The role of perceived knowledge on key brand community constructs of trust, involvement and engagement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Against social cognitive and social exchange theories, this research paper aims to investigate the significance and interaction between perceived knowledge, involvement, trust and brand community engagement in brand communities (BC). Design/methodology/approach BC participants (n= 503) completed a cross-sectional survey for this research. Analysis was performed using PLS-SEM via SmartPLS (v. 4.1.0.2) and the novel Necessary Condition Analysis (NCA). Findings An integrative KITE model with positive and significant relationships of key BC constructs was established. The perceived BC knowledge influenced involvement and engagement. Furthermore, the constructs of involvement and trust were discovered to have a positive and significant impact on engagement, with trust having a substantial effect on BC engagement. The indirect effects of the trust construct via the BC knowledge and BC involvement constructs were also significant. Originality/value This research advances the existing conceptual approaches by introducing knowledge as the key BC constructs. The study illustrates that members’ knowledge about a BC facilitates their involvement in the BCs. The vital role of trust is revealed in the KITE model, as it is significantly related to BC knowledge, BC involvement and BC engagement with at least medium to large effect sizes. Notably, the role of trust is enhanced as it is the only necessary must-have (instead of “should-have”) condition to achieve high levels of BC engagement. Furthermore, the KITE model provides insights for marketers to develop a valuable BC.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".