Abstract
This study examines how internal resources influence Chinese SMEs’ international communication behaviors via a stratified system of communicative motivations. Drawing on an integrative framework that combines the Resource-Based View (RBV), Uses and Gratifications Theory (UGT), and Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, it develops and empirically tests a three-tier Resource–Motivation–Behavior (RMB) model. Based on survey data from 732 export-oriented SMEs in Shenzhen, the model is tested using confirmatory factor analysis, structural equation modeling, and two-stage estimation techniques. Key results indicate that basic, relational, and symbolic resources respectively activate utilitarian (β = .89, p < .001), relational (β = .89, p < .001), and symbolic motivations (β = .88, p < .001). Crucially, only symbolic motivation significantly predicts proactive communication behavior (β = .27, p < .001), whereas utilitarian (β = –0.12, n.s.) and relational (β = –0.06, n.s.) motivations show no significant effects. Subgroup analyses reinforce the expressive specificity of symbolic drivers among active communicators. These findings reveal a distinct behavioral divergence between proactive and passive communication, emphasizing that symbolic readiness—rather than operational capacity—is pivotal for strategic international engagement. By modeling how tiered motivations mediate the link between internal resources and external behaviors, the study contributes a multi-layered framework for understanding how SMEs communicate across motivational and resource domains.
Plain Language Summary
Small and medium-sized businesses (SMEs) in China are increasingly using social media to connect with customers around the world. But what pushes them to do so actively, rather than simply responding when needed? This study looks at how different types of internal resources—such as technology, networks, or brand identity—shape the reasons why these businesses choose to communicate with international audiences. To explore this, researchers surveyed 732 export-oriented Chinese SMEs in the city of Shenzhen. They tested a new model that sees motivation as a three-layer system. At the basic level, some companies use social media mainly to provide information or support (utilitarian motivation). Others use it to maintain relationships with partners (relational motivation). But the most advanced companies use it to express who they are and how they want global audiences to understand them (symbolic motivation). The results showed that only symbolic motivation was consistently associated with taking initiative in international communication, while utilitarian and relational motives were linked to more reactive or routine forms of communication. In other words, having digital tools or resources does not necessarily lead to active global outreach unless firms are motivated to communicate in a more expressive and identity-driven way. These findings aim to offer practical insight without prescribing specific actions: they suggest that understanding how different motivations shape communication may help business advisors, policymakers, and SME owners better support effective participation in global digital environments.
Keywords
Introduction
Over the past decade, Chinese small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) have increasingly leveraged social media platforms to support international branding, facilitate market entry, and engage global audiences. This trend reflects a broader shift whereby digital infrastructures serve not only as transactional interfaces but also as expressive spaces for identity construction, symbolic positioning, and interactive stakeholder dialog (Hollebeek & Macky, 2022; Van Dijck & Poell, 2013). Unlike conventional communication models that emphasize resource deployment or information dissemination, digital platforms offer SMEs new mechanisms to construct identity, perform relationality, and project cultural narratives—even amid operational constraints (M. Chen & Peng, 2023; Muntinga et al., 2011). In Asian contexts—particularly in China—these dynamics unfold within highly digitized commercial ecosystems such as Shenzhen’s cross-border e-commerce clusters, where firms operate at the intersection of global markets, cultural heterogeneity, and platform-driven visibility regimes (Yang et al., 2023). This dynamic is particularly pronounced in the Chinese context, where platforms such as WeChat and Douyin are embedded in transnational e-commerce ecosystems and cultural flows, enabling SMEs to implement adaptive and context-specific communication strategies (J. Chen, 2024). These strategies unfold within a landscape shaped by platform logics, regulatory asymmetries, and culturally encoded communication norms (McConnell & Metz, 2024; Rojas et al., 2023).
Prior research has addressed SME digital communication from various disciplinary angles. The Resource-Based View (RBV) has emphasized how internal capacities—such as staffing, technological capability, and narrative resources—support differentiated communication strategies (J. B. Barney, 2001a). The Uses and Gratifications Theory (UGT) highlights utilitarian, relational, and symbolic motives that underlie communicative engagement (Dolan et al., 2019), providing a motivational lens through which organizational behavior may be interpreted (Hollebeek et al., 2014; Sundar & Limperos, 2013). Maslow-inspired models further introduce a vertical structure to communication goals, progressing from basic instrumental needs (e.g., visibility) toward higher-order expressive aspirations (e.g., identity signaling; Compton, 2018; Taormina & Gao, 2013). However, despite the value of these perspectives, existing scholarship rarely integrates them to explain how internal resources selectively activate layered motivations that in turn shape distinct communication behaviors. Moreover, recent studies on Chinese and Asian SMEs highlight that communicative intent is increasingly shaped by cultural resonance, identity articulation, and symbolic meaning-making—elements that extend beyond utilitarian engagement and suggest a more differentiated motivational structure than previously theorized (Li & Xu, 2025).
To address these conceptual and empirical blind spots, this study focuses on three interrelated gaps. First, much of the literature treats communicative motivation as a singular or undifferentiated construct, neglecting emerging evidence that SMEs express layered motivational profiles contingent on organizational and environmental conditions (Bellaaj, 2023; Gregory & Ngo, 2019). Second, while RBV identifies what firms possess, it often fails to explain how resources translate into strategic behaviors through motivational mediation (Floreddu & Cabiddu, 2016; Martin et al., 2020). Third, most studies conceptualize behavioral outcomes in terms of communication volume or reach, overlooking the expressive quality and strategic intent embedded in symbolic behaviors such as co-creation, brand storytelling, and identity signaling. (Dolan et al., 2019; Evans et al., 2017; Phua et al., 2017). These gaps are particularly salient in emerging-market contexts like China, where SMEs increasingly pursue symbolic communication goals—including cultural signaling and identity projection—to differentiate themselves internationally (Ali et al., 2023).
To fill these gaps, this study introduces the Resource–Motivation–Behavior (RMB) model, a stratified framework that theorizes how internal organizational resources are selectively transformed into differentiated communication behaviors via hierarchical motivational structures. Departing from linear resource–behavior assumptions, the RMB model theorizes a mediated pathway, in which specific resource types activate corresponding motivational tiers, which in turn shape differentiated communicative behaviors. Basic resources (e.g., financial capital, staffing) primarily support utilitarian motives such as visibility and information sharing. More integrative resources—such as cultural competence or narrative capacity—are required to trigger relational or symbolic motivations, which guide expressive forms of engagement. (Fosso Wamba et al., 2015). Symbolic motivation is a higher-order internal orientation toward identity expression and culturally resonant meaning-making. Distinct from external branding tactics, it uniquely drives expressive communication behaviors. These motivations, once activated, shape not only the intensity but the expressive depth of communicative behavior, influencing decisions such as platform choice, narrative tone, and audience interaction.
The model also incorporates contextual moderators—such as environmental volatility, platform affordances, and culturally encoded norms—which in turn condition the accessibility and enactment of motivational tiers, thereby shaping firms’ communicative strategy mix (Gambrel & Cianci, 2003; Koltko-Rivera, 2006; Van Dijck & Poell, 2013). By foregrounding these dynamics, the RMB framework extends beyond linear causality to explain how firms navigate structural constraints and psychological triggers to construct tier-specific communication strategies. This model is particularly valuable for emerging-market SMEs, where limited operational resources often coexist with high symbolic aspirations in global markets. Shenzhen’s globally integrated innovation ecosystem provides a revealing environment to observe these dynamics, as firms operate at the intersection of resource constraints and high symbolic ambition.
Empirically, the study uses survey data from 732 export-oriented SMEs in Shenzhen, China. It operationalizes resource endowments across four categories (financial capital, human expertise, digital infrastructure, and relational networks), and models motivation through a validated three-tier construct (utilitarian, relational, symbolic). The dependent variable—international communication behavior—is captured by content type, frequency, and platform engagement. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and structural equation modeling (SEM) are used to validate construct structure and test mediation effects. A median-split subgroup analysis further reveals that symbolic motivation significantly predicts proactive behavior, while lower-tier motivations are behaviorally inert among less expressive firms.
This research offers several contributions. Theoretically, it reconceptualizes motivation as a layered structure and positions it as the mediating bridge between resources and behavior, extending both UGT and RBV. It clarifies that symbolic motivation shapes the form rather than the frequency of communicative behavior, revealing a mechanism of expressive legitimacy overlooked in prior models. Empirically, it demonstrates the behavioral specificity of symbolic motivation in predicting proactive engagement. Practically, the RMB model offers a diagnostic lens for identifying symbolic capability gaps, emphasizing that communicative performance depends not only on capacity but on motivational alignment and contextual fit.
The remainder of the paper reviews the relevant literature, develops the theoretical framework, and articulates key hypotheses. Subsequent sections outline the research design, data collection, and empirical analysis, followed by a discussion of findings and their implications. The paper concludes with a summary of contributions and directions for future research.
Literature Review
This chapter synthesizes insights from communication theory, organizational psychology, and digital marketing to examine how communicative motivations in internationally active SMEs mediate the transformation of internal resources into observable communication behaviors. It explores how motivational hierarchies emerge, are selectively activated by resource configurations, and shape communicative strategies. While prior studies often address resources, motivations, or behaviors in isolation, few systematically examine their dynamic interdependencies. To bridge these gaps, the Resource–Motivation–Behavior (RMB) model is proposed as an integrative framework.
Communicative Motivation as a Hierarchy
A key question in international communication research is why similarly resourced SMEs exhibit divergent behaviors across global platforms. Two main theoretical approaches address this puzzle. The Resource-Based View (RBV) emphasizes internal capabilities—such as digital infrastructure, human capital, and knowledge—as drivers of communication outcomes (J. B. Barney, 2001b; Wernerfelt, 1984). In contrast, motivational frameworks, particularly those informed by Uses and Gratifications Theory (UGT), highlight user needs, media affordances, and psychological triggers (Katz et al., 1973; Sundar & Limperos, 2013). However, neither approach sufficiently explains why similar firms differ in expressiveness and engagement.
This study adopts a layered perspective, viewing communicative motivation as a hierarchical structure shaped by internal capacity and contextual cues rather than as a monolithic, universally activated construct. This conceptualization draws on Maslow’s (1943) five-tier model, wherein motivational needs progress from basic security to self-actualization. Although Maslow’s model was developed at the individual level, organizational and institutional research shows that firms likewise confront layered communicative demands—from functional legitimacy to symbolic meaning-making (Deephouse et al., 2017; Suchman, 1995; Whetten, 2006). This provides a theoretically defensible basis for applying a hierarchical motivational logic at the organizational level without assuming psychological equivalence between individuals and firms.
Extending Maslow’s logic, Kenrick et al. (2010) argued that motivational systems are evolutionarily adaptive and responsive to environmental contingencies. Hollebeek and Macky (2022) applied this framework to digital communication, identifying three motivational tiers—functional, hedonic, and symbolic—each requiring increasing levels of engagement and expressive sophistication. This motivational stratification aligns with the COBRAs model (Muntinga et al., 2011), which maps communication behaviors (consumption, contribution, creation) onto motivational depth, suggesting that higher-tier motivations give rise to more proactive and identity-driven forms of expression.
Empirical studies provide robust support for this stratified model. Taormina and Gao (2013) validated a multi-tiered needs framework in Chinese organizational settings. Bellaaj (2023) and J. Chen (2024) found that SMEs often progress communicatively from basic visibility toward deep stakeholder engagement and symbolic differentiation. Lee and Ma (2012) observed that while informational motives predict simple sharing behaviors, social and status-based motives are more closely associated with expressive acts such as brand storytelling and advocacy. Notably, symbolic expression is more likely in firms with sustained platform experience and high media fluency, which facilitate identity signaling and audience co-construction (Naylor et al., 2012). Recent work in Asian SME contexts further suggests that symbolic intent is often triggered by the need to project cultural distinctiveness and global relevance, especially when firms face institutional distance in cross-border markets (Feng & Feng, 2025; Knutsen et al., 2025).
Although symbolic engagement is often treated as a higher-order psychological gratification (Hollebeek & Macky, 2022), its socially performative dimension remains underexplored. Drawing on Goffman’s (1959) dramaturgical theory, organizations can be viewed as staging communicative performances to assert legitimacy and align with stakeholder expectations. This aligns with Bourdieu’s (1986) notion of symbolic capital, where expressions serve as markers of distinction deployed in pursuit of institutional or cultural validation. Importantly, this study distinguishes symbolic motivation—an underlying orientation toward meaning-making, identity articulation, and culturally resonant expression—from branding strategy as observable market action. In this view, symbolic behavior reflects motivational readiness rather than the mere execution of planned campaigns. For internationally oriented SMEs, symbolic motivation may thus stem not only from internal aspirations, but also from external pressures to convey credibility, distinctiveness, and alignment with global discourses—particularly when material resources are limited.
In sum, communicative motivation functions as a context-sensitive, hierarchical construct. This layered structure provides the foundation for analyzing how internal resources selectively activate different motivational tiers—an issue explored in the following section.
Activating Motivations Through Resource Differentiation
While motivational hierarchies offer a structural lens for understanding communicative needs, their activation is not automatic. Internal resources shape—not dictate—the readiness to engage each motivational tier. Drawing on the Resource-Based View (RBV), we propose a selective activation model in which basic resources may trigger utilitarian motives, but relational and symbolic motivations require integrative and high-threshold assets.
Empirical research supports this logic, emphasizing that communicative intent emerges through strategic alignment with communicative complexity rather than through resource volume alone. Spyropoulou et al. (2011) demonstrate that financial, experiential, and organizational resources trigger distinct motivational configurations, while Wamba et al. (2017) show that big data readiness facilitates symbolic engagement only when paired with interpretive capacity. Gregory and Ngo (2019) further contend that symbolic messaging among B2B exporters materializes only when narratives are integrated across organizational functions.
This threshold logic becomes particularly salient in the context of Chinese SMEs. Despite widespread adoption of digital tools, J. Chen (2024) finds that only 3% of firms achieve deep communicative transformation, with most remaining at exploratory stages. This asymmetry reflects not merely infrastructure limitations but fundamental disparities in digital literacy, human capital, and integration capacity. Mikalef, Boura et al. (2019) similarly argue that symbolic engagement depends on orchestrated, high-value capabilities rather than generic ICT assets, while Matarazzo et al. (2021) confirm that platforms like social media yield symbolic outcomes only when embedded within sensing, learning, and coordination systems—what Teece et al. (1997) defines as dynamic capabilities. Recent studies of Asian digital ecosystems show that symbolic intent emerges only when technological resources are complemented by narrative or cultural competence (Feng & Feng, 2025; Yang et al., 2023), while identity-oriented communication increasingly depends on culturally resonant expression (Li & Xu, 2025).
Importantly, symbolic motivation is not a more intense version of lower-tier motives; it is qualitatively distinct. Hollebeek and Macky (2022) emphasize that symbolic activation requires alignment not only between internal capabilities and external opportunities, but also between organizational identity and stakeholder expectations. Legitimacy research similarly shows that symbolic intent strengthens when firms must project credibility across institutional boundaries (Ali et al., 2023; Deephouse et al., 2017; Suchman, 1995). Accordingly, we conceptualize symbolic activation as motivational readiness grounded in interpretive and cultural resources, rather than as a simple function of resource abundance.
Motivational readiness is both path-dependent and reversible. Koltko-Rivera (2006) argued that under duress, individuals regress to lower motivational stages—a pattern mirrored in organizational settings. Rojas et al. (2023) observed that SMEs often shift from symbolic to utilitarian messaging during crises. McConnell and Metz (2024) emphasized that perceived congruence between organizational identity and resource structure is a prerequisite for symbolic activation. Xiong et al. (2018) showed that even well-resourced firms typically begin with visibility-oriented strategies and only later evolve toward dialogic, participatory communication. In emerging markets, cultural expectations and audience interpretation may further delay the emergence of higher-order motives. Organizational identity research also indicates that symbolic activation requires alignment across narrative coherence and identity claims (Whetten, 2006).
As Priem and Butler (2001) and J. B. Barney (2001a) underscore, resource possession alone is insufficient. Strategic activation requires interpretation, prioritization, and motivational fit. In sum, motivational activation operates as a contingent, resource-dependent process that mediates the translation of internal assets into differentiated communicative behaviors. This perspective underscores the non-linear and asymmetrical nature of symbolic engagement: such behaviors do not arise from resource endowment alone, but require alignment, coherence, and interpretive readiness. Platform architectures also condition how motivational tiers are expressed, suggesting that activation must be understood relative to platform-specific affordances—a pattern reflected in recent analyses of Asian platform economies (Knutsen et al., 2025). These insights lay the groundwork for theorizing motivation as a mediating mechanism in resource–behavior linkages.
Motivation As A Mediator In Resource–Behavior Linkages
Traditional RBV posits that once internal capabilities are established, strategic behaviors—including communication—will inevitably emerge (J. B. Barney, 2001b; Wernerfelt, 1984). However, this linear assumption has been increasingly challenged in the context of SME communication, where behavior does not merely result from resource possession but is mediated by the selective activation of motivational tiers (Floreddu & Cabiddu, 2016).
From a mediation perspective, organizational resources influence outcomes not directly, but through tier-specific motivational pathways (Ferro et al., 2009). Extending this logic to organizational contexts requires distinguishing between individual needs and collective communicative imperatives: firms do not “feel” needs in a psychological sense, but they do encounter layered legitimacy, identity, and meaning-making requirements that function analogously to motivational tiers (Suchman, 1995; Whetten, 2006). This clarification grounds the application of hierarchical motivation models at the organizational level.
Importantly, this activation is nonlinear. Compton (2018), reinterpreting Maslow, argued that symbolic motivations—such as identity expression and moral positioning—can arise without full material sufficiency. Rather than occupying a fixed apex, symbolic motives may be mobilized reflexively, often under cultural or reputational pressures. SMEs facing legitimacy constraints, may adopt symbolic strategies not because they are resourced to do so, but because they must (Pache & Santos, 2010). In emerging-market settings, such pressures are frequently intensified by institutional distance, cross-border credibility demands, and expectations to signal cultural authenticity (Ali et al., 2023). These conditions explain why symbolic motives may appear even when resource endowments remain uneven.
To capture this complexity, we propose a selective alignment mechanism in which motivational tiers correspond to distinct resource configurations. Basic assets (e.g., funding, staff, infrastructure) support utilitarian motives such as informational broadcasting. Relational and symbolic motivations require higher-order capabilities—cultural literacy, trust-based networks, interpretive resources, and narrative cohesion. Harris et al. (2014) found that SMEs strategically draw on layered community resources to meet functional, relational, and symbolic needs respectively. In this study, symbolic motivation is therefore conceptualized as an internal meaning-making orientation, whereas symbolic communication denotes its outward enactment shaped by platform and audience cues, thereby avoiding conflation with branding execution.
Identity perception also conditions motivational salience. Haslam et al. (2000) showed that motivational emergence varies with the level of social identification—individual, group, or collective. Yang et al. (2023) found that SMEs embedded in community narratives are more likely to prioritize symbolic and relational motives, irrespective of material capacity. Chinese SMEs participating in culturally expressive sectors (e.g., crafts, heritage, or design) show similar patterns, where symbolic motives are triggered by the need to articulate cultural distinctiveness in global markets (Li & Xu, 2025).
Ultimately, it is alignment—not volume—that predicts motivational readiness. Fosso Wamba et al. (2015) observed that symbolic engagement materializes only when big data capabilities are fused with interpretive competence. Gregory and Ngo (2019) similarly concluded that cross-functional integration—not digital infrastructure alone—underpins symbolic activation. These findings affirm that higher-tier motivation is threshold-dependent and requires orchestrated technical, cognitive, and relational resources. Motivational mediation therefore functions as a mechanism of interpretive fit, filtering resource inputs through identity, legitimacy, and contextual expectations before shaping communicative behavior.
This reconceptualization of motivation as a selectively activated mediator provides a theoretical foundation for the RMB model’s central proposition, that motivation bridges the resource–behavior gap by filtering capacity through interpretive, contextual, and identity-based criteria.
Contextual Triggers in Motivation Activation
While layered motivational models offer a structured account of communicative intent, they often presume a stable progression—from utilitarian to relational to symbolic expression (Cao et al., 2013; Lussier, 2019). Yet empirical evidence suggests that this sequence is highly contingent on environmental conditions. Motivational tiers are subject to suppression, reversal, or bypass depending on cultural norms, institutional disruptions, and platform architectures (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). Recent scholarship further emphasizes that motivational shifts arise from the interaction between internal orientations and socio-technical environments, making hierarchical movement contingent rather than universally staged (Elmi et al., 2023; Gobel & Miyamoto, 2023).
The first asymmetry arises from cultural context. Cross-cultural communication research underscores that motivation is socially embedded rather than individually constructed. Haslam et al. (2000) showed that the salience of motivational needs varies with identity prominence. In collectivist societies, relational harmony often supersedes autonomy or symbolic expression (Gambrel & Cianci, 2003). Loh et al. (2017) found that in Chinese state-owned enterprises, relational alignment was prioritized even over personal security or esteem, suggesting that motivational hierarchies are culturally conditioned rather than universally staged. Studies on Asian SMEs similarly show that symbolic motives emerge primarily when cultural signaling is required in cross-border markets, especially in identity-sensitive sectors such as creative industries or heritage branding (Li & Xu, 2025). These patterns illustrate that symbolic motivation in East and Southeast Asia is often triggered not by resource sufficiency but by culturally anchored expectations of identity performance.
Crisis constitutes a second asymmetry trigger. Koltko-Rivera (2006) found that individuals under stress regress to lower-order needs—a pattern mirrored at the organizational level. During COVID-19, Kabadayi et al. (2020) reported that 70% of SMEs abandoned symbolic and relational messaging, reverting to operational updates. Yet 89% of these firms resumed higher-order expression after resource stabilization, indicating that regression may be adaptive. Singh and Holmström (2015) emphasized that such shifts reflect recalibration, not failure. Rojas et al. (2023) confirmed that symbolic messaging often yields to utilitarian content under institutional stress—regardless of resource abundance. Evidence from Asian markets shows that cross-border SMEs likewise suspend symbolic messaging during geopolitical or regulatory shocks and reactivate symbolic narratives once uncertainty declines (Fan et al., 2024).
Technological mediation represents a third asymmetry. Motivations are enacted through digital platforms, which shape not only their visibility but also their feasibility. Van Dijck and Poell (2013) argue that algorithmic curation and platform logics condition which forms of expression are routinized and rewarded. Symbolic motives flourish on visual and co-creative platforms like Instagram and TikTok, while LinkedIn favors relational or informational aims (Phua et al., 2017). M. Chen and Peng (2023) showed that SMEs with platform fluency and cultural alignment are more likely to activate symbolic behaviors. More recent work shows that Douyin/TikTok’s algorithm favors emotionally resonant and identity-signaling content, increasing the payoff of symbolic acts (Wang & Li, 2024), whereas Facebook and LinkedIn’s network-driven structure rewards relational or informational exchanges (Alaimo et al., 2020). Thus, motivational activation is platform-dependent, symbolic motives are enabled or constrained by whether platform affordances support narrative extensibility, cultural enactment, or identity expression.
Collectively, these findings challenge the assumption of a universal, fixed motivational hierarchy. Cultural scripts, crisis dynamics, and platform infrastructures do not merely influence motivational salience—they can reorder activation pathways altogether. Motivation, therefore, is not strictly layered but contingently structured and environmentally modulated, requiring a more flexible understanding of the resource–motivation–behavior chain. This contextual modulation aligns with emerging theories of adaptive communication, which argue that symbolic, relational, and utilitarian motives continuously shift as organizations negotiate cultural expectations, platform incentives, and field-level legitimacy pressures (Etter et al., 2019; Heckert et al., 2022).
For internationally active SMEs, these asymmetries carry significant strategic implications. Communication strategies must be aligned not only with internal motivational readiness (as explored in Section 2.3) but also with external environmental enablers and constraints. Tafesse and Wien (2018) recommend platform-specific motivation mapping to align strategic intent with expressive feasibility. Accounting for contextual asymmetries extends the RMB model’s explanatory range and supports responsive, adaptive communication planning under dynamic and uncertain conditions.
Stratified Communicative Behaviors Across Motivational Tiers
Building on motivational layering, resource alignment, and contextual modulation, this section examines how motivational tiers translate into differentiated communicative behaviors. Rather than treating communication as a linear output of resource input or content frequency, we conceptualize it as the behavioral articulation of stratified motivational structures shaped by strategic intent, organizational readiness, and socio-technical affordances.
Traditional SME literature tends to emphasize quantifiable behaviors such as platform presence, posting frequency, or engagement metrics (Dwivedi et al., 2021; Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). However, emerging research challenges this behavior-as-frequency assumption. Yang et al. (2024) found that proactive behaviors—such as narrative co-creation and value articulation—are driven by affiliative and symbolic motives, while passive acts—like reposting or one-click sharing—reflect validation needs or instrumental intentions. The critical distinction lies not in communicative intensity but in the motivational tier that underpins the behavior. This behavioral split reflects communicative asymmetry: identical resources may yield qualitatively different behaviors depending on which motivational tier is activated.
The COBRAs model (Muntinga et al., 2011) classifies digital behaviors into consumption, contribution, and creation, each associated with ascending motivational depth. Shen et al. (2016) showed that symbolic participation is more likely in weak-tie environments where expressive legitimacy is higher. Similarly, Dolan et al. (2019) linked symbolic behavior to ideologically meaningful content, while Pelletier et al. (2020) emphasized authenticity and empathy as preconditions for symbolic engagement.
Platform architecture further conditions expressive outcomes. M. Chen and Peng (2023) found that symbolic behavior is more likely to emerge when narrative extensibility and co-creation affordances are embedded in the design. Tajvidi et al. (2020) similarly showed that symbolic participation is supported by social support structures and participatory mechanisms. However, symbolic engagement also faces important constraints. Over-performativity, audience fatigue, and perceived inauthenticity can diminish credibility. Audrezet et al. (2020) cautioned that symbolic storytelling lacking either intrinsic passion or transparent intent may backfire.
Cultural context further mediates symbolic expression. In collectivist settings, identity-based communication is often deferred until relational legitimacy is secured (Gambrel & Cianci, 2003; Taormina & Gao, 2013). Even firms with sufficient symbolic capacity may suppress expressive acts if prevailing social or institutional norms discourage overt differentiation. In such cases, inaction may reflect strategic restraint rather than resource deficiency.
Taken together, these findings support a stratified behavioral model. Utilitarian motives underpin passive behaviors such as reposting and informational updates. Relational motives drive interactive behaviors including messaging, responsiveness, and dialogic exchange. Symbolic motives generate high-involvement expressions such as co-created campaigns, value-driven narratives, and strategic branding. Importantly, symbolic behavior is not simply an intensified variant of lower-tier acts; it represents a categorically distinct communicative mode, integrating identity, structure, and intent. This distinction reinforces the concept of communicative asymmetry, the same resource base can yield sharply different behavioral forms depending on which motivational tier becomes salient.
This stratified view of behavior reinforces the RMB model’s central claim, communicative acts do not emerge directly from resource availability but through a layered motivational architecture, in which specific resources activate corresponding motivational tiers that, in turn, shape differentiated behavioral outcomes.
Taken together, Sections 2.1 to 2.5 consolidate the theoretical foundations of the RMB model. RBV explains the heterogeneity of resource endowments; Maslow-inspired hierarchical logic clarifies why motivations emerge in layered forms; and UGT specifies how these motivations guide communicative choices. By integrating these perspectives, the RMB model conceptualizes communication as a selective and tiered transformation of resources into differentiated behaviors. This synthesis establishes the conceptual rationale for the RMB framework, which the next chapter formally develops by specifying how resource configurations activate tiered motivational structures and yield distinct communicative behaviors.
Theoretical Framework
This study develops an integrated framework to explain how Chinese SMEs convert internal resources into differentiated international communication behaviors through a stratified system of communicative motivations. Drawing on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (1943), the Resource-Based View (J. Barney, 1991; Wernerfelt, 1984), and Uses and Gratifications Theory (Katz et al., 1973), the model identifies three motivational tiers—utilitarian, relational, and symbolic—each activated by corresponding resources and shaped by contextual conditions. The core proposition is that communicative behavior does not follow directly from resource possession, but emerges through a layered motivational structure that mediates the transformation of capacity into strategic intent. This selective-activation logic underscores that motivation serves as the interpretive mechanism linking resources to behavior—a dimension underdeveloped in prior models.
Stratifying Communicative Motivation
Extending Maslow’s (1943) hierarchy to organizations, communicative intent is theorized as a layered structure: utilitarian, relational, and symbolic. Studies in digital communication show engagement evolving from informational utility to affective interaction and symbolic co-creation (Hollebeek & Macky, 2022; Muntinga et al., 2011). These tiers reflect emergent readiness shaped by internal capacity and contextual affordances (Kenrick et al., 2010). Consistent with institutional perspectives, these layers represent escalating demands for functional legitimacy, relational alignment, and symbolic meaning-making (Suchman, 1995; Whetten, 2006), thus providing a theoretically grounded rationale for applying a hierarchical logic at the organizational level rather than a psychological equivalence to individuals.
Symbolic motivation denotes a qualitative shift in communicative purpose—the intent to assert identity, signal cultural meaning, and construct legitimacy. It draws on Bourdieu’s (1986) concept of symbolic capital, viewing communication as social positioning, and Goffman’s (1959) dramaturgical theory, wherein organizations perform identities for normative alignment. SMEs express symbolic motivation by using narratives to bridge cultural gaps and convey distinctiveness (Audrezet et al., 2020). To avoid conceptual ambiguity, symbolic motivation is defined as an internal orientation toward meaning-making and identity articulation, distinct from symbolic expression as its observable behavioral enactment.
However, symbolic readiness does not always emerge sequentially. SMEs may evolve from utilitarian to symbolic modes, particularly in digital branding (J. Chen, 2024; Paul, 2020). Yet progression is context-sensitive: in collectivist cultures, relational motives may dominate (Gambrel & Cianci, 2003); under uncertainty, instrumental goals may regain prominence (Koltko-Rivera, 2006). Motivation is thus adaptive, not strictly linear. Evidence from Chinese and Southeast Asian SMEs further shows that symbolic intent may arise directly in response to institutional distance and cultural signaling demands, rather than after full development of lower-tier motives (Castelló & Galang, 2012; Huang et al., 2017; Marquis & Qian, 2013).
To maintain conceptual clarity, this study further distinguishes symbolic readiness as the activation threshold at which symbolic motivation becomes behaviorally consequential. In the RMB model, symbolic motivation is the latent construct measured empirically, whereas symbolic readiness explains why symbolic expression appears only among proactive firms despite similar resource profiles.
Resource Activation and Motivational Readiness
While the RBV emphasizes internal heterogeneity as a basis for strategic advantage (J. Barney, 1991), it has often lacked explanatory clarity on how resources translate into behavior. The RMB model addresses this gap by theorizing motivation as the interpretive and selective mechanism through which specific resources activate expressive behavior. Building on work by Floreddu and Cabiddu (2016) and Fosso Wamba et al. (2015), the model contends that different resource categories—operational, relational, and symbolic—serve as preconditions for distinct motivational tiers. However, such activation is neither automatic nor uniformly tier-bound.
Motivational emergence is contingent on interpretive alignment. Symbolic resources, such as brand coherence or narrative competence, do not independently yield expressive behaviors unless embedded within motivational salience and narrative intentionality (Gregory & Ngo, 2019). Moreover, activation may follow a non-linear, path-dependent process wherein initial utilitarian motives scaffold the eventual emergence of symbolic readiness (Compton, 2018). Empirical studies in emerging markets confirm that firms often migrate communicatively—from visibility-oriented messaging to dialogic or culturally embedded storytelling—driven by evolving strategic needs and identity construction imperatives (Bellaaj, 2023; J. Chen, 2024). This reinforces RMB’s proposition that symbolic motivation emerges only when interpretive, relational, and cultural resources converge, clarifying that symbolic capacity alone is insufficient without motivational readiness.
Behavioral Pathways and Motivational Expression
Communicative behavior is conceptualized not as varying message intensity but as qualitatively distinct expressive modes. Within the RMB framework, symbolic motivation is more likely to be associated with high-threshold, proactive behaviors—such as storytelling and cultural narration—than with passive or instrumental updates. This typology aligns with Dolan et al. (2019) and Yang et al. (2023), who distinguish between symbolically driven communication and task-oriented dissemination. This behavioral bifurcation reflects communicative asymmetry: identical resource levels may yield different behavioral modes depending on which motivational tier becomes salient.
To operationalize this distinction, the study adopts a dual-mode behavioral classification. First, a continuous index—the International Communicative Behavior Index (ICBI)—captures variation in behavioral intensity. Second, a categorical typology distinguishes between proactive behaviors (e.g., dialogic engagement, strategic signaling) and passive behaviors (e.g., one-way announcements, functional updates). This behavioral bifurcation addresses prior limitations in the literature, which tended to equate engagement with quantity rather than strategic quality (Sundar & Limperos, 2013). Symbolic expression is thus framed not as the apex of communicative effort, but as a qualitative transformation in organizational intent. This clarification aligns the behavioral design with the theoretical claim that symbolic communication represents a categorical, not incremental, shift.
Contextual Moderation and Platform Affordances
Motivational activation is further conditioned by environmental and technological factors. The literature on cultural embeddedness (Gambrel & Cianci, 2003; Haslam et al., 2000) and institutional turbulence (Koltko-Rivera, 2006; Rojas et al., 2023) suggests that motivation is not merely layered but contingently structured. In collectivist contexts, for instance, relational motives may be foregrounded while symbolic assertions are deferred. Likewise, crisis episodes such as the COVID-19 pandemic have been shown to reverse motivational priorities, pushing firms toward instrumental, low-engagement messaging (Kabadayi et al., 2020). Such reversals illustrate that motivational salience is sensitive to environmental volatility, reinforcing the need for a dynamic rather than linear theoretical model.
Platform affordances also shape motivational feasibility. Van Dijck and Poell (2013) argue that platforms encode expressive boundaries; visual or participatory affordances on TikTok or Instagram facilitate symbolic enactment, while LinkedIn reinforces professional signaling and relational positioning. Motivational expression, in this view, is mediated by what platforms enable, reward, or obscure.
Accordingly, the link between symbolic motivation and expressive behavior is theorized to be moderated by platform–motivation fit—the extent to which platform structures align with the narrative, esthetic, or dialogic needs of symbolic expression. Firms that operate on platforms misaligned with their motivational salience may experience expressive friction, resulting in performative inconsistencies or narrative suppression (Audrezet et al., 2020). This moderating logic strengthens RMB’s contextual validity, particularly for Chinese SMEs navigating multiple platforms with divergent affordances in global markets.
Extended RMB Model and Theoretical Contributions
Figure 1 presents the Resource–Motivation–Behavior (RMB) model, which incorporates tier-specific resource–motivation pathways, cross-tier activation potential, and environmental moderators. Motivation serves as the pivot between organizational capacity and expressive action. This model explains why symbolically expressive communication, while strategically desirable, remains rare and contingent among internationalizing SMEs.
Theoretical framework of RMB model.
The RMB framework makes several contributions. First, it reconceptualizes motivation as a layered and selective mediator, moving beyond static models of organizational intention (Sundar & Limperos, 2013). Second, it emphasizes symbolic behavior as a function of both internal capacity and narrative orientation, rather than a mere surplus of resources (Helfat & Peteraf, 2003). Third, it offers a structural alternative to Dynamic Capability Theory (Teece et al., 1997), which emphasizes sensing and transforming, by foregrounding motivational filtration as a prerequisite to strategic expression. Together, these contributions position RMB as a theoretically coherent and empirically applicable framework for understanding how SMEs translate uneven resources into differentiated communicative strategies.
Research Questions and Hypotheses
Building on an integrated framework combining Maslow’s hierarchy, RBV, and UGT, this study examines how Chinese SMEs’ internal resources shape hierarchical communication motivations and how these motivations translate into international communication behaviors. The core proposition is that communication motivations are not monolithic but hierarchically structured into utilitarian, relational, and symbolic layers. These layered motivations are differentially activated by specific types of organizational resources and serve as mediators in transforming resource capabilities into strategic communicative behaviors in international contexts. To address recent critiques of linear resource–behavior assumptions, this study highlights motivation as the selective mechanism that filters resource inputs into communicative outcomes.
Extending Maslow’s motivational theory to the organizational level, this study proposes that communication motivations can be structured into three tiers: utilitarian (e.g., efficiency, information dissemination), relational (e.g., customer engagement, trust building), and symbolic (e.g., cultural resonance, brand legitimacy). These layers reflect ascending organizational priorities and represent differentiated communication intents that evolve with firm capabilities.
Grounded in the RBV, organizational resources are conceptualized as stratified—basic, relational, and symbolic. Rather than exerting uniform influence, these resource types are expected to exhibit probabilistic alignment with corresponding motivational tiers. Basic resources tend to support utilitarian motivations; relational resources tend to correspond to relational motivations; and symbolic resources are more likely to be associated with symbolic motivations. This alignment reflects a layered resource–motivation architecture, yet remains context-dependent rather than deterministic.
Informed by UGT, communication behaviors are conceptualized as differentiated by motivational salience. Symbolic motivation reflects expressive intent and is therefore more likely to be associated with proactive behaviors such as cultural narration or dialogic engagement. Utilitarian motivation, in contrast, tends to correspond to passive or low-involvement behaviors such as informational updates. Relational motivation may be associated with either pathway depending on contextual conditions, and thus is not assumed to follow a fixed trajectory.
Research Design
Anchored in a theoretically integrated model, this study adopts a multi-stage quantitative design to examine how internal resources shape communication motivations, which in turn influence international communication behaviors among Chinese SMEs. Rather than treating resources as homogeneous inputs, the design operationalizes the RMB model through three empirical steps: validating motivational hierarchy, testing resource–motivation alignment, and assessing behavioral outcomes. This sequential structure mirrors the conceptual logic of the RMB model, enabling construct validation (Step 1), mechanism testing (Step 2), and behavioral inference (Step 3).
The first step, aligned with
CFA was selected over exploratory factor analysis (EFA) due to its suitability for testing pre-specified theoretical structures. As the RMB model posits a priori distinctions among motivational tiers, CFA allows for direct assessment of construct validity and discriminant structure. The use of mlmv estimation further supports model stability in the presence of missing data and non-normality. This step ensures that motivational layers are empirically distinct before testing how resources activate them.
The second stage, addressing
The choice of OLS regressions in testing
The third stage (
In constructing the ICBI, attention was given to balancing symbolic richness with comparability. Each component was selected to represent a core dimension of symbolic communicative expression and standardized to mitigate scale effects. The inclusion of both content-based variables (e.g., brand storytelling) and procedural variables (e.g., posting frequency) ensures that ICBI captures both expressive depth and strategic rhythm. Internal consistency was assessed via Cronbach’s alpha and supported by factor convergence. This approach operationalizes symbolic behavior as a qualitatively distinct mode of communication rather than an intensified version of lower-tier acts.
To test
Recognizing potential heterogeneity within communicative outputs, a subgroup analysis divided firms by the ICBI median (0.979), creating proactive and passive clusters. Within each, separate regressions tested whether symbolic motivation held stronger explanatory power among proactive firms, confirming that symbolic behavior is categorically distinct rather than quantitatively intensified (Figure 2).
Hypothesis testing flow.
Two robustness strategies followed. First, multi-group SEM tested invariance across business types (B2B vs. B2C). Model fit comparisons using Δχ2, ΔCFI, and ΔRMSEA determined whether constraining path coefficients degraded global fit (Byrne, 2013). Second, a theory-constrained model (Model_T) was compared to a saturated model (Model_S); Model_T was retained if fit was comparable and AIC/BIC lower. This conditional pattern reflects the RMB model’s expectation that symbolic motives manifest most strongly when expressive behavior is already present.
Finally, to address endogeneity—particularly simultaneity between resource and motivation—2SSEM with latent instrumental variables was applied. Resource constructs were predicted by exogenous variables (e.g., internal team structure, budget, analytical skill, brand integration), and fitted values were used in SEM estimation. Bootstrapped intervals confirmed stability of indirect effects.
The use of 2SSEM over conventional 2SLS is justified by the latent nature of both predictors and outcomes in the RMB model. Latent instrumental variables enable the estimation of indirect effects while accounting for measurement error in both stages. This is particularly critical in communication research, where symbolic constructs often suffer from conceptual ambiguity and survey-based noise. By instrumenting the latent resource tiers with theory-grounded exogenous measures, the model maintains both identification strength and structural interpretability. By embedding IV logic in a latent framework, the analysis retains both statistical identification and theoretical fidelity to the RMB model’s hierarchical structure.
While the design is comprehensive, several limitations are acknowledged. Cross-sectional data constrains causal inference despite model-based corrections. The focus on Chinese SMEs may limit generalizability, though this context offers theoretical leverage in studying resource-constrained expressiveness. These trade-offs are offset by the study’s layered methodological triangulation and alignment with its conceptual framework.
In sum, the research design integrates measurement validation, causal estimation, and robustness checks into a cohesive sequence aligned with the RMB model. By combining CFA, OLS, SEM, behavioral indexing, and 2SSEM, this design offers a rigorous operationalization of how Chinese SMEs convert internal resources into stratified communicative strategies under constraints. Each empirical step is directly tied to a theorized link within the RMB framework, ensuring conceptual coherence across the entire analysis.
Data Collection and Sampling Approach
To investigate how organizational resources shape hierarchical communication motivations and international communication behaviors among Chinese SMEs, this study implemented a multi-stage quantitative survey strategy centered on digitally active firms in Shenzhen. The selection of Shenzhen as the study site reflects its high concentration of export-oriented and innovation-driven SMEs, making it a relevant context for examining international social media engagement (Yin et al., 2022). To ensure consistency with the theoretical framework, only SMEs that actively use international social media platforms such as LinkedIn, Facebook, TikTok, or Twitter for cross-border marketing were considered eligible. A preliminary screening question at the beginning of the survey filtered out respondents not meeting this basic criterion.
The survey instrument was initially developed and hosted on Tencent Questionnaire (wj.qq.com), a widely recognized digital platform for enterprise-oriented data collection in China. The questionnaire was structurally aligned with the latent constructs underpinning the Resource–Motivation–Behavior (RMB) framework, ensuring conceptual coherence between measurement items and theoretical dimensions. To maximize accessibility and respondent convenience, the platform automatically generated mobile-responsive entry points, including QR codes and WeChat Mini Program links, optimized for smartphone-based participation. These survey access points were subsequently disseminated through three professional WeChat groups, inclusive the Shenzhen SME Industry Association, the Shenzhen SME Entrepreneurs Fellowship, and the Shenzhen SME Development Promotion Council. Each of these digital communities comprises a concentrated network of SME founders, marketing professionals, and cross-border e-commerce executives, thereby providing a purposive channel for reaching the study’s target population.
Data collection was conducted over a 3-month period from July to September 2024, yielding a total of 1,278 initial responses. Consistent with best practices in organizational survey research, all responses underwent rigorous quality control. Submissions with missing sections, duplicate IP addresses, or uniformly patterned Likert-scale ratings across unrelated items were excluded (Van Quaquebeke et al., 2022). Additional logic checks were performed to detect internal inconsistencies, such as firms reporting high levels of international content localization but indicating no social media budget or dedicated marketing personnel (Meade & Craig, 2012).
After data cleaning, a final sample of 732 valid SME cases was retained, all of which passed inclusion and validation criteria. To evaluate potential nonresponse bias, early and late respondents were compared across key firm characteristics—including employee size, platform adoption, and export experience—following Armstrong and Overton’s (1977) method. No statistically significant differences (p > .10) were observed, indicating a representative sample relative to the target population.
All variables were pre-coded in accordance with a theory-driven framework aligned with the study’s three core hypotheses. Binary, categorical, and Likert-scale items were mapped onto composite constructs encompassing basic, relational, and symbolic resources (bare, rere, syre) as well as utilitarian, relational, and symbolic motivations (utmo, remo, symo). Measurement items were adapted from prior validated scales (Hollebeek et al., 2014; Sundar & Limperos, 2013), with Cronbach’s alpha values exceeding .80 across all latent constructs, indicating high internal consistency. Reverse-coded items were properly adjusted prior to composite score construction.
The overall survey design, sampling logic, and data cleaning procedures collectively ensure empirical validity and robustness for multivariate modeling. This includes confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), structural equation modeling (SEM), and behavioral subgroup comparisons between proactive and passive communicators, as operationalized in subsequent sections.
Result
To empirically validate the Resource–Motivation–Behavior (RMB) model, a multi-stage analysis was conducted on data from 732 Chinese SMEs engaged in international communication. The process followed three steps: testing the hierarchy of motivation (
Testing H1: Hierarchical Structure of Communicative Motivation
CFA Results for Motivational Structure.
Note. CFA loadings of nine observed indicators on three latent variables.
SEM Estimation: Resource–Motivation with Controls.
Note. Standardized β coefficients with significance levels.
Two-Stage SEM Estimation Results.
Note. Symbolic motivation mediates the effect of symbolic resources on behavior.
Subgroup Regressions by Communication Type.
Note. Symbolic motivation predicts behavior only in proactive SMEs.
The high fit indices and strong factor loadings observed in the CFA model, though uncommon, are theoretically and methodologically justified. The three-tier motivational structure was developed from a stratified framework grounded in Maslow’s hierarchy and validated adaptations (e.g., Hollebeek & Macky, 2022; Neher, 1991), ensuring conceptual clarity and separability. Indicators were intentionally designed to minimize semantic overlap—symbolic items focused on identity projection and narrative intent, while utilitarian items captured operational efficiency. This non-redundancy limits cross-loadings and enhances discriminant validity. The model specification was also conservative: cross-loadings were restricted, error covariances disallowed, and loadings freely estimated only within constructs—reducing the risk of overfitting. Lastly, the large sample (n = 732) increases estimation precision and naturally elevates z-values, a typical outcome in high-powered CFA designs. Overall, the results demonstrate that the three motivational tiers are empirically separable rather than artifacts of measurement, supporting the theoretical hierarchy posited in
Testing H2: Selective Activation of Motivation by Resource Types
These findings support a structural match logic, where motivational activation depends on tier alignment rather than resource volume. The absence of cross-tier effects indicates that motivations emerge only when resource types provide the appropriate interpretive fit, not simply general resource abundance. This aligns with the RMB argument that symbolic activation requires culturally or narratively oriented resources rather than operational inputs.
Likewise, the non-significant controls show that resource–motivation alignment is not driven by firm size or digital maturity but reflects a tier-specific relationship, reinforcing the selective activation mechanism proposed in
Symbolic Motivation and Communicative Behavior
These results confirm the model’s asymmetry hypothesis: expressive behavior is driven by symbolic readiness rather than operational capacity. The null effects of utilitarian and relational motivations are theoretically expected, as neither entails the high-threshold meaning-making required for symbolic expression. Their non-significance therefore reflects conceptual differentiation, not measurement weakness.
To construct the ICBI, five behavioral indicators were selected to represent strategic symbolic expression: brand storytelling, cultural stance, brand distinctiveness, content localization, and posting frequency. Each item was standardized and averaged to create a composite score reflecting not content volume, but symbolic communicative readiness. Higher ICBI scores thus indicate identity-driven, contextually responsive engagement, rather than operational output. This measurement logic aligns the behavioral construct with the theoretical premise that symbolic expression constitutes a qualitatively distinct communicative mode.
Behavioral Differentiation by Motivation Tier
To examine behavioral heterogeneity, the sample was split at the ICBI median (0.979), yielding proactive (n = 449) and passive (n = 283) subgroups. OLS regressions showed symbolic motivation significantly predicted behavior only in the proactive group (β = .45, p < .001), not in the passive group (β = –.04, p = .383). Utilitarian and relational motivations were non-significant across both groups.
This divergence supports the claim that symbolic behavior entails a qualitative leap. Effect size differences (Cohen’s d = .42) suggest moderate-to-strong structural separation between passive compliance and proactive communication. This behavioral split is consistent with prior research suggesting that symbolic acts require not only motivational presence but also a baseline of expressive engagement, explaining why symbolic motivation manifests only among firms already operating in a proactive communicative mode.
Robustness and Endogeneity Diagnostics
Robustness tests confirmed the stability of results. First, multi-group SEM showed resource–motivation pathways were largely invariant across behavior types (e.g., syre → symo: β_proactive = .92; β_passive = .87; both p < .001). Although χ2 difference was significant (Δχ2(18) = 102.12, p < .001), effect sizes were stable (Δβ < .05). Thus, structural invariance holds despite statistical sensitivity caused by large sample size.
Second, a nested model comparison showed the RMB model (χ2(9) = 98.29) performed similarly to a saturated model (χ2(3) = 34.02). Despite marginally better fit (Δχ2 = 64.27, p < .001), AIC/BIC differences were negligible (AIC = 3560.45 vs. 3558.62; BIC = 3601.82 vs. 3604.07), supporting retention of the more interpretable RMB model.
Third, 2SSEM remained consistent: the symbolic pathway (β = .27, p < .001) and syre → symo (β = .905) were highly stable across specifications, confirming causal robustness. This consistency across alternative specifications reduces concern that symbolic motivation reflects reverse causality or reciprocal reinforcement, addressing potential simultaneity inherent in behavior–motivation relationships.
Control variables such as firm size, export experience, and digital maturity remained non-significant throughout all stages of analysis. This suggests that expressive international communication is not simply a function of scale or digital access, but of symbolic alignment and motivational salience.
Together, these results provide convergent evidence for the RMB model: motivation is hierarchically structured (
Discussion
Reconceptualizing Communicative Motivation Through Symbolic Differentiation
Despite growing attention to SME digital internationalization (Paul et al., 2017), prior research has under-theorized the mechanisms by which internal resource configurations yield differentiated communicative behaviors. Most studies prioritize output metrics—engagement levels, content reach, or branding performance—while relegating motivation to a background factor or static control (Sundar & Limperos, 2013). This neglects a core question: Why do similarly resourced SMEs engage so unevenly in expressive, particularly symbolic, communication?
While constructs like digital maturity or social capital have been positioned as performance enablers (Mikalef, Krogstie et al., 2019), they are rarely examined within a tiered motivational framework. Existing models fail to explain how utilitarian, relational, and symbolic motives give rise to distinct communicative forms. As a result, the nuanced behavioral gap between symbolic engagement and compliance-driven participation remains under-explained.
This study addresses these gaps through the Resource–Motivation–Behavior (RMB) model, integrating Resource-Based View (RBV), Maslow’s hierarchy, and Uses and Gratifications Theory (UGT). It conceptualizes communicative motivation as a layered system activated by matching internal resources. Empirical results affirm that specific resource types—basic, relational, and symbolic—selectively trigger aligned motivational tiers, which in turn shape strategic communication behaviors. Communication outcomes thus depend not just on resource possession but on motivational readiness and structural fit.
By highlighting motivation as an active intermediary, the RMB framework recasts it as the engine converting inward capacity into outward symbolic expression. Symbolic communication emerges not as intensified output, but as a distinct expression of strategic coherence, identity integration, and narrative intent.
As established in the theoretical framework, symbolic motivation reflects a higher-order communicative orientation, whereas symbolic readiness refers to the activation threshold at which this motivation becomes behaviorally consequential. This distinction helps explain why symbolic expression appears only among proactive firms despite comparable resources.
This differentiation becomes especially visible in the behavioral typology derived from ICBI scores and normative alignment (Figure 3). Proactive communicators combine symbolic readiness with contextual resonance. Others display symbolic intent even under institutional friction, while norm-followers lacking symbolic depth remain functionally engaged but narratively shallow. Some firms are disengaged on both axes. This spectrum confirms that expressive behavior is not solely a function of motivational intensity, but of its congruence with environmental affordances and normative expectations.
Behavior differentiation matrix. (ICBI vs. external normative pressure; four behavioral types).
This matrix reframes communication behavior not as a continuum of volume or frequency, but as the outcome of symbolic readiness under specific contextual alignments. It reinforces symbolic behavior as a qualitatively distinct communicative mode rather than a quantitative extension of lower-tier behaviors, addressing prior ambiguity in motivational sequencing and behavioral differentiation.
Interpretation and Theoretical Integration
The findings refine and extend existing theories. First, they reframe UGT by introducing motivational stratification: motivations are not parallel drivers but hierarchically ordered based on resource conditions and strategic orientation. Symbolic motivation emerges as a structurally distinct driver whose behavioral consequences cannot be reduced to utilitarian or relational needs, capable of predicting proactive, expressive behavior that engages audiences at narrative and cultural levels.
Second, the model advances RBV by demonstrating that intangible resources—such as brand coherence and cultural capital—acquire performative value only when embedded in symbolic motivation. Possessing symbolic resources alone is insufficient; their communicative effect depends on motivational internalization and alignment with platform and audience context. This distinction helps resolve the conceptual overlap between symbolic resources and symbolic behavior noted by reviewers, clarifying that resources provide potential, whereas motivation determines expressive activation.
Third, the model challenges assumptions in social capital theory. The weak behavioral effect of relational motivation suggests that relational resources, while affectively meaningful, may be behaviorally inert without institutional anchoring or contextual congruence. This finding supports a more conditional view of social capital’s communicative utility.
By integrating these insights, the RMB model offers a dynamic and layered account of how SMEs transform resources into expressive behaviors under digital and global constraints. Motivation becomes the structural hinge between internal capability and external action. This theoretical consolidation also responds to concerns about the model’s novelty by demonstrating how the RMB sequence—resource tier → motivational tier → communicative mode—extends existing communication and organizational theories.
Methodological and Contextual Limitations
Several limitations should be acknowledged. First, the data were drawn from digitally active SMEs in Shenzhen, a region marked by advanced infrastructure, state support, and export orientation. This context may amplify symbolic readiness and expressive behavior, limiting generalizability to firms in less supportive environments. Although this does not undermine the internal validity of the RMB pathways, it does constrain external applicability, and cross-regional replication is necessary.
Second, the cross-sectional research design, while augmented by instrumental variable techniques and 2SSEM, cannot capture the temporal evolution of motivational configurations. Motivations may shift with firm growth, external shocks, or strategic learning. A longitudinal approach would better reveal such recursive adjustments. A longitudinal design would allow future work to address potential reverse causality in motivation–behavior relationships, extending the robustness established through 2SSEM.
Third, the reliance on self-reported Likert-scale measures introduces potential biases, including common method variance and social desirability effects. While CFA confirmed internal consistency, symbolic intent may have been overstated, particularly given reputational pressures in branding-intensive sectors. Future work should integrate behavioral trace data—such as message content, audience response, or content longevity—to validate motivational constructs.
Fourth, the International Communication Behavior Index (ICBI) was constructed to distinguish proactive from passive communicators along a continuum of symbolic expressiveness. While all five indicators capture communicative behavior, they vary in symbolic density: brand storytelling, cultural stance, and distinctiveness reflect higher-order symbolic acts, whereas localization and posting frequency lean toward operational utility. Treating these components as equally weighted assumes unidimensionality, which may oversimplify underlying behavioral structures. Future research should validate this assumption using exploratory factor analysis or latent profile analysis (LPA) to better align behavioral dimensions with motivational tiers.
Fifth, platform affordances remain insufficiently theorized. Different platforms support distinct forms of communicative expression. For instance, LinkedIn favors professional and relational signaling, whereas Douyin (TikTok) enables symbolic expression via visual storytelling and co-creative affordances. Symbolic motivation may only translate into behavior when platform structures afford the narrative and cultural depth required for symbolic expression—a platform–motivation fit that future studies should model explicitly.
Sixth, while the study adopts OLS regressions to test the alignment between resource tiers and motivational layers, this approach does not account for measurement error inherent in latent constructs. Future studies may benefit from modeling these pathways within a fully latent SEM framework, allowing for more precise estimation and the possibility of exploring non-recursive or cross-tier mediation effects. Such work could reveal more complex motivational dynamics and address remaining concerns about measurement precision.
Future Research Directions
Future research can enhance the RMB framework in several ways. First, a more nuanced modeling of communicative behavior is needed. Rather than dichotomizing firms as proactive or passive based on ICBI median splits, LPA can uncover latent behavioral classes that better capture variation across symbolic, relational, and utilitarian actions. This approach allows for finer alignment between motivational intent and behavioral expression.
Second, the proposed concept of “platform–motivation fit” should be formally operationalized. Platforms vary in their narrative extensibility, algorithmic logic, and cultural resonance. Researchers could model this alignment using interaction terms (e.g., symbolic motivation × Douyin use) to predict expressive behaviors. Such modeling would clarify under what socio-technical conditions symbolic intent becomes communicatively viable.
Third, expanding data sources is crucial. Integrating content analysis, platform metrics (e.g., engagement ratios, sentiment analysis), or even ethnographic observation would provide more valid and context-sensitive measures of symbolic behavior. These sources can help assess not just whether firms communicate, but how and why such communication matters.
Fourth, longitudinal analysis is needed to understand motivational plasticity—how symbolic motivation emerges, consolidates, or regresses over time. Motivations may evolve with accumulated brand capital, international expansion, or reputational shocks. Tracking these transitions would enrich our understanding of strategic communication as a dynamic process.
Fifth, cross-cultural replication is essential. The muted effect of relational motivation observed in this study may be culturally specific to Chinese SME contexts, where harmony and deference shape relational dynamics. In contrast, relational signaling may operate more strategically in individualistic or low-context cultures. Testing the RMB model in diverse institutional environments will clarify its generalizability and boundary conditions.
In sum, the RMB model offers a modular yet generative framework for theorizing SME communication in global, digitally mediated environments. It replaces uniform notions of motivation and behavior with a layered, mediated, and context-sensitive system. Future refinements—centered on platform fit, behavioral disaggregation, and motivational evolution—will deepen the model’s theoretical precision and empirical resonance, while advancing a more nuanced understanding of how strategic communication unfolds under conditions of resource asymmetry and institutional flux.
Conclusion
This study addressed a core research question: how do internal organizational resources translate into differentiated international communication behaviors among SMEs through a stratified system of communicative motivation? Drawing on survey data from 732 Chinese SMEs and a multi-stage analytical design, we developed and validated the Resource–Motivation–Behavior (RMB) model. The results demonstrate that organizational resources do not exert uniform effects; rather, they activate specific motivational tiers—utilitarian, relational, symbolic—which in turn shape communicative outcomes. Symbolic motivation, uniquely, emerged as the sole significant driver of proactive international engagement, affirming its structural distinctiveness and behavioral potency.
Theoretically, this study contributes to three major domains. First, it refines the Resource-Based View (RBV) by demonstrating that internal resources gain strategic force only when motivationally activated—particularly symbolic assets such as brand coherence or cultural capital. Second, it extends Uses and Gratifications Theory (UGT) beyond individual-level gratification to model firm-level strategic intent, highlighting symbolic motivation as a high-order construct with narrative, cultural, and identity-building implications. Third, rather than treating Maslow’s hierarchy as a direct organizational analog, the study adopts its structural logic—using a layered progression of communicative needs to explain how firms shift between utilitarian, relational, and symbolic motives. This perspective accommodates both upward progression and downward regression under environmental constraints, offering a dynamic rather than linear motivational structure.
Methodologically, the RMB model introduces a structured yet tractable way to examine communicative differentiation under resource asymmetry. While some simplifications—such as treating motivational tiers as independent and applying OLS regressions—were necessary for parsimony, the model remains extensible. Future designs may incorporate non-recursive or cross-tier mediation (e.g., symbolic behavior building upon relational intent), and fully latent SEM structures to better account for measurement error. More broadly, the multi-stage analytical sequence—construct validation, motivational activation, and behavioral testing—provides a logically consistent approach aligned with the RMB framework’s theorized pathway.
Moreover, the construction of the International Communication Behavior Index (ICBI) was primarily intended to differentiate proactive from passive communicators. However, the equal weighting of its five indicators—three symbolically expressive (storytelling, cultural stance, distinctiveness) and two more functional (localization, frequency)—may mask latent dimensional heterogeneity. Future studies should explore behavioral segmentation using latent profile analysis (LPA) to better align observed behavior with underlying motivational tiers.
Platform affordances also warrant closer integration. Different platforms privilege different communicative modes—LinkedIn supports professional signaling, while Douyin enables symbolic co-creation. Symbolic motivation may only translate into expressive behavior when platform architecture aligns with motivational intent. The concept of “platform–motivation fit” thus emerges as a promising moderating variable for future research.
Despite its contributions, this study has limitations. The sample, drawn from digitally active SMEs in Shenzhen, may overrepresent symbolic readiness. This concentration of digitally sophisticated firms limits the generalizability of motivational patterns and should be addressed through cross-regional replication. The cross-sectional design constrains insights into motivational dynamics over time, and self-report bias remains a methodological concern. Nevertheless, these trade-offs were offset by a triangulated design incorporating CFA, SEM, and instrumental variable techniques, yielding a robust yet adaptable analytical framework.
Looking forward, four research directions emerge. First, longitudinal studies can illuminate how symbolic readiness evolves with capability accumulation or contextual turbulence. Second, mixed-method approaches—such as behavioral trace data and content analysis—can enhance the ecological validity of symbolic constructs. Third, LPA can replace median-split strategies to uncover more granular motivational–behavioral configurations. Fourth, cross-cultural replication is essential to test the generalizability of the motivational hierarchy across diverse institutional settings.
In sum, the RMB model offers a theoretically grounded and empirically supported explanation of how SMEs, under digital and resource constraints, construct motivational pathways that enable strategic communication. By identifying symbolic motivation as both a capability and a filter for expressive action, this study contributes to a more nuanced understanding of communicative asymmetry and opens new avenues for theorizing motivation-driven communication in complex, platform-mediated environments.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support provided by the Doctoral Program in International Communication at Shenzhen University. Special thanks are extended to Prof. Dai for his invaluable guidance and constructive feedback throughout the research process. Appreciation is also extended to all participating SMEs for their time and responses. The authors also wish to acknowledge the invaluable support of the first author’s wife, whose understanding and encouragement made it possible for him to devote sustained attention to this research.
Ethical Considerations
This study collected anonymous survey responses from SME representatives in accordance with standard ethical practices for social science research. All participants were informed of the purpose of the study, assured of confidentiality, and gave their voluntary consent before participation. Formal ethics approval was not required under the institutional guidelines of Shenzhen University.
Consent to Participate
Written consent was not required because data were collected anonymously and participants voluntarily completed the questionnaire without providing identifiable information.
Consent for Publication
Not applicable. No personal or identifiable information is presented in this article.
Author Contributions
Xiang Zhou designed the study, conducted the data collection and analysis, and drafted the manuscript. Prof. Yonghong Dai provided theoretical guidance and supervised the research design and revision process. Liuyuang Qian contributed to literature review refinement and assisted with result interpretation.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Data Availability Statement
The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.*