInnis, and Park 2005), we applied confirmatory factor 11. De-stress .81
12. Give myself a break .85
analysis (CFA) to test the appropriateness of a second-order 13. Enjoyable .85
ASM conceptualization in the social media domain (Fig. 1a). Advice .66 .78 .65
In this model, the 27 items loaded on 8 factors, which in turn 14. Upcoming decision .82
loaded on a single second-order factor, our ASM superordinate 15. Advice about medical .68
construct.6 All fit statistics for this model meet standard criteria 16. Unsure .90
Affirmed .81 .91 .81
(e.g., Hu and Bentler 1999): degrees of freedom [df] = 316;
17. Feel affirmed .87
chi-squared = 638.91; root mean square error of approximation 18. Feel cared about .91
[RMSEA] = .07; nonnormed fit index [NNFI] = .98; compara- 19. Feel accepted .92
tive fit index [CFI] = .98; and standardized root mean square Enhances My Life .86 .85 .72
residual [SRMR] = .066. Loadings for each of the items on the 20. Little bit better .87
21. Enhances .89
factors were statistically significant (p b .01). As reported in
22. Little richer .79
Table 2, the average variance extracted (AVE) and construct Influence .70 .91 .73
reliabilities (CR) all meet or exceed the minimum accepted 23. Positively effect others' moods .87
standards of .5 and .7 respectively (Fornell and Larcker 1981). 24. Brighten others' day .84
Subsequently, three competing measurement models (Hair 25. Helpful to friends' lives .89
26. Inspire others .89
et al. 2010) were estimated for comparative purposes, similar 27. Those I care about stay informed .79
to the approach taken in the emotional attachment to brands EASM .93 .63
literature by Thomson, MacInnis, and Park (2005) and Park et
Numbers in bold are the loadings to the second-order EASM factor.
al. (2010). The first model specified all the items as loading
on a single first-order latent factor, with none of the eight
subdimensions delineated (Fig. 1b). The second model tested a
competing second-order structure (Fig. 1c) in which dimensions adapted item had a statistically significant loading on the latent
of attachment to social media reflected either more cognitive or construct of separation distress, with loadings ranging between
more affective elements. The third model tested a first-order eight .76 and .94. The measure of separation distress is internally
subdimensions latent factor model (Fig. 1d). As the results show consistent α = .94. The average variance extracted (AVE) and
(Table 3), the proposed ASM second-order factor model fits the construct reliabilities (CR) all meet or exceed the minimum
data better than the three competing specifications. This provides
confirmatory support for the tenability of a second-order ASM
specification, with our eight first-order subdimensions.
Table 3
Study 3: Assessment of competing models.
Convergent and Criterion-related Validity With Separation
χ2 df RMESA NNFI CFI SRMR
Distress. Finally, we turn to the predictive ability of our
attachment measure against the classic attachment outcome of (b) One factor 3,163.93 324 .19 .80 .82 .11
(c) Two factors 1,746.57 323 .17 .90 .91 .01
separation distress. We therefore specified an SEM model to
(d) 8 1st order factors 1,542.78 324 .16 .91 .92 .38
test Hypothesis H1, relating ASM to social media separation (a) 2nd order 574.13 316 .06 .98 .98 .07
distress. Regarding measurement of separation distress, each
Δχ2
(b) vs (a) 2,589.8 (8) ⁎
(c) vs (a) 1,172.44 (7) ⁎
6 (d) vs (a) 968.65 (8) ⁎
Measure of sampling adequacy for this data are KMO = .904 and Bartlett's Test
of Sphericity was Approx. chi-square = 4027.367, df = 351, p-value ≤ .000. ⁎ p-Value b .001.
 R.A. VanMeter et al. / Journal of Interactive Marketing 32 (2015) 70–88
accepted standards of .5 and .7 respectively (Fornell and
Larcker 1981). The Fit statistics for the measurement model
including separation distress also met all the standard criteria (Hu
and Bentler 1999): chi-squared = 899.76 (454), RMSEA = .067,
NNFI = .98, CFI = .98, SRMR = .07.
With evidence supporting construct measurements, we then
examined the predicted associations of ASM with separation
distress. The path from ASM to this outcome is meaningfully
large and statistically significant, the standardized value is .70
(t-value = 11.04, p-value ≤ .001, Fig. 2). As expected, the
context-specific measure of social media attachment predicts
the context-adapted attachment outcome of separation distress
from social media. This provides further supporting psycho-
metric evidence for criterion-related validity (concurrent and
predictive), while at the same time providing an initial em-
pirical test of ASM's ability to predict marketing relevant
behavior. For marketing purposes, it is likely that those who do
not like to be disconnected from social media (i.e., separation
distress), would be more valuable target consumers for things
like being reached through social media campaigns and spreading
positive word-of-mouth via social media.
Discussion
Study 3 provides support for the second-order representation
of ASM with its eight subdimensions. That conceptualization
fits the data better than other model specifications. Further, we
provide evidence of support for ASM's criterion-related validity,
being strongly related to a key theory-based outcome of attach-
ment as represented in a social media context. Hypotheses
H1 is supported. Those who are more strongly attached to
Fig. 2. Study 3: Path from ASM to Separation Distress.
79
social media report higher levels of experiencing distress in the
form of negative emotions at the threat of separation from social
media.
With sufficient confidence in the ASM measure, and initial
support for predictive links to a classical attachment outcome,
we undertook studies 4 and 5 to examine ASM in relation to
additional social media activities that have specific practical
and managerial marketing implications.
Study 4
In Study 4, we explore ASM as a predictor of consumer
social media behaviors of direct relevance to marketing: C2C
advocacy of a company via social media (Hypothesis H2),
and C2B supportive communication behavior via social media
(Hypothesis H3). Regarding C2C advocacy, social media has
revolutionized consumers' power to communicate with and
influence others, vastly multiplying the number of people with
whom they can share criticism or commendation of products
and services in real-time. Regarding C2B supportive commu-
nication behaviors, social media has also opened important
new channels by which consumers can directly interact with
organizations. The trend toward collaborative marketing and
branding enables marketing managers to give consumers the
opportunity to post both favorable and unfavorable comments,
share photos, and provide ideas, feedback, and/or other input to
the organization via various social media platforms (Malär et al.
2011). In Study 4, we test ASM as a predictor of C2C and C2B
social media behaviors.
80 R.A. VanMeter et al. / Journal of Interactive Marketing 32 (2015) 70–88
We also address a plausible rival explanatory variable as
part of Study 4. We sought to differentiate ASM's predictive
power from a general measure of attitude toward social
media. A test of this difference has been important in previous
marketing-related applications of attachment theory (e.g., Park
et al. 2010). This comparison also provides an additional
test of discriminant validity for ASM while simultaneously
testing for the greater predictive power of a theory-driven
attachment scale as compared to a generic measure of favorable
attitude.
Methodology
Participants and Design. Data were collected as part of a
larger marketing research study in collaboration with a cluster
of restaurants that were newly built in a southwestern city that
borders a large urban university and an existing commercial
district. Members of several groups from the university and the
community were invited to participate in this study. Commu-
nity group administrators e-mailed a survey invitation to their
membership rosters on our behalf. We were not given access
to these confidential lists, nor their size. However, from this
invitation process, 146 community group members initially
responded (58% were female, average age 52, ranging from
20–83). Of these, 120 respondents had top-of-mind awareness
of the new restaurant cluster and of those 94 provided complete
data. For our purposes in Study 4, we focused on the non-
student, community member stakeholder group. We infused
several construct measures into the data collection effort with
this group.
Measures. The 27 items for ASM were assessed on 7-point
Likert scales (1 = “strongly disagree” to 7 = “strongly agree”).
To contrast ASM from a general measure of attitude toward
social media, participants also indicated on 6-point semantic
differential scales the extent to which they viewed social media
as “good” versus “bad,” “positive” versus “negative,” and the
extent to which they “like it” versus “dislike it” (Batra and
Stayman 1990).
Regarding dependent measures, we measured social media
based C2C advocacy by adapting four items from White and
Schneider (2000, see Table 4), keeping their 7-point rating scales
(1 = “describes me very well” and 7 = “does not describe me
well at all”). Regarding C2B social media supportive communi-
cation behaviors, we adapted Bettencourt's (1997, see Table 4)
voluntary participation measures because of their emphasis
on active involvement with and support for an organization.
We considered these items to be reflective of some of the
ways consumers could supportively communicate with organi-
zations via social media. Per Bettencourt (1997), each was
measured on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = “very likely” and 7 =
“very unlikely”).
Analytical Approach. C2C advocacy and C2B supportive
communication behavior served as two dependent variables
each measured with multiple-item indicators. Attachment to
Social Media (ASM) and general attitude toward social media
Table 4
Study 4: (a) Social media advocacy adapted from White and Schneider (2000).
(a) Social media advocacy adapted from White and Schneider (2000)
When people ask me for a recommendation about a restaurant, I use social
media to make a recommendation for this restaurant.
When I know someone is looking for a restaurant, I use social media to urge
them to check into this restaurant.
Without anyone even mentioning restaurants, I find myself telling others on
social media about the positive experiences I have had with this restaurant.
Because of my experiences with this restaurant, I try to convince friends, family, and
coworkers on social media to switch to this restaurant for their dinning needs.
(b) Social media supportive behaviors adapted from Bettencourt (1997)
I would use social media to let this restaurant know of ways that they can better
serve my needs.
I would use social media to make constructive suggestions to this restaurant on
how to improve their service.
If I have a useful idea on how to improve service, I would let this restaurant
know on social media.
When I experience a problem with this restaurant, I would say something to
them on social media so they can improve their service.
If I notice a problem, I would inform this restaurant on social media even if it
does not affect me.
If this restaurant's price is incorrect to my advantage, I would still use social
media to advise someone at the restaurant.
If I had a good experience with this restaurant I would say something to the
restaurant on social media.
(ATT) served as two independent variables, each also measured
with multiple-item indicators. We allowed ASM and ATT to
simultaneously compete for explanatory power in predicting
the C2C and C2B outcomes.
Our relatively small sample size precluded use of tradi-
tional structural equations modeling (SEM) for estimation
purposes and led us to select Partial Least Squares (PLS) as
a modeling approach better suited to smaller sample size
applications (Fornell and Bookstein 1982; Hair et al. 2010). We
used SmartPLS 2.0 (Ringle, Wende, and Will 2005) to conduct
the estimation. The SmartPLS program generates traditional
SEM measurement model statistics and also offers the ad-
vantage of a built-in empirical bootstrapping algorithm to
produce standard errors and statistical tests of the estimated
model parameters. Our estimated model for Study 4 is shown in
Fig. 3.7
Results
Outer Model Results. PLS-generated measurement model
statistics all met acceptable SEM standards. Regarding the
7
We also conducted parallel estimation with Multivariate Multiple Linear
Regression (Finn 1974; Lutz and Eckert 1994). While MMLR produced
equivalent statistical and substantive results we felt PLS offered superior
estimation given its ability to operationalize latent variables as multi-item
indicator constructs. Application of MMLR required computation of composite
variable indices prior to analysis.
 R.A. VanMeter et al. / Journal of Interactive Marketing 32 (2015) 70–88
Fig. 3. Study 4: ASM and ATT simultaneously predicting C2C and C2B social media behavioral intentions.
dependent constructs of C2C advocacy and C2B supportive
communication, AVEs were .85 and .73 respectively. AVEs for
the independent constructs of ASM and ATT were respectively
.52 and .88. Construct reliabilities (CR) were as follows: C2C
advocacy = .96; C2B supportive communication behaviors =
.95; ASM = .90; ATT = .96. Cronbach's alpha values for C2C
advocacy, C2B supportive communication behaviors, ASM,
and ATT were .94, .94, .87, and .94, respectively. The squared
correlation among each pair of constructs was always less than
the AVE values for the given constructs in the pair, indicating
reasonable support for discriminant validity. Further, the squared
correlation of ASM and ATT was .31, indicating sufficient and
substantial unique variance for a competing comparative test of
ASM and ATT in the inner model.8
Inner Model Results. Meaningful proportions of variance
were explained in both dependent variables of interest. The
PLS-reported R-square was .41 for C2C advocacy, and .36
for C2B supportive communication behaviors. Regarding the
structural paths of Fig. 3, attachment to social media (ASM)
showed sizable and statistically significant effects in predicting
C2C advocacy (γ = .588, bootstrap t = 7.05) and in predicting
C2B supportive communication behaviors (γ = .509, bootstrap
8
Multicollinearity diagnostics for this level of correlation among ASM and
ATT would be TOL = .643, VIF = 1.56. These are well below thresholds at
which any concerns arise regarding potential redundancy. ASM is sufficiently
distinct from general attitude toward social media. See Appendix D for
descriptive statistics and correlations among the variables in the model.
81
t = 5.09). Further, these ASM-related effects showed dominant
predictive power in contrast to general attitude toward social
media (ATT). ATT was non-significant in predicting both C2C
advocacy (γ = .129, bootstrap t = 1.24) and in predicting
C2B supportive communication behaviors (γ = .086, bootstrap
t = .710).
Discussion
In Study 4 we applied the ASM measure in an externally-valid
restaurant/retail context using a non-student sample. We predicted
marketing-relevant social media outcomes of C2C advocacy and
C2B supportive communication behaviors using ASM and a
competing explanatory variable of general attitude toward social
media. Our theory-driven measure of attachment to social media
showed significant and superior predictive power relative to a
generic measure of attitude toward social media. ASM signifi-
cantly predicts C2C and C2B social media behaviors even
after taking into account general attitude toward social media.
Additionally, general attitude toward social media does not in-
crementally predict C2C social media advocacy or C2B social
media supportive communication above and beyond the substan-
tial variance explained by ASM since results indicated that the
attitude measure was not statistically significant in predicting
either social media advocacy or supportive communication.
Study 4 further supports ASM's applied usefulness in a real
marketing context with a non-student sample. Hypotheses H2
and H3 were fully supported. Those who are more strongly
attached to social media showed greater propensity to express
positive C2C word-of-mouth via social media and higher levels
of C2B supportive communication behaviors via social media.
82 R.A. VanMeter et al. / Journal of Interactive Marketing 32 (2015) 70–88
These effects were not simply attributable to general attitudes
toward social media.
Study 5
Study 4 demonstrated that those who are more attached to
social media are more likely to interact with other consumers
via social media about a brand or organization, as well as more
likely to use social media to interact with the brand or or-
ganization itself. However, the dependent constructs in each
case involved scaled intention-type measures. In Study 5 we
seek to move past intention measures to outcomes involving
respondent self-reports of actual social media behaviors.
We developed two self-report behavioral checklists, one for a
general social life domain and one for a consumer-related life
domain. In each domain, a list of several possible social media
actions was provided. Participants were asked to respond with a
“check all that you've done in the last two weeks” approach. We
chose two substantially varied life domains to further confirm
the generalizability of ASM, while showing relevance not only
for social media in traditional interpersonal manifestations, but
also in consumer-related manifestations. Thus, we formally test
H4a and H4b proposing that those who are more strongly
attached to social media should be notably more behaviorally
active on social media, both in socially- and consumer-related
activities.
Additionally, we control for another rival predictor of these
two domains of outcome behaviors: general amount of time
spent on social media. Our reasoning was that more time spent
on social media logically could produce more behavioral
manifestations, but that more time spent did not necessarily
equate to greater affinity or attachment. By statistically including
a self-reported measure of time spent on social media, we
eliminate a rival hypothesis and model how attachment to social
media uniquely translates into social- and consumer-related
social media behaviors.
Methodology
Participants and Design. Two hundred fifty-eight undergrad-
uate business students (47% female, average age 24, age range
18–49) completed an online survey in exchange for partial
course credit. Thirty-six respondents were dropped because
they did not provide complete data leaving a working sample
size of 222.
Measures. Each respondent was asked which of several social
media platforms they currently use, and for those mentioned, to
report the average amount of time they spend per week on each
of these social media platforms. The respective amounts of time
were summed across all reported platforms for a total average
amount of time spent per week on social media. Additionally, the
survey contained the items measuring ASM asked with 7-point
Likert scales (1 = “strongly disagree” to 7 = “strongly agree”) in
the same manner used in our previous studies. Two distinct
checklists of social media actions were also presented to
respondents asking about their social media behaviors in social-
and consumer-related domains. For each domain, respondents
were asked to check all boxes that applied for any behaviors they
had engaged in during the previous two weeks (see Appendices
E and F). The more boxes a respondent checked in a given life
domain, the more behaviorally active in social media they were
in that domain. Summated counts of checked boxes for each
respondent in each life domain produced two distinct outcome
measures of social media activity. It should be noted that this
check-box behavioral self-report approach also serves to measure
the two distinct dependent variables in a methodologically
different way from ASM. Thus, concerns about common method
bias in any observed relationships with ASM should be alleviated
under this design strategy.
Analytical Approach. The number of behaviors checked in a
given life domain for any individual produces a count measure
for a dependent variable — a nonnegative integer with a
restricted range that violates the assumptions of ordinary least
squares regression. A Poisson regression model is appropriate
for count regression, but assumes equality of variance and
mean in the data. When overdispersion occurs with greater
variance than the mean, a negative binomial model is more
appropriate (Long 1997). Unlike the Poisson model, it does not
rely on assumed equivalence between the mean and variance of
the number of behaviors, making it a more desirable model in
many cases (Long and Freese 2006; Park, Chen, and Gallagher
2002). Tests for overdispersion in both of our models revealed
that negative binomial regression was the more appropriate
analytical procedure (Long and Freese 2006). Therefore, we
applied negative binomial models for the self-reported number
of behaviors an individual preformed via social media in two
different life domains while testing the rival predictor of time
spent on social media.
In our Hypotheses H4a and H4b, we are particularly interested
in the behavioral activity of those who are strongly attached to
social media. We propose that individuals who are more strongly
attached to social media will show especially high levels of social
media activity in the social- and consumer-related domains.
If these relationships are confirmed, marketers have a defined
psychographic group to target — individuals strongly attached to
social media — who will display significantly more desired
social media behaviors, especially of the kind most relevant to
marketers.
We conducted negative binomial regression with the count
variable predicted by the continuous variables of ASM and
the rival predictor of time spent on social media. We ran one
Table 5
Study 5: Negative binomial parameter estimates for social media behaviors.
Parameter B Std. error Sig. Exp(B)
Social behaviors (Intercept) .776 .155 .000 2.17
Time spent .004 .002 .067 1.00
ASM .334 .038 .000 1.40
Brand behaviors (Intercept) − .240 .273 .379 .79
Time spent .000 .004 .950 1.00
ASM .321 .066 .000 1.38
 R.A. VanMeter et al. / Journal of Interactive Marketing 32 (2015) 70–88
Fig. 4. Study 5: Estimated marginal means of behavior counts as a function of
ASM levels. (a) Social-related behaviors. (b) Consumer-related behaviors.
negative binomial model predicting counts of total self-reported
social-related actions on social media in the last two weeks and a
second model predicting counts of total self-reported consumer-
related actions on social media in the last two weeks in order to
specifically address Hypotheses H4a and H4b.
Results
The likelihood ratio chi-squares involving tests of the
overall model compared to a null model are significant for
both dependent variables. For the model predicting social
behaviors the likelihood chi-square was 95.7(2), p-value ≤ .000
and for the model predicting consumer-related behaviors the
likelihood chi-square was 26.1(2), p-value ≤ .000. Additionally,
the test of model effects shows that attachment to social media is a
significant predictor of social behaviors: Nagelkerke R-square =
.35, W = 112.9, df = 1, p-value ≤ .000; and consumer behav-
iors: Nagelkerke R-square = 0.11, W = 28.6, df = 1, p-value ≤
.000. Additionally, we see that time spent on social media is a
marginally significant predictor of social behaviors via social
media but is not a significant predicator of consumer behaviors
via social media. The results indicate that being more strongly
attached to social media compared to being less attached is a
significant predictor of both social and consumer behaviors (see
Table 5). This result is consistent across models.
83
The results of these models confirm H4a and H4b and are
made visually clear by examining the estimated marginal means
from the negative binomial models. These are the predicted
number of social- and consumer-related behaviors at the mean of
ASM, as well as at plus and minus one standard deviation from
the mean, after controlling for average time spent on social media.
Fig. 4 shows graphs of these estimated marginal means for
(a) social-related behaviors and (b) consumer-related behaviors.
The graphs demonstrate generally increasing patterns of
behavioral activity via social media. As one becomes more
attached to social media, significant gains in social behaviors are
observed. Regarding consumer behaviors, we see similar results.
Stronger attachment relates to a sharp increase in the number of
observed consumer-related behaviors on social media.
Discussion
In Study 5, we extend the findings from Study 4 on C2C
advocacy intentions and C2B supportive communication inten-
tions to focus on self-reported actual social media behaviors in the
social and consumer domains. Results indicate support for H4a
and H4b, in that individuals who are more strongly attached to
social media showed more behavioral activities on social media
and specifically, more consumer related behaviors. These included
items such as: Shared when I was at a company's location, “Liked”
a company or brand's post, Bought something because of what I
read on company or brand's social media page, or Advocated for a
company or brand on my personal social media page. Additionally,
we find that time spent on social media is a marginal predictor of
social behaviors via social media; however, the key finding for
marketers is time spent on social media is not predictive of
interaction or engagement with brands via social media. Therefore,
by concentrating on those who are more strongly attached to social
media, a company can determine in advance individuals who are
more likely to interact and engage with their brand, company, or
organization via social media. The same cannot be said for
individuals who merely spend greater amounts of time on social
media in general.
General Discussion
Through a programmatic set of five studies, we conceptu-
alized a measure of consumers' attachment to social media.
Our operationalization includes eight distinct elements: (1)
connecting — use of social media to stay connected to others,
(2) nostalgia — the ability to use social media in order to
remember things from the past, (3) informed — social media's
role in keeping an individual informed, (4) enjoyment — social
media's role in helping an individual to experience relaxation
and enjoyment, (5) advice — an individual's use of social
media to seek advice from others, (6) affirmation — an
individual feeling assured and supported from social media
usage, (7) enhances my life — social media's role in enhancing
a person's life, and (8) influence — the ability to use social
media to encourage, influence, and help others. These eight
dimensions serve as indicators of a second-order measure of
ASM. We provide preliminary empirical evidence for the
reliability and validity of the ASM measure, and test its
84 R.A. VanMeter et al. / Journal of Interactive Marketing 32 (2015) 70–88
usefulness in predicting specific outcomes of interest to
marketers. All hypotheses received statistical support in our
modeling efforts. Theoretically, our work contributes to an
expansion of attachment theory into a new substantive domain
within marketing, namely social media. Managerially, our results
show that ASM predicts C2C advocacy and C2B supportive
communication behaviors via social media, as well as social
media behaviors in social- and consumer-related domains.
As marketers seek ways to understand and leverage social
media phenomenon, at least one trend is to focus on aggregate
streams of big data from the social media “fire hose.” Identifiable
individual-level data is often limited to geo-demographic char-
acteristics from host sites, or through various scraping, ag-
gregation and analysis tools. However, psychologically-oriented
variables capturing psychographic characteristics may be more
relevant in relation to consumer behavior. Attachment to social
media, as operationalized by the ASM measure, offers a dis-
tinct psychologically-based individual difference variable which
relates meaningfully to important social media phenomena.
Further, the predictive power of ASM is demonstrated to be
incremental above other rival measures of general attitude toward
social media and time spent on social media. Marketers seeking
to cognize consumer behaviors such as advocacy or supportive
communication back to the organization via social media can
benefit from this quantitative individual-level variable.
Those who are more strongly attached to social media would
be especially desirable regarding marketing initiatives and
campaigns designed for social media. These individuals are not
only more likely to appreciate social media based relationships
with organizations, but also are more likely to participate with
the company, to offer input to the organization via social media,
and to advocate on behalf of the company to others via social
media. Their more extensive social activities on social media
also offer broader and more intensive reach whenever their
consumer generated content is used to promote a brand or
organization. Thus, by segmenting and targeting individuals
who are more strongly attached to social media, companies'
social media efforts could become much more efficient and
effective. ASM offers managers a measurable way to segment
and subsequently demonstrate the impact of marketing efforts
in the social media space. ASM offers a mechanism by which
to demonstrate how marketing efforts in social media translate
into desirable customer outcomes that ultimately impact ROI.
Limitations & Future Research
Future psychometric work would also bolster the case for the
attachment to social media measure, and its applicability to other
marketing studies. For example, tests of content validity might
have raters/judges sort items under subscale definitions. Also,
longitudinal data could provide additional evidence for reliability
by examining test–retest stability. Finally, it would be helpful to
have a short version of the new measure. Certainly, use of ASM in
applied and academic studies would benefit from a short scale.
Our work on attachment to social media leverages previous
work on attachment to brands. A logical next step would be to
combine these to see how attachment to brands and attachment to
social media work together to drive brand-specific social media
activities. For example, is someone's attachment to the brand more
of what drives his/her participation and advocacy with the brand
via social media, or is it attachment to social media, or is it both,
possibly even with one moderating the effects of the other? If both
have additive or interactive effects, simultaneous study of the
constructs together might shed further light on what is driving
various consumer social media activities.
Additionally, engagement has emerged as an important mar-
keting objective and performance metric (Mersey, Malthouse,
and Calder 2010; MSI 2013). Recently, formal measures of
online and social media engagement have emerged (Calder,
Malthouse, and Schaedel 2009; de Valck, van Bruggen, and
Wierenga 2009; Hollebeek, Glynn, and Brodie 2014; Van der
Lans et al. 2010); however, there seems to be two competing
definitions of social media engagement. Hollebeek, Glynn, and
Brodie (2014) define engagement as having a behavioral com-
ponent while the root of all Calder and Malthouse's work
does not have a behavioral component. The discrepancy in the
definition of social media engagement first needs to be addressed
then, the relationship between ASM and social media engage-
ment can be investigated.
Finally, we have shown that those who are more strongly
attached to social media are more likely to positively interact
with companies and/or organizations via social media. To that
extent, we also only investigated consumer's positive advocacy
and supportive communications via social media. Clearly,
however, not all communication via social media is positive.
Future research should investigate whether the individual trait
ASM also predicts greater levels of negativity on social media
such as the likelihood to complain about brands, organizations,
or even other consumers via social media, as well as the
propensity to share negative WOM via social networks. This
would extend the negative word-of-mouth literature (Edison
and Geissler 2011; Mattila and Wirtz 2004; Zhang, Feick, and
Mittal 2014) directly in the social media context (King,
Racherla, and Bush 2014). The comparison and investigation
of negative WOM are outside the scope of this particular paper
but are worthy of future investigation. With the introduction of
our research to the literature, a measure of ASM now exists
where these and other emerging substantive research questions
can be explored. For now, ASM offers promise in marketing
contexts in helping to identify which customers are most likely
to be listening, engaging, and reacting on social media.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Dr. Dawn Iacobucci (Vanderbilt University)
Dr. Gordon Bruner II (Southern Illinois University), Dr. Traci
Freling (University of Texas-Arlington), Dr. Wendy Casper
(University of Texas-Arlington), Dr. Emily Goad (Illinois State
University), Holly Syrdal (University of Texas-Arlington), and
Dr. Marcus Butts (University of Texas-Arlington) for their
insightful comments on an earlier version of the manuscript. A
version of the article was presented at the Society for Marketing
Advances Conference in October 2013. The audience comments
are gratefully acknowledged.
 R.A. VanMeter et al. / Journal of Interactive Marketing 32 (2015) 70–88 85

Appendix A. Study 2: Factor Intercorrelations and Descriptive Statistics

Connecting Informed Nostalgia Enjoyment Enhances My Life Advice Affirmed Influence

Connecting
Informed .52
Nostalgia .54 .46
Enjoyment .52 .47 .50
Enhances My Life .43 .51 .49 .64
Advice .22 .47 .37 .41 .57
Affirmed .50 .42 .56 .57 .62 .45
Influence .40 .39 .44 .36 .43 .43 .48
Mean 5.44 3.70 4.61 4.64 3.94 2.85 3.98 3.88
Std. deviation 1.30 1.37 1.36 1.34 1.39 1.36 1.42 1.52

Appendix B. Study 2: Full Pattern Matrix, Replication (Non-student) Sample

Component
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
My life is a little richer because of social media. .064 .001 .921 − .009 .010 .043 − .027 − .042
Social media enhances my life. .037 − .036 .876 − .019 .028 − .027 .013 .067
Social media makes my life a little bit better. − .061 .058 .917 − .020 .025 − .033 .008 .018
I use social media to interact with friends. .096 .080 .080 .079 .807 − .058 − .013 − .020
Social media provides a way for me to stay connected to people across distances. − .039 .007 − .005 − .020 .956 .017 .002 .009
I use social media because it makes staying in touch with others convenient. .021 .007 .011 − .086 .872 .068 − .057 .034
Social media provides a way for me to keep in touch with others that I care about. .020 − .062 .062 − .031 .767 − .046 − .091 .079
Sometimes I post things just to have a positive effect on other peoples' moods. − .068 − .020 .106 − .005 .001 − .720 − .209 .137
I post on social media to brighten other peoples' day. − .020 − .024 .155 − .019 − .060 − .704 − .178 .150
I post things on social media that I think will be helpful to my friends' lives. .064 .070 .034 − .226 .128 − .676 .063 − .062
I want to inspire other people with my social media posts. .164 .160 − .031 − .011 .032 − .737 − .067 − .001
I think it is important to share things on social media so those I care about stay informed. .199 .207 .022 − .143 .125 − .504 .162 .105
I seek advice for upcoming decisions using social media. .015 .768 .073 .028 .101 − .132 − .057 .026
If I'm unsure about an upcoming decision I get input from friends on social media. − .019 .838 .019 − .036 .099 − .097 − .034 .005
I get advice about medical questions on social media. .017 .886 .003 − .030 − .094 .087 − .008 .095
Social media allows me to look back at meaningful events, people, and places from my past. .019 .036 − .002 − .045 .194 − .016 − .745 .011
Using social media makes me feel nostalgic about things that I have done in the past. .052 .086 .086 − .069 − .059 − .021 − .828 .006
Sometimes social media reminds me of warm memories from my past. .099 − .025 − .013 − .053 .107 − .113 − .709 .065
When others comment on my posts I feel affirmed. .006 − .057 .071 − .849 .058 − .087 .025 .002
When people respond to my posts in social media I feel like they care about me. − .017 − .006 − .024 − .900 − .015 − .044 − .046 .097
It makes me feel accepted when people comment on my social media posts. .047 .075 .027 − .914 − .012 .081 − .056 − .029
Social media is one of the main ways I get information about major events. − .033 .028 − .005 − .076 .054 − .029 − .038 .853
Social media allows me to stay informed about events and news. .102 − .050 .028 − .037 .093 .002 − .063 .790
Social media is one of my primary sources of information about news. .039 .122 .045 .023 − .052 .000 .051 .881
I use social media as a way for me to de-stress after a long day. .757 .133 .132 − .079 − .049 .073 − .107 − .030
I use social media to give myself a break when I've been busy. .836 − .048 − .047 − .006 .090 − .069 − .045 .096
Social media is an enjoyable way to spend time. .626 − .083 .148 − .049 .091 − .115 − .002 .154
Extraction method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 14 iterations.

Appendix C. Study 2: KMO and Bartlett's Test

Purification sample Replication sample

KMO Measure of Sampling Adequacy .926 .945
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. chi-square 4,553.00 7,259.06
df 351 351
Sig. .000 .000
86 R.A. VanMeter et al. / Journal of Interactive Marketing 32 (2015) 70–88

Appendix D. Study 4: Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Among Constructs

Correlations among constructs

Mean Standard deviation Composite reliability Average variance extracted ASM ATT C2C advocacy C2B support
ASM 4.62 .95 .90 .52 1.00
ATT 5.71 .93 .96 .88 .56 1.00
C2C advocacy 3.27 1.51 .96 .85 .70 .42 1.00
C2B support 4.05 1.46 .95 .73 .53 .35 .45 1.00

Appendix E. Study 5: Social-Related Checklist None of these in the last 2 weeks.

Below we use the word “post” to refer to the general ability Appendix F. Study 5: Consumer-Related Checklist
to share content and “page” refers to the general social media
platform, with the understanding that different platforms refer to Now we would like you to think about Brands and
the “page” differently (i.e., Twitter feed, Pinterest pinboard, Companies in general. Below are some activities that people
etc.). do when using social media. Please indicate which of these you
Listed below are some activities that people do when using have done in the last 2 weeks associated with brands and
social media. companies.
Please indicate which of these you have done in the last Below we use the word “post” to refer to the general ability
2 weeks associated with your social life. Please check all that to share content and “page” refers to the general social media
apply. platform, with the understanding that different platforms refer
Looked at what my friends posted. to the “page” differently (i.e., Twitter feed, Pinterest pinboard,
Shared new trend in fashion, music, and etc. social media. etc.).
Felt better about myself after reading someone else's post. Please check all that apply.
Liked a friends post. Shared when I was at a company's location.
Sought advice from my friends. Made a positive commented on a company or brand's social
Felt worse about myself after reading someone else's post. media page.
Commented on a friends post. Shared a photo on a company or brand's social media page.
Looked at old pictures from my photos. Looked at a company or brands' social media page.
Became mad or frustrated after reading someone else's Made a negative comment on a company or brand's social
post. media page.
Re-posted/shared a friends post. Changed my mind based on something I saw on a company
Looked at old pictures of my friends. or brand's social media page.
De-friended someone. Learned information from a company or brand's social media
Shared my location. page.
Re-posted a story that touched me. Bashed a company or brand on my personal social media
Shared a photo. page.
Looked at someone else's location. “Unliked” a company or brand's social media page.
Changed my mind based on something I've read on social “Liked” a company or brand's social media page.
media. Advocated for a company or brand on my personal social
Re-posted a photo a friend posted. media page.
Facebook “stalked” a friend. Participated in a company or brand's contest.
Encouraged a friend. Read a company or brand's post.
Invited others to events. Asked a question on a company or brand's social media
Looked at posts of someone I'm not friends with. page.
Reconnected with someone from my past. Bought something because of what I read on company or
RSVP'd to attend an event. brand's social media page.
Became friends with someone new. “Liked” a company or brand's post.
Connected with a celebrity. Looked for new trends in fashion, music, etc. on a company
Looked for new trends in fashion, music, etc. on social or brand's social media page.
media. RSVP'd to attend a company or brand's event.
 R.A. VanMeter et al. / Journal of Interactive Marketing 32 (2015) 70–88
Shared a company or brand's post.
Looked at pictures on a company or brand's social media
page.
None of these in the last 2 weeks.
References
Aaker, David A. (2008), Strategic Market Management. John Wiley & Sons.
Agnihotri, Raj, Prabakar Kothandaraman, Rajiv Kashyap, and Ramendra Singh
(2012), “Bringing “Social” into Sales: The Impact of Salespeople's Social
Media Use on Service Behaviors and Value Creation,” Journal of Personal
Selling & Sales Management, 32, 3, 333–48.
Ainsworth, Mary D. Salter and Silvia M. Bell (1970), “Attachment,
Exploration, and Separation: Illustrated by the Behavior of One-year-olds
in a Strange Situation,” Child Development, 41, 1, 49–67.
Alexandrov, Aliosha, Bryan Lilly, and Emin Babakus (2013), “The Effects of
Social- and Self-motives on the Intentions to Share Positive and Negative
Word of Mouth,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41, 5,
531–46.
Ball, A. Dwayne and Lori H. Tasaki (1992), “The Role and Measurement of
Attachment in Consumer Behavior,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1, 2,
155–72.
Batra, Rajeev and Douglas M. Stayman (1990), “The Role of Mood in
Advertising Effectiveness,” Journal of Consumer Research, 17, 2, 203–14.
Bearden, William O., David M. Hardesty, and Randall L. Rose (2001), “Consumer
Self‐confidence: Refinements in Conceptualization and Measurement,” Journal
of Consumer Research, 28, 1, 121–34.
Berger, Jonah and Katherine L. Milkman (2012), “What Makes Online Content
Viral?” Journal of Marketing Research, 49, 2, 192–205.
Bettencourt, Lance A. (1997), “Customer Voluntary Performance: Customers
as Partners in Service Delivery,” Journal of Retailing, 73, 3, 383–406.
Blazevic, Vera, Caroline Wiertz, June Cotte, Ko de Ruyter, and Debbie Isobel
Keeling (2014), “GOSIP in Cyberspace: Conceptualization and Scale
Development for General Online Social Interaction Propensity,” Journal of
Interactive Marketing, 28, 2, 87–100.
Bowlby, John (1969), Attachment and Loss: Attachment, Vol. 1. Reading:
Addison-Wesley.
——— (1979), The Making and Breaking of Affectional Bonds. London:
Tavistock.
——— (1980), Attachment and Loss: Sadness and Depression, Vol. 3. New
York: Basic Books.
Brocato, E. Deanne, Julie Baker, and Clay M. Voorhees (2014), “Creating
Consumer Attachment to Retail Service Firms Through Sense of Place,”
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 1–21.
Brown, Tom J., Thomas E. Barry, Peter A. Dacin, and Richard F. Gunst (2005),
“Spreading the Word: Investigating Antecedents of Consumers' Positive
Word-of-Mouth Intentions and Behaviors in a Retailing Context,” Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33, 2, 123–38.
Calder, Bobby J., Edward C. Malthouse, and Ute Schaedel (2009), “An
Experimental Study of the Relationship Between Online Engagement
and Advertising Effectiveness,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23, 4,
321–31.
Churchill Jr., Gilbert A. (1979), “A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures
of Marketing Constructs,” Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 1, 64–73.
de Matos, Celso Augusto and Carlos Alberto Vargas Rossi (2008), “Word-of-
Mouth Communications in Marketing: A Meta-analytic Review of the
Antecedents and Moderators,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 36, 4, 578–96.
De Valck, Kristine, Gerrit H. Van Bruggen, and Berend Wierenga (2009),
“Virtual Communities: A Marketing Perspective,” Decision Support Systems,
47, 3, 185–203.
DeVellis, Robert F. (2003), Scale Development: Theory and Applications.
(Applied Social Research Methods). London: Sage.
Edison, Steve W. and Gary L. Geissler (2011), “An Investigation of Negative
Word-of-Mouth Communication Among Market Mavens,” Journal of
Behavioral Studies in Business, 3, 1–12.
87
Ehrenberg, Alexandra, Suzanna Juckes, Katherine M. White, and Shari P.
Walsh (2008), “Personality and Self-esteem as Predictors of Young
People's Technology Use,” CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11, 6, 739–41.
Fennis, Bob M., Ad Th. H. Pruyn, and Mascha Maasland (2005), “Revisiting
the Malleable Self: Brand Effects on Consumer Self-perceptions of
Personality Traits,” Advances in Consumer Research, 32, 1, 371–7.
Finn, Jeremy D. (1974), A General Model for Multivariate Analysis. Orlando:
Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Fornell, Claes and David F. Larcker (1981), “Evaluating Structural Equation
Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error,” Journal of
Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.
——— and Fred L. Bookstein (1982), “Two Structural Equation Models:
LISREL and PLS Applied to Consumer Exit-voice Theory,” Journal of
Marketing Research, 19, 4, 440–52.
Fraley, R. Chris and Keith E. Davis (1997), “Attachment Formation and
Transfer in Young Adults' Close Friendships and Romantic Relationships,”
Personal Relationships, 4, 2, 131–44.
Gensler, Sonja, Franziska Völckner, Yuping Liu-Thompkins, and Caroline
Wiertz (2013), “Managing Brands in the Social Media Environment,”
Journal of Interactive Marketing, 27, 4, 242–56.
Gillan, Paul (2010), “The New Conversation: Taking Social Media from Talk to
Action,” Harvard Business Review, 1–24.
Hair, Joseph F., William C. Black, Barry J. Babin, Rolph E. Anderson, and
Ronald L. Tatham (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis, Vol. 7. Upper Saddle
River: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Hazan, Cindy and Debra Zeifman (1994), “Sex and the Psychological Tether,” in
Advances in Personal Relationships, Vol. 5. Kim Bartholomew, Daniel Perlman,
editors. London: Jessica Kingsley, 151–78.
——— and Phillip R. Shaver (1994), “Attachment as an Organizational
Framework for Research on Close Relationships,” Psychological Inquiry, 5,
1, 1–22.
——— and Debra Zeifman (1999), “Pair Bonds as Attachments,” in Handbook
of Attachment, Jude Cassidy, Phillip R. Shaver, editors. New York:
Guilford, 336–54.
Hoffman, Donna L. and Marek Fodor (2010), “Can you Measure the ROI of
Your Social Media Marketing?” Sloan Management Review, 52, 1, 41–9.
Hollebeek, Linda D., Mark S. Glynn, and Roderick J. Brodie (2014),
“Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale
Development and Validation,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 28, 2,
149–65.
Hollenbeck, Candice R. and Andrew M. Kaikati (2012), “Consumers' Use of
Brands to Reflect Their Actual and Ideal Selves on Facebook,”
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 29, 4, 395–405.
Hu, Li-tze T. and Peter M. Bentler (1999), “Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in
Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria Versus New Alterna-
tives,” Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1,
1–55.
Ipsos (2013), “Social Networking Eats Up 3+ Hours per Day for the Average
American User,” Retrieved January 05, 2013 from http://www.marketingcharts.
com/wp/interactive/social-networking-eats-up-3-hours-per-day-for-the-average-
american-user-26049/.
Kietzmann, Jan H., Kristopher Hermkens, Ian P. McCarthy, and Bruno S.
Silvestre (2011), “Social Media? Get Serious! Understanding the Functional
Building Blocks of Social Media,” Business Horizons, 54, 3, 241–51.
King, Robert Allen, Pradeep Racherla, and Victoria D. Bush (2014), “What We
Know and Don't Know About Online Word-of-Mouth: A Review and
Synthesis of the Literature,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 28, 3,
167–83.
Kleine, Susan Schultz, Robert E. Kleine III, and Chris T. Allen (1995), “How Is
a Possession“ Me” or “ Not Me”? Characterizing Types and an Antecedent
of Material Possession Attachment,” Journal of Consumer Research, 22, 3,
327–43.
Labrecque, Lauren I. (2014), “Fostering Consumer–Brand Relationships in
Social Media Environments: The Role of Parasocial Interaction,” Journal of
Interactive Marketing, 28, 2, 134–48.
Long, J. Scott (1997), “Regression Models for Categorical and Limited
Dependent Variables,” Advanced Quantitative Techniques in the Social
Sciences, 7.
88 R.A. VanMeter et al. / Journal of Interactive Marketing 32 (2015) 70–88
——— and Jeremy Freese (2006), Regression Models for Categorical
Dependent Variables Using Stata. College Station: Stata Press.
Lutz, J. Gary and Tanya Eckert (1994), “The Relationship Between Canonical
Correlation Analysis and Multivariate Multiple Regression,” Educational
and Psychological Measurement, 54, 3, 666–75.
Malär, Lucia, Harley Krohmer, Wayne D. Hoyer, and Bettina Nyffenegger (2011),
“Emotional Brand Attachment and Brand Personality: The Relative Importance
of the Actual and the Ideal Self,” Journal of Marketing, 75, 4, 35–52.
Marketing Science Institute (2013), “MSI Call for Research Proposals on Social
Interactions and Social Media Marketing,” Retrieved from http://www.msi.
org/uploads/files/2013-11-07_MSI_Social_Media_Competition.pdf.
Mattila, Anna S. and Jochen Wirtz (2004), “Consumer Complaining to Firms:
The Determinants of Channel Choice,” Journal of Services Marketing, 18,
2, 147–55.
Mende, Martin, Ruth N. Bolton, and Mary Jo Bitner (2013), “Decoding
Customer–Firm Relationships: How Attachment Styles Help Explain
Customers' Preferences for Closeness, Repurchase Intentions, and Changes
in Relationship Breadth,” Journal of Marketing Research, 50, 1, 125–42.
Mersey, Rachel Davis, Edward C. Malthouse, and Bobby J. Calder (2010),
“Engagement with Online Media,” Journal of Media Business Studies, 7, 2,
39–56.
Mick, David G. and Michelle DeMoss (1990), “Self-gifts: Phenomenological
Insights from Four Contexts,” Journal of Consumer Research, 17, 3, 322–32.
Naylor, Rebecca Walker, Cait Poynor Lamberton, and Patricia M. West (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, 6, 105–20.
Nunnally, Jum C. and Ira H. Bernstein (1994), Psychometric Theory. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Pan, Lee-Yun and Jyh-Shen Chiou (2011), “How Much Can You Trust Online
Information? Cues for Perceived Trustworthiness of Consumer-generated
Online Information,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 25, 2, 67–74.
Parasuraman, Arun, Dhruv Grewal, and Ramu Krishnan (2006), Marketing
Research. Boston: Cengage Learning.
Park, Seung Ho, Roger Rongxin Chen, and Scott Gallagher (2002), “Firm
Resources as Moderators of the Relationship Between Market Growth and
Strategic Alliances in Semiconductor Start-ups,” Academy of Management
Journal, 45, 3, 527–45.
Park, C. Whan, Deborah J. MacInnis, Joseph Priester, Andreas B. Eisingerich,
and Dawn Iacobucci (2010), “Brand Attachment and Brand Attitude
Strength: Conceptual and Empirical Differentiation of Two Critical Brand
Equity Drivers,” Journal of Marketing, 74, 6, 1–17.
Peters, Kay, Yubo Chen, Andreas M. Kaplan, Björn Ognibeni, and Koen
Pauwels (2013), “Social Media Metrics—A Framework and Guidelines for
Managing Social Media,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 27, 4, 281–98.
Rapp, Adam, Lauren Skinner Beitelspacher, Dhruv Grewal, and Douglas E.
Hughes (2013), “Understanding Social Media Effects Across Seller,
Retailer, and Consumer Interactions,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 41, 5, 547–66.
Richins, Marsha L. and Scott Dawson (1992), “A Consumer Values Orientation
for Materialism and Its Measurement: Scale Development and Validation,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 3, 303–19.
Ringle, Christian M., Sven Wende, and Alexander Will (2005), SmartPLS
Release 2.0. Hamburg, Germany: University of Hamburg.
Schulze, Christian, Lisa Schöler, and Bernd Skiera (2014), “Not All Fun and
Games: Viral Marketing for Utilitarian Products,” Journal of Marketing, 78,
1, 1–19.
Shimp, Terence A. and Subhash Sharma (1987), “Consumer Ethnocentrism:
Construction and Validation of the CETSCALE,” Journal of Marketing
Research, 24, 3, 280–9.
Slater, Jan S. (2001), “Collecting Brand Loyalty: A Comparative Analysis of
How Coca-Cola and Hallmark Use Collecting Behavior to Enhance Brand
Loyalty,” Advances in Consumer Research, 28, 1, 362–9.
Soat, Molly (2014), Marketers Forge Ahead on Social Media Spending
Despite Uncertainties, Research Shows. Marketing News Weekly (Sep-
tember, Retrieved from https://www.ama.org/publications/eNewsletters/
Marketing-News-Weekly/Pages/cmo-survey.aspx).
Stelzner, Michael A. (2014), How Marketers Are Using Social Media to Grow
Their Businesses. Research Report. Social Media Examiner (May 19).
Stephen, Andrew T. and Jeff Galak (2012), “The Effects of Traditional and
Social Earned Media on Sales: A Study of a Microlending Marketplace,”
Journal of Marketing Research, 49, 5, 624–39.
Thomson, Matthew, Deborah J. MacInnis, and C. Whan Park (2005), “The Ties
That Bind: Measuring the Strength of Consumers' Emotional Attachments
to Brands,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15, 1, 77–91.
——— (2006), “Human Brands: Investigating Antecedents to Consumers'
Strong Attachments to Celebrities,” Journal of Marketing, 70, 3, 104–19.
Trinke, Shanna J. and Kim Bartholomew (1997), “Hierarchies of Attachment
Relationships in Young Adulthood,” Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 14, 5, 603–25.
Valkenburg, Patti M., Jochen Peter, and Alexander P. Schouten (2006), “Friend
Networking Sites and Their Relationship to Adolescents' Well-being and
Social Self-esteem,” CyberPsychology & Behavior, 9, 5, 584–90.
Van der Lans, Gerrit, Ralf Van Bruggen, Jehoshua Eliashberg, and Berend
Wierenga (2010), “A Viral Branching Model for Predicting the Spread of
Electronic Word of Mouth,” Marketing Science, 29, 2, 348–65.
Wang, Xia, Chunling Yu, and Yujie Wei (2012), “Social Media Peer
Communication and Impacts on Purchase Intentions: A Consumer
Socialization Framework,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 26, 4,
198–208.
White, Susan S. and Benjamin Schneider (2000), “Climbing the Commitment
Ladder the Role of Expectations Disconfirmation on Customers' Behavioral
Intentions,” Journal of Service Research, 2, 3, 240–53.
Wilcox, Keith and Andrew T. Stephen (2013), “Are Close Friends the Enemy?
Online Social Networks, Self-esteem, and Self-control,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 40, 1, 90–103.
Zhang, Yinlong, Lawrence Feick, and Vikas Mittal (2014), “How Males and
Females Differ in Their Likelihood of Transmitting Negative Word of
Mouth,” Journal of Consumer Research, 40, 6, 1097–108.