Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Journal of Interactive Marketing 37 (2017) 133 – 148
www.elsevier.com/locate/intmar

Experiential Engagement and Active vs. Passive Behavior in

Mobile Location-based Social Networks:
The Moderating Role of Privacy
Margherita Pagani a,⁎& Giovanni Malacarne b
a
UPR Markets & Innovation, EMLYON Business School, 23 Avenue Guy de Collongue, 69134 Ecully Cedex, France
b
Via Baldissera, 5, 20129 Milan, Italy

Available online 13 January 2017

Abstract

The study aims to understand how social media and mobile change customer experiences and influence the online active behavior. We explore
how leveraging differently on experiences that the users live online helps to increase experiential engagement and mitigate the negative influence
of privacy concern on the active use of location-based social networking applications. We conceptualize experiential engagement as a second-order
construct that is manifested in two first-order “experience” constructs (Personal Engagement and Social Interactive Engagement). We theorize that
our engagement constructs are causally related to consumer active and passive use of a mobile location-based social network and we test (n = 379)
the moderating role of privacy concern on this relation in EU and the US. Findings show that Personal Engagement plays an important role
influencing active usage when users are more concerned with privacy issues. Social Interactive Engagement shows a significant effect on passive
usage meaning that the more people experience a deep sense of community the more they are interested in reading other comments or collecting
information. Managerial implications are discussed.
© 2017 Direct Marketing Educational Foundation, Inc., dba Marketing EDGE. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Personal Engagement; Social Interactive Engagement; Mobile location-based social networks; Experiential engagement; Privacy concern

Introduction
Internet-capable mobile phones have changed the way people
communicate, interact and take advantage of the Internet,
allowing them to access the Web whenever they want and
wherever they are. With the growth of mobile, it's more and more
important for marketers to participate in this rapidly evolving
channel. In recent years new applications specifically designed
for mobile devices, such as location-based social networking
(LBS) applications, have been gaining notoriety. These applica-
tions combine location specificity and interactivity, allowing
users to connect with others based on their current locations.
These applications open up new business opportunities by
allowing customers to “check in” to businesses or addresses
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: pagani@em-lyon.com (M. Pagani),
Malacarne.giovanni@gmail.com (G. Malacarne).
and then instantly share the information with friends and
connections also on social networks. Customers can share tips,
reviews and other feedback that can boost a business's public
profile and generate positive word of mouth. LBS has
substantial implications for how people shop, how data is
collected and analyzed, and online word of mouth as a tool
for decision making via uncertainty reduction. Moreover,
location-based social networking applications offer inexpen-
sive, quick and effective means of engaging customers and
build a strong relationship with them. A driving force for
engagement seems to be a reward system within the applica-
tion, which allows users to receive points or awards for
accruing a certain number of “check-ins.” It helps that users
who participate in these location-based social networks seem to
be extremely “social” by nature, more than those who use
traditional social networks (Butcher 2011). They tend to be
opinionated and do not mind being vocal and outspoken when
it comes to brand loyalty.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2016.10.001
1094-9968/© 2017 Direct Marketing Educational Foundation, Inc., dba Marketing EDGE. All rights reserved.
134 M. Pagani, G. Malacarne / Journal of Interactive Marketing 37 (2017) 133–148
Despite their numerous advantages and data analytics im-
plications, practitioners and users have raised concerns about
privacy and data security within these applications. Whenever a
user checks in with his/her application he/she makes his/her
position potentially identifiable to everyone, privacy concerns
have been long believed to be the primary reason for users not
participating in location-based social networks. This issue is
becoming more and more relevant for researchers as well as
practitioners as consumer privacy concerns can influence
behavior in the mobile context. The Federal Trade Commission
(FTC) has worked on privacy issues for more than forty years,
and in 2000 began considering the privacy implications raised by
consumers' growing use of mobile devices. Most recently, in
May 2012, the FTC hosted a mobile privacy panel discussion that
focused on transparency (Federal Trade Commission 2013).
Most Internet users are acutely aware that their digital
activities leave many kinds of information behind, and that data
may be used and shared in ways they know nothing about.
Many consumers in Western Europe are especially sensitive
about data derived from mobile devices, including details of
their location (eMarketer 2016).
In this paper, we explore how location-based social media and
mobile change customer experiences and the online consumer
behavior. While LBS has been widely studied in more utilitarian
mobile computing contexts (i.e. finding things and finding
places), there has been relatively less focusing on social network
LBS. Moreover, this type of service is permission-based as the
users through the check in give the business permission to send a
message or collect data.
The purpose of this study is to understand how leveraging
differently on experiences that the users live helps to mitigate the
negative moderating influence of privacy concern on the relation-
ship between engagement and stimulate the active use of location-
based social networking applications. Companies are more and
more interested in collecting quantitative and qualitative data in
order to better profile their customers and it is more and more
important to identify which experiences (influencing the personal
or social interactive engagement) may stimulate the active
behavior of the customers. In this paper, we first conceptualize
engagement as a second-order construct that is manifested in
various first-order “experience” constructs (Calder and Malthouse
2008). We consider two types of engagement: Personal Engage-
ment and Social Interactive Engagement. We theorize that our
engagement constructs are causally related to consumer active and
passive use of a location-based social networking application and
we explore the moderating role of privacy in this relationship.
Then, we test our hypotheses on a sample of 379 location-based
social networking applications users in Europe and the US. Our
paper concludes with a discussion of results, their implications,
limitations, and suggestions for future research.
Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses
Consumer Engagement
Engagement has been described as users' activities, attitudes
(Kappelman 1995), goals and mental models (Said 2004), or as
the state of being involved, occupied, and interested in
something (Calder and Malthouse 2008; Higgins 2006; Judd
and McClelland 1989; Laurel 1993; Malthouse, Calder, and
Tamhane 2007; O'Brien and Toms 2008).
In marketing it is commonly referred to as ‘customer
engagement’ (Bowden 2009) defined as “a psychological
process that models the underlying mechanisms by which
customer loyalty forms for new customers of a service brand as
well as the mechanisms by which loyalty may be maintained
for repeat purchase customers of a service brand” (Bowden
2009, p. 65). In his model Bowden (2009) proposes customer
engagement as a process which includes: (1) the formation of
a state of calculative commitment for new customers which
is considered to be a largely cognitive basis for purchase;
(2) increased levels of involvement concomitantly supported by
increased levels of trust for repeat purchase customers, and
(3) the development of affective commitment toward the
service brand which is considered to be a more emotive basis
for purchase and which may ultimately eventuate in a state of
enduring brand loyalty.
Customer engagement has been used as a synonym of other
constructs: involvement (Sawhney, Verona, and Prandelli
2005), activation (Etgar 2008), commitment as a consequence
of engagement and a permanent positive disposition by the user
(Moorman, Deshpande, and Zaltman 1993), empowerment
(Shaw, Newholm, and Dickinson 2006), and as an antecedent
of loyalty (Bowden 2009).
Bowden (2009) clearly positions the two constructs of
involvement and commitment as conceptually distinct when
compared to the process of customer engagement.
In the literature, involvement has typically been defined as a
goal-directed motivation that is indicative of the extent to
which the decision is viewed as personally relevant to the
customer (Mittal and Lee 1989). It relates to an internal state of
arousal (i.e., intensity direction, and persistence of that arousal)
(Warrington and Shim 2000) or a perceived importance of that
product class in relation to his or her self-concept, ego, and
value system (Beatty, Kahle, and Homer 1988; Crosby and
Taylor 1983; Delgado-Ballester and Munuera-Aleman 2001).
Conversely, commitment is often couched in the context of
entrenched psychological attachment whereby the object to
which the customer is committed is considered as the only
acceptable choice within a specific product class (Crosby and
Taylor 1983; Muncy and Hunt 2001; Warrington and Shim
2000).
However, involvement has been found to precede the
development of commitment as customers with high levels of
commitment were also found to be more highly involved
(Beatty, Kahle, and Homer 1988).
The concept of engagement has been explored in the
organizational behavior literature as a means to explain
organizational commitment and organizational citizenship
behavior (Bowden 2009; Saks 2006). Literature has typically
discussed engagement in the context of customer experience
(Johnson and Mathews 1997; Patterson 2000), customer
familiarity (Soderlund 2002), customer expertise (Alba and
Hutchinson 1987; Matilla and Wirtz 2002), and cognitive
 M. Pagani, G. Malacarne / Journal of Interactive Marketing 37 (2017) 133–148
knowledge structures (Matilla and Wirtz 2002; Moreau,
Lehmann, and Markman 2001).
Hollebeek (2011) refers to customer engagement as a
customer's individual engagement with a brand, product or
organization. However, the meaning of engagement varies
according to the specific context (Little and Little 2006). Within
the field of marketing six major forms of engagement have been
established: customer, consumer, user, brand, advertising and
media (Bowden 2009; Gambetti and Graffigna 2010; Heath
2009; Malthouse, Calder, and Mersey 2010; Neff 2007; O'Brien
and Toms 2010; Tripathi 2014). Customer, consumer, and user
engagement are concerned with individuals being engaged by a
brand, advertisement or communication medium (Gambetti and
Graffigna 2010).
Brand, advertising, and media engagement, on the other
hand, adopt the opposite approach. These three types of
engagement revolve around brands, advertising and media and
how they stimulate engagement within the consumer. The
terms brand, customer and user engagement became of specific
interest to researchers with the rise of social media marketing
(Brodie et al. 2011). Since then customer engagement has been
a buzzword closely related to the Web 2.0, i.e. blogs, wikis,
social networks and media sharing sites. Nevertheless, there is
still a broad range of interpretations of engagement (Sashi
2012) and neither practitioners nor scholars agree on one
definition (Malthouse, Calder, and Mersey 2010).
Experiential Engagement
In the online media context, engagement is described as the
mental state of being involved and interested and devoting
attention to something (Chapman 1997; Malthouse, Calder, and
Tamhane 2007; O'Brien and Toms 2010; Webster and Ho
1997).
Some scholars (Calder and Malthouse 2005; Malthouse,
Calder, and Mersey 2010, p. 40; Malthouse, Calder, and
Tamhane 2007) have conceptualized engagement as the collec-
tive experiences that readers or viewers have with an online
media brand (a media brand stands for any channel-centered
term, such as newspaper, magazine, TV program or website). An
experience can be defined as a specific set of beliefs that a
consumer has about how a media brand fits into his/her life
(Calder and Malthouse 2008) or it can be specified by the
thoughts, emotions, activities and appraisals that occur during or
as a consequence of an event (Pagani and Mirabello 2011). Both
qualitative and quantitative research (Malthouse, Calder, and
Mersey 2010) revealed eight distinct experiences (stimulation
and inspiration, social facilitation, temporal experience, self-
esteem civic-mindedness, intrinsic enjoyment, utilitarian percep-
tion, participation and socializing, community) representatives of
the engagement construct domain. Users' experiences with a
brand were found to vary significantly as they are associated with
how members use a particular site. Some media may play a
utilitarian role, providing the individual with useful advice and
tips (e.g.: Tripadvisor) and reinforcing the utilitarian experience.
Others may include more hedonic values helping the user to relax
and escape the stress of daily life (e.g.: Facebook) or social–
135
psychological drivers as the need for interaction with others. A
media brand can elicit multiple experiences and experiences are
not mutually exclusive (Malthouse, Calder, and Mersey 2010).
Hence, engagement can occur as a consequence of different
experiences.
Calder, Malthouse, and Schaedel (2009) differentiate between
two types of engagement: Personal and Social-Interactive
Engagement. The former describes how users seek stimulation,
inspiration and a reflection of their own values from a medium
and it is measured by the following experiences: 1) stimulation
and inspiration, 2) social facilitation, 3) temporal experience,
4) self-esteem, 5) civic-mindedness, 6) intrinsic enjoyment, and
7) utilitarian perception. Personal Engagement is reflected by
experiences people can also have with off-line media. Items, such
as ‘This site makes me think of things in new ways’ or ‘This site
often gives me something to talk about’ are typical of experiences
belonging to personal engagement (Malthouse, Calder, and
Mersey 2010). The latter manifests experiences that users have
with socializing and participating in an online community, blog
or forum. ‘I do quite a bit of socializing on this site’ and ‘I
contribute to the conversation on this site’ are representative of
social-interactive experiences. In addition, Social Interactive
Engagement is measured by three experiences: 1) perception,
2) participation and socializing, and 3) community. This
construct reflects intrinsic enjoyment (‘It's a treat for me’), the
sense of the community (‘I'd like to meet other people who
regularly visit this site’) and utilitarian aspects (‘This site helps
me make good purchase decisions’) of using a website.
Social Interactive Engagement is more specific to websites,
whereas Personal Engagement exists predominantly in maga-
zines and newspapers (Malthouse, Calder, and Mersey 2010)
and offline media.
Online experiences and feelings connected with them
heavily depend also on the content and the attributes of
the user interface, which connote the term usability (Curtis
and Hefley 1994, p. 28). Laurel (1993) states that usability
(i.e. attributes of the user interface) alone is not sufficient to the
design of successful applications, therefore the focus should not
be primarily on how to accomplish real-world objectives, but
how to accomplish them in a way that is pleasing, enjoyable
and invigorating.
Quesenberry (2003) defines engagement as one of the five
dimensions of website usability, together with effectiveness,
efficiency, error tolerance and ease of learning. It is influenced
by users' first impression of an application and the enjoyment
they derive from usage (Quesenberry 2003). This definition
clearly states the importance of a proper user interface in order
to attract and possibly engage and retain users. Webster and
Ahuja (2004) conceptualize engagement as an emotional com-
ponent that will make people more likely to return to a certain
product or company website.
Active and Passive Use with Location Based Services
Restaurants, retailers, small businesses but also big multi-
national companies are becoming more and more interested in
the opportunities offered by location based social networks.
136 M. Pagani, G. Malacarne / Journal of Interactive Marketing 37 (2017) 133–148
Since these applications allow customers to “check in” to
businesses or addresses and then instantly share that informa-
tion with friends and connections also on social networks, they
represent an opportunity for free publicity. What's more, once
those customers check in, they can leave tips, mini-reviews and
other feedbacks that could boost a business's public profile and
improve the image of a company. Location Based Applications
Social Network offer inexpensive, quick and effective new
ways for engaging customers and build a strong relationship
with them, thanks also to the numerous partnership programs
that have been developed for businesses. With Foursquare, for
example, businesses can offer rewards to customers for their
check in through free gifts and discounted products to people
who visit and check in with their smartphone. Rewards are
promised also to loyal customers; for example, many coffee
shops and restaurants often give their Foursquare “Mayor”
(people that have checked in more often with respect to other
customers) free drinks and discounts.
The Social Technographics Ladder (Li and Bernoff 2008)
classifies users according to the way they use online technologies,
showing different levels of behavior. With specific focus on
location-based services we adapted the Social Technographics
Profile Ladder to include the following groups:
1. Creators are the most engaged online customers. They,
at least once in a month, leave tips/mini review online,
maintain a profile, or upload videos or photos.
2. Critics react to the online content shared by other users
giving feedbacks. They rate and review products or services.
3. Collectors organize the huge amount of content using tags,
RSS (Really Simple Syndication) feeds, and bookmarks.
4. Joiners participate checking in and maintaining a profile on
a social network.
5. Spectators consume what the rest of the users produce.
Specifically, they read online tips or reviews or watch videos
from the other users. They show a low level of engagement
with the website's activities.
6. Inactives don't undertake any of the above activities.
In line with the purpose of this work we have set a threshold
in terms of active and passive usage by claiming that users
classified as spectators show a passive behavior while the other
groups show a more active behavior. Previous studies (Calder
and Malthouse 2008; Calder, Malthouse, and Schaedel 2009)
show a positive correlation between experiences and usage
demonstrating that the stronger the experience, the higher the
usage (i.e. the time spent reading a newspaper or visiting a
certain website). Middleton and Leith (2007) found a positive
correlation between engagement and the frequency of Internet
usage. The same result was also found in a study related to
engagement and social TV usage (Pagani and Mirabello 2011).
Schivinski, Christodoulides, and Dabrowski (2016) distinguish
different levels of consumer engagement with different levels
of online activities such as consumption, contribution, and the
creation of brand-related social media content.
The consuming dimension (Armstrong and Hagel 1996;
Dolakia, Bagozzi, and Pearo 2004; Kozinets 1999; Muniz and
O'Guinn 2001) refers to the passive behavior in online social
networks. This type of Consumer's Online Activities refers
to consumers who passively consume brand-related media
without participating (Muntinga, Moorman, and Smit 2011;
Shao 2009) and was found to represent a minimum level of
engagement (Schivinski, Christodoulides, and Dabrowski
2016).
The contributing dimension includes both peer-to-peer and
peer-to-content interactions about brands (Dickinson-Delaporte
and Kerr 2014; Shao 2009), and finding a relationship with
the level of engagement (Schivinski, Christodoulides, and
Dabrowski 2016). Research on this type of consumer online
brand-related activity can be traced back to studies on brand-
related electronic word of mouth (Chevalier and Mayzlin 2006;
Dellarocas, Zhang, and Awad 2007; Hennig-Thurau et al.
2004; Hung and Li 2007) and online customer reviews
(Ho-Dac, Carson, and Moore 2013; Zhu and Zhang 2010) or
on consumers who “Like” brands (Nelson-Field, Riebe, and
Sharp 2012; Wallace et al. 2014) or share brand-related content
on social media (Brettel et al. 2015; Shi, Rui, and Whinston
2014).
Finally, the creating dimension involves consumers' crea-
tion and online publication of brand-related content. Studies on
consumer involvement in the creation of brand-related content
are grounded in product co-creation (Fuller et al. 2006, 2009)
and consumer empowerment (Pires, Stanton, and Rita 2006;
Wathieu et al. 2002; Wright, Newman, and Dennis 2006). The
creating dimension, therefore, represents the strongest level
of online brand related engagement (Muntinga, Moorman, and
Smit 2011) in that the content consumers generate may
be a stimulus for further consumption and/or contribution
by other peers. Conceptually this research draws from the
“Consumer's Online Brand-Related Activities” (COBRAs)
framework (Muntinga, Moorman, and Smit 2011), which
finds that different brand-related activities on social media
platforms (consuming, contributing and creating) are driven by
different motivations.
The knowledge of different sets of motivations gives
brand managers the opportunity to anticipate and stimulate
consumers' online brand experience and ultimately enable
them to direct their outcomes (Cray 2012). Following this
theoretical perspective, this work extends this framework
specifically measuring online experiences and different
online activities on social media platforms. Therefore we
propose:
H1. Personal Engagement has a positive effect on active use
(H1a) and on passive use (H1b) of location-based social
networks.
H2. Social Interactive Engagement has a positive effect on
active use (H2a) and on passive use (H2b) of location-based
social networks.
Online Privacy and Location Based Applications
Privacy intrusiveness refers to an individual's ability to
control when, how, and to what extent his or her personal
 M. Pagani, G. Malacarne / Journal of Interactive Marketing 37 (2017) 133–148
information is communicated to others (Stone et al. 1983;
Westin 1967). The notion of information privacy has recently
come to be viewed as a critical ethical issue that deserves
attention from both scholars and practitioners (Lankshear and
Mason 2001; Smith, Dinev, and Xu 2011; Smith, Milberg, and
Burke 1996). The Internet has revolutionized the concept of
privacy that is often related to the desire of remaining
unidentified in the public realm, therefore to the concept of
anonymity (Dinev and Hart 2004; Juang, Lei, and Liaw 2002;
Metzger and Docter 2003).
Internet users' concerns for information privacy have
received considerable attention as a salient belief that deter-
mines their willingness to divulge personal information to
online companies (Chellappa and Shivendu 2008; Earp and
Payton 2006; Jensen, Potts, and Jensen 2005; Malhotra, Sung,
and Agarwal 2004; Smith, Milberg, and Burke 1996; Stewart
and Segars 2002). Concerns about online privacy can be
divided into two main categories: the intrusion of privacy that
pertains to companies that try to obtain and use personal
information for marketing purposes (Smith, Milberg, and Burke
1996) and more generally intrusion of privacy by spammers,
hackers, viruses and government monitoring. Smith, Milberg,
and Burke (1996) identified four main factors influencing
online privacy: (1) unauthorized secondary use of personal
information, (2) improper access to digitally stored personal
information, (3) collection of personal information and (4) errors
in collected personal information.
Individuals with high levels of concern about information
privacy believe that online companies' misuse of their personal
information can result in a considerable loss (Dinev and Hart
2006; Van Slyke et al. 2006). With respect to gender, women
were found to have more concerns with privacy compared to
men (Kehoe, Pitkow, and Morton 2011; Milne and Rohm
2000). Moreover, experience with the media negatively
influences privacy concern, meaning that when the user
shows a high prior experience with the media, he/she is less
concerned with privacy and more willing to disclose personal
information. This result is also confirmed by a survey
conducted by Madden et al. (2013) on teens, social media,
and privacy. We can also argue that the number of online
activities that a user performs online can strongly predict their
attitudes about online privacy (Rice 2006).
Location based services (LBSs) provide the opportunity
to have two-way interactions between human beings and
technologies: whenever a user reveals his or her position
through the GPS system the service provider gives back
information that is relevant and useful for the user. According
to many practitioners, however, the features offered by LBS
could be offset by the user's concerns for privacy. Barkhuus
and Dey (2003) examine the relationship of several mobile
location services and concern for information privacy and they
find that location-tracking services generate a higher privacy
concern than do position aware services.
Junglas, Johnson, and Spitzmueller (2008) examine the link
between several antecedents focusing on personality traits and
concern for information privacy within the area of cellular
phones. As a result of their findings, Junglas, Johnson, and
137
Spitzmueller (2008) suggest that widening the scope of their
sample and including mandatory users of a technology can
glean potential value. Finally, Xu et al. (2009) examine privacy
calculus (benefits and risks) within the context of general
push-and-pull-based LBS and the effect on intentions to dis-
close personal information.
Although there are several foundational studies that examine
privacy within the context of LBS technologies, previous
literature doesn't consider the effect of engagement on privacy
concern and the role that engagement could play in motivating
people to have an active use with LBS.
To establish our theoretical framework, we view the
relationships between mobile users and mobile advertisers as
an implicit social contract (Okazaky, Li, and Hirose 2009).
Consumers provide information and are active online in
exchange for solicitations, but if marketers break from the
expected pattern of behavior, consumers believe their rights
have been violated (Milne and Gordon 1993). Internet
advertising researchers (Cho and Cheon 2004; Okazaky, Li,
and Hirose 2009) establish that even if mobile users have
mostly positive experiences, a single event that induces a
negative experience can heighten privacy concerns. With
specific reference to location-based services, previous studies
(Chen, Ross, and Huang 2008; Reedy 2008) found that
although they may offer benefits to mobile users, the con-
cerns they provoke pertaining to user privacy are significant.
Thus, we speculate that privacy concerns may make con-
sumers more cautious and suspicious about the collection
of personal information without users' awareness. Privacy
concerns may moderate the influence of experiential engagement
(Personal Engagement and Social Interactive Engagement)
on active and passive use in a location-based mobile social
network context. Specifically, we postulate that when there is a
high level of privacy concern, as measured by the extent to which
users consider the features of the Location Based Application
intrusive of their privacy, the strength of relationships among
Personal Engagement, Social Interactive Engagement and active
and passive use should change, as follows:
H3. Privacy concern negatively moderates the influence of
experiential engagement (Personal and Social Interactive
Engagement) on active use (H3a) and passive use (H3b).
The conceptual framework of the study is showed in
Fig. 1.
Methodology
The aim of this study is to explore how Personal
Engagement and Social Interactive Engagement influence
active and passive use of location-based social networking
applications, and the moderating role of privacy concerns on
these influences. For this reason, we needed to adopt an
approach to measuring the two engagement constructs and to
test the effects of these experiences and privacy concerns on
online consumer behavior.
138 M. Pagani, G. Malacarne / Journal of Interactive Marketing 37 (2017) 133–148

Stimulation
& Inspiration Privacy
Creators

Temporal
Experience H3a
H3b Critics

Intrinsic
Enjoyment Active Collectors
H1a
Personal Use
Engagement
Social
Facilitation
H1b Joiners

Self-Esteem Passive
H2a
Use P1
Social-
Interactive
Utilitarian Engagement
Perception P2
H2b

Participation P3
Socializaing

Community P4

Fig. 1. Conceptual framework.

Development of Measures Based Application (Keith 2011) was intrusive of their privacy
(1 this feature is intrusive of my privacy, 7 this feature is not
We derived measures for several constructs in our frame- intrusive of my privacy).
work from existing scales or studies in the literature, and we
adapted them to suit the context of our study (Table 1). In Participants Recruitment
accordance with the Engagement Measurement Model, we
considered a set of eight online experiences as indicators of the Subjects were recruited among people using location-based
engagement construct (Calder and Malthouse 2004, 2005, social networking applications through the mobile device. The
2008). Respondents were asked the extent to which they agreed respondents had been recruited from five different channels:
or disagreed with each of the individual statements, represen-
tative of the eight online experiences people might have with
1. 500 employees of a large multinational IT company (350 in
the LBS Application, on a seven-point Likert scale, where one
Europe and in 150 in the US) received a personal invitation
is “strongly disagree” and seven “strongly agree” (Table 1).
to fill in the online survey;
The scale for active use was adapted from the Social
2. 1,250 invitations sent to an initial sample of location-based
Technographics methodology (Li and Bernoff 2008; Teo, Lim,
social networking application users reached through Twitter,
and Lai 1997) and consisted of 11 items. We included the
Buzz, and Facebook, asking them to forward the invitation
following social technographic profiles: (1) creators, (2) critics,
to their contacts (a snowball technique) as well as to fill in
(3) collectors and (4) joiners. The scale for passive use
the survey themselves.
consisted of four items, from the “spectators” cluster of
3. Link to the survey posted on Gowalla, Google Hotpot,
activities (Li and Bernoff 2008). All of the measures were
Foursquare, Loopt and Whrrl and the related fan pages on
rated on a seven-point scale: never/almost never; a few times a
Facebook;
year; less than once a month; a few times a month; a few times a
4. Blog posts by influential EU and US bloggers;
week; about once a day; several times a day.
5. Ad hoc advertising campaign on Facebook that generated
For privacy concerns, we adopted the scale suggested by
hundreds of millions of impressions.
Barkhuus and Dey (2003) and considered the six reasons why
users adopt location based social network applications (Keith
2011). Users were asked to rate on a seven-point Likert scale Given the length of the survey, two respondents were
the degree to which they thought that each feature of Location randomly rewarded with a 25 dollar iTunes Card. We did this
 M. Pagani, G. Malacarne / Journal of Interactive Marketing 37 (2017) 133–148 139

Table 1
Question wording, means and standard deviations for construct measures a.
Std Mean Std Squared multiple
loading deviation correlation
Consumer experience (Calder and Malthouse 2008)
Stimulation and inspiration This application makes me think of things in new ways. .81 3.96 1.64 .72
This application inspires me in my own life. .83 3.96 1.66 .65
This application stimulates my thinking about lots of different topics. .83 3.63 1.61 .59
This application makes me a more interesting person. .78 3.34 1.68 .48
Some tips and reviews I read on this application are very insightful .68 2.81 1.68 .32
Social facilitation This application often gives me something to talk about. .89 3.92 1.67 .68
I bring up things I have seen or read on this application in conversations .88 4.10 1.77 .67
with many other people.
I use things from this application in discussions or arguments with people I know. .91 3.99 1.72 .74
Temporal experience Using this application is part of my routine .78 4.30 1.84 .90
This is one of the applications I always use when I am using my mobile phone .77 4.49 1.89 .65
I use this application a big part to collect tips suggestions about the places .76 3.12 1.68 .59
I visit or see where are my friends.
Using this application and keeping in touch with my friends or collecting .73 2.70 1.73 .44
rewards helps me to get my day started in the morning
Self-esteem and civic Using this application makes a difference in my life .88 3.17 1.69 .74
mindedness Using this application makes me feel like a better citizen .82 3.17 1.73 .61
This application reflects my values .86 3.33 1.62 .65
Using this application makes me more a part of my community .74 4.03 1.69 .44
I am a better person for using this application .82 2.88 1.68 .61
Intrinsic enjoyment Using this application is a treat for me .74 3.44 1.75 .44
Using this application improves my mood, makes me happier .84 3.44 1.64 .72
I like to kick back and wind down with this application .82 3.27 1.59 .50
I like to use this application when I am eating or taking a break .57 4.28 1.67 .24
While I am on this application I don't think other apps I could use .74 3.21 1.76 .44
Utilitarian perception Using this application helps me in making good decisions .84 3.41 1.74 .69
You learn how to improve yourself from this application .74 2.88 1.66 .49
This application provides information that helps me in making decisions .82 3.90 1.72 .60
This app helps me better managing my money .79 3.08 1.75 .50
I give advice and tips to people I know based on things I see/read with this application .73 4.15 1.72 .43
Participation and socializing I do quite a bit of socializing with through application .81 3.91 1.65 .63
I contribute to the conversation on this application .83 3.89 1.77 .88
I often feel guilty about the amount of time I spend using this application .66 3.02 1.82 .23
I should probably cut back on the amount of time I spend using this application .56 3.10 1.74 .15
Community I am as interested in inputs from other users of this application .78 4.25 1.64 .58
A big reason I like this application is the content I get from other users .81 4.41 1.63 .56
This application does a good job of getting visitors to contribute or provide feedback .76 4.43 1.66 .49
I've got interested in things I otherwise I wouldn't have because of other users .76 3.97 1.58 .49
of this application
Overall other users of this application are pretty knowledgeable about .79 3.89 1.54 .52
the topics it cover so you can trust their advices
I'd like to meet other people that regularly use this application .68 4.65 1.74 .54

Active use (Li and Bernoff 2008)

Creators I publish tips reviews and feedbacks or update my profile .62 3.92 2.00 .30
I upload videos I created .75 2.42 1.50 .30
I share videos/photos .75 3.67 1.89 .26
Critics I post comments/Feedbacks/ratings .73 3.55 1.77 .58
I give feedbacks on someone other's comment .52 3.75 1.77 .66
I contribute sharing tips .69 3.59 1.88 .43
Collectors I use the RSS feeds b .41 3.89 2.42 .50
I check in in order to get discounts/gifts/badges .78 3.22 1.93 .50
I check in the places I've visited .74 2.79 1.88 .37
Joiners I update/maintain my profile b .39 5.40 1.60 .22
I check in b .38 5.30 1.62 .24

Passive use (Li and Bernoff 2008)

Spectators I watch videos from other users .68 5.24 1.41 .26
I read the online forum discussion groups .79 4.87 1.71 .19
I read the users feedback/ratings/online reviews .87 5.00 1.52 .24
I read someone else's comments .71 5.21 1.60 .18
(continued on next page)
140 M. Pagani, G. Malacarne / Journal of Interactive Marketing 37 (2017) 133–148

Table 1 (continued)
Std Mean Std Squared multiple
loading deviation correlation
Privacy concern (Barkhuus and Dey 2003)
Localization of restaurants/bar/shops/venues close to the place where I am .71 2.79 1.88 .41
My friend can see where I am b .39 3.75 2.04 .35
I can see where my friends are .55 3.24 1.96 .58
I can read tips and reviews left from other people about the place I've planned to go to .94 2.21 1.67 .80
I can leave tips and reviews on every venue .91 2.30 1.62 .40
I can record the places I have visited .71 2.81 1.89 .52
I need to check in in order to get discounts/gifts/badges .69 2.43 1.72 .62
I can see where people I don't know b personally are and they can see me b .09 4.77 2.11 .59
a
All of the measures are rated on a 7-point scale.
b
This item was dropped from the analysis as the std. loading is less than .05.

to incentivize people to take the survey more seriously and to
ensure the highest rate of completion. The survey was in English.
Sample Characteristics
Of the 583 users that filled in the questionnaire, a total of
359 completed the survey, representing a conversion ratio of
62%. The resulting sample (Table 2) was 70% male and 30%
female. Of the sample 50% were between 25 and 34 years old,
34% were between 18 and 24 years old and 16% between 35
and 44 years old. The level of education of the sample is high
as the majority of respondents have at least a bachelor or master
degree. The sample has an international distribution. The
respondents come from 27 different countries but most of them
Table 2
Sample demographics.
Variable Demographic statistics
Gender 70% were male and 30% were female
Age 50% belonged to the 18–24 age group, while 16%
was between 25 and 34. Only 34% of the sample
was over 35
Nationality 19% were American, 77% were European from
14 countries a and 4% Asian.
Education 2% primary school; 10% secondary;
31% pre-university; 9% diploma; 29% Bachelor
Degree; 14% Master Degree; 4% PhD; 1% other
Occupation 43% full time employed; 12% self employed;
4% part-time employed; 35% student;
1% housewives; 1% retired; 2% unemployed.
Location based social Facebook Places 61.5%, Foursquare 61.3%
networking applications
Frequency of check in 30% checks in almost every time or every time,
17% about once a day, 18% a few times in a
month, 5% less than once in a month, 14%
sometimes, 5% almost never or never, 11% do
not check in
Frequency of Sharing 16% share their location almost every time or
every time they check in, 7% share their location
about once a day, 25% share their location a few
times in a month, 6% share the location less than
once in a month, 14% share their location
sometimes, 9% share their location almost never or
never, 23% do not share their location
a
Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg,
Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Scotland, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, UK.
come from Europe (77%) and the US (19%). 42% of the
respondents are employed full time and 35% are students.
Facebook Places (61.5%) and Foursquare (61.3%) emerged
as the most downloaded location-based applications followed
by Google Hotpot and Latitude. Foursquare in turn is the
application actively used by the majority of respondents,
followed by Facebook Places.
Results
We followed the first step of Anderson and Gerbing's
(1988) two-step procedure by assessing the measurement
model with respect to engagement and usage. We first
performed a CFA using maximum likelihood estimation to
study the psychometric properties of our experience measures
(first-order constructs); second, we developed second-order
engagement factors to the eight experiences (as we can see in
Fig. 2) and then fitting a second-order confirmatory factor
analysis model.
Measurement Model Evaluation
Internal Consistency
We used two measures to evaluate the internal consistency of
the constructs. The coefficient Cronbach Alpha (α) is a measure
of reliability (Fornell and Larcker 1981) whereas the average
variance extracted (AVE) estimates the amount of variance
captured by a construct's measure relative to random measure-
ment error. Estimates of α greater than .6 (Hair et al. 2010) and
AVE greater than .5 are usually considered to support internal
consistency (Bagozzi and Yi 1988). As Tables 1 and 3 show, all
values are significantly greater than these stipulated criteria and
therefore are indicative of good internal consistency. Factor
loadings less than .5 were not considered for further analysis
based on Hair et al.'s (2010) suggestion that this cut-off point was
appropriate for interpretative purposes. Therefore we didn't
consider the three items measuring active use, which showed
factor loadings less than .5 and two items measuring Privacy
(Table 1). Outliers on the x- and y-space were detected via
Cook's Distance values. There were, however, cases with Cook's
D values above .01 and they were deemed to be outliers. In total
17 cases had values above .01 and were thus deleted from
subsequent analyses.
 M. Pagani, G. Malacarne / Journal of Interactive Marketing 37 (2017) 133–148 141

Stimulation &
power function (Judd and McClelland 1989) while items that
Inspiration were positively skewed were transformed using either a square
root or natural log function (Judd and McClelland 1989).
Temporal The skew indices of the transformed variables fell below
Experience .78*** three, and these transformed variables were used in subsequent
.63*** procedures.
Intrinsic .77***
Enjoyement Discriminant Validity
Personal We evaluated the discriminant validity of the model constructs
.83*** Engagement
using two different approaches. We built a confirmatory factor
Social
Facilitation
analysis model with 14 latent constructs and a total of 60 items.
The results show that the model fits the data well. The goodness-
.86***
of-fit statistics for the model are as follows: χ2 (181.00) =
Self-Esteem 413.40, p = .000, CFI = .95, TLI = .93; and RMSEA = .06.
The Ф matrix (correlations between constructs) appears in
Social- Table 3. As the first test of discriminant validity, we checked
Interactive
Utilitarian .71*** Engagement whether the correlations among the latent constructs were
Perception
significantly less than one. Because none of the confidence
.85*** intervals of the Ф values (± two standard errors) included
Participation the value of one (Bagozzi and Yi 1988), this test provides
Socializaing .80*** evidence of discriminant validity. In addition, for each pair
of latent constructs, we compared the chi-square value for
Community a measurement model and constrained the correlation to
equal one to a baseline model without these constraints.
We performed a chi-square difference test for each pair of
p<.05, ** p<.001, *** p<.0001
2
(200) = 556.90; p=.00; CFI=.92; GFI=.86; RMSEA= .07; SRMR=.02. factors and every case resulted in a significant difference,
again suggesting that all the measures of constructs in the
Fig. 2. Second order confirmatory factor model. measurement model achieve discriminant validity. We also
assessed discriminant validity (Fornell and Larcker 1981) by
Although the Kurtosis indices of all of the items were all comparing the squared correlations (between the constructs)
within the acceptable range, the skew indices of 13 items were and the average variance extracted for a construct. Constructs
above three. Thus, these variables were transformed accordingly: have discriminant validity when the squared correlations are
items that were negatively skewed were transformed using a lower than the average variance extracted for a construct. All

Table 3
Matrix of latent constructs for full sample.
SI TEM IE PS UT CIV COM SF CREA CRI COL JOIN SPET PRI USE
SI (.65)
TEM .28 ⁎⁎ (.75)
IE .31 ⁎⁎ .26 ⁎⁎ (.61)
PS .37 ⁎⁎ .44 ⁎⁎ .48 ⁎⁎ (.65)
UT .26 ⁎⁎ .08 ⁎⁎ .36 ⁎⁎ .28 ⁎⁎ (.60)
CIV .40 ⁎⁎ .19 ⁎⁎ .54 ⁎⁎ .44 ⁎⁎ .51 ⁎⁎ (.76)
COM .46 ⁎⁎ .24 ⁎⁎ .26 ⁎⁎ .44 ⁎⁎ .40 ⁎⁎ .39 ⁎⁎ (.82)
SF .45 ⁎⁎ .35 ⁎⁎ .31 ⁎⁎ .50 ⁎⁎ .29 ⁎⁎ .39 ⁎⁎ .46 ⁎⁎ (.87)
CREA .18 ⁎⁎ .08 −.15 ⁎⁎ .18 ⁎⁎ .18 ⁎⁎ .23 ⁎⁎ .19 ⁎⁎ .06 (.95)
CRI .24 ⁎⁎ .21 ⁎⁎ .00 .32 ⁎⁎ .26 ⁎⁎ .28 ⁎⁎ .36 ⁎⁎ .19 ⁎⁎ .66 ⁎⁎ (.97)
COL .25 ⁎⁎ .15 ⁎⁎ −.03 .23 ⁎⁎ .22 ⁎⁎ .23 ⁎⁎ .25 ⁎⁎ .15 ⁎⁎ .60 ⁎⁎ .63 ⁎⁎ (.95)
JOIN .25 ⁎⁎ .14 ⁎⁎ −.07 .28 ⁎⁎ .23 ⁎⁎ .23 ⁎⁎ .27 ⁎⁎ .11 ⁎ .64 ⁎⁎ .71 ⁎⁎ .65 ⁎⁎ (.97)
SPET .17 ⁎⁎ .22 ⁎⁎ .06 .27 ⁎⁎ .24 ⁎⁎ .23 ⁎⁎ .40 ⁎⁎ .13 ⁎⁎ .52 ⁎⁎ .66 ⁎⁎ .57 ⁎⁎ .57 ⁎⁎ (.97)
PRI (.76)
USE .28 ⁎⁎ (.72)
Coefficient Alpha .85 .86 .79 .79 .82 .88 .83 .87 .75 .82 .65 .84 .78 .89 .81
Composite reliability .85 .86 .75 .79 .82 .88 .79 .87 .98 .99 .98 .99 .99 .77 .82
Notes: Zero order correlations below diagonal. Average variance extracted (AVE) appears on the diagonal in parentheses.
SI = stimulation and inspiration, TEM = temporal experience, IE = intrinsic enjoyment, PS = participation and socializing, UT = utilitarian perception, CIV =
self-esteem and civic mindedness, COM = community, SF = social facilitation, CREA = creators, CRI = critics, COL = collectors, JOIN = joiners, SPET =
spectators, PRI = privacy concern, USE = use.
⁎⁎ p b .001
⁎ p b .05
142 M. Pagani, G. Malacarne / Journal of Interactive Marketing 37 (2017) 133–148
squared correlations were lower than the average variance
extracted values (Table 1). Thus, all constructs demonstrated
discriminant validity.
Convergent Validity
We considered only items with standardized factor loadings
above .50 and squared multiple correlations above .50 (Hair
et al. 2010). Five items were therefore dropped from the
analysis as showed standardized loading below .50 (Table 1).
Therefore, the constructs demonstrated the convergent
validity and were correlated with the measures they were
theoretically predicted to be correlated with. But with respect to
the constructs of active and passive usage, although the
standardized factor loadings of the items were above .50 not
all the squared multiple correlations were above .50, therefore
they demonstrated mediocre convergent validity.
Second-order Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Once we assessed the validity of the first-order construct
model we performed a second-order Confirmatory Factor
Analysis for the engagement model in order to test how the
eight users' experiences taken into consideration for this study
relate to the second-order factors: Personal Engagement ad
Social Interactive Engagement. The model fit resulting from
the second order CFA was found to be acceptable χ2 (200) =
556.90; p = .00; CFI = .92; GFI = .86; RMSEA = .07; and
SRMR = .02. All the relationships were found to be highly
significant (p b .001) (Fig. 2). Only the relationship between
utilitarian experience and Personal Engagement had a low
factor loading (.22 p b .00) and was dropped from the analysis
making the two constructs mutually exclusive.
Structural Model Estimation
We fit the model and tested the hypotheses using Smart PLS
SEM path coefficients (Fig. 3). Personal Engagement showed a
positive and significant effect on active use (β = .26 p b .05)
but a negative not significant impact on passive use (β = −.09
p = .36). Social Interactive Engagement showed a positive
significant effect only on passive use (β = .25 p b .05) and
a positive but not significant effect on active use (β = .12
p = .23). The model yields an SRMR Composite Model = .06
and SRMR Common Factor Model = .08 showing an acceptable
fit (Hu and Bentler 1999).
The Moderating Effect of Privacy
We then decided to perform a moderating effect analysis to
see whether and how the privacy concern of users plays any
moderating role on the relationship between experiential
engagement and active and passive usage. In order to do so,
the sample was divided into two groups using the median of
the privacy composite (Median = 3.60). Simultaneous group
procedures were then conducted to determine whether privacy
moderated the effect of engagement on passive and active
usage. In the first procedure, all paths were free to vary — this
was the baseline model. In the second procedure, all
hypothesized paths were constrained to be equal — this was
the constrained model. If the change in chi-square was not
statistically significant, the simultaneous group analysis was
stopped at this point. If the change in chi-square between the
baseline and constrained model was statistically or marginally
significant, further tests were conducted to determine which
paths were not invariant across groups.
The results of the simultaneous group analysis for privacy
are summarized in Tables 4 and 5. The findings reveal that the
change in chi-square from the baseline model to the constrained
model was not statistically significant (Δχ2 (2) = 5.72, NS),
consequently further tests were conducted to determine which
paths were not invariant across groups. Findings in Table 5
reveal that only the path coefficient between engagement
and active usage varied significantly across low and high
privacy groups (Δχ2 (1) = 5.67, p b .05). Specifically, the
path coefficient between engagement and active usage was
stronger in the high privacy group (β = .45 p = .000) than in the
low privacy group (β = .28 p = .005). Thus, it appears that
experiential engagement plays an important role influencing
active usage when users are more concerned with privacy issues
than when they are less concerned with privacy issues. Contrary
to our expectations privacy concerns were found to positively
(not negatively) moderate the relationship between experiential
engagement and active usage.
We further ran an analysis of the moderating effect of the
privacy on the sub-dimensions Personal Engagement and Social
Interactive Engagement using SmartPLS. Privacy shows a
significant positive effect on the relationship between Personal
Engagement on active use (β = .29 p = .001) but a negative not
significant moderating effect on the relationship between Social
Interactive Engagement and active use (β = −.17 p = .06). We
didn't find any significant moderating effect of privacy on
Personal Engagement (β = .10 p = .25) and Social Interactive
Engagement (β = −.00 p = .99) on passive use.
We also controlled for the direct effect of privacy and found
a statistically significant negative effect of privacy only on
passive use (β = −.16 p b .05). Privacy has not a direct effect
on active use (β = −.10 p = .10). We also ran a post-hoc test in
order to compare the EU and US groups. We ran a multi-group
analysis (using Smart PLS) in order to compare the effects of
the different experiences on active and passive use in Europe
and the US. We also considered the moderating effect of
privacy concerns on active and passive use. As indicated in
Table 6, we didn't find significant differences between the two
groups. Only the effects of some experiences on active and
passive use appear more significant for the EU group compared
to the US. The moderating effect of privacy appears positive on
the relationship between Personal Engagement and active and
passive use for the EU but significant only for the active use
(Table 6). For the US group, the moderating effect of privacy
on the relationship between Personal Engagement and active
use is still positive but not significant. Privacy plays a negative
not significant moderating effect in Europe and the US on the
relationship between Social Interactive Engagement and active
use. No significant moderating effects were found for both the
 M. Pagani, G. Malacarne / Journal of Interactive Marketing 37 (2017) 133–148 143

Stimulation &
Inspiration

Temporal
experience .28***
.19***

Intrinsic .23***
Enjoyement
y .26*
Personal Active
.19*** Engagement Use
-.09
Social
Facilitation
.31***

.12
Self-Esteem Passive
Use
Social- .26*
Interactive
Utilitarian Engagement
.42***
perception

.26***
Participation
Socializing
.48***

Community

SRMR Composite Model =.06; SRMR Common Factor Model = .08

Fig. 3. Measurement model.

samples on the relationship between Engagement (Personal and
Socio Interactive) and passive use even if the effect is positive
in Europe and negative in the US. The differences in the
moderating effects (even not significant) indicate also that there
are some cultural differences between the US and EU in
privacy attitudes, experiential engagement and behaviors as
highlighted in previous studies (IBM 1999). Culture can affect
the relationships among components of emotional responding
(Kitayama, Mesquita, and Karasawa 2006; Matsumoto, Yoo,
and Nakagawa 2008).
As a second post-hoc test we measured the correlation
between the frequency of usage and the perceived privacy
intrusiveness of each function of LBS Applications. For what
concerns the privacy intrusiveness, respondents were asked to
rate from 1 to 7 the degree to which they thought that each
feature of their LBS Application was intrusive of their privacy
(1 low privacy intrusiveness, 7 high privacy intrusiveness). As
shown in Table 7 most of the services performed by LBS
Applications are perceived, on average, as not privacy in-
trusive, with the exception of the possibility to be localized by
unknown people. Females seem more concerned with their
online privacy since the ratings expressed on the perceived
privacy intrusiveness of each item were generally higher with
respect to the ratings expressed by males.
Results confirm that the higher the perceived locational
privacy intrusiveness is, the lower the frequency of usage of
LBS Applications. The highest level of correlations between
privacy intrusiveness and usage is shown for functions that
allow the possibility to see the geographical position of
friends (−.31 p b .000) and unknown people (−.23 p b .000).

Table 4 Table 5
Simultaneous group analysis results for privacy. Path coefficients for low and high privacy groups.
Model χ2 df Δχ2 Δdf Path B SE Beta C.R. Sig.
a
Unconstrained 2,552.05 1,238 Low privacy concern
Constrained 2,557.77 1,240 5.72 2 Engagement to passive use .24 .08 .29 2.86 .00
Engagement to passive use constrained 2,552.09 1,239 .04 1 Engagement to active use .28 .10 .28 2.79 .01
Engagement to active use constrained 2,557.72 1,239 5.67 1 High privacy concern
Engagement to passive use .27 .10 .27 2.69 .01
Note. Critical χ2 (1) = 3.84, p b .05. Critical χ2 (2) = 5.99, p b .05.
a Engagement to active use .75 .18 .45 4.16 .00
Constrained models were compared to this unconstrained baseline model.
144 M. Pagani, G. Malacarne / Journal of Interactive Marketing 37 (2017) 133–148

Table 6 consider specifically the mobile platform and location-based

Testing results of main effect structural equation model by market. mobile social networks. Previous studies (Metzger 2004; Rice
Parameter Multi-Group 2006; Yao, Rice, and Wallis 2007) focused more on the
estimates Analysis relationships between previous online activities and Internet
Europe US US vs. Europe attitudes.
Stimulation and inspiration ➔ active use .26 ⁎ .33 .06
Temporal experience ➔ active use .05 .01 .05 Discussion
Intrinsic enjoyment ➔ active use −.07 −.05 .02
Social facilitation ➔ active use −.04 .25 .29
Results obtained in this study suggest that with reference to
Self esteem and civic mindedness ➔ −.07 −.32 .25
active use location-based social networks, the “utilitarian” experience
Utilitarian perception ➔ active use .17 ⁎ .22 .05 only shows a relationship with Social-Interactive Engagement.
Participation socializing ➔ active use .25 ⁎ .19 .06 The relationship between utilitarian experience and Personal
Community ➔ active use −.09 −.05 .03 Engagement is not considered due to a low factor loading,
Stimulation and inspiration ➔ passive use .01 −.10 .11
even if this result seems to contradict previous evidence,
Temporal experience ➔ passive use −.08 .07 .15
Intrinsic enjoyment ➔ passive use −.11 −.01 .10 i.e., Calder, Malthouse, and Schaedel (2009) which suggested
Social facilitation ➔ passive use .13 .13 .00 the relationship between this utilitarian experience and Personal
Self esteem and civic mindedness ➔ .03 −.02 .05 Engagement dimension. It confirms that social networks LBSs
passive use are less utilitarian compared to other mobile computing contexts
Utilitarian perception ➔ passive use −.06 .15 .21
(i.e., finding things and finding places).
Participation socializing ➔ passive use −.02 .32 .34
Community ➔ passive use 25 ⁎ −.20 .44 Personal Engagement showed a significant positive relation-
Moderating effect of privacy concern .33 ⁎ .12 ship with active usage, while Social Interactive Engagement
on PE ➔ active use showed a significant positive relationship with passive usage.
Moderating effect of privacy concern −.23 −.07 This means that leveraging on experiences pertaining to how
on SIE ➔ active use
users seek stimulation, inspiration and a reflection of their own
Moderating effect of privacy concern .10 −.01
on PE ➔ passive use values from a medium, impacts more on active as they are
Moderating effect of privacy concern .00 −.12 stimulated to check in or comment on the feedback posted by
on SIE ➔ passive use other people. The social experience, such as the sense of
⁎⁎⁎ p b .0001. ⁎⁎ p b .001. community or being part of a social group, influences more
⁎ p b .05. passive behavior as it increases the interest in reading other
comments or collecting information.
Social Interactive Engagement on the other hand shows
a significant positive effect on passive usage (β = −.60;
These findings confirm that in location based social network p b .000), meaning that the more people experience a deep
application context, the customers may perceive high concerns sense of community, enjoy spending time socializing with other
for their privacy as not only posted or blogged information users or give advice and tips to people based on things they
(where a customer has control of what to post) but also when read from the applications they use, the more they show a
the behavior (i.e. walking paths etc.) may be measured by a passive behavior.
firm. This could indicate that results coming from this work are If so, this might be an interesting implication for research
very specific for high privacy concern context where you can and management since it indicates that management has to win
follow a “customer's walks” by tracking the GPS data. This not only active LBS users, but also passive LBS users who
means that the privacy concern may be different if we test would read/view what others have posted.
the same model on social media where the risk to be located With regard to the third hypothesis, which assumed that
is lower. This study is also the first, to our knowledge, to privacy concerns moderate the relationship between engagement

Table 7
Privacy intrusiveness and usage for each LBS function.
Privacy concern Use
Mean SD Skewness Kurtosis Mean SD Skewness Kurtosis
Localization of venues close to the place where I am 2.79 1.88 .83 −.48 2.70 2.07 .91 −.60
My friends can see where I am 3.75 2.04 .23 − 1.21 3.36 1.74 .39 −.67
I can see where my friends are 3.24 1.96 .52 −.85 3.23 1.75 .47 −.68
I can read tips and reviews left from other people 2.21 1.67 1.50 1.39 2.82 1.98 .80 −.68
I can leave tips and reviews on every venue 2.30 1.62 1.29 .96 2.95 1.84 .70 −.57
I can record the places I have visited 2.81 1.89 .82 −.41 3.14 1.81 .49 −.80
I need to check in in order to get discounts gifts and badges 2.43 1.72 1.13 .33 2.89 1.90 .67 −.75
I can see where people I don't personally know are and they can see where I am 4.77 2.11 −.46 − 1.16 4.40 2.14 −.24 − 1.29
 M. Pagani, G. Malacarne / Journal of Interactive Marketing 37 (2017) 133–148
and active use, we found that users are somehow concerned with
the potential loss of privacy. Even though they frequently use
their applications, they are more reluctant to share their location
within their social networks. Contrary to our expectations,
privacy concerns were found to positively (not negatively)
moderate the relationship between experiential engagement
and active usage. It appears that experiential engagement plays
an important role influencing active usage when users are
more concerned with privacy issues than when they are
less concerned with privacy issues. This means that when
customers show a high level of privacy concern, the active
behavior is more influenced by experiential engagement
(Personal and Social Interactive Engagement). In particular,
we found that privacy has a positive moderating role on the
relationship between Personal Engagement and active use.
This result highlights the importance for LBS Application
providers and retailers to work carefully on experiences related
to Personal Engagement. This would explain the success of
many companies that leverage on users' experiences, require in
exchange, some information overcoming privacy concerns.
This is the case of Pokemon Go (Nintendo) based on location
based game commerce or other companies such as Starbucks,
H&M, NorthFace, and Louis Vuitton.
Results confirm the hybrid nature of LBS Applications that
enjoy high levels of both Personal and Social-Interactive
Engagement. On the one hand, these applications allow users
to interact with others, leaving reviews, sharing their location,
thoughts, and pictures; on the other, they can also be seen
as social city guides containing information, so therefore
users can certainly experience them in a way that is similar
to reading magazines and newspapers. Considering that it is
the personal engagement that affects in the strongest way
“active use” and that brands are seeking active use, there
is no reason for a LBS app to serve only as a city guide.
Companies should multiply experiences that stimulate jointly
both Personal and Social-Interactive Engagement. In manage-
rial parlance, companies can create personal experiences
through this application to stimulate people to be active and
collect data about the customers in order to better profile and
segment them.
It is also worth mentioning, the negative etc. correlation
between the intrinsic enjoyment experience and creator activities.
This result shows that creation is not intrinsically motivated.
In order to validate this result, we conducted three personal
interviews with three bloggers (two of them in the fashion
industry). They confirmed that their active and creative behavior
is mainly led by external factors (participation and keeping
relations with fans) and only at the beginning of their activity,
was it motivated by intrinsic enjoyment.
As the scale of active use adopted in this study implies
different levels of activity (Li and Bernoff 2008) and creators
appear to be the most interesting customers for companies, this
result opens up interesting implications for companies and
shows the significant role of social experiences in generating a
creative behavior.
Managerial implications emerging from the study are sig-
nificant for location based application companies, advertisers
145
and more businesses aiming at implementing their marketing
strategies through social media. In order to stimulate the
Social-Interactive Engagement, it appears critical for software
companies and developers to implement features that allow the
social activities that users can undertake while using their
applications. For example, developers might add real-time
chats that connect users in the same location. In order to
stimulate the use of these features, and to overcome privacy
concerns, strong marketing efforts are also needed. Existing
location based social network applications have tried to face
the privacy issue by giving users more options to control
the disclosure of location information (i.e. Glympse or
Foursquare). In this study, we demonstrate that leveraging
experiences that influence personal engagement could also
be a good way to stimulate active use and overcome privacy
issues.
Secondly, notwithstanding the fact that locational privacy
intrusiveness does not appear to be an issue when users are
highly engaged with the application they use, it is also true
that it could be a barrier for potential wider adoption of the
application (by users who have a lower frequency of use or
are not engaged). A possible solution for convincing users
worried about the loss of their privacy to use location-based
applications could be the implementation of an opt-in program
(i.e., a program that allows to “block” spatial location).
Leveraging on personalization, a company can finely target
people with content, features, and applications that suit
their individual needs. The concept is based on “pulling” the
consumer to the mobile space by providing value while at
the same time maintaining privacy and building trust (Sultan
and Rohm 2005). Another approach could be to recognize
who shares information with some rewards such as an
incentive-based model in which consumers agree to accept
advertising “pushed” to them in return for free access or mobile
content.
The outcome of this research was in identifying issues that
need to be addressed by LBSN-related entities in order to
improve their interactive marketing programs and overcome
privacy concerns.
In summary, the communications channel created by
integrating digital (mobile) and experiential not only allows
the continuation of a brand–consumer conversation, but also
encourages advocates to relay their experience to friends
and colleagues via digital word-of-mouth (social interactive
engagement) and helps overcome privacy concerns.
Furthermore, the outcomes can be applied to various entities,
notably:
• The research community to further increase their under-
standing of LBSN and related privacy and experiential
engagement issues;
• LBSN service providers to aid in prioritizing the effect of
some experiences on the active and passive behavior of the
final customer;
• Retailers in order to identify the role of personal engagement
and social interactive engagement in overcoming privacy
concerns that can influence online behavior.
146 M. Pagani, G. Malacarne / Journal of Interactive Marketing 37 (2017) 133–148
Limitations and Future Research
Although this research makes a significant contribution to
the analysis of the effects of consumers' engagement and
privacy concerns with different levels of online activity, it is not
without limitations. As such, the restrictions of this research can
provide guidelines for future studies.
In this study, the conceptual framework considers the
effect of personal engagement and social interactive engage-
ment on active and passive behavior. Other variables that
could directly impact the usage of mobile LBS networks, and
may be explored in future studies, should consider two types of
individual characteristics such as respondents' past experiences
with mobile, their innovativeness or risk-seeking behavior,
among other characteristics. We also considered only the
moderating effect of privacy, but in future studies it could be
interesting to explore if, besides direct effects, such individual
variables also act as moderators. Other moderating variables
that could be further explored refer to the five traits (Big Five
Scale) of consumer personality.
The present study considers a permission-based service as
through the check in the customer authorizes the company to
send messages or track data. Further studies aimed to analyze
the role of permission-based marketing could consider other
types of services (permission based vs. non-permission based)
to compare the different effects of engagement and privacy on
behavior.
Conclusions
Privacy concerns have been long believed to be the primary
reason for users not participating in social networks. Contrary
to our expectations, privacy concerns were found to positively
(not negatively) moderate the relationship between experiential
engagement and active usage. However, based on the emerging
results, companies can leverage on personal engagement to
overcome privacy concerns.
Users who participate in these mobile location-based social
networks are extremely “social” by nature, more so than those
who use traditional social networks. They tend to be opinionated
and do not mind being vocal and outspoken when it comes to
brand loyalty. Advertisers can leverage personal engagement to
influence active behavior and use this to help target an audience
of influencers who might further engage with their brand directly
through these social networks.
While participation in location-based social networking
applications is growing, it is extremely important for companies
to build trust to overcome privacy concerns and exploit how to
increase the benefits that the active usage of these applications
could bring to their brand awareness and customer relationship
strategy.
Future research needs to develop a deeper understanding of
the effect of privacy on active and passive use in the emerging
environments studied here, considering also the potential effect of
other mediating and/or moderating variables on privacy. For
instance, the potential effect of consumer personality may be
expected a key driver of the dynamics investigated.
References
Alba, Joseph W. and J. Wesley Hutchinson (1987), “Dimensions of Consumer
Expertise,” Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 4, 411–54.
Anderson, James C. and David W. Gerbing (1988), “Structural Equation
Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-step Approach,”
Psychological Bulletin, 103, 3, 411–23.
Armstrong, Arthur and John Hagel III (1996), “The Real Value of On-line
Communities,” Harvard Business Review, 74, 134–41 (May–June).
Bagozzi, Richard P. and Youjae Yi (1988), “On the Evaluation of Structural
Equation Models,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16, 74–94.
Barkhuus, Louise and Anind Dey (2003), “Location-based Services for Mobile
Telephony: A Study of Users' Privacy Concerns,” Proceedings of Interact
2003, Zurich: Switzerland: ACM Press. 709–12.
Beatty, S., L. Kahle, and P. Homer (1988), “The Involvement–Commitment
Model: Theory and Implications,” Journal of Business Research, 16, 2,
149–67.
Bowden, Jana Lay-Hwa (2009), “The Process of Customer Engagement: A
Conceptual Framework,” Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 17, 1,
63–74.
Brettel, Malte, J.C. Reich, Jose M. Gavilanes, and Tessa C. Flatten (2015),
“What Drives Advertising Success on Facebook? An Advertising-
effectiveness Model: Measuring the Effects on Sales of ‘Likes’ and Other
Social-network Stimuli,” Journal of Advertising Research, 52, 2, 162–75.
Brodie, Roderik, Linda D. Hollebeek, B. Juric, and A. Llic (2011), “Customer
Engagement: Conceptual Domain, Fundamental Propositions, and Implica-
tions for Research,” Journal of Service Research, 14, 3, 252–71.
Butcher, Dan (2011), “Location-based Social Networks Growing but not yet
Mainstream: Survey,” Retrieved from http://www.mobilecommercedaily.
com/2010/09/14/location-based-social-networks-growing-but-not-yet-
mainstream-survey.
Calder, Bobby J. and Edward C. Malthouse (2004), “Qualitative Media
Measures: Newspaper Experiences,” International Journal on Media
Management, 6, 1/2, 124–31.
——— and ——— (2005), “Experiential Engagement with Online Content
Web Sites and the Impact of Cross-media Usage,” working paper. The 12th
Worldwide Readership Research Symposium, Prague: Poland.
——— and ——— (2008), “Media Engagement and Advertising Effective-
ness,” in Kellogg on Media and Advertising. Bobby J. Calder, editor.
Hoboken (NJ): Wiley. 1–36.
———, ———, and Ute Schaedel (2009), “An Experimental Study of the
Relationship Between Online Engagement and Advertising Effectiveness,”
Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23, 4, 321–31.
Chapman, Peter (1997), Models of Engagement: Intrinsically Motivated
Interaction with Multimedia Learning Software. Unpublished MsC Thesis,
Waterloo, Canada: University of Waterloo.
Chellappa, Ramnath K. and Shivendu Shivendu (2008), “An Economic Model of
Privacy: A Property Rights Approach to Regulatory Choices for Online
Personalization,” Journal of Management Information Systems, 24, 3, 193–225.
Chen, Jengchung V., William H. Ross, and Shaoyu F. Huang (2008), Privacy,
Trust, and Justice Considerations for Location-based Mobile Telecommu-
nication Services, 10, 430–45.
Chevalier, Judith and Dina Mayzlin (2006), “The Effect of Word of Mouth on
Sales: Online Book Reviews,” Journal of Marketing Research, 43, 3,
345–54.
Cho, Chang-Hoan and Hongsik John Cheon (2004), “Why Do People Avoid
Advertising on the Internet?” Journal of Advertising, 33, 4, 89.
Cray, Emily (2012), “The Social ROI: Successful Social Media Measurement
from an Agency Standpoint,” The Elon Journal of Undergraduate Research
in Communications, 3, 1, 43–52.
Crosby, Lawrence A. and James R. Taylor (1983), “Psychological Commitment
and its Effects on Post-decision Evaluation and Preference Stability Among
Voters,” Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 4, 413–31.
Curtis, Bill and Bill Hefley (1994), “A WIMP No More: The Maturing of User
Interface Engineering,” Interactions, 1, 1, 22–34.
Delgado-Ballester, Elena and Jose Munuera-Aleman (2001), “Brand Trust in
the Context of Consumer Loyalty,” European Journal of Marketing, 35,
11–12, 1238–58.
 M. Pagani, G. Malacarne / Journal of Interactive Marketing 37 (2017) 133–148
Dellarocas, Crysanthos, Xiaoquan Zhang, and Neveen F. Awad (2007),
“Exploring the Value of Online Product Reviews in Forecasting Sales:
The Case of Motion Pictures,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 21, 4,
23–45.
Dolakia, Utpal M., Richard P. Bagozzi, and Lisa Klein Pearo (2004), “A Social
Influence Model of Consumer Participation in Network- and Small-group-
based Virtual Communities,” International Journal of Research in Marketing,
21, 3, 241–63.
Dickinson-Delaporte, Sonia and Gayle Kerr (2014), “Agency Generated
Research of Consumer-generated Content: The Risks, Best Practices, and
Ethics,” Journal of Advertising Research, 54, 4, 469–78.
Dinev, Tamara and Paul Hart (2004), “Internet Privacy Concerns and their
Antecedents — Measurement Validity and a Regression Model,” Behaviour
& Information Technology, 23, 6, 413–23.
——— and ——— (2006), “An Extended Privacy Calculus Model for E-
commerce Transactions,” Information Systems Research, 17, 1, 61–80.
Earp, Julia Brande and Fay Cobb Payton (2006), “Information Privacy in the
Service Sector: An Exploratory Study of Health Care and Banking
Professionals,” Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic
Commerce, 16, 2, 105–22.
eMarketer (2016), “Mobile Privacy in Western Europe,” retrieved on
June 14, 2016, at http://www.emarketer.com/articles/results.aspx?q=privacy%
20concerns.
Etgar, M. (2008), “A Descriptive Model of the Consumer Co-production
Process,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36, 1, 97–108.
Federal Trade Commission (2013), “Mobile Privacy Disclosures. Building
Trust Through Transparency,” FTC Staff Report retrieved online at https://
www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/reports/mobile-privacy-disclosures-
building-trust-through-transparency-federal-trade-commission-staff-report/
130201mobileprivacyreport.pdf.
Fornell, Claes and David F. Larcker (1981), “Evaluating Structural Equation
Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error,” Journal of
Marketing Research, 19, 1, 39–50.
Fuller, Johann, Michael Bartl, Holger Ernst, and Hans Muhlbacher (2006),
“Community Based Innovation: How to Integrate Members of Virtual
Communities into New Product Development,” Electronic Commerce
Research, 6, 1, 57–73.
———, Hans Muhlbacher, Kurt Matzler, and Gregor Jawecki (2009),
“Consumer Empowerment Through Internet-based Co-creation,” Journal
of Management Information Systems, 26, 3, 71–102.
Gambetti, Rossella C. and Guendalina Graffigna (2010), “The Concept of
Engagement: A Systematic Analysis of the Ongoing Marketing Debate,”
International Journal of Market Research, 52, 6, 801–26.
Hair, Joseph F., William C. Black, Barry J. Babin, and Rolph E. Anderson
(2010), Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall.
Heath, Robert (2009), “Emotional Engagement: How Television Builds Big
Brands at Low Attention,” Journal of Advertising Research, 49, 1, 62–73.
Hennig-Thurau, Thorsten, Kevin P. Gwinner, Gianfranco Walsh, and Dwayne
D. Gremler (2004), “Electronic Word-of-Mouth via Consumer-opinion
Platforms: What Motivates Consumers to Articulate Themselves on the
Internet?” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18, 1, 38–52.
Higgins, E.Tory (2006), “Value from Hedonic Experience and Engagement,”
Psychological Review, 113, 3, 439–60.
Ho-Dac, Nga, Stephen J. Carson, and William L. Moore (2013), “The Effects of
Positive and Negative Online Customer Reviews: Do Brand Strength and
Category Maturity Matter?” Journal of Marketing, 77, November, 37–53.
Hollebeek, Linda D. (2011), “Demystifying Customer Brand Engagement:
Exploring the Loyalty Nexus,” Journal of Marketing Management, 27, 7–8,
785–807.
Hu, L.-T. and P. Bentler (1995), “Evaluating Model Fit,” in Structural Equation
Modelling. Concepts, Issues, and Applications. R.H. Hoyle, editor. London:
Sage. 76–99.
Hung, Kineta H. and Stella Yiyan Li (2007), “The Influence of eWom on
Virtual Consumer Communities: Social Capital, Consumer Learning, and
Behavioral Outcomes,” Journal of Advertising Research, 47, 4, 485–95.
IBM Corporation (1999), IBM Multi-national Consumer Privacy Study.
Yorktown Heights, NY: IBM Global Services. IBM Corporation.
147
Jensen, Carlos, Colin Potts, and Christian Jensen (2005), “Privacy Practices of
Internet Users: Self-reports Versus Observed Behavior,” International
Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 63, 203–27.
Johnson, Cathy and Brian P. Mathews (1997), “The Influence of Experience on
Service Expectations,” International Journal of Service Industry Manage-
ment, 8, 4, 290–305.
Juang, Wen-Shenq, Chin-Laung Lei, and Horng-Twu Liaw (2002), “Privacy
and Anonymity Protection with Blind Threshold Signatures,” International
Journal of Electronic Commerce, 7, 2, 143–57.
Judd, Charles M. and Gary H. McClelland (1989), Data Analysis: A Model
Comparison Approach. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Junglas, Iris A., Norman A. Johnson, and Christiane Spitzmueller (2008),
“Personality Traits and Concern for Privacy: An Empirical Study in the
Context of Location-based Services,” European Journal of Information
Systems, 17, 4, 387–402.
Kappelman, Leon A. (1995), “Measuring User Involvement: A Diffusion of
Innovation Perspective,” Database Advances, 26, 2/3, 65–87.
Kehoe, Colleen, James Pitkow, and Kimberly Morton (2011), “Eighth WWW
User Survey,” Retrieved from http://www.gvu.gatech.edu/user_surveys/
survey-1997-10/.
Keith, Jason (2011), “The Six Reasons Why People Use Foursquare,” Retrieved
from http://socialfresh.com/6-reasons-consumers-use-foursquare/.
Kitayama, Shinobu, Batja Mesquita, and Mayumi Karasawa (2006), “Cultural
Affordances and Emotional Experience: Socially Engaging and Disengaging
Emotions in Japan and the United States,” Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 91, 5, 890–903.
Kozinets, Robert V. (1999), “E-tribalized Marketing? The Strategic Implica-
tions of Virtual Communities of Consumption,” European Management
Journal, 17, 3, 252–64.
Lankshear, Gloria and David Mason (2001), “Technology and Ethical
Dilemmas in a Medical Setting: Privacy, Professional Autonomy, Life and
Death,” Ethics and Information Technology, 3, 3, 223–33.
Laurel, Brenda (1993), Computers as Theatre. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Li, Charlene and Josh Bernoff (2008), Groundswell: Winning in a World
Transformed by Social Technologies. Boston: Harvard Business Press.
Little, Beverly and Philip Little (2006), “Employee Engagement: Conceptual
Issues,” Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications, and Conflict,
10, 1, 111–20.
Madden, Mary, Amanda Lenhart, Sandra Cortesi, Urs Gasser, Maeve Duggan,
Aaron Smith, and Meredith Beaton (2013), “Teens, Social Media, and
Privacy, Pew Research Center,” retrieved at http://www.pewinternet.org/
files/2013/05/PIP_TeensSocialMediaandPrivacy_PDF.pdf.
Malhotra, Naresh K., S. Kim Sung, and James Agarwal (2004), “Internet Users'
Information Privacy Concerns (IUIPC): The Construct, the Scale, and a
Causal Model,” Information Systems Research, 15, 4, 336–55.
Malthouse, Edward C., Bobby J. Calder, and Ajit Tamhane (2007), “The
Effects of Media Context Experiences on Advertising Effectiveness,”
Journal of Advertising, 36, 3, 7–18.
———, ——— and Rachel Davis Mersey (2010), “Engagement with Online
Media,” Journal of Media Business Studies, 7, 2, 39–56.
Matilla, Anna S. and Jochen Wirtz (2002), “The Impact of Knowledge Types on
the Consumer Search Process: An Investigation in the Context of Credence
Services,” International Journal of Service Industry Management, 13, 3,
214–30.
Matsumoto, David, Seung Hee Yoo, and Sanae Nakagawa (2008), “Culture,
Emotion Regulation, and Adjustment,” Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 94, 6, 925–37.
Metzger, Miriam J. and Sharon Docter (2003), “Public Opinion and Policy
Initiatives for Online Privacy Protection,” Journal of Broadcasting &
Electronic Media, 47, 3, 350–74.
——— (2004), “Privacy, Trust, and Disclosure: Exploring Barriers to
Electronic Commerce,” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 9, 4.
Middleton, Catherine A. and Jordan Leith (2007), “Intensity of Internet Use in
Canada: Exploring Canadians' Engagement with the Internet,” paper
presented at the Statistics Canada Socio-economic Conference, Ottawa.
Milne, George R. and Mary Ellen Gordon (1993), “Direct Mail Privacy-
efficiency Trade-offs Within an Implied Social Contract Framework,”
Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 12, 2, 206–15 (Fall).
148 M. Pagani, G. Malacarne / Journal of Interactive Marketing 37 (2017) 133–148
——— and Andrew J. Rohm (2000), “Consumer Privacy and Name Removal
Across Direct Marketing Channels: Exploring Opt-in and Opt-out
Alternatives,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 19, 2, 238–49.
Mittal, Banwari and Myung-Soo Lee (1989), “A Causal Model of Consumer
Involvement,” Journal of Economic Psychology, 10, 3, 363–89.
Moorman, Christine, Rohit Deshpande, and Gerald Zaltman (1993), “Factors
Affecting Trust in Market Research Relationship,” Journal of Marketing,
57, 1, 81–101.
Moreau, Page C., Donald R. Lehmann, and Arthur B. Markman (2001),
“Entrenched Knowledge Structures and Consumer Response to New
Products,” Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 1, 14–30.
Muncy, James A. and Shelby D. Hunt (2001), “Consumer Involvement:
Definitional Issues and Research Directions,” in Advances in Consumer
Research. Thomas C. Kinnear, editor. vol. 11, Provo, UT: Association for
Consumer Research. 193–6.
Muniz Jr., Albert M. and Thomas C. O'Guinn (2001), “Brand Community,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 27, March, 412–33.
Muntinga, Daniël G., Marjolein Moorman, and Edith G. Smit (2011),
“Introducing COBRAs: Exploring Motivations for Brand-related Social
Media Use,” International Journal of Advertising, 30, 1, 13–46.
Neff, Jack (2007), “OMD Proves the Power of Engagement,” Advertising Age,
78, 27, 3–4.
Nelson-Field, Karen, Erika Riebe, and Byron Sharp (2012), “What's Not to
‘Like?’ Can a Facebook Fan Base Give a Brand the Advertising Reach it
Needs?” Journal of Advertising Research, 52, 2, 262–9.
O'Brien, Heather L. and Elaine G. Toms (2008), “What Is User Engagement? A
Conceptual Framework for Defining User Engagement with Technology,”
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,
59, 6, 938–55.
——— and ——— (2010), “The Development and Evaluation of a Survey
to Measure User Engagement,” Journal of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology, 61, 1, 50–69.
Okazaky, Shintaro, Hairong Li, and Morikazu Hirose (2009), “Consumer
Privacy Concerns and Preference for Degree of Regulatory Control,”
Journal of Advertising, 38, 4, 63–77.
Pagani, Margherita and Alessandra Mirabello (2011), “The Influence of
Personal and Social-interactive Engagement in Social TV Web Sites,”
International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 16, 2, 41–68.
Patterson, Paul G. (2000), “A Contingency Approach to Modeling Satisfaction
with Management Consulting Services,” Journal of Service Research, 3, 2,
138–53.
Pires, Guilherme D., John Stanton, and Paulo Rita (2006), “The Internet,
Consumer Empowerment and Marketing Strategies,” European Journal of
Marketing, 40, 9/10, 936–49.
Quesenberry, Whitney (2003), “Dimensions of Usability: Opening the
Conversation, Driving the Process,” in Proceedings of the UPA 2003
Conference, June 23–27. UPA, editor.
Reedy, Sarah (2008), “Privacy & the Holy Grail of Mobility,” Telephony, 25
(February).
Rice, Ronald E. (2006), “Influences, Usage and Outcomes of Internet Health
Information Searching: Multivariate Results from the Pew Surveys,”
International Journal of Medical Informatics, 75, 1, 8–28.
Said, Norma S. (2004), “An Engaging Multimedia Design Model,” in
Proceedings of the 2004 Conference on Interaction Design and Children.
IDC, editor. New York: ACM Press. 169–72.
Saks, Alan M. (2006), “Antecedents and Consequences of Employee
Engagement,” Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21, 7, 600–19.
Sashi, C.M. (2012), “Customer Engagement, Buyer–Seller Relationships, and
Social Media,” Management Decision, 50, 2, 253–72.
Sawhney, Mohanbir, Gianmario Verona, and Emanuela Prandelli (2005),
“Collaborating to Create the Internet as a Platform for Customer Engagement
in Product Innovation,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 19, 4, 4–17.
Schivinski, Bruno, George Christodoulides, and D. Dabrowski (2016),
“Measuring Consumers' Engagement with Brand-Related Social-media
Content Development and Validation of a Scale that Identifies Levels of
Social-media Engagement with Brands,” Journal of Advertising Research,
64–80 (March).
Shao, Guosong (2009), “Understanding the Appeal of User Generated Media:
Uses and Gratification Perspective,” Internet Research, 19, 1, 7–25.
Shaw, Deidre, Terry Newholm, and Roger Dickinson (2006), “Consumption as
Voting: An Explanation of Consumer Empowerment,” European Journal of
Marketing, 40, 9/10, 1049–67.
Shi, Zhan, Huaxia Rui, and Andrew B. Whinston (2014), “Content Sharing in a
Social Broadcasting Environment: Evidence from Twitter,” MIS Quarterly,
38, 1, 123–42.
Smith, H. Jeff, Sandra J. Milberg, and Sandra J. Burke (1996), “Information
Privacy: Measuring Individuals Concerns About Organizational Practices,”
MIS Quarterly, 20, 2, 167–96.
———, Tamara Dinev, Heng Xu (2011), “Information Privacy Research: An
Interdisciplinary Review,” MIS Quarterly, 35, 4, A1–A27.
Soderlund, Magnus (2002), “Customer Familiarity and its Effects on Satisfaction
and Behavioral Intentions,” Psychology and Marketing, 19, 10, 861–80.
Stewart, Kathy A. and Albert H. Segars (2002), “An Empirical Examination of
the Concern for Information Privacy Instrument,” Information Systems
Research, 13, 1, 36–49.
Stone, Eugene F., Hal G. Gueutal, Donald G. Gardner, and Stephen McClure
(1983), “Field Experiment Comparing Information-privacy Values, Beliefs,
and Attitudes Across Several Types of Organizations,” Journal of Applied
Psychology, 68, 459–68.
Sultan, Fareena and Andrew J. Rohm (2005), “The Coming Era of ‘Brand in the
Hand’ Marketing,” MIT Sloan Management Review, 47, 1, 83–90.
Teo, Thompson S.H., Vivien K.G. Lim, and Raye Y.C. Lai (1997), “Users and
Uses of the Internet: The Case of Singapore,” International Journal of
Information Management, 17, 5, 325–36.
Tripathi, M.N. (2014), “Customer Satisfaction and Engagement: Customer
Retention Strategies for Brand Managers,” The XIMB Journal of
Management, 11, 1, 123–34.
Van Slyke, Craig, J.T. Shim, Richard D. Johnson, and James J. Jiang (2006),
“Concern for Information Privacy and Online Consumer Purchasing,”
Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 7, 6, 415.
Wallace, Elaine, Isabel Buil, Leslie de Chernatony, and Michael Hogan (2014),
“Who ‘Likes’ You … and Why? A Typology of Facebook Fans: From
‘Fan’-atics and Self-expressives to Utilitarians and Authentics,” Journal of
Advertising Research, 54, 1, 92–109.
Warrington, Patti and Soyeon Shim (2000), “An Empirical Investigation of the
Relationship Between Product Involvement and Brand Commitment,”
Psychology and Marketing, 17, 9, 761–82.
Wathieu, Luc, Lyle Brenner, Ziv Carmon, Amitava Chattopadhay, Klaus
Wertenbroch, Aimee Drolet, John Gourville, Rebecca K. Ratner, and
George Wu (2002), “Consumer Control and Empowerment: A Primer,”
Marketing Letters, 13, 3, 297–305.
Webster, Jane, and Jaspreet S. Ahuja (2004), Enhancing the Design of Web
Navigation Systems: The Influence of User Disorientation on Engagement
and Performance. Unpublished manuscript.
Webster, J. and H. Ho (1997), “Audience engagement in multimedia
presentations,” Database Advanced Information Systems, 28, 2, 63–77.
Westin, Alan F. (1967), Privacy and Freedom. New York: Atheneum.
Wright, Len Tiu, Andrew Newman, and Charles Dennis (2006), “Enhancing
Consumer Empowerment,” European Journal of Marketing, 40, 9/10,
925–35.
Xu, Heng, Hock-Hai Teo, Bernard C.Y. Tan, and Ritu Agarwal (2009),
“The Role of Push–Pull Technology in Privacy Calculus: The Case of
Location-based Services,” Journal of Management Information Systems,
26, 3, 135–73.
Yao, Mike Z., Ronald E. Rice, and Kier Wallis (2007), “Predicting User
Concerns About Online Privacy,” Journal of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology, 58, 5, 710–22.
Zhu, Feng and Xiaoquan Zhang (2010), “Impact of Online Consumer Reviews
on Sales: The Moderating Role of Product and Consumer Characteristics,”
Journal of Marketing, 74, 2, 133–48.