Next Article in Journal
The Effect of SMEs’ Digitalization on Supply Chain Financing Performance: Based on the Resource Orchestration Theory
Previous Article in Journal
Understanding the Dynamics of e-WOM in Food Delivery Services: A SmartPLS Analysis of Consumer Acceptance
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JTAER
Volume 20
Issue 1
10.3390/jtaer20010019
jtaer-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

How Does the Relevance of Firm-Generated Content to Products Affect Consumer Brand Attitudes?

by
Yao Li
,
Ying Yin
and
Zhiqiang Wang
*
Business School, Henan University, Kaifeng 475001, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2025, 20(1), 19; https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer20010019
Submission received: 18 December 2024 / Revised: 25 January 2025 / Accepted: 28 January 2025 / Published: 31 January 2025
(This article belongs to the Topic Interactive Marketing in the Digital Era)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Despite the growing importance of firm-generated content (FGC) on social platforms, the effect of its relevance to products on consumer brand attitudes remains underexplored. As digital platforms increasingly influence consumer decision-making, this study investigates how the relevance of FGC to products affects consumer brand attitudes. Through four experimental studies, we examine the mediating role of brand authenticity and the moderating effects of brand type (time-honored vs. new) and consumer thinking style (analytic vs. holistic). The results indicate that the relevance of FGC to products positively affects consumer brand attitudes, with brand authenticity acting as a mediating factor. Furthermore, this effect is stronger for time-honored brands and analytic-thinking consumers. These findings contribute to digital marketing literature by introducing a novel perspective on FGC and product relevance, an aspect largely overlooked in previous research. Our study also provides valuable insights for brand managers on how to leverage FGC to enhance consumer–brand interactions, particularly by aligning FGC with both brand type and consumer thinking style.

1. Introduction

In recent years, the rapid development of social media platforms has transformed how brands connect with consumers. To foster meaningful consumer–brand interactions, companies have increasingly adopted digital content marketing activities, such as social media content marketing [1], live influencer marketing [2], and, particularly, firm-generated content (FGC) [3,4,5]. Distinct from user-generated content (UGC), FGC is content created by companies to promote their brands across online platforms such as social media, websites, mobile apps, and sponsored posts [6]. Prior research has demonstrated FGC’s effectiveness in improving consumer engagement [7,8,9,10,11], building consumer-based brand equity [12,13], and increasing consumer purchase intentions [14,15]. For instance, Cheng et al. [7] and Gu et al. [8] revealed that informational FGC is more effective than emotional FGC in driving brand engagement. Al-Abdallah et al. [12] found that FGC emphasizing information, social interactivity, and self-expression significantly impacts brand equity, whereas entertainment-oriented FGC has limited impact. Poulis et al. [15] demonstrated that FGC improves consumer purchase intention by increasing brand awareness.
Despite these valuable insights, prior studies have primarily focused on categorizing FGC based on its appeal (e.g., emotional vs. informational) or purpose (e.g., entertainment, information, social interactivity, or self-expression) [8,12]. While these classifications have advanced our understanding of FGC, they overlook an essential dimension: the relevance of FGC to products, which can shape consumer brand perceptions and responses [16,17]. In marketing practice, brands widely adopt varying degrees of product-relevant FGC nowadays. However, how the relevance of FGC to products affects consumer brand attitudes remains uninvestigated. Furthermore, existing studies have primarily examined outcomes such as brand engagement and equity, with limited attention to consumer brand attitudes, a fundamental determinant of long-term consumer–brand relationships.
In this study, we define the relevance of FGC to products as the degree to which FGC directly relates to product attributes (e.g., quality, functionality, components, performance, etc.) [16]. High product-relevant FGC refers to content that is strongly related to product attributes, whereas low product-relevant FGC refers to content that is less directly related to product attributes (e.g., brand narratives, philosophy, managerial stories, etc.). For example, brands like Fila employ high product-relevant FGC, such as “Refined V-cut, make performance comfortable”, emphasizing product quality and performance. Conversely, Patagonia uses low product-relevant FGC, such as “Let’s go fishing”, which does not directly relate to the product. Although theoretical propositions suggest that different types of FGC can influence brand attitudes [18,19], empirical research examining the impact of product relevance on this key outcome remains limited. This gap highlights the need for a deeper investigation into how the relevance of FGC to products affects brand attitudes, as well as the mechanisms and boundary conditions of this relationship.
To address this gap, this study applies consumer inference theory to examine the impact of FGC’s relevance to products on consumer brand attitudes. We propose a conceptual framework that identifies brand authenticity as a mediator and brand type (time-honored vs. new) and consumer thinking style (analytic vs. holistic) as moderators. This study makes three key theoretical contributions to the literature. First, it introduces a new perspective on FGC by focusing on its relevance to products, thereby expanding the existing knowledge base on FGC. Second, it extends current research by exploring the mechanisms through which FGC’s relevance to products affects consumer brand attitudes. Third, it empirically shows that brand authenticity mediates the relationship between FGC’s relevance to products and consumer brand attitudes, with brand type and consumer thinking style moderating these effects. These findings provide valuable insights for brand managers, underscoring the importance of leveraging appropriate FGC activities to optimize consumer–brand interactions.

2. Literature Review and Hypotheses Development

2.1. Impact of FGC’s Relevance to Products on Consumer Brand Attitudes

FGC has been shown to enhance brand equity and brand loyalty [12,13,17], yet its impact on consumer brand attitudes, particularly regarding its relevance to products, remains underexplored. FGC can be categorized into high and low product-relevant content based on its direct relation to product attributes [18]. Highly product-relevant FGC boosts credibility and positively influences brand perception by aligning with consumers’ cognitive expectations, improving favorable inferences about a brand’s commitment to quality [19,20]. Conversely, content irrelevant to product attributes may elicit skepticism and reduce credibility [18].
To address this gap and advance knowledge on FGC [21], the present research investigates how FGC’s relevance to products affects consumer brand attitudes. Drawing on consumer inference theory, which suggests consumers form brand judgments by bridging informational gaps using limited information [22,23,24], we propose that high product-relevant FGC, by providing explicit product-related information, enables consumers to infer a brand’s commitment to quality and performance. Consumers form inferences not only from explicit product-related information but also from symbolic or contextual marketing content that impacts their brand evaluations [25,26]. In contrast, low product-relevant FGC may signal weaker commitment and effort, leading to less favorable brand attitudes [18,19]. Hence, we proposed the following hypothesis:
H1. 
FGC’s relevance to products positively affects consumer brand attitudes.

2.2. Mediating Role of Brand Authenticity

Brand authenticity refers to consumers’ perception of a brand as genuine and trustworthy based on its promises and values [27,28]. It plays a critical role in shaping consumer–brand relationships [29], promoting brand attitudes [30,31], fostering engagement and loyalty [32,33], and enhancing perceptions of product quality [34,35]. Consumers often evaluate brand authenticity through intrinsic motivations, such as the passion and enthusiasm of brand managers for delivering high-quality products [29,36,37]. Such commitment positively influences consumer brand attitudes [30,33].
As FGC shapes perceptions of brand trustworthiness, which impacts brand attitudes [38,39,40], we propose that brand authenticity mediates the relationship between FGC’s relevance to products and consumer brand attitudes. High product-relevant FGC, by providing detailed product-related information, reinforces perceptions of a brand’s intrinsic motivation and commitment to quality [19,36]. Conversely, low product-relevant FGC may signal extrinsic motives, reducing perceptions of authenticity [18,41,42]. Authenticity, in turn, enhances recognition of functional quality and strengthens brand attitudes [30,31]. Hence, we formulated the following hypothesis:
H2. 
Brand authenticity mediates the effect of FGC’s relevance to products on consumer brand attitudes.

2.3. Moderating Role of Brand Type

According to Zhang and Guo [43], we distinguished between time-honored and new brands based on their establishment timelines to examine how FGC’s relevance to products impacts consumer brand attitudes. Time-honored brands with long histories, high recognition, and cultural heritage are often associated with traditional product attributes [44,45,46]. For example, Fila (founded in 1911 in Italy) uses phrasing such as “Refined V-cut, warm goose down, make performance comfortable”, and Wang Laoji (founded in 1828 in China) promotes “Authentic formula, no additives, refreshing and soothing taste”. Such high product-relevant FGC of these brands often aligns with consumer expectations of the brand’s core product attributes. By contrast, new brands with shorter histories and rapid growth typically focus on values such as sustainability, innovation, and modern lifestyles [43]. Consumer perceptions of these brands are often aligned with innovation and modernity.
Drawing on consumer inference theory, consumers use their general brand preferences to infer product attributes such as quality or taste [23]. For time-honored brands, expectations are strongly tied to product attributes [47,48]. High product-relevant FGC aligns with these expectations, enhancing perceptions of brand authenticity and attitudes. In contrast, for new brands, which are more aligned with contemporary values [43,49], consumer expectations of FGC’s relevance are weaker. Therefore, we propose that, for time-honored brands, FGC’s relevance to products has a stronger effect on brand authenticity and attitudes than for new brands. Thus, we proposed the following hypothesis:
H3. 
Brand type (time-honored vs. new) moderates the effect of FGC’s relevance to products on brand authenticity and brand attitudes.

2.4. Moderating Role of Consumer Thinking Style

Drawing on Nisbett et al. [50], consumer thinking styles are categorized into holistic and analytic styles, which influence cognitive processing and decision-making. Holistic thinkers focus on relationships and the broader context, while analytic thinkers evaluate objects based on specific attributes and rules [50,51]. These styles shape how consumers process brand-related information [52,53,54]. For instance, holistic thinkers may perceive scarcity cues as exclusivity, influencing their evaluations [52].
Given the above distinguishing holistic and analytic thinking styles, we concluded that holistic-thinking consumers adopt a more integrative approach [51,52], viewing FGC’s relevance to products as merely one criterion in their brand evaluation. In contrast, analytic-thinking consumers focus on FGC’s relevance as a key criterion [19,50]. Hence, we inferred that FGC’s relevance to products would have a stronger positive effect on brand authenticity and attitudes for analytic-thinking consumers than for holistic-thinking ones. Based on this, we developed the following hypothesis:
H4. 
Consumer thinking style (analytic vs. holistic) moderates the effect of FGC’s relevance on brand authenticity and brand attitudes.
In sum, we propose the research framework displayed in Figure 1.

3. Study 1

In Study 1, we investigated the impact of FGC’s relevance to products on consumer brand attitudes.

3.1. Design and Sample

We used a one-factor between-subjects experimental design (FGC’s relevance to products: high vs. low). A total of 100 online participants were recruited through Credamo, a professional data collection platform in China. They were randomly assigned to one of two experimental groups (high product-relevant FGC vs. low product-relevant FGC). Of these, we excluded four from the data analysis owing to response times that were too long or too short, and we retained 96. The demographic traits of the final sample are as follows: 52 were males (54.2%) and 44 were females (45.8%); 59 were aged 21–30 years (61.5%); and 70 had bachelor’s degrees (73%).

3.2. Stimuli and Procedures

We used text-based FGC generated by Chinese liquor brands on Sina Weibo, a widely used social media platform in China, as the experimental stimulus. To avoid the effect of brand familiarity on participants’ responses, we used a fictitious liquor brand, “Mo Bai”, instead of an actual brand. Before the experiment, we conducted a pre-test with 55 randomly recruited consumers via Credamo to select the stimulus material. The participants were exposed to 25 text-based FGC posts published by liquor brands on Sina Weibo; they subsequently rated the degree to which the content was related to product attributes. Based on these ratings, we selected five FGC posts with the highest scores and five posts with the lowest scores as stimuli for the high and low product-relevant FGC groups, respectively.
In the high product-relevant FGC group, text-based content such as “Sweet and mellow taste, superior quality”, and “Traditional brewing techniques, with rich flavor” was used. In the low product-relevant FGC group, text-based content such as “Sometimes not distinguishing between reality and dreams is a good thing” and “After the intoxication wears off, everything returns to normal” was used.
In Study 1, 96 participants were randomly assigned to one of the two experimental groups. After being informed that the study concerned content generated by Chinese liquor brands on Sina Weibo, the participants were exposed to five FGC posts from either the high- or low-product-relevant FGC group. Next, they completed measures to assess FGC’s relevance to the product and their brand attitudes. The relevance of FGC to the product (high vs. low) (α = 0.820) was based on four items adapted from Taylor and Bearden [55], such as “This content is highly related to its product attributes”. We assessed brand attitudes (α = 0.794) using three items adapted from Mitchell and Olson [56], such as “This brand offers high quality products”. Finally, the participants provided demographic information, including age, sex, and education level.

3.3. Results and Discussion

3.3.1. Manipulation Check

A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) confirmed that participants in the high product-relevant FGC group perceived the content as significantly more relevant to product attributes than those in the low product-relevant FGC group (M_high = 4.2708, SD = 0.4340; M_low = 3.9167, SD = 0.6887; F (1, 94) = 90.086, p < 0.01). The data showed that the manipulation of FGC’s relevance to the product was effective.

3.3.2. Main Effect

We conducted a one-way ANOVA to examine the impact of FGC’s relevance to products on consumer brand attitudes. High (vs. low) product-relevant FGC significantly increased brand attitudes (M_high = 4.1736, SD = 0.6150; M_low = 3.9097, SD = 0.6292; F (1, 94) = 4.318, p < 0.05).

3.3.3. Discussion

Study 1 indicates that FGC’s relevance to products significantly influences consumer brand attitudes. Compared with low product-relevant FGC, high product-relevant FGC leads to more favorable brand attitudes. Thus, H1 is confirmed (Figure 2). In Study 2, we tested the mediating role of brand authenticity in this relationship.

4. Study 2

In Study 2, we investigated the mediating role of brand authenticity in the relationship between FGC’s relevance to products and consumer brand attitudes (H2). This finding provides further evidence for H1. Unlike Study 1, which focused on liquor brands and text-based FGC, for Study 2, we used mobile phone brands and image-based FGC.

4.1. Design and Sample

We employed a between-subjects experimental design (relevance of FGC to products: high vs. low). While in Study 1, we used liquor brands and text-based FGC, in Study 2, we focused on mobile phone brands and image-based FGC as experimental stimuli. The choice of these categories was deliberate for three reasons. First, liquor and mobile phones are familiar, everyday product categories, ensuring participant engagement with the stimuli. Second, these industries actively use FGC on social media, encompassing both high and low product-relevant content, making them ideal for testing our hypotheses. Third, these categories align closely with the target demographic of younger, social media-active consumers, enabling the study to capture realistic consumer–brand interactions.
Ninety online participants were recruited for Study 2 through the Credamo platform and randomly assigned to one of the two experimental groups. We excluded 9 participants because their response times were too long or too short and retained 81 participants. Among them, 48 were male (59.3%), 49 were between 21 and 30 years old (60.5%), and 64 had a bachelor’s degree (79%).

4.2. Stimuli and Procedures

To control for brand familiarity, we used a fictitious mobile phone brand, “Lanmi”, as the experimental stimulus. Before the main experiment, we conducted a pre-test using 17 image-based FGC posts published by mobile phone brands on Sina Weibo. The participants rated the perceived relevance of FGC (high vs. low) to the product. Based on these ratings, we selected four FGC posts with the highest scores and four posts with the lowest scores as stimuli for the high- and low-product-relevant FGC groups, respectively. In the high product-relevant FGC group, slogans included “Pushing the limits of technology” and “Zoom photography: capturing beauty”. In the low product-relevant FGC group, slogans included “An artistic journey of a steel plate” and “Fast, almost too fast”.
In Study 2, the participants were randomly assigned to one of two experimental groups. First, they were informed that the study focused on the FGC generated by mobile phone brands on Sina Weibo. They were then exposed to different pieces of image-based FGC corresponding to either the high- or low-product-relevant FGC group. Next, they completed measures of FGC’s relevance to the product, brand attitudes, and brand authenticity. The scales for FGC’s relevance to the product and brand attitudes were the same as those in Study 1, with each demonstrating a reliability coefficient above 0.7. We assessed brand authenticity (α = 0.70) based on three items adapted from Moulard et al. [37], such as “This brand has a true passion for its business”.

4.3. Results and Discussion

4.3.1. Manipulation Check

A one-way ANOVA confirmed that the manipulation of high (vs. low) product-relevant FGC was effective. Participants in the high product-relevant FGC group perceived a significantly greater relevance of content to product attributes than those in the low product-relevant FGC group (M_high = 4.1813, SD = 0.4736; M_low = 3.5915, SD = 0.9807; F (1, 81) = 11.7830, p = 0.001).

4.3.2. Main Effect

As shown in Figure 3, the results of a one-way ANOVA of brand attitudes revealed that high (vs. low) product-relevant FGC significantly increased brand attitudes (M_high = 4.1667, SD = 0.6450; M_low = 3.8211, SD = 0.7996; F (1, 79) = 4.569, p < 0.05), thus confirming H1.

4.3.3. Mediating Effect

As shown in Figure 4, the results of a one-way ANOVA showed that brand authenticity in the high product-relevant FGC group was significantly higher than that in the low product-relevant FGC group (M_high = 4.2833, SD = 0.45636; M_low = 4.0244, SD = 0.65993; F (1, 79) = 4.199, p < 0.05). This implies that high product-relevant FGC enhances brand authenticity more effectively than low product-relevant FGC.
To further test the mediation effect of brand authenticity on the relationship between high (vs. low) product-relevant FGC and brand attitudes (H2), we employed Model 4 for bootstrapping with 5000 samples (independent variable = FGC’s relevance to products, mediator = brand authenticity, and dependent variable = brand attitudes). The indirect effect of brand authenticity was significant (b = −0.2327, SE = 0.1169, 95% CI = [−0.4718, −0.0105]), with no significant direct effect (b = −0.1128, SE = 0.1188, 95% CI = [−0.3493, 0.1237]). These outcomes verify that high (vs. low) product-relevant FGC improves brand attitudes by enhancing brand authenticity. Hence, H2 is supported.

4.3.4. Discussion

For Study 2, we utilized image-based FGC from a mobile phone brand as an experimental stimulus, in contrast to the text-based FGC from a Chinese liquor brand employed in Study 1. This variation enhanced the external validity of the findings. The results of Study 2 confirm H1, which states that FGC’s relevance to products affects brand attitude positively. Moreover, the findings suggest that brand authenticity mediates the relationship between high (vs. low) product-relevant FGC and brand attitudes, thereby confirming H2. Subsequently, in studies 3 and 4, we examined the moderating roles of brand type and consumer thinking style in these relationships.

5. Study 3

In Study 3, we determined whether brand type (time-honored vs. emerging) moderates the effect of FGC’s relevance to products on consumer brand attitudes, as hypothesized in H3.

5.1. Design and Sample

For Study 3, we employed a 2 (FGC’s relevance to products: high vs. low) × 2 (brand type: time-honored vs. new) between-subjects experimental design. One hundred and ninety online participants were recruited for Study 3 using the Credamo platform. We excluded 9 participants due to excessively long or short response times and retained 181 participants.

5.2. Stimuli and Procedures

To control for brand familiarity, we used the fictitious Chinese liquor brand “Mo Bai” as the experimental stimulus. We manipulated brand type using textual descriptions adapted from Zhang et al. [46]. In the time-honored brand group, the participants were presented with the following: “Mo Bai is a venerable Chinese liquor brand founded in 1360, boasting over 600 years of history, and it has been listed as a national intangible cultural heritage”. In the new brand group, the participants were presented with the following: “Mo Bai is a 12-year-old new Chinese liquor brand founded in 2012, featured in the catalog of China’s top-selling liquor brands”.
The manipulation of FGC’s relevance to products followed the same approach as in Study 1. Participants were randomly assigned to either the time-honored or the new brand group by reading relevant brand descriptions. They were then randomly assigned to either the high- or low-product-relevant FGC group and exposed to text-based FGC with corresponding hints, which were the same as those used in Study 1. Following this, the participants completed measures assessing FGC’s relevance to products, brand authenticity, brand attitudes, and demographics. All measures were the same as those used in previous studies, with a reliability coefficient above 0.7.

5.3. Results and Discussion

5.3.1. Manipulation Check

A one-way ANOVA test confirmed the effectiveness of the manipulation. Participants in the time-honored brand group were significantly more likely to perceive “Mo Bai” as a time-honored brand than those in the new brand group (M_time-honored = 4.92, SD = 0.272; M_new= 1.57, SD = 0.799; F (1, 179) = 1392.736, p < 0.001). Likewise, participants in the high product-relevant FGC group rated the content as significantly more relevant to product attributes than those in the low product-relevant FGC group (M_high = 3.1583, SD = 1.2556; M_low = 4.3242, SD = 0.4602; F (1, 179) = 69.078, p < 0.001).

5.3.2. Main Effect

A one-way ANOVA of brand attitudes revealed that participants in the high product-relevant FGC group had higher brand attitudes than those in the low product-relevant FGC group (M_high = 4.2555, SD = 0.60550; M_low = 3.8667, SD = 0.8040; F (1, 179) = 13.528, p < 0.001). Thus, H1 is supported.

5.3.3. Moderating Effect of Brand Type

A 2 (FGC’s relevance to products: high vs. low) × 2 (brand type: time-honored vs. new) between-subject ANOVA on brand attitudes showed a significant interaction effect (F (1, 177) = 7.371, p < 0.05). For the time-honored brand, high product-relevant FGC significantly improved brand attitudes (M_high = 4.4670, SD = 0.3902; M_low = 3.7907, SD = 0.8326; t (86) = 4.912, p < 0.001), whereas this effect was weakened for the new brand (M_high = 4.0489, M_low = 3.9362, SD = 0.7793, SD = 0.7044, t (91) = 0.731, p > 0.05), thereby supporting H3. This interaction is illustrated in Figure 5.
A two-way ANOVA of brand authenticity indicated a significant interaction effect (F (1, 177) = 4.003, p < 0.05). In the time-honored brand group, high product-relevant FGC significantly improved brand authenticity compared to low product-relevant FGC (M_high = 4.4667, SD = 0.3652, M_low = 3.6279, SD = 1.1156, t (86) = 4.784, p < 0.001). Likewise, in the new-brand group, high product-relevant FGC also significantly enhanced brand authenticity compared with low product-relevant FGC (M_high = 4.2319, SD = 0.5110, M_low = 3.8652, SD = 0.9496, t (91) = 2.311, p < 0.05) (see Figure 6).
We tested brand type as a moderator in the mediating effect of brand authenticity on FGC’s relevance to products and brand attitudes. For Model 7, we employed bootstrapping to test this with 5000 samples (independent variable = FGC’s relevance to products; mediator = brand authenticity; dependent variable = brand attitudes; moderator = brand type). We found a significant index of moderated mediation (β = 0.3417, SE = 0.1773, 95% CI = [0.0009, 0.6936]). For the time-honored brand, brand authenticity mediated the effect of FGC’s relevance to products on brand attitudes (β = 0.6071, SE = 0.1304, 95% CI = [0.3695, 0.8788]). For the new brand, this effect was weaker but still significant (β = 0.2654, SE = 0.1095, 95% CI = [0.0457, 0.4823]). These results support H3, as found in Table 1.

5.3.4. Discussion

The findings of Study 3 suggest that brand type moderates the mediating effect of brand authenticity on the relationship between FGC’s relevance to products and consumer brand attitudes. For time-honored brands, high product-relevant FGC significantly enhanced brand authenticity and brand attitudes than low product-relevant FGC; however, this effect was weaker for new brands. These findings support H1, H2, and H3. In the following study, we examined a second moderator to determine whether the impact of high (vs. low) product-relevant FGC on brand attitudes varies according to consumer thinking style.

6. Study 4

In Study 4, we explored whether consumer thinking styles (analytic vs. holistic) moderate the impact of FGC’s relevance to products on consumer brand attitudes.

6.1. Design and Sample

For Study 4, we employed a 2 (FGC’s relevance to products: high vs. low) × 2 (consumer thinking style: analytic vs. holistic) between-subjects experimental design. A total of 190 participants were recruited using the Credamo platform. We excluded 9 participants because of excessively long or short response times and retained 181 participants.

6.2. Stimuli and Procedures

The stimuli and procedures employed in Study 4 were the same as in Study 1, using the fictitious liquor brand “Mo Bai” to control for brand familiarity. We manipulated consumer thinking style using a 4-item measure adapted from Nisbett et al. [50] and Choi et al. [57], such as, “The whole, rather than its parts, should be considered in order to understand a phenomenon”. We categorized the participants as analytic or holistic thinkers based on whether their thinking style scores were below or above the median score.

6.3. Results and Discussion

6.3.1. Manipulation Check

The results of a one-way ANOVA verified the effectiveness of the manipulation for consumer thinking style and FGC’s relevance to products. The analytic (holistic) category included participants whose thinking style scores were below (above) the median. Participants in the analytic group scored significantly lower than those in the holistic group (M_analytic = 3.4403, SD = 0.8112; M_holistic = 4.5349, SD = 0.0946; F (1, 179) = 166.986, p < 0.001). As for FGC’s relevance to products, participants in the high product-relevant FGC group rated FGC as significantly more relevant to product attributes than those in the low product-relevant FGC group (M_high = 4.2088, SD = 0.5631; M_low = 3.5444, SD = 1.1549; F (1, 179) = 24.280, p < 0.001).

6.3.2. Main Effect

The results of the one-way ANOVA of brand attitudes revealed a significant main effect of high (vs. low) product-relevant FGC (M_high = 4.0586, SD = 0.72452; M_low = 3.7963, SD = 0.97469; F (1, 179) = 4.227, p < 0.05). This outcome reinforces the idea that high product-relevant FGC increases consumer brand attitudes more than low product-relevant FGC, providing further support for H1.

6.3.3. Moderating Effect of Consumer Thinking Style

A 2 (FGC’s relevance to products: high vs. low) × 2 (consumer thinking style: analytic vs. holistic) between-subjects ANOVA of brand attitudes indicated a significant interaction (F (1, 177) = 10.703, p < 0.01). For participants with an analytic thinking style, high product-relevant FGC significantly increased brand attitudes (M_high = 3.8968, SD = 0.7633; M_low = 3.2826, SD = 1.0134; t (86) = 3.188, p < 0.01). However, for participants with holistic thinking styles, there was no significant difference in brand attitudes (M_high = 4.1973, SD = 0.6664; M_low = 4.3330, SD = 0.5615; t (91) = 1.058, p > 0.05), thereby supporting H4. This interaction is illustrated in Figure 7.
The results of the two-way ANOVA on brand authenticity revealed a significant interaction between high (vs. low) product-relevant FGC and consumer thinking style (F (1, 177) = 10.466, p < 0.01). For participants with an analytic thinking style, high product-relevant FGC significantly improved brand authenticity compared to low product-relevant FGC (M_high = 4.0476, SD = 0.7122; M_low = 3.3913, SD = 1.0618; t (86) = 3.372, p < 0.01). However, for participants with holistic thinking style, we observed no significant difference in brand authenticity (M_high = 4.4015, SD = 0.4103; M_low = 4.3265, SD = 0.6955; t (91) = 0.624, p > 0.05; Figure 8).
We further examined whether consumer thinking style moderated the mediating role of brand authenticity in the relationship between FGC’s relevance to products and brand attitudes. For Model 7, we employed bootstrapping with 5000 samples (independent variable = FGC’s relevance to products, mediator = brand authenticity, dependent variable = brand attitudes, and moderator = consumer thinking style). The results revealed a significant index of moderated mediation (β = 0.6552, SE = 0.2001, 95% CI = [0.2656, 1.0600]). Moreover, in the analytic-thinking style group, the indirect effect of high (vs. low) product-relevant FGC on brand attitudes through brand authenticity was significant (β = −0.5880, SE = 0.1719, 95% CI = [−0.9239, −0.2530]); whereas in the holistic-thinking style group, we witnessed no significant indirect effect (β = 0.0672, SE = 0.1061, 95% CI = [−0.1380, 0.2774]). These results support H4.

6.3.4. Discussion

Study 4 showed that consumer thinking style moderates the relationship between FGC’s relevance to products and brand attitudes via brand authenticity. Specifically, for analytic-thinking consumers, the positive effect of FGC’s relevance on brand attitudes is stronger, and this effect is mediated by brand authenticity. For holistic-thinking consumers, there is no significant effect of FGC’s relevance on brand attitudes, and brand authenticity does not mediate this relationship. Thus, H4 is supported. Finally, we derived all the mean scores and SDs for all factors across the four studies (see Table 2).

7. Discussion and Conclusions

In sum, this study offers robust evidence from four studies that FGC’s relevance to products positively affects consumer brand attitudes through perceptions of brand authenticity. Specifically, high (vs. low) product-relevant FGC can enhance consumer brand attitudes. This effect is mediated by brand authenticity, highlighting its critical role in improving the positive effects of FGC’s relevance to products.
Furthermore, this study explores the moderating roles of brand type and consumer thinking style, expanding the applicability of the conceptual model. For brand type, the findings indicated that high product-relevant FGC has a stronger positive effect on brand attitudes for time-honored brands than for new brands. This suggests that low product-relevant FGC may be less suitable for time-honored brands as it diminishes perceptions of brand authenticity and weakens brand attitudes. However, for new brands, the effect of FGC’s relevance to products on brand attitudes was less pronounced, indicating greater flexibility in their FGC activities.
Additionally, the findings expand on the role of consumer thinking style in moderating the impact of FGC’s relevance to products. Analytic-thinking consumers demonstrated significantly higher brand attitudes when exposed to high product-relevant FGC, whereas holistic-thinking consumers did not particularly emphasize FGC’s relevance to products. This underlines the importance of tailoring FGC activities to align with the thinking styles of target consumers. Overall, these results have important theoretical and managerial implications for related research and brand managers.

7.1. Theoretical Contributions

First, we introduced a novel academic perspective on FGC’s relevance to products to examine its potential effects. While previous research has focused on categorizing FGC based on appeals and purposes, analyzing how FGC impacts consumer engagement and purchase intention [4,7,8,9,10,11,12,58,59], we have broadened the understanding of FGC by providing empirical evidence on how FGC’s relevance to products affects consumer brand attitudes.
Second, this study advances our understanding of the underlying mechanism through which FGC’s relevance to products impacts consumer brand attitudes, specifically through the mediating role of brand authenticity. While prior research has recognized the importance of brand authenticity in promoting consumer–brand engagement and brand attitudes [30,60,61,62,63], its role within the context of FGC remains underexplored. Our findings highlight the importance of brand authenticity, demonstrating that high product-relevant FGC strengthens perceptions of authenticity, leading to more favorable brand attitudes. This research also stresses the risks of employing low product-relevant FGC, showing how reduced brand authenticity can weaken consumer–brand relationships.
Third, we identified two important boundary conditions: brand type and consumer thinking style. By examining the moderating role of brand type (time-honored vs. new), we demonstrated that the positive impact of FGC’s relevance on products is stronger for time-honored brands than for new brands. Additionally, by exploring consumer thinking style (analytic vs. holistic), we showed that analytic and holistic thinkers respond differently to FGC’s relevance to products. These findings provide valuable insights for future research on FGC-related knowledge in the context of social media.

7.2. Practical Implications

First, our study offers valuable insights for brand managers to effectively leverage FGC to enhance brand attitudes. Our findings suggest that low product-relevant FGC, while potentially innovative, may reduce perceived authenticity, thereby diminishing brand attitude. Past research indicates that fostering consumer engagement and building brand communities can mitigate such risks by enhancing perceptions of brand authenticity and deepening brand engagement [60,61,62,63]. Consequently, brand managers should recognize the differential effects of using high- vs. low-relevant-product FGC and adopt these two respective forms of content for each effect. Ensuring that FGC activities reinforce brand authenticity is crucial for improving consumer brand attitudes.
Second, brand managers should carefully evaluate their brand type (time-honored vs. new) when adopting FGC. Time-honored brands with an established heritage and deep-rooted consumer expectations may encounter challenges when using low product-relevance FGC. Our results indicate that low product-relevant FGC may reduce perceptions of brand authenticity and attitudes toward time-honored brands (Study 3). Managers of such brands should carefully assess whether low product-relevant FGC aligns with their heritage and authenticity. Hence, it seems plausible that time-honored brands may benefit from high product-relevant FGC in preserving their legacy and maintaining favorable consumer attitudes. By contrast, for new brands, low product-relevant FGC may be more suitable under certain conditions that have greater flexibility to shape consumer views.
Third, brand managers should evaluate the role of consumer thinking style in moderating the effectiveness of FGC’s relevance to products. Indeed, we found that analytic-thinking consumers respond more positively to high product-relevant FGC, whereas holistic-thinking consumers exhibited no significant difference between high- and low-product-relevant FGC (Study 4). For analytically thinking consumers commonly found in markets such as the US, high product-relevant FGC is likely to be more effective. In contrast, in markets dominated by holistically thinking consumers, such as China, low-product-relevant FGC may respond better. Brand managers should tailor their FGC activities to the cognitive preferences of their target consumers [63,64,65,66] to strengthen consumer–brand relationships.

7.3. Limitations and Future Research

This study has limitations that provide opportunities for future research.
First, while our online experiments and questionnaires were methodologically rigorous, our findings are primarily derived from a sample of younger and highly educated participants who are more likely to exhibit greater digital literacy and engagement with social media content. While this aligns with the primary demographics of platforms like Sina Weibo and supports the generalizability of our findings within this active consumer segment, it may limit the applicability of our results to older adults or individuals with lower educational attainment. Future studies should expand the sample to include diverse age groups, education levels, and cultural backgrounds. Incorporating real-world data from actual brands or consumer interactions would also help validate the robustness of our conclusions.
Second, this study selected liquor and mobile phones as experimental materials but did not test other product types. Future research could expand the range of industries and categories examined, as product type (e.g., symbolic vs. functional) may serve as a moderating variable in consumer responses to FGC. Additionally, employing real-world brands as experimental stimuli would enhance validity and provide deeper insights into how brand familiarity interacts with FGC characteristics to shape consumer attitudes.
Third, this study adapted existing measurement scales based on the conceptualization of FGC relevance to products. In future research, we plan to explore alternative approaches for measuring FGC relevance to products, such as incorporating qualitative methods or examining real-world brand data, to further enhance the robustness of our findings. Additionally, this study focused on textual and image-based FGC. Future studies should extend this research by examining video or other multimedia formats across diverse social platforms to uncover potential differences in consumer responses and enhance the practical applicability of these insights. A mixed-methods approach, including field experiments, text mining, or large-scale analyses using social networks’ application programming interfaces (APIs), could further broaden the understanding of FGC effectiveness.
Finally, while this study primarily focused on FGC’s relevance to products and its effect on consumer brand attitudes, future studies should examine additional brand-related outcomes, such as brand awareness or loyalty, to deepen our understanding of FGC’s impact. Other factors, such as cultural differences, consumer psychological traits, and prior brand experiences, may also moderate the observed effects, providing further avenues for exploration.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Y.L., Y.Y. and Z.W.; Data curation, Y.L., Y.Y. and Z.W.; Funding acquisition, Y.L. and Z.W.; Investigation, Y.L., Y.Y. and Z.W.; Methodology, Y.L. and Y.Y.; Resources, Y.L. and Y.Y.; Supervision, Y.L.; Writing—original draft, Y.L. and Y.Y.; Writing—review and editing, Y.L. and Y.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Social Science Foundation of China (20BGL116), the Science Foundation of the Ministry of Education of China (23YJC630265), the Henan Provincial Department of Education of China (25B630002), and 2021SJGLX074.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical review and approval were waived for this study because this study did not consider biological human experiments and patient data.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Izogo, E.E.; Mpinganjira, M. Somewhat pushy but effective: The role of value-laden social media digital content marketing (VSM-DCM) for search and experience products. J. Res. Interact. Mark. 2022, 16, 365–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Shao, Z. How the characteristics of social media influencers and live content influence consumers’ impulsive buying in live streaming commerce? The role of congruence and attachment. J. Res. Interact. Mark. 2024, 18, 506–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Wang, C.L. Editorial-What is an interactive marketing perspective and what are emerging research are-as? J. Res. Interact. Mark. 2024, 18, 161–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Lu, S.; Dinner, I.; Grewal, R. The ripple effect of firm-generated content on new movie releases. J. Mark. Res. 2023, 60, 908–931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Oncioiu, I.; Căpușneanu, S.; Topor, D.I.; Tamas, A.S.; Solomon, A.-G.; Dănescu, T. Fundamental power of social media interactions for building a brand and customer relations. J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2021, 16, 1702–1717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Zhang, J.; Li, X.; Wu, B.; Zhou, L.; Chen, X. Order matters: Effect of use versus outreach order disclosure on persuasiveness of sponsored posts. J. Res. Interact. Mark. 2023, 17, 865–881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Cheng, M.; Liu, J.; Qi, J.; Wan, F. Differential effects of firm generated content on consumer digital engagement and firm performance: An outside-in perspective. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2021, 98, 41–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Gu, W.; Chan, K.W.; Kwon, J.; Dhaoui, C.; Septianto, F. Informational vs. emotional B2B firm-generated-content on social media engagement: Computerized visual and textual content analysis. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2023, 112, 98–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Lee, D.; Hosanagar, K.; Nair, H.S. Advertising content and consumer engagement on social media: Evidence from Facebook. Manag. Sci. 2018, 64, 5105–5131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Meire, M.; Hewett, K.; Ballings, M.; Kumar, V.; Van den Poel, D. The role of marketer-generated content in customer engagement marketing. J. Mark. 2019, 83, 21–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Shahbaznezhad, H.; Dolan, R.; Rashidirad, M. The role of social media content format and platform in users’ engagement behavior. J. Interact. Mark. 2021, 53, 47–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Al-Abdallah, G.; Barzani, R.; Omar Dandis, A.; Eid, M.A.H. Social media marketing strategy: The impact of firm generated content on customer based brand equity in retail industry. J. Mark. Commun. 2024, 1–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Santiago, J.; Borges-Tiago, M.T.; Tiago, F. Is firm-generated content a lost cause? J. Bus. Res. 2022, 139, 945–953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Kumar, A.; Bezawada, R.; Rishika, R.; Janakiraman, R.; Kannan, P.K. From social to sale: The effects of firm-generated content in social media on customer behavior. J. Mark. 2016, 80, 7–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Poulis, A.; Rizomyliotis, I.; Konstantoulaki, K. Do firms still need to be social? Firm generated content in social media. Inf. Technol. People 2019, 32, 387–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Yagci, M.I.; Biswas, A.; Dutta, S. Effects of comparative advertising format on consumer responses: The moderating effects of brand image and attribute relevance. J. Bus. Res. 2009, 62, 768–774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Mason, K.; Jensen, T.; Burton, S.; Roach, D. The accuracy of brand and attribute judgments: The role of information relevancy, product experience, and attribute-relationship schemata. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2001, 29, 307–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Raji, R.A.; Mohd Rashid, S.; Mohd Ishak, S.; Mohamad, B. Do firm-created contents on social media enhance brand equity and consumer response among consumers of automotive brands? J. Promot. Manag. 2020, 26, 19–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Nguyen, H.K.T.; Tran, P.T.K.; Tran, V.T. The relationships among social media communication, brand equity and satisfaction in a tourism destination: The case of Danang city, Vietnam. J. Hosp. Tour. Insights 2024, 7, 1187–1210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Fetscherin, M.; Toncar, M.F. Valuating brand equity and product-related attributes in the context of the German automobile market. J. Brand Manag. 2009, 17, 134–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Wang, C.L. Editorial–The misassumptions about contributions. J. Res. Interact. Mark. 2022, 16, 1–2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Kardes, F.R. Consumer inference: Determinants, consequences, and implications for advertising. In Advertising Exposure, Memory and Choice 1993; Mitchell, A.A., Ed.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.: Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1993; pp. 163–191. [Google Scholar]
  23. Kardes, F.R.; Posavac, S.S.; Cronley, M.L. Consumer inference: A review of processes, bases, and judgment contexts. J. Consum. Psychol. 2004, 14, 230–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Walters, D.J.; Hershfield, H.E. Consumers make different inferences and choices when product uncertainty is attributed to forgetting Rather than ignorance. J. Consum. Res. 2020, 47, 56–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Elder, R.S.; Schlosser, A.E.; Poor, M.; Xu, L. So close I can almost sense it: The interplay between sensory imagery and psychological distance. J. Consum. Res. 2017, 44, 877–894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Kardes, F.R.; Cronley, M.L.; Pontes, M.C.; Houghton, D.C. Down the garden path: The role of conditional inference processes in self-persuasion. J. Consum. Psychol. 2001, 11, 15968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Sun, C.; Ye, C.; Li, C.; Liu, Y. Virtual ideality vs. virtual authenticity: Exploring the role of social signals in interactive marketing. J. Res. Interact. Mark. 2024, 18, 430–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Vo, D.-T.; Mai, N.Q.; Nguyen, L.T.; Thuan, N.H.; Dang-Pham, D.; Hoang, A.-P. Examining authenticity on digital touchpoint: A thematic and bibliometric review of 15 years’ literature. J. Res. Interact. Mark. 2024, 18, 463–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Moulard, J.G.; Raggio, R.D.; Folse, J.A.G. Disentangling the meanings of brand authenticity: The entity-referent correspondence framework of authenticity. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2021, 49, 96–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Kennedy, A.; Baxter, S.M.; Kulczynski, A. Promoting authenticity through celebrity brands. Eur. J. Mark. 2021, 55, 2072–2099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Spiggle, S.; Nguyen, H.T.; Caravella, M. More than fit: Brand extension authenticity. J. Mark. Res. 2012, 49, 967–983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Samarah, T.; Bayram, P.; Aljuhmani, H.Y.; Elrehail, H. The role of brand interactivity and involvement in driving social media consumer brand engagement and brand loyalty: The mediating effect of brand trust. J. Res. Interact. Mark. 2022, 16, 648–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Murshed, F.; Dwivedi, A.; Nayeem, T. Brand authenticity building effect of brand experience and downstream effects. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 2023, 32, 1032–1045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Septianto, F.; Seo, Y.; Sung, B.; Zhao, F. Authenticity and exclusivity appeals in luxury advertising: The role of promotion and prevention pride. Eur. J. Mark. 2020, 54, 1305–1323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Zhang, Y.; Shao, Z.; Zhang, J.; Wu, B.; Zhou, L. The effect of image enhancement on influencer’s product recommendation effectiveness: The roles of perceived influencer authenticity and post type. J. Res. Interact. Mark. 2024, 18, 166–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Wang, Y.; Jiang, J.; Gong, X.; Wang, J. Simple = Authentic: The effect of visually simple package design on perceived brand authenticity and brand choice. J. Bus. Res. 2023, 166, 114078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Moulard, J.G.; Raggio, R.D.; Folse, J.A.G. Brand authenticity: Testing the antecedents and outcomes of brand management’s passion for its products. Psychol. Mark. 2016, 33, 421–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Lude, M.; Prügl, R. Why the family business brand matters: Brand authenticity and the family firm trust inference. J. Bus. Res. 2018, 89, 121–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Yang, J.; Teran, C.; Battocchio, A.F.; Bertellotti, E.; Wrzesinski, S. Building Brand Authenticity on Social Media: The Impact of Instagram Ad Model Genuineness and Trustworthiness on Perceived Brand Authenticity and Consumer Responses. J. Interact. Advert. 2021, 21, 34–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Liao, C.H.; Hsieh, J.-K.; Kumar, S. Does the verified badge of social media matter? The perspective of trust transfer theory. J. Res. Interact. Mark. 2024, 18, 1017–1033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Okuhara, T.; Ishikawa, H.; Okada, M.; Kato, M.; Kiuchi, T. Designing persuasive health materials using processing fluency: A literature review. BMC Res. Notes 2017, 10, 198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Stevenson, R.J. Psychological correlates of habitual diet in healthy adults. Psychol. Bull. 2017, 143, 53–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Zhang, Y.; Guo, X. ‘New and old’: Consumer evaluations of co-branding between new brands and Chinese time-honored brands. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2023, 73, 103293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Forêt, P.; Mazzalovo, G. The long march of the Chinese luxury industry towards globalization: Questioning the relevance of the ‘China time-honored brand’ label. Luxury 2014, 1, 133–153. [Google Scholar]
  45. Xu, J.; Prayag, G.; Song, H. The effects of consumer brand authenticity, brand image, and age on brand loyalty in time-honored restaurants: Findings from SEM and fsQCA. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2022, 107, 103340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Zhang, S.-N.; Li, Y.-Q.; Liu, C.-H.; Ruan, W.-Q. A study on China’s time-honored catering brands: Achieving new inheritance of traditional brands. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2021, 58, 102290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Yoo, B.; Donthu, N. Developing and validating a multidimensional consumer-based brand equity scale. J. Bus. Res. 2001, 52, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Zhang, S.N.; Li, Y.Q.; Liu, C.H.; Ruan, W.Q. How does authenticity enhance flow experience through perceived value and involvement: The moderating roles of innovation and cultural identity. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2019, 36, 711–729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Grayson, K.; Martinec, R. Consumer perceptions of iconicity and indexicality and their influence on assessments of authentic market offerings. J. Consum. Res. 2004, 31, 296–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Nisbett, R.E.; Peng, K.; Choi, I.; Norenzayan, A. Culture and systems of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychol. Rev. 2001, 108, 291–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Miyamoto, Y.; Nisbett, R.E.; Masuda, T. Culture and the physical environment: Holistic versus analytic perceptual affordances. Psychol. Sci. 2006, 17, 113–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Ang, D.; Gerrath, M.H.E.E.; Liu, Y.Y. How scarcity and thinking styles boost referral effectiveness. Psychol. Mark. 2021, 38, 1928–1941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Hossain, M.T. How cognitive style influences the mental accounting system: Role of analytic versus holistic thinking. J. Consum. Res. 2018, 45, 615–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Yoon, S. Do negative consumption experiences hurt manufacturers or retailers? The influence of reasoning style on consumer blame attributions and purchase intention. Psychol. Mark. 2013, 30, 555–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Taylor, V.A.; Bearden, W.O. The effects of price on brand extension evaluations: The moderating role of extension similarity. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2002, 30, 131–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Mitchell, A.A.; Olson, J.C. Are product attribute beliefs the only mediator of advertising effects on brand attitude? J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 318–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Choi, I.; Dalal, R.; Kim-Prieto, C.; Park, H. Culture and judgment of causal relevance. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2003, 84, 46–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Ji, C.; Mieiro, S.; Huang, G. How social media advertising features influence consumption and sharing intentions: The mediation of customer engagement. J. Res. Interact. Mark. 2022, 16, 137–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Karpenka, L.; Rudienė, E.; Morkunas, M.; Volkov, A. The influence of a brand’s visual content on consumer trust in social media community groups. J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2021, 16, 2424–2441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Campagna, C.L.; Donthu, N.; Yoo, B. Brand authenticity: Literature review, comprehensive definition, and an amalgamated scale. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 2023, 31, 129–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Halwani, L.; Cherry, A. A consumer perspective on brand authenticity: Insight into drivers and barriers. Int. J. Bus. Manag. 2024, 19, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Li, Y.; Song, X.; Zhou, M. Impacts of brand digitalization on brand market performance: The mediating role of brand competence and brand warmth. J. Res. Interact. Mark. 2023, 17, 398–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Vlachvei, A.; Notta, O.; Koronaki, E. Effects of content characteristics on stages of customer engagement in social media: Investigating European wine brands. J. Res. Interact. Mark. 2022, 16, 615–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Elsharnouby, M.H.; Jayawardhena, C.; Liu, H.; Elbedweihy, A.M. Strengthening consumer–brand relationships through avatars. J. Res. Interact. Mark. 2023, 17, 581–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Foster, J.K.; McLelland, M.A.; Wallace, L.K. Brand avatars: Impact of social interaction on consumer–brand relationships. J. Res. Interact. Mark. 2022, 16, 237–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Siddiqui, M.S.; Siddiqui, U.A.; Khan, M.A.; Alkandi, I.G.; Saxena, A.K.; Siddiqui, J.H. Creating electronic word of mouth credibility through social networking sites and determining its impact on brand image and online purchase intentions in India. J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2021, 16, 1008–1024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jtaer 20 00019 g001
Figure 1. Conceptual model.
Figure 1. Conceptual model.
Jtaer 20 00019 g001
Jtaer 20 00019 g002
Figure 2. The main effect of high (vs. low) product-relevant FGC on brand attitudes (Study 1).
Figure 2. The main effect of high (vs. low) product-relevant FGC on brand attitudes (Study 1).
Jtaer 20 00019 g002
Jtaer 20 00019 g003
Figure 3. The main effect of high (vs. low) product-relevant FGC on brand attitudes (Study 2).
Figure 3. The main effect of high (vs. low) product-relevant FGC on brand attitudes (Study 2).
Jtaer 20 00019 g003
Jtaer 20 00019 g004
Figure 4. The mediating effect of high (vs. low) product-relevant FGC on brand authenticity (Study 2).
Figure 4. The mediating effect of high (vs. low) product-relevant FGC on brand authenticity (Study 2).
Jtaer 20 00019 g004
Jtaer 20 00019 g005
Figure 5. The interaction effect of high (vs. low) product-relevant FGC and brand type on brand attitudes (Study 3).
Figure 5. The interaction effect of high (vs. low) product-relevant FGC and brand type on brand attitudes (Study 3).
Jtaer 20 00019 g005
Jtaer 20 00019 g006
Figure 6. Interaction effect of high (vs. low) product-relevant FGC and brand type on brand authenticity (Study 3).
Figure 6. Interaction effect of high (vs. low) product-relevant FGC and brand type on brand authenticity (Study 3).
Jtaer 20 00019 g006
Jtaer 20 00019 g007
Figure 7. Interaction effect of high (vs. low) product-relevant FGC and consumer thinking style on brand attitudes (Study 4).
Figure 7. Interaction effect of high (vs. low) product-relevant FGC and consumer thinking style on brand attitudes (Study 4).
Jtaer 20 00019 g007
Jtaer 20 00019 g008
Figure 8. Interaction effect of high (vs. low) product-relevant FGC and consumer thinking style on brand authenticity (Study 4).
Figure 8. Interaction effect of high (vs. low) product-relevant FGC and consumer thinking style on brand authenticity (Study 4).
Jtaer 20 00019 g008
Table 1. Test of the moderating effect of brand type.
Table 1. Test of the moderating effect of brand type.
Indirect EffectDirect Effect
Effect ValueStandard Deviation95% Confidence IntervalEffect ValueStandard Deviation95% Confidence
Interval
FGC’s relevance to products → Brand authenticity
→ Brand attitudes		Time-honored brand0.60710.1304[0.3695, 0.8788]−0.04270.0661[−0.1732, 0.0878]
New brand0.26540.1095[0.0457, 0.4823]
Group difference0.34170.1773[0.0009, 0.6936]
Table 2. Summary of all mean scores in studies 1–4.
Table 2. Summary of all mean scores in studies 1–4.
StudyFactor 1Factor 2Brand AuthenticitySDBrand AttitudesSD
Study 1High———4.17360.6150
Low———3.90970.6292
Study 2High—4.28330.45644.16670.6450
Low—4.02440.65993.82110.7996
Study 3HighTime-honored4.46670.36524.4670 0.3902
HighNew4.23190.51104.04890.7044
LowTime-honored3.62791.11563.7907 0.8326
LowNew3.86520.94963.93620.7793
Study 4HighAnalytic4.04760.71223.89680.7633
HighHolistic4.40150.41034.19730.6664
LowAnalytic3.39131.06183.28261.0134
LowHolistic4.32650.69554.3330 0.5615
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Li, Y.; Yin, Y.; Wang, Z. How Does the Relevance of Firm-Generated Content to Products Affect Consumer Brand Attitudes? J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2025, 20, 19. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer20010019

AMA Style

Li Y, Yin Y, Wang Z. How Does the Relevance of Firm-Generated Content to Products Affect Consumer Brand Attitudes? Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research. 2025; 20(1):19. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer20010019

Chicago/Turabian Style

Li, Yao, Ying Yin, and Zhiqiang Wang. 2025. "How Does the Relevance of Firm-Generated Content to Products Affect Consumer Brand Attitudes?" Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research 20, no. 1: 19. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer20010019

APA Style

Li, Y., Yin, Y., & Wang, Z. (2025). How Does the Relevance of Firm-Generated Content to Products Affect Consumer Brand Attitudes? Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 20(1), 19. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer20010019

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop