Skip to main content

The influence of interpersonal motivation on Polish consumers’ online brand-related activity

Argumenta Oeconomica, 2019

Magdalena Brzozowska-Woś, Bruno Schivinski

Argumenta Oeconomica, volume 2, issue 43, pages 213–231, 2019

  • Open access
  • 911 Polish consumers
  • Online survey
  • Structural equation modelling
  • 223 brands
  • Poland
  • COBRAs
Download the full text (PDF)Published version

Free full text: the open access article, re-typeset as a clean PDF with the same content as the published version. Please cite the published version.

Keywords
  • consumer’s online brand-related activities
  • COBRAs
  • susceptibility to interpersonal influence
  • Polish Internet users
  • informational influence
  • normative influence
  • social influence
  • brand-related social media content
  • consumer brand engagement
  • consuming brand-related content
  • contributing to brand-related content
  • creating brand-related content
  • user-generated content
  • social media marketing
  • SUSCEP scale (Bearden et al., 1989)
  • CEBSC scale (Schivinski et al., 2016)
  • online survey
  • confirmatory factor analysis
  • structural equation modelling (SEM)
  • Mplus
  • Poland

People who take other consumers’ information as evidence engage more with brands on social media; wanting to fit in does not. In a survey of 911 Polish social media users following 223 brands, informational influence predicted consuming, contributing to and creating brand-related content, while normative influence predicted none of them.

Key findings

  1. Informational influence drives all three types of brand-related activity. Susceptibility to informational influence predicted consuming (β = 0.39), contributing to (β = 0.32) and creating (β = 0.40) brand-related social media content, controlling for age, gender, social media usage and brand usage (Brzozowska-Woś & Schivinski, 2019).
  2. Normative influence has no direct effect. Susceptibility to normative influence did not predict consuming (β = 0.08), contributing (β = 0.05) or creating (β = −0.06) brand-related content (Brzozowska-Woś & Schivinski, 2019).
  3. Heavier social media users engage more with brands. Social media usage predicted all three types of activity (β = 0.14 to 0.20), and older respondents contributed and created slightly more brand-related content (β = 0.12 and 0.10) (Brzozowska-Woś & Schivinski, 2019).
  4. Sharing valuable content looks like pro-social behaviour. Consumers engage with brand-related content to create valuable sources of information for themselves and for other users, rather than to enhance their image or meet others’ expectations (Brzozowska-Woś & Schivinski, 2019).

At a glance

Design
Online survey of Polish Internet users recruited through social media channels, forums and discussion groups, with screening questions; each respondent rated one brand they actively follow
Participants
911 valid questionnaires from 1,025 respondents (56.5% women; 71.5% aged 18–25); 223 brands such as Adidas, Pepsi, Apple and Converse
Measures
Informational and normative influence (SUSCEP, Bearden et al., 1989; three items each, 7-point scales); consuming, contributing and creating COBRAs (CEBSC, Schivinski et al., 2016)
Controls
Age, gender, social media usage and brand usage
Analysis
Confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modelling with robust maximum likelihood (MLR) in Mplus 7.2
Model fit
MLR χ²(274) = 1520.20, CFI = 0.93, TLI = 0.91, RMSEA = 0.07

Figure 1. The proposed conceptual framework

Interpersonal influences (SUSCEP)H1aH1bH1cH2aH2bH2cControl variablesage, gender,social media usage,brand usageInformationalinfluenceNormativeinfluenceConsumingCOBRA typeContributingCOBRA typeCreatingCOBRA type
Redrawn from Figure 1 of the article. Informational and normative interpersonal influence (SUSCEP) are hypothesised to increase the consuming, contributing and creating types of COBRAs (H1a–c, H2a–c), controlling for age, gender, social media usage and brand usage.

Figure 2. Conceptual framework estimates

Interpersonal influences (SUSCEP)H1a: 0.39H1b: 0.32H1c: 0.40H2a: 0.08 (n.s.)H2b: 0.05 (n.s.)H2c: −0.06 (n.s.)Control variablesage, gender,social media usage,brand usageInformationalinfluenceNormativeinfluenceConsumingCOBRA typeContributingCOBRA typeCreatingCOBRA typeControlsConsumingContributingCreatingAge−0.02 (n.s.)0.120.10Gender−0.03 (n.s.)0.08 (n.s.)0.07Social media usage0.200.180.14Brand usage0.050.100.06Standardised coefficients (Table 2 of the article); grey dashed paths and grey values not significant as printed (p > .05); n = 911.
Redrawn from Figure 2 of the article with the standardised coefficients of Table 2. Informational influence (gold labels) predicts all three types of consumers’ online brand-related activities (COBRAs); normative influence predicts none. The control variables, drawn as four boxes in the article, are grouped in one box, with their estimates in the table below the model; n = 911.

Effects of interpersonal influence on online brand-related activity

Informational influenceCreating0.40Consuming0.39Contributing0.32Normative influenceConsuming0.08 (n.s.)Contributing0.05 (n.s.)Creating−0.06 (n.s.)
Standardised coefficients from Table 2 of the article (n = 911), controlling for age, gender, social media usage and brand usage. Normative influence: 0.08, 0.05 and −0.06 (n.s.).

Tables

Table 1. Reliability and validity of the conceptual model

Latent variable CR AVE FD 1 2 3 4 5
1. Consumption COBRAs type 0.90 0.66 0.96 0.81
2. Contribution COBRAs type 0.91 0.63 0.97 0.64 (31.84) 0.79
3. Creation COBRAs type 0.94 0.74 0.97 0.53 (21.40) 0.76 (57.35) 0.86
4. Informational influence 0.75 0.50 0.96 0.53 (16.35) 0.38 (10.69) 0.33 (9.02) 0.70
5. Normative influence 0.75 0.50 0.95 0.56 (18.36) 0.42 (11.86) 0.39 (10.94) 0.69 (37.71) 0.70

CR = composite reliability; AVE = average variance extracted; FD = factor determinacy. Square roots of the AVE on the diagonal (in italics); correlations below it, with t-values in parentheses. n = 911; MLR χ²(198) = 1011.48, CFI = 0.93, TLI = 0.92, RMSEA = 0.06 (90% CI [0.06, 0.07]).

Table 2. Standardized structural coefficients of the conceptual model

Hypothesis β t p Acceptance/rejection
H1a. Informational influence → Consumption COBRAs type 0.39 3.43 0.001 Accepted
H1b. Informational influence → Contribution COBRAs type 0.32 2.72 0.001 Accepted
H1c. Informational influence → Creation COBRAs type 0.40 3.14 0.001 Accepted
H2a. Normative influence → Consumption COBRAs type 0.08 0.70 0.48 Rejected
H2b. Normative influence → Contribution COBRAs type 0.05 0.41 0.67 Rejected
H2c. Normative influence → Creation COBRAs type −0.06 −0.50 0.61 Rejected
Controlling variables
Age → Consumption COBRAs type −0.02 −0.76 0.44
Age → Contribution COBRAs type 0.12 3.95 0.001
Age → Creation COBRAs type 0.10 3.18 0.001
Gender → Consumption COBRAs type −0.03 −1.07 0.28
Gender → Contribution COBRAs type 0.08 2.73 0.06
Gender → Creation COBRAs type 0.07 2.32 0.02
Social media usage → Consumption COBRAs type 0.20 6.42 0.001
Social media usage → Contribution COBRAs type 0.18 5.72 0.001
Social media usage → Creation COBRAs type 0.14 4.25 0.001
Brand usage → Consumption COBRAs type 0.05 1.94 0.05
Brand usage → Contribution COBRAs type 0.10 3.33 0.001
Brand usage → Creation COBRAs type 0.06 2.18 0.02

n = 911; MLR χ²(274) = 1520.20, CFI = 0.93, TLI = 0.91, RMSEA = 0.07 (90% CI [0.06–0.07]). p-values as printed.

Table A. Descriptive statistics for the constructs and measurements
Construct and item Loading t Mean SD Skewness Kurtosis
Informational influence (Bearden et al., 1989)
The popularity of the content is manifested by the number of “Likes” and uploaded photos, and shared videos and posts related to Brand X. 0.67 30.82 3.37 1.82 0.31 −0.92
The popularity of Brand X is manifested by the number of shared photos, videos, and posts created by Internet users. 0.73 37.17 4.08 1.87 −0.05 −1.03
If I have little experience with Brand X products, I take the opinions of other users into consideration. 0.72 32.19 4.00 1.82 −0.04 −1.01
Normative influence (Bearden et al., 1989)
I hardly ever post any content (photos, videos, posts) on social media, if I know that my friends will not accept it. 0.65 30.74 3.47 1.86 0.29 −0.96
Basically, I upload some content (photos, videos, posts) on social media hoping that my friends will share or like it. 0.75 41.27 3.94 1.82 0.03 −0.99
I am satisfied when other people can see me together with the Brand X product that I like. 0.73 35.48 3.62 1.95 0.25 −1.09
Consumption COBRAs type (Schivinski et al., 2016)
I read posts related to Brand X on social media. 0.88 92.87 3.53 2.10 0.29 −1.25
I read fan page(s) related to Brand X on social networking sites. 0.88 73.59 3.26 2.03 0.46 −1.06
I watch pictures/graphics related to Brand X. 0.74 41.91 2.98 1.97 0.68 −0.76
I follow blogs related to Brand X. 0.68 34.35 4.19 2.07 −0.14 −1.28
I follow Brand X on social networking sites. 0.88 81.62 3.43 2.01 0.34 −1.11
Contribution COBRAs type (Schivinski et al., 2016)
I comment on videos related to Brand X. 0.90 84.43 2.29 1.71 1.28 0.63
I comment on posts related to Brand X. 0.57 28.56 3.50 2.05 0.26 −1.20
I comment on pictures/graphics related to Brand X. 0.88 72.24 2.11 1.63 1.52 1.42
I share Brand X related posts. 0.55 26.84 3.57 2.10 0.22 −1.29
I “Like” pictures/graphics related to Brand X. 0.91 95.96 2.26 1.69 1.31 0.74
I “Like” posts related to Brand X. 0.89 77.34 2.33 1.72 1.21 0.47
Creation COBRAs type (Schivinski et al., 2016)
I initiate posts related to Brand X on blogs. 0.74 39.90 2.56 1.82 0.96 −0.18
I initiate posts related to Brand X on social networking sites. 0.90 73.35 2.05 1.62 1.61 1.70
I post pictures/graphics related to Brand X. 0.92 114.49 2.06 1.64 1.61 1.65
I post videos that show Brand X. 0.86 58.78 2.00 1.63 1.72 2.08
I write posts related to Brand X on forums. 0.86 64.72 2.19 1.68 1.36 0.83
I write reviews related to Brand X. 0.88 71.87 2.09 1.61 1.51 1.39

Standardised factor loadings. SUSCEP items rated from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree; COBRAs items from 1 = not very often to 7 = very often, with 0 = not at all.

The question

Consumers consume, contribute to and create brand-related content on social media, and social media are built on interpersonal relationships. Yet little was known about whether susceptibility to interpersonal influence, in its informational and normative forms, explains these consumers’ online brand-related activities (COBRAs). We tested both forms of influence on the three types of COBRAs among Polish social media users.

Implications

Practical implications

Brand content that consumers see as valuable information is more likely to be read, shared and recreated than content that appeals to image or social approval. Managers should consider consumers’ age and gender, the type of content, its perceived value and the social medium used.

Theoretical implications

The study is the first to test both informational and normative interpersonal influence on the three types of COBRAs, and shows that only informational influence has a direct effect, which suggests that brand-related engagement can be a form of pro-social information sharing.

Limitations and future research

  • Cross-sectional data from a single country, with a non-random online sample.
  • The SUSCEP and CEBSC scales could be extended, and social media functions change quickly.
  • Mediators and moderators such as content type, brand experience and brand perception, and differences between age cohorts, were not tested.

Questions this paper answers

Does social influence make consumers engage with brands on social media?

Informational influence does: consumers who accept information from others as evidence consume, contribute to and create more brand-related content. Normative influence, the wish to meet others’ expectations, had no direct effect (Brzozowska-Woś & Schivinski, 2019).

What are COBRAs?

Consumer’s online brand-related activities: consuming (reading and watching), contributing (liking, commenting, sharing) and creating (posting and reviewing) brand-related content on social media (Muntinga et al., 2011; Schivinski et al., 2016).

What is susceptibility to interpersonal influence?

A consumer’s tendency to be influenced by others, either by accepting their information as evidence about reality (informational) or by conforming to their expectations and standards (normative) (Bearden et al., 1989).

Do age and gender matter for brand engagement on social media?

In this sample, older respondents contributed and created slightly more brand-related content, and heavier social media users engaged more in all three activities (Brzozowska-Woś & Schivinski, 2019).

Key concepts

COBRAs
Consumer’s online brand-related activities, a framework that groups engagement with brand-related social media content into consuming, contributing and creating.
Informational influence
The tendency to accept information from others as evidence about reality (Bearden et al., 1990).
Normative influence
The tendency to conform to others’ expectations, either to enhance one’s image (value expressive) or to gain rewards and avoid punishment (utilitarian).
SUSCEP
The Consumer Susceptibility to Interpersonal Influence scale of Bearden, Netemeyer and Teel (1989).

Open science and materials

Study materials

Scale items
All 23 items with standardised loadings, t-values, means, standard deviations, skewness and kurtosis are in Appendix A below.

How to cite

Brzozowska-Woś, M., & Schivinski, B. (2019). The influence of interpersonal motivation on Polish consumers’ online brand-related activity. Argumenta Oeconomica, 2(43), 213–231. https://doi.org/10.15611/aoe.2019.2.09

Open access under a Creative Commons CC BY-SA 4.0 licence.

Related publications

All publications